Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IQ by race

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQ by race

IQ by race (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I don't think that this page belongs in Wikipedia for several reasons. First of all, on its own it lacks the context and additional information necessary to be useful. Here it's just a list from which the reader is left to just draw whatever conclusions they want without regard for what it actually means. Such a list would be far more useful if integrated into an existing article, such as Race and intelligence. However, this list has one other major problem. It draws the IQ's from a number of different sources. Each source almost certainly varies widely with regards to what the sampling methods and IQ tests it uses were, which means that the results of each source can not be compared in this manner without inherent inaccuracy. A list like this does nothing but result in completely erroneous and misleading conclusions and is in fact utterly useless. Comparing the IQ's from different studies in this manner comes very close to original research. A new list could be created in the context of the above mentioned article if all the IQs were drawn from one source, but this list as it stands is not at all independently notable, accurate, or verifiable. Dycedarg ж 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE An alternative format of this list/chart is presented at Talk:IQ by ancestry (this is an unsourced example of an alternate format) Sourced as of --Kevin Murray 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)). Among the options discussed below are: (1) keep the exisiting article, (2) merge the existing article to Race and intelligence, (3) develop a format that is more objective and does not border on primary research and then merge that into Race and intelligence, and (4) delete the whole concept. --Kevin Murray 07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -- External links do not meet WP:EL. Unverifiable. - Longhair\talk 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Plust most of the references are to WP articles. This is not an acceptable reference. A list like this being contentious requires superior referencing and excellent methodology. This does not come close. Maustrauser 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ill-conceived article and weak, unreliable sources SubSeven 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reliable sources are absolutely positively needed for something like this. Individually, some of the sources given are reliable or are based on reliable studies, but when put together like this, the data as a whole is entirely unreliable and unscientific. However, such an article could potentially be sourced well if constructed in a different manner (not a list). So, remove the list and leave the external links. Create a stub with something along the lines of "Numerous studies have been performed examining the correlation between race and IQ. Here are those studies:" Such an article needs to be extremely well-referenced before writing a drop of prose. Also, if stubbed, a better name will be needed. --- RockMFR 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. & Longhair Cornell Rockey 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete we already have an article titled Race and intelligence which covers this issue.--Jersey Devil 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is redundant to Race and intelligence. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A list which makes comparisons not made in any source appears to be WP:OR. suggest merging any surviving content into Race and Intelligence. --Shirahadasha 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ganfon 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is an interesting subject, but this article does not give any context or explanations for the sources, many of which do not appear to be genuine scientific studies. Danski14 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this is racist, poorly/selectively referenced, and very randomly put together. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia --TommyOliver 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The intelligence quotient is not correlated strongly with race but with education and cultural milieu. Race is a poorly-defined categorization scheme not based in biology. Together they make a Reese's peanut butter cup of crunchy pseudoscience. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge if necessary - the lack of content means this isn't as overtly racist as most lists of this type tend to be, but it's still an unfocused and ill-conceived list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Could be considered attack page, even. Picking sources (as in this article) can result in any bias and is an example of NPOV. Note also that the article does not even compare races, but locations. --N Shar 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unscientific and potentially racist rubbish. Can we ban the person who created it as well? --Nick Dowling 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with most of the above reasoning. BTfromLA 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant content to Race and intelligence series. Just because this article may be poorly sourced doesn't mean this topic should be deleted out of hand. Joshdboz 13:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Joshdboz arguments, but Keep it, if not Wikipedia will only merge the title of the article and not what the table shows. The content are relevant to all the Race and intelligence series at Wikipedia. Buj and Zeidner is for example new information. It seems that Wikipedia do not like Buj. They have deleted things about him earlier. It seems like "IQ and the wealth of nation" and "Race and intelligence" shall be the only truth inside here. Seems like some like what these articles tells, but there can be other truths???? If "Race by ancestry" should be deleted; Also the other articles about race and intelligence should be deleted. Further...: The "IQ by ancestry" article tells that there is not only one indian race. It is true. In other articles indians seems to be one race. Why shall Indo-Aryans represent Indians in generally and Dravidian people? Many says that the article "IQ by ancestry" is racism. It is not more rasistic than other articles about the subject inside here.SuganthinifromJaffna
  • Redirect to Race and intelligence. This article is nothing like as worthy. Hut 8.5 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Race and intelligence, it's a likely search term. (Note the actual article for deletion was recently moved to IQ by ancestry by Helenparis444.) Contents should be deleted or merged. Lyrl Talk C 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly racist. futurebird 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete- per Oliver. 72.130.133.8 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect the title to Race and intelligence. I was tempted to say the data should be merged in some way, but as observed above, this is Original Research in that it draws from varying sources with the suggestion of a meaningful relationship between the data. There's nothing here that can reasonably be merged. Only if there was an external source in the form of an article that attempted to meaningfully sythesize this data, could the information be presented fairly. If such a published article or report existed, then it would be possible to take a Neutral-Point-Of-View while presenting reactions to and interpretations of the report. But such a report does not exist outside this Originally Researched list, and it does not allow NPOV evaluations.zadignose 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete exactly per zadignose, who covered every important point so concisely. — coelacan talk — 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - as said by Futurebird, it's clearly racist. Bigtop 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page has been page-moved by its OA to a different name (see its history) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal feeling? Delete as it can be called on racism. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It is not accurate since it gets numerical values from different sources not following the same metodology. John C PI 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As with the article on wide nostrils, this article is clearly racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Comment Just because something discusses race in statistical terms does not make it inherently racist. That does not mean that these numbers may be used or compared unfairly and inaccurately, but crying "racism" is false and counterproductive. Joshdboz 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article is based on pseudo-science and cannot be considered verifiable by any stretch. IQ tests are inherently Eurocentric and this page reeks of racism. PaddyM 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -White jews have an average IQ of 115 and most Africans are Mentally retarded?I don't think so. Maniac 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Race and intelligence --W. D. Hamilton 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Race and intelligence --Kevin Murray 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE The information has been added to Race and intelligence and the continued inclusion at that article is being discussed there --Kevin Murray 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE And I removed it pending the outcome of this debate. It shouldn't be merged into that article unless consensus here dictates that it should, and right now that doesn't look like it's going to happen.--Dycedarg ж 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SOLUTION Dycedarg and I have had participated with some other editors in a rigorous debate at Race and intelligence. The outcome is that the list as written is not appropriate for inclusion there for several reasons, and has been removed. However, I will try to salvage the better material and try to develop a more balanced and well resourced chart. The value I see of inclusion at Race and intelligence is to disagregate some of the overly condensed categories presented there, such as lumping all whites, blacks and hispanics into three overly narrow categories (are hispanics a race or speakers of a common language?). Also a chart (modified) allows multiple studies to to be evaluated side by side. Variances in IQ are not simply a result of genetics, but also include environmental factors such as nutrition and education (hard to distiniguish from inherent intellegence) among many others. Like it or not the Race and intelligence article has been through rigorous review including two recent AfD processes, and is not likely to go away. If you oppose the validity of the information, it is better to work with the process to improve the presentation of the article toward a NPOV. If you have some ideas on how the chart can be improved please contact me -- some suggestions have been discussed at Race and intelligence. --Kevin Murray 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This article is definitely assuming a POV straight off the bat (that race and intelligence comeasurement are reportable correlations). Since race is mostly sociological while intelligence is entirely psychometric, such an article is either entirely original research or it is POV-pushing a conservative racial agenda ala The Bell Curve. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Racist. IQ measuring is depending on the subjects knowledge and education, therefore this is not a like-for-like comparision and biased. HagenUK 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Totally POV, OR and racist, as HagenUK said above. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:46, 24 January 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.