Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New bell curve "Jobs"

Susan, why did you add that nonsense to the graph, the jobs might as well read "field negro" "house negro" "Uppity negro" and "Race and intelligence expert." This chart has got to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen. There are people who take this seriously? JJJamal 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it completely obscures the point of the original graphic, which is to explain that differences are distributional, not typological. the "jobs" graphic would be appropriate for the "significance" topic. The jobs data itself is from Wonderlic (1992) and is based on studies done with the WPT IQ test.[1] --W.R.N. 03:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the graphic should be used in the way Gottfredson intended and not taken out of context. futurebird 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is Gottfredson's point in her words: "The two bell curves in the upper part of the figure, which represent blacks and whites, make several important points. First, both groups produce a bell curve that covers the full range of what is called normal intelligence (IQ 70-130). Second, the major difference between the two bell curves is that the black distribution is centered about 15 points lower on the IQ continuum than the white distribution when measured by the most widely-used test of adult intelligence, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Third, the two bell curves overlap a lot, so it is not possible to know anyone’s IQ by knowing their race."[2] (p. 27). That's the text immediately proceeding the point where Gottfredson indicated the chart to be inserted. The unannotated chart makes that most clearly. Moreover, that's the point we want to make -- correcting that #1 misunderstanding. --W.R.N. 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the point you want to make you need another source to do it. I don't understand how it is helpful to use curves that don't reflect population size. Gottfredson's curves are rather roughly drawn, as is this approximation of those curves. This is acceptable only because of the rough ideas she's trying to convey using this graph. It's more of a diagram than a graph, when you think about it. Moreover, this type of graph represents a certain kind of POV. Without the labels it could be misinterpreted to be an exact presentation of IQ scores. It is not an exact representation of IQ scores, it's a part of a thesis on the implications of the gap in a social context. Taking it out of context and removing the labels makes it seem more scientific than it really is.

On the wikipedia we favor more information over less. Removing the labels removes important information about the way the graph was made to further a POV on this topic by obscuring the nature of the kind of discourse this graph was designed to promote.futurebird 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

we don't favor more information over less information in all cases. we are talking about a graph. we don't keep every single measurement, even though keeping every measurement would be favoring more information. the older graph was pretty easy to interpret. yes, populations are different sizes, but was anyone confused by a representation where they were drawn similarly? normalization is a fairly simple, intuitive process.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs)

It is not an exact representation of IQ scores -- FB, that argument is (frankly) nonsense. the actual distribution of IQ scores is not know, thus using statistics you take a sample and the sampled distribution is an estimator of the actual population distribution. because IQ scores are mathematically modeled to look like a normal distribution, the actual population distributions turn out to look just about like a normal distribution.

the kind of discourse this graph was designed to promote -- the discourse the graph was designed to promote is exactly the text I copied into the section above: "The two bell curves in the upper part of the figure, which represent blacks and whites, make several important points. First, both groups produce a bell curve that covers the full range of what is called normal intelligence (IQ 70-130). Second, the major difference between the two bell curves is that the black distribution is centered about 15 points lower on the IQ continuum than the white distribution when measured by the most widely-used test of adult intelligence, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Third, the two bell curves overlap a lot, so it is not possible to know anyone’s IQ by knowing their race." - check the article yourself. that's the article you cited as the source of the chart. Gottfredson's 30+ page paper discusses many points, but the *background* material presented is the most important part for us in the lead -- the three "important points" she describes. those points are the mainstream view of scholars about BW differences in IQ. suggesting that only photocopy-like replications of published figures should be used is not WP policy. helpful and informative diagrams are highly recommended, and it really does require a figure to explain how two distributions can have different means but be overlapping, etc. --W.R.N. 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll and formal mediation

Could we have a quick straw poll as to where we still have disagreement? WRN wants to go to mediation, and I'd like to include everyone here who may have an opinion.

As far as I can see, we have two options:

1) Organize articles with "Race and intelligence" containing a sub-article "Race and intelligence (Research)", and subsequent sub-sub-articles under there.

2) Organize articles with "Race and intelligence" being primarily focused on research, and having all sub-articles in "Race and intelligence (Research)" moved up to be sub-articles of "Race and intelligence".

3) One article which is succinct and to the point including appendices of specific research. --Kevin Murray 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we please have an informal straw poll of who supports option 1 and who supports option 2? --JereKrischel 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

• Option 1 --JereKrischel 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Option 1 --futurebird 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Option 1 --JJJamal 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Option 1 --JonathanE 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Option 3 --Kevin Murray 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Huh? (is this unsigned or part of RIK below?)

