Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiousness and intelligence

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 - kept, but needs cleanup - SimonP 23:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religiousness and intelligence

This article is a piece of patent nonsense. It could also be a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I don't think religion and intelligence are connected either way, nor should they be in an encyclopedia, so it's non-encyclopedic. --EuropracBHIT 12:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC).

• Delete: This is not science... This is culture in the USA only. The paper suggest causal effects, that are unprovable.

While we're at it, lets delete everything in social science. You cant prove causal effects in any question in social science, unless there's a significant time delay.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Has been the subject of many scientific papers. Science should not be censored. Ultramarine 13:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that large parts of the article, including the data, is regularly deleted so check the history för an uncensored version. Ultramarine 21:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep. It doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. It's cited. Various studies have shown that the more educated one is, the less likely one is to believe in the supernatural. In addition, the more educated in science one is, the less likely, and within science particularly biology. Now, I think one should recognise that education and intelligence are two different things, but nevertheless there is scope for an article. Dunc|☺ 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you support renaming the article to Religiousness and education? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:31, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Keep. The source the author provides looks respectable enough, and he claims that he quotes studies featured in Nature and Scientific American, so I have difficulty believing that this is a piece of patent nonsense, even if you personally disagree with the findings. While the tone could certainly be made more diplomatic, a valid correlation between these two important elements of society is encyclopediac, in my opinion, especially when one considers the prominance of both religion and intelligence in encyclopedias individually. Finally, with regards to the possibility of disruption of Wikipedia--my feelings are that we should embrace these challenges, not ignore them. --Frostyservant 13:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for above reasons. I'd like to see the article fleshed out. --DAD 13:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently POV, plus this is an unwieldly topic. It is, of course, simply amazing to me that Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Liebnitz, Bernard Spinoza, Soren Kierkegaard, C. S. Lewis, and hundreds of thousands of others were not intelligent. Phenomenal research! We have no business carrying articles based on cruddy methodologies and prejudicial results. All this does is create and carry forth a war. Geogre 14:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Logical fallacy alert: correlation does not imply 100% correlation. PlatypeanArchcow 15:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Methodical fallacy alert: the dead guys you listed are from at least 100 years back. The studies cited in this article pertain to a social group at present, and a narrow one for that matter. Karol 16:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is interesting enough, it's not patent nonsense; statistical correlation doesn't constitute an absolute rule. But it's not encyclopedic either. There are some things Wikipedia is not, and it is "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". This subject could be material for an essay, but not an encyclopedia article. Who on earth would come here looking for an article on "Religiousness and intelligence" anyway? Eixo 14:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You never know when some Ted Turner type will make some statement linking the two. Then we'll have something to link to.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep though there should be more of statistics worldwide, not just US related ones. The explanation part should be removed as there's no chance to be objective. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The explanations part is what MAKES the article objective by providing some context to the data. For instance, would you support a Race and intelligence article in which say, college graduation statistics were provided for different races with no information about potential biases caused by different levels of wealth, etc? Christopher Parham

(talk) 15:36, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

• • Agree with Christopherparham. As long as each explanation is presented as a theory, it is acceptable.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, unfortunately, this explanation part is hopelessly POV - that is the bit that goes from today's US scientists to a sweeping generalization. It is this introduction that is a "logical" as "The Bell Curve" was. -- AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move/Redirect to Religiousness and education, or another more appropriate title. The current title (and especially the lead sentence of the article) is asking for trouble; the lead is deeply POV and the title is somewhat so. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Eixo and Geogre. Furthermore, the content and title are seriously POV, while both the papers referenced are by the same two authors- Edward Larson, in the History Dept at the University of Georgia and Larry Witham, a journalist. It seems more like a pet theory rather than accepted research conclusions. --G Rutter 16:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 16:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as this should be qualified as original research. Reason: the studies cited here report a correlation between level of education (not intelligence) and religious standpoints. They were made within a narrow group of people (both geographically and historically), however, and extrapolating such data to any wider context lacks justification. My opinion: this correlation among the american scientific community may be the byproduct of deeply rooted realism and reductionism. Karol 16:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has anyone even bothered to look at the external link [1] which is a list of scholarly references that describe studies associating educational attainment, IQ, income, and scentific discipline with religiosity. Thus, it is not original research; and moreover it cannot simply be renamed as religiousness and education, but the term religiosity may be prefered -- religiosity and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: interesting stuff, well written article, good citations, certainly not nonsense… but I cannot convince myself that this belongs in the encyclopaedia. It cannot ever be made NPOV without becoming original research, and just seems, well, inappropriate, dammit. (by which I mean 'not a fit topic for an encyclopaedia', not 'too naughty to discuss') Naturenet 19:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Taboo should not be a justification for deletion. --Rikurzhen 19:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - reasons already stated. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A worthy topic and not inherently POV. Needs more consideration of differing points of view. Kaibabsquirrel 19:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In response to what has been stated above, let me just say that: 1) a scientific question by definition can't be "inherently POV", because it deals with the reality, and in reality the answer is either true or false, 2) the article doesn't claim causation (i.e. that high IQ causes less religiousness), only correlation, and reasonably backs it with references. Still, I must add that I'd rather see it merged someplace... GregorB 20:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • This brings us to the essence of this dispute: should we have articles solely about correlations, aside from the question wether and how well they are documented? (I think everyone agrees that this article states correlation, and not causation). So, let's ask ourselves if we should have articles on other equally intensively studied, but perhaps not as popular correlations, such as Aggresiveness and obesity, Annual income and emotional quotient, and my personal favorite, Mental illness and time spent online. Karol 20:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is in fact a very good point... My personal hunch is that religiousness is negatively affected chiefly by education, not intelligence, and that the well-known high correlation between the two obscures that fact. Still, we don't know the answer yet, and the mere correlation is fair game for an article if it's important enough, and I think this one is. GregorB 12:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is credible research on a subject, why not have an article on it? --Rikurzhen 22:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, junk, unsafeable, since the article does not even remotely come close to contraining what the title advertises; it would even be lousy if it were titled "religiousness and education" since it only talk about a very small part of the educated people in the word; namely, todays US scientists. One would probably even get vastly different results when checking other societies, or other fields of education, and as already pointed out above, let's not even mention different times. -- AlexR 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • we wouldn't delete an article about (for example) infanticide because that practice is limited in time and place --Rikurzhen 22:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but we would not let an article stand, either, that would claim that widespread infanticide is unlimited in time and/or place. Furthermore, false analogy - infanticide is a fact that stands on its own, this article is about a correlation, and the degree if that correlation is the question here.--AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is clear that this article is about a real thing: an area of intelligence research that has shown a correlation between variables (though the studies and their results are debatable, similarly to race and intelligence). Beckwith's article presented 43 studies from this area that supported the correlation. This discussion is not about the degree of the correlation. Such a discussion would have to be based on a review of this area of intelligence research and these studies, not a review of a week-old stub. Has anyone here done this research before claiming the article will never be legitimate?--Nectarflowed ^T 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand if possible to cover other societies, fields of education, and different times. Kappa 20:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unsalvageable. It makes me blush to even imagine looking up this ridiculous topic in Encyclopedia Britannica. Should we have Red hair and fiery temperament, too? Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • as compared to having an article on Autofellatio? --Rikurzhen 22:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can find scientific, peer-reviewed papers outlining a correlation between red hair and fiery temperament then by all means make the article. The article in question has these papers. — Asbestos | Talk 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Religion, or some such similar article. Or, if you simply must keep, then at least wikify. Hermione1980 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Needs work and possibly retitling, but the subject is certainly worth an article. Keep. --W(t) 01:00, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Neutral point of view, anyone? Delete.--Slowking Man 01:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep it if there is indeed studies being done on this topic. --ShaunMacPherson 01:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV, and likely unsalvagable. No note of studies which disprove the theory. Also, if consensus is to keep, I suggest a better title is found (religiousness?). --Xcali 01:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, worthy topic for inclusion. I can't see it being original research since it has been covered in other scientific journals. Megan1967 04:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At the moment the article is pretty badly POV, and I've put a {{POV}} tag on it. But I don't think it's unsalvageable. It just needs to be NPOVed and nurtured carefully. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article's title is a lie compared to its contents: the studied groups are scientists and scientists as a group are not the same as intelligent people as a group. If someone wants to create an article that explores the religious beliefs of scientists, do it -- that would be interesting and encyclopedic. To pretend that studying scientists tells you about religiousness and intelligence is neither scientific nor intelligent. Quale 07:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, highly interesting topic. The nomination itself is invalid, as it does not rely on the usual criteria for deletion, but on personal disagreement with the research presented in the article. If the article is POV, or criticism of that research is not propertly addressed, this can be resolved by improving the article. VfD is not the place to solve POV problems. Martg76 08:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination was flawed, insofar as this is clearly not nonsense. The topic is highly contentious (I am religious by nature), but it can be salvaged by presenting a NPOV. Certainly, scientists have long studied the question -- the matter is of central concern to psychologist William James for one. Xoloz 19:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This isnt nonsense. It needs to be cleaned up and made a bit more NPOV but it is highly notable and has the capability of greatly expanding -CunningLinguist 23:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and not original research. JamesBurns 11:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Researchness and delete. Radiant_* 11:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Breeding ground for POV and original research. WebLuis 13:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely needs rephrasing and re-analysis of cited research. Unfortunately science is not as diplomatic as we would like it to be, so I understand the controversy generated by this article. However, if this has basis in fact (and, though I am very religious, I have observed this in life as well) it should be re-written and left online. Perhaps studies/statistics from Mensa or the Triple Nine Society could corroborate the findings put forth in this article? (Previous unsigned vote by User:24.179.81.187. Hermione1980 19:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Because religiosity has been too narrowly defined. Evolutionists exhibit a highly religious faith in evolution. 222.152.132.86 21:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (Sock puppet) [2]
• Keep, interesting, factual, referenced.-gadfium 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Maybe it needs some work, but on the whole i'd say we should keep the article.--M. Alexander 15:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article, as it stands, is incredibly biased and lacking in balancing data (big bang theorists becoming thiests) If there are persons will to salvage, KEEP, if not, DELETE as per Deletion Policy: Article is disruptive.--Tznkai 16:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The article doesnt lack balancing data, I suspect the studies it cites do.Hornplease 05:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it isn't very good, but it has merit. See Race and intelligence to see how it should end up... (very well cited) --Gmaxwell 05:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; The subject matter is controversial, perhaps, but I can certify that studies of this nature are common among economists and social scientists. However, most studies concentrate on more objectively quantifiable identifiers, such as education. There may be no link between education and intelligence, and whether or not there is is not the subject of the article, which concentrates on the undisputed statistical fact that there is a correlation between levels of education and overt religiosity. (Theists do not satisfy the 'overt religiosity' thing, I suspect.) The article is not POV as it stands, but the title may be. Unusual situation. Maybe change to "Religiosity and Education/Intelligence" and keep.Hornplease 05:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - while the article isn't the best example of a Wikipedia article, its content is fairly good and the issue it is raising is scientific. Let's not censor science just to please the religious fundamentalists. Ronline 11:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Uhm, you might want to take notice of the fact that not everybody who voted for delete, for whatever reason, is a religious fundamentalist. I know I am not, and the same goes probably for the majority of those who voted "delete". The question may or may not be scientific, but unless there are works to be cited that actually deal with the subject (and not "religiousness and 'hard science' academics in the USA at the beginning of the 21st century") the article is not only an invitation for edit wars, it is also probably original research. -- AlexR 12:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re-read the article; in its early days it was the victim of massive deletions of content, but that has settled down now. You'll find many studies that directly correlate religosity with IQ, SAT, etc. --Rikurzhen 14:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Still very US-centric, and the term "religiousness" seems to be quite problematic, too - as it could cover everything from a belief in a god or some "higher plane" with not particular effect on a person's life or work, to a reborn bible-thumper. SAT, btw, also does not quite measure "intelligence", the latter being subject to quite a few controvercies itself. -- AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This area of intelligence research is mostly conducted in the US because religion, like race, is a bigger deal in the US than in other developed countries, as the article points out. Race and intelligence is, similarly, also pretty US-centric. This does not delegitimize these areas of intelligence research.

The studies clearly define their measurements of religiousness. Races can also be difficult to define, but that doesn't mean researchers should throw up their hands and give up. SAT tests do test cognitive ability and are correlated with IQ scores. Controversiality is not grounds for exclusion. Most of these issues are discussed in the race and intelligence article. --Nectarflowed ^T 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leave intent and origin of opinion out of this, its unnecessary. I'm been accused of herecy more often than fundamentalism, and I am quite tempted to vote delete based on disruptiveness. A correlation between religious belief and education is intresting, but hardly indicative of inteligence. This isn't hard science, this is social science at best.--Tznkai 14:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

correlations are never conclusive, just suggestive. It might make you uncomfortable, but that is indeed social science works. Its not a good idea to ignore the social sciences altogether. `Hornplease 16:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm studying to be a social scientist, so I know the limitations, and the due dilligence that you need to make the statements this article was suggesting. It needs a lot of work--Tznkai 16:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is describing a well-researched scientific study, and has the relevent citations. The article describes a correlation and nothing more. Open to changing the title if necessary ("intelligence" should not be replaced with "education" since the article correlates more than that, but unsure if "religiousness" is the correct term). — Asbestos | Talk 17:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The origin of the "intelligence and" part of the title is probably to follow in the pattern of many other articles with similar titles: race and intelligence, sex and intelligence, brain size and intelligence, etc. I checked out "religiousness" and although its usage is less common than religiosity, I've found it in the titles of several papers. --Rikurzhen 18:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork nonsense. Ambi 07:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• POV Cleanup - This has to be some sort of trick to see who votes differently on this and Race and intelligence. The article misinterprets its sources - the Nature and Science articles only show correlation between occupation and religiousness, while the Terman study only deals with those with IQ >140. I am skeptical that there are no views presented in opposition - surely they exist if the topic is notable. The Opinions and Interpretations sections should be deleted as POV. michael 08:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I think this is the key: I am skeptical that there are no views presented in opposition - surely they exist if the topic is notable. There has been a huge debate on Race and intelligence, for years, and it's produced a notable literature. This just isn't at the same level. You will find that even now the article is essentially single-sourced: a mere paraphrase of the external link provided; and the citations are from that link's bibliography. Demi ^T/_C 17:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• As suggested before, at least move to Religiousness and education, a more accurate title. Beyond that, it's not inherently PoV - it's just reporting the published studies - and it's obviously not patent nonsense or original research. Dan100 10:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you call "Religiousness and education" a more accurate title? If you read the article, you'll see that it discusses a lot more than education. — Asbestos | Talk 13:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to [[Religiousness and education]. Axon 11:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I voted for a strong keep on race and intelligence, but this is far too POV, and it doesn't look salvageable. --Idont Havaname 22:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep GregorB made my points for me. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep & no need to rename. For all the users with little experience with science who are voting delete, the article is very clearly about much more than education, and, besides, education and IQ are correlated. Also, the stats about scientists vs. the public are relevant, as, yes, there is a correlation between occupation and IQ, and scientists are at the top of that scale.

Anyone here claiming they can conclude this area of scientific research lacks sufficient data or that the article is an original argument should look at the 43 studies referenced in Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry Magazine, Spring 1986. It isn't available online, but is available by back-order,[3] and a summary of 30 of the referenced studies does appear on a number of sites.[4]

Also, keep in mind the article is currently only 11 days old. Any delete votes claiming the area of scientific research is an original argument, non-notable, or "inherently POV" should be based on a thorough review of the area of scientific research, not on an incomplete article that's only just beginning.

Regarding the question of is this area of research non-encyclopedic, Frostyservant points out above that that is a difficult argument to make when religion and intelligence are both very encyclopedic topics. Also, how could this topic be non-encylopedic when race and intelligence is very encyclopedic?--Nectarflowed ^T 05:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Some studies do not make a finding. --pippo2001 07:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article under discussion does not claim this open area of intelligence research has produced an undebatable finding. It presents studies that have produced evidence in an important area (see Wikipedia:Importance, which is what Wikipedia:Encyclopedic redirects to). I don't think anyone here is intentionally saying this area of intelligence research is unimportant. Race and intelligence is likewise an open area of intelligence research, one in which many elements are far from being settled.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Not too good now but has the potential to grow into something as good as Race and intelligence. Nickptar 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's say no to censorship. -- Toytoy 18:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because an article is currently POV is no reason to delete it. It needs editing, not deletion. Daekharel 15:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could stand improvement, but the topic is one that has been the subject of legitimate study. *Dan* 19:45, Jun 11, 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.