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 delete.  Sandstein  17:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African IQ[edit]

African IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is not notable, is a pov-fork of Race and Intelligence, is a synthesis as the citations do not discuss African IQ, but are a collection of publications about specific measurements from different populations within Africa, with the article drawing these papers together, constituting original research Alun (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if the article is based on Malloy's view, where are the alternate views? Where is the proper attribution of this single view? Is this view even notable (how many reviews has this one paper from Malloy garnered? Are the views analyzed and echoed somewhere else? Are they taught in universities?) These are all questions which need answers. Otherwise, we're building a whole article based on a single paper.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You miss my point about Wicherts etc. Malloy is simply the latest to produce a nicely organized table. Moreover, NPOV issues are not relevant to AfD. It should be clear that this is notable. You'll note that I tried to leave several 'expand' templates to indicate the need for additional material. --Legalleft (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm raising issues about notability of the view. There is no evidence that Malloy's view is notable. It is not clear at all that this particular view is notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
African IQ isn't a notable topic? --Legalleft (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more than North American IQ, European IQ or Asian IQ are notable. Now, you don't see article about these, now, do you?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables themselves are taken directly from these papers rather than being "synthesized" by a WP editor. If this is true, then why don't the tables cite the sources you mention? I looked through the table and found a citation for an IQ of 50 for a group of 17 year olds in Gambia (citation no 49). When I checked the citation I found no mention of an IQ of 50, there was no mention of IQ at all the paper did not mention Africa as a whole. What I did find was a study of the utility of malarial prophilaxis during infancy.[1] Clearly this figure is not taken from the paper cited in this case. There is a significant problem with attribution in this case. Alun (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Intelligence test scores from sub-Saharan Africa[12]" see ref # 12, and so on. --Legalleft (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the paper cited for this figure of an IQ of 50, the paper cited does not give a figure for IQ at all.[2] Inappropriate attribution does not strengthen your case, it only makes it look like an attempt to portray the subject as more significant than it really is. The article is full of these inconsistencies. The section entitled "Average test scores" starts by claiming that "Intelligence test scores from large samples of Black Africans have been reported in the scientific literature for decades." How does this correlate with IQ? Not all "intelligence" tests measure IQ, and not all can be used to estimate IQ. As far as I can see, although the claim is perfunctorily true, IQ has not been routinely tested, but a single person has attempted to produce an estimate of "IQ" from a plethora of various tests, performed by numerous different organisations for a variety of different reasons over many decades with extremely differing methodologies often on war traumatised populations. This article seems to be little more than an attempt to introduce a single source by a single person who has written a paper for the sole purpose of supporting the racist comments of James Watson.[3] I don't see that as notable. Watson must be mortified that he has sunk so low that people like Rushton and Jensen are supporting him.[4] Starting an article for the sole purpose of promoting Watson's remarks and a single paper that supports him is not what editors on Wikipedia should be doing. Alun (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now it's notable because there are no books about it? Alun (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think Ramdrake was asking whether the topic isn't already covered by those articles, but I pointed out that those were book review articles, not topic articles, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge there. Indeed, the books are citation in this article (or should be if I forgot them). --Legalleft (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Ramdrake was saying is that there are articles where a map showing average IQ by state is appropriate, and there are articles where it is not. Clearly the articles he links to are appropriate for such a map, whereas "race" and intelligence is not. Alun (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was protesting the strawman argument which Legalleft seems to advance that this article is needed because inclusion of an "IQ by nation" map was turned down at Race and Intelligence. Otherwise, Alun is correct.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think African IQ should be discussed in Race and intelligence, and thus you recommend merging? Just as long as its not data collected at a national level??? --Legalleft (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "race" and intelligence should discuss the concept of "race" and how some scientists have claimed that "intelligence" varies between these socially constructed "races". As such it should provide evidence for both the existence or non-existence of biological "race" and also discuss what "intelligence" is, how it is measured, the various discussions regarding the validity of "intelligence tests" (and many scientists still hold the view that these tests are biased). Likewise it should discuss the published views of noted scientists who have commented on this. Currently the article expresses the views mainly of a sub-set of psychologists and ignores the views on "race" and "intelligence" (both as individual subjects and as a single subject) of a plethora of biologists and anthropologists. For example I note that the book "Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth" [5] is not cited a single time in the "R&I" article (I'd like to get hold of this, but at £75 it's a bit steep for me). Indeed when I added the views of several noted anthropologists and biologists regarding the validity of "biological race" to the introduction of the "race" and "intelligence" article Legalleft removed them and replaced them with psychologists,[6] who are not experts in human variation. Furthermore if any researchers have linked the "intelligence" of Africans to the "race" and "intelligence" debate, then these views belong in the "race" and "intelligence" article, there appears to be no clear reason for creating this content fork, the subject appears to have no notability outside of the "race" and "intelligence" debate. The reason for not supporting the maps produced at a state level is that the populations of states do not constitute "races", unless you are now claiming that African Americans are part of the same "race" as European-Americans, which I seriously doubt as this would undermine the arguments and sources for about 90% of the "race" and "intelligence" article. So yes, fundamentally the discussion of African "IQ" belongs in "race" and "intelligence" if a reliable source positions these arguments on a "racial" level. For example the data collected and included in the African IQ article don't cite sources about the IQ of Africans (see above). If Mallory has published these data in the context of "African IQ" and claimed that the populations sampled represent a coherent biological grouping (i.e. if Mallory claims that somehow all sub-Saharan Africans represent a biologically homogeneous group or "race" (an absurd notion in my personal view, but that's unimportant for the purposes of verifiability)) then yes the conclusions of these authors should be included in the "race" and "intelligence" article. As for why this is going through AfD instead of a merge on the talk page, it's because it will recieve a great deal more input from non-contributing editors here, so a better cross section of the community will be able to comment on the proposal. "African IQ" is a newly created and rather obscure article, as such a merge discussion on the talk page is unlikely to get much attention from the broader community. This has precedent within the community. Alun (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why would you vote to delete? IMO, the topic of African IQ can't get appropriate attention in the "race and intelligence" article just as "race and intelligence" can't get appropriate attention in the "race" article. I believe the talk page at "race and intelligence" backs up this contention, as shown by the snippets of talk I presented above. An article with more than 50 references is notable enough to stand on its own, even if it is summarized at "race and intelligence". --Legalleft (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the number of references in an article isn't a criterion of notability. According to Google scholar, the Mallory article (which is the basis for this article) is quoted all of 3 times in the scientific literature. I would say this is a sure indication of utter lack of notability. Also, most of your references are recopied directly from the Mallory article. I could write an article based on a science paper and cite all of its references to make it look well-referenced, but that doesn't make it any more notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A review article summarizes a topic, and thus the papers it cites are relevant. A paper published in 2008 isn't going to have been cited that many times. But a Google search for "African IQ" (no permutations) finds greater than 1000 hits. Moreover, the Malloy article is simply one of multiple reviews. The Wicherts PhD dissertation I pointed out to you is another recent publication. How much more notable does a topic need to get than several scholarly works and 4-digit Google hits? --Legalleft (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google will have several hits that are blogs (such as VDARE and others, and multiple hits from Wikipedia). A Google scholar search turns up onl 32 hits based on the same expression; far from notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32 scholarly articles is far from notable? Try taking the quotes off the search, or permuting for synonyms. This topic was the cover story of major newspapers last November. Perhaps if Watson had never mentioned it you would have a arguable case for lack of notability and merge into a higher-level article, but that event generated a huge amount of media quotes from scholars expressing their opinions about this specific topic. So some number between 32 and greater than 1000 is the notability in Google metrics. --Legalleft (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 32 scholarly articles mentioning the words "African IQ" in this order is far from notable. Taking the quotes of will search for anything related to African or IQ, and will give you tens of thousands of unrelated hits. Watson's spat of last November was a news event that came and went, and is hardly ever mentioned again now, except in discussions like this one. I still reiterate that the subject is not notable enough for its own article. Let's just wait and see how people feel about this AfD.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an article about something politically innocuous -- such as a random species of insect -- with similar citation stats, no one would dream of supporting an AfD. I don't see why psychometrics should be held to a different standard than lepidopterism. I've seen no arguments that support deletion on the merits, and I think you should reevaluate your vote. --Legalleft (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which a quick look at the authors of these 32 hits for google scholar shows that a large plurality are by Rushton (Rushton seven times in the first ten hits, ten times in the first twenty hits and fifteen times in the whole 32 hits [7]), with a great deal of overlap between the data. It hardly amounts to numerous independent publications and emphasises the fringe nature of the material, with the same names cropping up again and again. The weakness of the notability claim is highlighted by the article itself, it begins with the "Watson controversy", but James Watson is neither an expert of Africa nor an expert on cognitive ability. How do his comments display notability? The reaction to Watson's claims was incredulity and condemnation as simple ignorance. Alun (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal incredulity is not a notability criteria, per the talk page thread. --Legalleft (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no one claims it is. But the lack of authority of Watson is relevant. Alun (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being the former director of the Human Genome project, Watson publishes papers on the genetics of schizophrenia (last one earlier this year). You realize of course, that one of the first schizophrenia associated genes also is reported to affect IQ. He's very familiar with the psychometrics and behavior genetics literature, as you can tell from his latest book. --Legalleft (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watson's directorship of the HGP is not relevant to his authority regarding the population of Africa, neither is his expertise in schizophrenia. I think the point is that this article is almost entirely based on Watson's comments of last year and a couple of essays published in the journal Medical Hypotheses that have supported him.[8] [9] [10] Indeed the editor of this journal claims that scientific debate should not be stifled by political correctness, but Watson was not speaking in a scientific capacity, and was not presenting research he had conducted, he was giving personal opinion. Even Malloy's use of words is odd, "there is data (sic) to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors", well cancer is "influenced by genetic factors", but no one is claiming that smokers are genetically different to non-smokers. Some smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than others due to genetic variation in the population, some non-smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than other non-smokers. The correlation between smoking and cancer is not genetic, but we know that genes are involved in cancer susceptibility and that smoking is highly heritable (~70%).[11]. It's a very odd turn of phrase. The journal Medical Hypotheses seems to have a habit of publishing scientifically dubious opinion.[12] And it's editor seems to be a fully paid up member of the "poor people are poor because they are stupid" point of view.[13] All in all there's not much to make this notable, a couple of essays supporting Watson, published in an obscure journal does not make for a great deal of notability as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing the credentials of Watson w.r.t. expertise on behavior and genetics is ludicrous. I professionally know a lot about this topic, and I don't have the credentials Watson does. His arguments were published in his latest book, not simply reported in the news. Also, characterizing a field of research as consisting only of the unsupported opinions of secondary source review writers is ludicrous. That's like arguing that evolution is merely Richard Dawkins' opinion. The reason there are so many citations in this article is that there are so many primary sources. --Legalleft (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) (1) I didn't dismiss "the credentials of Watson w.r.t. expertise on behavior and genetics". You stated that he was a former director of the HGP and was an expert in schizophrenia, I pointed out that this article is not about the HGP or schizophrenia, your comment is simply irrelevant. Your comment was simply an appeal to authority, i.e. that we should "believe" him because he's a famous scientist, that's a logical fallacy. (2) Watson's entitled to his opinions, and of course because he's famous many people will read his book, but Watson's opinions are his opinions, let's not pretend that they have any more significance than that. He's entitled to his opinions, but Wikipedia is not here to present the personal opinions of famous scientists as if they were "facts". We can portray the professional opinions of famous scientists of course. (3) Furthermore I didn't characterise "a field of research as consisting only of the unsupported opinions", I said that Malloy's use of words seemed odd. Now I know why, it's because he has no understanding of this field because he's not an expert but an artist blogger on a racist website. (4) Please try to respond to what I say, in your post above you haven't. It's very hard to have a discussion when you keep claiming I have written something I clearly have not written. Alun (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (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.
More