Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that North America's average IQ, according to the data table, of 100 disagrees with the geographical map of National IQ averages; It appears the just-slightly-darker-then-the-lightest-orange paints America's National IQ at 85-90. A disceprency, perhaps?

The map refers to indigenous populations. (I've wikilinked that word in the article, which should prevent it being missed.)--Nectar 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates 2 pioneer fund 3 Inuits 4 Italy is not part of N, C, E Europe 5 Table should be removed 5.1 table 13.1 6 Map of "indigenous" populations is misleading 7 timesonline 8 Availability of Lynn books in the catalogs of major libraries 9 Removal of OR material 10 criticism 11 Importance 12 Name change 13 Wow now Italians are Central Europeans (Why not say directly Scandinavians or Vikings!). 14 erased link: why? 15 Fair use rationale for Image:Race Differences in Intelligence.jpg 16 Is this book of any academic importance? 17 Neutrality tag 18 Unpublished synthesis 19 Synthesis tag 20 Academic Publisher 21 Information regarding publisher 22 RfC 22.1 Comments 22.2 Comments by outsiders 23 Missing reference: Kamin 1995

[edit] Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates

Hello. This is generic message I will be placing on several IQ-related atricles that have touched on Ashkenazim Jew IQ. Much is being written/compared/correlated on wikipedia regarding ashekenazim, much of which is incorrect given most modern research regarding it.

The modern interpreation of Ashkenazim IQ is that Jews have slightly higher verbal and mathematical IQ than the average white population and the same or lower IQ in perceptual and spatial. The below letter, compiled with data and written by Richard Lynn, shows that the IQ of diasporic A. Jews just in Verbal IQ is approximately 107. Not only is this substantially lower than many other studies in the past that relied on flawed non-representative samples and had small sample sizes, but it is merely the verbal IQ. One of the main trends of the A.Jew IQ has been very high verbal, with everything else being at least somewhat lower than that, meaning that this data suggests that the IQ of A.Jews may actually be significantly to slightly lower yet. In any event, most assertions being made on wikipedia are completely offbase and needs to be re-written with the understanding of these more recent studies and extrapolations of the experts in IQ, such as Lynn. I'm writing this in hopes people will take it open themselves to clean up wikis related to Ashkenazim since I really don't want to go to the trouble of running down every wiki and editing it myself.

Lynn has also now compiled a list of European nations/ethnicities and their respective IQs. The Dutch, Germans, and Poles all have approximately the same IQ according to the data as A.Jews, which throws even more monkey wrenchs into the wikis I've been reading, ones that say things like Jews success in field X could be linked to higher IQ. If this were the case, their would be way more German, Dutch, and Polish Nobel laureates. This is just an example. Basically, A.Jews, according to the accepted and recent interpretations, slightly exceed several European ethnicities and are essentially the same as many others. Further, now that Lynn has taken the time to break down IQs by ethnicities, all wikis generally related to IQ should include the data if they cite Ashkenazi IQ in the wiki. It smacks of some kind of racism to only single out A.Jews as an ethnicity and not others when we have the data on others. this seems to be a repeated bias I see on IQ-related wikis.

It should also be noted that both Flynn and Lynn have found that when correcting for the FLynn-effect, the East Asian IQ advantage drops to statistically negligble or close to. Again, this is the recent findings and wikis should reflect such. In any event, here is the cite/info-filled letter.

Dr. Richard Lynn The Intelligence of American Jews Sat Feb 14 01:24:26 2004

The Intelligence of American Jews Dr. Richard Lynn University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland http://www.rlynn.co.uk

Summary. This paper provides new data on the theory that Jews have a higher average level of verbal intelligence than non-Jewish whites. The theory is considered by examining the vocabulary scores of Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others obtained in the American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990-1996. Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence. Jews obtained a significantly higher mean vocabulary score than non-Jewish whites, equivalent to an IQ advantage of 7.5 IQ points. The results confirm previous reports that the verbal IQ of American Jews is higher than that of non-Jewish whites.

Introduction

It has often been asserted that Jews have a higher average level of intelligence than non-Jewish whites of European origin. Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) have written that "Whenever the subject of group differences comes up one of the questions sure to be asked is 'Are Jews really smarter than everyone else?' ” and their answer to this question is an affirmative. Eysenck (1995,p.159) asserted that "As far as Jews are concerned, there is no question that they score very highly on IQ tests". Levin (1997,p.132) has written that “in every society in which they have participated, Jews have eventually been recognised (and disliked for) their exceptional talent”. Seligman (1992, p.133) writes of "the extraordinarily high Jewish g levels”.

Despite these assertions, the purported high IQ of the Jews has never been systematically reviewed and is not even mentioned in recent textbooks on intelligence, such as those of Brody (1992) and Mackintosh (1998).

There have nevertheless been a number of studies of the intelligence of Jews in the United States. Among those who have discussed this question, there is a general consensus on two points. First, that Jews have a higher average IQ than gentile whites (this term is used for non-Jewish whites). Second, that Jews are stronger on verbal ability than on visualization and visual-spatial ability. Beyond this, there is a considerable range of conclusions. A review by MacDonald (1994,p.190) concludes that “taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a performance IQ in the average range”. Storfer (1990,p.314) writes that “Jewish people, considered as a group, tend to excel in some cognitive domains – for example, verbal and numerical ability – but not in others, as witness their unexceptional performance on certain types of spatial or perceptual problems. Storfer concludes that American Jews have an average IQ of about 112 on the Stanford-Binet, largely a test of verbal ability.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) reach a similar conclusion “A fair estimate seems to be that Jews in America and Britain have an overall IQ mean somewhere between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean, with the source of the difference concentrated in the verbal component” (1994, p.275). In the sample they analysed, Jews had an average IQ of 112.6 in relation to American whites on four verbal subtests (word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic and mathematics) of the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test). Their estimate of a Jewish advantage of between a half and a full standard deviation is equivalent to an IQ range of 7.5 to 15 IQ points. The estimates proposed by Storfer and Herrnstein and Murray are similar but much lower than that suggested by MacDonald (1994).

Despite the widespread consensus on the high Jewish verbal ability, not all studies have shown that Jews have a higher verbal IQ than gentiles. Furthermore, virtually all the existing studies are unsatisfactory because the samples have been unrepresentative, very small or for other reasons. An early study carried out in the mid-1920s of 702 Jewish and 1030 non-Jewish white 9-13 year olds tested with the Pintner-Cunningham test (a largely verbal test) by Hirsch (1926) found the Jewish children obtained a mean IQ only 1.5 IQ points higher than the gentiles. However, at this time a number of Jewish families spoke Yiddish as their first language and this would have handicapped the children to an unknown extent. A later study by Shuey (1942) of students entering Washington Square College in New York in 1935-7 tested with the American Council Psychological Examination, a test of verbal abilities (with subtests of completion, arithmetic, artificial language, analogies and opposites) found that 764 Jewish freshmen scored 1.2 IQ points below 236 non-Jewish whites. All the students were native born, possibly suggesting that the performance of the Jewish students was unlikely to have been depressed by unfamiliarity with the English language although some of these may still have been speaking Yiddish as their first language.

Furthermore, Jewish and gentile students at this college cannot be regarded as respresentative of their respective communities. A more recent study by Hennessy and Merrifield (1978) with an impressive sample size of 2,985 Jewish, gentile, black and Hispanic college bound high school seniors found a difference of less than 1 IQ point between Jews and gentiles on tests of verbal ability and reasoning but the sample may not have been representative of the populations.

Another problem with a number of the studies that have found that Jews have higher verbal IQs than gentiles is that several of them are based on very small sample sizes. For instance, Seligman (1990, p.130) writes that “Jewish verbal superiority appears unmatched in any other ethnic group. An often-quoted 1970 study performed by the Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research shows Jewish tenth-grade boys with an average verbal IQ equivalent of 112.8 (on the Stanford-Binet metric) about three quarters of a standard deviation above the average for non-Jewish white boys”. This is the Bachman (1970) study in which the number of Jewish boys was 65. In the Herrnstein and Murray (1994) data set in which Jews obtained a mean verbal IQ of 112.6, the sample size was 98 and was not drawn to be nationally representative. There is only one study of the intelligence of American Jews in the last half century which appears to be representative and had a reasonable sample size. This is Backman’s (1972) analysis of the data in Project Talent, a nationwide American survey of the abilities of 18 year olds carried out in 1960. The study had sample sizes of 1,236 Jews and 1,051 white gentiles (in addition to 488 blacks and 150 Orientals). IQs for six factors were calculated. The mean IQs of the Jews in relation to gentile white means of 100 and standard deviations of 15 were as follows: verbal knowledge (described as “a general factor, but primarily a measure of general information” and identifiable with Carroll’s (1993) gc or verbal comprehension factor - 107.8; English language – 99.5; mathematics – 109.7; visual reasoning (“a measure of reasoning with visual forms”) – 91.3; perceptual speed and accuracy – 102.2; memory (short term recall of verbal symbols) – 95.1. These results are consistent with the general consensus that Jews perform well on tests of verbal ability (although not of English language) and mathematics and less well on visual and spatial tests but the verbal IQ of 107.8 is towards the low end of the estimates of Jewish verbal ability suggested by Herrnstein and Murray of an IQ between 107.5 and 115. However, the differences in the IQs for the various abilities are so great as to raise doubts about the results.

The existing state of the research literature on the IQ of American Jews is therefore that some studies have shown that their verbal IQ is about the same as that of gentile whites while other studies have shown that it is considerably higher at 107.8 (Backman, 1972), 112.6 (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) and 112.8 (Bachman, 1970). However, the last of two of these studies have sample sizes of fewer than 100. There is room for more data on the IQ of American Jews, and it is to the presentation of this that we now turn.

Method

The American National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in Chicago carries out annual surveys on approximately 1,500 individuals in continental United States (ie. excluding Hawaii and Alaska). The samples are representative of the adult population of those aged 18 years and over except that they exclude those who cannot speak English and those resident in institutions such as prisons and hospitals. Full details of the sampling procedures are given by Davis and Smith (1996).

The NORC surveys collect a vast amount of information about the respondents' opinions on a variety of topics and also on their demographic characteristics such as their income, education, age, ethnic group, religion, etc.etc. The first items of information of particular interest to us are the respondents' religion and ethnic group. An analysis of these enables us to categorise the respondents as Jewish, non-Jewish white, black and other. The second item of interest is the respondents' score on a 10 word vocabulary test. Vocabulary is a good measure of both general intelligence and verbal intelligence. For instance, in the standardisation sample of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) the vocabulary subtest correlates .75 with the Full Scale IQ, more highly than any other subtest (Wechsler,1958) and the Full Scale IQ is widely regarded as a good measure of general intelligence or Spearman’s g (Jensen, 1998). We are therefore able to examine the vocabulary scores as a measure of the verbal and general intelligence of the four religious/ethnic groups.

As noted, the annual NORC surveys are carried out on approximately 1,500 individuals. A single year does not therefore provide many Jews. To rectify this problem we can take the results of a number of years and combine them. This gives rise to a further problem that the vocabulary test has not been administered in every annual survey. From 1990 onwards, the vocabulary test was given in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996. The data collected in these years are used to analyse the vocabulary scores of the four ethnic/racial groups.

Results

The results are shown in Table 1. Reading from left to right, the columns show the numbers in the four groups, the mean vocabulary scores, standard deviations and conventional IQs based on a gentile white mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Thus, expressed in this way, the Jewish group obtains a mean IQ of 107.5, significantly higher than the gentile whites (t=5.82); the blacks obtain a mean IQ of 89.7, significantly lower than that of gentile whites (t=17.89); the “others” obtain a mean IQ of 98.6, not significantly different from that of gentile whites.

Table 1. Vocabulary scores and verbal IQs of American Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others.

Ethnic Group N Mean Sd IQ Jews 150 7.32 2.16 107.5 Gentiles 5300 6.28 2.03 100.0 Blacks 806 4.96 1.94 89.7 Others 219 6.09 2.37 98.6

Discussion

The results provide seven points of interest. First, they confirm the previous studies showing that American Jews have a higher average verbal intelligence level than non-Jewish whites. Second, the 7.5 IQ point Jewish advantage is rather less than that generally proposed and found in the studies reviewed in the introduction finding that Jews have verbal IQs in the range of 110-113 but is closely similar to the figure of 107.8 obtained in the Bachman study which is arguably the most satisfactory of the previous studies in terms of the size and representativeness of the sample.

Third, the present data has strengths in comparison with a number of previous studies in so far as they are based on a nationally representative and reasonably large sample size of 150 Jews and 5,300 gentile whites. The very close similarity between the present result and the Bachman result suggests that the best reading of the verbal IQ of American Jews is 107.5 (present study) or 107.8 (Bachman). These figures are well below previous estimates of Jewish verbal ability.

Four, an average verbal IQ of 107.5 would confer a considerable advantage for American Jews in obtaining success in professional work. There would be approximately four times as many Jews with IQs above 130, compared with gentile whites. This may provide a plausible explain for the 4.8 over-representation of Jews listed in American reference books of the successful such as Who’s Who, American Men and Women of Science, The Directory of Directors, The Directory of Medical Specialists and the like and calculated by Weyl (1989).

Five, the small difference of 1.4 IQ points between the non-Jewish whites and the “other” category is not statistically significant or very informative. The category is largely made up of Hispanics and Asians, which are themselves a heterogeneous category. Hispanics have mean IQs below whites (e.g. Herrnstein and Murray,1994), East Asians have about the same IQ as whites (Flynn, 1992) or slightly higher than whites (Lynn,1995), while South Asians have mean IQs lower than those of whites according to the calculations of Flynn (1992). Aggregating these groups produces a combined mean very close to that of non-Jewish whites.

Six, despite some three quarters of a century of research and quite a number of papers on the intelligence of American Jews there is still a lot of useful research to be done on this question. Probably the best approach would be to analyse Jewish abilities in terms of the construct of g and of the eight second order cognitive factors in the taxonomy of intelligence proposed by Carroll (1993) and the similar taxonomy advanced by McGrew and Flanagan (1998). These second order factors are fluid intelligence (reasoning), crystallized intelligence (verbal comprehension and knowledge), general memory and learning, visualization, broad retrieval ability, cognitive speed and processing speed. Probably all that can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence at present is that Jews have high crystallized intelligence (verbal ability) of which the vocabulary test used in the present study is a good measure and that on this ability their IQ in relation to gentile whites is approximately 107.5. The Backman (1972) provides IQs for several of the second order factors (given in the introduction to this paper) but these are so variable and in some instances so low as to raise doubts about their credibility. It is difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a non-verbal reasoning IQ of 91.3, and at the same time a mathematical IQ (“quantitative reasoning” in the McGrew and Flanagan taxonomy) of 109.7. It is also difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a verbal IQ of 107.8 while at the same time having a short term verbal memory IQ of 95.1. These results are in need of checking and replication. At present it is doubtful whether any conclusion can be reached about the intelligence of American Jews except that their verbal intelligence or, if this is preferred, their gc (crystallized intelligence) is about 107.5.

And here is a link to the list of White ethnicities IQs: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html Ernham 03:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to Lynn himself (2006), East Asians have the highest IQs and among Europeans, Italians. A. Jews score also very high. So much for your agenda. 72.144.177.62 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pioneer fund

the pioneer fund paragraph is probably a WP:OR violation, unless the relevance can be linked to a reliable source saying it's relevant. --Rikurzhen 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

The conference threw into stark relief the increasing synergy between British and American racists. Those who had tired of the speeches or merely wished to stretch their legs could peruse the stalls at the back of the hall, many of which were giving away mountains of free literature. One of the first we encountered was the Occidental Quarterly stall run by James Russell, a member of its editorial board. Also on Occidental Quarterly’s board are Derek Turner and the controversial Leeds university don Frank Ellis. Coincidentally the stall next to Russell was that of Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) run by yet another Occidental Quarterly editorial board member, Louis Andrews of Augusta, Georgia. It is Andrews who manages the American distribution of Right Now!. WSP publishes Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who like Taylor is a recipient of Pioneer Fund grants. WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics.[1]Ultramarine 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been up for many months now and no one has substantiated any kind of link of the pioneer fund and related nonsense to this book. An admin may need to enforce a removal somehow. Removing it normally doesn't seem to workErnham 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Very simple: Richard Lynn is a Pioneer Fund grantee (one of the major ones). Pioneer Fund is known to involve itself in racially-motivated (i.e. racist) endeavours. RDiI is a book whose subject can be described as racial science. Therefore, considering the subject of the book and the views of the Pioneer Fund, the mention of his source of funding is relevant.--Ramdrake 13:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. No POV there at all. Ernham 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. All I mentioned above are facts, verifiable and citable. You can start by looking up the reference from Searchlight Magazine mentioned above.--Ramdrake 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You can establish a relation between the grant and author, but not the book. You have no proof they are related or have any effect on each other. Unless, of course, the book states that XYZ research was paid for via the grant. So unless you can supply that kind of proof, you have nothing here. This wiki is about the BOOK, not the author. As I said before, your character assassination attempts belong on his own Wiki, not on the books wiki. You are doing nothing but spreading propaganda here.Ernham 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The material which is in the book is in great part Lynn's research, which is funded by the Pioneer Fund. This is no coincidence that the subject of the book and the goals of the Pioneer Fund line up so well. The book reflects both Lynn's and the Pioneer Fund's ideologies. Same way, it would be a bit incomplete to talk about Mein Kampf without mentioning the Nazi ideology (and I'm not saying Lynn's or the Pioneer Fund's ideologies have anything to do with Nazism).--Ramdrake 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You speculate your speculating speculatively. Congrats. Now you are just missing a shred, a single shred -- of proof. Ernham 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the literature on the Pioneer Fund, with Lynn's research and perhaps re-read RDiI, and you will see the obvious connection. Comments like the one above are most unhelpful. You are giving every indication of wanting to argue just for the sake of argument. That isn't a helpful behaviour at Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund's status as a racially-motivated group is a matter of opinion since that's not how they self-identify. If you ask them, they're going to tell you they're fact-motivated and from what I read I would think a good chunk of the psychometric community would agree with that. The statement is clearly there only for character assassination as he claims and it's not as if it isn't obvious even to a completely disinterested newcomer to the subject. If you have a problem with Lynn perhaps you should go for his data rather than something that cannot possibly boil down to more than ad hominem.Gmk1969 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuits

What did this book say of the Inuits? Did it pick them out at random from nomadic life or from rural Inuits? Because fyi, the Inuit page mentions how Inuit communities have extremely high crime and violence rates, drug rates, suicide rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and over-crowding rates. It's inane to say that these Inuits who were tested were nomadic ones, ones who would have had little knowledge of the English language and skills needed for abstract thinking associated with IQ testing. Therefore, the Inuits they tested must have been from rural Inuit communities. And what does this book mention of the Flynn Effect and previous Inuit IQ's? Inuit communities are probably also more intelligent due to their isolated nature so things can remain more stable. Plus, considering all the severe problems with Inuit communities, not to mention: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060805/fob6.asp http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_response.pdf, I'm guessing the IQ scores were lower in earlier decades, especially considering how the tests on the Khoisan were taken from such a small range of studies, not to mention how isolated the Khoisan live and how their language is so different. If Khoisan were retarded, it would be impossible to have any sort of society. Not to mention how complex Khoisan language is- it was developed specifically to deal with not scaring away animals, and their language must have been developed with knowledge of the acute sensory range of animals. That definately requires intelligence. Another thing is the sharp contrast of the Papuan aborigines of Papau New Guinea and the Australian Aborigines. They both fit into the same Australoid grouping, and those two ethnic groups are obviously very closely related. Yet Papuan Aborigines score in the 85-90 range, while this book says Australian Aborigines score borderline retarded. What's going on here?

The very nature and the instability of rural Inuit communities completely contradicts many of their findings about cold weather leading to evolutionary responses that result in greater community stability, empathy etc. I'd like to see what this book has to say of it.

fyi - inuit IQ scores do not trend up or down versus year of publication --Rikurzhen 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer my questions.

i mean this as kindly as possible: the questions you raise are interesting, but not relevant to writing the article. you could read the book if you want to find out more. --Rikurzhen 02:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. But would it be possible for you to tell me what the book said of Inuits and Khoisan? And are you saying Inuit IQ scores were 91 even back in the 60's? Are you serious?

I have the data for the Inuit, but not the Khoisan. Note there are only 3 studies of the Khoisan reported by Lynn. --Rikurzhen 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Table  Row    Age       N       Test     IQ   Reference
11.1   1      6–11      469     DAM      89   Eells, 1933
11.1   2      6–11      105     DAM      92   Eells, 1933
11.1   3      6–9       174     CPM      94   MacArthur, 1965
11.1   4      10–15     326     SPM      84   MacArthur, 1965
11.1   5      25        122     CPM      78   Berry, 1966
11.1   6      Adults    186     CPMT     93   Kunce et al., 1967
11.1   7      10        87      SPM      91   MacArthur, 1967
11.1   8      11        50      MVK      90   Vernon, 1969
11.1   9      6–12      380     WISC     91   Kaplan et al., 1973
11.1   10     9–12      69      CPM      96   Taylor & Skanes, 1976a
11.1   11     7         22      WPPSI    93   Taylor & Skanes, 1976b
11.1   12     7–10      63      CPM      95   Taylor & Skanes, 1977
11.1   13     7–14      366     WISC-R   91   Wilgosh et al., 1986
11.1   14     5         110     CPM      92   Wright et al., 1996
11.1   15     15        261     CCF/MH   86   Grigorenko et al., 2004

Alright, but are these for rural inuits or nomadic ones? Obviously it would have to be rural ones, because they would have to be accustomed to written language and such to even perform IQ tests. What was the background on these Inuits? Another thing is how it's been observed that IQ scores show a decline among many people, where someone can score much higher at a young age while someone at later age scores much lower. It's been observed many times, even that one study of blacks who were adopted by white parents.

Oh, and by the way, do you and Nectar have some sort of instant messaging software to communicate by? I've noticed you two seem to do alot of work on the race and intelligence articles, and I'd like to discuss some things with you.

I'm guessing you know more about the Inuit than I do. I haven't read that chapter. I don't use IMs but we exchange emails thru the "email this user" function. If you sign up for an account, you can do that as well. --Rikurzhen 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italy is not part of N, C, E Europe

Italy is incorrectly grouped as part of N, C, E cluster of populations in the table of this article. Whoever has tabulated the data should correct the table, since Italy is not considered part of Central Europe either geographically or by the United Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe

About 2/3s of italy is in central Europe, which is really just an arbitrary circle drawn in the middle of Europe, somewhat central on the alps. theoretically, it can be considered either. Much like Poland, which can be considered central or eastern.Ernham 03:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Italy is in Southern Europe. It seems that you do not like that in 2006 Lynn establishes for Italians the highest IQ in Europe. Very funny. 72.144.177.62 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table should be removed

The table of IQ scores violates the no new research policy. The groupings of populations into geographical subgroups is ad-hoc. The entry should be about the specific book and not about the derivative interpretations of the source material by the editors.

the table is from Malloy (2006), not from WP editors. Malloy discusses Italy in detail, purposefully creating the categories of of SE Europe and Spain/Portugal to exclude Italy. Table 13.1 from RDiI is very similar. --Rikurzhen 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Richard Lynn's book not about Malloy's interpretations of the book. The categories of Table 13.1 differ from those of Malloy (2006). Therefore Malloy has synthesized the original data of Lynn's book in a new manner, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Either reproduce table 13.1, or drop the table from the article. Malloy's ad-hoc categories are not Wikipedia material; anyone who wants to read about them can follow the link to his review. --ReinesLicht

The article is about Lynn's book, and whatever has been published about it. If you were correct, WP couldn't include the opinions from book reviews in articles about books. --Rikurzhen 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Malloy's review can be included in the wikipedia entry is downright laughable. Using this "logic" any crackpot can do original research, post it in their blog, and then bypass wikipedia's no original new research policy. Hell, I could do my own tabulation, grouping, say, Finno-Ugrians separately. That is why original research should not be posted in Wikipedia. --ReinesLicht

it looks like Malloy got the idea for breaking down Europe as he does from Lynn's Table 3.4 (below). This should unambiguously resolve the question. --Rikurzhen 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Table 3.4. Brain size (cc) and intelligence in Europeans and South Asians
  Location          N. Studies Brain Size IQ
1 North America     34         1,322      100
2 N. C. & E. Europe 104        1,320      99
3 Spain & Portugal  6          1,315      97
4 Southeast Europe  40         1,312      92
...

This by no means resolves the problem, since grouping the IQ data in the same way as the brain size data represents synthesis of two different tables, and is thus forbidden by wikipedia policy. If Lynn wanted to represent the IQ data in Malloy's manner, he would have done so in Table 13.1. --ReinesLicht

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Malloy is the published source of the table. But even w/o Malloy, the table is simply the composite of two tables from RDI, which constitutes is an "obvious" presentation of the data from RDI. "Obvious" transformations of data are allowed by policy. --Rikurzhen 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It is claimed in the article that this table is an "approximate tally" by Malloy. Now you claim that it is a concatenation of the two tables. Either it is a concatenation of two tables or it is an "approximate tally" by Malloy. --ReinesLicht

Contrary to your claim, it is in fact both. --Rikurzhen 07:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, since Malloy clearly states that: "This chart summarizes the data available in RDiI. It is my approximate tally. " The chart is Malloy's original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If Lynn had a chart like that by all means post it. By all means post both 3.4 and 13.1 and any other chart in Lynn's book you want. You do not however any leg to stand on that Malloy's OWN chart (as admitted by himself) is not original new synthetic research. --ReinesLicht

You misunderstand WP:NOR. Malloy's analysis is published, thus citable, and not OR. Coincidently, the transformation required to produce Malloy's chart is itself so trivial that it would not constitute OR if Malloy (2006) did not exist. Table 13.1, below, as requested. --Rikurzhen 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source." ... "For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source." I do not consider Gene Expression to be a reliable source, and certainly I won't take your word for it, since you post there. --ReinesLicht

