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 merge to Environment and intelligence. I am redirecting the page, and leave the merger to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IQ testing environmental variances[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POV fork that represents the "environmentalist" perspective in the race and intelligence debate. However, there is no need for an article like this, because both environmentalist and genetic viewpoints can be and are discussed at length in the main article. In fact, most if not all views expressed in this article can be found in the main article, too. If there's any worthwhile material in this article that is not already covered in the main article, it can and should be copied there.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to Environment and intelligence, and/or one of the many other articles related to this subject, as suggested on the article talk page per WP:BEFORE. -Atmoz (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about environmental contributions to group differences, whereas Environment and intelligence does not touch that specific topic. If the article is to be merged with some other one, it should be Race and intelligence from which it was originally cut & pasted, as noted on the talk page. Moreover, there's no reason to retain the article as a redirect page as its title is not closely related to its contents and is in fact pretty much meaningless.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Merge to Environment and intelligence - there is no reason that article shouldn't cover the relation between environment and individual differences, indeed it seems logical that it would. Thereis material in the article that is well sourced and is not covered in either of the mentioned candidates for merger. Deletion is not a good idea.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following is a comprehensive list of arguments presented in the article. I have marked with an R those arguments that are already included in Race and intelligence:

1. Jencks & Phillips: B-W gap thought to be innate due to "labeling bias"

2. one author lists >100 possible non-genetic explanations of B-W gap [this is based on an unpublished article[1], and should therefore not be cited in Wikipedia]

3. Af-Am culture, caste effects, or stereotype threat could cause the gap R

4. schizophrenia has become more prevalent in second- and third-generation immigrants in Western Europe (???)

5. many say that race is a cultural category R

6. ancient and medieval Mediterraneans disparaged the intelligence of Northern Europeans

7. micronutrient deficiencies, diseases, and toxic materials may depress IQ scores in the developing world R

8. breastfeeding may cause B-W differences in IQ R

9. Flynn effect could have implications for B-W gap R

10. skin color correlations, self-reported ancestry, IQs of mixed race people, intervention and adoption studies, and blood groups as possible evidence against genetic B-W differences R

11. Fryer & Levitt: no racial IQ difference in infants

12. effect of childhood environment on IQ may have gone undetected because of deficient tests

As can be seen, most of these arguments are already discussed in Race and intelligence, and of the rest many are unallowable or irrelevant. Which, if any, of these remaining arguments do you think should be added to Environment and intelligence? Would Race and intelligence not be a more appropriate article? I suggest that relevant material be moved to R&I, and this article be deleted. Note that merging means that the old article becomes a redirect page -- what is the point in retaining a redirect page named IQ testing environmental variances which is a more or less meaningless expression?--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with relevant pages. ScienceApe 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even tell what this article is supposed to be about. Its title sounds similar to Environment and intelligence (supposed to be a duplicate maybe?) but its talk page says the content was copy/pasted from Race and intelligence. If it should be merged into another article, it should be race and intelligence since that is where the content came from. I don't feel a merge is reasonable though, since all of the article's worthwhile content is already in r&i and its title doesn't really mean anything.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 03:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a POV fork comprised entirely of content copied from another article, almost all of which is still in the article it was copied from (in substance, even if not word-for-word). This article serves no useful purpose on Wikipedia.Boothello (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or if there is no unique content in the article, delete. When we disagree on article content, we go to dispute resolution. We don't start creating new articles (aka POV forks) about the same content. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 19 February 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.