Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

My tuppence's worth

I am one of the editors who have been arguing here for a long time. At first I argued staunchly for deletion and for merger when the article was based on a single source and only presented the viewpoints of Cochrane & Harpending as facts. I was frustrated because the attempts at getting the very biased and controversial article to either conform with WP:NPOV or dissappear were futile because of a general lack of interest and persistence from other editors and the tenacious and frankly bizarre defense of the article by User:Asniper, who has also refused to participate in improving the article. However a few months a go I decided to do a more thorough job of digging up sources to definitely establish whether the topic (notice the word topic used instead of theory here) was notable or not. I found a fair amount of sources which I all presented above and later incorporated into the lead of the article. I am convinced that for example the two page treatement of the topic in the Vogel & Motulsky source alone (published before Harpending & Cochrane) is enough to show notability. However I think the article body needs to be rewritten to reflect the broader topic of "IQ tests and Ashkenazim" instead of just Harpending and Cochrane's rather inconsequential speculations about the causes of the observed better performance of Ashkenazim in IQ tests. In short I do think the topic is notable as shown by treatement in multiple neutral peereviewed academic sources AND in the media, and I believe there is no hindrance to present it in a neutral manner covering all the angles also covered by the sources. I think this would be a better avenue for improvement than merging. If it is decided to make yet another attempt at merging I suggest that we make sure to get much wider community involvement: publicize the problems at the village pump and at relevant wikipeojects and notify every editor who has ever edited the talk page or the article. If it turns out to be just another discussion among a couple of editors we will be no closer to a durable solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Maunus & I have scrapped over this article in the past but I must agree with the above. His edits & dedication, once the tension subsided, have improved the article greatly. Bizarre or not, one result of defending the article was Maunus changing tactics, and the article has benefited. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Maunus and thank him for all his work on this article. Given that this article has survived 3 (!) deletion attempts, I wonder about the good faith of any editor that would propose another. I see no harm in seeing, again, what the editors at the other article think about a merge and I guess that there is no harm in tagging this article as under consideration fora few days. But, in the absence of clear consensus to merge, the tag ought to be removed. David.Kane (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some more secondary sources for more information to go into the article. These cover varying theories of special traits of Jewish intelligence, evidence for and against them, and the cultural impact of those theories—all of which would be great to cover on this Wikipedia page.

  • Jewcentricity: Why Jews are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything (Adam Garfinkle, 2009)
  • Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count (Richard E. Nisbett, 2009)
  • Antisemitism and Philosemitism in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries (Phyllis Lassner and Lara Trubowitz, 2008)
  • A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Kevin Macdonald, 2002)
  • Social science and the politics of modern Jewish identity (Mitchell Bryan Hart, 2000)
  • Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence (Sander L. Gilman, 1997)
  • Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined (Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg, Aaron D. Gresson, 1997)
  • The Jewish mind (Raphael Patai, 1996)
  • The myth of the Jewish race (Raphael Patai, 1989)
  • In their place: white America defines her minorities, 1850-1950 (Lewis H. Carlson, 1972; one full chapter on Jewish intelligence)
For ease of reference, I've listed some sources above, which haven't yet been used on the Wikipedia page. I invite you to add more, to help out other editors. Serious publications about this topic go far beyond a handful of recent academic journal papers. This topic has been researched and debated for decades. Notice that most of these were published before the Cochran et al. paper (2005), and there are plenty more. If you want material to make the page better, get readin'! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chabon article

I moved a reference to a New York TImes opinion piece by Michael Chabon from the body of the article to the External Links. I'm not sure we should refer to it at all. It confuses the statistical claim about a higher mean with "all Jews are smarter, and Jewish institutions behave more wisely than non-Jewish institutions", and the author lacks appropriate credentials (winning the Pulitzer Prize doesn't make him an expert on intelligence). I'm not sure it belongs on this page at all. If we are trying to document opposition to the idea that Ashkenazi intelligence is higher or different than that of other ethnic groups, it does give one person's point of view, though it seems like an especially poor representative of the opposition. On the other hand, it provides some documentation that distinct mental attributes are part of Jewish identity, which is an important topic that the page doesn't yet cover. I'm thinking that while it's a poor article, it's better than nothing for now, and when we get some better sources for opposing ideas and intelligence in Jewish identity, we should delete it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ashkenazi intelligence...

This is a euphemism for jewish supremacy and violates WP:SOAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.225.197 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not propaganda, as it does not imply that jewish people should be treated differently. It is just a scientific theory which tries to explain how can Ashkenazi jews could make so many achievements while not being a prominent(as in number of people) population. The other proposed explanations for what you call "jewish supremacy" are given at the end of the article.Kooz (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish doctors and alchemists during the middle ages in europe

If jewish people are so smart why did jewish doctors during the middle ages in europe not cure any diseases? At jinfo.org it says that 50% of the doctors in medieval europe were jewish. It goes against the reason for this article that with so many jewish doctors in medieval europe and jews being super intelligent that jewish doctors should have been curing diseases left and right. Also jewish alchemists during middle age europe never discovered any of the fundamentals of chemistry, jewish people were just as clueless about science as most of the white gentile people of europe were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.17.21 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this "Talk" page is to discuss issues WRT the content and the form of the article. It is not to debate the topic of the article. If you can find a legitimate source that addresses the issue of modern intelligence as it relates to doctors in the middle ages, by all means add a section. But this is not the same as what you're doing here.FiveRings (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Plus the fact of being clever, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be an uber-physician and that you'll cure a lot of people. For example, Sigmund Freud was an Ashkenazi Jew, he is the most cited in psychology articles, and he hasn't been able to cure any mental disorder in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koozedine (talkcontribs) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I have removed the outdated tags. For example, the last discussion on the issue of merging was actually a posting from me in August 2009 that stated there was no obvious consensus to merge. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of discussion does not make the tags outdated. If you'd like to discuss removing them now, please state why on the talk page. A.Prock 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The way this kind of tag works is that the person advocating places the tag, discussion ensues, and if consensus is reached, it is merged. If not, the matter is closed and the tag removed. It is not meant to sit there for over half a year without a peep. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There was no clear resolution last time. In the previous discussion you seemed to be the only person in favor of keeping the article separate. I'm reopening the proposal. A.Prock 03:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You do that. However, last time there were all of three people discussing and then that stopped cold. The only 'resolution' required on a merge proposal is that consensus on the proposal is clear, and obviously it was not. There wasn't much of a discussion at all. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I would appreciate it if you replaced the updated tag. A.Prock 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll be adding it back sometime today. A.Prock 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of it? This is an independent article about a rather ridiculous premise. Lumping it in with an article about the Ashkenazic people gives the appearance of credibility. It should should stand as an independent article. A Sniper (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
By all means respond in the talk section about the merge. A.Prock 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
OK - so here we are. Now, discuss! Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk section on the Ashkenazi Jews talk page. A.Prock 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@A.Prock – whatever you want it to be - this is now an independent article which survived deletion suggestions by consensus; it is an independent article with its own discussion page. The tag is here – so it should be discussed here – and when there's no discussion the tag should be removed after some time – it's not meant to be just stuck there to get on surfer's nerves. Sincerely, 217.236.231.90 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely - the nonsensical nature of this renewed effort to reanimate a dead dog aside, this is the place for the discussion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Since there was general support for the merge, I'm just acting to make it happen. Refer to WP:deadline for issues of timing. A.Prock 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The contention that there was consensus is simply laughable. A Sniper (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Tags are meant to warn the reader that there are possible problems with the article. The tags are not outdated untill the problems are solved. Articles don't become more neutral just because time passes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
A merge tag does not sit indefinitely on an article. If a clear consensus of editors do not step up, there is no merge. A couple of editors vs. one does not a consensus make... A Sniper (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree which is why I've reintroduced the subject. No one said there was consensus. I only said that you were the lone dissenter. A.Prock 23:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh, among who - three editors?  ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There were five editors. A.Prock 09:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and too few viewpoints concern

Concerns about the quality and notability of this article have been expressed by User:Slrubenstein, User:Gilisa, User:R232, User:Aprock, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Nitpyck, User:Ling.Nut and myself. User:Wikidemon conceded that the article was notable but also that it was biased towards the non-mainstream viewpoint. Even you[1] admitted that there was a consensus that the article should be improved to conclude the mainstream viewpoint better. Nothing has happened - so the tags remain in place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Cobbling together your perception of what individual users have stated at one point or another does not a consensus make. We all agree that the theory is ridiculous - what isn't ridiculous is having an article about the theory - ridiculous or not. What is POV about that? A Sniper (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
We have been over this a million times - the POV is the fact that the article does not sufficiently demonstrate that the theory is ridiculoyus and nobody believes in it. I am filing a wikiquette alert about your unilateral removal of tags. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You go for it if it pleases you. They were removed because a) they are not adequate, and b) there has been no substantial discussion on the issues. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Race and intelligence or Ashkenazi Jews

I do not know why we have an article on a conjecture. In science, conjectures occur within the course of some line of research. The conjecture makes no sense except in that contaxt. This is a conejcture about the relationship between race andintelligence; I propose we merge it with that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I support such a merger.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively it could be merged into Ashkenazi Jews.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't have to be merged with anything. This is an article about the theory and the fellows that published it. It is not a soapbox for Jewish superiority(see above topic), nor about Ashkenazi intelligence itself, other than in the context of the theory. The suggestion below, to expand the article name to add the word theory is actually a good solution... Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What thory would that be? This article is not about any theory. The idea that Wikipedia whould have one encyclopedia for every article published in a scientific journal is, frankly, insane. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a violation of WP:NOT an academic forum. It should be merged somewhere. Rd232 talk 11:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history, this page was created from Ashkenazi Jews by an editor who has not edited the page since. Aprock (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We have four in favour of merging if I count correctly, Slrubenstein, myself, Rd232 and Aprock and one against. Should we set a deadline by which we will conduct the merge unless the article is substantially improved?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
So are we merging?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus to merge - just that the article needs work (especially scholastic criticism of the theory). Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be merged with race and intelligence. The article is based only on one article written on the subject. ScienceApe (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence is a) Already to big and b) Focused on the major racial groups. I suspect that the consensus of editors on that article would prevent any such merger. David.Kane (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David.Kane. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Then it should either be merged with Ashkenazi Jews or deleted. We can't have an entire article based on only one article written on the subject. ScienceApe (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we wait for the debate at race and intelligence to die down, and then put this up for deletion. This will maybe force a merge with one of many possible articles (as a single source is insufficient IMHO), but may also flush out more articles on this subject. The point may even become moot, depending on how other articles evolve in the interim. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid I have recently found more sources and incorporated them into the article - this means that the "one source" concern is no longer valid. However this does not necessarily mean the topic should have its own article, it might well be merged into another article if its scope is not broad enough to vaklidate a spinnout article.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with what the rules are for articles like this. But I do think there needs to be scholarly, peer reviewed sources for something like this, in addition to the primary source. While there seems to be quite a few citations, I don't think they meet that criteria. ScienceApe (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite a few of them are scholarly and peer reviewed (Embo reports, Journal of medicine and ethics, jorunal of biosocial sciences, sociological perspectives and the looking glass - I also think springer press is considered an academic press of comparable quality to peerreview) and anyway there is no requirement that they should be peer reviewed in order to establish independent notability and right to an article, that seems to be a misunderstanding on your part.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well like I said, I'm not familiar with the rules here. I suppose the question is, does this deserve its own article? I do think that this article is conjecture, and can't be falsified as Slrubenstein said. It's not a valid theory, but there is WP:FRINGE as you pointed out before, but I think it fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because the article is about "reported generally higher IQ's among Ashkenazi Jews than among the general population." when that view point is based on conjecture, and can't be falsified. So even though there can be opposing viewpoints, the viewpoints supporting higher IQ's can't be disproven. ScienceApe (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I originally proposed merging it with Race and IQ. I no longer believe that would be appropriate, in part because of the length of the Race and IQ argument and in part because of the way that article is organized. I now believe this whould be merged with "Ashkenazi Jew." As it actually does not tell us much about the nature of intelligence, it is much more about "Ashkenazi Jews." What is missing is the historical and social context. There are two things that could be explored in a discussion of Ashkenazi Jews and IQ. First, in the 1920s Ashkenazi Jews had very low intelligence. What changed? IQ tests, or Ashkenazi Jews? Among other things, this would require much more precision about the sample. Was this a random sample of Ashkenazic Jews that included Jews in Europe? It looks like one major source of data is of Ashkenazic Jews living in the US. How do those test scores compare to those of Sephardic jews living in the US? Why is the sample labled "Ashkenazic Jews" and not "American Jews?" Second - to repeat a point I make below - who is it that considers these questions important and why? This is a sociological question, but as much a part of the story as the IQ scores that I suppose constitute the raw data. NOR and NPOV make clear how important "context" is in drawing on sources. I think a lot of context is missing from this article. If we could find reliable sources tht cover these questions, and could fill in the context, this would be much improved. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── These are all good points. I'm naturally sceptical about claims like the one in the article, because they hint at POV from the authors. It is not necessarily that there isn't a real effect, but whether the cause of that effect is what is implied. On top of the measuring bias possibilities mentioned by Slrubenstein, I would like to be sure they measured a control group of non-Ashkenazi Jews matched for education, income etc. These are factors which would explain changes over time, usefully tell people how to have high IQ, and generally not divide people based on race. It would also rule out many biases in the test. It would be interesting to know whether the improvements were genetic or caused by a cultural effect, like better work ethic. Perhaps I'm asking too much from one source, and I should just read that source ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging into Ashkenazi Jews is tough because that article already violates WP:SIZE. It should be smaller, not larger. So, even if you were going to connect them, you would probably do it as a sub-article, which is probably not what the mergers want. More importantly, the discussion on that talk page [2] shows that the only two editors from that article (Debresser and Avi) who commented on the idea (and had not posted here) were against the change. So, for the merge to make sense, you would need to get some editors involved with that article to agree. David.Kane (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we've got time to find a suitable merge candidate, if indeed a merge is desirable. I've read through a bunch of the sources, and can't find any experiments inconsistent with the idea that high Ashkenazi intelligence (which seems quite clear) is not actually a symptom of higher intelligence in a bigger set of people, where Ashkenazis are well represented. In that case, the whole article would be POV. Can anyone else point me in the direction of a source which compares Ashkenazis with another set matched for, for example, parents' income, where Askenazis may just happen at the moment to be overrepresented? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New sources to incorporate

Apparently some sources mentioning the by scholars can be found, they should be incorporated into the text:

  • Eltis, Karen (2007) J.L. Med. & Ethics 282 Genetic Determinism and Discrimination: A Call to Re-Orient Prevailing Human Rights Discourse to Better Comport with the Public Implications of Individual Genetic Testing (mentioned as contentious - worried for role of study in discrimination)
  • http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/ (mentioned as controversial notable!)
  • PERRIN, ANDREW J. & HEDWIG LEE 2007 THE UNDERTHEORIZED ENVIRONMENT:SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY AND THE ONTOLOGY OF BEHAVIORAL GENETICS Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pp. 303–322, ISSN 0731-1214, electronic ISSN 1533-8673 (mentions theory and Pinkers response "politically incorrect" - mentions that it seems to contradict basic principles of darwinian evolution).
  • Friedrich Vogel, Arno G. Motulsky 1997 Human genetics: problems and approaches [3] p. 706 (concludes that there is no way to determine the genetic or evolutionary effects on intelligence - 9 years before Cochran and Harpendings paper, but still relevant because of the general theoretical nature of the conclusion and the fact that this book is an introduction to Human genetic studies.)
  • One more source Gilman,Sander L 2008 Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else? THE LOOKING GLASS vol 6:1 pp 41-47[4] (rejecting validity of study based on the opinion that defining two socially constructed categories (jew + intelligence) in terms of the other leads to nonsense, racism and even anti-semitism)
  • Here [5] Charles Murray (author) (of the Bell Curve) advcances his own interpretation of cochran and Harpendings study.
  • "How smart is smart" Embo reports vol 10 2008 1198 -2010. (summarises the studies and opinions about it - with a slight slant towards Pinkers hope about eventually designing a study to prove it)

·Maunus·ƛ· 12:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorporate away! That is what you should have done in the first place instead of arguing about the tags - to make the article better. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No that is what you should have done instead of writing defending a crappy biased article and let others do the work.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't write this article. A Sniper (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

research cited

It should be mentioned that older researches tend to report higher estimated average IQ and suffer from sampling issues; whereas the recent ones have larger, more representative samples and report lower estimated average IQ. I seriously doubt that the average IQ for Ashkenazi Jews is the highest in the world as some articles claim stupidly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerain (talkcontribs) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Factors?

Has there ever been any effort to normalize Jewish IQ scores for things like education, socioeconomic status, urbanization etc. that correlate with IQ? It seems like Lynn and the others asserting higher Jewish IQs (and even this assertion seems tenuous given the small sizes of most of these studies) aren't even bothering to question their assumption that the difference results from genetic causes. CAVincent (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

meh 204.254.175.249 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is usually taken into account while comparing results from human groups of different extraction. As a close example, the authors of this article considered this kind of confounding factors. For instance, they compared Ashkenazi's and non-Ashkenazi's IQ results in studies with children from British schools of different socioeconomic status, education, etc. I wonder whether you ever bothered to have a look at the article before giving your opinion. Heathmoor (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Ashkenazi intelligence theory

As a less invasive alternative to merging the article might be moved to Ashkenazi intelligence theory to show that the article treats a specific theory about Ashkenazi intelligence not the topic of Ashkenazi intelligence itself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This article is primarily about one published article. That just does not merit an encyclopedia article of its own. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree pr WP:FRINGE, but I think we should await consensus. The renaming is a secondary proposal to serve in the meantime or in case consensus is not to merge.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
We could also move it to Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence and make it specifically about the article and its reception by the media and critics. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I support your proposal to change the name of the article to Ashkenazi intelligence theory, as that is how it is known in the vernacular. I do not, however, support the other name change idea. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Why have we not gone ahead with this great idea to change the article name? Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's an awful name. I would support changing the title of the article to "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" since that's what the article seems to be trying to be about. Aprock (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about a single scientific journal article. It's about Ashkenazi intelligence: what are the current facts and major theories about how or whether it is different from the intelligence of other ethnic groups. Speculation and study regarding Jews being "smart" started long before the Harpending article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence NPOV/NOTABILITY issues

The Ashkenazi intelligence theory advanced in a 2006 article by Cochran and Harpending is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, but has been widely covered in the media. Mainstream scholarship has also not given it any attention. This means that the article is notable because of wide coverage but that it is very hard to conform to WP:FRINGE since there are good sources of the predominant viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding due to notice at WP:FTN. As far as notability goes, the article passes WP:NOTE, enough sources discuss this theory. Thus, a Notability tag is inappropriate. As for WP:FRINGE... I think you may not understand what that policy says. It explicitly states that we should have articles on Fringe theories that have been discussed by the mainstream (even if at discussion is to disparage or debunk the theory). In other words, This is an article that falls under what we call "Notable Fringe".
That leaves WP:NPOV ... here, I think we do have an issue. The article does need more discussion of what mainstream views on the topic are. It is appropriate to have the POV tags on the article until this is resolved. (I have replaced them)Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

-

I don't know why you wopuld conclude that I don't think we should have articles on fringe subjects. We should. But they should express explicitly that this IS a fringe subject thats the problem with this article. At first I was uncertain that the article was notable - I am not anymore, it is notable. But it lacks sources to say that it is not mainstream and that is where the conflict between Notability and NPOV comes into play: the topic is notable enough to merit an article - but the sources are insufficientto make the article neutral (i.e. it necessarily gives undue weight to a fringe viewpoint relative to the mainstream viewpoint)·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to imply any conclusion about what anyone else thinks. I simply meant to state what I think about the situation... which is that the artcle topic is notable, but the article itself has NPOV problems. It sounds like we agree on that. :>) Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Mainstream scholarship has indeed given the Cochran et al. article attention. It currently has 71 citations listed on Google Scholar. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

More sociology, less biology!

These are going to be perennial questions. I do not know much about this topic but I know enough to raise a question I bet someone has addressed, but which has not been covered in this article, namely: why would anyone care? I have talked to many friends about this and have heard different popular explanations: Jews feel inferior because of anti-Semitism and these claims are comforting. Or, Jews are afraid that host countries will think they are parasites not contributing anything to national life and these kinds of studies prove Jews are valuable resources that host countries should welcome. Now I know most of you probably think these reasons are crap and many of you will say these are just some opinions I have hears. I acknowledge the second criticism. But it really would surprise me if no scholar of Jewish studies, or sociologist, has not written about this in a reliabl source. This would require looking at diferent sources than the ones contributors are used to looking at. All I can say is, IF there is anything addressing this question in a reliable source, I think adding a summary of it to the article would really, really, enrich the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact searched for and found and incorporated two such sources both mention in the section immediately above this one: Gilman 2008 and Eltis 2007. I have not provided full summaries but mentioned in the lead that these viewpoints about the proposal of cochrane and harpending has been published.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I read through quickly and did not see these. Maybe it is worth fleshing out more what they say? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to add, what you are referring to does not really address my question (perhaps no one really has written about my question). I am not asking whether race, including Ashkenazi, or intelligence, are biological or socially constructed. Let's suppose IQ tests really really do measure some kind of universal intelligence, and that there is one gene responsible for this and Ashkenazi Jews all have it and really are smarter. In other words, let's say that it is all biological. My point is that this is not sufficient to explain why people care. There are genetic reasons for why some people's lower earlobes are entirely atached to the head, and other people hav earlobes that protrude apart from the head. It is a real biological phenomenon dividing people into two groups. No one cares. Now, why do people - and let's say, Jews themselves, care about whether they are smarter than others or not - regardless of the reason. This is a sociological (or social psychological) question. It is not about race and it is not about intelligence, it is about Jews, about how peopl think about jews. That is what I am getting at. Now, maybe Sander Gilman addresses this, but you can't tell from what is in the article. But to be clear, I m not talking about how race is socially contructed or how intelligence is socially constructed, I am talking about how Jews are socially constructed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both sources adress that in fact, although I think Eltis makes it a point more than Gilman. My characterizations of them as sources were more aimed at establishing the contrary viewpoint to Cochran & Harpending.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But was that the principal point of their articles? if not, do you think at some point you could write up a paragraqph or so reflecting their principal points? I think it is important that Wikipedia articles show readers the range of things scholars research, even when scholarly interests stretch our assumptions about the boundaries of a topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein mentioned that my contribution might be derailing his points, which I agree. SlRubenstein brought up good points, and I think they should be addressed. In terms of sociology, it is a valid point. Why do we care about Ashkenazi intelligence? If I were just to guess, it would be because they are an oppressed minority in many countries, and it's nice to know that there are lots of smart Ashkenazis. They were a persecuted group during the Holocaust where they were derided as inferior to German Aryans. That might be something should be mentioned, Nazi theory of racial superiority. ScienceApe (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More discussion

One problem with merging is the size of Ashkenazi Jews. Someone else brought this up, so presumably the inclusion of more material would exacerbate the size problems it already has. As for the "why would anyone care?" question, it seems that there is a bias towards greater intellect in general on Wikipedia. There are several articles correlating race with intelligence, or gender with intelligence, but I don't see anything about strength or athletic ability correlated with race or gender. Wouldn't people be equally intrigued with those as well? My point is that the "care" question seems slanted towards the biases of wikipedia users, and their concerns. Since wiki users are more concerned with intelligence, they make articles about them.

My other question would be, if an article is well supported with evidence to suggest that Ashkenazi are indeed smarter than others. What's stopping an article being created that suggests that a racial group is dumber than others? For whatever motivational factors, there could very well be many reliable, peer reviewed articles written to explain the inherent stupidity of some races. In other words, why is it more notable to create an article describing positive physical characteristics over negative ones? All other factors held equal, wouldn't they both be notable? ScienceApe (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "Nothing." I fully expect that articles like that will be created in the future. Or, depending on your point of view, Race and Intelligence is already like that. David.Kane (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
But they wouldn't. Common sense dictates that it wouldn't. An article called African stupidity would get deleted for example even if it was well supported with evidence. ScienceApe (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this article is about a particular theory as expressed in the writings of the cited authors. It is not an article about whether Ashkenazim are smarter or dumber than anyone else. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it isn't a theory at all. There is no testable hypothesis, nor are any of the claims made, falsifiable. At most, it's conjecture. Furthermore, it is about whether Askenazis are smarter than anyone else. ScienceApe (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Theory or conjecture, it is about that. It is about what they wrote about & when, and anything anyone thought about what they wrote about - the fact that these researchers (whether or not they were kooks or brilliant) came up with their 'conjecture'. It isn't an article about whether Ashkenazim are smarter - it is about a couple of folks saying Ashkenazim are smarter. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And why is this more notable than an article about a couple of folks saying Africans are dumber? I'm asking a question to question the validity of this article. Why is this important? Why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? Assuming all other factors are equal (citations are just as valid for an article on Africans being dumber), how is this more notable? ScienceApe (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My question above is also about neutrality. Are the Askenazis cleverer because they are Ashkensazis or because of some other factor, such as they have higher income? Are the papers showing causality, or merely correlation? If there is some more general underlying reason, then this article is POV. I couldn't see anything in the sources (but am prepared to be corrected) that compared Ashkenazis to a matched population rather than the population as a whole. The underlying implication of the article is that Ashkenazi's are superior by their very nature, but it may just be that eg rich people are superior - at least in terms of IQ. All the speculation about unhelpful mutations caused by inbreeding being correlated with higher IQ is also rather anecdotal. I see little evidence that the article is supported by rigorous science, rather than plausible opinions. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The encyclopedic article should not (and in my opinion does not) suggest or assume that there is a biological explanation of the perceived iq difference. Your objections are all included in sourced although maybe not all of them are spelled out in the article body. I think the article body should probably be rewritten to fit the lead - which is the part that I have tried to neutralize by including as many critical opinions of cochrane and harpending's article as possible.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes - I haven't had a chance to read all the sources in totality. I'm just looking for one which distinguishes between correlation and causality, as I think this is an important point. It turns an article which risks being about people's POV (ie that of the many subgroups of a bigger group which has this property, this one is worthy of an article) into a more NPOV idea (that this subgroup is really different). I would like confirmation that it's not like saying "Ashkenazi men grow beards", when in fact it is a man issue, not an Ashkenazi issue. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see there are other articles on this general theme, such as Religiosity and intelligence. This says that education is positively correlated with intelligence, and negatively correlated with religious belief. So high IQ in atheists may be a consequence of their higher educational achievement, rather than being atheists per se. Anyway, my general question above remains unanswered: is there any evidence that the correlation which is the subject of this article is not related to some entirely non-Ashkenazi cause? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Cochran, Gregory; Hardy, Jason; and Harpending, Henry (2006): "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Biosocial Science 38(5):659-693 SEP 2006? It is the first listed reference and the second footnote. David.Kane (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
They don't provide any such evidence though - they merely speculate that it could possibly be.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More problems

In the "Other Theories" section

"Talent in the study of Torah traditionally contributed to one's social success in Jewish communities; those more lacking in the capacity for such study were perhaps more prone to assimilate into general culture, thereby raising the average intelligence of the given Ashkenazi community. (Murray 2003)"

How is this genetic? If anything it's environmental (cultural). ScienceApe (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not claiming to be genetic, thats Harpending and Cochranes explanation - this is as the section header says a description of "other theories" explaining the observed iq differences. (Or possibly Murray is a LAmarckian I don't know)·Maunus·ƛ· 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's under another subheading called "Genetic". It's a misleading title, if that's not what the section is really about. ScienceApe (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I'm going to accelerate things here, because I don't see much discussion going on. I thought Slrubenstein brought up some great points, but discussion with his points has stagnated. I think his question is, "Why do we care?". Why is intelligence more important than other physical attributes? I think that needs to be addressed in the article, and it hasn't. My question is, why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? This is about establishing notability. I know some users will say, "The article isn't saying Ashkenazi genius! It's Ashkenazi intelligence, so it's not making any claims one way or the other!", but actually it is. The interesting thing about the article is the supposed higher IQ in Ashkenazis over others. That is the claim the article is making, it says so in the introduction. I want to know why this is more notable than a negative characteristic. This should also addressed in the article.

Possible POV issues that I'm concerned with are the claims that can't be falsified. ASniper has repeatedly claimed that this is a theory, and has been corrected that it is not, it's conjecture. To which he replies that if conjecture receives enough notoriety, then it's still notable. This seems to fit, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but there are NPOV issues that exist. Since it's conjecture that can't be falsified, how can it be NPOV? Opposing viewpoints, don't disprove the supporting claims. I think this issue should be addressed.

Other issues are the size of Ashkenazi Jews which would make it unsuitable to merge additional information into it. If we can't merge this information into that article, then deletion is the only alternative. If the article can be saved, great. But the issues raised have to be addressed in the article, we can't just talk about it, and then leave the article in the state that it's currently in. ScienceApe (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. I still haven't had an answer above, without which the whole article boils down to one sentence: Experiments indicate the the Ashkenazi population has a higher IQ than the general population, but there is no evidence that this is not from some underlying reason not related to them being Ashkenazis, despite many plausible speculations as to why this could be the case. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
"I'm going to accelerate things here, because I don't see much discussion going on." Uhh, perhaps because there is little to discuss? The only two editors at Ashkenazi Jews who expressed an opinion did not want a merge. You need to establish at least some sort of consensus there that this would be a good idea. One way to do that is to create a section on the topic at Ashkenazi Jews so that this would be the daughter article. If none of the editors object, then you would have a reasonable case. But, until you do, I don't see what reason there is for tagging this article. David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I already made a topic there, and referred them to come here to discuss the matter. Or they can discuss it there if they prefer, it doesn't matter to me. I outlined all of the issues that we need to discuss. I think we should focus on those matters. Tagging the article is like I said, to propose a merger or failing that, an AFD. I think the article needs improving in the areas that I mentioned. ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not concerned with whether this is a theory or a conjecture. The reason all attempts to delete the article or to merge it with others have failed is because of the notoriety that this received. Re-write it, yes. Accuse an editor, using an uncivil focus on the editor, of being a single purpose account, no. A Sniper (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind A Sniper, I would prefer to keep our squabble off of this discussion. You can address the points raised, or bring up new ones. ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect (and this is getting tiring having to read your multiple posts at my talk page), this is your 'squabble'. Focus on the edits, not the editor. A Sniper (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this article should not be merged. First of all, it is a nice and well-sourced article in its own right, and there is no imperative need to merge it. In addition, the subject of Ashkenazi intelligence has been researched and debated more than other race-related intelligence issues, so I see no reason why it should not deserve its own article. Furthermore, why is this issue being raised again and again, and in part by the same people? Debresser (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well you didn't really address any of the points I made. The issue is being raised because of the points I brought up. ScienceApe (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I raised a few points of my own. And just in case you don't understand what I am trying to explain to you: I do not think that you have given any good reason to merge this article, and in view of the arguments I raised, I disagree with said proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The main reason why I think the article should be merged is because I don't think it's notable on its own. Why is a positive physical characteristic notable? How is it more notable than a negative one? Or another kind of physical characteristic like nose size or hair color. Why is this more notable than Ashkenazi nose size or hair color?ScienceApe (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's clearly a POV subject. Everyone likes to think they are superior, and most people do. But that doesn't make it non-notable, but just calls for different content: lots of people have looked into this topic with a view to supporting it, but no one (apparently) has looked into falsifying it eg by showing that other factors (such as income or diet rather than race or religion) are the real cause of the difference in IQ (which anyway is not the same as intelligence). The article would still be interesting, but be NPOV. All I need is a source for the lack of scientific rigour in this area. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, so it's a POV subject. For the sake of argument, lets assume this article took it from the opposite side, and presented the initial argument that Ashkenazis have a generally lower IQ than the general population, then made additional arguments to try and show that this is not the case, or that there are other factors like the ones you mentioned, income, or diet rather than race or religion. Would this make it NPOV? I don't believe it would. I believe that it would be denounced as anti-semitic, POV, and promptly deleted. So I think there's an inherent bias towards positive physical characteristics. Furthermore, since all of the claims are merely conjecture, none of them can be disproven. That is a POV issue, if claims can't be disproven, then it's impossible to have a NPOV. ScienceApe (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just like you've gone to the Administrator's Noticeboard to try and cause trouble for me merely for reverting your merge tags, go ahead and attempt for the fourth time to have the article deleted. Fail. A Sniper (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Apart from the unsigned person [now signed as A Sniper] probably being right about deletion failing (which is one very good reason to try first to resolve things another way), I am not a believer in "positive discrimination". By saying someone is better, you are saying that on average, everyone else is worse. You can test your conjecture by creating articles on Pygmies, autism or perhaps even dyslexia, and seeing if anyone deletes these. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
We're not saying anything ...this article is about the theory or conjecture that has received notoriety. It isn't about whether any of us agree or disagree with that theory or conjecture. Editors such as Maunus have worked hard to make the article reflect the subject, which is not whether the theory or conjecture is correct or false, but what sources have stated about this theory or conjecture. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The article is saying something. It's saying that Ashkenazis have higher IQ than others. Yes, I know it's based on the conjecture made by someone, and it's cited. But what if this someone had negative things to say about Ashkenazi intelligence, and/or other physical attributes. If we also put counter arguments to that, would it be NPOV? I don't believe it would. What about other physical characteristics? What about Jewish noses? I found an article from the Journal Medical Association, complete with citations of its own about it, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/17/2161. Should we make an article about that? There's a bias towards wanting this article to exist because it's about a desirable physical characteristic, and that's why it's POV. ScienceApe (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) Yes but... the subject is potentially quite broad. It could include the reasons why this is significant, the sort of methods people have used to confirm (or deny) the truth of the claims, why it is true (including from some potentially seemingly unrelated cause). The article is not just a propaganda platform for any POV. Why are people writing about this subject at all? That could also be explained. Some of the references give an insight into this. (All subject to reliable sources, of course.)Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not though. In all the time it has been up, nothing has been done to expand the article. It's more or less in the same state it was when it was last listed for AFD in 2008. I've been asking for these sources to address the questions raised, nothing has been brought forth. I still think that it's POV. I know it's not a platform for propaganda, but it is proposing a stance. Do you really think an article on Jewish Noses would ever survive an AFD? It's absurd, why are positive attributes ok, but not negative ones? I don't see the difference from a POV perspective. Both are POV. ScienceApe (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You have now asked the same question and made the same statement ten times. Get over it. It is what it is. If you want to improve the article, go ahead - nobody is stopping you. Maunus has done an excellent job of adding references. Instead of taking the time to edit, you've been keen enough to make a complaint to admin because I dared to revert your merge tags - twice. A Sniper (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm waiting for a response. Address my points, instead of ignoring them like you have been doing. Nobody is stopping you from improving the article either. Stop bringing up Maunus all the time, just looking at this talk section, this is what he said about you "No that is what you should have done instead of defending a crappy biased article and let others do the work." and in March of this year no less. You do work, find sources which address the points I raised, and add them to the article. I'll drop this whole entire merger if you can do that. You even admitted to me on my talk section that you are only concerned with making sure no one deletes the article. Do some work, find sources and improve the article. ScienceApe (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The main reason why I think the article should be merged is because I don't think it's notable on its own.

Notability is not an issue with this subject. I recommend you to stop lobbying for this cause, since your arguments are feable. If you have any POV issues with the content of an article, this is not the way to be about them. Sorry to make it personal, but you are a little too ardent about this, to take you seriously. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, notability is an issue. You haven't addressed my "feable" issues, you just ignored them. POV issues came up through the discussion which you aren't participating in. You are merely attacking the merit of the discussion. If you make this personal, I'll just take it up with the Administrator's noticeboard, so I suggest you don't make it personal. ScienceApe (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You accuse me and others of ignoring your issues. What you don't understand is that I (and perhaps others as well) do not consider them "issues". Sorry. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Then tell me what's wrong with them instead of ignoring them. In a discussion you don't just ignore someone's point, and then say "we don't consider them 'issues'. Sorry.". That's rude and pretentious. ScienceApe (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Insisting on unlear "issues" against so many oposing opinions is also not the paradigm of modesty. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? Because one of those issues isn't even mine. It was brought up by Slrubenstein. But I guess that's irrelevant since you aren't even here to discuss, you are just attacking me. ScienceApe (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ScienceApe: I am not very involved in this dispute, but, unless I am mistaken, if most/all of the editors of article X don't want article Y to be merged with it, then a merge won't happen. So, since most/all of the editors of Ashkenazi Jews don't want this article to be merged, isn't that the end of the discussion? (And, all the more so since several editors here don't want a merge.) They don't need to answer your questions or engage with your arguments. They can just point to WP:SIZE. Again, I am not an experienced editor, but I am pretty sure that this is not the way that Wikipedia works. To the extent that you disagree, I would recommend WP:RFC as your next step. David.Kane (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems you are right. They don't engage because they know they don't need to, not because the points are without merit (most of which aren't even mine). It's sad that the system can be "gamed" like this. The problem is no one really cares about this article, no one else is really engaging, so I have to deal with these two who keep dismissing the points simply because they can. Still, I would like the tags to remain for a few more days in case anyone wishes to address the points. If after a week since the tags were first placed and no one else engages, you can remove them. ScienceApe (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApe, let's see if I can address your points fairly. I might be misunderstanding or omitting part of what you'd like addressed, but here goes.
1. "The page is about only one scientific journal article." Indeed the Cochran et al. article has stirred up a lot of new discussion in recent years, but it's only one of many sources. The article is about Ashkenazi intelligence: whether and how it is different from the intelligence of other ethnic groups.
2. "Why do people care about a correlation between intelligence and ethnicity?" I figure that the main reason for so much interest in the topic is because claims about ethnicity and intelligence have been used many times throughout history to justify genocides, wars, and racist social systems, several of them involving Jews (as you yourself noted). That seems like a strong reason for notability. Another reason is that superior intelligence has long been a part of Jewish identity, but facts to confirm or refute this have been hard to come by—making this a specific topic where a Wikipedia page can be of help. Direct evidence of notability is the amount of coverage the topic has received in published sources. The Cochran et al. article alone has received 71 citations in other science journals to date. "Jewish intelligence" turns up 6,000 hits on Google Books. (Not that notability should simply be a matter of counting up mentions in the press.)
3. "Whether Ashkenazi Jews have a distinctive kind of intelligence is not a falsifiable claim." That's a controversial claim in itself. The mainstream scientific community would say that psychometric tests do provide falsifiability, and these are mentioned in the article.
4. "Having a separate article gives undue weight to a WP:FRINGE theory or violates WP:NPOV." As long as we summarize the available factual information, we aren't giving weight to a fringe theory. We might end up debunking a fringe theory. As noted above, the coverage of the topic in serious publications demonstrates its notability. We do, of course, need to take care to present opposing facts in proportion to how well represented they are in credible sources.
5. "The article violates WP:NPOV because it favors a positive trait (intelligence) over a negative one (stupidity)." First, "intelligence" in the title refers to "degree or kind of intelligence", not "being smarter than everyone else". Second, the neutrality in WP:NPOV refers to fairly and proportionately representing published information about the topic, not neutrality in regard to decorum. We do indeed favor the word "intelligence" over "stupidity". While the facts covered might offend some people's feelings, we don't go out of our way to give offense.
6. "We need more peer-reviewed, scholarly sources." Certainly! Especially secondary sources. Going to primary sources so much has lured Wikipedians into debating the topic itself rather than summarizing the literature.
Even if you disagree with the conclusions, does the above address your concerns? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My tuppence's worth

I am one of the editors who have been arguing here for a long time. At first I argued staunchly for deletion and for merger when the article was based on a single source and only presented the viewpoints of Cochrane & Harpending as facts. I was frustrated because the attempts at getting the very biased and controversial article to either conform with WP:NPOV or dissappear were futile because of a general lack of interest and persistence from other editors and the tenacious and frankly bizarre defense of the article by User:Asniper, who has also refused to participate in improving the article. However a few months a go I decided to do a more thorough job of digging up sources to definitely establish whether the topic (notice the word topic used instead of theory here) was notable or not. I found a fair amount of sources which I all presented above and later incorporated into the lead of the article. I am convinced that for example the two page treatement of the topic in the Vogel & Motulsky source alone (published before Harpending & Cochrane) is enough to show notability. However I think the article body needs to be rewritten to reflect the broader topic of "IQ tests and Ashkenazim" instead of just Harpending and Cochrane's rather inconsequential speculations about the causes of the observed better performance of Ashkenazim in IQ tests. In short I do think the topic is notable as shown by treatement in multiple neutral peereviewed academic sources AND in the media, and I believe there is no hindrance to present it in a neutral manner covering all the angles also covered by the sources. I think this would be a better avenue for improvement than merging. If it is decided to make yet another attempt at merging I suggest that we make sure to get much wider community involvement: publicize the problems at the village pump and at relevant wikipeojects and notify every editor who has ever edited the talk page or the article. If it turns out to be just another discussion among a couple of editors we will be no closer to a durable solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Maunus & I have scrapped over this article in the past but I must agree with the above. His edits & dedication, once the tension subsided, have improved the article greatly. Bizarre or not, one result of defending the article was Maunus changing tactics, and the article has benefited. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Maunus and thank him for all his work on this article. Given that this article has survived 3 (!) deletion attempts, I wonder about the good faith of any editor that would propose another. I see no harm in seeing, again, what the editors at the other article think about a merge and I guess that there is no harm in tagging this article as under consideration fora few days. But, in the absence of clear consensus to merge, the tag ought to be removed. David.Kane (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some more secondary sources for more information to go into the article. These cover varying theories of special traits of Jewish intelligence, evidence for and against them, and the cultural impact of those theories—all of which would be great to cover on this Wikipedia page.

  • Jewcentricity: Why Jews are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything (Adam Garfinkle, 2009)
  • Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count (Richard E. Nisbett, 2009)
  • Antisemitism and Philosemitism in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries (Phyllis Lassner and Lara Trubowitz, 2008)
  • A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Kevin Macdonald, 2002)
  • Social science and the politics of modern Jewish identity (Mitchell Bryan Hart, 2000)
  • Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence (Sander L. Gilman, 1997)
  • Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined (Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg, Aaron D. Gresson, 1997)
  • The Jewish mind (Raphael Patai, 1996)
  • The myth of the Jewish race (Raphael Patai, 1989)
  • In their place: white America defines her minorities, 1850-1950 (Lewis H. Carlson, 1972; one full chapter on Jewish intelligence)
For ease of reference, I've listed some sources above, which haven't yet been used on the Wikipedia page. I invite you to add more, to help out other editors. Serious publications about this topic go far beyond a handful of recent academic journal papers. This topic has been researched and debated for decades. Notice that most of these were published before the Cochran et al. paper (2005), and there are plenty more. If you want material to make the page better, get readin'! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chabon article

I moved a reference to a New York TImes opinion piece by Michael Chabon from the body of the article to the External Links. I'm not sure we should refer to it at all. It confuses the statistical claim about a higher mean with "all Jews are smarter, and Jewish institutions behave more wisely than non-Jewish institutions", and the author lacks appropriate credentials (winning the Pulitzer Prize doesn't make him an expert on intelligence). I'm not sure it belongs on this page at all. If we are trying to document opposition to the idea that Ashkenazi intelligence is higher or different than that of other ethnic groups, it does give one person's point of view, though it seems like an especially poor representative of the opposition. On the other hand, it provides some documentation that distinct mental attributes are part of Jewish identity, which is an important topic that the page doesn't yet cover. I'm thinking that while it's a poor article, it's better than nothing for now, and when we get some better sources for opposing ideas and intelligence in Jewish identity, we should delete it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, especially, it is crucially important to source well and to prefer mainstream secondary sources to speculative, unreplicated primary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bizarro Wikipedia?

Wait a minute, have I stumbled into the Bizarro Wikipedia by mistake? We are taking seriously the argument that Jews are smarter than other people because... God did it? I am referring to this statement (given as a possible explanation for why Jews are smarter):

The Jews are God's chosen people, and have been blessed with higher intelligence.

I labeled this is humor, which it obviously is, and somebody removed it instead, which is fine also. What would not be fine? Taking the statement on face value and including it in the article like credulous sheep. I can't believe we're even discussing this. But lo and behold, someone restored the sentence. So here we are.

OK, there is one reference to this statement, an article in Commentary titled Jewish Genius by a Mr. Gharles Murray. It's a good-sized article of several score paragraphs discussing the matter in detail. The only reference to God-granted intelligence in the article is the last sentence, which reads

At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.

Oh, OK then.

Is it "parsimonious" (the simplest explanation) and "irrefutable" to call upon supernatural entities to explain things? How seriously would we take a reference that stated "One explanation for why things fall is gravity, but a simpler (and irrefutabl) explanation would that God pushes them down"?

Maybe we can use this on other articles: "Some have attributed [name of person]'s early achievements to his family's insistence on rigorous education but others (cite Murray here) contend that God is responsible."

Since Murray does not seem to be a deranged idiot, I think its pretty clear that his use of "parsimonious" is humorous, as I'm sure he knows that rather than simplifying, the introduction of supernatural entities greatly complexifies the matter, as we then have to come up with the mechanisms for the entities to intervene and so on. Ditto "happily irrefutable" (note the adjective), as Murray obviously just means that it ends reasonable discussion rather than arising from unassailable logic.

So let's not put it back, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit comment, it's not clear that it is intended as humor, despite your protestations. Other people seem to take it seriously: [6][7][8][9][10]. And even if it were humorous, that doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion. Just because something is humorous, does not mean it's not true. More importantly, this is a well sourced comment, and many other sources support this view. I suppose you might be suggesting that on the basis of this one quote that this theory does not merit inclusion. I can understand that, and if that's the criticism, then it does make sense to find other secondary sources which support that view. aprock (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I should add that your comparison to the theory of gravity is nonsensical. This article is not about a scientific theory, but rather untested conjecture. I'll be restoring the section in a few days unless a reasonable argument as to why it should not be included is put forward. aprock (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with aprock. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Murray says that the chosen people hypothesis is "happily irrefutable", i.e. it's not a scientific proposal, but rather a jocular comment at the end of the article. Even if some morons take it seriously, it does not mean we should.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why this article should exclude non-scientific proposals. aprock (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There isn't? Herostratus (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think Murray's essay isn't at all notable enough to merit a section, and as it was very probably made in jest I don't see any reason to include it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually as per aprock's sources maybe it is notable. If those can be incorporated it might be able to build a reasonable section.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the first poster. How in the heck is the statement "I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people" fit for an encyclopedia? It's a tongue-in-cheek offhand comment made by Murray and it's being treated like some divine intervention in this article. Bulldog123 04:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because encyclopedias document, they don't judge. And if several citeable sources say it, than it merits inclusion. Despite your personal feelings on the matter. (One explanation offered as to why a glass is stepped on at a Jewish wedding is "it's the groom's last chance to put his foot down". Nobody actually believes it, but if enough people say it...) FiveRings (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I note that the section is tagged "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" But what's disputed? That the Murray quote is accurate? No, no one disputes that. So what must be disputed is if the quote is correct. So now we are in a position where we, as an encyclopedia, are saying that it's an open question whether supernatural entities are responsible for states and events here on Earth. That seems an odd position for a secular encyclopedia to take. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a "secular encyclopedia"? Implicitly, Wikipedia may be secular, but is it actually an official policy? (For the record, I think the Murray quote should be removed.)--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that favors secular points of view over religious points of view. I haven't taken a position here on how appropriate the Charles Murray quotation is in the article's overall context. I think that issue is resolved by sources, giving proper regard to due weight on different points of view, with that being the main Wikipedia policy that is implicated by an editorial decision one way or the other. I'll note (not citing sources) that there are both Jewish and non-Jewish people who have religious points of view such that they would expect Jewish people to be very special people, because of God's active intervention in human life. I'm not expressing an opinion here about how that should be balanced with competing statements for inclusion in this article's text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The question is not "is it correct". The question is "did he say it"?. He said it. FiveRings (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You do know, however, that this article is called "Ashkenazi Intelligence" not "Charles' Murray's offhand quotables about Ashkenazi intelligence?" Are there other references where other academics say "Maybe God made Jewish people intelligent?" If not, how is this not a WP:WEIGHT issue? And secondly where has Murray himself formally proposed the hypothesis that God did it (as it's inclusion in the article implies)? I clicked the linked article and I can't seem to find that anywhere in the citation. All I find is a flowery conclusion to a long article about many different things -- notably, not divine intervention. Bulldog123 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this as a compromise:

Magic
Some analysts [cite Murray] have suggested that superior Ashkenazi intelligence is due to intervention by magical, supernatural, extradimensional, or alien entities.

I think this approach could be useful in other articles. For instance, at Hoover Dam#Construction we could have:

On the other hand, the Hoover Dam may have appeared instantly one night, due to magic, and this same magic could have simultaneously altered all records and traces and memories to hide this operation. This theory has never been conclusively proven or disproven and remains an open question.

Why not? After all, a caveman from 10,000 BC might find that as believable (or more believable) than suggesting that machines taller than trees with fire inside them could have done it. Who are we to say that our explanation for the existence of the Hoover Dam is "better" than his? I mean, to state that "science" is better than "superstition" is just a cultural bias. It's like saying "being rational" is somehow "better" than "being irrational" - you can't prove it. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on whether this is worth including or not, but I've changed the heading to "divine" because "religious" may mean that they are smart because they are religious, and this is actually covered in the "environmental" section. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting a RfC on this because reading the above I see it's more contentious that I thought. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Should the divine hypothesis be mentioned in this article? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No of course not. Neither should anything else. The entire article promotes a fringe racist POV, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Notable fringe theories deserve articles, no matter how hideous they can look like --Cyclopiatalk 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and having come here, I pray that I will never look at this article again. I would say yes, include it, which I think the last section of the article does. I say that on the basis that, if we are going to have a page devoted to this subject, that's a verifiable (in the sense that there are verifiable claims, not in the sense of it being true or even mainstream) part of the subject. Having looked over the article as well as the talk above, I think that editors should take a second (or is it a much higher number?) look at either including "Theory" in the title, or merging this page into another. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

yes. Because bits are cheap, and the signal/noise ratio wasn't going to get any better anyway.FiveRings (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Is it a notable POV on the subject? - It's not clear to me if it's the opinion of a single, lonely commentator (in which case WP:UNDUE would apply) or if it has been proposed several times (in which case, no matter how weird, it should deserve inclusion). That is, as usual it all boils down to sourcing. Any hint on that? --Cyclopiatalk 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment - I would have to agree to an extent with Cyclopia above. The questions which come to mind are in what way the Jews status as a chosen people relates to the purported intelligence of Ashkenazi (I myself don't see a direct link between the two; if there is one, it would be good to know what it purportedly is) and whether that is discussed in sources to the extent that it merits mention in this article, given proportional weight of all relevant subjects. Right now, I don't see anything which indicates which sources link the two, how strong the link is in those sources, and how much weight they are given in the subject as a whole. Without that information, I'm afraid it is more than a little difficult to give an answer that others might find satisfactory. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No. The entire section is based solely on an offhand throwaway remark by Charles Murray, who quite probably was kidding and is in any case not an expert on religion. This would set a very bad precedent indeed for other articles. I am sure that many more and better sources than Murray's remark could be find to support the theory that God was responsible for the various victories of various sides in various wars and battles, for the survival of assorted passengers in numerous bus and plane crashes, for the recovery of various person from illness, and on and on and on. In our article on the American Civil War, are we to include under "Causes of Union Victory", alongside the sections about how they had more men and guns or whatever, a "Divine causes" section? I'm sure God has been invoked numerous times there, from Lincoln on down. I'm not saying these invocations don't fit somewhere, but advanced as a serious reason for the victory in parallel with causes such as having more men etc.? I think we really really don't want to be going down this road. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Per Herostratus - there are a number of reasons why this would be a silly idea. Roscelese (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Murray was not even serious about it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Redcliffe Salaman

Sorry if I am getting it all wrong, and i suspect in the wrong place, but not only do I believe the text I inserted was out of copyright, but I could actually make a reasonable claim to be the author's literary exec. This was the first systematic research on the subject, using hundreds of years of Royal Society records and it astounds me that it is not even mentioned in this article, let alone quoted ... The text I posted was about 25% of Redcliffe Salaman FRS's original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.37.198 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

it would be more helpful if you simply posted a link to the article instead of the text it self. In any case it is not possible to include it because it would very likely constitute Original research to propose that this study has any relation to the later Ashkenazi IQ studies or at least a synthesis which we do not allow in wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd link if I could, but I OCR'd the text from printed copies so I can't. It seems odd to exclude original research by an FRS with based on indisputable statistics - thought the interpretation of them might well be open to discussion. He also makes a distinction between the Ashkenazi and Sephardic component of Jewish immigration to the UK, and thus its relative contribution to Royal society membership. RNS was not only a Jew, but a eugenicist: this is a strange combination with hind-sight but surprisingly common at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.37.198 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

  • It´s is only a jew marketing for establishment the jewish privileges and subsidies in the society..!!The article is very parcial and false too..!!East Asians in a ambient of western prosperity have a IQ very superior to the jews..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.93.213 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"parcial and false too" If it's false you're supposed to give proofs of its falseness. Otherwise i can also say myself that theory of relativity is false.

"East Asians in a ambient of western prosperity have a IQ very superior to the jews..!!" Wrong, as been explained before in the talk page, japanese people have around 107-110 average IQ compared to 115 average IQ for ashkenazi jews. And even if Eastern asians had a bigger IQ than Ashkenazi(which is not true as i explained before), it doesn't mean Ashkenazi jews aren't intelligent compared to general U.S. population and that this theory is false.Kooz (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the Japanese mean of 107-110 is higher than the jewish mean of 103-112 in the article.Aprock (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • the japanese people not have the subsidios que os cristãos dão aos judeus..and the relativity teory is a plagious of FRAUDeinstein against henry poincare, lorentz, olinto de pretto and mileva maric.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Lynn & Vanhanen 2006[9] estimate for Ashkenazi Jews in Israel 103!the most actual study; in israel the iq of askenazi jews is inferior..asians 107 x jews 103.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There should at LEAST be a bias section for this article. The very Jewish supremacy in academia without regards to how they got would make it easy for them to promote that they are racially superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.102.40 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

'Ashkenazi' Intelligence?

I note this article makes specific claims about the average intelligence of people of Ashkenazi ethnicity. Can I ask where the data for non-Ashkenazi Jews is? Given that almost all of the data in the section 'Psychometric findings' appears to make no distinction about whether the subjects were Ashkenazi or not (even where properly sourced at all), the conclusions drawn cannot possibly be supported. On this basis, the section should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this entire article creepy although that's not a valid policy argument for deletion. On second thoughts, I find this article really creepy. Sol (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that 'creepy' isn't a valid argument for deletion. I'd say however that the pushing of a fringe minority POV is. Or at least an argument for balance.
Yeah, any article making claims about specific ethnic groups is unsettling, even if it's positive racial labeling. I think you're right about that section's sources not being on Ashkenazi but Jews in general and that looks like a common issue here along with some possible SYNTH in the chart. I've taken the liberty of deleting the "Magic" section as incorrectly named and unnessecary; the information could be incorporated elsewhere but it doesn't deserve its own section. Sol (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I too find the article extremely creepy, and I agree it doesn't seem to be about Ashkenazi but Jews in general. From the title I also thought it would be about some kind of Ashkenazi intelligence organization. Why not rename the article to "Intelligence of Jewish people", or "Psychometric studies of Jewish people"? Marokwitz (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
A more honest title would be "Fringe theories about Jewish intelligence". As for Sol Goldstone's comment about "positive racial labeling" I don't think there can actually be such a thing - if it is positive to one "race", it must be negative to others, and in any case, "race" has no business being treated as a scientific concept at all when dealing with subjects like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, ascribing positive traits to a racial group is just the friendly side of racism, i.e., it's creepy. I guess you could neutrally describe theories of ethnic traits . . . I just have no idea how. Or why. Perhaps a good NPOV scrubbing. The whole article is just begging to be another editorial flash point. Sol (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This article was originally forked out of Ashkenazi Jews for what I assume are reasons parallel to the concerns stated here. It's survived three AfDs and a merge proposal, but has otherwise been treated as the "hot potato" it is. People who are generally interested in positive racialism wrt Jewish intelligence edit it freely, and those with a more scientific view are generally uninterested in investing significant time or resources into it. On the other hand, the degree to which the Cochran paper has garnered attention in the mainstream media clearly establishes some degree of notability. Personally, I think the entire article should be merged back into the relevant parent articles (Ashkenazi Jews, Gregory Cochran, Race and intelligence) where it can at least get the attention of a broader set of editors.aprock (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

there is a lot to be said for that argument. On another point, as Sol indicated earlier, the chart appears to be based on several different sources, and looks like SYNTH. I'm inclined to remove it accordingly. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to wipe out anything suspicious. Sol (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the Storfer and Herrnstein & Murray figures from the table: they were unsourced, and gave no indications of referring to specifically to Ashkenazi Jews. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would again remind folks that this article isn't advocating the notion/theory/idea - it is about it and the fact that it was advocated, regardless of silly, apocryphal nature. I could see it absorbed into Race and intelligence at aprock's suggestion. I would also support a name change, adding notion or theory to the title. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sniper, but would strongly recommend renaming this article to "Psychometric studies of Jewish people" or "Intelligence of Jewish people" since this seems to be the topic of this article. Marokwitz (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For reasons that I still need to elaborate with sources on several other talk pages, "IQ" might be the best term for what is discussed here. The current Wikipedia articles are not at all consistent in such terminological issues, but some of the better articles distinguish IQ (that which we estimate from IQ tests) from "intelligence," which in much psychological usage and almost all common usage is a broader term. But, yes, feel free to discuss here as I gather up the sources. And the suggestion of merging all of this topic back into other articles that are watched by more editors is a wise suggestion, as this is not a mainstream topic in encyclopedias of psychology in academic libraries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. The whole idea that IQ is an objective measure of intelligence is probably itself a minority opinion amongst experts in the field, and the sort of cross-contextual comparisons being used in this article make the methodology even more suspect. The closer one looks at this topic, the less to it there appears to be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IQ table

Was originally added by an IP without giving adequate sources. Since then various claimed scores have been added and deleted and various comments added often on dubious grounds. Currently most of the literature and data is not in the table which is very biased. Anyway, it would be better to quote summaries in the literature rather than try to compile a list of all primary sources. So I propose removing this table in favor of only mentioning summaries.Miradre (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. aprock (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I point out that some entries only refer to 'Jewish' samples, rather than specifically 'Ashkenazi' Jews, and as such are not relevant to the article, as it is currently named. The table should be removed, and only data referring to the article subject should be cited in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and this edit: [11]. "Conjecture" is inappropriate for a an explanation stated in a peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, "notes" and "observes" implies undisputed facts and are inappropriate for a paper rejected for publication.Miradre (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these are weasel words. I guess we could replace "conjecture" with "untested hypothesis". I suppose if you really feel strongly about what these words mean, or how they represent the sources, you could put forward an RfC. aprock (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I could equally well argue that if you feel really strongly about this, then it is you who should put forward an RfC. At least "note" is mentioned at Weasel words. "Conjecture" has negative implications. I propose "explanation" instead of "conjecture" and "write" or "argue" instead of "note" or "observe".Miradre (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You're the one who tagged the words, not I. aprock (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I tagged the words, you changed the words. Neither implies that either version is the preferred version by itself or who should do a RfC. Do you disagree with my suggested alternative wording and why not if you disagree?Miradre (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious statements

"One critique is that the theory contradicts prevailing views about evolutionary speed as well as other basic aspects of Darwinian evolution."

This links to this source: [12]. It mentions the Cochran et al. paper only once. The statement regarding speed of genetic change is from a source published sixteen years before the Cochran et al. study and obviously does not mention it. As such it should be removed as outdated and unclear if the original authors intended it to apply to such a situation as described in the Cochran et al. paper.

"it is impossible to determine the degree, or even the possibility of any evolutionary effects on human intelligence."

That goes to a fourteen years old book that again obviously does not mention the Cochran et al. paper. Lots of researchers certainly disagree with published papers claiming to do this. As such it should also be removed as outdated, dubious, and not mentioning the Cochran et al. study.Miradre (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Good job weeding those out. There are quite a few wishful-thinking editors in this area who abuse sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New York Times

The article now states "The New York Times described a poor scholarly reaction". The actual text is "The hypothesis advanced by the Utah researchers has drawn a mixed reaction among scientists, some of whom dismissed it as extremely implausible, while others said they had made an interesting case, although one liable to raise many hackles." I propse changing the text to something more neutral. The text is also misrepresented in many other ways. Here is a working link [13].Miradre (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this was solved by now. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)