Now it appears you are arguing for the sake of it. You concede that Malloy is sourced only for the sake of attributing proper authorship for his concatenation of two tables from RDI, a process which is trivial in nature, not as the source of an opinion or original argument. --Rikurzhen 07:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you can claim that Malloy has concatenated anything. Table 13.1 splits South Asians into several groups and groups them with North Africans. It groups Europeans which are split by Malloy. It splits East Asians which are grouped by Malloy. You can't deny that Malloy has chosen -subjectively- to group populations together, sometimes adopting Lynn's groupings, and sometimes adopting his own. I suggest that Malloy's ad-hoc table be replaced by Table 13.1 which covers race differences in intelligence. Why should Malloy's groupings (e.g., joining East Asians where Lynn splits them, or splitting Europeans where Lynn joins them) be preferred to Lynn's own way of presenting his data? --ReinesLicht

As far as I can tell, Malloy chose amongst the various ways that Lynn has presented the data within RDI. Lynn presents the data in 10 chapters, corresponding with what he calls the 10 races. Here are some salient details:

• the raw data is presented in each chapter in a series of tables. there is usually more than one table per chapter.
• Lynn is sometimes inconsistent between Table 13.1 and the data tables in earlier chapters. For example, Lynn has 4 tables of East Asian data, but only reports 3 of them in 13.1. Likewise, with Lynn's various ways of breaking down Europeans.
• South Asians are with N. Africans in Chapt 6 of RDI, but there are only 5 (6?) samples from N. Africans.

The ideal solution is probably to rebuild table 13.1 from the chapter contents directly. --Rikurzhen 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] table 13.1

Table 13.1 Summary of race differences in intelligence from Lynn (2006)

Race	Location	N. Samples	N. Countries	IQ	Range
Bushmen	S. W. Africa	3	1	54	48–62
Aborigines	Australia	17	1	62	53–74
Aborigines	New Guinea	5	1	63	50–60
Sub-Saharan Africans	Africa	57	17	67	59–89
Sub-Saharan Africans	Caribbean	14	6	71	60–80
Sub-Saharan Africans	United States	29	1	85	77–93
Sub-Saharan Africans	Netherlands	7	1	85	83–88
Sub-Saharan Africans	Britain	18	1	86	73–94
S. Asians & N. Africans	South Asia	37	17	84	77–96
S. Asians & N. Africans	Britain	16	1	92	83–96
S. Asians & N. Africans	Europe	18	3	85	75–94
S. Asians & N. Africans	Africa	6	2	86	77–91
S. Asians & N. Africans	Fiji, etc.	3	3	85	82–89
Pacific Islanders	Pacific Islands	14	9	85	80–89
Pacific Islanders	New Zealand	12	1	90	81–96
Southeast Asians	South E. Asia	11	6	87	85–93
Southeast Asians	United States	7	3	93	87–96
Native Americans	North America	19	2	86	69–94
Native Americans	Latin America	10	5	86	79–92
Arctic Peoples	North America	15	2	91	78–96
Europeans	Europe	71	25	99	87–105
Europeans	Outside Europe	23	12	99	93–103
East Asians	East Asia	60	7	105	100–120
East Asians	United States	26	1	101	96–109
East Asians	Elsewhere	9	5	102	95–110

[edit] Map of "indigenous" populations is misleading

As far as I can tell, Lynn nowhere in his book labels population samples as indigenous or non-indigenous. I would be willing to reconsider if it is shown where such a classification is found in RDiI. The interpretation of whoever compiled the map represents a new synthesis of data, combining RDiI's data with an ad-hoc characterization of populations as indigenous or not, violating Wikipedia policy. E.g., Non-native Americans are taken not to be indigenous, whereas Bantu farmer populations and North African Arabs are supposedly indigenous. --ReinesLicht

My copy of RDI contains a map that looks like this one. --Rikurzhen 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timesonline

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html

the data presented in this article is only from Buj et al 1981, as report by Lynn, not Lynn's averaging of more than one study --Rikurzhen 01:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, see this note I left two weeks ago where I pointed out that the timesonline article is misreporting. I assume the numbers are accurate, but they are not a synthesis by Lynn. Rather, they are the result of a single study published in 1981. Lynn did aggregates by country in IQ and the Wealth of Nations and in a book newer than Race Differences in Intelligence, but not in RDI. --Rikurzhen 01:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So be it. What does that have to do with the removal of the material? Are you saying the misreporting is attributing the IQ compilation to the wrong person? If so, welcome to science. He supports those figures, which is all that mattersErnham 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Lynn does not appear to believe that the average IQ of Germany is 107. In IQ and the Wealth of Nations he reported an average of 102 for Germany. Nothing in RDI reports averages per country. Thus by all measures the Timesonline figure is inappropriate for this article. --Rikurzhen 04:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. When authors opinions about issues change in books they have written, or the world's knowledge of that issue has changed, it is always important to update the information. I'm still not following your issue about him using someone else study. Furtger, you have not supplied any cites or anything to substantiate your position in the least.Ernham 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I pulled up the study in question that you claim was the only source of lynn's data, I find you must be mistaken or simply lying, one of the two. The numbers in that study show averages different from the one's given by the times article, some on the order of 2-3 points(ie no rounding errors explain the descrepancy)Ernham 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it you don't have a copy of RDI? Lynn's persistent misreporting of the Buj data is infamous. If you have a copy see Table 3.1 row 28 for the Germany figure. --Rikurzhen 04:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Buj's data differs somewhat from the numbers given by the Times as what Lynn claimed. You were the one that proposed he only used Buj as a source(while having no source to back up that claim). So, again, what is your issue?Ernham 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lynn does not report the average IQ of Germany as 107 in RDI. Here are the values Lynn reports for Europeans in Germany: 99, 97, 101, 90, 105, 99, 99, 97, 107. I mention Buj because it appears that the Timesonline author took the Buj data as listed by Lynn to build that table. --Rikurzhen 04:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Buj data as reported by Lynn: Germany 107 Netherlands 107 Poland 106 Sweden 104 Italy 102 Austria 101 Portugal 101 Switzerland 101 Britain 100 Norway 100 Belgium 99 Denmark 99 Finland 99 Czech Rep. 98 Hungary 98 Spain 98 Ireland 97 Greece 95 Bulgaria 94 France 94

Umm, no

Germany: Buj actual data(109.3) Value given to same data by Lynn(109) Value quoted in the Times article (107)

Netherlands: Buj actual data(109.4) Value given to same data by Lynn(109) Value quoted in the Times article (107)

---

Not in my copy of RDI, which is no doubt from the same printing as the Timeonline authors'. --Rikurzhen 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Image:Lynn-RDI-clip-p21-germany.PNG

Where/how did you get that? The only thing i cpuld think of that would explain the descrepancy now is that that might be a flynn-corrected version?Ernham 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When did you get your copy? Maybe you have a new version; maybe Lynn went back and made corrections. Regardless, Lynn doesn't report that the overall average IQ of Germany is 107 in RDI -- at least not in my copy. --Rikurzhen 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's another 2006 book by Lynn (IQ and Global Inequality) which would probably include an estimate for Germany, but that's not RDI. --05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Availability of Lynn books in the catalogs of major libraries

I think our readers should know that Race Differences in Intelligence is not listed in the catalogs of many major libraries. User:Wdhamilton added the "dubious" tag to my contribution stating that fact pointing out in his/her edit summary that it is "not found in library of congress either b/c it hasn't beed added to their collections yet, too soon". S/he may be correct. However, a 1996 book by Lynn, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (ISBN 0-275-94917-6), is not listed in the catalogs of libraries of major research universities such as Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College. I have little confidence that Race Differences in Intelligence will fare better. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dysgenics is in my local research library. I don't find the suggestion totally unreasonable, except that it appears to be at least premature. I often have trouble getting new-release books from my library, and so it's not really informative to say that it isn't yet available. --W. D. Hamilton 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a link on their online catalog?futurebird 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to link inside the catalog. I just checked Harvard, they have it (Dysgenics). --W. D. Hamilton 04:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful observation, Walter Siegmund (talk). It should also be noted that libraries carry these books for people doing research in to the nature of racism, the text being an example of racism! This book is not in the NYC Public Library, or the library at my university. It's a highly suspect source and the content based on it should not be in the encyclopedia.--futurebird 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it being referenced frequently in other studies as time goes on will change your mind as to it's relevance. It's not real hard to guess why a university library administrator might be frightened to order a book with such a starkly un-PC name, and if we're going to speculate about what university libraries ordering means to the quality of the book, my explanation is as good or better than yours, I think. Columbia University? The librarian might as well write "please fire me" on the line-item for the book when she sends it uphill. Might as well order ten copies of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems when you work for the Vatican library in the 15th Century. Gmk1969 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of OR material