I don't support option 2 as written. every major topic that can fill a substantially-sized sub-article should have such a sub-article and should have a single summary-style section in the main article. the main article should be the focus of all material in this topic, and all of it should be accessible and summarized in the main article. the difference between my suggestion and the one JK has implemented is primarily that my suggestion avoids a unwieldy duplication of materials in 3-tiers of articles when 2 is demonstrably sufficient. --W.R.N. 08:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to rewrite option 2 as you wish. I don't believe that in option 1 there is any need for duplication of materials, but simply a concerted effort to make sure materials go in the right place. We'll consider your vote in this straw poll as your own option, as you wish to define it. I suggest we avoid characterizing what we believe the differences between our options are until mediation is started - simply describe your option as a course of action, not as a rebuttal to our proposed option. --JereKrischel 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But to be clear here and now, the difference is that I'm arguing for sticking with 2 levels of articles, a hub and many spokes. whereas the current article structure as you have built it has 3 levels, meaning that material at level 3 has to be summarized in level 2 and then again at level 1. --W.R.N. 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We can probably eliminate the level 1 summaries, and simply push things down to level 2. It will probably mean a lot less kb of article, and just might get this main article into a workable size. --JereKrischel 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

in the way we've written it, I think your "level 1" = my "level 3". The problem with that is what you actually have to eliminate are the level 2 (intermediate) articles from the 3-tier scheme. There are two of them currently, "research" and "controversies". IMO, these should go, and the articles nested under them should be just 1 step away from the main article. there wouldn't seem to be a net effect in the main article from this. it should never be bigger than a list of short summary style sections. --W.R.N. 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are so many sub-topics and sheer data under both research and controversies, that having a three tiered structure is critical. Unless what you're suggesting is that we prune the main article down to nothing but an intro and links to sub-articles...is that a suggestion on the table? --JereKrischel 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The main article, being a summary style main article, should and mostly does contain individual sections of summary (<=3 paragraphs each) with a "main" link to the subarticle where detail are contained. the current 2nd tier articles "research" and "controversies" don't map to single ~3-paragraph entries in the main article, but rather to large sections which themselves contain ~3-paragraph subsections. then the 2nd tier articles contain near identical duplications of what's in the main article, sometimes in a little more detail. this is an unnecessary and problematic intermediate step. here's how summary style and this article should work: every topic that is significant should have one principle subarticle and one corresponding summary section in the main article. if the detail in that principle subarticle grows too long, then summary style can be iterative repeated on that article. there shouldn't be any "many-to-many" networks among the subarticles. merely as an organizational aid, in the main article like subarticles can/should be nested under headings, but the super-headings should not have their own subarticles. that's what currently exists and is a problem. --W.R.N. 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what I'm suggesting is that we should prune the 3rd tier summaries from the 1st tier article, and only have them in the 2nd tier. Simply put, I believe there are too many articles you would consider "significant" without any thought to organization and hierarchy - we could have 2-3 paragraphs on three dozen topics here, and be right back where we started. Organizing ourselves in larger swaths allows us to make the main article a fairly simple one, and go into any level of depth we want...as an article gets too big for its britches, we simply subdivide in some logical fashion, and add a tier. I believe we've already gotten to that point to justify 3 tiers, although in some cases you may want to go as far as 4, due to the copious detail. --JereKrischel 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is a survey of experts in media portryal?

S&R they wrote 2 things. the first was a survey of experts. the 2nd was about media portrayal. --W.R.N. 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The survey of experts is a media portrayal. S&R's survey, as well as collective statements, etc, are media presentations regarding R&I. Seems like a good fit. --JereKrischel 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, all publications about R&I are media portrayal. By any reasonable standard, a survey of academics and a scholarly review paper (both) published in the journal American Psychologist are not instances of "media" portrayal. The topic of these publications isn't media portrayal. You're gonna want to reconsider. --W.R.N. 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, most publications about R&I are simply media portrayals of opinion - but I think you can draw a line between published research, and published polemic and opinion. The whole point of the survey was an opinion poll - the heartsblood of any media portrayal or public relations campaign. Much like the REB pamphlet, and even TBC can be considered media portrayals, not research. --JereKrischel 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

most publications about R&I are simply media portrayals of opinion - no, that's the opposite of what i said. i said that things published in scholarly journals, like the content you moved, are not "media portrayals".

draw a line between published research, and published polemic and opinion -- let's step away from that policy-violating perspective

whole point of the survey was an opinion poll - the heartsblood of any media portrayal or public relations campaign -- don't you think that's a novel (OR) spin on this? what sources say that the S&R survey published in the journal American Psychologist was a "media portrayal" or "public relations campaign"? and what about the APA report, which is part of the same section?

Much like the REB pamphlet, and even TBC can be considered media portrayals, not research. -- acting on that personal belief while editing would introduce a lot of editor-originating bias. i believe this highlights the danger inherent in an organizational scheme any more complicated than having a main article with numerous top level summary style sections/sub-articles.

what you've written here has a serious policy problem. think about it. --W.R.N. 11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I said that the survey of experts was an opinion poll, and that opinion polls are certainly well within the bailiwick of media portrayal.

Insofar as REB/TBC, are you arguing that either of those is actual research? Perhaps your personal beliefs on that are a source of editor-originating bias. Maybe if we were clearer about what we meant by "research" the process would be easier for the both of us. What do you see as the boundaries of "research" in the R&I field? Would you consider Rushton, or even Murray's work research? --JereKrischel 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I said that the survey of experts was an opinion poll, and that opinion polls are certainly well within the bailiwick of media portrayal. - except that doesn't actually make any sense. opinion polls, as in political polls, do get reported in the media, but that doesn't make the S&R(1987) opinion poll about media portrayal. descriptions of it as media portrayal would be about media portrayal. the part we write about in the section in question is about opinions regarding the cause of group differences -- not about media portrayal.

I'm going to let the REB/TBC thing go for now because it's distracting you. --W.R.N. 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can make this really simple - an opinion poll about R&I explanations is not R&I research. It is an opinion poll. Opinion polls are part of the media portrayal of a topic. --JereKrischel 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The content of a publication determines its organization and placement within the article, not its form or your opinions about its authors intentions. You couldn't start a section called "propaganda" and put everything you think is actually propaganda in it, but you could put in it POVs about propaganda. --W.R.N. 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you - the content of a publication (an opinion poll), determines its organization and placement within the article (under media portrayal). The content of the S&R survey was an opinion poll. An opinion poll is part of the media portrayal of the topic. --JereKrischel 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting something that's very simple. I'll let you think about it and hopefully you'll have figured out your mistake. --W.R.N. 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll hope that you'll think about it and figure out your mistake as well. If we're lucky, the realization of both our mistakes will lend itself to some common ground. --JereKrischel 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, I don't think that a survey is really a scientific study like these other studies we have. It's more like a way for the media of put their finger to the wind and see say "Hey? what's the trend with all the professors and scientists?" It's not like there is is some kind of final judge of who is right and who is wrong in science. It is just like how we do it here at this wiki: we see what consensus builds up over time, more and more people say "Here is what I think!" and then, after a long, long time you have a consensus. So, it would be confusing if we start treating these things like they're science, or like they are, in some kind of way, the final say-so on who is right and who is wrong. There is no final judge, my friends, but time. And let me tell you, time will tell, on this issue. JJJamal 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of factually inaccurate and unverifiable statements are included in your reasoning, but they're actually beside the point. The *topic* of the section is "explanations" and not "media portrayal". It's the topic of a publication, not it's form or methods used in building it that dictate its context in the article. I'm afraid that the word "research" is confusing editors, and so it's probably not the appropriate term to use in the article/series structure. --W.R.N. 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an explanation, and a media portrayal of an explanation. An opinion poll is a media portrayal, not an explanation itself. --JereKrischel 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An opinion poll is a research tool; but the opinion poll itself isn't what's in WP - WP includes a summary what these authors wrote in their papers. The papers by S&R and the APA do not regard themselves as being media portrayals and do not claim to be trying to affect media presentation.

Here's the litmus test. Show me the sources that say what you just said about the S&R 1987 survey and the APA report. Then summarize those sources in the media portrayal section, but what S&R and the APA authors say about explanations of the gap belong in the "explanations" article either way. --W.R.N. 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding recent edits and reversions

I returned s lot of material which was removed and removed a lot of recent bloat which is infesting thei article. It is becoming a commentary on US racism rather than an article on the subject. While I agree with most of what has been said, it is still propaganda when included here. I think that editors among us are trying to distract the readers from the topic to dillute the sad fact portrayed here. Denial is not the solution to understanding. --Kevin Murray 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, why did you cut the entire media portrayal section? It's not commentary, it explains how race and intelligence have been shown to be linked in contexts outside of research. Research isn't the only way of looking at this topic. It could be shorter, but we must have it it's a top-level category. futurebird 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is way off point to the discussion of this topic, and very loosely tied. Really, bringing a star wars characheter in a demonstration of race and intellegence. A lot of the recent additions you have made here since the article are unlocked are making this a US centered black versus white debate. This article has been about variances in intelelgence as measured. I think that you are dilluting the message with bloat. I appluad your humanity and share your concern about harm that can be done, but ignoring the issues is not productive. This whole thing needs some mediation.

I have tried to ge this back on track for weeks, but this has devolved. My efforts today have been get us back to where we were when the article was protected, but keep some of the more supportable changes. But like anything here it is politicized by the likes of Ultramarine, who is now accusing me of reversions. So be it if I stepped over the foul line in my enthusiasm.

--Kevin Murray 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

kevin, your changes have removed summary sections and and thus orphaned a large amount of content that underlies this article in the form of sub-articles. it's not a "move back to [the] protected article" but a very different new article, which fails to mention all of the topics that WP currently has content for in this series. some of the stuff you removed may not be very good content, and may ultimately be removed for policy reasons, but it's not a good idea to do what you've done right now. --W.R.N. 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I could never get to my goal because either RIK or Ultramarine reverted me. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin you've deleted sourced content that's not in the sub-articles such as the subsection under race about "race as a social construct" if you want to trim content, please MOVE it to the the sub articles, don't just delete things. I'm quite annoyed about these new changes. I know you're trying to help but please just stop and think about what you're doing here... Okay? I'm going to revert all of your deletions. I agree that the article is bloated, but this is not the way to go about fixing it.futurebird 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• No progress is going to be made withou mediation. At mediation I will advocate the removal of most of the recent changes. FB, I empathize with your position, but you are taking this article way off track. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin. I think that this subject is tricky because everyone here has a POV, including you. The fact that you think that "media portrayal" is irrelevant or a "distraction" simply isn't supported by all the academic literature. A lot of scholars have written about this and to them the social context and the history of racism are the essence of this topic. To others, the research is primary. Some see both as important. The article should reflect all of these view points, including what you called "sad facts." By making the only focus of the article research we're doing a disservice to our readers. Information about "media" WOULD be clutter if it were in the sub-article on "race and intelligence research", but it has a place in the main article, as do data about IQ and the history of this topic and the controversies surrounding it.

I've removed Jar jar and the white supremacy section since they are a bit more... marginal, and out of respect for the view you and WD take of the subject. I've also removed one of the scatter plots. I hope this was helpful. We have a long way to go in this process and we could us your help here: Race and intelligence (interpretations) sorting out the multiple version so that no sourced statements are lost. Do you think you could help us do that? Once the sub articles are in good shape we'll revise the main article to reflect them-- but for now, let's not make any huge revisions to the main article. futurebird 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• FB I agree with your statement "let's not make any huge revisions to the main article." The problem is that you and others have rapidly made huge revisions in the last couple of weeks, to what once was a fairly stable article. It is now more about racisim in the US than the science, and the topic is chopped up into multiple small articles that will be misperceived out of the context of the whole and subject to willi-nilly editing and deletion. See prposela to revert to protected version below. My POV is that heres should be succinct meaningful article. --Kevin Murray 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I made one attempt at major changes and it was swiftly reverted. Mostly, I have been adding new sourced material. I only ask that it not be deleted.

Every time there is a major change or revert I get disoriented and it takes time for me to find out what was lost and start putting things in order. What about the old version did you think was better? Why do you think that the history of race and intelligence is irrelevant? Why do you think the way it is portrayed in the media is irrelevant? Can you make some specific proposal for changes to what we have here now?futurebird 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Is inappropriate because: 1. Presents one side as a fact without discussing arguments agains. 2. Incomplete, there are many other studies and listings not mentioned. 3. Presents material from nonacademic sources such as self-published trade books.Ultramarine 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I would welcome more information adde to the table. All of the information is from recognized sources although I don't agree with all of it. I would be happy to work with you to improve this table, which is at this point one of the few objective areas of the article --Kevin Murray 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Lynn latest book is a trade book, not from academic press. Again, NPOV requires that the arguments against these data should also be presented.Ultramarine 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

books that have been reviewed in scholarly journals and treated like scholarly works by the reviewers are ostensibly scholarly themselves, as lynn's book is. whether his publisher is an academic imprint or not has no bearing on that issue. however, reason #2 is a potential problem. --W.R.N. 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, I disagree. 2 is the main problem, having a long table without opposing views.Ultramarine 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

UM, can you point us to some alternative research, which we can include to support your position. If you cna get me half way, I'll include the research. --Kevin Murray 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lynn's book is not an academic source. But again, the most important thing is that these tables give the impression that this is undisputed and unchanging. It should be presented in context.Ultramarine 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a bigger problem with the table is that it is asserting a false dichotomy. Conflating various bits of research that are disputed in their interpretation, and arguable of distinctly differend POVs is troublesome. If we want a table based on "individual arguments", the only column headings should be the proponent of a specific argument (i.e., Rushton and his B-W-EA hierarchy, or Flynn and his effect), and specific rebuttals to it. Categorizing any given argument as belonging to one POV or another isn't appropriate. --JereKrischel 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• JK can we develop an example of this format? I'm not wed to the format of the table, nor the content, but I do think that it adds value in several ways including taking the focus off this topic being a US centered black & white subject. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This new empty bell curve image

While the distributions of IQ scores among different racial-ethnic groups in the US overlap and often have a comparable range, groups differ in where their members cluster along the IQ scale. The cause of the difference between groups is unknown. Genetic explanations have no direct empirical support.^[1].

I think that this image is like saying "this topic is really just all about IQ and test score differences." For a lot of us here this topic is a lot more than just test scores. It's about how the media has portrayed people as being stupid, it's about the history of scientific racism. So, I must know, why is it that an image that relates to test score research gets to be the lead? People always look that the pictures first. I think that the lead image, if we have one ought to be neutral. This image has a certain POV behind it, and that is the POV that this topic is mostly about looking at test scores and saying "look how bad all these people did on this test I made up!" There is a lot of debate about this. So, it's not fair to use this image. I'll see what others say, though, before I move it off to it's place in the new research section.JJJamal 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

the topic explained by the image is one which is greatly facilitated by a graphic because the concepts of probability distributions are going to be foreign to most readers, where the graphic makes them clearer. an image in the lead doesn't need to encapsulate an entire topic, but it should be of general importance. the distribution of IQ scores and the meaning of an average difference between two groups is clearly of importance to the topic. --W.R.N. 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but I don't know if this address Jamal's issue that this pushes a POV. Is there an image that could represent the other concerns here? Perhaps we could have two images? futurebird

You can have as many images as appropriate to the context, but not liking something that a large number of scholars are on record as supporting is not a reason to not mention that something in WP. The existence of average IQ differences is described as "uncontested" by a great many sources, which indicates the relative commonality of the view. --W.R.N. 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Jar jar... no just kidding. I think we should have no image in the lead untill we think of somthing that works better than this. I honestly think this image just makes it all about IQ, testing and gaps, when it's also about racism, perceptions, media, history and controversey. The ideal image would be Gould and someone like Charles Murray in an heated debate... something like that. futurebird 22:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the relevance of this particular image is that it has a "thousand words" quality to it. It easily explains something that is otherwise, IMO, hard to understand. Assuming that most readers only look at the lead, it seems like a lost educational opportunity to not disabuse people their typological thinking about group differences. We can rename the x-axis to be something other than IQ if that's what's distracting about it. --W.R.N. 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White supremacists section, not in the main article

I never intended this for the main article. As it grows over time it may warrant mention in the main article, but white supremacists groups, for all of their offensiveness and habitual abuse of research on race and intelligence are not terribly influential or important. Ideally there will be a few sentences in the main article about this probably in a paragraph that also covers the Pioneer Fund and other items related to blatant racism. But, at this point, I feel having this section is undue weight, rather like having all of the information about how Jenson got death threats or the S & R study in the main article-- these are issues that are a part of the controversy, but I don't think that many serious academics are worried about "stormfront" and their ilk. Also, it's not fair to try to equate academic racism with "hate groups" the academic often think that they are doing the right thing, and they even think they "care about black people" to use a Westism... :P -- futurebird 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree. if the controversies article can becomes more than a mere duplication of what's in the main article section, i would probably retract my objection to it. i don't think the research article could/will ever become more than a repeat, but i stand open to be corrected. --W.R.N. 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was simply trying to match the top-level outline to the 2nd level outline...what we should probably do is come up with a good intro section for controversies, and remove all 2nd level summaries from the 1st level. I'll see what I can come up with. --JereKrischel 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the only reason I put this in the main article was because I didn't know where it should go and things were moving around too much and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.futurebird 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instability of this article

I've reviewed back through the history of this article for the last year. Clearly this is and has been a controversial topic, but up until just before the article was protected in late January, it was a fairly stable article. However, since the protection was removed on February 11, this article has become bloated with unrelated material, and much of the excellent materials have been removed either completely or to sub articles.

What was a very good article has now become almost unrecognizable virtually overnight over 7 days.

I propose that we revert this article to the protected version (Jan 22) and come to an orderly consensus on specific changes to be administered by an neutral editor or editors. Or perhaps someone could suggest another earlier version, which would be a good starting point. --Kevin Murray 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. I think that will be too confusing, and we'll risk losing sourced information. futurebird 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All materials and sources are archived in the history. Nothing is lost unless there is a deletion by a Admin. --Kevin Murray 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is going in the right directing. Moving back would be a step in the wrong direction. Please give us time (and help?) reseolve the current version in to something coherent. futurebird 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin might be right here, but wouldn't it be linked to the initiation of formal mediation? If we could decide on a "stable" version of the article, we could continue the discussion and editing in the talk space. Would that be a solution? --W.R.N. 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. --Kevin Murray 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to count the 3-tier structure as stable, pending our mediation request. Moving back to January 22nd would probably cause more disagreement at this point, and having the current structure in place gives us a better example of what people are proposing. --JereKrischel 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You will get less argument from me if i see the history section restored and the research tables returned. Also if you stop reverting people's work without discussion. --Kevin Murray 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you felt there was too much history? futurebird 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I felt that there was way to much detailed history being put into the introductory paragraphs, and suggested that it was better to move those additions to the history section if not redundant there. --Kevin Murray 01:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need you show me where and how this is happening. I think, in terms of restoring the old history section, you have point. It was good section, if a little too long. Could you take a look at the new history article and come up witha better summary than what we have now? I think WD just left the first two paragraphs there as a place holder and ther're pretty random. If you can come up with something about the same size I'm all for improving that "summary" (it's not really a summary right now...) futurebird 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As for moving things from other places in to the history section can you give a few examples of what you have in mind? futurebird 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• At this point I am still advocating backing up to Jan 22. I said above that I would be willing to compromise and that a starting point would be returning the research tables and the history section, and working forward from that point. FB, if you can achieve those requests without being reverted, I'll join your team with the utmost respect, however, otherwise I hold out for reversion and mediation. --Kevin Murray 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um. Why do I have to do it? I didn't take them out... Are you basically saying that if this doesn't happen you'll revert the article back to what it was a month ago? futurebird 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had to do anything. And I said that if we don't take meaningful steps back toward the stable article, I will continue to advocate the return of the protected version, which is moving back 7 days of mahem since it was unprotected on 2-11. --Kevin Murray 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I have watched the article for years I know that it has never been particularly stable. The article and subarticles should certainly not be moved back to the earlier protected which which was very biased.Ultramarine 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Stable is a relative term. I've reviewed the history today; it was more stable over several years than it has been in the recent several days. --Kevin Murray 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is probably true. But instability is not evidence for poor quality, only that people disagree.Ultramarine 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Notwithstanding my agreement with your specific statement. In this case instability is causing a rapid decline in the quality of this article. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you just don't agree with the direction this article is going and you want to say "let's put it back my way." You have not told us exactly what is problem that you have with the changes. I think that the goal behind all of this is to make all the people who've been working on this article hard for the better just lose their minds and plain give up. So, I don't see how going backwards is a good idea at all for this article. If you want to put the history section back you got to make it a summary. That's the way we're organizing it now. Try and see if you can work with us. Okay? JJJamal 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Jamal, I've very clearly explained here and above what my objections are. So I "got to" do it your way if it is to come back. Really? Years of work gets pulled apart in 7 days and I'm the one who has to do it your way. No kidding? --Kevin Murray 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

keep the rhetoric cool. --W.R.N. 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, we need to be civil. JJJamal 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, most of the new summary sections are not very high in quality compared to what they replaced. clearly, better summary sections are needed -- in addition to the other issues in the mediation. i'll reask my Q: if we could decide on a "stable" version of the article, not perfect but agreeable, we could continue the discussion and editing in the talk space. Would that be a solution? --W.R.N. 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that you propose a "stable" version which we can evaluate. I'm game. --Kevin Murray 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting locking the article again? That didn't work the last time that we tried it. We can come up with new summary sections, though. JJJamal 02:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was to use an old version of the article as a temporary "stable" replacement while all the outstanding issues are mediated. That way the article isn't left hanging at a low-quality mid-transition point. It would take a ton of effort to fix all of the summary section, but of course that's an ultimate goal. --W.R.N. 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you pick a "high quality" version and roll back, and we can see whether we can gain consensus? --Kevin Murray 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultra, JJJamal and I have all said that we don't think this is good idea. Let's see what JK says. Right now there is no agreement to make this change. futurebird 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about a vote, it is about coming to consensus for the best encyclopedic article not a soapbox for redressing the evils of racisism and white supremacy etc. I can't see any solution without intervention at this point. --Kevin Murray 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that this isn't about a vote. It's about finding some middle ground. Simply forcing this revert isn't finding middle ground. I've asked questions about what changes you think we should make and you have not answered them. I think it'd help if you'd start by doing that. I've raised concerns about sourced information being lost that have not been taken seriously. I'm getting that "steam-rollered" feeling again. Can we talk about this more, please? 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add this, I do support making new summaries, as long as information with footnotes is not lost in the process. That is my major objection to the revert. futurebird 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

personal discussion of civility removed --Kevin Murray 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is it now? JJJamal 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attempt to address instability issue and prevent edit warring

i reverted to the locked page version, but the page itself is not locked. i made a custom tag at the top explaining the current state of the article/dispute. i copied the last version of the article before my reversion to Talk:Race and intelligence/unstable version. note that is linked from the box at the top of the article, so everyone should be able to find that page. --W.R.N. 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for doing this. I think that you should change it back. futurebird 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been no consensus for the changes in the last 7 days either. WRN has picked a good course for stability. No information from footnotes or otherwise is lost. --Kevin Murray 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unstable version" is POV pushing, and I kindly ask that we avoid the term. I've made a sub-page for Talk:Race and intelligence/older version, and if you want to continue edits there, please feel free. The current recent work done by editors should be preserved at this point, until mediation is finished. --JereKrischel 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray's proposal is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. I agree that "unstable version" is POV pushing. Also, it is practically sacrosanct here that anyone protecting a page do so regardless of its status/condition. We NEVER protect the page at its so-called "stable version." In fact, our portection policy states clearly and up-front, "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one." If the page gets protected it will be in its current state. This is not an endorsement of the current version, just an indicator of when in the dispute the decision was made to protect the page until heads cooled down and people reached a solution. I personally would be hard-pressed to protect the page until someone could explain to me why when the page was protected for three weeks they couldn't resolve their conflicts. If the answer is, more time was needed, I would be very suspicious. We do not want pages protects for such long periods of time, period. Lengthy protection ought to be avoided as much as possible. That said, I see that this dispute is now in formal mediation. I think it should be up to the mediator whether or not to protect the page. Unless the mediator feels it is warranted it would be a mistake to protect this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reversion

A lot of information was lost in this reversion. I strongly suggest that editors find the information in this reverted version of the page that they wish to preserve and then: 1. revert the reversion (if that makes sense) 2. add the information

Can we please do this instead? futurebird 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

nothing is lost because we've just moved the editing out of the main space and into the talk space. hopefully this will (1) circumvent the stability issue and (2) ease tensions that are currently poisoning debate.

we were stuck starring at that version for a long time. does a little more time hurt us? we can work on the "unstable" version on the talk page and if we arrive at another consensus version that can become the new "stable" version? --W.R.N. 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Just worried things will get lost. futurebird 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If no one does any further editing to the main article, then nothing can get lost b/c we're just one edit away from where things were. Ultimately, nothing can be lost because the article history never expires. If losing things or similar is a fear and we can agree on it, we can request page protection (rather than the voluntary situation we have now). --W.R.N. 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I think editing in the talk space will do a lot to reduce the tension everyone is seems to be feeling when any changes are made. Hopefully this will cool tempers. --W.R.N. 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we did this in a more open way. futurebird 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

if you disagree please say so. whatever you do, don't actually start editing from the current page. revert back 1 step if you insist, but editing from the current page content would be a total mess. --W.R.N. 04:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Having the page in this version will influence the direction of moderation. It minimizes 7 hard days of work. The media portrayal section isn't there anymore. The article structure is less clear in this version. I think we should undo this revert and then add in the history section and tables and then close it down for mediation. We can resolve the issue of the table in the process of mediation. I have no problem with the history section, being there.futurebird 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The last 7 days minimizes the efforts of many people over several years. --Kevin Murray 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think editing in the talk space will be any better than editing the real page. New people are coming here all the time and their edits will be lost if we put it in a hard to find location. futurebird 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

please don't have an edit war over a proposal that's meant to eliminate edit wars. --W.R.N. 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've asked for intervention from Admins to protect the page as this is now out of control --Kevin Murray 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR multiple times and have been reported.Ultramarine 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is patently not true. Although some of the same information was included within changes the changes were different in scope. --Kevin Murray 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The response to my request for intervention was this: "The best opportunity for this dispute, at this point, is to file at WP:RFAR" Do we want to go to arbitration or work things out? --Kevin Murray 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can try mediation first. Did you read my note below? futurebird 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The admins recently involved in this expressed doubt that mediation could work and suggested going directly to arbitration. WRN has tried to work a compromise, weeks ago I tried to develop a workable solution, but as soon as the article was unlocked it all fell apart. Now you and UM are reverting the efforts and playing a lot of games. I'd like to work with WRN's plan if you will stop reverting his efforts. --Kevin Murray 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I only made one reversion...and I'm sorry about that for the reasons I explained below. futurebird 05:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

When I reverted the article recently I was doing so to correct the version Ultra reverted to, which seemed to be from my last edit. (very nice but we must collaborate) I didn't know that Kevin had revered it before me. My intention was not to start an edit war, but rather to support Ultra's change, by modifying it slightly so that edits by WD, and others, that happened in between would not be lost. I hope everyone understands. futurebird 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] don't remove "unexplained" tags

this is directed generally and at Ultramarine in specific (see this edit and this edit). if you don't understand what's meant by a tag, ask for clarification on the talk page, but don't remove the tags. if no answer is forthcoming, be patient and/or leave a message on the talk page of the person who left the tag.

i intend to tag the detailed articles further and i hope these requests will be honored. --W.R.N. 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It really is better to just leave them there. Or replace them with a source. I do the same thing as WRN all the time, and I tend to expect that any objections to tag will come up on the talk page. Now I want to make a little request that we (try to) refrain from doubble tagging like this^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss][citation needed]} one ought to be enough, right? futurebird 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you see something redundant like that, I think it would be straightforward and noncontroversial to fix it. Because the aim of the tags is to point out small problems specifically, if you can fix the problem you should of course do so. --W.R.N. 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice: Archiving warning

Folks, the page was un-protected six days ago. And the talk page is way too long. Tomorrow I am going to do some archiving - I will minimally archive everything up to and including the request for comment - e.g. from the top of this page to about Feb. 2. I may archive more, as this page really is too long. So I want to give you time to look at any of the stuff that was written on say the top third of this talk page, and make sure that anything of value that you want in the article has been put in the article, before I archive it. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Slrub! LTNS. Im trying an experiment (for no particular reason its at Talk:Barack Obama) on using an alternate topical system for archiving - as a way to organise the chatter on busy talk pages. Maybe it could work for this one? I think (process just now being formulated) that the first thing would be to identify the main topics for discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence/topics, and then copy archived text to there, reformatting and retitling/metatitling headers if necessary. The standard chronological archive would be preserved of course, and some system for directly linking sections of the topical archive to the chronological one seems like its in order. What do you think? -Ste|vertigo 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve. It sounds like a good idea but I think it is a bad idea to have two systems at once (not just at any article, but at WP). My suggestion: explore the technical aspects of using both i.e. cross-referencing so that people have two different ways to access archives. I think this may require real technical work by people savvy with such things. I don't think it should be done on an ad hoc basis. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood: Figure out a system, call on technical means if necessary. I dont think there will be a problem provided the normal archiving is done first and linked to thoroughly. There is no footer like system that works accross different pages, AFAIK, but something usable can be done with templates. Posting to wikien. -Ste|vertigo 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)