Talk:IQ and Global Inequality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Update tag

Is this justified? A fair number of reviews are from 2010. While the article may not be WP:COMPLETE, does it miss anything that important to justify the tag? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be argued that the scores should be updated since Lynn has revised them in a separate paper.Miradre (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unjustified. This is valid information from the book that is the subject of the article, as I understand it. Separate papers shouldn't be considered regarding this article, but they may be referred to.84.249.89.126 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lynn's updated scores

I think WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Mankind Quarterly normally isn't a reliable source, but it's only being cited here for the fact that Lynn later revised the IQ scores presented in this book. As per this policy, someone making a claim about their own research can be cited even to a self-published or questionable source. This was in the wrong section, though, since Lynn's update to the book isn't part of its reception. This should be mentioned in the section where the IQ scores are listed, so I'll put it there.Boothello (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the article Lynn published in MQ was not ABOUT MQ which is where WP:ABOUTSELF would come in. So it doesn't apply.

BTW, so are you or are you not the user User:Ephery? I didn't see you answer that directly. Given that that user is topic banned from Race & Intelligence... not sure if I should be continuing this conversation. Volunteer Marek  06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF. That policy specifically makes reference to posts at social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook being reliable sources in this situation. If this policy means these are reliable sources only about the sites or journals where they appear, then that means someone's post at Twitter is a reliable source at Twitter itself, but not about the person making the post. That doesn't make any sense. The point of this policy is that sources like Twitter (or Mankind Quarterly) can't be counted on to ensure content there is accurate, so anything published there can only be taken on the author's authority. Most authors can be considered authorities about themselves. But they can't always be considered authorities about the forums they use to express their viewpoints, whether that's Twitter, Mankind Quarterly, or anything else.

And no, I'm not Ephery. Mathsci has been trying to prove that I'm a sock for several months, he previously thought I was someone else's sock, and he has apparently behaved similarly towards other users too. Arbcom has also asked him to drop this. But if you really think I'm Ephery, you can start an SPI.Boothello (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what twitter or facebook have to do with this. WP:ABOUTSELF permits the use of unreliable sources for information about themselves. Lynn's article isn't about MQ. So doesn't apply.

And the reason I ask about the Ephery thing is because looking at yours and his edit history, there's no time/date overlap in your edits. So it looks plausible to me. Volunteer Marek  07:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this clearer. You're saying an article by Lynn in Mankind Quarterly would be a reliable source about MQ, but not about Lynn. And you're saying that's because according to this policy, questionable or self-published sources are reliable only about the sites or journals where they appear, not about the sources' authors. But that interpretation of this policy can't be right, because if it is, it results in an absurdity: it means that someone's Twitter post would be a reliable source about Twitter itself, not about the person making the post. Twitter and MQ are both covered by this policy, so the policy has to work the same way for both of them. And the policy specifically mentions social networking sites as an example.

Twitter is relevant is because you need to think about the overall ramifications of how you interpret this policy, and how it would apply to other examples mentioned by the policy. If your interpretation of this policy would lead to an absurd conclusion, such as being able to cite Twitter posts for information about how Twitter works, then that indicates your interpretation is flawed.Boothello (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No. What WP:ABOUTSELF says is that pages which are published on twitter or facebook which are about X can be used for how X describes itself. Twitter is obviously different than a journal, however, unreliable it is. This is a red herring. There's no "overall ramifications" here or anything like that. Or if there are, they stem from the line you're advancing. Any unreliable source could then be justified under WP:ABOUTSELF per your reasoning. That's just not the case.

So please, don't use unreliable sources in the article and then try to make up groundless excuses based on an obvious misinterpretation of irrelevant policy. Volunteer Marek  09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone else involved in this topic area who interprets this policy the same way you do. Maunus commented on this specific point here: "Mankind Quarterly and other similar publications are reliable sources, at least for the viewpoints of the authors of articles published there. (...) Even if these journals were published by an advocacy group or political think tank directly they would still be reliable sources for those viewpoints." As usual I can't convince you of anything, but in this case it's already clear that one of the regulars on these articles sees this the same way that I do. I doubt Victor Chmara or VsevolodKrolikov would feel differently from Maunus on this. Go ahead and try to get a consensus that this material needs to be removed, if you want, but I don't think you'll be able to.Boothello (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If the text in question concerned the nature of MQ then you'd be right. But it isn't. So WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply. Volunteer Marek  11:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Legend is wrong

The map file:National IQ Lynn Vanhanen 2006 IQ and Global Inequality.png has a bad legend. I can count to 8 different blues in the map, but the legend contains only 4 blues, and I'm unsure that the legend blue colors counterpart anything in the map. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is going on in here?

It's not only the list of IQ scores, the maps showing IQ and QHC also disappeared somewhere. It looks like someone is trying to censor wikipedia. I demand explantation. --Gadolit (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

so liberals removed the list and map and locking the article??

truth hurts doesnt it??--Shokioto22 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is naked censorship, pure and simple, and a real embarrassment to WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

fergawdsake there is NO censorship. there is zero encyclopedic value to a bunch of numbers Lynn cooked up to "prove" that "afercins are poor cus they st00pid". 75.73.44.170 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to determine who is right or not. Numerous other scientists, not associated with the Pioneer Fund, have accepted the data and used them in further peer-reviewed studies. The correlations with Programme for International Student Assessment and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study are very high. I would not see a problem with removing the data if they were publicly available elsewhere on the internet, but this is not the case, unlike "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a question of who is right or wrong. It is a question of the WP:WEIGHT afforded WP:FRINGE researchers. The media attention given Lynn's work is the only reason it passes the requirements for inclusion. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That numerous peer-reviewed papers and scientists (again, not associated with the Pioneer Fund) have used the data scores shows that they are not a fringe view. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, they are not fringe, they are merely uncomfortable reading for many, not fitting in with their view of how they would like to imagine the world to be. The fringe argument is in any case redundant as this is not an article about the human race, but about a single book.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, You're free to open up another rfc and try to gain consensus for your particular view. aprock (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Long-standing, cited and relevant content which is removed without consensus and discussion does not require an RfC to be re-added. It is the removal which requires discussion (and if no consensus can be found, perhaps an RfC). There is a very nasty smell surrounding the recent removal of IQ tables from a number of articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review the recent RfC: [1]. Consensus there is clear. If you want to have this discussion, I suggest you move your comments there, or start another RfC. I don't expect pleading conspiracy is going to be very effective here. aprock (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a new very interesting literature review of studies using the IQ scores: [2]. A total of 244 correlates from numerous different studies by numerous different authors are listed. Lynn argues that the numerous strong correlates with many important societal outcomes, in particular very strong correlations with 20 different international educational achievement rankings, provide strong validation of the IQ scores. Does this remove the objections to the IQ scores? We thus have a peer-reviewed literature review citing a very large body of evidence from numerous different peer-reviewed studies supporting the IQ scores. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Great find. The arguments in favour of removal were always without foundation in policy, logic or intellectual coherence. They are now ludicrous. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lynn and Vanhanen touting their own work doesn't qualify as a secondary source. Again, if you want to reopen the topic, I suggest moving the discussion back to the RfC, or starting a new one. aprock (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lynn and Vanhanen can of course write a literature review, peer reviewed by other researchers, and citing many peer-reviewed studies by numerous authors. This is a substantially new, important source. How to proceed can be discussed. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a highly significant new source. I am puzzled at the desperation to open a new RfC, the last one generated lots of heat but virtually no light. WP doesn't generally operate via RfCs.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lynn touting Lynn can hardly be considered significant. aprock (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is of course common and perfectly acceptable in scientific literature that a pioneer and expert on an area writes a literature review on this area. This is no way invalidates a study and can be seen by it having passed peer-review. I suggest that you write/find an opposing study in a peer-reviewed journal if you disagree with the scholarly peer-review which has accepted the paper as valid. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lynn reviewing works based on Lynn is entertaining I'm sure, but hardly qualifies as a secondary source. If you disagree, you are free to take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard, or seek other opinions. You know what mine is, and your encouragement to publish research isn't going to change anything. This looks like a good time for me to step away from the WP:HORSEMEAT, but you're welcome to keep flogging it if you so choose. aprock (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Based on" is hardly a correct description since many of these independent researchers examine if Lynn and Vanhanen's arguments and data are valid and supported by other measures and methodologies. Lynn and Vanhanen are reviewing a large body of peer-reviewed works by many different researchers and publishing this in a review peer-reviewed by other researchers. WP:SECONDARY does not exclude a particular class of peer-reviewed reviews as you seem to be arguing. I have heard you views and will wait to see what other here think. I suggest you do to. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

the question is, what does that paper have to do with this article? so they do a lit review - big whoop. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed literature reviews are the highest quality sources available. The review and the numerous cited peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that the books and the deleted data are not fringe views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

not just out of the blue. only if the peer review article and the book are the same data and same claims and specifically linked together. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry guys, but the results were found to be anti-semitic. I wouldn't further the issue or you may be ushered into FEMA camps and treated like Palestinians. --usingproxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.194.12 (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing list of IQs

The list is simply a source of constant vandalism, to the point where the integrity of the list is in a questionable state. Without an editor devoted to maintaining and constantly correcting the list, it is only bound to be incorrect. Per the related discussions ([3], [4], [5], [6]), I've removed the list. aprock (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, enough already. It's a vandal magnet, it's pov and it presents sketchy research as "fact". Get rid of it already.VolunteerMarek 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism cannot be a reason to delete content from Wikipedia. First the list got deleted from IQ and the Wealth of Nations, then the separate article about national IQs got deleted, and now you removed this one. It's clear that many editors think that the national IQ numbers are too dangerous information for Wikipedia to have, and want them censored. However, I don't feel like fighting this obscurantism by myself anymore, so let's have a censored Wikipedia then.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't just go and delete something because it's vandalized. If a page is frequently vandalized, as this one apparently is, then don't it require a lock or somethin'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti1233 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I will keep undoing this edit until my IP is banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.255.94 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removal - pure censorship. I note that the two editors above in favour of removal have also been engaged in an effort to delete a similar table from IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which is troubling. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for removal have been discussed extensively already. It is a vandal magnet. It is essentially presenting disputed claims in a factual manner. It is more or less a violation of WP:PRIMARY. There actually WAS a consensus to remove (keep in mind that consensus=/unanimity). I think that at this point if you want to restore the tables, here or at IQ and the Wealth of Nations, an RfC is in order. But since there was consensus to remove it, and the burden of proof is with the person wishing to ADD contentious material, I am removing the table for now.VolunteerMarek 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is that consensus exactly?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the list should be kept. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim of primary is spurious since it is a secondary source. Wikipedia also has many other similar lists. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started a RfC at Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Request_for_comment regarding this issue. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

agreed that wikipedia should contain no information at all because it could be vandalized. Ignorance is strength. 208.111.207.207 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A redirect for discussion

National IQ and National iq have previously or currently directed to this article. Those redirects have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_10#National_IQ. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE

The reception section gives UNDUE weight to Rushton's praise- as if Rushton represents a significant portion of academia rather than merely the outer edges of the fringe which consists of pretty much just him and the author of the book. WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe or not, I can hardly see three paragraphs of praise as due weight no matter who was offering it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of data

Ok. What's the rationale behind this? I see a redlink user removing large chunks of data on a controversial book, with no intelligible rationale. My revert reflex is acting up. Perhaps a rewording is in order to maintain an encyclopedic tone ("remarkably" etc), but I can see no basis for claims of WP:UNDUE, not by a long shot. And anyway, invocations of UNDUE are always suspect for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, when no kind of relevant support is given. That's a highly arbitrary bit of policy. -- Director (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For some background, you might review the RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations/Archive_2#Request_for_comment

There is also WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ARB&I; as regards the RfC, I again see no relevance as to the removal of the text. -- Director (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which text? The diff you posted has the table in question. aprock (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This redlinked user removed 1) a copyright violation because it is a copyright violation- the content of the table is an extensive lifting from a creative work (and of such completely dubious value -except perhaps as an example of pseudoscience- that even if it were not prohibited by copyright its encyclopedic value would be nil.) 2) removed content that was inappropriately appearing to present a paper as supporting the claims in the book, when in fact the Abstract clearly identifies that the authors' work is a contradiction the claims made in Lynn and Vanhanen's book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive weight to non reliable primary sources

An editor recently restored large chunks of text regurgitating content and claims from the book [7]. As the book is clearly not a reliable source, such content based solely on the non reliable source with no third party indications that the claims received notice, they should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, we should by no means use the book to source what's in the book! Of course. And for the final time, your lack of understanding of scientific terminology does not render this publication "primary". Not that it matters at all. -- Director (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

again, we are not doing a book report "in this book it says blah blah blah" we are writing an encyclopedia article about the book - its reception and impact. The reception has been "its contents are crap" hence there is no encyclopedic value in spreading that crap. for this article, it is a primary source which should be used with care and certainly not presented as if its claims have any actual basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map is clearly relevant to the topic, illustrating an aspect of the book's subject. That's not "publication" beyond what is perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia article. Whether one is offended or not by the (quote) "garbage" - should not factor into this discussion. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the map, or the book, are factually wrong. To claim that briefly depicting some of the claims voiced in the publication is "publicizing it", and that therefore we shouldn't have images on the topic of this book - is obvious WP:TE caused by the offensive nature of the claim. If you're against Wikipedia talking about this book - then propose deletion. If its claimed that the map is somehow a violation of copyright (which its not) - then propose its deletion. As long as both the article and the image are around, putting them together can't be opposed in any policy-relevant way.

Frankly I find the removal is clear ideology-based TE. Who gives a damn if it is "garbage"? A "garbage" map for an article about a "garbage" book. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The map is clearly garbage eyecandy drawing away from the text where its complete irrelevance to anything other than pushing Lynn's agenda is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Its an image; all images are technically "eyecandy". It seems you don't understand that this article is about Lynn's book. Its perfectly legitimate to explain what the book says. Its unbelievable that we're even having this discussion.. or it would be if one doesn't consider ideology might factor into this.

Re "not based on reliable sources": that's nonsense. Verified the map myself, it is indeed based on Lynn's figures. -- Director (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

and lynn's figures are garbage by any standard. the image does nothing to enhance the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of the article - the book, it merely takes away from the text where someone glancing at the article would go away with the impression from the image rather than the actual scholarly text. We have no reason to do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't care if they're garbage. If they are, then this is apparently an article about garbage, and therefore should strive to be the best "garbage" article on Wiki - or be deleted. And Wikipedia does not concern itself with issues of propaganda such as you describe. If that's what the book says - then there is no valid reason for the reader not to go away with the clearest possible picture of what the book says. This would go equally for Mein Kampf itself.

By your reasoning we might as well delete the cover up there as well. No sense posting "eyecandy" promoting the book, eh? I still can't believe I'm having a discussion about this.

Re @WeijiBaikeBianji's edit summary: to claim that what the book says is not a reliable source for what the book says - is kind of absurd. -- Director (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's Law, but if you want to remove the cover, go ahead, but it is not passing off garbage as if it were something of encyclopedic value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might like the analogy. If you successfully post an AfD, and show therein that this subject has "no encyclopedic value" - we'll delete all of this. Until such a time, there is no justification for your position (and the position of your friend back there). Note once again: whether or not the figures or the book are "garbage" is irrelevant.

This is just outrageous TE, feel free to bring it up on any noticeboard you like. Can't believe it went under the radar for so long. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You dont AfD because a map has no encyclopedic value. ANd I will note that you have passed the clear redline of 3RR on an article that is under discretionary sanctions. THAT is TE. Revert yourself.

If you are able to establish that consensus has changed and that there is somehow encyclopedic value in that crap map, THEN you can add it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The map merely illustrates the subject. If the subject has encyclopedic value - so does the map. To claim one does, and not the other - is untenable. In other words: if we do cover the subject of what Lynn says, there's no conceivable justification not to simply add pictures to that coverage.

If you can point to a previous WP:CONSENSUS for removing the map, I will revert myself. Note however that I read the talkpage and found none. What I did find was opposition to its removal, and a whole lot of veiled threats and obnoxious bullying for what seems like a political agenda. With nothing even resembling a relevant argument behind it all. -- Director (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the book cover illustrates the subject of the article, a book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So the contents of the book are not part of the subject, but only its cover? The actual physical book? Fascinating theory, but I'm afraid I'm not quite drunk enough at this hour.

Look, so far as I can see, there's nothing to discuss here: your "arguments" simply do not make contact with project policy. Once again: if we do cover the subject of what Lynn says in his book, there's no conceivable justification not to add pictures to that coverage. Get that straight, please. And spare me, and this project, your brand of political POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

STICK? I'm afraid your ability to edit-war (though admittedly impressive), does not count as having in any way closed this issue.

@ArtifexMayhem. "Not an art project"? Actually Wikimedia and its projects, can, in part, be described as an "art project" [8]. Users are perfectly free to publish and post illustrations of article subjects. That's encouraged, and lauded. This map is sourced, relevant to the topic, and well-made. It may show disputed data, but its data from this book. In fact, I think I'll post a vector version of my own. -- Director (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to argue in favor of theories. Had the authors produced the map in their book, we might have copied it, subject to copyright laws. I suggest deleting the file image. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said: if the file is judged to merit deletion, then fine. Such issues belong on Commons, not here, though, and I will oppose deletion there on grounds that simply depicting data from a book on a map - does not by any means constitute "promotion" of that book or its "theories" (though I don't think this book proposes any "theories"). No, the book does not need to carry a map of its own to justify putting data from it on a map - in fact, taking the trouble to do so is laudable. No doubt if the book did contain a map, we'd be hearing all about copyright infringement now.

It seems alarm bells are ringing for a wikiclique? Gentlemen, feel free to point out in the caption that the book's data is disputed. It certainly is. But don't delete relevant content because it offends you. -- Director (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The proper caption would be "Pretty much EVERYTHING this map suggests is incorrect." Why in the world would we want to include that? what possible encyclopedic value does that present? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In short: if we're presenting data from the book, we're free to illustrate that presentation. The map simply illustrates content from the book: it has no more or less encyclopedic value than the book itself - if we were to delete the map because "EVERYTHING in it is wrong", then it'd be logical to delete the whole article on those same grounds. But we don't delete articles about books simply because they're wrong, and we don't prohibit illustrations in articles about books that carry incorrect content. -- Director (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The extent that data in the book should be covered is best determined by secondary sources. Your line of reasoning suggests we should just copy paste the entire text of the book into wikipedia, which is clearly absurd. aprock (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My "reasoning" (though I think its more like "stating the obvious" than anything else) is that we must, and do, summarize and present the content of the book, as with any other such article on Wiki. It does not follow that we must copy-paste the entire book, that's a non sequitur. The idea that adding a single image just manages to "cover too much of the book" content-wise, sounds more like a weak excuse to remove an offensive image than an honest position. -- Director (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

as pertains to the article about the book, the book is indeed a primary source. we are not writing a book report to cover what the book claims. we are writing an encyclopedia article about what impact and reception of the book have been. little and negative. and the map serves to illustrate neither of those. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't matter, but no. A secondary source is a secondary source, which is evaluated through peer review (which is what Aprock presumably meant). If this book is a "primary" source, then what do you call the (primary) sources that it quotes? "zeroth sources"?

We are not writing the article solely about the impact and reception of the book, that's just one, minor part of a book article. -- Director (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

no, see WP:PSTS - for this article book is a primary source and of little value for content. In any other article (except for Lynn), the book is a secondary source, but because of its incredibly low quality of no use in them, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This book is not a "primary source", period. It is a secondary source. Its a publication "which cites, comments on, or builds upon primary sources". It may be disputed, panned in peer review, rejected, but if used as a source, it is inevitably "secondary" as per, among other definitions - the very policy that you cite (as well as the secondary source article). You are apparently not familiar with scientific terminology in this regard, and I'll thank you not to try and "educate" me there.

Also please spare me your continuous remarks regarding the importance, accuracy, value etc. of this work. With respect, if I want a review, I'll seek out Lynn's academic peers - not random Wikipedia users. I assure you, there are enough of those writing negatively on this publication that your comments are superfluous, and unless you're arguing to delete the article - they are irrelevant for this discussion. All they do is kind of illustrate the depth of your personal feelings on this issue. -- Director (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

given that you completely misunderstand primary sources, i will not waste any more time on this "discussion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yah, still I somehow think only one of the two of us actually had something published in scientific literature. -- Director (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Map removed again on grounds of being quote "distinguishable" from the cover?! How does that constitute an argument for deletion?
And TRPoD removed yet another chunk of the text without consensus.. I think its really high time the random butchery of this article is put a stop to. We really oughtn't have to deal with users who're just here to get their kicks bashing racists ("yeah, I'm gonna delete another bunch of sentences today!")

I'll say again: if we do cover what Lynn says in his book, there's no justification to prohibit adding pictures to that coverage. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

An overarching content guideline on Wikipedia is the reliable sources content guideline. That's an expression of the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. The independent reviews identify the book that is the topic of the article here as an unreliable source (which we could also see from the article about the book's publisher) and decry its factual conclusions as dubious. That's reason enough not to put those factual conclusions in Wikipedia article text, whether in visual form or in the form of paragraphs of text. Moreover, there is considerable doubt (as seen on the file page in Wikimedia Commons) that the image was prepared with proper regard to copyright law (or, in the alternative, with proper regard for reliable sources in light of the no original research content guideline). Basically, earlier editing states of this article and the presence of the image file on Wikipedia Commons both reflect an earlier era of Wikipedia editing when these important policies and guidelines were too often ignored. We are now trying to clean up here as we build an encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Map was inaccurate before, I had re-edited the image after reading the actual statistics. I agree that the map is non-neutral and it should not be used. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• @WeijiBaikeBianji. Wow. I should definitely NOT have to say this. This book would be an "unreliable source" if cited for a general claim, e.g. "Europans have a lower IQ than Asians". The book is absolutely not an "unreliable source" when cited for what it claims. Similarly, Mein Kampf would be a "reliable source" for any statement that starts with "Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf.." [9]. That's just ridiculous. As regards copyright etc. - that's an issue for Commons. If you can show any of that over there and delete the map, we will not be having a discussion on enWiki.
• Again, the book itself, in a general sense, is certainly not "neutral" - but pray tell me how the book is not "neutral" for explaining what the book says?

Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach just having this discussion. It is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful, and I really hope you're all ashamed for allowing a knee-jerk reaction, however understandable, to define your position. I hope next you will remove maps, e.g., depicting the "Aryan race" [10] on these same cockamamie grounds: "they are wrong and non-neutral!", sure they are - but they're there to illustrate the book's claims! Not to make general statements of fact! Ugh... -- Director (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The late J. Philippe Rushton provided a very similar map ("World Distribution of IQ Scores of Indigenous (pre European migration) Peoples (Adapted from Lynn, 2006)) for his 2007 article "Indians Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average)" published on VDARE, which the SPLC calls an " anti-immigration hate website." The Wikimedia map has been picked up in the far right Metapedia website's article, "Countries and intelligence." No mainstream sources see the need to use a map to explain the book. There is no need to illustrate the book's claims, we are merely to supposed to summarize them, and report reactions to them. TFD (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less "what Metapedia does", as I don't base my position on what neo-Nazis may or may not do. I'm sure you know full well that "neo-Nazis like it!" isn't an argument, but a manipulation. That goes for Rushton as well. As I said, if we had a map by Adolf Hitler himself of "lands that he considered rightfully Aryan" - we would include that map on Wikipedia. That doesn't constitute promotion of Hitler's views - but an elaboration of them. Apply this analogy every time before posting anything, and it'll save us a lot of repetitive dialogue. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that no mainstream sources take the same approach as you? TFD (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What "approach" is that? Neither mainstream sources nor Wikipedia censor claims, as long as they're notable - whether they're wrong or not. We of course point out if they're wrong, but we don't hide them. That's what's called propaganda through censorship. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the map. The primary source (IQ and Global Inequality) does not have a map, and no mainstream source has created one. So we are not censoring them. Webster's defines propaganda as "ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc." Could you also please explain what ideas you think the other editors are propagating. Certainly creating a map that is not in the original source propagates the views expressed in the book. TFD (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the policy you are searching for is WP:UNDUE weight. As it stands, the map is not excluded because of censorship, but because no independent secondary sources have used anything like it, at all. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines. aprock (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In my 8 years and 60,000 edits I've had quite enough time to familiarize myself with policy and guidelines, thanks very much. Enough to know that UNDUE is the vague policy that can always be stretched to justify almost anything, and any democratic vote, simply because what's "undue" is insufficiently defined. But this is stretching even that policy thin, note: adding the map placed no weight at all, on anything. The entire article is about this book and its content. Displaying some data from it on a map, or in a wikitable, or a chart of some sort - is 100% perfectly fine. It does not suggest the data in the chart/table/map is any more accurate than the text itself does. The text (unless finally butchered beyond recognition) #1 explains the book's claims, and then #2 elaborates on the criticism of it. No one's stopping us from pointing out the latter in the image caption if we find that necessary.

