Talk:Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 13 July 2024, see discussion.
Delete, October 11, 2020, 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 is 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Jewish history Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles

On 4 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Jewish Genius Stereotype. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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)[reply]

The problem with the tests are that they were conducted under certain conditions which do not correlate to population as a whole. For instance some of the more prominent tests were done on school aged children, which itself is not a good indication of adult IQ, and additionally, if I remember correctly, they were attendants at a private school(which tends to have more involved parents than the average population). These concerns have been raised numerous times in the past. Additionally, there is going to also be a certain level of controversy when any population group is stated to be "genetically superior", even if it was the population group of the past that was claimed to be the opposite. Jacob Yaltov (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob,

My topic was about introducing the ashkenazi bottlenecking that happened hundreds of years ago.

I've been of the view that this article should shift away from IQ tests and simply acknowledge the disproportionate percentage of Jewish graduate-level professionals and Nobel laureates. We literally have an article for it, Jewish Nobel Laureates, and the disproportionate graduate college and professional data has been well documented by Carnegie and other institutions for decades.

Acknowledging an observed phenomenon and attempting to give the reader sourced explanations such as culture (IE. Mamzer, who is a scholar, is held in higher regard than a High Priest, who is unlearned) leads to higher value being put on education, maybe the immigrant hypothesis, maybe religious. There might be a genetic component as well, but more likely, it's a mix of many things.

The point is that the belief exists, it's relevant enough for articles to be published and actual institutions to writes papers and do research trying to figure out why the disproportionate difference. That makes it valid for Wikipedia which ideally would be a better place for valid sources for someone to look into that hypothesis than some unsourced antisemitic website. RCSCott91 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profringe ergo delete

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1240302497 Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline here is WP:FRIND. Absent fringe-independent secondary sources, the guideline indicates we should remain silent on the matter. See esp. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. If you can find such sources discussing this study, by all means re-add. Generalrelative (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re this removal in terms of WP:Profringe is not acceptable. The paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, ergo your objection drops. The authors are not inventing the theory: it has existed for decades before their paper. In your edit summary you cited WP:PROFRINGE. Now you cite WP:FRIND, to justify a second revert (edit-warring). Changing the grounds for one's objection in so brief a time, and in both cases the cited section is irrelevant, is somewhat curious. One reason I am not going to post on wikipedia my complete article on this topic is that the prospect that it will survive the usual, in my book, ideologically-driven gutting process is too strong to warrant doing so. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I'm sure you know that characterizing other editors' imagined ideologically driven motivations is contrary to the way we operate here. I'm disinclined to engage with you substantively if you can't afford me the same basic respect I have afforded you here and at the recent AfD.

But briefly:

You claim that I changed the grounds for my objection. This is demonstrably false. In my first edit summary I stated We'd need to use independent, secondary sources to discuss this. My second summary explicitly linked to the part of the FRINGE guideline where that is spelled out, i.e. WP:FRIND. I did that out of a good-faith belief that you were simply mistaken, because:
This paper is quite clearly PROFRINGE, as will be clear if you take a moment to Google the authors.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, another IP has come along and provided appropriate secondary sources, which make clear the study's flaws, so I consider the matter settled. Generalrelative (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing without googling apparently, except in a very restricted sense. The sources now introduced were in my bibliography already (by the way Chad and Brym devoted three pages to discusssing the pros and cons of the theory. All the recent edit does is cite a snippet to dismiss it.(I happen to agree, but that is not the point)), and that is why I noticed that you didn't notice that notes 24,25 have their authors inverted. Anyone could have overcome your initial objections by simply finding two or three RS that mention Dunkel et al.,'s paper. You didn't do that. You just expunged the article itself. That is lazy, as it is lazy to say a paper published in RS isn't cited much ergo, expunge (WP:IDONTLIKETHAT) and that has been one of the ongoing problems of actually constructing this article. Ridding text and sources before getting a decent hold on the primary and secondary literature. That is what I call disruptive editing. Erasing stuff and expecting others to justify its re-inclusion when you could have ascertained its status in secondary sources in several seconds. Until you desist, I for one am not going to edit this paper. Take some time off, say a month or two and actually study the topic.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could have overcome your initial objections by simply finding two or three RS that mention Dunkel et al.,'s paper. You didn't do that. Why not simply satisfy my objection and be done with it then? Seems odd to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. All this fuss could have been avoided.

In any case, I remain open to discussing this article substantively with you in the future, provided we can do so with the understanding that we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here and that we may bring differing concerns to the table. You are clearly concerned about unchecked deletionism in areas related to FRINGE. Others may have competing concerns which are equally valid –– such as e.g. unchecked PROFRINGE editing by ban-evading LTAs –– even if you do not share them. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply satisfy my objection and be done with it then?

I explained that. I don't know what your working practice is, but as a content editor, if I see something that looks odd, I dig into the history if I am unfamiliar with it, and adjust, fix, or leave it untouched if it turns out to be correct and my scepticism founded on ignorance. What you did is revert on sight, twice, without fixing the problem. That means yopu can object and ask other people to do the work you should do before rushing to cancel matter.

As far as I can see the history of this article, numerous editors come to it with some kind of anxiety about race/equality implications, and, rather than calmly (a)outline the theory, (b)its history, and (c) the science that has dealt with those theories, they tend to erase most of (a) and (b), on the assumption (reasonable enough) that science has rejected these ideas as nonsense. Any historian of science knows better. Silly ideas can get traction even in science for some time, and, given the public hasn't any means of judging autonomously, the only what to enlighten them is to (a) expound the ideas and show how science responds to them. As I said, when nutters doubt Shakespeare, one responds by showing why those ideas are silly, construing them and then showing how the secondary literature has totally undermined the misconceptions that produce them. For every editor who writes articles, there are a thousand that tweak, revert and argue without spending a few hours each day examining all of the available evidence. Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy for your position here, even if we disagree as to what "any historian of science knows" regarding this topic, and even if I still don't see where you explained why you didn't just fix the problem. If you're interested in discussing the state of R&I research, or anything else, feel free to continue the conversation on my talk page. For now I thank you for your engagement and wish you well. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, your comments were appropriate. Generalrelative has removed dozens of sources from articles for a similar reason. I gave several other examples in my comment here, [1] and that article (Flynn effect) is only one of many articles where this happened. It needs to be explained to him why these removals are disruptive. It may take many months to address all of the other examples of the problem, but for now we can try to establish a consensus that these actions aren't acceptable. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see where you explained why you didn't just fix the problem

@Generalrelative. Look. I'm convinced you are editing in good faith, i.e., on a strong conviction you are right, though the evidence tends to suggest, to me, otherwise.

So I will explain, for the last time, why this mode of engagement strikes me as illustrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

You, one editor, made two reverts, each of the same material introduced by different editors.
On each occasion you did not preventively, or immediately after each, address the talk page and clarify to the others why you persisted in these successive erasures, only responding when I opened this thread. When there is a dispute, revert+edit summary is no way of addressing the issue.
First revert
Second revert:'Absent fringe-independent secondary sources, the guideline indicates we should remain silent on the matter.'
The es of revert 2 shows you were unfamiliar with the material, didn't google to see if fringe-independent secondary sources exist citing the paper whose presence you contested.
As is shown by this edit by User:190.111.218.98 within 40 odd minutes.
You responded to my complaint about you not looking into sources by responding In any case, another IP has come along and provided the appropriate sources, so I consider the matter settled.
The matter that was 'settled' was your refusal to look for 'fringe-independent secondary sources' and, instead, erasing perfectly acceptable text.
I explained all this (noting that the new material was familiar to me. I didn't add it because of your edit-warring and was mulling just a revert of your removal) and what was your reply?

I still don't see where you explained why you didn't just fix the problem

The problem was your editing, which created a non-existent problem by expunging text whose presence in the secondary literature could be googled instantly- You expect others to fix a problem your erasive celerity creates. Please don't come back on this again. And in future, given this bad practice, notify the talk page before instinctively reverting. Propose here, don't make preemptive strikes on the text that opnly cause other editors either to abandon the page, or do the work you should do.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree about best practices and what is required by policy and guidelines. Seems to me quite arbitrary to hold exclusionist edits to a higher standard than inclusionist ones, especially when considering e.g. WP:ONUS. In any case, this behavioral discussion does not belong on the article's talk page. Take it to mine, or to a noticeboard if you feel obliged. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'within groups than between groups' paragraph

Is it significant or informative enough for inclusion in the 'background' section?

Stating the existence of (for example) a greater variation in heights within the sexes than between them wouldn't be of particular consequence when discussing the difference in average height between men and women.

A similar statement in the opening of this article doesn't provide much background for the topic of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

Perhaps elsewhere in the article, if at all? Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know the probability that a random man is taller than a random woman, you need the variation within the groups as well as the difference between the averages. So it isn't irrelevant if you want a fuller picture. The point being made is that the difference is just statistical and not deterministic. Zero^talk 13:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Race and IQ

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I do not believe this article is appropriate for wikipedias standards. I myself am Ashkenazi Jewish, but the idea of an ethnic group having a higher average IQ, based on questionable studies no less, is the basis of things like Nazism and fascism. Additionally, this article appears to be highly controversial based on the discussion on this talk page, so I have to ask, why?

Why does this wikipedia article even exist? Jacob Yaltov (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It exists because there was no consensus to delete it the last time it came up for debate. It's actually come up for debate several times. Welcome to one of Wikipedia's most contentious topic areas :-/ Generalrelative (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we have an article on a topic doesn't mean we like the topic. It only means that it is notable. We have plenty of articles on loathsome or crackpot theories. Our job is to report what reliable sources say about the topic, not to pass our own judgement on it. Zero^talk 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Yaltov WP:STANDARDS WP:N

Believe it or not, the bar to meet to be both notable enough for a wiki article and meet the editorial standards is not a very high threshold. Ideally, we should strive for the best work.

It's a bit inappropriate but with your statement that you were part of the ashkenazi diaspora it reminded of a meme my friend sent me, captioned, 'when you haven't been to shul since last year's high holidays' with a man saying, " Chag Sameach, My fellow Yids". Obviously, the guy isn't dressed properly for shul let alone in the days of awe.

That's the type of awkward energy I get because you don't need to say your are Ashkenazi or even Jewish. It's an uncomfortable subject. Subjects like this attract vandalism, you're account is new but if you stick around contentious articles or just look at edit history, you'll see it happens.

I'm not certain what way this article is going but I can tell you that it has changed a lot in just a few months. I think it is getting away from the genetics and more focusing on actual observations in academics and the and focusing on the different hypothesis that different institutions have put forward to explain the disproportionate representation of Ashkenazi Jews.

I'm pretty certain most people who edit this article don't like the starting premise of the topic, I know that this antisemitic trope exists and does not have a properly sourced place that acknowledges the observation and attempts to give a proper hypothesis for it like culture, social economic, and religious will leave a void to be filled by some antisemitic site unbeholden to any set of community guidelines.

RCSCott91 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up myself being of the Jewish diaspora because I do know people personally who are very prideful and I believe if I did not specify it would attract an accusation of antisemitism. With the recent conflict and contentions being high I will probably still attract an accusation of being a traitor or self hating by some in my community just for stating this. However, I don't actually believe that it would require someone Jewish to point out the same point I myself made. Jacob Yaltov (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Yaltov It sounds like you have all the incentive to make sure that an article like this doesn't become something unsavoury. I personally don't think helping to edit and stop vandalism (for example the antisemitic and fascist kind) on this articletentiousy consensus topic with honest intentions would make you a moser.

Wikipedia:Sources – SWOT analysis Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Note: trying to be reassuring is very hard when the edit summary says "/* Race and IQ */ Reply". Does the article still make reference to race because Ashkenazi and Jewish are both not Races. I thought that was removed. RCSCott91 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is being a bit semantic, when I said Race and IQ, I did that intentionally, because a good headline grabs attention, because that is a Nazi talking point. It doesn't matter if the ethnic group being talked about are Ashkenazi Jews this time.

Additionally, the mention of one not being a moser, so long as they fight back against the antisemitism of the article is not the point I was making at all. Additionally, I am not part of a religious Jewish community and never have been, neither were my parents, neither were my grandparents. I am simply of Ashkenazi Jewish descent on each side of my family, but I am from a secular community. So when I talk about this idea, as you put it moser, nobody in my family actually uses terms like that. What I a Jacob Yaltov (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason the rest of my reply got cut off. To finish the point, this is what I was going to say:when one brings up the idea of ethnic groups having a higher IQ, based on faulty studies, it is the same kind of pseudoscience the Nazis used(and still use) to claim themselves as superior. I also do not believe this is good even when a group which was marginalized in the past(ie Jews) do it themselves. Jacob Yaltov (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you please see WP:NOTFORUM. Although, I think RCSCott91 came in and left a long unnecessary comment that provoked this.

Jacob, you seem to think coverage on Wikipedia means endorsement of these ideas. That is not the case. The article attributes each perspective to its author, and provides a number of perspectives, e.g. cultural ones. It does not use WP:VOICE.

Please stop the back and forth. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]