Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12

12 February 2020

Race and intelligence

Race and intelligence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a highly contentious AfD that attracted more than 50 participants and had 30 editors express support to keep the article. Seems like an obvious no consensus result, but the closer ruled that the consensus was that the article "is a POVFORK". There hardly seemed to be a consensus around this. Furthermore, the argument that Race and intelligence is a POV fork of History of the race and intelligence controversy is not compelling given how the later was developed from discussion and compromise on the talk page of the former back in 2010; see Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 76#History section as proposed by Mathsci. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn "X" is not a fork of "History of X". I think a lot of the deletes think this article is racist. If I believed that, I'd grasp at any reason to delete as well. But I think it discusses the issue neutrally. So, since it's incredibly notable and NOT CENSORED is still a policy (I think), it's clearly a no consensus keep. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I voted keep in the AfD. Should have mentioned that. Sorry. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • DGG made a good point down below. You overturn this delete, then you have a keep. Some people seem to be saying overturn this delete so we can get a better delete. Is that an option I haven't heard of? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure what this means, but the closer has gone dark on wiki since they did this. Strange. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus. The closer's rationale makes no sense, but I appreciate the difficulty he had dealing with this AfD. (I voted Keep but realize that other points of view have their force also). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC).

• Comment Above 2 participants participated in the AfD,[1][2] just like I had. I would like to urge all involved parties to allow uninvolved editors analyze the closure because this section is on the verge of turning the debate into another round of the AfD in question. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop hitherto uninvolved editors from contributing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC).

• Endorse- I didn't participate in the AfD. It looks to me that either no consensus or delete could have been justifiable, and I'm certainly not going to condemn an admin for correctly judging strength of argument over volume of prose. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse Didn't participate either. There was an AfD I was involved in a long time ago which ended similarly, basically a "I know this will go to DRV so what's the point?" and not thrilled the close wasn't that detailed. However, I do agree on the whole that there is consensus that this is a POVFORK and that the information is already neutrally covered elsewhere, and the onus on the keep !voters at that point would be to argue against it, which only a couple voters attempted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn for procedural reasons, this doesn't rule out a deletion for a different reason. I didn't participate in the AfD. It cannot be a POVFORK of another article as it is the oldest article about the topic. It changed a lot over the last 10 years (especially in April 2010, when the history article was created) but there was never a complete rewrite of the article, I checked. In addition there is clearly no consensus to call this a POVFORK. Even among the "delete" opinions there is no consensus for it: People criticize the title, claim that the topic overall wouldn't be notable, are concerned about redundancy with the history article, or point out issues within the article. Apart from the notability (which is clearly there, given the countless articles about it) these are all valid concerns, but they do not give a consensus for anything. What I find particularly odd is the idea to have an article "History of X" without having an article "X". Imagine an article "History of Paris" without an article "Paris". --mfb (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse "procedure" for "bureaucracy". The specific age of the article is a technicality, and the status quo doesn't automatically need to be preserved. Treating this as an abstract concept which can be directly compared to "Paris" presumes that every article must be treated in a similar fashion, regardless of sources or context. This is absolutely not accurate. We have many, many articles on historical concepts, and we all agree that fringe topics must be handled with caution. Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a mistaken conclusion because our articles are mot set in stone. An older article can have its contents changed sufficiently to turn it into a POV fork of a younger article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The age of the article isn't the only reason for my comment: The closing comment claimed a consensus that isn't there. I never said (or implied) everything must be treated in a similar fashion. Having an article "X" with a history section and creating "history of X" if it gets too long is a very common procedure across Wikipedia, however. @RexxS: Do you see a forking event in the history? --mfb (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a "forking event" for forking to occur? I don't think that's necessary. Over time, an article's content can change gradually. The article in question's title has made it liable to accumulate dubious content that ends up turning it into a POV shadow of the history article, without that article's rigour. Nobody has given a satisfactory answer to the question of what reliable sources can be legitimately used in an article titled "Race and Inteligence" that can't be used in History of the race and intelligence controversy or Scientific racism. --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment At this AN thread, Jo-Jo Eumerus proposed a team close for this AfD, and Barkeep49 offered to help out. Would overturning this closure on the procedural concerns, and having it reassessed by an admin team, seem a reasonable approach to everyone? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As the original nominator, I would be content with that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• No. Spartaz was not obliged to follow that discussion. There is no policy which could enforce it. If any admin would like to comment on the closure then they can do it here. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I do not mean to imply that Spartaz was obliged to have followed that discussion, or that they mis-stepped by having closed it without input from others - it just seems like a way forward that people from differing positions might be able to get behind. In terms of policy, surely 'Overturn' and 'Relist' would allow for this to take place? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think a team close may be the best possible situation here. This close was fine but not adequate. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse, per my !vote at AfD. A difficult debate to parse, but I think the correct result: nobody managed to rebut the central argument for deletion, which is that this is a POV fork that gives undue weight to a racist trope. Guy (help!) 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  User:JzG - please could you look at this again? The DRV is to review the close, not the debate itself. You say that the POV fork argument wasn't rebutted, but it was, perhaps in most detail by the IP 2600:1004:B11C:DD81:9097:4C1A:1A0B:AEA5, who looked into what POV fork actually says, and the nominator Sirfurboy agreed that their rebuttal had merit. I would say it's at best "no consensus" on the POV fork question, isn't it? I'm asking for your opinion as an impartial admin, not as someone who supported the deletion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, yes, a number of editors rebutted the central augment including me when I wrote: "Unfortunately, it seems that much of the argument in favor of deleting this article is motivated by a sort of ideological science denialism. When you have two or more populations of humans that have bred largely independently of one another for thousands of years, the chances that those two groups will have same mean and distribution of cognitive/psychological traits is vanishly small. A similar dynamic is obvious and non-controversial to most people when it comes human psychological traits or any traits when applied any sort of non-human life forms. But the human brain has not been except from the same general forces of evolution. The subject of this article is area an of legitimate scientific investigation." The real POV push here is the trope you and some others have advanced, that any investigation or regard for this topic is synonymous with racism. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody rebutted the central argument that no connection between race and intelligence exists. There are almost no populations of humans that have bred independently for the amount of time necessary for significant genetic differences to emerge. Homo sapiens is one of the most genetically homogeneous species on the planet, and is more homogeneous now than it was thousands of years ago. The idea that two populations from the same species have statistically significant different means and variances of any measure of cognitive/psychological traits is laughable. Any differences in samples will down to random chance, and it's only the racists who have been pushing the view that differences exist. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an argument why we should have this article, not an argument for deletion. The article contains your argument, and much more. --mfb (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, not sure I follow your reasoning. I think if RexxS's argument was sound, it would be an a good rationale for deletion. But his argument is based on a false premise, that "there are almost no populations of humans that have bred independently for the amount of time necessary for significant genetic differences to emerge." Anyone with a high school biology-level understanding of genetics who has also met or merely seen pictures of people from all over the globe should have enough common sense to understand that this is false. If you need a specific academic study that drives this point home, here is one of many: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04191-y?fbclid=IwAR0_4Kl89niAM4NrnKpma2HGNFLSQjp0UQCI6TLLH_XvqA9AtRYjvr9jGlk. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What would be the reason for deletion? I interpreted RexxS' comment as "there is nothing to see here, we don't need an article". But the topic is notable, as the countless papers, news articles and so on show. Even the attention the deletion discussion got, and RexxS' concern that some argument wouldn't get enough attention, shows how relevant the topic is and how important it is to have an article about it. As long as enough people talk about it it is notable independent of what is right and wrong. Vaccines and autism, Homeopathy, Moon landing conspiracy theories, ... --mfb (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

mfb, what RexxS and others are essentially saying is that while History of the race and intelligence controversy is analogous to Moon landing conspiracy theories, maintaining the article in question, Race and intelligence, is as if we had an article called Faked moon landings that presented NASA's faking of the moon landings as if it were actual history. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jweiss11: What I don't need is another of your primary studies - especially not one that doesn't even address the point. I thought we were talking about "cognitive/psychological traits" not hip-to-waist ratio. You don't have a shred of credible evidence for your contention that measurable differences in intelligence exist between races. It's obvious that such a complex phenotype hasn't differentiated between populations in the short span of time that modern humans have existed. Here's one conclusion of a modern review among many: Research has found no significant genetic determination of race differences in IQ. Explain why the article doesn't start with that, instead of the pandering to the neo-racist speculations that the current lead provides. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: The article that you linked does not represent the scientific consensus. A leading behavioral geneticist, James J. Lee, writes "the absence of decisive evidence favoring a genetic contribution does not entail the truth of a hypothesis attributing the entirety of the differences to environmental causes. In my view the evidence in its totality does not support either of these hypotheses clearly enough to bring closure to this contentious issue." The article you've linked is evidently not written by a geneticist and contains some non-sequiturs. For example, he writes, " Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." Differences in traits between populations cannot be ruled out because of the number of variants that contribute to the trait. Moreover, his section on admixture is now outdated, with some recent results supporting the Jensen view. --Nstein86 — Nstein86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Nstein86: The review I quoted does represent the scientific consensus. Just take a look at the references in Scientific racism and what we state in Wikipedia's voice: "Scientific racism employs anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, that might be asserted to be superior or inferior." This is what UNESCO says in its constitution "a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races". Your "leading geneticist" James J. Lee doesn't even have a mention in Wikipedia, let alone an article. You're citing a book review that he wrote criticising Nisbett, and you think that represents the scientific consensus? Ludicrous. You think you're equipped to dispute Andrew Coleman's peer-reviewed paper? Coleman is Professor of Psychology at the University of Leicester and is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society whose published works have 2853 citations. And your credentials are? Your determination that differences cannot be ruled out is pure speculation and not supported by the modern mainstream view. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: [James J. Lee] has 6272 citations and is an actual behavioral geneticist, . So I win this round of appeals to authority :) Nstein86

Yer, but Lee isn't disputing Coleman: you are, and you are not competent to make your amateur analysis of Coleman's work. Race is not a genetic phenomenon; it's a social construct. I think you'll find that a psychologist is far more competent to judge sociological issues than a biologist. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course he's disputing Colman (well, he's not in conversation with Colman, who has no knowledge of genetics or behavioral genetics): Colman is saying the evidence demonstrates there are no differences in intelligence between population due to genetics, and in addition we have a priori reason to believe there can be no major differences in intelligence due to genetics. Lee has reviewed the evidence and says the jury is still out. This is basic reading comprehension. I am also more competent than Colman to assess the claim that "Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." This quote shows that he doesn't have even basic knowledge of complex traits and is unfit as a source to guide you on this matter. Nstein86

Of course he's not disputing Colman. Lee does not address Colman's work: you did. You're the one who is deluding yourself into thinking you can analyse a published author's peer-reviewed work. Come back when you have a clue about WP:PSTS. You are totally incompetent to assess Colman's conclusion "Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." You have merely shown that you have no idea about Wikipedia's policies on original research and that your entire contributions to this thread amount to little more than trolling. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You are unhinged. I hope the resources I've linked to can be useful to others. Nstein86

• • Dlthewave is the one saying your vote should be discounted because you have not been here long, in case you are wondering. His edit's timestamp would be a little bit before my this edit if you want to check the history. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn I did not participate in the discussion, but I have 2 points. First, I agree with Peregrene Fisher than X can't be a POV Fork of History of X, because the second naturally follows from the first. Imagine saying that Basketball is a POV Fork of History of Basketball. Second, even disregarding the first point I find no consensus to be the clear consensus. On a final note, I agree that the article has racist fallacies, but these can be clearly documented in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the AfD, this is an article of the form "X and Y" where there is no credible evidence of a link between X and Y, and where we already discuss the attempts to pretend there is in another article. Guy (help!) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this is simply a false assertion on your part. There is abundant, credible evidence that at least a correlation exists between race and intelligence (in terms of means and distributions of large groups of people). I think an inability or an unwillingness by many to acknowledge this fact is the principal reason why were are in this mess. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen no credible scientific definition of either race or intelligence, so how do you manage to come up with one for a correlation between race and intelligence? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed credible definitions of intelligence and race. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There certainly are, but not the ones you're using. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11: that is patent nonsense that you're spouting, and dangerously close to racism. There is absolutely no credible evidence that any sort of link, correlation or association exists between race and intelligence, and you've failed consistently to support your stance with a single modern reliable source. The reason we're in any sort of mess is that you and others have been pushing that myth to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We should not stand by and allow disinformation to be spread like that. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, there are number of reliable sources currently cited in Race and intelligence that show credible evidence for measured differences in average intelligence by racial group (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000895?via%3Dihub). As for accusations about me, you've got reality inverted. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not even close to being a reliable source, and that's half the problem with the article. Intelligence (journal) is an outlet for the International Society for Intelligence Research, well-known for its links with scientific racism and eugenics. Wasn't Lynn on the board of Intelligence when the article was published? There's nothing credible about the way that you and the article conflate NAEP with intelligence and ethnic groups with race – see https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf for an example. I hope you're aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence #Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) because if you don't come up with some mainstream reliable sources to back up your statements, you're heading for AE. That's the reality. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused. The speakers at ISIR this year include Ian Deary, W David Hill, and Matt McGue, all well-cited and serious researchers. Nstein86 —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Nstein86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And I'm damned sure you're confused. The paper was published in 2013, so you're looking at the wrong conference. Nevertheless here's what New Statesman reported in 2018:

The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.

You'll excuse me if I treat your paper with more than pinch of salt. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing in circles. The people you quote are highly controversial because of their publications on race and IQ, so dismissing out of hand the evidence of race/IQ gaps because they're controversial is a bit silly. However you may find Achievement gaps in the United States relevant. Nstein86

The people I quote are controversial because they advocate racist views that are unsupported by the mainstream view. Pretending that you can identify a group of people taking IQ tests with a race, and then claiming that one race has inferior intelligence to another has been the bread-and-butter of racists throughout history. Research has found no significant genetic determination of race differences in IQ does the dismissal without my help. No I don't find Achievement gaps in the United States to be relevant to the issue of race and intelligence. That article confirms my belief that children of rich parents achieve more academically than poor kids who don't even get a square meal each day. It's a good indicator of how important the environment is in academic performance, but does nothing to bolster your mistaken belief that one race has inherently greater intelligence than another. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent a bit) This is the kind of conversation we need to be having on the non deleted articles talk page. Anything that doesn't meet RS should be removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, you're being hostile and your threat here is way out of line. I merely quoting sources presumed to be reliable because they're been in the article for some time. I didn't put any of them there. Is Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press unreliable? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's really disingenuous. The source is used in the article to illustrate that those mistaken beliefs exist, and you are now attempting to say that it proves they are true. They are advocating a fringe theory in violation of WP:UNDUE, and once more this shows how the current article can be used to legitimise racist views. Let me be clear: I don't know you and I have no hostility to you personally. I am hostile to the views you're promoting, and I will make sure that such disinformation is called out whenever it rears its ugly head. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus; arguments on both sides of the discussion were well-made and neither side prevails for me. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose by somebody else. I withhold judgment about whether the closure was correct on the merits; it may have been or it may have not been. But a discussion this long and complex, in a contentious topic area with active arbitration remedies, merits a more thorough evaluation of the opinions given, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

The closer(s) should make a headcount, summarize the arguments for and against deletion, explain which arguments are particularly strong or weak in the light of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then explain why, on this basis, there is or isn't rough consensus to delete. Only a closing statement of this kind could then allow DRV to properly scrutinize the closer's reasoning.

As it is, the closing statement makes reference to only one argument advanced in the discussion. This makes it difficult for us to determine whether the closer properly analyzed the discussion or just gave preference to an argument they personally agree with most.

The fact that the closer referred to the "inevitable DRV" indicates that might have been aware of the shortcomings of their closing statement. Closers should not expect DRV to solve complicated XfDs for them. Rather, they should attempt to close XfDs so convincingly that no review is sought, or that no DRV could succeed in overturning the closure. (Expanded, Sandstein 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

• Speedy overturn and relist and then to be closed properly, with thorough analysis of the arguments. The sense I get from the closer's rather unusual closing statement is that they are attempting to hand the final decision on this AfD off to DRV, rather than closing it in the usual fashion. No detailed analysis of the discussion was offered, other than a glib one-liner "The argument that this.article is a POVFORK is clearly the consensus of this discussion" - which even those endorsing the close accept it wide of the mark. (There might be a rough consensus that it's a POV fork but the consensus, if any, on that point is very very far from "clear"). This sort of close, handing off the decision and responsibility for the decision to DRV, rather than by admin-close, is not how Wikipedia works and it is not how Wikipedia should work. As Sandstein says, DRV needs an admin's decision to analyse, it is not here to make the decision itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Changing !vote to overturn to no consensus. The more I look at this, the more I think it's very clear that there was absolutely no consensus in the discussion at all. It's actually not even close to a consensus to keep or a consensus to delete. Both sides make completely valid points, most of the assertions were open to debate and interpretation and refutation, and frankly there is no conceivable way to close it any other way than no consensus. Per DGG below, who sums up the matter well, applying a panel to this show isn't actually going to help. Even though "no consensus" isn't the same as "consensus to keep", the outcome is the same, so "keep" !voters may end up happier, but that's the way WP works, and I think both the original close and suggestions that a TNT is self-evidently needed fail to fairly sum up the debate that took place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose by somebody else. Regardless of the final decision, this was not the right way to close this AfD. There was no "consensus" to delete (even the count was circa. 30 Keep versus 25 Delete; and got more Keep as the AfD developed). There was also no "consensus" for the close action taken, even amongst deletes. The policy argument is also is against the close (e.g. X is not a fork of history of X), and the topic is notable (per quantity of academic papers specifically on the topic). "Boldly closing" a huge – split !vote – AfD as delete, on the basis that it can be debated at DRV, is also inappropriate, as there will be an inevitable further split !vote at DRV that locks-in the bold close. The issue here is that while the subject is notable, the article is very problematic, and probably falls under the rare, but legitimate use, of WP:TNT for such cases. We have lots of very poor articles on notable subjects that are kept in AfD under NOTCLEANUP, however, this is a VERY sensitive topic, and I have a lot of sympathy for the outcome advocated by the closer of deleting it, and redirecting until somebody can write a proper one. Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse, per my !vote at AfD. Regarding 30 Keep versus 25 Delete; and got more Keep as the AfD developed, during the AfD editors noticed 4 instances of off-wiki canvassing in support of keep, and at the same time (5 Feb) a huge spike in pageviews for the AfD and a sudden dramatic increase in the proportion of keep votes. There is no doubt that on the Internet generally there is much support for the fringe view that some races are genetically inferior to others, and so off-wiki involvement can especially skew the process on an article like this one. NightHeron (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

From reviewing the AfD !votes, there are plenty of experienced editors on both sides of the debate. We are all familiar with "canvassed AfDs" for "youtube stars" (that have zero GNG), that attract lots of IPs/SPAs. That was a much more limited effect here. It wouldn't alter the fact that from a participation perspective, there was "no consensus".

However, I do think that while "classical policy" would support the article (e.g. notable topic, not a fork, AfD not cleanup etc.), the article has problematic writing in a highly sensitive area. Some editors asked if we would have an article on Gender and intelligence, which we do in Sex differences in intelligence, but it is acceptable as it is a much more tightly written and specific article, rather than Race and intelligence, which feels like an essay/POV, and thus problematic (and per my TNT point above). Britishfinance (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion reached a different conclusion from several previous ones, and personally my sense is that the Wikipedia community hasn't reached cloture in this matter. I would suggest that the AfD route has failed, and we might benefit from referring to a more expansive debate format such as RFC instead. This isn't an "endorse" or "overturn", it's a recommendation to leave Spartaz's close undisturbed while we try something else.—S Marshall T/C 13:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If anything was clear it was that there wasn't any consensus. However, I am more sympathetic than some here to the closer's remark about DRV. I don't think they mean that the closer needn't take their close too seriously because DRV can handle things. Rather, it reads to me that the closer is ruefully acknowledging that whatever their close – keep, delete or no consensus – someone will take the matter to DRV. Thincat (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn The close rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE as it does not seem particularly connected to any reading of the breadth of the comments. At best, it cherry picks only those comments that agree with the closer. --Jayron32 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus I disagree with the closer's reading of consensus. A team closure would have been better, but I believe no consensus would be the proper result regardless of who closed it. And yes, I participated in the AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose by somebody else per Sandstein and others. I'm in favor of deletion, but this closing statement is far too brief and doesn't demonstrate that the closer weighed all arguments against policy and other factors such as possible off-site canvassing and IP hoppers. –dlthewave ☎ 13:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - and the heat carrying to here, uninterrupted, was 100% predictable. (A DRV that will also need a team close.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• I did park off this AFD in a "pending close" state and requested a team close at AN because such a complex AFD merited a detailed analysis not a single admin close - but didn't say so on the actual AFD page (only on the talk page). I think I should have.

  Anyhow, while I agree with Sandstein and Amakuru that closing an AFD as "delete" and then putting it on hold is not a good idea as it leaves the article in a limbo with no clear conclusion, I am going to go by what I was planning to propose as part of a team close and thus endorse deletion (and not redirect). Crucially, and contrary to what some keeps in the AFD/overturns in this discussion assert, neither Wikipedia:Content forking nor Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion §5 imply that the first article on a subject cannot be a fork and this was pointed out during the AFD. If "it's the first article thus it can't be a fork" was policy, a "no consensus" close would have been warranted indeed.

  Finally, and this is a procedural note for the closing administrator(s)/editor(s): Given that both Race and Intelligence and Talk:Race and intelligence have over 5000 edits, if this DRV concludes as "delete" the closer(s) of this DRV will need to ask for deletion at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous as local admins can't delete a page this big. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn (edit conflict) I agree with others who are concerned that this closing doesn't do justice to the depth of discussion. This is a case where, even if the "delete" answer is the correct one, the process looks to have been short changed. That's not OK and for that reason alone it should be reverted and a more thorough closing analysis performed. I did not participate in the original discussion. Springee (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse per Jo-Jo Eumerus. --JBL (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Very strong overturn and reclose by someone else – I think this may be my first "strong" !vote at DRV. I did not comment in the AFD. Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can endorse this close. Putting aside the entire question of whether the page should or should not be deleted...
  • It had a {{closing}} tag! The closing tag was placed 10 Feb 10:09 by JJ. When Spartaz closed it the next day, the page had the usual big closing notice at the top. There was discussion at AN forming a panel, a closing tag was placed, and then someone else closes it with four sentences. How could you not notice the closing tag, and if you saw it, why would you close it anyway?
  • The close was "delete and redirect to History of the race and intelligence controversy". What the heck is "delete and redirect"? Put aside whether there was consensus to delete, or no consensus, or consensus to keep... one thing we can all agree on is that there was definitely not consensus to delete the page and recreate it as a redirect to a specific target. There was no consensus to redirect. There was definitely no consensus for a specific target. Very few editors talked about redirecting, and those that did, did not agree on a target. "Delete and redirect to [target]" is a supervote, and a very clear one if you ask me.
  • 58 !votes and 160kb of text... and we're going to close it with four sentences–and I'm sorry to be pedantic but, four typo-laden sentences? Come on! That is such a dismissive slap in the face to the amount of time that was put in by 58 editors into this discussion. If you're going to close a 160kb-, 58-editor discussion, you really need to be writing a detailed closing rationale that fully addresses all major arguments put forward in the discussion. If you're not going to do that, at the very least take a moment to proofread your four-sentence supervote.
  • This close was a punt to DRV, which is wholly improper. It was basically, "I'm not even going to bother writing a close, let's just let DRV decide." That's extremely counterproductive. A thoughtful and "real" close, such as the one Jo-Jo posted on the talk page here, may very well have avoided a DRV altogether. If there were a DRV from such a close, it would make DRV participants' jobs a lot easier if there was a real close to analyze.
  • This close should be overturned, and re-closed. At AN, there was talk of a panel of admin to close, which is a great idea, and there were already two admins (BK and JJ) who volunteered, and they were looking for a third. Spartaz could be that third if everyone involved is on board with that (or someone else can be the third, or it can just be closed with a panel of two). Even if the close JJ posted on the talk page (which also has a delete result) were posted to the AFD to replace the existing close, that would be a huge improvement, and it would be very quick and easy to do since the close is already written (thanks JJ). (And if someone wants to, they can take the new close to DRV.) But this close is so poor it cannot stand, even if it has the "right" result. But I'm not commenting on the result, I'm just saying overturn because it was so far below what the minimum required close for this discussion should look like.
  • To all the comments about "heat" – it's the dismissiveness and the laziness that generates the heat. People feel better about disagreeing, and they feel better about not getting "their way"–meaning, consensus is stronger–when people feel like they've at least been taken seriously rather than ignored or dismissed out of hand. Levivich 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close by Jo-Jo Eumerus and co. This was already being closed. Closing it despite that is, I'm sorry to say, discourteous. This should be closed by the group of admins that was preparing to do so. That this close may be problematic in a number of other ways is less relevant to me at this time. El_C 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close by Jo-Jo Eumerus and, optionally, by a team.. Full disclosure: I am the original nominator, and do wish I could just endorse this closure, which I clearly think is right. Yet it is not enough that a decision be right. It must be seen to be just. Perhaps many will never agree that is so in this case, but a close statement that is carefully explained, showing how the admin has followed and concluded the result from the debate, should go some way to demonstrating that the process is fair and in the best interests of the project as a whole. I had no prior indication of Jo-Jo's thoughts on this topic but believe that they should be allowed to close based on the fact that they had begun the process, and spent over an hour reading the whole thread. Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) has also read the whole thread and either a team close or an admin close by Jo Jo, having discussed as appropriate with other admins would both be fair. I will make no other comment on the arguments - arguments are all in the thread. This discussion is merely about the fairness of the process. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist close was low effort, the closer did not even take time to read the whole page or he would have seen the plans for a multi-admin decision already in progress. The current discussion clearly looks like no consensus for me, so I would like to have it listed for discussion for another week. I tallied up all editors who made a boldfaced !vote. Among all editors there were 32 keep and 26 delete. People are correct though when they say that there were several canvassed SPA accounts that voted keep, but a very small percent of all editors who participated in the AfD came to it naturally (i.e. by browsing AfD listings) so its hard to say what distortions were going on. I tried to quantify this by making note of edit count when I collated !votes. This of course is very crude, but if we exclude users with low edit counts we can mostly remove outside people with low commitment to the project. Among editors with more than 10,000 edits there were 15 keep and 16 delete. Either way it reads like no consensus to me. (see spreadsheet) Antrocent (♫♬) 17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and close by Jo-Jo et. al It was abundantly clear that any close would need to be ironclad...which was why Jo-Jo was assembling a team of closing admins, as evidenced at AN and on the page itself! Spartaz's close was far too short, didn't explain adequately, and looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Combined with being full of grammatical errors, and assuming, defeatedly, that the article was heading for DRV anyway, it is a close that lacks teeth. I think Spartaz created a self fulfilling prophecy: by not putting in the proper time to a close, and just assuming it would go to DRV, voila! it sure did end up at DRV. But if it had been closed, as was the original plan, by a team of admins, then we wouldn't have needed to head to DRV. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I voted keep in the AFD, so I won't vote again. Instead, I'll ask a question: if the discussion is re-closed by Jo-Jo Eumerus, does that amount to the same thing as upholding the decision to delete, except with a different closure summary? Jo-Jo Eumerus has already stated in his comment above that his intention is to uphold the decision to delete. I understand everyone's desire for the correct process to be followed, but it seems somewhat pointless if it is a foregone conclusion that the outcome will stay the same. For the reason explained by Antrocent, I think a "no consensus" close is the correct decision here, along with possibly relisting it. 2600:1004:B15B:2EA6:B81C:E7DF:7B3C:DB13 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Where did Jo-Jo indicate whether they wanted to delete or keep? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I give no recommendation here, but would ask the question of what the difference between the topics of Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy is. Maybe this is relitigating the AfD issue, but it seems to me that we should only have one article about this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil, for a number of years there was only one article, Race and intelligence. History of the race and intelligence controversy was developed in 2010 as a sub-topical expansion. "Race and intelligence" should cover more or less everything about the topic that is outside the controversy, namely the straightforward investigation and evidence of these group differences, and theories and investigations into environmental and genetic forces driving them (sections 3, 4, and 5 of "Race and intelligence"). Unfortunately, many editors will conflate that entirely with Scientific racism. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By that reasoning, there clearly should not be an article titled Race and intelligence. There are no "group differences" to investigate, much less any test "groups" that can be shown to correlate with the social construct of "race". Once the modern mainstream scientific view is accepted, we can completely reject the attempt to give credence to the discredited myth that a connection exists between race and intelligence. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, it doesn't serve anyone or this project well to advance that sort of denalist argument. That sort of denialism is the main reason we are here in this mess. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The accusation of "denialism" against User:RexxS and other editors by the OP of this DRV is deeply troubling, because it shows the frame of mind that seems to be behind the passionate desire to keep the article and overturn the delete closure. The term "denialism" (as in climate change denialism or Holocaust denialism) is used for a fringe view. But RexxS is correct that the modern mainstream scientific consensus is that there are no intelligence differences between races. To call that a fringe view is the opposite of the truth. It is the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others that is the fringe view, which is covered in a WP:FRINGE-compliant way in the articles Scientific racism and History of the race and intelligence controversy. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The denialism of human biology (which has been summarized as blank slate mythology by Steven Pinker and others) that you see largely on the political left is rather analogous to the climate change denialism you see largely on the political right. Wikipedia gets the later correct. What we are seeing in this episode is more or less a litmus test of this community's own bias. Let's hope it doesn't get the better of us. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron and RexxS are promoting the fringe theory that science sees no difference in IQ between races. Let's be clear here— there is complete consensus amongst scientists that the differences in IQ are real, as the data has been produced in hundreds of studies, over hundreds of years. It so mainstream that it is taught in Psychology textbooks such as Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence, and Nicholas Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence. The only controversy in science is about whether the cause of the difference is nature or nurture. The theory that there is no difference is willfully ignoring hundreds of reliable sources citing hundreds of studies, and is entirely WP:FRINGE. It does not belong here. --Toomim (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Toomim That's pure fiction and typical of the misinformation that is spread by racists. The fringe theory is scientific racism, that is the "pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. It is typical of the sort of closet racism to point out that groups of people perform differently on IQ tests. The place where it deviates from mainstream science is when you decide without any justification that you can classify a study group as representative of a race, and you pretend that performance on a particular IQ test is a perfect predictor of intelligence – without any consideration of all the confounding factors. Using your methodology, a researcher could apply an IQ test in English to two groups, one who spoke English and one who didn't, and because the English-speaking group naturally did better, then declare that people who spoke English were more intelligent than those who don't. That's the sort of lie that you're promoting. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, you aren't even following the logic of this argument. If you want to comment on this issue you'll need to distinguish between the scientific consensus that there are group differences between self-reported races on IQ scores and attempts at racial discrimination or racial superiority. The first is just data. There's tons of data. It's extremely robust and reliable. It's been developed over centuries. You simply can't argue against it, without finding new data-- and you'll need mountains of it. That is like arguing global warming doesn't exist. Thus far in the debate, you and NightHeron have failed to show an ability to distinguish between data and theory. That's the distinction between reality and your own POV. And now you're trying to censor the data, gathered from real experiments, because you can't distinguish it from a POV.

As for your unrelated claim on racial bias in IQ testing -- perhaps you're not aware of the science on this issue. This claim has been examined in-depth, and many scientists who believed that the difference in IQ scores could be explained by test bias tried to prove it by designing reverse-biased tests, where e.g. blacks would perform better than whites. But they failed. No scientist has been able to come up with a reverse-bias test. And as for your specific example of the English language -- the actual data shows that blacks perform better on verbal skills; not worse. And the data shows they perform better on American cultural tests; not worse.

But since you are ignoring the data, and trying to censor it, you remain in ignorance, and make these WP:FRINGE claims to hide the data that challenges your POV. That is classic science denialism. Toomim (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Toomim, you're attempting to do the usual trick of looking at data and imposing your own interpretations on it. Data shows nothing; it's the interpretations of the data that produce conclusions. Here's the logic you're proposing: there is data that shows some people do less well on IQ tests than others; so if the ones doing less well are assigned to a particular race, the conclusion can be drawn that a given race has inherently inferior intelligence. Feel free to deny that's what you're suggesting. Or even better, give a concrete example of this robust and reliable data that shows a difference in IQ scores between races and we'll all be able to see what a house of cards you build your POV on.

We all agree there's tons of data, and some real conclusions can be drawn from it: rich kids achieve more academically than poor kids, for example – cast-iron and incontrovertible. But we don't feel the need to have an article on Wealth and intelligence, nor seek to find the gene that differentiates the rich from the poor. And that's exactly analogous to what you're arguing for here. You simply want to give oxygen to the myth that blacks have less intelligence than whites. Again feel free to explain your position on that myth if it's different from what I've stated. After all, there are only three choices: (1) blacks have less intelligence than whites; (2) blacks have the same intelligence than whites; (3) blacks have more intelligence than whites. Which one of the three are you claiming is the mainstream scientific view? Or do you want to duck the question and tell us that you don't know what the mainstream scientific view is? --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close the closer correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments in the AfD debate, and closed it within the range of their admin discretion. They were quite entitled to give much less weight to arguments that mistakenly insisted that meeting GNG meant that the article had to exist. They were also entitled to give more weight to the arguments that whatever content could legitimately be placed in an article titled "Race and intelligence" was already present in other, related articles. Those asking for the close to be overturned need to show that the delete arguments were refuted, and that the closer did not see that. I do not believe that either of those happened. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Obvious Overturn Per the majority of editors here as well as Levivich. Also it is good to remember just because you agree with the outcome does not mean it was a well reasoned close. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• If the outcome of this DRV is overturn the close in some way I would continue to be willing to be part of a group close (with Jo-Jo or others). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. First of all, there was no consensus to delete. Second, the closer said the problem was POVFORK. However, the article under AfD is several times bigger than article History of the race and intelligence controversy where it suppose to be redirected. If the content should be merged on one page, a much better course of action would be to start a "merge" discussion on the page. Third, the previous discussion was clear "keep" [3]. What has changed? The only thing that has changed was the internet being extensively used for various propaganda and disinformation (as several people noticed during the AfD). This is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Finally, looking at the draft of closing by Jo-Jo, it tells: "On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion ... but it's not clear if it should be covered at Race and intelligence or in the various sub-articles mentioned w/o a central race and intelligence article.". Well, covering a subject without having a central page on the subject is ridiculous My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. I saw no consensus on the matter. And a number of the delete votes amounted to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose with a team of three admins, not including the previous closer. The close was clearly very hastily done and did not address many of the points made. While there were keeps from SPAs, some delete votes were dubious political arguments (even though it is better to show that RS do not agree with racists' claims) and irrelevant claims that the title is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's clear there was no consensus. This was a classic example of a supervote. I don't see any point in reclosing by a team (has this ever been done at AfD--it's needed sometimes at AfC, because there's not standard review mechanism of a close, but it is not needed at AfD because that's exactly what this Del Rev procedure is for, because we can just as well clarify right here that it was non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Deciding the close here would be rewarding the "punt to DRV". I think it would encourage other admin in the future to do the same thing (write a close guaranteed to be brought to DRV) in similar circumstances (a contentious discussion they think will be brought to DRV anyway). Rewarding undesirable behavior reinforces it. Levivich 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, why would a closing admin want to "punt to DRV". No admin is compelled to close any particular XfD, correct? Why would they volunteer only to punt? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• • FWIW when I saw Jo-Jo's initial post at AN my reaction was "a closing panel for AfD seems like a bad precedent". Then I read the discussion and it has far more in common, in my opinion, with a really knotty RfC where panel closes are done but are not required, than with even contincious AfDs. The discussion convinced me that Jo-Jo was right and a panel close would be best for the encyclopedia and is why I then volunteered. But I agree with you that this should not be the norm even for well attended contincious AfDs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    With all due respect, let's scrap this panel idea. They've been tried a few times, and the only one that's really worked quite well is Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, where the panel spent a good chunk of time talking to each other off-wiki, and came to a conclusion that they could all jointly sign off. I don't see that happening here, the participants being talked about for the panel have already been far too involved in the matter, including Jo Jo who's already made up their mind and posted a "decision" before the panel is even convened, and without any discussion with their fellow panelists. That's no way to approach such a thing. As DGG says, and per my amended !vote above, the discussion didn't reach a consensus and it's time to move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm clearly with DGG on a overturn to no consensus here and now and let's all be done with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus has already filed a draft of his close on the talk page here, and while he clearly put more thought and effort into it than Spartaz did with his, ultimately his close delivers the same unsatisfactory result that fails to properly assess the consensus (or lack thereof) in the AfD in favor of his own supervote. If Jo-Jo Eumeru had closed instead of Spartaz, I still would have initiated this appeal. Also, since we are thinking about precedents, is there a limit to number of times a particular XfD can be appealed? Are second appeals frowned upon or considered to be Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Because we could be engineering a sort of moral hazard here, whereby a hasty or poorly-formed close could be issued to burn up the first appeal, only to be replaced with a more thoughtful second close that delivers the same result. I'm not suggesting that that sort of strategy was employed here, but thinking about precedents, that's something to consider for down the road. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You do realise that an overturn to 'no consensus' would result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (5th nomination) very soon after, don't you? There's no prospect of a 'no consensus' close resulting in "let's all be done with it". Incidentally, a DRV is not the appeal against the decision you think it is. A DRV is a request for an uninvolved admin to assess whether the AfD was closed properly, and all the re-litigating of the original AfD has no bearing on that whatsoever. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I understand what the DRV is. It's an appeal/review of the AfD's close, which was obviously wrong. When I said "let's all be done with it", I was referring to this deletion episode. I was not suggesting it would be an end the controversy around this article nor the end of AfDs for it. If we need to do AfD #5, then so be it. If it happens soon, I see no reason to believe it won't result in another no-consensus (if properly closed). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 and DGG: Regarding the precedent question: Team closes have been done in other circumstances, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). Both of which concerned contentious societal topics, incidentally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and close by Jo-Jo et. al I argued for deletion in the previous discussion. The rather bewildering closing statement cannot be very satisfactory to anyone, whatever you think of the decision. Agree with Levivich on this one. Ewulp (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I would be willing to serve as one of the closing triumvirate. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was clearly no consensus to delete at the AfD (which I did not participate in). Should be re-closed as “no consensus”. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse per Jo-Jo Eumerus. (I participated in the AfD.) The closure here was clearly suboptimal from a procedural standpoint. But it reached the only viable conclusion (AfD is not a vote, etc., and [remainder of sentence removed]). There's no point in creating additional work for the sake of mere formalities. -- Visviva (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Visviva: your unfounded and erroneous personal attack on me is noted. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me that simply calling the reader's attention to your comments would be interpreted as a personal attack, but I did not intend to create a distraction. I cheerfully withdraw the characterization. Henceforth I shall endeavor to keep in mind that your comments do not speak for themselves. -- Visviva (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not your calling of attention to my comments that I have a problem with. It was your malicious mischaracterization of my advocacy for honoring facts, reliable sources, and logical coherency as evidence that I'm a racist. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope the closer(s) will clearly explain why the arguments against this being a WP:POVFORK did not apply. According to the project page POV forks are created to avoid engaging with the opposing POV, which is clearly not the case here. Also, I hope for a better explanation about why the fact that this article was created first does not apply. WP:POVFORK reads: "another version of the article [...] is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first". If anything Scientific Racism is the clear WP:POVFORK here: it was later in time, its title clearly assumes the conclusion and it does not engage the opposing viewpoint. 165.225.64.74 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC) (anonymous since there is a lot of accusations about racism here, which I expect to heavily influence how many and which people contribute. I hesitated a long time before deciding on leaving a comment).
• Comment: inasmuch as various participants here have pointed to the numeric totals as evidence of dissensus, it's worth pointing to the proverbial elephant here. Intentionally or otherwise, Wikipedia in general and AfD in particular has provided a safe space for white supremacists for a very long time, with predictable consequences for the makeup of the community. In the interest of not creating further distractions, I'll refrain from citing specific examples here; I'm sure we've all seen these processes at work many times over. Any effort to use the raw numbers as a proxy for consensus/dissensus (a questionable enterprise at the best of times) must take that background into consideration. I think the actual closure, as well as the draft team closure, dealt with this issue appropriately. -- Visviva (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  That's cute and all, but we know who you are talking about and what you are trying to say. Lepricavark (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I participated in the AfD and saw no obvious consensus, certainly not on POVFORK. Hzh (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and close by JJE and friends per El_C and friends. Yes, clear consensus that was POVFOLK, SR/M, and all that, but my concern is that Spartaz' action was out of process and would not have happened if Template:Closing had told admins "Unless you are Jo-Jo Eumerus do not close". ミラP 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Overturn and close by JJE et al So the closing statement was suboptimal to put it mildly, and it shouldn't have happened because there was a group close in the works and ignoring the ongoing efforts of others was at the very least impolite, and the punt to DRV was completely unacceptable, and continueing to relitigate the AFD dispute here just rewards that kind of behavior which will encourage future similar action by others, and the best way to prevent that in the future is by requiring a reclose now and every other time it happens. Yet it pains me to say this, because I find JJEs draft closure convincing. We don't need anymore bureacracy than we already have, and this is just going to come right back here for another review with just as much acrimony. And yes it was always going to come to DRV regardless of the closing statement. I've always hated process for process sake when we know the outcome will be the same, yet in this case the negligence was such that a reclose is the appropriate action. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse or Overturn and close by JJE et al - I think either of these options are justified. Wikipedia is not censored, but is also not a dumping ground for inexpert analysis by Wikipedians of every study done on race and intelligence. Coverage has to be encyclopedic and based on reliable secondary sources with a NPOV. The original discussion was closed with the correct conclusion, though I agree the process was not properly carried out, hence my two positions above. I did not participate in the original discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus per DGG. What was the purpose of the close if the closer states that it will not be enacted "until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted"? That proviso is an admission that the closer knew such a perfunctory close could not stand on its own, either before the community or before a steward needed to perform the deletion. Why take on the responsibility of closing if you intend to immediately pass the buck? "Its seems pointless". Regardless, the reading of the discussion as forming a 'clear consensus' is wrong. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse and salt or endorse and redirect to scientific racism. There's absolutely zero link between "race" and intelligence no matter how much a bunch of neo-Nazis want to feel superior to black people. There's no need to engage with a debunked racist theory, so scientific racism is a valid redirect target. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

