This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Human Genetic History C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. History of Science C‑class High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Genetics Anthropology C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Sociology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Human rights C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Evolutionary biology C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The statement, "Following the United States Civil Rights Movement, many scientists who previously studied racial differences moved to other fields. For example, Robert Yerkes, who previously worked on the World War I Army intelligence testing, moved to the field of primatology" is incorrect. For one thing, Yerkes Robert Yerkes had been a primatologist before World War I, and died in the mid-1950s. He never abandoned eugenics or scientific racism (though he significantly de-emphasized these in his writings after around 1930), nor did he address the Civil Rights Movement Civil Rights Movement (which wasn't really in progress until after his death). In fact, many well-known eugenicists were always involved in other activities, or became so involved by the 1930s, and after World War II at the latest, generally abandoned any published work or public references to eugenics or scientific racism, in favor of their more "legitimate" pursuits. -ibycusreggio 10:50, 6 February 2011

References 1-5 are about genocide, and about some general race issues and ethics, they aren't academic publications. The question whether all human races have equal intelligence is a scientific question, and it can have answers yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know. If the answer is don't know, this should be an area of active research. Pseudoscience implies that the scientific answer is known and is yes while some claim otherwise. AFAIK, very few scientists dispute the notion that genes are a factor in intelligence. Based on this alone this can't be labeled pseudoscience. 24.4.39.254 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know is not how science works. The possible answers are don't know because the question has not been looked at enough, no, there are replicably measureable differences and either yes or the differences are so tiny that we cannot measure them. It's the third option. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is loaded as it assumes the existence of human races. --Frybread (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a valid reference, let alone possible argument, to call this 'pseudoscientific'. It's pure editorialisation and there is NO scientific consensus. If you want to add this editorial then at least you will have to show there is 'consensus', even by the clownish 'rules' of this venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.200.121 (talk • contribs)

You can't say it's "scientific racism" and "pseudoscience" in the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.29.184 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to creation science: a common name in English (WP:COMMONNAME). —PaleoNeonate – 22:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go with the common name, and in any case, it's a superficially palatable term cooked up by advocates to give a pseudoscientific justification for racism. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that this sentence be changed to {{"Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions that they claim are unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence". I think adding "that they claim are" would make it clear that the statement "connection between race and intelligence" is "unsupported by available evidence" is NOT read in Wikipedia's voice, as there have in fact been papers upon papers of credible research concluding that race and intelligence are, in fact, linked, and the statement is hence all but false. Here is one such study: ^[1]. Here is another, which itself, in fact, cites five more studies showing significant (though shrinking over time) differences between people identifying as "black" and those identifying as "white" (Jensen, Loehlin, Reynolds, Thorndike, Vincent).^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Historical information should be presented as historical information. The scientific consensus changes as methods advance and understanding improves. Pseudoscience doesn't have to worry about this, so old sources keep getting recycled and challenges dismissed in service of prior assumptions.

Nowhere does this meta-analysis from 2001 mention scientific racism, nor does it directly mention "race". There are likely a lot of reasons it doesn't mention race, but regardless, it doesn't mention race. The meta-analysis does discuss ethnicity, but this is a significantly different concept.

Some of the Roth source's sources mention race, but there are many reliable sources specifically documenting Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Gottfredson, and Herrnstein & Murray's connection to scientific racism in direct terms.

There are countless weighty books about scientific racism in general, and some about the specific malpractice of some of these academics. We should not use this one source, which somehow manages to positively cite Francis Galton without mentioning racism or eugenics, as an excuse to misrepresent the scientific consensus on this topic to promote a WP:FRINGE view of racialism. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't mention race but they do mention "blacks" and "whites", which are clearly categorisations of race. And, if you disagree that that is the implication on the basis of WP:SYNTH, then I propose stressing that the problem is with the definition of "race" (rather than a correlation exists) in the article. Either way, reading something which is, if not outright wrong, then surely anything but unequivocal in Wikipedia's voice isn't appropriate.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stressing" something based on a personal opinion is editorializing. Creating definitions to fit "correlations" is textbook pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I'm not sure you are being genuine here. Your problem with the sources I cited was that they didn't mention "race". Also on Wiki's page on "race and intelligence", it is likewise stated the the biggest controversy is in the definition of "race". Other than that, as I have shown earlier, there are heaps upon heaps of evidence showing differences in intelligence between different ethnic groups and self-defined (note how this was defined by the participants themselves - not the alleged "pseudoscientists") races. I don't see, then, how my edit was in any way a reflection of my personal opinion. Based on your explanation, it seems like your revert of my edit is based on personal opinion - not my edit itself.

Furthermore, when have I even argued that scientific racism isn't pseudoscientific? All I said is that the claim that the connection between race and intellegence isn't supported by evidence isn't correct. And you still haven't provided any reasons, apart from the authors I cited being criticised, why ALL these papers should be automatically discredited just because you don't like their conclusions. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ping me again. I will respond or not at my own convenience.

You are experienced enough here that you should already know not to try and citing another Wikipedia article as an excuse for editorializing.

There are countless sources about scientific racism, and specifically about the flawed, inconsistent, and pseudoscientific attempts to define race and then link race to intelligence.

This connection is "unsupported" in part because it is "ill-defined", so your change adds empty filler for no benefit. The only purpose for this filler that I can see would be to imply that there actually is a connection between race and intelligence, but this misrepresents both the underlying issue, and the consensus of sources. If this was about race as a social construct, or how self-defined race influences IQ testing, perhaps this would need more nuance, but that is all way, way outside the scope of the lede to this article. Obviously.

As for your source, which does not mention scientific racism, good luck with that. As just a few obvious examples, Rushton believed that black people were stupid because penis length was inversely proportionate to intelligence, Lynn heads a journal started by literal Nazis to promote eugenics, and Galton got his start in science because a phrenologist advised him to work with his hands based on his skull-shape. This article is about science, so it must reflect the modern consensus, not cherry-picking.

So for this one sentence, do we really need to go through every source from the past 150 years which says there might be a connection between "race" (which is never consistently defined) and "intelligence" (which has almost as many complications)? Of course not. None of this belongs in the lede.

So it is not just that I "don't like their conclusions", it's that reliable sources spanning decades have challenged their work to the point where it has become largely discredited. We cannot misrepresent sloppy science as having legitimacy just because it still lingers in academic libraries like a fart in an elevator. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to quote Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns here, as it is the most authoritative statement ever published on this topic. It is a report published in 1995 by the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States.

The fifth section of the report deals specifically with ethnic group differences (although the report avoids using he term "race", the terms "black" and "white" are used throughout the report). This part of the report is far too long to quote here, but its most important conclusions regarding the black/white gap are summarized in this paragraph:

African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

And this is the overall conclusion of the report:

In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.

Grayfell has a history of misrepresenting the nature of research about this topic (I have been dealing with him in this area for several months, and he was reported over this issue at Arbitration Enforcement in May). He appears to be doing so again here. It is clear from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns that it is not merely some tiny group of racist academics who think the black/white IQ gap is a valid thing to study, or one that cannot be explained by something as simple as test bias. The American Psychological Association has argued for this perspective as well.

I don't particularly care about the content this article, but I will note that there are now three editors making this argument (myself, Oldstone James, and Agirlwithaguitar). If Grayfell is the only editor disagreeing, consensus can probably be considered to oppose him at this point. 2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4:, I would not say that the consensus opposes him. The quote already says that "critics argue that...racist conclusions are unsupportable." Implying that these are the conclusions/opinions of said critics. There is no need to insert "that they claim" into it as well. To do so would be redundant as well as non-neutral (as though to needlessly emphasize something that is already expressed). Also the word "claim" is listed as a non neutral/biased term implying a lack of credibility. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch In addition, the quote you supplied, while expressing uncertainty over its causes (emphasizing that the causes are unknown), expresses skepticism about racial explanations for the IQ gap (such as those preferred by "scientific racism") and describes various culturally-based explanations as plausible. And so it does not seem to conflict with the opinions of critics who find "racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence." Skllagyook (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skllagyook: Yes, and the implication that the statement lacks credibility is correct. I have already provided numerous sources that agree that there is a gap, and I have so far not seen a single reliable source that opposes this idea. As far as I'm aware, there are barely any respectable scholars who deny the existence of an IQ gap between various ethnic groups and self-identified races, as is actually described in the race and intelligence article.

Note also that the sentence in question does not comment on the causes of this gap; it merely states that critics don't believe it exists (which it does). So whether this gap is actually caused by genetics or environmental factors isn't relevant to the discussion. I actually tried converting the sentence in question to a statement about the causes of the gap, but my edits were swiftly reverted by user:Grayfell. If you support changing the sentence to "Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a genetic connection between race and intelligence" or the like, I think we can call that consensus and finally fix this long-standing NPOV issue. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically asked you not to ping me. Do not do this again. Bringing this up months later is not persuasive. There is no consensus for whitewashing pseudoscientific assumptions to inflate the significance of WP:FRINGE perspectives. Your dislike of the current wording is not a longstanding NPOV issue, and grandiose complaining is still just complaining. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually ping you, but okay. I won't notify you in the future. Anyway, I guess the entire article on Race and intelligence is written from a pseudoscientific and WP:FRINGE perspective. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with other commenters that the claim "scientific racism is pseudoscience" is unsubstantiated and that this is not a neutral viewpoint. Even the term 'scientific racism' shows bias against research on racial differences. Author should revise to reflect a truly neutral point of view. I myself do not have time to recommend specific wordings for the editorial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agirlwithaguitar (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is "substantiated" by countless reliable sources which define it as pseudoscience. Neutrality is determined by sources, not individual editors. To downplay sources based on some random accusation of "bias" would be non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under 4.4 United States

The 2nd paragraph reads:

Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112]

A 'from' should be added between immigration and other so that the sentence reads:

Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration from other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112] 12.228.102.194 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]