Talk:List of international rankings

Notes

Why doesn't this article consist of more countries and their international rankings? Whatever, happen to Canada, the UK, Iceland, Norway, France, Germany, and etc... Is there a lack of available data for this information? Why are these specific countries chosen for this article?

Because the articles haven't been created yet. The Evil Spartan 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See Category:International rankings. International rankings of France

211.110.55.63 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Extended discussion by editor now topic banned under WP:ARBR&I
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See [1]. Please explain. Has been cited by numerous independent researchers and thus notable.Miradre (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Inserting that book is WP:UNDUE. No one uses it outside of a narrow group of researchers. aprock (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, it has been cited and used by numerous researchers as can be seen in the article about the book. For the purpose of Wikipedia another criteria is notability which it certainly fulfills.Miradre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is only used by researchers. Including it here is WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, it has been cited in numerous newspapers and even caused a political scandal in Finland.Miradre (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Only in the context of research. Come up with a reliable secondary source indicating that this books should be used as a list of international rankings by the international community. Otherwise, this is undue. aprock (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The political scandal was not limited to research. For the purpose of WP notability is not limited to research. Something mentioned in many newspaper stories is notable. Also, again, I point the numerous researchers who have written many papers using and commenting on the book. It makes it notable also for research. I can cite dozens of studies showing it has been used by scientific community for further research using its rankings.Miradre (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No one considers this to be a list of international rankings. A few researchers using the data for further research, and a political scandal here or there, does not change that fact. At this point the conversation appears to be over. Failure to produce secondary sources which indicate that this is a "list of international rankings" that is considered outside of research indicates inclusion is undue. aprock (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Also, you wanted a secondary source. Here is one, a peer-reviewed literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miradre (talk • contribs) Again that reference is WP:UNDUE, since it is a controversial primary source. Please stop spamming neutral wikipedia articles with contentious material related to WP:ARBR&I. That is highly disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Not a primary source anymore than the other rankings. May I remind you that you have voluntary promised to permanently stay out of these articles as a condition for your topic ban by the Arbcom being lifted.Miradre (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately it is, since all the material is contentious and totally irrelevant here. I have no topic ban in force and certainly this neutral and anodyne list article has nothing whasoever to do with any ArbCom cases in which I have been a participant. On the other hand you are currently editing under an extremely short leash in view of the severity of previous reports at WP:AE. If you are in any doubt, please feel free to seek clarification from arbitrators directly. But edits which spam articles in this WP:UNDUE way are absolutely unacceptable. Please stop this now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC) It was you who just brought up WP:ARBR&1. May I remind you of this: [3]. Miradre (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Regarding the ranking that it is controversial does not exclude from Wikipedia. It has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing its notability and relevance.Miradre (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) If you truly feel that I should not be editing this article for any reason whatsoever, then report me at WP:ANI or at WP:AE, or request clarification from ArbCom directly. My understanding about Risker is that she is recused from all matters related to WP:ARBR&I. She has written this on wikipedia on multiple occasions. Perhaps you should confer with your friends SightWatcher, Boothello or TrevelynL85A2, if you feel that I am somehow mistaken about this. However, as I see it. your spamming of articles like this with irrelevant and WP:UNDUE material is completely unacceptable tendentious editing, which should please stop now. As I have said, if you truly think that I am editing in a problematic way, then please go ahead and make a report either directly to arbitrators (a request for clarification or amendment) or on a public noticeboard. However, before doing so, please read WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) If there continuing problems such as those that lead you to be topic banned from the area I must of course reluctantly take actions. But I hope that this will not be necessary.Miradre (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You evidently did not read WP:BOOMERANG. Please do so now. Otherwise please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything whatsoever to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. Take your time if necessary—there is no rush. The material you wish to add is contentious and WP:UNDUE: you have now been made quite aware of why that is so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC) It was you yourself who brought up WP:ARBR&I just a few replies above. That a material is controversial is of course not a justification for excluding it from Wikipedia. The data has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing relevance and notability in the academic community. If you do not want to have it under the title "Demographics" we can use "IQ" instead.Miradre (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, since from what I understand English is not your native language (isn't it Swedish?), you might not have understood my question properly. So please allow me to repeat it: please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. You made that claim and, unless you justify yourself, your comments here are unjustified personal attacks and harrassment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Again, it was you yourself, not I, who introduced WP:ARBR&I into the discussion.Miradre (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC) That is because it is your edits that are highly problematic because of the irrelevant, contentious and improperly sourced material that you are adding to spam this article. You are adding content that can loosely be described as racist all over wikipedia at the moment. You are on a short leash because of the previous WP:AE requests and the subsequent clarification. Now please stop this. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Desist with further personal attacks. I am not a racist. I have not been banned from the subject area unlike you have previously.Miradre (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) What personal attacks? Your edits at the moment on wikipedia, both on articles, their talk pages and on user talk pages, are problematic. Your many edits to articles, taken cumulatively as whole, are almost all related to adding content concerning negative aspects of differences between population groups. I have no idea whether these edits represent your views in real life. I hope you will desist now from attempting to add highly controversial and flawed books to this list as if they were authoritative sources comparable in any way to the other items listed, none of which are even remotely of this type. If you are concerned about possible topic bans, which your edits make continual reference to, why not seek clarification from a non-recused arbitrator, e.g. Newyorkbrad? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Calling some a racist is certainly a personal attack. Many of my edits are not in the race and intelligence intersection. For example most of my edits to the IQ article, for which I have been praised by an expert in the field, were not about race. Regarding the content dispute, see below.Miradre (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I am not following you at all here. You have lost me. I have described the nature of your edits, that is all; no personal attack. Also I do not agree that your editing has been of a high quality. The attempted edits here are a quite good example of that. This page is for authoritative sources. Please take this toWP:RSN if think the books you added are authoritative references. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Calling someone a racist is a personal attack. Differentiate between for example race realism and racism. Your are of course entitled to your own view regarding the quality of my edits; I note the an expert the field has praised my edits in the IQ article.Miradre (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I have described nature of your edits. That you choose to misunderstand my words is not helpful (it might be due to the fact that English is not your native language). Instead of engaging in a circular discussion, please make a request at WP:RSN to see whether anybody else agrees that the two books you added as links can be described as authoritative international rankings for demographics. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to make a request at the WP:RSN, feel free to do so. I see no need to do so since you have presented no policy disallowing them. A book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable source.Miradre (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Relevant policies here are WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. If you don't understand these policies, you should not be editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, according to WP:RS a book published by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources, most of them in support, is a reliable source. How do you personally feel that the other policies apply?Miradre (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) See below where I have copied VsevolodKrolikov's comment from elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Huh? He is commenting (incorrectly without sources) in another article, not commenting on this article.Miradre (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) To reiterate, the content which you wish to add is WP:UNDUE, improperly sourced and irrelevant, no matter what heading you choose. The sources you used are not suitable for adding neutral content to wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC) How can it be undue when it is widely used in the academic literature? Why was it improperly sourced? The sources are peer-reviewed studies.Miradre (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC) It is undue because it is improperly sourced. Material from books by Richard Lynn, all of them controversial, cannot be used for adding neutral content to wikipedia. His books, because of the criticisms they have generated in the academic literature, constitute primary sources and therefore cannot be used in the way you wish. From what I understand, you yourself are already aware that there is a problem with using sources like this anywhere on wikipedia. But if in doubt, why not file a request at WP:RSN? Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Ad hominem are not valid scientific arguments. Controversy is not a justification for exclusion in Wikipedia. Whitle some studies are critical, numerous peer-reviewed studies have accepted them. Therefore they rae notable and relevant.Miradre (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Please stop WP:TROLLING Miradre. Richard Lynn is the author of the two linked books, both of which are controversial. If you want to suggest otherwise, try another website, but not this one. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Since when is controversy a reason for exclusion in Wikipedia? The scores from the books have been extensively used in numerous peer-reviewed studies showing some level of acceptance in the academic community. As well as being very notable due to the controversy they have created.Miradre (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) The links you added are not authoritative international rankings comparable to any of the other items listed, all of which are uncontroversial. Please see WP:UNDUE. Please take this to WP:RSN if you are still in doubt. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC) A book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable source. Which wikipedia policy disallows controversial scholarly material? Certainly not UNDUE since there are far more peer-reviewed articles which have accepted the rankings are reliable and used them in further research than who have criticized the books. If you want to go to WP:RSN, feel free to do so. Miradre (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC) This list is not for controversial books (which both these books indisputably are). Nor are the books about demographics as you claimed. I have outlined wikipedia policy for you. Please do not attempt to add these sources to the article again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Also please read this comment about your editing. [4] Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) [5]Miradre (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) There is no rule in Wikipedia excluding controversy. On the contrary, controversy is usually notable which is a criteria for inclusion in itself. Again, as per policy a book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable source. I have already stated that I suggest changing the section title to "IQ" from "demogragphics" so I am not sure why you take this up again?Miradre (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC) "There is no rule in Wikipedia excluding controversy." Wrong, there is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The two links, even with further qualification in a footnote, would be highly misleading to readers. Why do you want to mislead readers in that way? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia devoted to the mainstream point of view. This anodyne and neutral list is no exception, although apparently you think otherwise. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) "NPOV of course states that all significant views on an area should be included. Not just a single "mainstream" one. Since there are for more supportive than critical studies regarding the books there is no reason for excluding them.Miradre (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Where are the other points of view here? (By the way I have just pointed out your WP:COPYVIO on Malaria on Talk:Malaria. Please could you attend to that.) Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) We could include "controversial" to indicate that there is a controversy.Miradre (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, you don't intend there to be any other links to provide balance, just these controversial minority links. In that case, your proposed edits are non-neutral, unbalanced and misleading. So WP:UNDUE applies and your proposed edits are inappropriate. Thanks for clearing that up. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Obviously there are wikilinks to the articles about the book which describes the controversies.Miradre (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) The only thing obvious here is that you intend to mislead the reader. Classic tendentious editing. Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) How can they be mislead if we state that it is controversial and provide a link for more information for those interested?Miradre (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) No these are unbalanced controversial fringe items, completely unsuitable for the list. Their inclusion would not communicate any encyclopedic information but just mislead the reader. For comparison, look at List of physics topics (aka Outline of physics). That list does not include cold fusion. All the arguments you have advanced here would apply equally well there; however, your "arguments" are trumped by wikipedia policy. Does that help you at all? Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Making a comparison to physics is misleading since things are always more uncertain in social sciences. The list is certainly interesting. The scores from the books have been extensively used in numerous peer-reviewed studies showing some level of acceptance in the academic community. As well as being very notable due to the controversy they have created.Miradre (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) No, the cold fusion case is exactly comparable. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Cold fusion is fringe while there are far more supportive than critical studies of the books.Miradre (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Not at all. Lynn's research is not accepted by mainstream academia, as evidenced by book reviews by experts in psychometrics. But let me ask a different question. Let's forget about Richard Lynn. What exactly within demographics would you be mean by "international ranking"? It's not at all clear what you intended by adding a section with the title "demographics". Mathsci (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) There are both favorable and unfavorable views. There are far more supportive articles. I have several times stated that I propose to changing the title section to "IQ" from "demographics". Unclear why despite this you continue to insist that I want a "demographics" section? Miradre (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Lynn's and Vanhanen's research is not notable enough to include in articles aoutside of the narrow Race and Intelligence topical field. They have no academic weight whatsoever outside of that field.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Their data have been used in numerous studies by economists, political scientists, psychologists, and other social scientists.Miradre (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC) WP:DNFTT. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Incivility does not help your case. What I stated is true.Miradre (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You have still not explained what kind of international ranking you were proposing under the heading "demographics". Equally well I am not sure what you might mean if the heading were changed to "IQ", This is a list. How are readers supposed to now what you mean unless you provide several paragraphs of explanation including comments on the controversy and possible unnotability of the links? The rest of this list is not in any way like that, so what prompted you to introduce an entry that it is so different and problematic? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I have several times stated that I do not longer suggest a demographics section for material. Please explain why you continue to bring this up? Any interested reader can of course go to the full article with a click on a wikilink and read all about any controversies and other things on the subject. As a notable and interesting ranking, it should be included.Miradre (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Please read the question more carefully. I asked about two headings and so far you have not provided any kind of answer for either. This is not the first time I've asked you this. Please could you now provide a a careful answer for either demograhics or IQ and explain carefully its relevance to this list. (BTW the reponse "clicking on the link" is not an answer.) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Why should we discuss something I do not longer propose like a demographics section? Regarding the IQ rankings they are notable, interesting, and used in several different branches of science. We can state that they are controversial and by providing a wikilink to the main article for the interested reader can look up more info if interested.Miradre (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) What do you mean by IQ rankings? Can you name some major body that refers to what you call "IQ rankings"? The CIA factbook? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) The IQ rankings from the books. I have already stated that numerous peer-reviewed articles have used them.Miradre (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) What does IQ ranking mean? Is it a number? Is it an order? Does it apply to all countries, or just some? Although controversial, I agree with Aprock and Maunus that the books themselves seem non-notable. Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I suggest that you read the article. If you do not know these basic things regarding the rankings, how are you qualified to decide if the books are appropriate? Miradre (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC) That is not a response. I take it then that you cannot describe in simple language what you mean by "IQ rankings". In that case, no need for any mention in this list. I am not qualified to evaluate the books; but for the purposes of wikipedia, eminent experts like Nicholas Mackintosh and others have reviewed them unfavourably in peer-reviewed journals and that is how on wikipedia we can determine whether they are reliable or not. Thanks for your help, Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Again, I suggest you read the article. No need for me to repeat them here. Other eminent researchers have accepted the rankings as valid and used them in many further studies.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a source of any kind. Nicholas Mackintosh is an FRS; Richard Lynn is not. Mackintosh dismissed the first book out of hand. (If my memory is correct, I included a summary of his review in the wikipedia article on the book two or three years ago.) If you cannot explain in simple terms what you mean by "IQ ranking", that entry cannot be suitable for inclusion in the list. All the other entries are self-explanatory. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) The IQ ranking is explained in the article about the book. WP certainly is a source for WP readers. There have been numerous supportive scholar besides the authors.Miradre (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) No, wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for writing articles. You've already had that explained to you fairly carefully by an administrator (Guettardo). Your claims of notability are not properly sourced, just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The book reviews on the other hand tell a completely different story. Selective use of data, flaws in statistical methodology, etc. If you are not willing to discuss in any detail the one sentence you inserted, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia can certainly be used as source by its readers when the readers seek more info on the books and controversies which was the original topic. There are dozens or hundreds of peer-reviewed studies which have accepted the book's data and rankings as valid and useful.Miradre (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately we only have the word of Miradre for all these statements, which appear to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Negative book reviews from top experts in a subject undermine the reliability of a book. Even if those reviews contradict Miradre's own unsourced statements, they cannot be dismissed. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I cited numerous such studies in my last edit to the article. See here: [6] Did you not check what you deleted? Miradre (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) All alas original research and synthesis. Nicholas Mackintosh's review of the first book is damning. Please try to take that in, even if it goes against all your preconceptions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) How? Are you denying that they accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research? Miradre (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Read the review: it's scathing. That's nothing to do with me. I am sorry if you find that unsettling, but please try and move on. No need to continue this kind of original research and synthesis. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You have presented 1 critical study, I have presented 15 supportive.Miradre (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) In his review Nicholas Mackintosh documented errors and misconceptions in the book. In fact he explained how some of the data, which he himself had collected, was manipulated by Lynn. Your arguments about numbers seem to be more original research and synthesis. I cannot see that a book review by the one of the top experts in the subject can be dismissed, but that's what you seem to be doing. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC) That is one critical view (which you not represent correctly). Again, I have presented fifteen supportive studies.Miradre (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You are repeating yourself. It's probably best to remember that repeatedly making unsourced statements, based on original research and synthesis, is regarded as disruptive and tendentious editing on wikipedia. Many of your edits have been like that today in several different places. Tendentious editing is not usually tolerated on wikipedia. So please stop. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC) It is not unsourced. See the sources here: [7]Miradre (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Not wise to continue making remarks like this to cover you own original research and synthesis. As I say you are editing tendentiously in various places on wikipedia and that is not usually permitted to continue. Good night, Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) How? Are you denying that they accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research? Miradre (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Have you noticed that you keep asking the same question over and over again, even when it's been answered? That is called WP:TROLLING. Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I cannot see that it has been answered. Please repeat your answer if it has been. Thanks!Miradre (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC) When I asked this before you ignored it and talked about your critical study which did not answer my question.00:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately you rely on primary sources and your own assessment of them. Your own opinions, however, are irrelevant, just original research and synthesis, On the other hand the review by Nicholas Mackintosh is a WP:RS by an acknowledged authority. Wearing out other editors out with fallacious arguments is an interesting tactic: you have filled several talk pages with such "reasoning", even though it is at odds with wikipedia editing policies. Please could you stop wasting other editors' time in this way? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) No synthesis. The sources does what I say. They accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research. If you want more, I can of course add studies such as those that compare the data to international student assessment tests.Miradre (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) You rely on primary sources and your own assessment of them, which is original research and synthesis: the synthesis/original research is in your inference that because these researchers have used this data, that validates it. There is no way on wikipedia that we can decide that. On the other hand the reliability of reported measurements in parts of Africa for example has been placed in doubt in published reviews by specialists, including Mackintosh, Wicherts, etc. That unfortunately means that the books cannot really be used as a WP:RS. The tables of average national IQs (this is the correct term) cannot at present be regarded as authoritative, definitive or reliable for wikipedia purposes. That is why at present it is not appropriate to include links to them in these lists. As a closing comment, if indeed you meant tables of average national IQs, country by country, why did you not say so? Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Actually, the studies usually do a mini-review of the books and explains why they find them acceptable for further research. Again, if you want more, I can of course add studies such as those that compare the data to international student assessment tests. I should also note that even Wichert eta al, when they compared the rankings to student assessment tests found the books to be correct for most of the world. The study only disagreed for Sub-African Africa and there are other studies disagreeing regarding this. Obviously I mean the average national IQ data, which are the only IQ rankings in the articles which was linked to from here.Miradre (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Having an introductory survey does not stop an article being a primary source. If, as you say now, you "obviously" meant to refer to these tables of average national IQs, why did you have the heading "demographics"? This has nothing to do with demographics. I can see no way of placing any reference to these tables in the list at present: you seem to be in a minority of one here. In spite of what you have written here at great length, the precise form of your edits in the article—simple links to the article pages of the two books without further explanation—indicates that you were using this list as an advertisement for Lynn's books, i.e. some form of advocacy/spamming. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Again, if you want other studies there are several comparing the data to international student assessment tests and generally finding them accurate with the possible exception of Sub-Saharan Africa. I have already numerous times stated that I no longer propose a section called "Demographics" but instead one called "IQ". You can hardly have failed to read this several times. That you continue to ignore this is increasingly looking to be deliberate. Do not continue with this. I have already stated that we could describe the books as controversial.Miradre (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I have no interest in reading any more of your comments. Spamming neutral articles with WP:UNDUE material concerning R&I is not a very good idea, no matter how much you try to justify yourself. Bye, Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) The books presents international rankings, this article is about international rankings.Miradre (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:ADVOCACY. Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC) My POV is to present what reliable sources state in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Currently some views are underrepresented in Wikipedia compared to the scientific literature. If the same views were overrepresented in Wikipedia I would work to correct that. I do note, however, that you yourself consistently seems to edit according to a particular POV, so consider WP:ADVOCACY yourself.Miradre (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps we should also include a "ranking of countries by their sense of humor"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD time?

Actually looking over this whole article it looks like a badly put together coatrack of links to lists, articles and whatevers which may or may not have anything to do with international rankings. Some of the choices of what to include are completely arbitrary (I've removed some of these from the Economics section). There are also many many many obvious gaps in what is excluded (GDP per capita?). I know Wikipedia loves its "list" articles but this one's not even coherent.

I'm thinking this is a pretty good candidate for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lacking content for a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. Instead, the article should be expanded.Miradre (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Systematic disappearance of relevant Lists

Last time I looked, about a year ago, Wikipedia offered quick access to the sort of Lists you need to understand the basic facts about the world we all live in, especially Lists of countries by Population, nominal GDP, GDP at Purchasing Power Parity, nominal GDP per capita, and GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parity. And articles about the Group of Two (USA+China), the G7, G8, and G20, generally provided links to such lists, with the Group of Two article also including such data for the US and China in the article itself. It seems that some person or group has now systematically removed all such information (or at the very least has systematically made it a great deal harder to find), in what seems at least to me quite likely to be the worst act of vandalism and/or information suppression ever inflicted on Wikipedia (except that I doubt that the motivation for doing so had anything to do with a mere desire to vandalize). Does anybody have any knowledge or ideas on how and why this came about, and what if anything can be done about it? Meanwhile I shall presumably just have to get my data from such places as the CIA World Factbook. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ok

ok 77.115.216.52 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Mexico 79.115.136.249 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)