This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ansell. This is regarding your deletion of the section on eminent scientists from the Religiosity and intelligence page. I agree with you that that subject is very relevant to the article on science & religion. However, I believe it's also quite relevant to the article on religiosity & intelligence.

The reasoning behind this is that, similar to the section on educational attainment, those who attain faculty positions at Universities are among the most intelligent people in society. This is even more true for the tiny portion of society (I think about 2,000 out of the U.S. population) which is elected to the National Academy of Science. So, religious belief among these people is very relevant to the debate.

In some ways, this is a separate issue to the science Vs. religion article since what this section is focussing on is the intellectual elite in society. That it happens to also be about scientists is somewhat of a coincidence since the only real research into this (that I've seen) looks only at eminent scientists.

So, based on this, I've decided to reinsert the deleted portions. If perhaps you think the section ought to be reworded to focus more on the eminence of the people and leave the science to the specific science article, please feel free to rephrase it accordingly. Cheers, Paul.rogers.1964 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ansell. Just thought I'd drop you a note to explain why I reverted your edit to the eminent scientists section of Intelligence and Religiosity.

• I reinserted the introductory sentence. I understand at the moment it may seem superfluous but it's nice to lead into the section anyway. I added it during my recent restructuring of the article. The idea is for each section to contain a summary of the useful research in that particular area. Naturally, what I've been able to add at the moment isn't anywhere near complete. Please just bear in mind that, as I (and others, I'm sure) get the chance to work on the article, the sections will grow since there are a lot of studies out there and it's going to take a significant amount of effort to find them all.

• You rephrased the paragraph on the study of beliefs among eminent scientists published in Scientific American magazine. You removed a lot of the meat and bones of what makes the study interesting, so I've added that back.

• I've removed your statement that “there is no conclusive evidence that eminent scientists are more intelligent than their scientific counterparts.” It might be wise to stay away from assertions that no evidence exists, because the lack of existence of something is terribly difficult to prove. On the flip side of that, I dugg out this article which looks at this issue: [1] Basically, the author collated some data from a 1952 study of National Academy of Sciences members and found they had a median IQ of 152. Which is basically what one would expect since NAS members are presumably picked from those that graduated from high school, graduated from university, gained a Ph.D. In a footnote, they mention that the median for those studying for a Ph.D. was 141.

• You also stated that the study was “relatively isolated.” It's the sole study cited on this subject on the Wikipedia article but there are several others I've seen cited elsewhere so I'm trying to track these down, as real life permits.

Thanks a lot, Paul.rogers.1964 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You said on my talk page that I mass reverted others' edits. I reverted your edits and yours alone, leaving intact the edits of others. I explained both here and on your talk page why your deletion of half of the article Religiosity and Intelligence was uncalled for.

It seems to me time and time again that you're removing evidence as you see fit because it does not meet your specific preferences. Wikipedia does not demand that sources are peer reviewed. It demands verifiability.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC).