The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page belongs in Wikipedia for several reasons. First of all, on its own it lacks the context and additional information necessary to be useful. Here it's just a list from which the reader is left to just draw whatever conclusions they want without regard for what it actually means. Such a list would be far more useful if integrated into an existing article, such as Race and intelligence. However, this list has one other major problem. It draws the IQ's from a number of different sources. Each source almost certainly varies widely with regards to what the sampling methods and IQ tests it uses were, which means that the results of each source can not be compared in this manner without inherent inaccuracy. A list like this does nothing but result in completely erroneous and misleading conclusions and is in fact utterly useless. Comparing the IQ's from different studies in this manner comes very close to original research. A new list could be created in the context of the above mentioned article if all the IQs were drawn from one source, but this list as it stands is not at all independently notable, accurate, or verifiable. Dycedarg ж 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE An alternative format of this list/chart is presented at
Talk:IQ by ancestry (this is an unsourced example of an alternate format) Sourced as of --
Kevin Murray 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)). Among the options discussed below are: (1) keep the exisiting article, (2) merge the existing article to
Race and intelligence, (3) develop a format that is more objective and does not border on primary research and then merge that into
Race and intelligence, and (4) delete the whole concept. --
Kevin Murray
07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page belongs in Wikipedia for several reasons. First of all, on its own it lacks the context and additional information necessary to be useful. Here it's just a list from which the reader is left to just draw whatever conclusions they want without regard for what it actually means. Such a list would be far more useful if integrated into an existing article, such as Race and intelligence. However, this list has one other major problem. It draws the IQ's from a number of different sources. Each source almost certainly varies widely with regards to what the sampling methods and IQ tests it uses were, which means that the results of each source can not be compared in this manner without inherent inaccuracy. A list like this does nothing but result in completely erroneous and misleading conclusions and is in fact utterly useless. Comparing the IQ's from different studies in this manner comes very close to original research. A new list could be created in the context of the above mentioned article if all the IQs were drawn from one source, but this list as it stands is not at all independently notable, accurate, or verifiable. Dycedarg ж 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE An alternative format of this list/chart is presented at
Talk:IQ by ancestry (this is an unsourced example of an alternate format) Sourced as of --
Kevin Murray 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)). Among the options discussed below are: (1) keep the exisiting article, (2) merge the existing article to
Race and intelligence, (3) develop a format that is more objective and does not border on primary research and then merge that into
Race and intelligence, and (4) delete the whole concept. --
Kevin Murray
07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply