Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

With 6 valid delete votes and at least 40 valid keep votes, consensus is clearly to keep

Race and intelligence

[edit]

Delete Unbelievably POV article filled with racist stereotypes. No hope of becoming neutral. Revolución 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Probably the Wikipedia article with most references to peer-reviewed scientific studies. Very noteworthy (but controversial) area of scientific research. The results are not what the typical racists would prefer, for example, East Asians have higher average IQ scores than whites. The article does not claim that the differences are due to genetics, environmental factors may well explain all of the differences. Ultramarine 15:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Huge, long-standing, thoroughly-referenced article about a topic of social significance and increasing public scrutiny. This VfD is baseless. --Rikurzhen 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • This VfD is not baseless. I am simply nominating an article that has no hope of becoming neutral. The premise of this article is to try to "prove" that blacks and hispanics are less intelligent. That is b---shit! We don't need articles like this anyway. Revolución 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • you should consult the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and re-read the definition of Wikipedia:NPOV. you should also note that this topic has been an active area of public debate and research since at least 1969; clearly from the article's length there is a lot to report on. don't allow taboo to impact your intellecutal judgment. --Rikurzhen 23:09, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • I suggest reading the article before claiming that it is racist or non-neutral. There is no attempt in the article to prove anything. On the contrary a thorough discussion of several sides of the controversial evidence is presented. Dystopos 05:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • What is neutral? All people on earth are equal. They are as tall, as fat and as smart as each other regardless of gender, sexual orientation, class and race. If you see some people more often in a basketball court, that's untrue. You're seeing an illusion. It is undisputed known fact that East Asians, Whites, Latinos and Blacks are equally good at playing basketball. White men can jump and do jump very well. ... There are as many uneducated rocket scientists working for NASA as educated ones ... The fact is we are not equal. But that doesn't mean people cannot co-exist peacefully and help each other. That's why we need a good article with known facts to fight groundless racism. -- Toytoy 02:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should be rather a featured article candidate than a VFD... -- Marcika 16:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I simply do not know what to say to that. Ugh. Revolución 22:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination is politically motivated. Oliver Chettle 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is politically-motivated. Revolución 22:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Controversial subject still need articles so that both sides can be vetted. I skimmed this but it seems like an excellent article and we need more with its depth of coverage and citation of sources. But we should not sit in judgment of the nominator's motivation. Justt keep it. DS1953 18:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Amazing article. Wikipedia at its best, and proof that a community-edited article can work even when the subject is controversial. Arbor 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? You're calling a racist article "amazing"? Revolución 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's great that Wikipedia's NPOV policy forbids censorship of unpopular views and taboo subjects; the encyclopedia is better for it. --Rikurzhen 23:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a forum that people can express their views. It's an encylopedia where factual and neutral information should be presented. Revolución 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, it's an encyclopedia where all information can be presented in a neutral manner -- not just "neutral information" -- NPOV means neutral presentation of POVs not no POVs. It's a forum for published peer-reviewed ideas: note the enormous number of references in this article to support and attribute facts/claims. Finally, VfD is not the proper procedure for a NPOV dispute. --Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
          • I did not nominate it just because it was POV. I nominated it because it has no hope of becoming a neutral article, since the article's title itself sets up a premise that it will try to 'prove' a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence, and such a relationship does not exist. Revolución 00:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence... does not exist -- I'd be fascinated to read a peer-reviewed paper that makes that claim. --Rikurzhen 00:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
              • What sort of relationship do you think exists between these two completely non-related things? I'd be surprised to see a neutral article that makes the claim the two concepts are related. Revolución 00:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • Then I'm guessing you haven't actually read the article you are proposing to delete. --Rikurzhen 01:28, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
                  • If you define "intelligence" a certain way and define "race" a certain way, then you can find and state correlations between the two. The real question is whether it is a revealing relationship, and, if it is "revealing," then what it reveals. P0M 02:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • "it has no hope of becoming a neutral article, since the article's title itself sets up a premise that it will try to 'prove' a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence" - This is simply not so. The article's name implies a discussion of a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence, which includes the topic of whether such a relationship exists. If you think that the article doesn't adequately discuss this possibility, that's a problem with the article that should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. Daekharel 15:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree completely with Revolucion, the entire article seems to be based on a narrow political view. -CunningLinguist 23:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Against my better judgment (because this irrelevant), let me say ... as one of the current editors of this article ... I am a registered Democrat, I'm an atheist, I voted for Gore and Kerry, I live in a blue state, I donate to the ACLU, I work in academia, I ride a bike to work, I don't shop at Walmart, and my favorite political philosopher is John Rawls. But I guess that's not the "narrow political view" you were thinking of? --Rikurzhen 00:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I dont beleive I ever stated this article had anything to do with Right-Left politics. I was referring to something Revolucion pointed out himself: that this article begins with the premise that there is a correlation between race and intelligence and attempts to prove it. I find such an article to be inherently POV and to be based on personal speculation/political reasoning/interest. Thus I feel this article should be deleted. -CunningLinguist 01:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Then I must apologize for being glib, but now it seems I don't understand your criticism at all. If you'd like to try to explain in detail, you could add a comment to the article's talk page. --Rikurzhen 03:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thoroughly referenced NPOV article. Far from being racist, it highlights what might be considered racial bias in intelligence testing methods. Socio-economic, cultural, and geographic factors are discussed citing a variety of scholarly sources. If someone disagrees with this article he or she should bring in more peer-reviewed academic papers to include in the discussion. --Fazdeconta 00:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good thorough article. Political correctness should not be the basis for deleting articles. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But a suggestion: the article would probably disturb people less if the graph was moved from the top to the middle. --Arcadian 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though I am acutely uncomfortable with the article and deeply question the validity of unstated assumptions that serve as the foundation of the studies upon which the article reports, disappearing the article will not make the issues that the article attempts to discuss go away. To make a satisfactory article would require that we engage in original research, or, at a very minimum, that we deeply think about and critique the fundamentals of the field. To do so, however, involves doing what I have been told over and over again is forbidden to us. If we are forbidden even to think about issues rather than to just report on what others have written about issues, then to make a more satisfactory article would require finding articles to cite that would go into the fundamental problems with this field. In brief, the article shows that if people define "intelligence" a certain way, and if people defines "races" a certain way, then certain correlations can be stated. My reaction to that report is, "So what?" But I have little hope that the anti-intellectual biases can be hedged well enough to permit a more penetrating article.
Ideally, the article should point out the lack of a fundamental critique that goes beyond finger pointing, and the fact that regardless of the good intent of some of those involved in the field, the assertion (true or false) of a correlation between race and intelligence very definitely serves racist purposes. I support the feelings of Revolución -- I just don't think that scrapping the article is the way to straighten things out. And you can blame me too, because I've been through too many partisan and mean-spirited debates in Wikipedia to barge in where I have no depth of research knowledge and where the simple act of thinking is met with vituperative responses.P0M 02:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • P0M, since you pointed that out I've done the best I can to make that POV even more prominent by quoting the abstract of a recent Robert Sternberg review paper. --Rikurzhen 04:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but if the guy you cited stands as an expert in the field it only strengthens my impression that the field makes assertions that "aren't even wrong." I can see why Revolución goes ballistic, but his problem would seem actually to be with the field and not to the article (that only reflects the field since that is all good Wikipedians are permitted to do). I'm feeling extremely grumpy, but please do not take it personally. You've never told me to stop thinking or to stop trying to explain things to people like Revolución who have (IMHO) the right idea but the unclear way to put it. P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's certainly notable. It's covered at length in pretty much any introductory psychology class. Whether or not we'll ever get it to be POV, I doubt it. But it's just as important as any other controversial issue out there. --Idont Havaname 03:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it covered in any philosophy of science courses that you know about? That's the only place it is likely to get an adequate going-over unless there is a top-rate researcher like Milton Diamond who is interested in this field.P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this article is just ridiculous. Anyone can start an article called "--- and intelligence". What if someone created an article called "Music choice and intelligence" and attempted to prove that listeners to one genre of music are smarter than the other. This is the kind of insanity I see in this article. I don't know why all these people are voting keep, it just baffles the hell out of me. Hey, I thought this was the damn 21st century, not the 1400s. Revolución 03:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Just take a class in psychology, and you'll see that it's an important issue. Making a