This is a page about a book. It is not a page to detail the book's citations, references, arguments, or theoretical basis. Inappropriate to add editorial argument and defense in such detail here. --JereKrischel 08:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about a book. It is not a page to detail the book's citations, references, arguments, or theoretical basis. - That makes no sense. Each of those is reliably sourced material of encyclopedic interest. In what article would that material go if not the article about the book? Look at IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and tell me why that years-old article should differ from this one -- by the same author on the same subject. --W. D. Hamilton 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The title is "removal of OR material". Let me suggest that you can't possibly distinguish between OR and not OR material if you don't have access to a copy of the book. --W. D. Hamilton 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be a re-creation of the detailed arguments given in the book, with paraphrased or compiled references. If you're going to quote the book, quote the book. If you're re-creating the book's arguments and references, you're doing OR. --JereKrischel 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.futurebird 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're re-creating the book's arguments and references, you're doing OR. - LOL! No, that's really not OR. Let's check WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. Another definition - The actual definition of OR is just: material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. So long as everything in an article can be attributed, it isn't OR - end of story. So "re-creating the book's arguments and references" cannot possibly be OR. It's summarizing the book, and thus cannot be a presentation of "unpublished" material. --W. D. Hamilton 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an OR summarizing of the book, presenting argument in an editorial style, and adding detailed references that are not simple summary. You are making the mistake of trying to write a journal article on the book -> this is simply an encyclopedia. --JereKrischel 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

Most of the criticisms are not of the book, but of the publisher. This should be in their (presently non-existant) article. The second last sentance of the introduction should be here instead of where it is. --Lollerkeet 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Information about the publisher helps readers assesses the credibility of the book.futurebird 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Information about the author perhaps, but there is no discussion of the publisher's credentials in the scholarly lit. --W. D. Hamilton 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The book is not scholarly literature which should obviously be mentioned.Ultramarine 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

is being published by a univ press is either necessary or sufficient to make something "scholarly literature" in the WP or the common sense? think not. --W. D. Hamilton 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Today virtually all serious academic literature is published in academic press or articles.Ultramarine 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The author is a preimminent name in the field he is writing about and uses and cites data collected in said field. That's less important than who published it? Gmk1969 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The author is a prominent name, no doubt, but he is also connected to the prominent racialist group, Pioneer Fund. Just as smoking research funded by the tobacco industry must be critically examined because of the source of the support, the same can be said about the author and the Pioneer Fund. --JereKrischel 00:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave that to the other scholars in the field. I'm sure none of them will be bothered. Are they in on it too? Either way if they start referencing it in their own work (if they haven't already) I somehow doubt that will mean much to people who want the association fallacy left in there. I also see no case made that proves Pioneer Fund has a vested interest in racial supremacy arguments or white supremacy arguments. I realize you must feel that it does, and that that is what people often take away from their positions, but that is not some sort of settled fact among scholars either, and this IS an encyclopedia, isn't it? 70.91.235.10 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's an opinion that's sourced and verifiable, and as such has right to be in WP. Already been there, done that. I could point you to the SPLC's opinion of the Pioneer Fund, for example. --Ramdrake 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it remains an association fallacy, and a way of injecting POV into the article under the guise of objectivity. Criticisms of a scientific work come from scientists in the field who know the field, and finding some article in a magazine that uses a convenient fallacy doesn't make it valid. I could put in my own POV with that as the standard going the other way. I might quote and reference articles that assert that the main reason for resistance to science in this area is because it fatally undermines socialist ideals holding that unequal outcomes in life are a matter of culture and social policy rather than the scientifically-established underlying trends in cognitive ability that have been proven to the satisfaction of the APA. But that wouldn't be appropriate to this article, because it's just a cheap way for me to insert PoV into it even though I can cite left and right. And that's what that line is: PoV with a cite to a magazine (not peer reviewed article) as window dressing. 70.91.235.10 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If we were to take on the position of judging what is fallacy and what is not, we may also desire to censor obviously fallacious research based on a flawed concept of "race". We cannot put ourselves in a position where we decide what is "objective" simply because we understand that an ad hominem attack is taking place. After all, the existence of an ad hominem attack does not mean that the attack is without merit, it merely means that the merit of the attack cannot be proven logically. The criticism of the Pioneer Fund is notable, persistent, and worthy of inclusion, regardless if it is not absolute proof of improper bias. Criticisms of scientific work comes from many different areas, and even scientists use logical fallacy when attacking each other. You are also engaging in a logical fallacy by asserting that only "scientists in the field who know the field" are allowed to criticize, in terms of a false appeal to authority. --JereKrischel 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It still amounts to editorializing. The comment isn't a discussion of the book. It isn't a discussion of the contents of the book. It's an appeal to the reader to tend to discount the contents based on an association of the author. Using a magazine as a justification. Despite his high standing in his own field. Despite a complete inability to bring criticisms based on his methods or data. And what I'm seeing here in this talk section is that summaries of the data presented are getting redacted. If people are fighting an ideological battle here, I don't see the point. You'll lose in the end. Ask the Catholic Church. 70.91.235.10 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see how drawing a conclusion by inference and putting it in the article is not original research, by the way. 70.91.235.10 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research, because as others have said it's well sourced. futurebird 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's original research because it uses a fact to imply a new conclusion, which is that the book is in some way intrinsically related to an anti-Semitic tome. Without that inference the quote might as well say "the book was published by someone who uses paper." It only gains any kind of inference or meaning in the context of the conclusion the reader is intended to draw from it. 68.42.98.97 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's properly sourced and cited. It might be many things, but it's not original research. It states a fact, you imply the conclusion; actually, you are the one doing the OR association. It's not in the text of the article.--Ramdrake 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

70.91.235.10, I'm sorry, but your assertion that there is a "complete inability to bring criticisms based on his methods or data" is simply silly. Both you and I know there is a wealth of scientific critique available regarding racialist science promoted by Lynn. This article certainly isn't the appropriate place for a point-by-point critique of his sloppy methods, faulty data, or fraudulent conclusions, but you do realize that they exist. The criticism of Lynn regarding being a Pioneer Fund grantee is notable, regardless of your disagreement with its relevance. And to clarify, nobody here is fighting an ideological battle here, we're simply trying to present an NPOV article. The critiques of Lynn here are notable, and worthy of inclusion. They are not presented as absolute truth, or the only POV. They are completely acceptable. --JereKrischel 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Both you and I know there is a wealth of scientific critique available" I would agree that there are people from other fields who make arguments against it. His work and his conclusions, however, as we both know, are held in high esteem within the field. I really cannot square the "NPOV" intention by inserting a guilt-by-association reference about him using a publisher that also published anti-Semitic screeds-- something a guy who holds that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are 15 points higher than other Europeans is unlikely to be promoting, don't you think? All it ends up demonstrating is that his views are unpopular and that the profits made selling the book won't be worth it to the publisher. But the clear implication is that the book is motivated by racism. And, I disagree that this article is not a place to publish links to articles proving his faulty data, fraudulent conclusions and sloppy methods. But, as you and I both know, they don't exist. At least not ones written by anyone qualified in the material. 68.42.98.97 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I am suggesting you are using too narrow a definition of who are experts in the field. You may want to look for eample, at the works of anthropologists like Lieberman for some appropriate refutations.--Ramdrake 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

The subject may be important, but is this book? It is not a famous book, it seems to be quite marginal and not that well respected by mainstream academics. futurebird 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We would have more discussion of that in the article if it weren't removed by JK. There are now at least 3 scholarly reviews of the literature. At least 2 call the book important. --W. D. Hamilton 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3 scholarly reviews hardly seem enough evidence to make an assertion of "importance", although I don't have a metric in mind that would help us discern between "important" and "non-important". Given its recent publication, it does seem a bit fishy to build an entire article for it -> I wonder if this falls into the category of linkspam? I'm really not clear on what the rules are...--JereKrischel 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability -- a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.. The evolutionary analysis section comes from RDI itself and Rushton's review of it. Removing it is unjustified, and contributes to the notion that there is little to say about the book -- note the book's subtitle. --W. D. Hamilton 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A serious scholar would have published in academic press and not by a dubious private publisher of aryan literature. Obviously Rusthon will praise the book since both he and Lynn are Pioneer Funded.Ultramarine 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Gmk1969 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article about the book is not meant to go in depth regarding each of the books points -> we're not here to wikify the book into a format with full citations and arguments. Also agree with Ultramarine regarding the the problematic nature of the "3 scholarly reviews" you cite. --JereKrischel 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Other problems non withstanding I think that the name of this article should be changed to "Race Differences in Intelligence (book)" and this page should redirect to "Race and intelligence" futurebird 10:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Precision suggests otherwise. The examples are pretty clear. Darwin's Dangerous Idea wouldn't redirect to Evolution even though it's clearly the referent of the phrase because it would be hard to find the book itself. --W.R.N. 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow now Italians are Central Europeans (Why not say directly Scandinavians or Vikings!).

After reading above comments and contributions it seems that these Nazis that are all over the net can manipulate anything. Now they say that Italians are central Europeans. Why? Because Lynn establishes in 2006 that they have the highest IQ in Europe at 102. Since East Asians score still higher (105 average) I would not be surprised that they also said that they are some kind of lost Aryans. Well Hitler already said it about the Japanese. And of course they do not want to hear about A. Jews, because they show the highest IQ scores in the World. These sad Nazis! They must be suffering so much. But since they have no shame, they have no problems to lie. The principle is very simple, a prominent German Nazi said it: If History does not suit us, let us change it. If truth does not suit us, let us just lie. But most of the intelligent people in the world already know what a bunch of moronic liers you are.72.144.177.62 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] erased link: why?

I have erased link to this Malloy's article because it manipulates the data in the book. The only reason can be a big agenda as anyone can see for the following reasons:

In relation to Europeans he says: "Americans score higher"..., Spaniards and Italians normally. Then Look at the table for Spaniards and Portuguese. Why not a group of Irish and Britons or Spaniards and Italians etc. Sorry, but it looks like the usual section of information for the white supremacist and Nordicist propaganda by a lot of Americans and not Americans.

Facts:

In 2002 Lynn gives the following values (see IQ and Global Inequality):

US 98. Spain 99. Italy 102. Both Spain and Italy have higher scores than the US.

In 2006:

US 98. Spain 98. Italy 102.

In fact Italy, according to Lynn's own data, scores the highest in Europe and Spain the same or above the US at 98/99.

Now look at the table, trying to lower Spain's IQ because Portugal scores 95. Spain has 44 million people, Portugal 9.

If you do the same and group British Isles: UK 100, Ireland 92 = 96. Lower than Spain and Portugal. But this guy has some interest in grouping peoples in some special and arbitrary way one way but not another.

The most obvious: Italy, with the highest score for white nations in 2006 according to Lynn: 102. He groups them with "Central Europeans etc". Now Italians are not Southern Europeans? Funny, very funny.

And this is only what I have seen. Guess the rest.

Manipulation is the fingerprint of all these Nordicists coming from America and Europe who are so shameless as to manipulate information in the face, without blinking.65.10.133.116 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Race Differences in Intelligence.jpg

Image:Race Differences in Intelligence.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this book of any academic importance?

It seeems rather contradictory. According to the map, Turkish people living on the European side of Istanbul are more intelligent than the Turkish people living on the Asian side of Istanbul. Or if we are talking about Greeks as the aborgines of Asia Minor, then Greeks that used to live in Asia Minor were dumber than Greeks living within the political boundaries of modern Greece. Another example would be Persians - who live in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Iran. According to the map, Tajik Persians in Tajikistan are more intelligent than Tajik Persians and Persians living in Afghanistan or Iran, respectively. Azeris living in Northern Iran are dumber than Azeris living Azerbaijan. Does this really make sense? This is junk science. It is defining intelligence upon modern day political borders that had no validity while humans were still making their migrations centuries/millenia ago. The thesis also fails to hold when one acknowledges Arab imperialism against the more northerly Sassanid Empire and Byzantine Empires, or the Moorish invasion of Spain; Spain was still technically under Southerly North African control just 600 years ago. Even more unusual is that Indo-European Iranians and Indians are somehow dumber than Europeans, despite their purported "link" to the peoples of Europe. If Iranians and Indians are so dumb, why is it that Iranians and Indians living within the diaspora clearly outperform Whites in academics? Indian and Iranian Americans both have substantially higher SAT and ACT test scores and per capita incomes than European Americans. The SAT is based off of a military IQ test. In fact, Indian Americans and Iranian Americans are the two most successful immigrant communities in the United States of America (NOT the Chinese). Moreover, the Mongols (northerly) conquered the southerly Chinese, which does fall within this thesis. However, the Mongols didn't even have written language and wouldn't really be classified as a "civilization" until after they fell under Islamic and Chinese influences. China was significantly more developed, despite their military defeat. The entire thesis of this work is flawed and is based on superficial findings. How exactly did he gather IQ results for all the people of every country of the world? Were the Inuits listed as more intelligent than other Amerindians simply because it would have contradicted his thesis if he didn't include them? Why is there no shift in IQ across Europe? Why do Scandanavians have equal IQs to Northern Mediterreaneans? Why are the Aborgines of Australia and the very Southern tip of South America so dumb? Temperatures in those regions are comparable to temperatures in the extreme North. Why were the Germans and Mongols amongst the last people on the Eurasian continent to develop literacy and a complex civilizational structure if they are so intrinsically smart? The Germanic peoples barely qualified as civilized in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, whereas the Middle East was and still was more advanced than Germanic peoples all the way until the High Medieval/Pre Modern Era. Southerly peoples were still expanding into Europe until 1683. Is this trying to reinforce White Supremacy? It appears so. The auther isn't even a biologist or a geneticist, yet the book is supposed to be an "evolutionary thesis"! He's a psychologist!-68.43.58.42 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

The quote from Southern Poverty Law Center is POV pushing. --Jagz (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". "Ultramarine (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This addresses justification for removal of article content but not the fact that the content adversely affects the NPOV of the article. --Jagz (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical views does not lessen NPOV, it increases it. Add sourced supporting views if you have sources.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be very preferable to give a more complete synopsis of what Washington Summit Publishers publishes instead of a cherry picking quote that seeks to cast the publisher in a negative light. Adding more quotes would make the article look ridiculous. --Jagz (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV includes both critical and supporting views. It violates NPOV to selectively delete the critical ones.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat again that adding additional quotes regarding the publisher would make the article look unprofessional and ridiculous. If you feel the need, include the quote into a more complete statement of the types of books the publisher publishes. --Jagz (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"adding additional quotes regarding the publisher would make the article look unprofessional and ridiculous." Exactly what policy are you citing? If you have some supporting quotes, feel free to add them.Ultramarine (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to use some common sense when writing articles. Why don't you write an article about the publisher if you feel it is notable; that would get rid of the red link. --Jagz (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Common sense includes mentioning both critical and supporting views.Ultramarine (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporting and critical views of the book would be justified. Supporting and critical views of the publisher in this article would be going overboard. --Jagz (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is a non-academic publisher lessens the reliability of the book.Ultramarine (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it do that? --Jagz (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding supporting and critical views of the publisher violates WP:SYN, unless a source is provided which criticizes Race Differences in Intelligence on the basis of its sub-par publisher. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here: [2]Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Excuse me—I should have turned off case-sensitivity before running a search for "race differences". Looks kosher to me now. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished synthesis

From the article:
"Some of Lynn's research has been funded by the Pioneer Fund. As with Lynn's book IQ and Global Inequality, the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers, which offers books on anthropology, evolution, genetics, pscyhology, philosophy, and curent events.[2] According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it has reprinted "a range of classical and modern racist tracts, along with books on eugenics"."

