Talk:Intelligence and public policy

Intelligence and public policy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 4, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

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 Intelligence and public policy, 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article kept

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination failed

For the following reasons :

What looks like the lead section should be a section titled Definition or something like that.
Thus a lead section should be added.
This, The importance and sensitivity of the policies at issue have produced an often-emotional ongoing debate spanning scholarly inquiry and the popular media from the national to the local level., sounds a bit pov-oriented to me.
The citations should be standardized whether it is in the Reference section or using the Cite.php model not spread in the text as well as citing webpages, it just confuses the reader.

Thoroughly a good article though, IMO. Lincher 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address these points. The final suggestion, regarding reference style, is not entirely clear to me; perhaps an example can be given? I will re-nominate for GA. --Algebraic 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

In reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately need to decline the nomination at this time because of concerns mention below. This is a unique topical approach to an article so it was difficult to find other articles of FA or GA quality to serve as a comparison point. The overlapping concern that I have with the article is the presentation of this complex and multifaceted topic. In reading it, not only was a left with a sense that there is more to the story to be told but I also had difficulty trying to pinpoint exactly what the focus was with the article. Hopefully I'll be able to explain this more fully below.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

The article doesn't distinguish if it is connecting the concept of Intelligence with public policy or the testing of Intelligence with public policy. Part of this is the ambiguity of the title. Regardless of what primary focus you go with there should be some refinement in titling. Either Human intelligence and public policy or Intelligence testing and public policy.
Relating to the above is the need for the lead section (in accordance to WP:LEAD) to clearly establish context and lay out an overview of the article's main points. In reading the current lead, it starts talking about the measurement of intelligence in public policy and then ends with the line "Public policy represents a key arena for controversies regarding the meaning and importance of intelligence in daily life." which then seems to indicate that the article is going to go into the concept of Intelligence and the public's perception of it.
I could go into other details about the back and forth flow between those two competing "themes" in the rest of the article but I don't think that is needed. What I recommend is to clearly establish the lead with a singular theme and then directly relate each section to that single theme. Everything else will work its way out.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

It clear that the article strives to be well referenced with a plethora of reliable sources. However, it is a concern when there are entire sections without a single reference such as Introduction, Background, Crime and History.
I also think there should be more references that make the explicit connection of "Intelligence" and "Public Policy" to alleviate any appearance of OR. There are a few but I would make that a focal point in evaluating references for inclusion.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

The biggest issue is the US-Centric nature of the article. There is slight mention in the health section but every other section is written from an exclusively American view. Even the reference to the change in public policy regarding the death penalty doesn't cover the international perception of mental retardation and crime that had a stark influence on the change in the US.
The area of Crime is drastically under represented. The article starts on the one angle of mentioning the relation to death penalty policy but neglects to detail how it came to that point. What determination led to the perception that we should account for human intelligence in formulating our public policy on the death penalty? Secondly, there are many studies and media references to how the propensity for crime as well as the depravity can be connected to a person's intelligence level. The stereotype drawn from this is that segments of low intelligence tend to perpetuate more criminal activities but of a lower stature of depravity (more "petty" in nature) while segments of higher intelligences tend to perpetuate more depraved and atrocious crimes. (Like sociopath rapist and murders with high levels of intelligence). As a reader that could be completely false but that does affect the public's perception of criminal activities and related how we view such legal policies as the death penalty, minor crime and high crime, 1st degree and 2nd degree Mens rea and so forth.
Overall, I think there should be more details on how the public perception of intelligence affects public policy decisions. Like the death penalty example above and so much more can written on how it affected the eugenics debate. In fact, I think public perception should be a centralize theme in each and every section because that is arguably the most pertinent factor in the changing of public policy.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

The NPOV tone of the article has improved since its last GA nomination and I appreciate the editor's work in this regard.

5. It is stable - Pass

The article has progressed gracefully since its creation with the contribution of several editors. Since nomination there has not been any drastic change.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

The key phrase in this criterion is "where possible". Some topics are inherently incompatible with including an image and that is not held against them for the benefit of GA inclusion. However, I don't think this is one of those topics. In particular, I think this topic needs images in order to better convey itself.
In each major subject area where the article is putting forth a major claim of the connection between Intelligence and Public policy should be some chart or graph content with data from one of the reliable sources that can serve as a visual aid in understanding the data. An example:

In the beginning of 'Education you put forth the claim "Cognitive test scores predict educational performance better than they predict any other outcome." and build the rest of the section around that. What is missing is the need for the reader to be able to visualize and take in that information-- to "see" how these cognitive test scores predict educational performance. A line chart linking to some published test would go a long way here. It would also help alleviate some of the OR-ishness in that area as well.

I want to applaud the editors of this article for tackling such a complex, yet very encyclopedic topic. Working on this article is not an easy task but I do think the merits of this article makes working a worthwhile process. I encouraging the editors to continuing striving to improve this article and to resubmit it for GA consideration again. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

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) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to hear from you with suggestions of new sources for improving this and other articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]