comparison to other stuff, you don't delete the Boston Red Sox or George W. Bush just because there are people who don't like them. --Idont Havaname 03:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess it's an important "issue"....to racists. The facts are, no connection exists between race/ethnicity and intelligence. The articles on "Boston Red Sox" and "George W. Bush" are real things, while the supposed "connection" between race and intelligence does not exist. Revolución 03:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • In a way I agree with you, and in another way I disagree. First, suggesting that this person or that person is a "racist" isn't likely to get us to anything except defensiveness. Second, the conceptualization of [race] is so murky, with hardly any two identifiable people actually defining the word "race" the same way, that it is difficult to think about clearly -- especially since people are generally unwilling to dig down to brass tacks and then build back out. To make things worse, [intelligence] is not conceptualized clearly either. It has regularly been used in these discussions as though it were a thing, no? It is an abstract category and a moving target depending for its actions on who is pointing the gun, and yet it is discussed as though it is a simple entity "out there somewhere" just waiting for somebody to take a snapshot of it. It's even been given a "true name" to identify the ens realissimus behind all manifestations of [intelligence] -- the simple letter g. So now people are trying to correlate two "entities" hypostatized out of subjectively determined abstract categories. There's nothing particularly immoral about that approach. It's just (IMHO) stupid. But it does give racists a golden opportunity. The only good thing (from my point of view) is that white racists are beginning to have to deal with a their own reactions to a cartoon in which the white guys are second string (or maybe third rate, who knows since its dependent on how you play the game). P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep I think you, Revolución, are as just as narrow-minded as those "racists." There clearly is a racial gap that exists in the United States, and whether it is due to "genetics" or "environment" is of another matter --they are both very arguable as seen with statistics. Even though this article is controversial, there is no reason to delete this page for its controversy. We do not delete articles on Adolf Hitler or Stalin or Andrew Jackson, just because of the controversy that surrounds those two figures. The "connection between race and intelligence" has not been disproven completely, nor has the connection between environment and intelligence been completely proven; and thus, there is an argument for both that exist. There are clearly very educated and intelligent --perhaps more open-minded than you-- people who argue for one or the other, and to ignore one or the other is very dilletante. I believe you, Revolución, are as narrow-minded as those "racists" whom you claim you are against. Just because this article is extremely controversial, it does not mean that it should be deleted. One should be open-minded to all view points of a matter, and this matter is very important and very visible in the United States.Bezant
        • Please do not make personal attacks. I'm unabashedly not racist, by the way; I have friends of all races and a wide range of nationalities. Now back to the article we're discussing, controversies of this scale are in themselves notable, see for example our articles on creationism and evolution, or pro-life and pro-choice. Regardless of whether or not you agree with something, if the debate is this major then we need to show all major sides to remain NPOV. Granted, it's harder to show NPOV on something like this, but as long as all major viewpoints are well thought out and included with the article, we've done our job in making the article unbiased. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Revolución, I've added references and quotations that I believe will more clearly express your POV in the article. --Rikurzhen 04:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Religiousness and intelligence ought to become. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:20, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a reasonably fair treatment of an extremely controversial issue. Illustrates, with extensive references, reasons why such a relationship may exist and what criticisms that theory has. I, too, am troubled by the theory on one side of this issue, but I don't see the article as really POV for either side. ESkog 04:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (but if necessary, clean up for NPOV). Well written article about a notable, controversial subject. Race and intelligence has lately been on the news here in Finland, because of a book that our prime minister's father wrote in co-operation with some American dude, which dares to claim that perhaps whites are not the stupidest race in the world after all. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pretending that a debate doesn't exist does not make the debate go away, nor does it fulfill our mission of providing a comprehensive encyclopedia. --FCYTravis 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Shouldn't that be "pretending a debate doesn't exist"? — JIP | Talk 06:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Annoyed grunt! Kids: Don't drink and Wiki. Thanks --FCYTravis 06:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The topic is notable both from a societal and historical standpoint. Clean up the POV, but in my opinion, The Bell Curve covers a similar debate with a neutral POV, so it's quite possible. I'd love to see this topic end up like Phrenology some day, but deleting something because the debate might seem to support racism is not the way to go. michael 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The only reason you might think this article has a racist undertone, is likely because you are a racist. Content is portrayed nuetrally, research is confirmable. R Lee E 18:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there should be a place for racism on Wikipedia! This article clearly tries to say that blacks and hispanics are less intelligent, and that is bullshit! Ugh! Revolución 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If it tried to say black and hispanics were more intelligent, would that be all OK with you? — JIP | Talk 04:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep As a practical concern, it's problematic to change science articles too much in response to them offending laymen. The article's meticulous references and committment to neutral treatment make it a model article for other Wikipedia articles. It is inaccurate to say "blacks and hispanics are less intelligent," as individuals from each group can be found everywhere on the IQ scale ('IQ' is not a synonym for 'intelligence'); the issue under discussion refers to the averages between these groups. Furthermore, "neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause."[1] That being said, yes, we're all deeply uncomfortable with the topic. --Nectarflowed T 23:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Maybe this article could be smoothed a little bit, but overall, it's an important contribution. Revolucion, it doesn't say that blacks/hispanic are innately stupid, so don't bother with your canned self-righteousness; it says, as do most other similar studies/articles, that their lower level of functioning is due to outside constraints like nutrition, education, &c. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel. --67.161.115.23 22:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep subject is of enormous contemporary interest from several points of view. NPOV is a (difficult) task for editors, not a criterion for VfD. Comment An analogy for the broader topic: 17th Century ethicists were dismayed by the perceived implications of astronomical observations and attempted to censor the entire endeavor. We in the 21st century are dismayed by the perceived implications of race/intelligence research, but we should know better than to censor the endeavor. Perhaps our assumptions about the implications are flawed. We will have to find out by continuing to do research and to report the results without biased preconceptions to a wide audience. Dystopos 23:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is pretty neutral and the subject is very significant. --Tomazrui
  • Keep Many articles are going to be inherently POV problems, and this doesn't make them unworthy. Interslice
  • Keep, although it is clearly very POV ··gracefool |☺ 08:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to edit the article for POV, but I don't see what's non-neutral about it. Should I add "but this is bullshit" after every presentation of scientific evidence that appears to support unpalatable beliefs? Dystopos 13:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Probably the Wikipedia article with most references to peer-reviewed scientific studies. Very noteworthy (but controversial) area of scientific research. The results are not what the typical racists would prefer, for example, East Asians have higher average IQ scores than whites. The article does not claim that the differences are due to genetics, environmental factors may well explain all of the differences. [[User:JV] 14:22, 8 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  • Extreme keep. This article does not seem to overtly take a side, and while I can see a little bias toward the existance of a link it's something to be cleaned up, not deleted. This article can be made perfectly NPOV by making it simply describe the controversy. If you want to get political, denying that such a link is possible or that people believe in it is not a good idea. Nickptar 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we get rid of pages that are this well researched and manage to stay anything like so neutral (not that it's perfect) on a controversial topic, what hope do we have for anything other than the very blandest of useless, politically correct waffle. --Douglas 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article cites numerous sources, presents data in an unbiased fashion, and summarizes itself without drawing biased conclusions. Yes, it's a controversial topic, but the article handles the controversy well. It's also not particularly politically correct, but last time I checked, NPOV doesn't equal PC. --Dachannien 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Facts, figures, and research presented in a calm and painfully NPOV way. Howls of outrage from dogmatic egalitarians should not be allowed to cause articles to be deleted. LeoO3 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolute Keep. Well-referenced article which throughly illustrated the ongoing controversy based on sound scientific evidence.
  • Keep. Well-written and extremely well referenced article — should be linked from the Wikipedia:Verifiability project page. I believe the VFD creator unfortunately suffered an (understandable) knee-jerk reaction to any idea that such a topic could even be discussed, took one look at the top graph and assumed that the article was created to prove a racist idea. If he had read the article, though, he would have seen that it is as much about the controversy as it is about anything else, and the one thing it certainly doesn't to is try to prove anything about race and intelligence. Whatever the case, there is no question that something that has been scientifically examined and debated for almost fifty years should have an article here. We're here to write about things which are notable, and this debate is certainly notable. — Asbestos | Talk 01:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written article. Nothing inherently POV about it. If you think it's POV the answer is to make edits where needed, not delete it. Kaibabsquirrel 05:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is well-researched and well-written. To delete it is the ultimate victory of PC and censorship. -- Toytoy 18:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I am Chinese. I belong to the group that's supposed to be the brightest on earth ONLY LESSER THAN ASKENAZI JEWS :). So what? That doesn't matter a goddamn bit. If I am stupid, then I am stupid. If I can't make money, then I can't make money. Even if ALL OTHER Chinese are smarter than Albert Einstein, if I am stupid, I am stupid and no one else can donate his/her brain cells to me.
