Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge back into the parent article. See notes below. --

talk) 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Race and intelligence (history)

Race and intelligence (history) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
Race and intelligence (research) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (test data) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (explanations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (interpretations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Media portrayal of race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (Controversies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (utility of research) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (potential for bias) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Race and intelligence (References) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Closer's notes
There were very few people here who supported keeping these various articles as-is; essentially the debate was divided fairly evenly between deleting these child articles and starting again, or merging them back into the parent article from whence they were split.

In the end, since both positions contemplated continuing with an article on this topic in the future, these child articles will be merged back into the parent. Should the consensus from there be to start from a blank slate, as it were, then that content can be abandoned and work begun anew. Should the consensus be to work with what we've got, then that will be possible also.

As usual, comments of anonymous users were disregarded in determining the final consensus. --

talk) 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

While the concept of racial differences in IQ test scores has stirred up more than enough controversy, and attracted enough notable proponents to justify a fairly substantial treatment here on wikipedia, this series of articles is a disgrace.

Including the

undue weight
. Most of them have merge proposals, NPOV templates, cleanup templates, weasel templates and requests for citations, that have been sitting unattended for months. Many dedicated and well meaning editors have tried to clean them up, and have made some inroads on the main article. It's not enough though, because with an unmanageable series like this, there's always somewhere for the racist POV pushers to slink to when they meet resistance.

My proposal is to aggressively delete all of these forks, and merge anything worthwhile, notable and NPOV, into the main article. In anticipation of protests that the final article would be prohibitively long, I put it to you that the bulk of the material is either extremely dubious, redundant, gratuitous and excessive quotes or references and links duplicated multiple times. I believe with judicious editing, the entire series of articles can be reduced to a single article under a hundred kilobytes in length.

