The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think a 3rd relisting will bring us any closure to a consensus decision so I'm closing this now. I feel more confident in this closure as there are experienced editors currently working on improving this article.

But if I might offer my own opinion, I don't recommend a Merge with Race and intelligence as that article includes no mention of Judaism and, as I stated below, one can not consider one branch of Judaism, "Ashkenazi Jewish", to be considered a "race". Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Merge into IQ and race
Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.
I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:
  • Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
  • It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
  • Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any confusion, I changed my vote to Delete discussing with folks below Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani is right. We need to stop WP:TNT like the past few AfDs, and address the issue head on that we should still avoid WP:PROFRINGE while still recognizing this is clearly notable, even if the sourcing is biased.
IDK if i wanna vote delete or keep at this point. Maybe this article still deserves to be WP:TNT, but we should try to get to an actual consensus that leads to a real article.
Maybe this should just be called Jewish Intelligence Theory or Jewish Intelligence Stereotype. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, agreed.
Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I guess I could have been less sassy. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?
It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tally results from previous AfDs.
1) [2] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps
2) [3] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability
3) [4] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right
4) [5] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?
5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [[6]]
6) [7] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.
7) [[8]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.
all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps it would've been more definitive to use a clean slate for this instead of what I did for this nomination, but our time on Earth is limited, and rehashing this discussion didn't seem worthwhile. If anyone is coming here who doesn't know the history of this general topic on Wikipedia, maybe start with Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. The gist is that Wikipedia holds these articles to a high standard for a variety of reasons, based many years of history and tedious discussion. Sources need to be high-quality, and context needs to be provided, and right now this article fails to do that. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging. Here's what I see in the six previous discussions:
  • Two discussions were from 2007. Many comments focused on notability. I don't know how strong Wikipedia's RS and NPOV rules were back then. Their combined interpretation at WP:FRINGE was just reaching guideline-level consensus at the time.
  • The next three don't really count: they were speedy'd because the nominators didn't do their job of connecting their rationales to Wikipedia policies.
  • The last, in 2020, was closed as TNT only. It did not come to a conclusion about whether another article at the title could be acceptable.
There are many good comments in the previous discussions, but their closing results have limited bearing on the delete reasons we are discussing today. Jruderman (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Would it help to invite more editors to this discussion? I believe it would be considered nonpartisan to post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, on Talk:Race and intelligence because we're continuing discussions from there, or on talk pages of not-yet-explicitly-ruled-out smerge targets: Gregory Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews, History of the race and intelligence controversy. Or on the talk pages of participants in the previous AfDs (perhaps just those who are extended-confirmed and still active). Jruderman (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you want.
I would strongly oppose merging to Cochran's article for multiple reasons, so if anyone wants to actually propose that we can discuss in more detail. Any other article would still have to summarize reliable, independent sources. Right now the article is mostly journalistic opinions, and some of these are fringe sources, as well. This seems undue for a topic as broad as Ashkenazi Jews. With better sources it would be easier to evaluate where to merge. With any merge, the goal isn't "how do we preserve this content" it's "how do we proportionately and neutrally summarize this topic?" Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing section at Gregory Cochran could use some contextualization or rebuttal, but looking at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence again, I don't see anything worth moving to the Cochran article. Jruderman (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the slightly-better section at Henry Harpending regarding the same paper. Jruderman (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reasons given in Liz's comments at the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've sent info about the discussion to WP:FT/N