So what's wrong with this article? We all want to be smart, rich and beatiful. We may belong to the group of top dogs, but that doesn't matter. I can still be dumb, poor and ugly. Even if I belong to the lowest of the lowest gruops, if I am smart, rich and beatiful, I am smart, rich and beatiful and that's not deniable. So who cares about the average number? I only care about me, myself and I. Race and intelligence does not make me proud. It does not make me shame of myself. I cannot rule out the fact that many blacks are smarter than I. Race and intelligence is a real scientific subject. If people tend to abuse it, we need a good article like this to show people the best available information. -- Toytoy 18:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Aboslutely right. And I think this is briefly covered in the public policy section: There is substantial overlap in the distribution of IQ scores among individuals of each race. Jensen (1998, p. 357) estimates that in a random sample of equal numbers of US Blacks and Whites, most of variance in IQ would be unrelated to race or social class. From one POV, this research is a strong reason to treat people as individuals, rather than members of a group. --Rikurzhen 20:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. This is the same idea as the study of genetic differences between races. While there can be shown to be statistical differences, the veriation within the group is far larger than the differences between the groups. — Asbestos | Talk 21:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment to Toytoy's above post: Ashkenazi Jews, not East Asians, are the most intelligent group on Earth, at least in terms of an average IQ figure (typically the average of spatial and verbal IQs). East Asians do have the highest spatial IQ though, slightly higher than those of Jews according to one study (I'd have to dig around for the reference). Dd2 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's a saying in my country: "You don't tax people when they make wild claims" (吹牛不用納稅). I'll keep the money in my pocket. I am not going to buy you beers. :) -- Toytoy 03:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 18:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree that deletion == censorship. Properly referenced, properly POV-checked, etc. --Kiand 18:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Too well referenced to delete. —thames 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This VfD is ridiculous. - Nat Krause 22:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important topic, extremely thorough but needs to become NPOV. (ugh don't edit at 2 A.M., you'll say the weirdest things)--Bash 06:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but work on balancing viewpoints. And move to Race and IQ, whilst we're at it. -- Karada 09:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • While moving to Race and IQ has some merit, I think it rather highlights something this article needs to be broadened into: that measuring intelligence is, itself, difficult and inexact and a difference in IQ is not necessarily a difference in intelligence measure by other means. --Douglas 11:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Assuming this information was obtained in a scientific manner, then let's not censor this information on the grounds that it will offend certain groups. --Katsumoto 18:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep EdgarEdwinCayce 18:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article is POV; but that will eventually be fixed. This article is important to wikipedia. Phoenix2 01:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if there is valid scientific evidence for or against correlation of race and IQ, this is the place to present or refute it. EDIT: I'd also like to note that this is one of the few truly well-cited articles on Wikipedia. Kudos to the editors. Peter Farago 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The extremely controversial subject of racial differences in IQ has been electrifying public debate for decades and deserves its own entry many times over. Rather than being deserving of deletion, I consider this article to be one of Wikipedia's finest, precisely because it demonstrates that Wikipedia is willing to present the facts as they stand rather than running in terror from those facts out of the fear that someone, somewhere, may become offended by them. Harkenbane 03:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone interested in the topic would do well to start with this article; as such, it's a model encyclopedia entry. --DAD 05:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV is not the same political correctness. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provided that the article mentions that it is unknown as to whether it is nurture or nature promoting the differences. GeorgeBills 13:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There exist studies showing statistical correlations between race and IQ; there is controversy over the interpretation of these results; there are various POVs on this subject. Therefore, it is a valid subject for a wikipedia article. Whether it is currently POV is utterly irrelevant. Maybe it should be renamed to Race and IQ, but that won't happen while it's on the VfD list, will it? Daekharel 15:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a subject of legitimate inquiry, and shouldn't be suppressed on the basis of political correctness. *Dan* 19:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is exceptionally NPOV and well written, especially considering the controversial nature of the subject—Trevor Caira 21:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV dispute. And that's really all I need to say about it, isn't it? NPOV disputes are not VfD material.
    But I'm going to say some more anyway. Saying that an article has "no hope of becoming neutral", when it's established that the topic itself is notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, is tantamount to saying Wikipedia just can't handle it. That's one opinion, but it's not something we're qualified to judge here. Surely you're not arguing that all information in the article is false and/or irrelevant, that is, the sources we quote don't really say what we report or none of them express notable viewpoints. That would mean the article is a complete hoax, and it would be the only reason you could justify outright deletion with. Wikipedia does not report on what is true, only significant views on what is true. Claiming that "race" and "intelligence" are unrelated concepts is just another POV, one that can and should be addressed in the article itself. It does no good to pretend that the POV that race and intelligence are concepts that can be meaningfully related is not significant. The article clearly establishes that it is. JRM · Talk 23:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Race" is an arbitrary term used to denigrate groups different from the groups in power in a given society. Once knowing that, however, one can say studies like this are not wholly irrevelent; these sorts of inquiries show how disenfranchised members are affected by prejudiced societal institutions, poverty, and other related social issues. The article should shed more light should be put on the fact that race is not an absolute construct but one based on subjective perception. RP 0:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I'm worried that this page will become ammunition for racists. I realize there are good arguments for not censoring, but consider this: was it right for the United States to censor or withhold information about the atomic bomb? Of course it was. In the wrong hands it could be deadly.
    • Note that the above comment was made, unsigned, by an anonymous user at IP 68.202.118.66. I don't believe it has ever been, or ever should be, Wikipedia policy to suppress truthful information simply because it might be misused by somebody. The whole "That's information too dangerous for anybody to know" bit is just not what this site is all about. Fortunately, the PC crowd seems to be vastly outnumbered here. *Dan* 22:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note - this anonymous user vandalised this VfD by editing anothers comments shortly before posting this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=15086258 --22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note - YOU'RE the vandal. Those comments were obviously my own and you removed them. I stand by what I said. Anyone that swallows this crap is a racist and psuedoscientist -- 23:24 Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Indented to the exact same level as comments below and unsigned - sounds like an impersonation attempt to me, and would indeed sound like one to any other long-term editor here. Oh, and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks might be a good thing to read. Accusations of being a 'racist' definately fall under that. --Kiand 23:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. --Rikurzhen 05:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • The topic has been an issue of public discussion since at least 1969. Most of the research has been secondarily reported somewhere on the Internet. Deleting this article won't change that. --Rikurzhen 23:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons mentioned above: good scholarship, graphs, easy-to-read language. We should only hope that all articles on Wikipedia were this thorough. Justin (koavf) 23:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Very well written article but doesn't change the fact that it is utter crap. --Kulkuri 09:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Surprisingly well written and balanced article. I would vote to definitely keep this article. I learned a lot reading it and it would be a shame to delete a piece that is so comprehensive and well documented. You know, plugging your ears and going "neener, neener, neener...," is not a way to engage in scholarly debate. IQ is interesting but not the complete measure of man. I just took an IQ test online and it differed not a whit from my IQ converted from an SAT score from 1973, fascinating... an anecdote that is supported by evidence. So there will never be a bumper sticker that says, "Don't like your IQ, then change it." so what? But there might be one that says "People not smart enough for you? Then change the world". George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." Unsigned vote by 66.30.138.100
  • Strong keep. Factual claims should be assessed on their own merits, not by the political motivations of those who defend them. Sir Paul 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article makes the controvertial assumption that members of the population groups we label white, asian, black, hispanic are more genetically similar with each other than with other members of other groups. Hugely unfounded. But that's something that can be fixed within the article, which is otherwise pretty good. Don't know why this is listed under VfD instead of being discussed in the Talk page. --Cypherx 02:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cypherx, I have tried to find the claim about genetic similarity you are (correctly) criticizing. Could you help us find it? Arbor 10:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The background info starts out noting the objections to classification by race (which is a pretty good summary of the objections). However the rest of article then treats races as well defined meaningful things. At the very least there should be some acknowledgement that since most of these studies occurred within the US they don't accurately portray Hispanic intelligence or European intelligence, but rather the subpopulations of the United States that are identified as White or Hispanic. --Cypherx 10:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Woops! I didn't finish the article and missed this: Most research has been done in the US and a few other developed nations.. So nevermind. No objections to the article, definitely silly that its being voted for deletion. --Cypherx 10:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess I still question the racial labels employed in many of the studies cited (how do they determine who's of what race? why is it treated as if there is some clear cut standard?) but I guess that falls into the domain of academic argument rather than something universally accepted. --Cypherx 10:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Unbelievably strongly researched and many-sided article. The attackers seem incapable of commenting on the article on its own merits in accordance with the deletion policy. Even if there was absolutely nothing in intelligence that was genetical in its nature, that would clearly be implied in the research the article is based, so the disputation of the connection between race and intelligence is no basis for deletion of the article. --Tmh 11:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think there is no such thing as a white, asian, hispanic or black race. This is an oversimplication of reality that has no scientific base. Why don't you do a "pure english" against "pure german"... Are Rusians asian ? What about Filipinos ? And Mongols ? Where are the Arabic ? What about the hispanic/Peruan ? and the hispanic/Argentinian ? Which date will you use to determine the purity of a German, an English or a French? Considering the black, how many mixes of black/white/asian/hispanic are enough to stop considering him black ? Is a single black in the tree enough to consider all below black ? Same for white ? Why ? I mean, you can't be serious about this. You guys are funny. --[Jorge Daza]
What "you think" is clearly POV, and not a valid basis for policy decisions here. *Dan* 15:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Copied from the article: "People labeled Blacks have most of their ancestors from...". Well, "most of their ancestors" doesn't sound very scientific to me. Does it to you ? Where I said "I think", you can actually remove it, because these days that's a fact. If you like the article, name it something like "What_we_think_are_American_races_and_IQ". Because you can't neither make asumptions about races on countries you haven't made studies on. And I have to remember you that people from different countries refer to the wikipedia for information, and you can't make universal asumptions on that. Have you considered distance and motive why people from different races is there ? Really, you have to be joking if you want to make something like this look like serious. I mean, I would keep the article in a different place and with a different name. But this is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Refer to the meaning of that in case of doubt. BTW at least put a notice like the one in Sex_and_intelligence. --[Jorge Daza]
Hi Jorge, this VfD page really isn't a good place to learn about genetics. Maybe you want to take your objections to the talk page? Anyway, I found [2] to be a good overview of the basic arguments one should be familiar with; do have a look. Maybe the current article should make a better job of explaining this, even though it basically belongs to Race. The tacit American assumptions about race that permeate the article are one of my own few concerns with the current state of the page (I'm European), and as you can see I have put that very issue on the Todo-list yesterday. I would be happy if you kept a look on this page and see if it evolves in the right direction. Arbor 16:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Arbor, was the people subject of the IQ test also subject of a genetic mapping ? I don't doubt about the science of genetics. I doubt about the article's based-on "science". And sure, we can move to talk. I'm European too. Copied from the link you posted: "No serious scientist, in fact, believes that genetically pure populations exist." There can't be real science on such a thing like "white/hispanic/black/asian" races. Thus, until such a study exists this article cannot be considered science or knowledge. -- [Jorge Daza]
Jorge, I wrote the sentence you're discussing. It is a painfully simplistic summary of a very complicated topic. But a fuller treatment can't fit in the intro of this article, which is why we prominently direct people to the race article. About that particular sentence: notice it is cited. Here's a summary of the paper I referenced. [3] --Rikurzhen 16:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the conventional idea of "race" is simplistic, but this article is talking about studies and ideas relating to that concept, not asserting that the concept or any of the studies or ideas referenced are true. Wikipedia is not for pushing your point of view, or anybody's. Nickptar 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Extremely well researched and balanced article. It's good that Wikipedia is able to handel as controversial issues as this with objectivity. --Stabuh
  • Strong Remove. The IQ test is not reliable. Hispanic is not a race. Plus, this is the combination of two ideas. It shouldn't be one article.
  • Request will an editor with more experience managing Vfd votes than me please act on the consensus. This has been going on long enough. Dystopos 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I understand the racism involved may be controversial, but doesn't hte article explicitly state that? This article is about scientific studies and theories, not racist philisophies or politics. Believe the studies or not, is up to you. --greekmythfan 19:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence&oldid=1138274033"