It's my belief that trying to take on this travesty piecemeal is doomed to failure, and the only way to knock this topic into shape it to take a bulldozer to most of it and start afresh. – ornis⚙ 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have not been active on this group of articles, but as far as I know, all splits has been discussed in
    James D. Watson. I will not cast a vote on this one, but I think that creating a special WikiProject might be a better way to deal with this group of articles then deletion. Several of nominated articles could be deleted, though, but not all. -- Sander Säde 10:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I have watched this mess for many years. I grant the topic is important but I do not think a specific article on race and intelligenceis a good idea, especially when the article on "intelligence" itself is so weak. personally, I think we need much better articles that are far more specific: In-depth articles on the major topics of Race and Intelligence and then very specific articles on controversial books by Murray/hernstein and Rushton, and then articles that are appropriately specific eg. "Race and I.Q. testing" and "Race and Educational Policy" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Race and IQ testing. I very much agree. Amongst other problems the very titles take for granted the notion that IQ testing can really measure intelligence in any meaningful way, or that "race" is an accepted or clearly defined notion. The focus issue I think is key here. – ornis⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Slrubenstein. I gave up on the articles as unworkable years ago, and they have gotten much worse in the interim. Almost all of them are not about "race and intelligence", but rather, about race and IQ. Since the articles equate the two, they are necessarily misleading. Additionally, too much information is segregated into subarticles, which makes individual articles misleading. I really don't think this is salvageable. Guettarda 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the titles are misleading. futurebird 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment - I'm watching and withholding judgment. I agree that something needs to be done. People who are not familiar with this project will object when they see how many references all of these articles have. Sorting through the sources is confusing as each of these articles contradicts itself every other sentence-- and all of the contradictions are "sourced." I'll be interested to see how people not involved with this project respond to this idea. I don't yet have a strong stance either way. But, I encourage the "outside editors" who speak up on this deletion debate to look at each of these articles and perhaps look at the size of the archives on some of the talk pages. I have put in many hours trying to improve all of these articles, and they are still in an abysmal condition, I think it should count for something, that an editor who has worked hard on these articles is willing to even consider chucking them out and starting over. I have not made up my mind yet. I'm a little concerned we'd lose information in the process. futurebird 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand you and others have put in a lot of work, and I don't wish to belittle that in the slightest. There's no need to worry either about loosing material, I've taken off-line copies of all the articles, I'd be happy to mail to you should they be deleted, or of course you could make your own. – ornis⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge what little is salvagable to the main article. The mere existence of no less than 12 articles on this subject gives it severe undue weight compared to many other scientific topics (that are much more firmly established than this controversial topic). Also, the existence of a page solely for references (many of which are not even used in the actual articles, according to the reference page itself) is an indication that something is very wrong here. Cut it down to one page by cutting severely and try to keep that single page a decent representation of the topic. That will be much more informative than the mishmash of articles and contradictory statements that are presented here now. In its current state, casual readers might think that this actually is a big research topic in modern day science, rather than the highly disputed field of research it is in reality. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points you're making about undue weight from sheer bulk. futurebird 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear, my vote was for the original nom. I agree with the below that Ashkenazi intelligence should be relisted separately. CJ 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per above. Jeeny (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Essays should not exist on wikipedia. Report the matters through the publications. Bulldog123 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content into main article, per nom. After reading the nomination, I agree with the nominators's "proposal... to aggressively delete all of these forks, and merge anything worthwhile, notable and NPOV, into the main article." That educated persons debate about the relationship of one to the other can't be denied, but I think it will be difficult to keep the neutrality on the main atricle, let alone the forks. Many of us question the concept of describing a person as being a member of one particular race anyway. Mandsford 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert This was a promising stand-alone article last year with some fine tuning to be done. Sadly many people who are now advocating deletion were the proponents for breaking this into the unmanageable mess we see today. I predicted that the dispersion to multiple articles would make this unmanageable and prone to special interest POV. --Kevin Murray 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now and deal with editorially in a project. there is good content in some of these articles, such as
    Race and intelligence (test data) -- though I think its a poor choice of title. I think some people new to the debate here are needed to sort it out -- and I dont mean to nominate myself. I do not see the advantage of starting over, when we have a fairly good start of various sections here--it will just get the same conflicts. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
a single combined article will be no more manageable--this is a valid use of WP:Summary style. Considering the topic, and considering that one of the sides in the debate on this topic is that the subject is inherently biased and prejudicial, I wonder at the possible intention of deleting this groups of articles--does it perhaps represent the POV of one side of the debate only, trying to down-pedal this topic?DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too suspect an ulterior motive of POV censorship. These articles seem to have plenty of notability and sourcing. If fewer articles can do the job of all these then create them first in a process of merge/redirect.
    AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 08:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge - The articles are getting more unmanageable but not grounds for deletion. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and merge only if editors who work on the articles think it is necessary. This should be talked about on the talk pages not in AFD. There is no reason to impose structure by an AFD. Merging can be done by anyone who thinks it will improve the series of articles (and can be reverted by anyone who disagrees, that is why there is a talk page). Jon513 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: though the pages in this AfD look quite lousy the concept of splitting complex and controversial articles into smaller parts works more often than not. Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - As they stand, the articles are useless. When I first ran into them, I thought the title was "Race and IQ" and that is why I really did no care much about it. Sometime later I ran across them while reading entries in RFCU and realized that the title was "Race and intelligence." Yet, most of the articles give undue weight to IQ testing. The articles are constructed in such a poor way that it is better to start from scratch. Its like writing code, if its messy, its faster to begin from zero. All the articles above serve as POV forks for
    Race and Intelligence. Brusegadi 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete and merge There is far too much information here to simply eliminate everything--if only because when someone tries to start the article all over again it will just as easily follow the same path that it has this time. Still, some of the above sections do not deserve to remain at all and others must be cut down to the barest of bones just to reach an inkling of truth. Oh and note: Ashkenazi intelligence is, by definition, just another article describing "racial" differences in intelligence (On the whole I believe that the only valid title would be "human intelligence"; but, I suspect this title already exists in a much cleaner article :P)

Frank0570618 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618[reply]

  • Comment - I agree with most of what you say in the general sense but I feel that it does not apply here. If we were speaking about deleting the article Race and intelligence I would be totally on your side. Yet, we are talking about a bunch of sub-articles that say the same thing and were probably created by frustrated editors because they were not able to get their 'point' across in the main article. Hence, POV forks. While some people will nominate (for deletion) articles simply because they are politically incorrect, others will fear to nominate politically incorrect articles that are perfect candidates simply because they fear to be promoting censorship. There are policy-obedient politically incorrect articles that should not be deleted, and then there are politically incorrect articles that should be deleted because they do not follow our guidelines. I feel that the articles in question fall in the second category. Brusegadi 06:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(history)&oldid=1224032363"