Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human intelligence controversies
From 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 Delete, page is covered elsewhere, any content is not covered there can be added. Prodego talk 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Human intelligence controversies
- Delete - This article was a work of original research consisting of examples of "controversies" in the opinion of its creator. All of the material came from other articles and it was synthesized in a novel way. I think it should be deleted and the content should remain in the articles on the topics. I can't find any "meta-sources" that give an overview of intelligence controversies, so I don't think we can justify this grouping when it adds little new information. Nothing is lost by removing this article.futurebird 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The controversial nature of the material is self-evident to any person of reasonable intelligence. --Jagz 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please, be civil, Jagz. futurebird 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The controversial nature of the material is self-evident. --Jagz 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- So? For that reason we need this article? ~Jeeny (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why is a "Race and intelligence" article needed? --Jagz 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was a rhetorical question. I should have emphasized that. I do not feel the need to comment on why other stuff exists...when we are here to discuss the merits of this article. Which I see none. That's all. Over and out. ~Jeeny (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why is a "Race and intelligence" article needed? --Jagz 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- So? For that reason we need this article? ~Jeeny (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The controversial nature of the material is self-evident. --Jagz 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please, be civil, Jagz. futurebird 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The controversial nature of the material is self-evident to any person of reasonable intelligence. --Jagz 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Futurebird (WP:SYNTH), plus it is by and large a POV fork of the work being done at the Race and Intelligence article.--Ramdrake 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're dead wrong about the article being a POV fork of the Race and Intelligence article. "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." When I moved some information from the R&I article there was no disagreement about that content that I was aware of. --Jagz 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. I say it meets this definition dead on.--Ramdrake 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why do say "deliberately created to avoid" NPOV guidlines? I've about had enough of your pompous attitude --Jagz 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- "I" don't say that, the definition of a POV fork as per WP:POVFORK says that. The fact that you picked only the most fringe theories out of the R&I article, without their rebuttal, and moved them not once but twice to a different article seems to prove this is pretty deliberate.--Ramdrake 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- As is stated on the Talk page of the Race and intelligence article on November 1, "I moved the section "Evolution of intelligence" to the article "Evolution of human intelligence"." I moved the whole section to another article. I moved it because I thought it was a better fit in the other article. That move was not a POV fork. After I did that, you persisted in continually reverting the "Evolution of human intelligence" article to the way it was before I put anything in it. You didn't try to resolve your differences through editing the article or putting in contrasting POV. Apparently, you thought the material was too controversial for the article. I agree that the material is controversial too so I created an article about human intelligence controversies. However, the R&I article gang came over to that article too with torches and pitchforks. Which article do you think that the material belongs in? How about in a controversies section of the Human evolution article? Isn't the R&I article being downsized? --Jagz 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- "I" don't say that, the definition of a POV fork as per WP:POVFORK says that. The fact that you picked only the most fringe theories out of the R&I article, without their rebuttal, and moved them not once but twice to a different article seems to prove this is pretty deliberate.--Ramdrake 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why do say "deliberately created to avoid" NPOV guidlines? I've about had enough of your pompous attitude --Jagz 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. I say it meets this definition dead on.--Ramdrake 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're dead wrong about the article being a POV fork of the Race and Intelligence article. "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." When I moved some information from the R&I article there was no disagreement about that content that I was aware of. --Jagz 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
*comment 1 - this AfD nom is incomplete, but I'm too dumb to know how to fix it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- neutral - I like the idea of collection into one page, but admit this article is a synthesis. Would the creation of a "controversies about intelligence" category be a good idea to create? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you may be looking for this: Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy--Ramdrake 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "sex and intelligence" article isn't in that one.... futurebird 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a category futurebird 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't object to a category either; I object to this WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK.
BTW, anybody knows how to fix the nomination on today's AfD nomination page? Looks like I'm too dumb to be able to do it either.--Ramdrake 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't object to a category either; I object to this WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK.
- I believe you may be looking for this: Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy--Ramdrake 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Looks like I managed to do it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Merge-Redirect This does seem to be redundant to other topics and should be merged and redirected. Probably to Race and Intelligence --Kevin Murray 00:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge - I believe the article is being reviewed for deletion prematurely in that it is only one day old. It had the potential to become a good article given some time and could have included information not already in Wikipedia. Some of the intelligence controversy information currently in Wikipedia is not covered in separate articles but within articles not specifically about controversies. The main objection about this article appears to be the section "Evolutionary". Since I moved the information in that section from the "Race and intelligence" article without consensus, it should be put back in that article until a consensus is reached among the editors about what to do with it. That would be a fair thing to do. --Jagz 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as an obvious pov-fork. Alun 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you say it is a POV fork? --Jagz 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Alun and Futurebird -- obvious biased pov-fork. In the lead there is some disclaimer stating the article is fringe and "outside mainstream science", but then goes on to appear it is neither. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is every sentence supposed to be followed by a disclaimer? --Jagz 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - intelligence is a very active area of research within psychology/neuroscience, and the controversies are quite real. This article does a horrible job of discussing them, but it should be done properly. There is (if one looks) plenty of back-and-forth within the field starting with definitions of intelligence going right though how to measure it, and whether we're measuring what we think we are. I suggest working this article towards a state where it can be a main article linked from Iq_test#Criticism, Intelligence#Controversies, Cognition etc. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can we remove the overlap between this topic and "race and intelligence, so that this becomes a viable stand-alone topic? --Kevin Murray 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as contemporary issues like the black-white issue in the USA, I'd say yes. It should probably at least be mentioned with a link the R&I article. What article should be used to discuss the race related theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence? I'm an advocate of free speech. --Jagz 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest Scientific racism, specifically this section: [1] which seems to already discuss the issue.--Ramdrake 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some theories state that people who are essentially geographically separated for very long periods of time may not have the same average IQ. How do you determine which of those theories are racism and which ones are not? --Jagz 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another (regardless of the type of superiority). So, again technically speaking, all these theories are racist. And yes, a belief that Black athletes are as a whole better runners and jumpers is also racist according to this definition, just so we're being clear on the concepts used.--Ramdrake 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the word racism has more than one meaning. To be more specific though, how do you determine which of those theories are "scientific racism". I can't find the term "scientific racism" in the dictionary and it seems to have a negative connotation. --Jagz 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're more likely to find scientific racism in an encyclopaedia, such as here. You can't quote the article back to WP, but it should give you an idea of the different applications of the locution.--Ramdrake 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- How do you personally determine which of those theories are "scientific racism" --Jagz 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think he just explained how... futurebird 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think he did. --Jagz 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I feel like he wants to persecute people who believe there are differences between races. The fact that there are different races tends to support the belief that there are in fact differences. --Jagz 05:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I explained myself: according to what I said earlier, all of these theories (except the one about sex and intelligence, which is sexism) are racist. I'm not trying to persecute anyone. The undeniable fact is that races exist, but they are constructed socially from empirically observed differences, and they are of little if any significance to biology.--Ramdrake 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The term racism has a very negative connotation here in the USA and calling racial theories made in good faith racism is derogatory. Maybe up in French Canada they use the term differently. --Jagz 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, the term is just as damning up here too. However, if you prefer to use the term "racialist theories" instead, I don't object. However, it still remains scientific racism (the belief that science proves one race is superior to another in some characteristics).--Ramdrake 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The term racism has a very negative connotation here in the USA and calling racial theories made in good faith racism is derogatory. Maybe up in French Canada they use the term differently. --Jagz 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I explained myself: according to what I said earlier, all of these theories (except the one about sex and intelligence, which is sexism) are racist. I'm not trying to persecute anyone. The undeniable fact is that races exist, but they are constructed socially from empirically observed differences, and they are of little if any significance to biology.--Ramdrake 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think he just explained how... futurebird 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- How do you personally determine which of those theories are "scientific racism" --Jagz 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're more likely to find scientific racism in an encyclopaedia, such as here. You can't quote the article back to WP, but it should give you an idea of the different applications of the locution.--Ramdrake 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the word racism has more than one meaning. To be more specific though, how do you determine which of those theories are "scientific racism". I can't find the term "scientific racism" in the dictionary and it seems to have a negative connotation. --Jagz 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another (regardless of the type of superiority). So, again technically speaking, all these theories are racist. And yes, a belief that Black athletes are as a whole better runners and jumpers is also racist according to this definition, just so we're being clear on the concepts used.--Ramdrake 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some theories state that people who are essentially geographically separated for very long periods of time may not have the same average IQ. How do you determine which of those theories are racism and which ones are not? --Jagz 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest Scientific racism, specifically this section: [1] which seems to already discuss the issue.--Ramdrake 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as contemporary issues like the black-white issue in the USA, I'd say yes. It should probably at least be mentioned with a link the R&I article. What article should be used to discuss the race related theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence? I'm an advocate of free speech. --Jagz 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can we remove the overlap between this topic and "race and intelligence, so that this becomes a viable stand-alone topic? --Kevin Murray 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I asked for comment on the Talk page of the "Human evolution" article as to what article the controversial theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence belong. Please let the editors of that article comment without interfering. Also, here is a discussion of both sides of the debate over whether race exists.[2] --Jagz 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- As shown in the linked article I provided above, the subject of the existence of race is controversial even among anthropologists. Therefore, Wikipedians should not try to impose their personal views on others. The subject of the adaptation to harsh climates such as those brought on by Ice Ages and frigid winters, and its evolutionary effects has not been discredited. I suggest that a "Racial theories" section be added to the article "Evolution of human intelligence" and that the "Evolutionary" section in this article be deleted. Also, the "National income" section in this article can be deleted. This article should be kept but restructured per Mike.lifeguard's comments above. --Jagz 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth a separate article. Besides, they didn't even mention phrenology. :) Bombycil 16:23, 8 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.
