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
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
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
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
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
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

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

Language disparity

The difference between the Hebrew version of this article and the English version is appalling.

There should be no issue in declaring that "Jewish intelligence" is a fact. There is clearly enough evidence and research to do so, since the Hebrew article is well formatted, well edited, lengthy, and provides plenty of statistics to back it up.

There is no rule against using sources written in other languages.

If the most developed and thorough version of the article has no issue calling it a "phenomenon" (תופעה), neither should the English article.

VNTRY (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different language Wikipedias have entirely different and independent sets of rules and policies, so the contents of the Hebrew Wikipedia page really have no bearing here. Any change or proposed change to this page must be based on reliable sources alone (which, as you correctly note, can be in any language) and within the bounds of English Wikipedia's policies and contentious topic procedures. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of either Wikipedias have nothing to do with the subject of an article, only the content of it.

There are mountains of studies, statistics, examples, theories, and comments in one language. None of which are even mentioned in the English version.

The statistical likelihood that none of these sources meet the standard of the English Wikipedia is almost zero.

Contentiousness aside, If Israelis and other Hebrew speakers can find the sources to create an article over 141,000 bytes in size, then there's absolutely zero reason why the English page can only manage 23,000 of unrelated information.

VNTRY (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to expand the article, you are encouraged to do so. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I intended to expand it, I would have.

There's a reason why I put it in "Talk" instead, and that reason is evident if you read the rest of the topics.

My point is that true impartiality is indifferent to reality, and there's two drastically different realities being told on two different sides of the same website.

If anyone discussing this article, similar articles, or arbitrating the rules actually believes in the doctrine of accessible and impartial information, they should show it.

There's information relating to this article that requires nuance to understand, but hiding it from those who might misinterpret it doesn't make anyone morally superior. It's a weakness of will that is consistently taken advantage of by the ideological.

VNTRY (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused - we seem to be talking around the subject rather than about it. What, specifically, do you think should be in the article that isn't currently in the article? AntiDionysius (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the big picture. I should have been more direct.

I don't think anything should be added to the article. At least nothing specific.

This is indicative of a greater issue that exists throughout Wikipedia, but this article is the worst I've ever seen.

There's so many issues in this article that make it irrecoverable in its current form. It doesn't really say anything, and the little it does say is obscurant so as to not contradict the initial suggestion that "Jewish intelligence" is purely a stereotype and not statistically proven. I understand why this is, but it means nothing when anyone with google translate can find a much more informative page.

How exactly is it helpful to Jewish stereotypes if the Hebrew article is much more informative then the English one? This is the type of thing that Anti-Semites look to for excuses.

Instead of arguing whether this article should exist, people should be arguing about how to make it helpful.

With that in mind, obscurantism isn't the solution to preventing ignorance. People looking for an answer will find it in the first place that gives it to them. The least we can do is offer an empirical interpretation, instead of pretending the data is something that it isn't.

VNTRY (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the article can be improved, and that there is some systemic issue on Wikipedia (I would be interested to know what this issue is?) then I don't really know what discussion here on this talk page is going to produce.

Wikipedia can't "offer an empirical interpretation" of anything, though. We don't ever do analysis of our own; we can only quote the interpretations and analysis of others. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson Paper

Here is a paper that seems relevant, "The Anti-Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence", which argues against the scientific racialist positions of Cochran etc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273369474_How_Jews_Became_Smart_Anti-Natural_History_of_Ashkenazi_Intelligence Skllagyook (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]