even if this statement is a political opinion shared by all right-thinking people, I do not see how it is relevant in a deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reaper has made a good comment. Instead of pretending in order to win a AfD/DRV, they are saying what they mean. Not many here have the b*lls to say whay they mean. I think "overturn" means your a racist, and "endorse" means your not in about 30 percent of people here. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, now that's a winning strategy! I think we need the article in the same way we need homeopathy, vaccines and autism, Moon landing conspiracies and so on. They are all nonsense, but they are nonsense so widespread that an encyclopedia should cover it. --mfb (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the source of the chaos in the AfD thread, now spilling over here, is that the formulation in the AfD nomination was defective for purposes of eliciting actionable views and consensus ----- and that because of that, having new judges carefully parse the conversation is fruitless and will not lead to a good decision (whichever it is). The Afd nom was long, confused and confusing. Instead of a few clear and well-understood grounds for deletion it put forth multiple intellectual ruminations that only made sense if you shared all of the proposer's assumptions. Theories included: that the word "and" in the title is inappropriate; that Everyone Knows it's impossible for there to be any correlation between the things in the title; a novel notion of "synthesized WP notability" based on this impossibility; that the whole article should be deleted (vs renaming) when the reasons given focused only the title; and more. Individually, none of the intellectualized arguments would have gained much traction by itself, indeed they seemed to lose traction as rebuttals were posted, and the arguments for deletion then kept mutating. But discussing the vagaries of those arguments diffused enormous time and energy that might have converged to a conclusion in a more focused AfD. The lone surviving mutation was "it's a POVFORK", not by conquering the opposition, but only in the sense that arguments about whether the article is a fork or not were stopped in the middle when AfD was closed. This somewhat explains the current state of things, but I don't see how putting a panel of new eyeballs on the same mess would accomplish anything. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As this is a criticism of my nomination, I shall answer: You were the second most prolific writer to the AfD close thread, and fully one third of all your Wikipedia edits in total were to that thread. Despite this, you never mentioned that you were confused, nor that the nomination was confusing. You did say you thought it was misleading, but several editors answered that, and that is now a record in the discussion. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion between editors. I think you had plenty of opportunity to challenge any confusion. At the time of closure, discussion had gone quiet for about 2 days. It does not appear to have been cut off in the middle at closure. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been so long, I forget what your reasons for delete were. Can you provide a short summary to remind me? I mean short, like GNG, NOT CENSORED, etc. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)