Of note, there has been no noticeable improvement to the article in the past two weeks, and much of it remains citations of fringe sources, and debunks/reactions of the fringe sourcing, which probably is still too much WP:PROFRINGE to be worth keeping. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is out there, and it has been held in the press, in synagogues, and before a sold-out audience at the Center for Jewish History in New York City’(Pinker 2005) Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20140-5 p.178

This is a 19th century myth, recycled because developments in genetics, and a number of provisory results, led to attempts to repackage it on empirical grounds, transforming a negative stereotype into a positive typecasting. So in terms of intellectual history it merits coverage; it terms of widespread diffusion it deserves a comprehensive, astringently neutral analysis per sources like Sander Gilman, our preeminent expert in this kind of argument (Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, University of Nebraska Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-803-27069-5)
So symptomatic fits of nervous nellydom are quite out of place, certainly in a deletion argument. A topic that has a large range of secondary sources, that has stirred scientific and public controversy; that is widely misinterpreted; marked by conceptual clumsiness by its promotors and anxieties by its critics, obviously requires an encyclopedic entry. What we have is pathetic (too much edit-warring, not very informed or competent, but there is a real opportunity here to make a very good article based on high quality sources. In such cases, deletion is sheer laziness, an invitation to relax in shiftless torpor rather than creatively rise to a challenge when the alternative is simply hard, focused work reconstructing it in terms of contemporary scholarly commentary.Nishidani (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good article about this topic maybe could be written, but the problem is that the current version is so fundamentally bad that it would require essentially rewriting from scratch, and the article would be subject to endless POV pushing that would ultimately degrade it to an unacceptable quality. I am also not finding any good sources on this topic other than the Gilman book. I think a section should probably be added to Stereotypes of Jews, which if warranted could be expanded into a full article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version that existed before it was hacked to pieces. What we are looking at is the article after it was bombed by excisions. Gilman's is not the only book. The whole 2005 controversy eventually generated a thesis about modernity in Norman Lebrecht, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 ISBN 978-1-982-13422-8. The problem is that few wikipedians statistically appear to edit articles in extenso, but nearly every wikipedian is interested in talk page comments.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that Wikipedia editors have decided many of the available sources about Ashkenazi intelligence fail the requirements of WP:RS policy. That's why they keep being removed. Some examples from the time of the previous AFD are the edit summaries here and here. This way of understanding RS policy is one of the aspects of the topic that's been receiving media attention, most recently on Richard Dawkins' Twitter. And it's what will have to be addressed before there can be a well-sourced article about this topic. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that second source is apparently neoconservative biased as per the wikipedia entry. richard dawkins twitter is also not relevant for establishing reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article had previously been deleted before, and ive been curious about the sourcing of much of the previous version of the article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two options. A stub or poorly worked article can be removed/erased/expunged. When you do that, the topic itself as an encyclopedic entry disappears. No passing eyes will be tyempted to improve what isn't there. Or, one can look at the RS, ascertain if the topic is noteworthy (it is) and improve it. I've done this several times at AfD, and, in several hours, once the article is placed on a strong footing, the AfD is dropped. So the real issue is, is the topic noteworthy? (See below. It is). If so, then why make the article disappear rather than roll up one's sleeves and imprtove it. Just consistently removing stuff, and not replacing it with better sourcing, is bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following don't fail RS and deal with the issue, and reminding editors that an abundant literature on the topic exists will not change this negative vote, and therefore I, for one, anm not going to waste time over several hours to show how the article can be rapidly rewritten into a near GA articled (because it will be erased). I don't know how many were used in the past and erased, but anyone, anyone can see at a glance that the topic is very well documented in RS.
Apparently in deletion discussions, evidence (that this quick summary of easily googled sources) doesn't matter.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, going off what you suggested, the last AfD was advocating for WP:TNT. The deletionists did not advocate that the topic wasn’t notable.
I still have some questions about some of the sourcing or presenting this uncritically, but its def notable.
I will say, much of the secondary sourcing here is a part of that discredited 2005 study. I would much rather have an article discussing this topic as to a stereotype for a model minority than trying to do pseudoscience to promote racial science. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like more sourcing about the ethics of this science, the stereotypes effects, etc.
As we have a week’s time, I might try my hand at adding more to this article again. ty nishidani! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. It's true that google throws up a lot around the 2005 article, but, if the idea illustrated in one version by an article that fails to convince its peer community gets traction, we should cover it. If only in order to allow readers quick access to what the best scholarship says about it. I think on of wikipedia's function is to elbow out meme replication, i.e.,by eluciding per secondary sources what some controversial idea states, and its reception history. This, per several scholars, goes deeper than that 2005 study however, and Gilman is a superb source on its historical context - things like the envy, resentment and rancour felt by many at what was, in large effect, the implementation of a Protestant work ethic in a rising non-Christian minority of the population.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I remain completely open-minded about this issue. I wouldn't exclude a priori that there are populations which, statistically, appear to display a significant, on average, higher IQ (and that is a relative definition of intelligence: I recall reading in 1965 a study that suggested poets did poorly in them) than other contiguous groups. Some communities have a markedly higher longevity than their neighbours. In both cases, it does not mean that, Ashkenazi are all more intelligent by genetic endowment, or that Sardinians are all stocked with better longevity genes. In any such population dumb schmucks or those who die prematurely before the national average will abound. I don't believe one should feel intimidated or uneasy about any kind of high order research that appears to upset the applecart of our common democratic beliefs in equality, which is a legal ideal, not a biological reality.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishindani, I'm just checking back in on this discussion, and I see that you've provided some excellent sources. I would object to calling e.g. Charles Murray or Nicholas Wade reliable secondary sources on this topic, and from a quick glance some of the sources you list don't appear to discuss the topic directly, e.g. Norman Lebrecht's Genius & Anxiety, despite what one might surmise from the title. But other sources like Nadia Abu El Haj and Sander Gilman look good. Whether this should redound to a "Keep" or a redirect to Stereotypes of Jews as Hemiauchenia suggests, I'm not yet sure. I'll look into the sources some more before deciding whether and how to revise my !vote, but in any case I thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that that Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade are not RS on the topic of intelligence. I don't think the "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" is particularly reliable either, given the controversial associations of its authors. For a contentious topic like this we would really want to look to academic sources rather than to newspapers which tend to be less reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not only is "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" primary, it's unambiguously WP:FRINGE per the established consensus on race and intelligence. We can still mention it in article space of course, but only to the degree that it's discussed in reliable WP:FRIND / WP:SECONDARY sources. Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edit a number of pages I think explain nutter hypotheses, e.g.Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, a few of us reedited that after doing the FA Shakespeare Authorship Question which outlines the near total academic orthodoxy, which was less familiar to readers than the bizarre literature that pullulated concerning alternative candidates.
My principle is, since these ideas, be they nutter, lunatic fringe, minor, or theories of some passing scientific curiosity since fallen into desuetude, for our readers it is important to provide comprehensive coverage, if only to ensure that global readers whgo google are not sucked into the crap universe. This is one of wiki's fundamental functions, and it should do it neutrally, without any intimidation, anxiety, reserve, or personal intrusions of one's private, or even well-founded (a disciplinary consensus) judgments on where the 'approximate truth' might lie. I don't think much of Nicholas Wade, for example, but his negative review of the Khazar hypothesis got major support from most editors, and I didn't object - he was part of the discourse at that time, even though his grasp of molecular biology, despite his degree, was mediocre. He, like Murray, has a wikibio, and has a certain prominence in public discussions of these matters, so applying highbar RS, something rarely done, that excludes anyone but the foremost experts in a particular subject, is dangerous, because we miss coverage that has influence on public perceptions. This is not a 'science' article where only cutting edge experts get a say. It is an article that covers the claims to the possible existence of ethnic differentials in intelligence made by people who have qualifications in the area, though their views are not mainstream, but also of the way this controversy was taken up by the broad mainstream outlets (ergo impacting public memory and opinions). That is why such figures are acceptable, just as in scholarly terms, incompetents like William Farina and Mark Anderson were used as sources on the Oxford Shakespeare page, also because they have or had a public profile. This is not just about what science says of the scientific status of a dubious theory, but about how it arose, who promote(s)d it, what its (a) scientific reception and (b) public impact was/has been. The truth/science plays very little part of public discourse which battens on memes and dumbdowned ideas. So it is of fundamental importance that we address not only the science of the world, but the vast extent of the confusions in the public sphere which occlude our clear perception of what the cusp of learning might say. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this at all, so long as we observe the WP:FRINGE guideline. In the case of Wade for instance, it will be important to remember that e.g.:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

Generalrelative (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clear up some confusion here.
  • (a) the article deals with some results, reliably published in the relevant scientific journals, that suggested on average Ashkenazi had a higher IQ than comparable groups in their societies.
  • (b) Some spun this as proof of a racial difference
  • (c) Some said the observed differences could be explained by specific cultural factors, etc.
Are editors here contending that the scientific data in (a) are incorrect, or the result of skewed methods or that the data constitute fringe facts, whatever they are, that (b) can be shown to exist ergo the topic (a,b,c) should be ignored as fringe or (c) we can ignore (b) because there is an alternative explanation, culture, that accounts for the apparently ascertained statistical results of a number of surveys in (a). My impression is that almost all comments here are focused on (b) and ignoring the status (in the academic literature) of (a) and (c). If so, the article will be deleted, and we shall never have a wiki article on (a) and (b) and (c), simply because of a failure to distinguish the elements in a complex narrative.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And honestly, thanks for your patience in laying it out. I have to get back to work but will strike my !vote for now. I need to look into the literature quite a bit more before I can fully engage with you on the substance of the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That it a very empirical approach to these problematical articles, and deeply appreciated (whatever your eventual vote may be). Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, especially on something as politically charged and with such a historical pseudoscientific record as race and intelligence.
A fairly ridiculous amount of “scientific literature” from the 1800s and early 1900s has promoted eugenics, and equally presenting discredited theories and current scientific consensus goes against the principles of WP:DUE. If public discourse goes off a cliff, and sourcing starts to do Alternate facts, we should be able to debate and reason on here which sourcing is WP:rsp and which are based on bunk. We should not freely present bunk without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern is entirely reasonable, but this is precisely why we have the WP:FRINGE guideline. So long as we stick to it, we will avoid the pitfalls you describe. Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remain skeptical of science being used to advocate for stereotypes, for good reason as well. like generalRelative states, there are charlatans in this field who have polluted a lot with poorly done science to advocate for stereotypes, and extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof before we present too much of it without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluethricecreamman, please absolutely stop these kinds of general appeals from now on; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is very clear about this.
We must work with reliable scholarly literature of all kinds.
In fact, you may want to strike(through) these two comments above! Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. see Sagan standard but primary research requires vetting by the scientific consensus. and even if some pop sci folks publish that ivermectin is the next cure for covid or that vitamin c does cure cancer, we should beware.
didnt see generalrelatibe but they’re right about following wp:fringe Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been allowed to get 'into good shape' because of relentless excisions. Anyone could put the article 'in good shape' were the deletionist impetus less relentless so that it could be improved.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many potential sources for this topic. I've looked at plenty of those sources, including some of the new ones proposed above. Some of them are reliable in some contexts, and some are not reliable at all. The Cochran etc. source is about race, genetics, and IQ. Cultural factors are discussed in simplistic terms as background for theories on Jewish genetic drift. Cochran etc. categorized this form of intelligence as a genetic trait specific to a subgroup of a Jews, who are treated by the authors as biologically separate from other populations -that's the point. There is a LOT to unpack here, but again, all of this has already been unpacked on Wikipedia talk pages more times than anyone can count. To quote Sander Gilman: "Take Home Message: Don't confuse racial categories with scientific ones. Don't assume that making 'positive' comments about a group is necessarily a good thing."(PMID 22013349) If the article is going to be about Cochran etc. than it should be rewritten from scratch to be about this paper, including context (such as Henry Harpending#Racial views). If this topic isn't just about Cochran etc., than it's about "Jewish smartness". That reduces this to either trivia or to a stereotype, and both of those are a better explained and contextualized elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2024 (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.
Category