Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence and public policy

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and public policy

Highly charged POV couched in calm language, unlikely to ever be NPOV, and original research. Aaron Brenneman 02:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic personal essay. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to keep. Not knowing much about the subject, I assumed this was an original essay. It probably does need cleanup for possible original research, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is not a personal essay, but rather a planned expansion of the related material in the intelligence, IQ, and race and intelligence articles. All of the material in this article is from published scholarly work. A similar VfD recently failed. --Rikurzhen 02:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me....? Keep. Dcarrano 02:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Acceptable. Not original research. DarthVader 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, doesn't seem to have anything seriously wrong with it. Jaxl 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article needs a thorough POV check but is a valid topic. Kaibabsquirrel 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was using the phrase "original research" as per No original research with regards to 'synthesizes work in a non-standard way' as well as 'introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article'. It, in conjunction with the other article Race and intelligence by this same author that recently passed VfD, begin to present a disturbing trend that seems to violate Not a soapbox. Please note that the above the fold here contains, "A large body of research indicates that intelligence varies between individuals and, to a lesser extent, between racial groups." How is that relevant to this article? Why has the author chosen to include that? This article is well written and referenced, but that is not the criterion for inclusion. Perhaps I am being melodramatic, perhaps I'm not demonstrating faith. But I highly recomend that anyone who choses to vote on this make a careful reading of the text, examine other contributions by this user (and by me, for that matter) and think carefully before you vote. Just as you should do every time, of course. Aaron Brenneman 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I saw it, the reason the reference to racial groups is made is because IQ tests seem to favor certain racial groups; thus, policy that is based on IQ scores is going to run into racial discrimination problems. I definitely think that it's POV to say "intelligence varies between racial groups," as this implies that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, which is far from an accepted fact. But, putting POV issues aside as of course is appropriate in VfD discussion, I do believe an NPOV article on this subject is possible, just like it is possible with Race and intelligence. Probably a nightmare to actually make it happen, but, oh well. We have to believe in the process. Dcarrano 04:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's right; race is only mentioned because it is a primary topic in the debate, has been a subject of two Civil Rights Acts and a Supreme Court decision, and remains an active area of cognitive research and policy debate today. While I cannot countenance Aaron's suspicion, I do support his prescription. Read carefully. --DAD T 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not original research if it describes published scholarly work, which the material in this article is. Check the references. This professor has written pretty extensively on this topic. --Rikurzhen 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the topic, the writing is sourced and better than most such articles, and even if what is presumably being targeted as objectionable is deleted or modified encyclopedic content would remain. -EDM 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose, there's probably a Wiki-article in this. Note however, that merely including a list of references doesn't count. The text and the claims in it need to be related directly to one or more of those references. References are not for saying "look, I'm not the only one doing this so let me have an article", they are for saying "look, this is a verifiable fact, and it comes from here". -Splash 04:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem, I read it again. For the most part, the claims are from the references. Not in the whole part though, but that's no worse than most articles we have here. Still, my point about references is true, imho. -Splash 04:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't contribute to this article, but I notice it's only 2 hours old, so we can probably expect tightening up of the finer points in the future. --Rikurzhen 04:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Definately needs a POV cleanup tho. -mysekurity 05:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is brand-new, concerns a subject that is widely researched, and will benefit from Wikipedia community efforts. Disclaimer: I drafted the article. --DAD T 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Interesting topic. JamesBurns 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Hiding 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly encyclopedic, if edited somewhat. Strong keepDjadek 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is an article entitled Intelligence and public policy encyclopedic? I could write a huge article on the stregths and weaknesses of policy issues from government's around the world, and the intelligence involved in creating them, but that's way too broad. The title is broad and meaningless. Unencyclopedic. Hiding 18:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is about intelligence as a subject of public policy, not the role of intelligence in crafting public policy. --Rikurzhen 18:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Your description is way too broad. The scope of the article is much narrower than your comment suggests. The article, a planned expansion of related material in other articles as indicated in the second vote above, focuses explicitly on public policies which specifically regard intelligence testing (e.g. employment law and disparate impact), intelligence measures (e.g. execution of low-IQ criminals), or correlates for which a significant and specific debate exists regarding the role of intelligence (e.g. achievement gaps and No Child Left Behind). The article's title reflects the commonly used terms; that it can be read too broadly is a common problem with titles, and misunderstanding should be quickly dispatched by the article's content, which is quite focused. --DAD T 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. The title is broad and meaningless, and so unencyclopedic, and the content POV or at best poorly mistitled, since many states do not even entertain execution and all the examples seem to be U.S. based. The content would thus still be unencyclopedic as surely it's a thesis. Hiding 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Restriction to US is hardly grounds for deletion. Specific policies cited in the article are US-only yet have their own WP pages. "...since many states do not even entertain execution" -- this is a red herring, since the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue and created a US-wide law. "Surely its a thesis" -- given the citations, one can verify quite easily that it's not a thesis. WP editors are invited to do so. The charge of POV is of course fair, though as many voters have noted, need for POV cleanup does not imply need for deletion. Similarly, the request for a more specific title and the vote to delete seem quite disparate. --DAD T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seriously espect me to believe a thesis doesn't cite? And there's no disparity. Delete and start again. Hiding 07:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though needs some editing with an eye to NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was leaning towards keep until I actually read the article. What a bunch of speculative, mis-informed, US-centric tripe. Definately NOT encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Which parts are you referring to? --Rikurzhen 21:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Try these: All military recruits take the Armed Forces Qualification Test, what, everywhere? and The present article covers particular policies and policy areas, generally in the US. A self referring article as well no less. Also, at the very least it has to be Western in bias, and therefore unencyclopedic, since the scope of the article's title will not allow anything less than a broad meaningless overview of all policies, all government and all examinations of intelligence. The only true content on this page would surely have to be something akin to some people think public policy in some parts of the world is designed to discriminate in some way on the issue of intelligence, which may possibly be measured in certain ways, but then again may not, and other people may disagree, whilst in other parts of the world people don't even recognise these as issues. Hiding 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which part of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy does that satisfy? Maybe you'd like to opt for an NPOV tag/discussion instead. --Rikurzhen 23:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • "The only true content on this page"...fascinating. I stipulate that the Supreme Court rulings, the discussion of disparate impact, the No Child Left Behind law, the quote from Murphy, the citations attributed to Gottfredson, the statement regarding cognitive ability testing's status as the single best predictor of job performance, the reference to the theory of situational specificity, and the statement regarding the AFQT (when properly restricted to the US military) are all verifiable, among (many) others. Please, don't take my word for it; verify. Moreover, the claim that an article must cover all policies, all governments and all examinations of intelligence is pure opinion (and prima facie difficult to swallow, IMHO); WP policy stipulates no such thing. The article is the proper place for material on other countries' policies as well. As the article is roughly 24 hours old, it can hardly be faulted for being a bit drafty. You're invited to flesh it out -- verifiably, of course. --DAD T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, some of these statements regardless of their verifiability need to be limited or qualified in various ways. For instance, the statement that cognitive ability testing is the single best predictor of job performance: what were the other predictors against which it was tested? Obviously, not all possible ones. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
            • That's true. In this case the statement is part of a direct quote. Also, similar statements appear widely in the literature (and the Hunter and Hunter paper cited is among the seminal primary references for it); the statement represents the consensus position among experts. Perhaps the tweak you're looking for is "best single predictor known" which for experts is perhaps implicit. For the curious (and this is not meant to be a defense of the article, only a response to the comment) cognitive ability testing has been compared to job interviews, job experience, biographical inventory, education, age, personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, and a host of other predictors; in most cases, and particularly for medium- to high-complexity jobs, nothing else comes close to IQ testing in predictive validity. --DAD T 15:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgruntled Keep. I don't like this article, but don't feel up to becoming a part of the monstrosity of an edit war I forsee happening, but anyway my call's that it's not original research, and that's really the only thing from the deletion policy that I think would cover this. The Literate Engineer 04:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, here's a big serve of humble pie, fresh from the oven: I made a mistake. This was not a valid nomination for deletion. As it is rude to talk with your mouth full, I'll stop talking now. Aaron Brenneman 06:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a very important topic. Can and has been studied scientifically, like in the Copenhagen Consensus. Is extremely centered on the US right now, which should be corrected, if possible. There should also be much more emphasis on the many ways in which IQ scores may be improved, especially in the developing world. Ultramarine 20:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those not watching the page, significant non-US content has been added recently in the Health and Nutrition section. --DAD T 18:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm clueless as to how a VfD is closed out. It appears that active discussion has largely wound down and that consensus has emerged. I cannot speak for other editors, but I am grateful for the helpful comments; the article is already better for them. --DAD T 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They get evaluated by an admin and closely periodically. --Rikurzhen 23:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic carefully and articulated explored, if in a somewhat POV way. carmeld1 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: This could become a very useful reference article, a hallmark of what the Wikipedia is all about. The issue strikes to the heart of matters related to man-made disasters and the Peter principle. So long as public administrators continue to veer toward 'no child left behind'-esque lowest common denominator policies, then all the more thought provoking counterbalances need to be added. David Keirsey has found slight IQ differences along the four parameters of temperament, and it might be noted that the non-linear conjunctive traits, INFP, are the ones his research found to have to one to three point higher IQs, in comparison to the more linear, disjunctive traits, ESTJ. The upshot is that education and politics tend towards anti-intellectual discrimination against those who find it uncomfortable to toe the establishment line. Ombudsman 04:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cryptoracist POV. 172 12:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, that a very unhelpful opinion. In the U.S. population, most variation in IQ occurs (1) within familes and (2) between families of the same race and social class. Claiming that discussion of this topic is racist is like claiming that a discussion of poverty is racist. --Rikurzhen 23:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Intelligence research doesn't intrinsically qualify for deletion. Nectarflowed T 01:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Please cleanup and head the topic so the article's import is apparant at its outset. Amicuspublilius 23:07, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intelligence_and_public_policy&oldid=1080176523"