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)
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)
So? I asked if you support such ridiculous articles, not if they existed... Revolución 03:28, 6 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)
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)
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. 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)
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 centruy 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
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence
