Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 31 July 2024

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: delete, October 11, 2020, see discussion. Speedy keep, February 23, 2017, see discussion.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

[REDACTED] Discrimination [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Jewish history This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

European bottleneck of Ashkenazi Jews

IQ and separating groups performance on tests like it immediately gives me bad eugenic vibes but assuming that testing is valid. Adding the European bottleneck of the ashkenazi population, that is estimated to have occured almost 800 years ago, may be important for context for this subject. The bottle neck was severe enough that a sizable portion of Ashkenazi Jews, over 10 million, descend from one of 4 women, going further, even genetic testing very regularly shows members of the ethnic group being closer on a family tree than they actually are. RCSCott91 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The quality of editing

this edit is weird to the point of incomprehensibility.

• I drafted without touching the article which in its present form is a stable skeleton, a bibliography. It included many new sources, and, also, added those sources the article - subject to the most astringent scrutiny - still uses.
• Grayfall excised from the bibliography any mention of sources by Lynn et al., while leaving them intact on the page, and in the citations.
• This article cannot be edited irrationally, by a kind of edit-warring consisting of excisions, reverts, dislikes, or whatever.
• An article on theories published in reliable scientific outlets, which fails to gain any traction in the secondary peer-review literature, cannot be written by repressing those publications, If they are eliminated, the whole article is forced to circle around a reference void.
• The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship examines the utterly sprious ideas and their aftermath of the appropriately name J. Thomas Looney. The article must reference his book, otherwise no one will have a clue. And sceptics like myself accepted it as a primary source, no matter how idiotic those ideas were. And the same goes for this, and any other fringe topic.

Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(2nd erasure) "Don't do that again" is not how consensus works. These sources are redundant with citations and unreliable/fringe sources should not be presented as blandly reliable sources without context Nishidani (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

is this a quote comment from grayfell?

what exactly are you trying to communicate? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Why ask me? If you click on the link, you would see that it is Grayfell's edit summary for his second disembowelment of a harmless bibliography citing only sources that are themselves mentioned in the secondary literature.Nishidani (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The short version is that there was a dispute over how references should be formatted on the page. Lacking consensus, this seems premature, to put it mildly, so I partly reverted this edit. There is also the issue that a Richard Lynn source was added which is not currently cited nor mentioned in the article. If the article is going to expand the use of a discredited academic like Lynn, it needs to be handled carefully, and introducing more complicated and less intuitive references schemes will only make it harder to address these kinds of issues in the future. To put it another way, Lynn remains fringe regardless of how his work is cited. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok! It seems Nishidani has left, based on their comments, but they still had a point that we need to resurrect this article eventually somehow instead of WP:TNTing it. Unfortunately, much of the AfD seems to still be leaning towards some sort of TNT (me included tbh).

What exactly are the full remedies for race and intelligence that should apply? I tried copying the talk page templates over from race and intelligence, but was trying to see what else should be the correct consensus? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is dead in the water, and the short version is a laughingstock, and remains so because editors, instead of diving into the full scholarly history on this topic, keep flensing it to its skeletal caricature of an article. I simply noted in that bibliography how a future article, radically rewriting this nonsense, should be sourced (only a small sample). With the atmosphere surrounding this topic, evidently any work on actually rewriting the page would be pointless.

I find it very comical to see that knee-jerk approaches to what would have been a Sander Gilman-(I have cited him as authoritative in many articles long before encountering this one, and subscribe to virtually everything he writes) type analysis of the fringe or minority 'researchers'(most have academic credentials, some like Davide Piffer even had a research position, apparently at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and get their ideas into peer-reviewed journals and even highly praised books like Wayne's (see my page) who meddle with borderline theories of ethno-racial differences can't get past an editorial consensus hostile to even naming these people on wikipedia. In my own view these ideas are rubbish, but influential rubbish and should be taken apart as such, just as a couple of us did with numerous articles on the trash pseudo-scholarship surrounding Shakespeare's identity, despite the biliousness of edits who subscribe to that nonsense. So, all the anxieties about exploring this nonsense are totally dislocated from that curiosity with weird stereotypes (in this casea about Ashkenazi, often promoted by some notable Ashkenazi themselves) which the equanimity of deep scholarship handles with ease (for which Sander Gilman is our palmary guide). I'm done here, in both senses. Nishidani (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles