This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
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
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
education and
education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
The Global Bell Curve was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 22 February 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
The Bell Curve. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
The contents of the Cognitive elite page were
merged into
The Bell Curve on 4 December 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
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 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.
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.
What seems to be missing from the discussion is how well did The Bell Curve sell? A discussion of how many copies were sold, how many reprints were made, and critics’ assessment of the reason’s behind the book’s commercial success or lack of it are certainly worthwhile.
Luokehao, 13 December 2020, 08:09 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.221.166.49 (
talk)
This book synopsis relies on a single source.
Of course the synopsis of a book always relies on one source. Why warn readers about that ? It is silly.
142.189.246.116 (
talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
What assumptions does the book actually make?
According to Gould, the book authors assume that intelligence must be:
reducible to a single number
capable of rank ordering people in a linear order
primarily genetically based
essentially immutable
But author Charles Murray said he made no such assumptions
Should we leave it at that? Or can we quote the passages which Gould claims indicate such assumptions?
And on the other hand, are there any passages in the book which refute Gould's claim?
--
Uncle Ed (
talk) 14:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
"a view that is now considered discredited by mainstream science" citations are poor
The first citation is a guardian opinion article, it's argumentative and raises valid points, however I do not think it can be considered "mainstream science" as the article is not science, it puts forward a point of view that may have some scientific basis by one person.
The second citation is a vox article which is again an opinion article in a similar style to the first, it's a criticism of a podcast between Sam Harris and Charles Murray, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".
The third citation is an actual published article in a journal, however, it cannot be considered a scientific refutation of the view. It's an observation of how white supremacists use similar articles to the ones that Charles Murray has made to justify their bigotry. It is also a low impact article from a low impact journal, the article itself only has 43 citations, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".
I do not believe that the claim is sufficiently cited.
106.68.123.65 (
talk) 13:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
According to
WP:MOSLEAD, the lead does not need to have extensive citations if there are plenty of citations in the main body, as is the case here. Starting with the "Reception" section, I count 35 sources for criticism of the book by mainstream scholars and scientists, several of whom point out how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science: references 12-16, 21-25, 29-30, 33-45, 47-54, and 57-58.
NightHeron (
talk) 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science" It is a
pseudoscience book, written by two cranks. Is it that much of a surprise that its methods do not work?
Dimadick (
talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I get that it's a standard, but I don't think that number of references is valid. The claim that it's "considered discredited by mainstream science" should have more to back it up than two opinion articles and an article that literally has nothing to do with mainstream science, with a low impact factor, that literally doesn't make it mainstream science.
If you wanted to back up the claim , you should post a strong systematic review with a good amount of citations (probably 500+). I think that would sufficiently justify calling it discredited by mainstream science.
106.68.123.65 (
talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Did I miss something...
Or does this source article
[1] not even mention The Bell Curve?
Goodtablemanners (
talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does mention co-author Murray once, but in any case the article is cited to demonstrate that the view of "genetic racial IQ differences" is discredited by mainstream science.
Harryhenry1 (
talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even so, wouldn't it make more sense to cite an article that specifically mentions the material in The Bell Curve?
Goodtablemanners (
talk) 03:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply