Talk:The Global Bell Curve

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to The Bell Curve.

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Sociology

This redirect 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

Anthropology

This redirect 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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article The Global Bell Curve, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Original article[edit]

This article is a new article. The original (contributed by someone else) was a copyright violation, as it was a review of the book copied verbatim. I removed copyrighted text and made a summary that probably still needs substantial work.

Other text was added, that appeared to be more information from the book, rather than a review. I removed this also, as although it was interesting, much of it is discussed already in the race and intelligence article. If there is new information in Lynn's book, that could be cited in the race and intelligence article.

In my view, the purpose of this article should be regarding the book itself. Other may feel that it is not notable. I won't worry about that.

Atom (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be merged with other articles about books by Lynn.[edit]

There seems to be a huge overemphasis on books by Richard Lynn (as contrasted with books by authors who get better reviews) on IQ here on Wikipedia. Perhaps this article should be merged with one of the other articles, or deleted entirely. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's high time to merge together all of these articles, presumably under the name of the most noteworthy of the books.[edit]

This is altogether too many articles about books with altogether too little praise by independent critics. I don't doubt notability for the overall series, and I have a couple of the books at hand from a library, but so far none of these articles on books by Richard Lynn on this same topic even seem to have the standard format of book articles on Wikipedia, and the articles all need a lot of work for improvement, which could best be achieved, in my opinion, by merging the articles together into one comprehensive article on Lynn's books on international IQ comparisons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed "Examples" section[edit]

The Examples section was a selective presentation of the book content without basis in secondary sources. Please refer to WP:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article for guidelines on how to structure an article about a book. aprock (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See nothing there preventing examples from the book. Which is of course a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted again. Please explain what policy you are referring to. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]