Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Significant support for deletion on article's discussion page, un-Wiki nature of article, unscientific. Organ123 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete; reasonably coherent article with plenty of references, but the article is inherently un-neutral in nature – Qxz 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you explain what is inherently un-neutral about it? Intelligence is just an objective measure of something, not an opinion.  Joshdboz 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - the article is inherently POV, but perhaps some of the sourced content could be merged into Ashkenazi Jews. -- Black Falcon 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject matter aside, a well referenced article even though it's a fringe theory, it's still well documented on t'interweb. Would suggest instead of deleting article out of hand find referenced counterpoint arguments, if editors do not like the subject matter. Khu  kri  21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well it is well-documented that African Americans have a higher crime rate than other Americans. Would you then say equivalently that its ok to make an article called African American predisposition to crime with all the well-sourced statistics proving this? Usedup 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD is about an actual article not about an hypothetical article, if such an article came up then I would again vote on it's actual content. Khu  kri  00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't really answered if you would vote to keep that article too. After all, both would be very well sourced. Usedup 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I've not answered, your strawman article doesn't exist. But there's a way round that, write the article, put an AfD tag on it and I might vote on it. Khu  kri  01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would violate WP:POINT. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are other places some of the info here could go to, but most of it is about the calibre of flat-worlder logic. If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty anecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is. It would be quite the learning experience, surely.Ernham 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been a fair bit of discussion about how many of the problems in the Ashkenazi gene pool (like Tay-Sachs) stem from inbreeding. If you have enough material to start an article on the subject using reliable sources and can make a decent stub, then go ahead. JoshuaZ 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, race and intelligence (and subarticles) covers this subject without the implied racism. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good point. This information is already covered elsewhere. Deleting this article wouldn't erase its presence from the encyclopedia. Usedup 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Perhaps Redirect to Ashkenazi Jews because all the citations are good. The creator of this article placed it in an unenviable out-of-context situation that casts doubt on it, but it definitely has something to say as many in science, politics and religion (Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Leon Trotsky, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov and see List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners etc etc) are all proof that this article is 100% correct.  IZAK 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it has diffs supporting it really isn't the point though. Things can be 100% true and that still doesn't necessitate a stand-alone lenghty article. Would you support the creation of a Sub-Saharan African Intelligence page with the many IQ studies proving that Sub-Saharan Africans have IQs in the low 70s just because it is well-documented and there are many examples supporting this claim (violence, backwardness)? Or would that be considered racist to highlight it with its very own article and give it such strong credence? Usedup 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. However the page is very POV, and needs to be improved. I am the one that started this page. I actually started it in order to move this material off the Ashkenazi Jews page, and to drive away all the crackpots that beat the drum for this material. In other words, I actually started this page not because I believe in this dreck, but because I didn't like the way the Cochranites had taken over the Ashekenazi Jews page with their somewhat fringy ideas. The Ashkenazi Jews article is already too long. This is material that has been in the news a lot. I would call the Cochrane stuff just slightly better than fringe theory. It has actually been published in a so-called peer-reviewed academic journal, although that doesn't mean much, and the journal is only borderline in respectability. It is a coherent idea, but it just happens to be wrong. --Metzenberg 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I would rather see a much better article written that would be balanced and inclusive. Barring that, I would like to see the Cochran material moved onto the page about Gregory Cochran himself, not back onto the Ashkenazi Jews page. --Metzenberg 11:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Metzenberg. Whether or not these ideas are correct they are notable ideas that has been discussed in many reliable sources and the main article on Ashkenazi Jews is way too long. Agree that this needs to be NPOVed though. JoshuaZ 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, this afd isn't on completely deleting the material - it is on deleting the article. What reason is there behind having a separate unprecedented article when this information can nicely trimmed and merged into Ashkenazi Jews? Usedup 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Metzenberg's motivation (see above) was reasonable in creating the article. But in my opinion, "Ashkenazi intelligence" is an inappropriate (and POV if not racism-begging) premise for an article, and perhaps as a result, the article is beyond repair. I think that the facts of this article should be applied in a different context (for instance, in the Gregory Cochran entry and others). But the fact that Ashkenazim have a high average IQ score and do disproportionately well in academia -- while interesting -- is not worthy of its own encyclopedia entry. Organ123 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Organ123 - There actually is much better material written on this subject than what is written here. It's too bad that somebody like the neuropsychologist Miles David Storfer can't take a crack at this material. --Metzenberg 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is appropriate as perhaps a minor side note on a Ashkenazic Jewish page, but by itself it is basically an article for a study and since there is no precedent for this type of thing, I'm gonna say delete. There are many studies in all reaches of race and intelligence but they don't have their separate article. Equivalently an article called The European and American domination of Arts and Sciences probably wouldn't pass very well although it could be VERY VERY WELL sourced and just as User:Izak up there gave us great examples of famous Jewish personalities who exhibited high intelligence we could fill up that article with many similar examples. If there was a famous study conducted proving that the Jewish people have a genetic tendency to be frugal and it was equally well-sourced, I have a feeling there wouldn't be as many keeps; it would just be called "anti-semitic." Usedup 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just seaching for ashkenzai iq on google gets you 53,000 hits. While this article needs to be expanded and cleaned up, it is certainly notable, verifiable, and not junk-pov. A title change would be fine, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Joshdboz 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be well sourced, is notable, and is exactly what I expected to find at this article. MLA 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Race and intelligence. Encyclopedic, well-supported, but not necessary as a separate article. Αργυριου (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep...merge if you gotta...but don't delete. --Lukobe 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The main argument in favor of deletion seems to be a presumption that the topic in question has an overwhelmingly obvious correct answer and additionally that discussing the topic is politically unpalatable, hence, the article and discussion should be quashed as the article has no substantial merits and significant de-merits. What's wrong with this argument? (1) This is a common point of view, that Ashkenazi Jews on average are more intelligent than other groups, and it is legitimate to discuss this body of thought and opinion regardless of whether one agrees with it, (2) In fact, those who argue for deletion would do better to expand the body of knowledge available on this page regarding the topic in question by posting information regarding how this commonly held body of opinion regarding Ashkenazi Jews is flawed, rather than attempting to quash discussion about it. (3) My personal opinion - it is glaringly obvious that Ashkenazi Jews are on average more intelligent in certain ways than other groups. Those with a political axe to grind are actually those who don't like the conclusion and want to enforce mandatory adherence to the dogma that intelligence is not heritable. Sharpening and using such political axes is not the point of Wikipedia. There is a body of research, thought, and opinion regarding the question of Jewish intelligence; the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly points to conclusions that some find politically offensive does not mean that information regarding this widespread body of thought and opinion should be blocked from Wikipedia. -Me 02:16 am 16 February 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.64.46 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I think you forgot to sign on. Though the "me" part is throwing me off. Usedup 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is thoroughly sourced using material that is fully-compliant with WP:RS and WP:V and meets WP:N. I'm sure that the concept raises political correctness issues with many, but the theory that improved intelligence conferred advantages to Ashkenazi Jews is no different from the claim that sickle cell anemia confers advantages in Africa by providing resistance to malaria or that Northern Europeans are more likely to be lactose tolerant assisted in their survival. The claim that the article is inherently "unscientific" is ludicrous on teh face of the scholarly research provided. Alansohn 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So African American genetic predisposition to crime would be a fine article to keep if it existed because there's boatloads of research proving it? I'm finding it hard to believe if this article had a negative connotation you would still wish to keep it with the same reasonings. Why is it so necessary to make an entirely separate article about this? Most of the article is about a study that isn't even that famous. Usedup 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only address the article that has been proposed here for deletion. This article discusses a theory that increased intelligence conferred adaptive advantages to Ashkenazi Jews, so that this trait was enhanced and selected for through evolutionary and cultural changes. The claim that the "article is about a study that isn't even that famous" is utterly irrelevant to notability. Alansohn 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The fact that there are many other studies on intelligence more famous than this one that DON'T have separate articles highlighting them makes it seem as if wikipedia gives more worth to this one over others. On the other hand, if this was just a segment of the Ashkenazic Jew article, it wouldn't seem as if the encyclopedia is trying to hold it above all others. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if as you say there are more famous cases, that's not the fault of this article, and I believe not relevant to this AfD. If I understand you correctly you are not arguing against this article in most of your commentaries, but the fact there are not similar articles for different ethnicities. Well the simple suggestion would be to create them, as you say there are more famous cases than this one, so with 53,000 Ghit this one has already demonstrated basic notability let alone it's verifibility etc. So if they are more famous it will not be difficult for you to start these articles, or I you don't have the time, you may go to WP:AFC with the basic premise and I'm sure they wil be started for you. To quote you ...makes it seem as if wikipedia gives more worth... it might make is semm but it could be just an editor who loves all things Jewish has created this article, but no-one has bothered to do the others. But the lack of other articles is not a problem of this article, and I will say again is a strawman argument. Oh and just for the record I think the theory is bunkum, but although the subject matter is controversial I'm voting on the article, it's notability, verifibility, and not whether I believe it or not. Khu  kri  08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the word "intelligence" is throwing you off. It is merely a measure, not a value judgement.  So if the sources were available, an article entitled African Americans and crime would be appropriate because it recognizes that there is a notable issue, but does not make a judgement on it. Joshdboz 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make if the article title makes a judgement or the article itself does? This article is making a judgement immediately at the header. The judgement is backed up by a thorough study but so are many other judgements and we don't have separate articles for each one of them. Why is it so necessary to report this one so directly? Nobody seems to find the dozens of studies on the average IQ of Japanese being significantly higher on visuospatial tests so important as to make an article about it. The importance of that study is well rooted and has many of the same explanations as this (cultural and historical changes). I think the fact that so many people actually vote keep on this article shows the inherent bias of wikipedia. Most wikipedia editors are white males, and I'm sure almost everyone on this AFD is one too. (Please don't chime in and say you're not...there's a reason I put "almost.") So naturally, we're going to feel more strongly about keeping an article on Ashkenazic Intelligence than one on Japanese Intelligence or Aborigine Intelligence. But this is problematic, because the fact that we HAVE an article on Ashkenazic Intelligence and not on the main other well-studied researches equivalent to it shows that we are lending more worth to that study than others. I'm not against reporting these studies, I'm against highlighting them as is being done now. Why not just add this to the Ashkenazic Jewish article in a couple of sentences? It can be done and has before. Usedup 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have to resort to claims of alleged bias as the sole basis for deleting this article demonstrates a failure to understand what Wikipedia is about. As stated at Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Unless you are challenging the fact that the statements provided to back up the article do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, it would seem that your sole objection is based on your own personal bias. Alansohn 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Kolindigo 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I soon give up the whole Wikipedia. Should this not be a lexika??? It seems like this is a advertising-"lexika" for some special ethnic groups on this earth. Wikipedia seems NOT like a serious lexika. Should it be written an aricle about "German intelligence"?? Some will say an article like this sounds stupid, but it is in the same street as "Ashkenazi intelligence". The biggest survey on Ashkenazi intelligence is done among 1300 diasporic jews (All other inquiries was a done on a very small number of diasporic jews), the average IQ here was was 107. Germans and the Dutch have scored higher average IQ in two different inquries. STOP this "look how much more intelligent and better we are than other"-thing. Have we not have enough of it in our history on this earth?? Wikipedia seems simply as a kind of propaganda-"lexika" for some ethnic groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.209.194.178 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2007  (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Above. Molo5
 * Delete. Bulldog123 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - While it might be possible to have an article like this one, as it stands this article is mostly OR. Merged the good sourced info (if there is any) into Ashkenazi Jews Also, are we going to have an article like this one for every race and ethnic group?futurebird 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not needed with boasting-"talk big"-pages in Wikipedia, where all the most positive statistic is refered to and all the not so good hidden/not mentioned. Shall Wikipedia be a talk-big-lexika for some ethnic groups?? The person who started this page is obviously not neutral. Mannfredmannfred
 * Delete per nom. Kavitafrommadurai
 * — Kavitafrommadurai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only 7 edits other than this vote, six of which relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Usedup. Helenparis444
 * — Helenparis444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only 9 edits other than this vote, six of which also relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ernham. Suganthini
 * — SuganthinifromJaffna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Limited number of edits other than this vote, eight of which also relate to Penis size statistics. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete my problem being we could end up having an article for every ethnic group or societal class based on intelligence.Muntuwandi 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that there are many people who are of ashkenazi jewish descent who are not ashkenazi jews(intermarriage etc). How are they going to be accounted for.Muntuwandi 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguments above Feydakin 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn, criteria for inclusion are met, ie WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. To the extent it's felt there's WP:NPOV deficiency, in and of itself that isn't cause for deletion but there should be good faith edits to attain neutrality. Whether people agree or not with the propositions of Ashkenazi intelligence, it's a well known meme, and to the extent there are verifiable and reputable sources that this idea shouldn't be believed, that should be added to educate readers and debunk the idea rather than censoring out a topic.  Reasons for deletion aren't convincing.  Merging it with Ashkenazi Jews is also sensible to me. Beyazid 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ernham. nykosher
 * — nykosher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Only one other article edited other than this AfD. Alansohn 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is devoted to a perfectly legitimate and scientific topic, see for example, Race and intelligence, of which this article is merely an offshoot. In addition, all the content is sourced to reliable sources; neutrality disputes do not constitute a basis for deletion. Beit Or 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Race and Intelligence has already gone berserk, giving rise to
 * Race and intelligence (Controversies)
 * Race and intelligence (Explanations)
 * Race and intelligence (Research)
 * Race and intelligence (Public controversy)
 * Race and intelligence (References)
 * Race and intelligence (history)
 * Race and intelligence research
 * Race and intelligence (test data)
 * Race and intelligence (Research)
 * Race and intelligence (practical importance)
 * Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)
 * Race and intelligence (average gaps among races)
 * Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias)
 * Race and intelligence (utility of research)
 * etc., without even bringing into it Inheritance_of_intelligence and other relevancies. Fact is, the whole general topic needs a serious rewrite. Gzuckier 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, without agreeing with nominator. The article content is ok, should be improved, but as part of Ashkenazi Jews. Merge the content there. Jd2718 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Merge to Ashkenazi Jews or Weak Delete. This sort of article is a problem as an article; topic as a topic is not encylcopediac. But the content would be of value in the aforementioned article. This article, one way or another, should not remain. Jd2718 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (clarifying self)
 * Strong Delete All is said by others who want this article deleted without merging. I do not support merging at all.Cangbush
 * I notice that yours is a brand new account with only activity on wikipedia being this AfD vote, which to me detracts from the force of your "strong delete" / "no merge" / destroy-this-information sentiment. It even leads to an amount of suspicion about WP:SOCK. Beyazid 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. At the very least, it should get a better title, because intelligence itself is such a tricky concept. Doubtless there is potential for a valid article on the topic (which should also include the early 20th-century U.S. studies claiming to show that Ashkenazi Jews were of below average intelligence, part of the whole weird history of measuring intelligence). Seems to me that the topic is going to come up one way or another, so it might be best to take it on frontally. However, I am not sure whether Wikipedia is currently capable of producing a good article on such a fraught subject, which is why I cannot simply say "keep". - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is apage on Race and intelligence. Baka man  19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into any articles dealing with those prtclr Psychometrics that undertook this research! frummer 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Ashkenazi Jews. Isn't it odd that Gregory Cochran's paper has still not been published, and is probably taking a beating at peer review? JFW | T@lk  21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep don't see a strong reason for deletion of this article. It could probably use a better title.  Elizmr 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can not see that this article is especially scientific or neutral. The biggest on this field do not seems to be mentioned. Also: This voting seems to go for overtime: time:20.42 19.Febr: 18 delete-13 keep SriKorange. Now 19-14.
 * Merge the main points into Ashkenazi Jews. The research should be and is also mentioned in the race and intelligence series. I see no need (yet) to spread this over so many articles. gidonb 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be sourced and relevant, don't see any strong argument for deleting it. Amoruso 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it would be surprising if there were no article on this subject. --Shamir1 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.