In short the idea is once again absurd: the map doesn't place any weight on anything - this entire article is about the book, and all it does is present some info from it. The reasoning is similar to claiming that, say, a map of Hitler's planned conquests in the Mein Kampf article places "undue weight" on the accuracy of the book - its just an accompanying image used to clarify the claims in the book! If this were the Race and intelligence article, then the UNDUE argument would make sense, but this entire article is wholly dedicated to this book - how can one place undue weight on it!? Its nonsense. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then you know that to establish due weight, you need secondary sources. Please let us know when you've found secondary sources which establish due weight. aprock (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems I wasn't clear enough. #1 Adding the map does not place "weight" on anything in any way whatsoever. #2 Second, the very concept that you can place weight on the book in the article about the book - is absurd. This is not the Race and intelligence article. #3 Thirdly, it is perfectly acceptable on this project to put data from sources on maps, pie charts, and tables of all sorts - even if said charts, etc. are not present as such in the original material.

That's nothing but an obviously unfounded appeal to the standard go-to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT excuse policy. Naturally, if you one like something or other, one would consider its mention "undue" - that doesn't mean you aren't misquoting policy to push censorship of this book's content. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

it does so give undue weight. see WP:STRUCTURE "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view." The map as you have been restoring is visual eye candy presenting, without context the primary source claims of the book. and as discussed above, with the appropriate caption "Everything this map seems to suggest is pure hokum" the "value " of including the map at all is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director: #1 – It is most certainly WP:UNDUE to presents highly questionable, false, or misleading information in a graphical form when there is no possibility to offer the reader a similar visual that would provide proper context, etc. #2 – This article is about a book that is not WP:RS for anything other than the opinions of its authors. How we present those opinions is a question that can only be answered by assessing the weight they are given in secondary sources. #3 – Possibly correct, but irrelevant (see Straw man).

If you believe editors are "misquoting policy to push censorship of this book's content", or that editors oppose your edits simply because they just don't like it, then I'd suggest filling a request for arbitration enforcement. This is not the venue for such accusations. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Most illogical: you're misapplying policy (very obviously). The primary task of this article is to describe this book (adding the background and the response etc. as well). How, in your view, is it possible to place "undue weight" on the content of this book, in an article dedicated to describing the content of this book? By just posting a singular image, to boot. Just absurd... -- Director (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@"This article is about a book that is not WP:RS for anything other than the opinions of its authors. How we present those opinions is a question that can only be answered by assessing the weight they are given in secondary sources." - Firstly and very importantly, this is not about the "opinions of the authors" - but about the book. We are here, primarily, to describe and present the content of the book is a succinct manner. How we summarize its content is entirely up to us, here, on Wikipedia, and determined solely by concerns of article size and copyright infringement. It is NOT determined by "secondary sources" (please do finally note that you are misusing the term, as this publication is itself "secondary"). In other words, it is quite impossible to place "undue weight" on a book in an article dedicated to that book. To claim otherwise is really, fundamentally nonsensical. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

we clearly depend upon third party sources to determine what in the book is relevant and noteworthy and do not base it upon our personal opinions and observations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think ArtifexMayhem is correct. You haven't been able to convince people, so at this point your best bet is to move the discussion to a noticeboard to determine whether the other editors are being disruptive, and if so what the proper remedy is. aprock (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, you write your opinion that how "we summarize its content is entirely up to us," and all I can say to that directly is that if it were up to me, as someone who has been an editor of an academic journal and also of a popular magazine for wide audiences, I would leave out the map entirely and add quite a few articles to Wikipedia pointing out the factual and logical errors in the book that is the topic of the Wikipedia article under discussion here. (I can certainly do the latter, of course, in collaboration with other Wikipedians. I have been reading reliable sources on these topics since the early 1990s, arguably since the early 1970s.) But actually what TRPoD says is correct, that all of us are required by core Wikipedia policies here to make our editorial decisions on the basis of reliable sources. I'm willing to go along with that rule of the project in all of my editing. As User:Aprock has pointed out, you are welcome to seek a second opinion if the consensus of the editors actively watching this article and looking up reliable sources differs from your own, as it surely does here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We do depend upon third-party sources to provide an evaluation of this book - but not for the presentation of its content. Evaluation of the book by third-party sources is a separate section and topic, one that follows the basic description of its content.

This is not an academic journal, its an encyclopedia. The obvious difference being that a peer review publication publishes papers in the name of the authors: I also wouldn't unilaterally publish this map if I were an editor of an academic magazine. Reviewing this publication is not our purpose here - this is a tertiary source. We are here, basically, to #1 describe this book, and #2 describe its reviews/impact. In "Task no.1", we do not depend upon reviews - but upon the book itself. -- Director (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i really suggest you read WP:PSTS and WP:OR and WP:UNDUE , but if you still will not make that effort to read what has been presented to you multiple times before- in a nutshell it comes down to: article content should be based mostly on secondary sources and not primary sources so that we ensure that we are not placing our interpretations into the article or focusing on inappropriate aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Its no use WP:WIKILAWYERING with me, I know them all quite well and none support you position or justify removing this content. That's just how it is. What I said from the start has still not been addressed: if we're describing the contents of this book, we're free to use images in that coverage. Whether those images are or are not a part of the original book: no policy prohibits user-made maps, charts etc. Said description is a part of the article that's not based on third-party reviews as sources, but on the book itself. The book is perfectly fine as a source for its own content. Describing the content in more detail or with an image is not placing "undue weight" on that content - indeed, its impossible in principle to place "undue weight" on a book in its own article. Its like if someone were to place "undue weight" on Paris in the Paris article. Its silly. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no matter how many times you decide to ignore the policy, we are not "free" to use the book as we choose. Read the damn policy: " reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." In this instance the primary source isnt even reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "primary" source. Its the classic, textbook example of a secondary publication. And it is perfectly reliable as a source for its own content. If you doubt that the book actually says what the map shows, then I suggest you verify it yourself - as can easily be done by anyone. This point is silly. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a secondary source if we were talking IQ in general. But we are not talking about IQ in general, we are talking about the book itself and it is a primary source for content about itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you want to use it as a "secondary source", it is still completely unacceptable because it is an utter failure as a reliable source for talking about IQ or pretty much anything else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Again: a source is not "secondary" based on where its used - but on how its written. In short: its "secondary", if its based on listed, available (existing) primary sources. This is a secondary publication.

But none of that matters, its vain to call on the "reliability" of the source - it has been verified with regard to this map: the map faithfully represents claims in the book. Which is all that matters since its only used to represent claims in the book, not human intelligence in general on the Race and intelligence article! Move on, please. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

faithful representation of hogwash does not confer reliability onto the hogwash. its still hogwash. And I agree its time we move on, next step if you do not drop the stick is WP:AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it... the job of this article is to represent that hogwash. Understand!? -- Director (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

and again you are wrong. we are not a platform to promote the fringe theory content of the book . WP:GEVAL / [[WP:UNDUE] / WP:FRINGE / WP:NOTSOAP. we present an encyclopedic review of the the mainstream academic reaction to the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NO. A book article does not just post reviews - but also, and primarily, covers the content of the book! And that doesn't make us a platform! Are we also therefore a "platform" for Mein Kampf? All I'm hearing from you is "this book is wrong!". Stop repeating that - and start coming to terms with the fact that we are covering it on this project, and therefore must explain what it says! I explained in my first post that it basically doesn't matter if the data is wrong or not - and you still don't seem to understand that concept, so if that's all you have to say I think you can probably take a break from repeating that same meaningless factoid over and over and over again as if its some kind of argument. That goes double for the pointless WIKILAWYERING. -- Director (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)