ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Intelligence was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Further reading

I removed a bunch of the further reading books. I removed the journal articles as they are generally better served integrated as inline citations. Unless they're major review articles, focus on a single issue in intelligence isn't really a great further reading. In general, like external links, I don't see a long further reading section as particularly useful to readers - resources should be classic texts, peer-reviewed books published by major university presses, ideally the most recent available. Books and articles should be directly related to the page in the most comprehensive way, not focusing on a specific or single aspect of intelligence. I don't see the utility of books on psychometrics, unless the page is psychometrics, because that is only on the aspect of the tests and testing of intelligence - one, but not all, of the areas of study of intelligence. The further reading section should not be a holding section for articles and sources waiting to be integrated into the page - the talk page is a much better place for that. WLU (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer some questions:
  • How did you determine what is a "classic text"?
  • What criteria did you use to determine if a book or article "related to the page in the most comprehensive way"? Please cite specific reasons for deleting an item as non-comprhensive.
  • Please explain in more detail why psychometrics is not appropriate for an article on intelligence.
Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WLU's edits. This is an article about intelligence, which in my opinion should cover its definition(s) and different types, outline the main theories of intelligence, as well as its presence in different species. It should guide the reader to various other articles that specialise each of these aspects. Further reading should list the key texts.
At the moment, the article has perhaps a little too much emphasis on psychometrics. Pgr94 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Classic text - written by a historical scholar, such as Terman, who was recognized for his work on intelligence testing. Related in a comprehensive way - has 'intelligence' in the title, rather than 'psychometrics', is of substantial length, is published by a scholarly press, and has a title that indicates it is not linked to a single aspect of intelligence, like testing, psychometrics of tests, mental retardation (the opposite of intelligence - what makes people dumb, not smart, for lack of a more politically correct term), behavioral genetics, etc. I'm not against some further reading, but a massive section, particularly one made up of texts easily integrated into the main article (such as journal articles on narrow subjects) don't seem like good choices to me. Since the GTL doesn't offer much guidance here, I used common sense to reduce to a minimum of the most relevant. Did you have some specific texts you thought should be added? I'm not saying I was completely right, so let's discuss, if we need to, we can get a RFC or other external comment. Many of the books also seemed related to other main articles, and they should therefore go in those article, not this one. This one should be generic intelligence.
I also notice the referencing is a bit funny, such as the inclusion of an unpublished thesis (Horn never published his thesis?), no citation templates, no links to abstracts, so I might go through with geo wikifier and diberri to add them. WLU (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I used a combination of common sense and professional expertise to restore a few classic and very noteworthy readings. Ward3001 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
They look OK to me, though perhaps the G factor book could be better placed on the general intelligence factor page - it supports only one focus of theories on intelligence rather than the more comprehensive books tackling general intelligence. WLU (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I suggest checking out the short content of this site :

http://flvcrisan.tripod.com/

It is the most interesting thing I've read on intelligence. It even contains a definition of intelligence. 79.113.90.240 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)flvcrisan

Unreliable. Won't gon on the page. WLU (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Kevin McGrew's website

I restored the external link to this website. Kevin McGrew is a leader in the field of cognitive abilities. He has published hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles and several books, and is the co-creator of one of the leading tests in the field (Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery). The website contains links to scholarly publications, up-to-date lists of publications organized by topic, and input from many writers in addition to McGrew.
One editor who removed this asked me to "cite his work" (presumably his books and journal articles). Then another editor slashed out a substantial amount of the "Further reading" list. Since it is impossible to simultaneously include and not include a long list of a writer's works (i.e., "cite his work" and then have it "trimmed"), I am including it here as a defense for including his scholarly website in the external links. Here it is:

[edit] Qualifications

Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This link to a blog should be removed. It is selling advertising and has links to commercial websites. commercial links, advertising for sale.
The blog appears to be about psychometrics, not intelligence in general.
Finally, regarding the references, I think we have our wires crossed. I am trying to say that it is better to cite peer-reviewed work than blogs. Pgr94 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the blog. Unlike, say, Pharyngula (blog), which is in a scienceblog and a top-ranking one at that, with lengthy posts that are all substantive, the blog is a collection of links to things the author considers interesting, and there doesn't seem to be as much substantive content. This page is not about Dr. McGrew, and if you desire Dr. McGrew's work to be cited in the article, in-line citations would be the preferred way. Since we're stymied, perhaps a WP:RFC or posting on one of the noticeboards would be in order. Another suggestion would be to demonstrate the merit to the blog itself - links to some of the 'great' posts, that substantially discuss important issues. Also, given Dr. McGrew's lengthy contributions to the field, it's possible that blog entries that are referenced could be used as sources themselves, though naturally the preference is for journal articles. WLU (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Several points. Regarding advertising, Wikipedia articles have thousands of external links with far more advertising than this one. They are kept because they also have very useful information. As only one example, look at almost any of the thousands of Wikipedia articles about a film. There will almost always be a link to the IMDb page on that film. IMDb has much more advertising than McGrew's site. That's only one example.
Regarding Pharyngula (blog), give me evidence that it is more "top-ranking" and "substantive". I disagree.
Regarding WLU's suggestion that McGrew's "blog entries that are referenced could be used as sources themselves" and Pgr94's statement that "it is better to cite peer-reviewed work", that's hard to do when a deletionist such as WLU slashes out most of them. A link to McGrew's website is much more concise and efficient.
I am fine with WP:RFC as long as it is worded neutrally. Ward3001 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Collapsed the list of works for ease of reading and preview
Check the first reference on Pharyngula. Does McGrew's blog have comparable notability from a journal of Nature's prestige? Also, Paryngula is part of ScienceBlogs, thus evidencing some degree of oversight and expertise. McGrew might be an expert, but his blog has no evidence of peer-review or editorial ovesight. It really does look like just a blog - a collection of cartoons, some suggested readings and some more substantive posts, but a very informal tone and far from what I would consider enough to merit being an external link on a page like intelligence. Given what I've seen, I would now hesitate to use the blog as a source even, barring very low-level statements.
If you are concerned about accessing the blog, well, I just removed it from the page, not the internet. If you're concerned about the resources removed, well, here is the version before my first edit to the page. WLU (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What I see on Pharyngula is Myers' (presumably an expert) personal opinions, links to what other people have to say, references and links that may lead to peer-reviewed publications. Very similar to how McGrew's website is set up. And the fact that a blog is part of a larger network of blogs does not give it more of a "peer-reviewed" status. McGrew's blog has input from many experts besides McGrew. I'm not denigrating Pharyngula. I just consider the accusation that McGrew's website is less "top-ranking" and "substantive" to be smoke and mirrors.
"If you are concerned about accessing the blog ... ": The Intelligence article isn't written solely for me. I already know about McGrew's website. The article is written for a general readership (including non-experts), who may not otherwise be aware of McGrew's website until they encounter it in a Wikipedia article. That argument is meaningless. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to address your comment "...that's hard to do when a deletionist such as WLU slashes out most of them". I find McGrew's blog hard to navigate, very popular, and not focussed solely on intelligence. Plus, it's a blog. But let's let a RFC decide if we're agreeing to disagree. WLU (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"it's a blog": And Pharyngula is not a blog?!?! This is making very little sense. I personally find McGrew's website easy to navigate, but I also consider that very low in importance as to whether it is a worthy external link. And you find it "popular". Again, I fail to see how that is an important issue, unless by that you mean "pop psychology". If so, McGrew's work, including his blog, is among the most respected in the field. Dr. Phil is pop psych. Dr. McGrew is serious research. I'm starting to wonder if someone hasn't confused Kevin McGrew with Phil McGraw. And aside from an occasional humor break, yes it focuses solely on intelligence. Tell me how it doesn't.
As I've also said (in fact I originally said it), an RFC is fine, if it is worded neutrally. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Look for one later today. WLU (talk)

[edit] Proposed new section: Factors affecting intelligence

I'd like to suggest a new section entitled Factors affecting intelligence. It should cover:

It should be made clear that it is difficult to separate correlation and causality (eg Height and intelligence) Feedback welcome. Pgr94 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First draft of this section has been attempted. Improvements and feedback are very welcome. Pgr94 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have covered issues already discussed in Intelligence quotient#Heritability and Intelligence quotient#Public policy. Should these issues really be covered in both Intelligence quotient and intelligence? Pgr94 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Had a go. WLU (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-work

Substantial re-work to trim out unreliable, unnecessary or impossible to verify sources, citation templates across the board, wording changes, etc. Added a table. Have a compare, I don't think I removed anything too precious. I did trim the AI section more than a bit, since AI has its own page, tehre's no need for a lot of detail here. WLU (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The AI trim is fine, well done. Pgr94 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog

Should Dr. Kevin McGrew's blog Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and Tests be included in the external links section?

Here are my arguments against this link:

  1. The external link is to a blog which is selling advertising and has links to commercial websites. commercial links, advertising for sale.
  2. This article is about intelligence in general while the blog appears to be about intelligence testing / psychometrics. I fail to see how this blog contributes to an article on intelligence.
  3. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed publications that would make better references.
  4. Blogs in general are not reliable sources and the fact that there are economic interests at stake makes this even more questionable.

Pgr94 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I will add:
  1. Significant content that doesn't discuss intelligence testing in a scholarly manner (cartoons, book reviews, links to other blogs he considers interesting)
  2. The page is not about Kevin McGrew; the blog would be wholly appropriate for his page
  3. McGrew is responsible for drafting an extant intelligence test, but there are other researchers who have worked on other tests. Their blogs are not here, and having this blog on the page would open the page for the inclusion of others. Obviously this would have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, but WP:EL does say no blogs #12. It is only by Dr. McGrew's expertise that this is being considered at all.
  4. There is no editorial oversight on the blog besides Dr. McGrew. Therefore, there is no guarantee that coverage is balanced, portrays all sides of the issue honestly and thoroughly, and since it is a blog, there is no real impetus to do so beyond Dr. McGrew's own motivations. I'm not saying he's going to or has started a smear campaign on his opponents. But it's a consideration - lack of peer review increases the chance for an error or omission to occur. WLU (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for the link

  1. Dr. McGrew is definitely an expert in the field with an extensive publication record. See #Qualifications above. WLU (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. Don't confuse Dr. Phil McGraw (pop psychologist on TV) with Dr. Kevin McGrew, a serious researcher.
  2. McGrew's work, including his blog, is among the most respected in the field. He has published many peer-reviewed journal articles and books related to cognitive abilities.
  3. The website contains links to scholarly publications, up-to-date lists of publications organized by topic, and input from many writers in addition to McGrew. It is much more efficient and concise than listing his works in the "Further reading" list (which was trimmed down extensively by an editor on the other side of this RfC).
  4. "Selling advertising" is blown WAY out of proportion. The best counter to this argument can be seen by visiting the website. There are one to two small ads that DO NOT sell or promote McGrew's test or anything else related to McGrew. No banners. No huge ads. No popups. Wikipedia articles have thousands of external links with far more advertising than this one (such is IMDb links on almost all film pages). They are kept because they also have very useful information.
  5. The argument "This article is about intelligence in general while the blog appears to be about intelligence testing / psychometrics" is inaccurate. McGrew's website focuses on cognitive abilities, not just ability testing.
  6. The argument "There is no shortage of peer-reviewed publications that would make better references" is OK, except WLU, on the other side of this RfC and self-professed "deletionist", has a history of removing huge amounts of external links. Listing McGrew's peer-reviewed publications, an extensive list, undoubtedly would be removed. Linking his website is much more concise and efficient.
  7. An editor on the other side argues "There is no editorial oversight on the blog besides Dr. McGrew", but this same editor cites above what he considers an "acceptable" blog, Pharyngula (which also contains advertising). This blog is linked in one form or another on several Wikipedia pages, and no one, including those opposed to linking McGrew's website, has removed it. I have asked for evidence that Pharyngula has more editorial oversight than McGrew's website, but none has been provided.
  8. Regarding the argument that McGrew is a co-creator of an intelligence test, and that "other researchers who have worked on other tests. Their blogs are not here": To my knowledge, no other creator of an intelligence test has a blog. If so, please provide a link on this talk page.
  9. "Cartoons": This is miniscule and occasionally inserted as a humor break. Many external links in Wikipedia may be 99.9% scholarly plus a bit of fluff. This is another argument that is blown out of proportion.

Ward3001 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Counterarguments - they're my opinions, and reflect why I disagree. Ward is defending his point vigorously and ably, I respect his opinion and right to it, even if I disagree - it's nothing personal. Thus:
1. Fair enough, but I don't think many people would make this mistake :)
2. Is his blog respected? ScienceBlogs are official, and reviewed. This is not a scienceblog, it's a regular blog. If there is indication and sources that point to the blog being a respectable site on the 'net for intelligence, that definitely adds to its credibility.
Yes, his blog is respected. What makes Pharyngula any more "official" than McGrew's website? And how is Pharyngula peer-reviewed in a way that's different than McGrew's website? I have asked for this information several times, but it has not been provided. Only the claims, not the evidence, have been repeated. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review the lead of Pharyngula (blog) and ScienceBlogs. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That statement explains the endorsement by a journal; it does not provide evidence that Pharyngula is any more "official" than McGrew's webpage. I can make the statement that McGrew's webpage is endorsed by the Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Cross-Battery Assessment, and other organizations, but that doesn't make it any more official than Pharyngula. And where is the evidence that Pharyngula is more peer-reviewed than McGrew's site? Once again, I'm not denigrating Pharyngula. But I see no evidence that it deserves retention in Wikipedia any more than McGrew's website. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. The EL section and further reading should not be a parking lot for sources waiting to be added; currently there aren't any reference to McGrew's work in the references, and this is not a reason to include a complete McGrew bibliography on this page as it's about intelligence, not McGrew.
Okey, dokey. You tell me how many of McGrew's works listed above you will leave in a "Further reading" list. I'm happy to add all of them. So please tell me which ones you'll leave and which ones you'll delete. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside of RFC, but if you are interested in discussing start a new section and I'll go into detail. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not outside the RfC in the sense that McGrew is a leading scholar in intelligence, and since listing all of his works is not feasible, then a link to his webpage is quite appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Advertising is advertising - IMDB is linked to despite advertising because the community as agreed it is useful. Similarly, the community has agreed that generally blogs are inappropriate, as are links with ads. It's inclusion will depend on the third party's assessment of the benefits of the blog compared to it's drawbacks.
Pharyngula advertises. Please explain the difference. Advertising is advertising. And the reason we're discussing this now is to decide if the Wikipedia community, not one or two editors, find McGrew's website useful, just like with IMDb. So don't state it as an accomplished fact that IMDb is useful and McGrew's website is not.
5. If the website focuses on cognitive abilities, it's less suitable as it should focus exclusively on intelligence to be an EL on this page.
No personal offense, but I believe your comment may reflect your lack of knowledge. "Cognitive abilities" are a subset of "intelligence". The concept of "intelligence" has changed dramatically in the last two decades. More experts in the field generally discuss the concept as "cognitive abilities". This argument has little meaning. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. You say 'deletionist' like it's a bad thing :) I removed the links per the EL guidelines. EL and FR shouldn't be a reference parking lot. Any links that could be fruitfully integrated into the body text can be recovered from the history. Listing McGrew's complete list of publications is inappropriate. They can be cited as in-line footnotes, which they aren't, any of them, but there's no real need to link to a blog that lists all of them. That would border on self/other-promotion in my mind, at the expense of the page. McGrew's expertise should be demonstrated by a wikipedia page perhaps, or the use of his references in the body text. Not by an EL (in my opinion).
I made no judgment, positive or negative, about the concept of "deletionist". I was pointing out the likelihood that a list of McGrew's publications will stay intact with your approach to editing. His website is a much better way to provide readers access to his writings. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside RFC. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying "Outside RFC" is a cop-out that avoids addressing the issue. If you argue that McGrew's webpage should not be included, how much of his works in either External Links or Additional Readings or similar list should be included from the standpoint of a deletionist such as yourself, considering that you removed a substantial portion of such a list within the last 24 hours? Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Pharyngula is cited as a reliable source in numerous other pages, but as far as I know, is only used as an EL on PZ Myers page Pharyngula (blog), possibly pages related to the creation-evolution controversy (though it shouldn't be). It's also part of ScienceBlogs, which invites notable researchers to contribute, and is listed by Nature as a top-rank blog (both pointed mentioned in the leads of SB and P(b), but I don't think I explicitly mentioned this previously). McGrew's blog is just a blog. I don't believe they are comparable for these reasons. Further, there is a difference between external links and sources. It's possible that McGrew's blog could be cited as a source, but this doesn't mean it should be an external link. Also, Pharyngula is an example, not the standard or criteria for inclusion; it's something I'd link to as a source, probably not as an EL on a page other than PZ Myers or P(b). The standard is WP:EL as far as I'm concerned.
"though it shouldn't be": First point: Why haven't you removed it as a link in all of Wikipedia? Second point: McGrew "invites notable researchers to contribute. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
First point is outside RFC. Second point is again placing McGrew as the editorial overseer on his blog, while Myers was invited by ScienceBlogs. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Outside RFC": cop-out again. You are pushing to remove McGrew, but you do not remove another blog that you say shouldn't be there. "Myers was invited by ScienceBlogs." But does Myers have less editorial control over his blog than McGrew does his? And do you know who has and has not "invited" McGrew to maintain a website? Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Even if other creators of intelligence tests had a blog, we are not obliged to link to them. Only if they meet the criteria of WP:EL, that the EL should offer something a wikipedia page never could (large media files, music scores, etc).
I never said that we are obliged to link to them. I was only countering the argument that other creators of intelligence tests are not included so McGrew should not be included. There are no other such blogs, as far as I know. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Meh, it's not major, but it's there, and I see it as a strike against inclusion. They are pretty prominent in my mind. WLU (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I can compile a list of external links on Wikipedia that have more fluff if you wish, but that would be a colossal waste of time that could be used much more constructively. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Given this is a publicly editable encyclopedia, unless it's a FA, it's not of much use to compare. Policy and guidelines are what govern content, not other articles. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you and I both know very well what will happen if I start removing links like IMDb and thousands of other links because they have some fluff in them. Don't forget WP:IAR, which although overused as an excuse, applies wonderfully in this case. WP:IAR is how the links that violate the stricter Wikipedia guidelines are maintained. That's one reason we are having this RfC. Let's see what the Wikipedia community says rather than blindly adhering to a policy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I liked the blog as a vehicle for popularizing psychology and the study of human abilities. It's probably a good way for an instructor to stimulate students' interest. But I'm leaning toward *not* providing it as an external link in the article because it includes advertisements (one of which blinks), and quite a lot of content not directly related to the article. Another problem is that many of the links to articles it provides are effectively dead for readers without subscriptions to a particular bibliographic service. Nesbit (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: More of the links than not go to pdf articles available to anyone. I have downloaded dozens of them without a subscription. Ward3001 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)=
  • Comment, if you search PubMed with the term "McGrew KS"[Author] you only get 8 hits, one a letter response to an author query, this is far less that you expect from an authority in an academic field. For example, I'm just a postdoc, but I have 10 papers published "Vickers TJ"[Author]. I would not support adding this blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Tim Vickers: Your comment, although well-intentioned, is rather meaningless. This is not a medical article, and PubMed is not an appropriate search vehicle. If you search on the American Psychological Association's website, you get the extensive list of peer reviewed publications and books listed above. Please click "Show" before you conclude that he only has 10 publications. I also question your search technique, although I'm not sure how you did it. If you entered "McGrew KS" in a field, I'm surprised you got any hits. If you enter "McGrew" in a field along with "Kevin" or "K" in another field, you may get many more hits. In any event, there is no doubt, even among those who oppose inclusion of the link, that McGrew is a well-published authority in the field of intelligence. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
PubMed contains over 40,000 articles on intelligence and about 700 on the specific topic of intelligence tests, while many minor journals are not listed on PubMed, publishing in low-impact journals such as the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment is not a characteristic of somebody doing who is making a major contribution to their field. This guy just doesn't seem so important that adding his blog would be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the list above??? Do I need to explain in more detail how to do it? McGrew has published in Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, by my count 17 articles (as well as other reputable journals); so obviously something is slipping through the cracks in PubMed's search process. Can we please take the simple approach here? Or do you think the list above is bogus? It's straight from APA's search engine. And are you denying the publications listed above are scholarly? PubMed is not the be-all and end-all for finding publications. Let's turn the tables. I could search a noted biological scientist in APA's search engine, which is exhaustive in the field of intelligence and related areas, and come up with nothing. This is an article on intelligence, not the physical sciences. There is no better search engine than APA's. I don't mean to assume bad faith, but you're making it a challenge. Look at the list above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked at the list, and done a Google Scholar search so I can check how often these have been cited. My opinion is that he is publishing low-impact papers in minor journals and does not seem particularly important as a researcher. His biography also shows him as of mid to low-level importance as an academic. For me, to make an exception and include a blog you need somebody of international standing who has made a major contribution to their field. McGrew just doesn't seem to be of that level. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment in the field of intelligence is a sterling example of a quality journal. How did you come to develop the authority to declare it a "low-impact" journal? I don't mean to be offensive, but frankly, your comments reflect your are grossly misinformed in this field. I could declare the journals that a biologist publishes in to be "low impact", but that would be meaningless because (1) it's not true, and (2) I'm not an expert. Regardless of whether the link belongs, you are flat wrong about McGrew's stature in his field. Read the comment above about his qualifications by someone who opposes the link. This is an article on intelligence, not the physical sciences. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Compare him to somebody like Howard Gardner at Harvard or Arthur Jensen at Berkley, if they wrote blogs they probably would be prominent enough to be included. For me this is a very high bar and this person, although I'm sure a perfectly competent researcher, does not seem to be of that level of importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't care to indulge your idle speculations about things about which you have only a superficial knowledge from outdated information. There is a difference between an applied researcher like McGrew with more theoretical researchers like Gardner and Jensen. All are great scholars, including McGrew. Ask psychologists in the field of intelligence and you'll get high opinions on McGrew. Let me ask, where would you rank David Wechsler in the hierachy of scholars? How about Richard Woodcock? Are they less notable scholars than Gardner and Jensen? And one more point: If you think someone is a high-level scholar only if they are "famous" to people outside their field, you have a lot to learn about scholarship. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to personalise this discussion about a source, I am not interested in your opinion of me, nor is it appropriate for you to make disparaging comments about editors attempting to give constructive feedback to resolve a dispute. Since you appear to be becoming increasingly hostile towards me, this will be my last comment on this talk page. As David Wechsler is dead, he won't be writing a blog, but if he did I'd support adding that since he was of international standing. Woodcock, as one of the developers of the Woodcock-Johnson tests seems reasonably prominent, but I'd have to check some more. Blogs are just too unreliable as sources to be included easily in general articles. If Kevin McGrew had an article, the blog would be a great addition to that specific page, but not, in my opinion, to the page on the subject of intelligence in general. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What you perceive as my hostility and "personalizing" is simply your reaction to coming face to face with a very weak argument (and I don't have an opinion of you as a person; only of your knowledge of psychology). OK, I think I understand you now. If someone has a Wikipedia article, that raises him in the "scholarship" hierarchy. That's one more point in the "fame" criterion. This is what I suspected and you have confirmed. So John L. Horn would be less scholarly than David Wechsler, even though Horn helped bring our understanding of cognitive abilities light years farther than all of the scholars named in this article. That's not to belittle the others, but your "fame" and "Wikipedia article" criteria fail miserably. So Horn's co-developers of CHC Theory, John Bissell Carroll and Raymond Cattell, would be greater scholars than Horn because they have articles; in fact, they would be greater scholars than Wechsler, because his article is shorter. I'm finished with this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Useful external link, noted scholar, not commercial, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Seems to be a cheerful, popular blog. If it were scholarly, I can imagine how it might fit in that context. I saw this RfC listed at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Personal blog, not very well organised, carries advertising, lots of trivia not likely to be of interest to the general reader looking for info on the topic of intelligence. (I also got here via WP:RSN.) Jayen466 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I was contacted on my talk page because I am in the group "Wikipedian psychologists", a category which I started under another name. I do not know any of the other editors who are part of this discussion, and I don't think I've ever given any indication anywhere of how I might lean on this kind of issue. I read everything above, and I find almost all the arguments (and some of them in particular) against including this link less than compelling. What matters is the quality of the content on the external site, and whether it would be of value to encyclopedia readers. Some of the arguments against inclusion of this link misunderstand how psychology works. Every time a researcher like Dr. McGrew writes publicly (even for popular media), he is careful to be accurate and unbiased (part of the scientific method) because his reputation is on the line. Even though only a tiny percentage of web sites are peer-reviewed, you wouldn't want only that kind of highly technical discussion anyway. This is an encyclopedia. Ideal material is that written by an expert for a general audience. He doesn't have to be well-known outside his field, and he doesn't have to be known at all in another field like medicine that also studies intelligence. (Most people, even grad students in related fields, might be surprised how divided academic fields are from each other, even when dealing with the same subject matter.) There's nothing wrong with there being a little light-hearted material there to keep things interesting; to say the site is not scholarly is simply not accurate. I don't see anything at all wrong with there being some ads on the page, especially when we know that the content is not going to be compromised by the specific profit motives of the advertisers. What difference does it make whether the format is that of a blog? The content is what counts. What you don't want linked from Wikipedia articles is a typical blog consisting of the musings of a non-expert. The most compelling critique I read was the one immediately above that the site is poorly organized. I didn't thoroughly explore the site, so I won't take sides on this issue. Perhaps Ward3001 would like to address this point. (Maybe Dr. McGrew could even be asked to add some broad/general navigation links right at the top or upper-left.) -DoctorW 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- None of the arguments for deleting are compelling (see immediately above). -DoctorW 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-- it fails multiple criteria of WP:EL, including the being about specific subtopic instead of the main topic, being promotional, and, heck, most of the criteria on that page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Useful external link, noted scholar, etc. The link is cited for further reading, not as a reference. And is offered for more reading, not recommended. It fulfills the role of further reading very nicely, and as well or better than a static site which repeats information already summarized herein. B. Mistler (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -