Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd)


 * 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 keep. This is an exceptionally poorly written article on a controversial subject, but the source material is there and we don't delete articles if it's possible to write a good encyclopedia article on the subject. Let's be patient with this subject. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence
Per request, this AfD is split off from Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history). See reasoning for deletion there. I was not the original nominator, but I split this off per request. All comments below were specific for this article and have been moved from the original page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'''One more? Ashkenazi intelligence'''


 * Keep This article allows searchers to locate in Wikipedia a summary of information about the specific topic "ashkenazi intelligence". As this phase will continue to appear in both popular media as well as scientific literature, it serves Wikipedia's mission statement that information about the subject be easily and specifically locatable.  Some commenters below suggest that there is no "ashkenazi intelligence".  That may be, but there is and will forever more be the subject of "ashkenazi intelligence", even though it may or may not turn out to be a scientifically valid concept. "Lobotomy" has an extensive listing in Wikipedia. It even mentions that a popularizer, Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize in 1949 for it.  I haven't seen anyone suggest that "lobotomy" be deleted from Wikipedia as a specific listing.  Nor should it.  It is a specific subject that someone may wish to search for.  Wikipedia's mission is to present information, as much as can be accumulated, on specific subjects that people may search for. Amaterna 12:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this article as well, since I missed it in the first pass, and everything I said in my rationale for the others applies to this as well. – ornis  ⚙  13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Futurebird has just pointed out on my talk page that the above article survived a previous AfD. Nonetheless it was closed as "no consensus" and I think this really should be merged with the others. – ornis  ⚙  15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments (moved)
 * Delete and merge - For the same reasons. futurebird 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge as per above.--Ramdrake 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * REQUEST: Please relist Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: To ConfuciusOrnis: Being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. Futhermore, in your sweeping nomination at Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) you did not list Ashkenazi intelligence as part of the original group in the AfD until another user pointed the article out to you and you then decided to add it at Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history). Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what you did. For the sake of clarity, I urge you to remove the Ashkenazi intelligence from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which you included it. As you are aware, the Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If you wish to have a new nomination, go ahead, for it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Thank you, IZAK
 * Re: Ashkenazi intelligence (only). Keep or Separately relist, per IZAK above. This hypothesis has attracted specific research, and has attracted specific comment in the heavyweight media, on which the article is based.  The article should not be bundled in with the other articles being discussed.  Instead, it should be left separate as is for the time being, while the other articles remain so problematic. Jheald 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is just as problematic as the other, and for the same reasons.--Ramdrake 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SEE: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Ashkenazi intelligence. If this article had been titled Aryan intelligence, its deletion would be a no-brainer. I concur with Ramdrake. Skywriter 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Aryan intelligence (Nazi eugenics). A topic is not deleted just because it offends someone.  If it is notable with reliable sources it should be included.  If you think the title is biased, they you should suggest renaming.  Jon513 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Zionist Eugenics? Seriously though, if I knew the English word for Rassenwahn, I would much rather use it than Ashkenazi intelligence. A good, netural compromise might be Claims of Ashkenazi intelligence. However, I recommend a merge.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 30.10.2007 08:34

Sadly, Jon513 either misses or ignores the central point. There is NO article called Aryan intelligence and that is very much the point. Claims by one group or another (or a non-scientist and panderer like Charles Murray) that one group or another is superior to another is always suspect, and without foundation. This article cites Murray who is an authority on nothing but his ideologically based opinion pushing.Skywriter 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that there is no article call "aryan intelligence", but there is an article on the topic of nazi claims about aryan intelligence. If you want to rename this article into "studies on claims of Ashkenazi intelligence" or something like that I wouldn't really care.  But you want to delete the whole article because you think that "one group or another is superior to another is always suspect, and without foundation".  And while I agree with your POV - it is only one POV.  If there is notable studies  on the subject, even studies that you disagree with, it warrants an article. Jon513 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be no further votes on Ashkenazi intelligence as it must be a separate vote according to the criteria noted by Od Mishehu (it was not listed correctly). IZAK is correct that there needs to be a distinct vote, away from this mess. A Sniper —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Keep per above. Well sourced, useful, and valid research. Modernist 21:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Perhaps Merge to Ashkenazi Jews for same reasons given when this article was first nominated, see Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence, 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 many others) are all proof that this article is 100% correct. IZAK 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this the second time this article is being nominated for deletion. Muntuwandi 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a part of this larger request to merge all of the Race and intelligence articles. Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) futurebird 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Muntuwandi: To be correct: Technically this is the third time this article is being nominated for deletion. You can view the first nomination at Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence which resulted in a Keep due to "no consensus" and then it was recently nominated for the second time as an appendment to Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), see Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), but because it was addded after that the vote about "Race and intellignce" was already underway, that move was appealed, there was no decision about the article itself, and then the new AfD vote was opened here, making it the third time it's faced an AfD nomination. IZAK 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources from respected scientists in the field to support a theory on the evolutionary development of Ashkenazi intelligence, all of which clearly satisfies the Notability standard. Alansohn 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge Although not as bad as the "Race and intelligence" article, I still believe deletion is the best way to go here. This article only mentions isolated genetic differences as a possible cause in differing intelligence levels, and, as usual it seem for these articles, it has not been mentioned that IQ does not necessarily mean intelligence. By the way, considering the concept of race is questionable, claiming that "Ashkenazi" refers to a "cultural group" as a defense for holding on to an article specifically designed to help group such a "culture" as a "race" doesn't really make sense. I'm not going to argue with IZAK but listing a bunch of smart people as a proof for racial intelligence is the type of reasoning that creates these kinds of debates.Frank0570618 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618
 * Hi Frank: It's not clear what you mean by "Delete and merge" -- merge to which article?
 * Delete and merge - This could easily be merged into the Race and intelligence article. Brusegadi 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Please note that merge and delete are mutually exclusive. If content is merged, then a redirect must be provided to comply with the GFDL requirement to attribute authors. Also anyone suggestion a merge should specify to where they would like the content merged. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone suggesting that this article is original research must specify what content fails Wikipedpia policy and what all those sources are. Otherwise these is just a long-winded WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At least the delete and merge folks are clear that there is no policy violation here and have not offered any valid explanation for why the article must be deleted under any relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 11:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? Stifle (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you're reading a different article, the one under discussion here is chock full of sources documenting the hypothesis. It may or may not be true, but the sources demonstrate that the hypothesis exists, coming from reliable and verifiable sources. Per Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As your claim of original research has no basis in fact other than as an excuse for deletion, you will need to provide evidence to support your POV claim. Alansohn 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a genuine hypothesis, and there are sufficient sources. it is fairly presented as a controversy. I don't know what more can be asked for. If one thinks some of the studies wrong, that's apparently based on one's independent evaluation of the material reported.  But that's pure POV and OR., If there are criticisms to insert, insert them. An editing question only. Personal opinions on whether there are or are not inter-group differences, or whether the Ashkenazi are a "race" in the relevant sense are not relevant here. There is no reason why there could not be an article on Aryan intelligence either. Even prejudices can be discussed objectively. DGG (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly controversial, but sourced. Wikipedia does not have to be politically correct by taking it as undisputable doctrine that persons of all genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and nationalitles are absolutely equal in every physical, mental, medical, or emotional attribute. Edison 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Edison. Totally un-P.C., but well-sourced.  I would encourage editors to insert an appropriate "criticism of" section per WP:POV. Bearian&#39;sBooties 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Genuine controversy and issue of interest.  A number of sources are provided, no delete vote has pointed out any specific OR or non-verifiability that I can see.  Race and intelligence is too long already, plus it's a mess: this definitely shouldn't be merged there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep. Just because you disagree with the research doesn't mean it's POV or OR.  These studies have been covered in the Economist, National Geographic, the New York Times, and the New Yorker, who don't normally just give time to crackpots.  This is a well-sourced article that seems to describe the research fairly.  If someone wants to add a criticism section or to start a corresponding article for non-Jews (sourced of course), have at it.  That, not deletion, is your recourse if you don't like published scientific findings. Calliopejen1 15:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article makes several controversial assumptions (such as Ashkenazi=distinct biological ethnicity, IQ==intelligence, and linking neurological diseases with enhanced brain function, none of which is established as fact). In that sense, it is extremely misleading unless put in proper perspective, and the best way to do that, IMHO is to merge whatever is salvageable back to the main article.--Ramdrake 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is crucial: delete and merge is not an option!  The GFDL prohibits it.  We can delete, or redirect and merge, but not delete and merge. Calliopejen1 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:Please point to the proper policy which "prohibits delete and merge", in the sense that whatever info is salvageable from these articles should be merged back to the main article and whatever isn't worth salvaging should be deleted. It is my understanding that this has been done numerous times before, and nobody ever raised an objection based on GFDL. So, unless you can show proof, merge and delete is an option.--Ramdrake 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually he is right there. In order to fullfill GFDL criteria, the authorship history for all text must be preserved. If we merge pieces of text from this article to any other article, we can never delete this one, as that would remove the author history for that text. Therefore, we then usually redirect it to the other article. If, however, information is merged back (and the actual text rewritten from scratch) this "problem" can be circumvented. Unfortunately you are right that many merge and deletes have taken place and currently Wikipedia is filled with LOTS of GFDL violations. For more information, see (among others) Merge and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find it rather shocking that this article is being considered for deletion. There are lots of bad articles out there; this isn't one of them. — xDanielx T/C 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * merge with Race and intelligence. Article is too short (or at least what is sourced is too short) to warrent its own article, but the topic is valid.  Yahel  Guhan  00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep : material from peer reviewed sources. relevant information. Neutral. All other concerns are not to be dealt by wikipedia. Alithien 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One could easily find reason to fault the hypotheses the article discusses on many grounds. But the fact is they are notable as verified by standard Wikipedia criteria -- independent reliable sources. The fact that there appears to be more media sources like the New York Times referenced than scientific sources may suggest that their popular notability exceeds their scientific value, but this simply doesn't matter. Because NOT, it doesn't matter how disagreeable or distasteful or wrong these views may be. Deletion discussions are strictly on notability and verifiability. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My keep vote is without prejudice to the possibility of merging into another article. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep &mdash; Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ in the world. This is an indisputable fact. That said, this article is notable and shouldn't be deleted because of this fact alone. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:02 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashkenazi Jews. Karanacs 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is idiotic. So just because a topic is politically incorrect, we must suppress it, is that it? Clearly a lot of people believe Ashkenazi Jews have a very high IQ. Either they do or they do not - and this article can serve to prove or disprove it. Political correctness is a sign of stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.181.131 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too big to merge. "Race" is a social construct anyway, so no argument there. The topic is common enough in online discussions that people go to google or wikipedia and look for the title of the article. PC or not, the meme is alive and well. FiveRings 19:06, 3 November 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.