1. The first sentence is irrelevant since there is no citation that links the book to the Pioneer Fund.
2. The third sentence is irrelevant because there is no citation, not even the newly added one, that links this book to the types of books described by the quote, "a range of classical and modern racist tracts, along with books on eugenics". The quote says that the publisher reprints those types of books but does not say that they are the only type of book they publish. --Jagz (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This link [3] bring together the book, Lynn, the publisher, the Pioneer Fund, and racism. This link [4] also makes similar connections.Ultramarine (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not support your claim. After discussing the book it says, "WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics." It does not say that the book in question falls into that category. --Jagz (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) run by yet another Occidental Quarterly editorial board member, Louis Andrews of Augusta, Georgia. It is Andrews who manages the American distribution of Right Now!. WSP publishes Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who like Taylor is a recipient of Pioneer Fund grants. WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics." Book clearly linked to Lynn, the publisher, the Pioneer Fund, and racism.Ultramarine (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that they are engaged in mud-slinging. Unfortunately, the quote you provided does not directly link the book to the Pioneer Fund or Aryan tracts. There is nothing that states that the book was funded by the Pioneer Fund or that the book is an Aryan tract. --Jagz (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor does the article state that. The publisher and prior funding casts doubt on the book regardless.Ultramarine (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. --Jagz (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research. It is Searchlight which connects these things together. I am merely quoting them.Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The connection is only in your imagination. --Jagz (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can just add the above quote + source to the article. No OR or imagination.Ultramarine (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read: [5] --Jagz (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ultramarine is right, it isn't OR, and it casts doubt about the publisher and its publications, without being specific about this one book. The only thing is that the entire quote (the linking together of Lynn's funding, WSP et al.) needs to be more clearly attributed. No OR there as far as I'm concerned.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the criticism as its not about the book, so it is off topic. By stating "Some of the criticisms regarding IQ and the Wealth of Nations may also apply." we are clearly showing its not on topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is on-topic in the sense that it shows the lack of a proper academic background for the publisher, therefore showing it's not a proper scientific book.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is off topic. You're probably well aware that it is off topic. --Jagz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to re-add that it is not peer-reviewed, then you need a source stating that specifically. A book can be by a racist publisher as it seems was attempting to be said, yet still have a proper academic background. The author themselves is a PhD and professor in the appropriate fields, stating the publisher has a racist or smeared background, says nothing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the publisher is relevant, see WP:RS.Ultramarine (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. --Jagz (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pointing out WP policy.Ultramarine (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That the publisher has a reputation for publishing fringe material is relevant, as it suggests this book may be fringe as well.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You use the word fringe whenever you can't think of anything substantial to say. --Jagz (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Some of the material published by WSP is clearly fringe stuff.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pointing out Wikipedia policy. Non-academic material is less reliable.Ultramarine (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article already mentions that the book was published by a non-academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That is good. The criticism mentioned by Searchlight is still valid and sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want to use clearly biased source to criticize a non-academic publisher so it casts doubt on the quality of the book? --Jagz (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, everybody has a bias. The question is whether this opinion (the SPLC's) is notable enough for inclusion. I'd agree it is.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Claims of POV are not reason for excluding material. I am pointing out the connections Searchlight make, not only limited to non-academic status.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight (magazine) is a biased and your intentions seem insidious. I think Lynn should sue you for libel. --Jagz (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."Ultramarine (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to use an unreliable source to challenge the reliability of the book by criticizing the book's publisher? --Jagz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight is no less reliable than this non-academic book. The article not limited to only reliability. The article gives important background to the book, the very complex web of far right individuals and organizations.Ultramarine (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started an article for you to work on: Washington Summit Publishers. --Jagz (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about in this article simply stating "As with Lynn's book IQ and Global Inequality, the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers, which according to itself offers books on anthropology, evolution, genetics, psychology, philosophy, and current events. Critics state that it is connected to the far right and has published racist material."Ultramarine (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is probably difficult to find academic publishers for such controversial books regardless of their quality. The author probably did not have much of a choice. The publisher has filled a niche. --Jagz (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lynn had an academic publisher for IQ and the Wealth of Nations.Ultramarine (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I said difficult, not impossible. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, make the book less reliable.Ultramarine (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your job here is not to judge reliability, only report what others say about its reliability. If you spent less time trying to prove things and instead focused on reporting things, this would not be an issue. Since the source presented only critiques the publisher it is off topic. WP:RS applies to sources we use, its not a method to judge an article. Read the rules before spitting them at people, figuratively obviously. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Searchlight articles connects racism, Lynn, the Pioneer Fund, the Publisher, and the book. I am merely quoting them.Ultramarine (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Connects? It simply is criticizing the publisher and mentions his book is published by them, it does not make any critique of the book. Hence its off-topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lynn is a man. The whole searchlight article describes connections between various far right groups and individuals. It is this web that is interesting.Ultramarine (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However interesting it is off-topic. The book is mentioned only to say it is published by the listed publisher, that is not a criticism of the book, it is a critique of the publisher, place it on the article of the publisher. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole web of far right connections is very relevant background for the book. There is no policy against such information. In fact, NPOV requires its inclusion in order to give the whole picture.Ultramarine (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires both sides of a debate to present. That does not mean making one up. Until you can show there is criticism of the book, it is off topic and not acceptable. Far right connections? web of groups? I ask you step back and think if you are attempting to add relevant information about the book, or if you have another reason to add it. Then write down the quote from the article and ask yourself is this quote about the book, or about the publisher. Information about the publisher should be present in the publishers article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring that all information about the publisher must be in a separate article. I am not making anything up. Just citing Searchlights article who notes this complex web of far right activists. Very relevant background.Ultramarine (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however there is a policy that material being added is about the subject, the subject is the book, the information you are attempting to add is about the publisher, so it is off topic. Further even if one did argue it was on topic, your attempts to link the book to a "complex web of far right activists" would require more then a sole source stating the same information. I am sure you are aware of the policies requiring more sources for more outrageous claims. I welcome any other sources you may have that would perhaps be about the book itself, and not simply a passing 1 sentence mention which only states who the publisher of the book is. I am sure others on this talk page would also appreciate it if those sources were made available for review. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source has been added to Washington Summit Publishers. See my proposal above.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording does not make the article on topic. You are still writing about the publisher and not the book itself. The second source does not mention Lynn, nor the book at all. Kind of speaks for itself when your sources only mention the book in one sentence, simply stating who published it, and the other does not mention it at all. Your claims that the book is connected to a "complex web of far right activists" will need to be about the book itself. More then a passing mention of who the publisher is will be needed to attach the outrageous claim. Is there no criticism directly of the book that can be added? Meaning someone writing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the policy stating that everything regarding the publisher must be in a separate article. Nor is there any policy excluding important background material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me what policy requires information in an article be about the subject of the article? Sorry I do not know where it is written. When you present a policy permitting the influx of fringe conspiracies of "complex web of far right activists" acting in concert, and can then show those sources are discussing this book and not its publisher, let me know. Until then, the article will have to suffice with those preventing off topic information from being permitted. Again I ask, is there no criticism directly of the book that can be added? Meaning someone writing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight is not a fringe source and mentions the book. A book published by WSP probably is a fringe source.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I've inserted an attributed quote from Searchlight Magazine which explains the cntroversiality of WSP. I'd appreciate if editors would stp trying to whitewash the issue and present them as a legitimate, run-of-the-mill publisher, which obviously they're not.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the publisher, the publisher has an article now thanks to Jagz, feel free to place information about the publisher in their own article. Peoples issues with the publisher and accusations against the publisher are off topic as this article is not about them, it is about a book, one of many, they published. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We can't just whitewash the fact that it's a non-academic book, published by a controversial editor. This is relevant info about the book, same for example as if the book were self-published, or published by a reknowned academic publisher (such as there are many).--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you find a reference that criticizes the book you can try that, otherwise you're barking up the wrong tree. Circumstantial evidence isn't going to cut it. --Jagz (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a crime. The reputation of the publisher is a relevant factor. This isn't a peer-reviewed science book and people have a right to know this.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source stating the book is not a "peer reviewed science book" then you can add a line stating Newspaper/Author states in writing for Whoever, the book, Differences in Intelligence is not a peer reviewed title" Oddly enough someone calling the publisher a racist is not stating if the book is peer reviewed or not. They are not actually saying anything about the book at all. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And, BTW, Jagz, you just broke 3RR. Please revert yourself before someone reports you.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Glass houses and stones: [6] [7] [8] [9] --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look again. Two of my edits were actual additions, and not reverts. It seems it is you who are unable to tolerate any criticism of this book and its publisher.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its the same content, it counts as a revert. readding the controversial part over and over, no matter if you slightly reword it. Anyway, I have never read the book, I just care about this thrust to prove "the web of right wing ..." etc by bashing the publisher. If you have someone laying criticism of the book itself then I would have no objection, however grasping at straws by stating the article was a critique of the book when it simply stated the book was published by the WSP, is not criticism of the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis tag

There is no evidence that the publisher was criticized because of this book as the article implies. --Jagz (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at IQ and Global Inequality.Ultramarine (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the sentence several times. I don't see any implication that the publisher was criticized because of this book. Of course, it would be even more obivous that this implication doesn't exist if you hadn't split the sentence. --Ramdrake (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Publisher

The source presented, that keeps being re-added, does not say if it is or not an academic publisher. Please source correctly. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that references should reflect what is being referenced in the article, but entirely removing the passage was not necessary. A simple tweak would have done the job perfectly. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it accordingly, thanks for your suggestion, in the same token, instead of re-adding incorrectly sourced material, your yourself could have simply tweaked it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in tweaking, as I am not involved (nor do I want to be) with this discussion. I have not verified the source so I can't say that I support your claim. The reason I undid your change was to ensure relevant material does not get removed under the pretext of being "incorrectly sourced". — Dorvaq (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material which is mentioned elsewhere already in the article. I do not question your motives, however it seems you should have checked the sourcing. We are not here to build a bunch of words, but a concise and detailed encyclopedia, of which I am sure you are aware. The difference is in the sourcing and reliability of what is written, perhaps you should have simply asked why I removed what I did, instead of admittedly, reverting unsourced information. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am neither obligated to ask anything before editing, nor do I need to check the sources that were removed. But if you want to criticize my courtesy, or lack thereof, for undoing without discussion, well by the same token, you could have had the courtesy to allow other editors respond to your issue before making your edit. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed above. I am opening a new discussion that will hopefully be more orderly below. Obligated? no. Much like I am not obligated to help an old women up after I bump into her and knock her down. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now if you truly desire to achieve consensus through discussion, then discuss before editing. Don't expect me (or anyone for that matter) to discuss anything with you if you're not willing to allow any opportunity to respond before making changes. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you reply again, I promise you can have the last word, since it seemed to be all you are attempting to accomplish. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information regarding publisher

Accusations made against the publisher, not in relation to the book itself, should not be in the article, agree or disagree and why. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In scientific studies all form of potential bias should be listed. Having a racist publisher in a study on races counts.Ultramarine (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a publisher which doesn't use peer review (i.e. non-academic) is a possible indication that the material would not have passed peer review. This is quite relevant for the book. Furthermore, claims of bias (in this case race-related bias) against the publisher is also an indication that the book may suffer from the same bias. This is all relevant information for the book.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating the book suffers from this bias? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for proven bias. Common practice is to list all potential bias in scientific studies.Ultramarine (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy, for you to look up information and include what you feel is bias. Please write up a statement, so I can start an RfC, I do not want to attempt to incorrectly summarize your opinion. I will summarize mine and the RfC can begin. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a racist publisher is not a potential bias in a study on races? Thanks, but I will present my views myself in any RfC. But plesae discus the issue here first. Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that since you do not know if the publisher had an influence on the books contents itself, that you have no proof of bias, no source, and further as you are admitting, you are attempting to state something about the book itself, which no source has done, therefore admittedly engaging in Original Research. On the issue of the RfC, that is what I am asking you to do, type up your views so when I start the RfC, people can view both opinions and discuss, this way it is fair. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a study on smoking published with the financial support of the tobacco industry. No need to prove that this has caused a bias. Just the potential bias is enough. The financial support must disclosed. If there is a RfC, I will certainly present my case.Ultramarine (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the potential bias, if the study was not conducted with such funds, only published? Do you know smoking companies provide the funding for Truth.Com? However their studies are not listed as bias because of that. If they were to be called bias, a source would need to be presented. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will list the RfC, once you have written your position on the topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent) Ramdrake (and Ultramarine for that matter), I completely agree with you regarding listing "claims of bias", but I'm also staunch on having such claims sourced, and sourced correctly. If the publisher is widely criticized for being non-academic and racist, then it should be easy to find references indicating this, no? — Dorvaq (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not if the publisher is racist, it is if the publishers racism, proven or not, is relevant to the book and should be included in every book article from that publisher. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I agree that it is relevant. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Dorvaq regarding the "non-academic" publisher. This specifically should be supported. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Washington Summit Publishers article. Lists several accusations of racism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is their relation to this book? You still have not shown any link, your method of arguing that the book receives money from a racist, is not proof the book is racist/bias. If you could show the WSP funded the study, then you would show bias, but in all cases you need a source to present this, it is not for you to prove, show or make light of. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, then use whatever good references found in that article here. Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source regardless of whether or not the article is well-sourced, and that's Wikipedia policy. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Just pointing out that there are such sources.Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

{{RFCpol }}

Should a statement regarding a publisher be extended to all articles for books they publish? What is specifically in contention is the statement:

“

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the WSP as a White Nationalist Hate Group.[1]

”

• Position 1

1. Information critical of the publisher, that does not mention the book, or author should be included in the publishers article.
2. Information critical of the publisher, that mentions the book only in passing, is not inherently criticism of the book, making inclusion off topic. For isntance an article critical of the publisher, that simply says "Race Differences in Intelligence is published under WSP." Is not making criticism of Race Differences in Intelligence.
3. Information that is negative of a publisher, should not be replicated in every article on each book with a Wikipedia article.
4. The publishers bias, does not factually show bias in the book itself, or the author, as the publishers influence is unknown. To draw such a connection, a source needs to be presented which is stating such bias exists.
5. Attempting to show the book is bias, which is not stated in any source, by showing the publisher is accused of racism, is original research.

• Position 2

1. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of both sides. Take a study on smoking published with the financial support of the tobacco industry. In scientific literature this must be disclosed. No need to prove that this has caused errors in the study. Just the potential influence is enough. The financial support must disclosed because of the potential bias. A racist publisher in a study on races is certainly a potential bias. See the Washington Summit Publishers article.

[edit] Comments

1. In relation to point 1, of position 2. Is it the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to show this link? Is it not policy that Wikipedia does not engage in Original Research? Attempting to show bias by linking one source, a source that accuses the publisher of racism, as a method of showing there is potential bias in this book, without a source to specify that. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just pointing out that the N4GMiraflores wrote position 1. I position 2.Ultramarine (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   I was hoping to keep it anonymous, so no one would argue favorites, etc. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Points 1, 2 and 3 of position 1 aren't supported by any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of (if they are, please cite the appropriate policy. Points 4 and 5 of position 1 seem to fail to make a difference between potential bias and actual bias. The book itself isn't being accused of bias; however, an accusation of bias about the publisher over books of a similar means there is a potential for bias for this book as well. Whether or not there is actual bias isn't the point. Potential bias speaks to the reliability of the book.
• Position 2 is the only one which seems to be firmly grounded in WP policy. The criticism leveled at WSP (for what it chooses to publish is real and sourced. The book being discussed here being of the same nature and topic, there is legitimate contention that the criticism may apply. Thus, the sentence should not be taken as a direct accusation, but as a disclosure of potential bias.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If there was something wrong with the book, you would be able to add a citation criticizing the book without having to resort to criticizing the publisher instead. --Jagz (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating potential bias? You have stated you are attempting to show this, that is a violation of WP:OR. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no claim of "potential bias" the way the sentenced was (or currently is) phrased, which means the passage was not in violation of WP:OR. The "potential bias" part is actually up to the reader to interpret from the factual information presented. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The people adding have already stated the intent is to show potential bias. If the information is being added to show something that is not supported by sources, then its in violation of WP:OR. Actually it is probably worse since its being defended with false intent to game the system. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issue at first was with the description of WSP being "non-academic", which should be properly sourced if added. With what's currently there, the sources do show what is being referenced, albeit more sources could be provided. If no actual claim is being made in the article, and all the information provided is factual and well-sourced, then no violation of WP:OR is being made regardless of intent. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Off topic information is being added to advance a Wikipedians opinion of the book, or to expose what they believe, unsupported by source, to be possible bias. That is WP:OR. The issue of non-academic is not at hand. The discussion is about the quote at hand. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the statement about the publisher amounts to anything more than a fringe opinion and says nothing about the book. It's pretty clear that the publisher fills a niche by offering books that are not considered politically correct. Being politically incorrect does not equate to being unreliable. The statement should be removed from this article; it belongs in the article about the publisher. --Jagz (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by outsiders

The users in the preceding Comments section have repeatedly debated this question in previous sections of this talk page. I suggest that this subsection be reserved for people outside the controversy. It might be interesting and informative to hear from neutral outsiders without being buried by comments from those involved in the controversy. I myself don't yet have a comment but probably will have one after studying some more. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe original synthesis is pretty clear on this. What you basically have is a case of: John says A. Bob says John is always wrong. Therefore, Bob says not-A. This statement is what is prohibited, by advancing a position not explicitly supported by either source (assuming the case that Bob never actually mentioned the one book). Now the problem here is that forming any juxtaposition of facts that even suggests this forbidden claim is also forbidden when one of your sources is not about the article topic itself (i.e. when it's obviously been include for the purpose of suggesting that fact). Someguy1221 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• To me, this comes down to a simple question: Have reliable sorces discussed the issue of the publisher's bias in the context of discussing this particular book? If not, then mentioning the bias of the publisher is indeed Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• As something else to note, I'd like anyone who wants to include the criticism to consider a much more obvious case, whether Criticism of Christianity (especially criticisms of christians as a people) should be mentioned on every article about a christian. The answer is an obvious no, and we select only those articles that were specifically targeted by the criticism to have mention of it. It's already stated in the article that the book was published by Washington Summit Publishers, so readers interested in the publisher can then follow the handy blue link. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• As editors our job is to report what the book says. The book itself is the primary source for what the book says. Reviews of the book are secondary sources for what the book says. I presume that the book itself does not include the statement in question. Do any of the reviewers include that statement? If not, then the statement must go. Even if some reviewers mention it, is it a significant minority who mention it or is it just a fringe opinion? Bottom line: stick to the sources - i.e. sources about what the book says. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A website critical of the publisher, accuses the publisher of racism. There is no mention of the book in one source presented, the other source mentioned only states this book is published by them, without stating anything about the book itself. None of them are reviews of the book. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then such criticims belong in the article on Washington Summit Publishers, and not in this article. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing reference: Kamin 1995

The reference for Kamin 1995 is missing. It was previously linked to Race and Intelligence, which does not have a citation for Kamin 1995 (at least that I could find). Could somone who is familiar with this field find the reference? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)