Talk:General knowledge

Archives

Manual of Style Issues

I came across this article browsing through the GA nominations page. This is not a review, but just general observations. Personally, I believe this article needs some work before it can pass a GA review.

In particular, I noticed that the article uses the abbreviation "GK" pretty excessively. The manual of style says "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper."

Additionally, the article isn't very clear, concise, and accessible.

I believe that this is an excellent start, and meets most of the GA criteria, however, because the article is not very accessible, I believe that the article, as it stands right now, is probably C-class material (since "accessibility" is a specific criterion in B-class). My recommendation is for the nominator of this article to withdraw the nomination for now, and perhaps seek a peer review instead. The backlog on Peer Review is generally shorter than the backlog on GAN.

Please let me know on my talk page if you have further questions, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 21:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions from an automated tool I use at the beginning of all of my GA reviews. Perhaps you can find some of them useful:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, that's very useful. I'll see what I can do to make improvements. --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with common knowledge

I am strongly opposed to this proposal. Common knowledge is defined in the article on the subject as information known to everyone or nearly everyone within a community, implying little variability in how much of it most people have. This is quite distinct from general knowledge as defined here, which involves substantial individual differences in how much people know, even if the information concerned is publicly available. This distinction is clearly stated in the common knowledge article, and has previously been discussed on the article's talk page where an editor has argued strongly that they are not the same thing. The difference has important implications. For example, the fact that someone possesses common knowledge says very little about the person because everyone is presumed to have it, whereas someone who possesses extensive general knowledge would be considered unusually well-informed, and this could reflect particulars of their education, intelligence, or breadth of interests. Furthermore, general knowledge, as indicated by the current article, has been the subject of detailed academic investigation, whereas it is not clear that this is the case for "common knowledge". Therefore, merging the two articles would seem to serve no purpose and would be misleading.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template, I hope no-one has any objections.--Smcg8374 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426065554/http://jupiter.gold.ac.uk/media/ChamorroPremuzicFunrhamAckerman2006PAID.pdf to http://jupiter.gold.ac.uk/media/ChamorroPremuzicFunrhamAckerman2006PAID.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on a controversial main source

Much of this article, as at late August 2019, relies on the opinions of Richard Lynn who seems to support racial and gender differences in intelligence, and whose views appear to be way outside the mainstream. A very poor and questionable choice of source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not least, the article seems to be being used by Amy Wax as evidence to support her superiority of Anglo-Protestants view - for which read white supremicism - according to the New Yorker - https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-penn-law-professor-wants-to-make-america-white-again --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was led here by the same article, with the foolish reference to this article as [if] that qualified as academic impact, and note it crassly used for non-controversial statements to elevate the citation's apparent status. Should be removed from this article altogether, with prejudice. ~ cygnis insignis 22:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC) [edit 17:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)][reply]

@Tagishsimon and Cygnis insignis: I completely agree: remove Richard Lynn and we should also look critically at anything published by Intelligence (journal), as well, I think. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, re@Cygnis insignis:. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easily forgiven, it is dog latin and I am the only one gets the spelling. And agree, I've seen Intelligence cited in dubious circumstances elsewhere and it will reveal more "general knowledge" inserted at wikipedia. ~ cygnis insignis 23:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove the information from Richard Lynn. But the article is really going to need some help being rebuilt. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at Common knowledge, which cites a single paper by Lynn as its only source throughout the entire article. While the article as a whole isn't as bad as this one, the paper doesn't even seem to be on the topic of the article, so it's just cited for an aside. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The "Scope" section takes the definition of the subject from Lynn. That's pretty bad. And the rest of the section is not good either, basically just regurgitating details from Lynn's claims (in a way that wouldn't be appropriate for an overview section called "Scope" even if the source were reliable). XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out to be WP:SYNTH of studies done with different lists of subject areas, inaccurately reporting the numbers thereof. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I lik commons kownl-edge in preview drop-down, roared with laughter, but clicking on it may me give canker [sad face] ~ cygnis insignis 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I had a mind to propose this for deletion, then gave some thought to how to that might play out. Nevertheless, it would seem sensible for a document on general knowledge, under construction, to omit an article on that topic. ~ cygnis insignis 17:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there's enough sourcing from a psych standpoint to support an article, but that we might want to move Common knowledge (logic) over Common Knowledge (I'd suggest a merge, but most of the usable content and history is in Common knowledge (logic), so it makes sense to delete Common knowledge and move the logic one in order to preserve the more relevant history.) It's almost totally uncited, and I'm not sure we could find enough sources discussing it concretely as its own distinct topic. Though that conversation should perhaps be held on those articles. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences section - deleted

I deleted the Sex differences section (diff). To reiterate what I wrote in my edit note: This section is currently cursory, incomplete, lopsided, uninformative, and poorly sourced (in the sense of "reliable sources"). Consequently, no section on sex (gender) differences is better than this poor section. Please discuss on Talk page before reverting. Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if those concerns might indeed apply to the article as a whole. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Markworthen: I added it to address what I thought might be the elephant in the room... since the article came to my attention when I learned that a professor was using it as a reason to argue for sex differences in intelligence. But I'm not a psychologist and reading a lot of the literature isn't easy since I'm not very familiar with the terminology or concepts. But I agree that it's better to have no section at all if I didn't do a good job addressing it! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]