- Ashkenazi intelligence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This page is offensive to Jewish people in general. The decision to keep this article, which was brought up 3 separate times, was made three years ago. I think that is sufficient time to bring up the subject again. I'm not sure why would anyone make a page on the intelligence of Ashkenzai Jews, or any other ethnicity. This is not just about being politically correct, there is absolutely no way this can be approached by NPOV. And if there were, then we could simply point people to general article on human intelligence. Also under WP:NOTCENSORED it says this: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so(...)Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly.
I feel that this article is a shock article. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "3rd nomination" and fourth nomination were made by myself and speedy deleted due to the three deletion discussions that went on 3 years ago to keep. I listed and tried to relist, but that was closed and told basically to deal with it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree I reacted incorrectly, and I apologize to the admin who closed the article. I'm not sure what DVR is if it is not to debate a deletion. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing this because Malik Shabazz explained this to me. I misunderstood the procedure completely. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closes This article is backed by numerous reliable and verifiable references from notable authors in notable sources and there is no evidence offered that consensus has changed regarding rather evident notability. None of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED have any relevance to this article. Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close The nominator put forth no persuasive reasoning as to why the previous consensus to keep might have changed in the intervening three year period. If they had done so, a new AfD might have been warranted.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the keep was procedurally correct, and any issue should be taken to Afd. Where, I think, the discussion will likely be closed again as a keep. Nothing offensive in this well-sourced article about a well-known phenomenon. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen Discussion was closed almost instantly after it was opened. Consensus could have changed since 2008--if the discussion was allowed to run. The nominator might not have articulated them well, but there are valid reasons to delete, among them WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (or at the very least, serious problems with the article that were brought up in previous deletion discussions, and never fixed since). Even if the close is upheld, it shouldn't prejudice a proper deletion nomination. 71.58.222.181 (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The discussion 3 years ago was a strong keep, on well-reasoned grounds, and Wikipedia has not changed in a direction that would indicate a move otherwise. There is no possible chance that an AfD would succeed, because the basic premise of the nomination is totally against the fundamental policy behind the encyclopedia. There is no subject at all for which it can be said that "there is absolutely no way this can be approached by NPOV." A page discussing even the most racist charges against a group is not a page attacking them; if such charges cannot even be discussed, how is the group to be defended? Do we give the field over tho the racists? (not that I think this topic racist. The implication of deletion, that Jews have something to hide, is what is racist.) DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The implication by myself is not Jews have something to hide, though you may assume that. My logic was that we shouldn't be discussing the intelligences of different ethnicities because it doesn't vary in different groups, it varies person by person. So people can be directed to the human intelligence article--there could even be subsections within the intelligence articles that deal with this. At best this a pseudo-science topic. But I spoke to Malik Shabazz, and as mentioned above, withdrew my deletion review, because he said that because there are sources and it is a notable topic, that is unlikely to change. Despite my personal belief that the discussion intelligence of an ethnic group as a whole as opposed to the discussion of human intelligence by individuals is intrinsically wrong due to a variety or reasons, I see his point. Even if the discussion is not offensive, I don't see the point because we are at the point in science where we know that human intelligence varies by person, not ethnicity. And again, an article, rather than a subsection in the intelligence article, seems extreme and is offensive in itself, even if the whole matter is not offensive by nature. It's like discussion of the mood capabilities of women, even if it's positive, why is there a discussion of it in the first place? It's also a known phenomen. In any event, I don't agree with its existence, neutral/positive or otherwise, but due to the way Malik Shabazz described this to me, I withdrew this before the influx of other comments.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|
