I "just Googled" it:

> In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

The article is full of references of primary sources that support this claim.

That is the #9 most controversial article in wikipedia, historically: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-ten-most-contr...

It is heavily censored with wikipedia's left-leaning bias. Go read the talk page to see it in action.

All the talk page indicates is that the article is correct, despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe.

Wikipedia doesn't have a left-leaning bias, reality does.

> "Wikipedia doesn't have a left-leaning bias, reality does."

It's impossible to take you seriously when you say things like this.

I'm comfortable with right-wingers not taking me seriously, since I return the favor with pleasure.

So your focus is on what "camp" someone falls into, not whether their arguments have merit or their statements are factual?

No wonder you think there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia. As long as your "side" controls the narrative, you'll nod your head and clap like a trained seal no matter what lies and "misinformation" they spread.

The talk page, and Quillette article, are proof that Wiki entries needs to contain the discredited sources too, and the properly sourced criticisms of them of course, rather than simply deleting them.

Wiki rules are tools to build better content, not absolutes we must die on. If 90% of readers of an entry find it lacking or untrustworthy because it doesn't mention well-known studies or even fields of endeavor then it's not a useful article.

> despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe

Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines? That communists are less likely than average to believe this? These broad statements and the identities around them are the partisanship behind much of the politically-motivated editing going on in Wiki now.

Quillette articles are rarely proof of more than the ability of deranged conservatives to get nonsense published.

>Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines?

Maybe. I think the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything - certainly anything that could be described as 'intelligence' - is probably split that way.

The Quillette article was cited as tautological proof of how "those people" feel about the wiki entry. They don't find it convincing and are explaining the citations they feel it lacks...

The point of Wiki is to educate and that means reaching the uneducated who are going to have those nasty uninformed opinions. Even if I agreed with your assessments of the people involved I'd want to improve them, not crap on them for where they are. If Wiki is only for those who already believe the right things, why even have Wiki?

> split along communist/non-communist lines?

Why would a support for a scientific concept be split across groups by economic philosophy? Is there anything inherently capitalist or communist about these ideas or are these ideas conflated with identities?

> [IQ being] anything that could be described as 'intelligence'

That it's related at all, or that it's a perfect match? Because of course we'll always have subjective views of the definition of intelligence and no one test will satisfy everyone.

> the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything

Unlike intelligence, IQ is definable, stable, and correlates highly to job performance. (Of course, because the tests resemble many work-skill tasks...)

Why would IQ be the only trait that isn't genetic at all?

I have no desire to see any given racial group maligned, even with "correct" data, but I feel the discussion about genetic traits is limited for fear of this, and that this censoring falls exactly along the lines of the USA's post-slavery racial lines. To me this suggests that this is a you (the USA) problem, not an us (the rest of the anglo-sphere) problem, and that it should be treated with racial sensitivity training and honesty, not with demonization and censorship and quashing research.

There is a robust empirical difference that's seen between races. That quote is about the notion that this difference is inherent. Rather, most scientists think it's largely environmental. They wouldn't have to attribute the difference to environmental factors if there were no actual difference.

So the OP is correct in saying that even if you remove discrimination there would still be differences, because the environmental factors that caused those differences remain.

>There is a robust empirical difference that's seen between races.

There's not an objective/standardized way to even measure intelligence, so you'll forgive me if I treat the claim that there's an empirical difference in intelligence between races with a mountain of skepticism.

The OP said IQ. That's a specific measure that may or may not be related to intelligence. It does have strong correlations with academic and life success though.

Wikipedia articles for contentious subjects tend to be ... opinionated. Is there anything more contentious than race?

That particular article's censorial bias is described in detail here: https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/

Look at the actual research that supposedly leads to the rejection of that idea. There doesn't seem to be any, except for a bunch of unsupported speculation. A notorious example is the Minessota Transracial Adoption Study or something along those lines. They actually found what was clearly an inherent difference according to their experiment's design, then after they got this uncomfortable result, they found another variable they'd forgotten to control for and attributed it to that, without any further evidence. The science in this field is full of fraud because it's dominated by leftists who will be punished by their peers for publishing politically incorrect findings.

Personally I'd be more concerned that people don't know that IQ tests are not a measure of intelligence, and that anyone who's claiming that differences in IQ across racial lines are evidence of racial intelligence differences is attempting to launder some racist bullshit.

Except IQ differences between races are themselves heavily influenced by societal/ historical discrimination. And discrimination still occurs in employment practices for jobs where high IQ is not a significant predictor of capability. FWIW I don't doubt that racially-aligned genetic factors that influence appearance almost certainly affect other factors, including general cognitive ability, however we're so far off the point that it's likely to be the dominant explanation for why those from particular racial backgrounds rarely gravitate toward and ultimately succeed in particular careers that I see no benefit in focusing on it. I do however worry that many "affirmative action" policies may be well-intentioned but severely flawed and ultimately self-defeating - if I were a disabled older black female I wouldn't want to have to deal with the suspicion (in my own mind, as well in those of others) that I landed a particular role because of my race/sex/age/disabilities rather than in spite of them (or better still, because we finally lived in world where such attributes were simply considered irrelevant). There are surely better methods that can be used to help overcome undeniable levels of systemic favouritism towards those with particular attributes. I say that as a white, able-bodied male under 50 - personally I suspect most of the reason I've found it easy to succeed in the software industry is due to my upbringing and in particular my Dad, also a white able-bodied male who was even more successful in the IT industry even before he was 40. Virtually everyone technical or managerial in his in own companies fit the same profile - the sales department had some white female able-bodied employees under 50, and later on there were probably one or two Asian employees though I can't recall seeing any. The same industry today is undeniably more inclusive/representative of society as a whole, though we're still a long way from it. I don't think "affirmative action" has really been a big driving force, and I've certainly never worked anywhere that specifically had a policy of actively preferring candidates of a particular sex/race/age/etc. that traditionally has been underrepresented. But I would still like to see more of an effort made to encourage such candidates to apply and to ensure that there's nothing in the job-posting/interview/ selection process that might contribute towards that continued underrepresentation.

Why are you so concerned with the potential aggregate IQ difference of large groups of people?

It’s irrelevant to the obvious and provable incidence of racism on the individual level.

Because the different outcomes of those groups is popularly used as a reason that there must be racism causing it which leads to division, hate, and further racist government actions as people imagine that that racism must be very serious to cause such serious effects. But it might actually not be very significant if the cause is something else. And such efforts won't even help the people who are suffering from poverty either. It would be OK if this was a niche opinion but it's incredibly widespread and actually has real world consequences.