Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 19 May 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buckinghamshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Controversy

This section is heavily biased. "Genetic determinism" is a loaded term usually used by critics of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Critics use the term pejoratively to describe figures such as E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and none of whom are generally considered fringe scientists. Wilson, for example, has never considered himself a "genetic determinist", and instead has insisted that human nature is the result of culture working on a biology that "channels" it, or keeps it on a "genetic leash". In other words, genes predispose humans to certain behaviours, but do not rigidly determine them. Nicholas Wade holds a similar position. I would attempt to rewrite the section more neutrally (both perspectives, including those who support Wade), but unfortunately I do not have the time at the present; I have simply added a template for now. Hayden120 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "genetic determinism" is used just once and attributed to its source, Marks, which is how it's properly done. The controversy section is weighted too much to Marks but he should be properly identified as anthropologist and geneticist, given the juxtaposition with Wade's quote that follows Marks views.

The section needs work, but note how Wade's quote is cherry picked from an article showing Marks has a lot of company in his opinions of Wade-that's no way to "balance" things. And there's just a single statement there now referring to Wade's opinions of sociobiology -per WP:Coatrack the article needs to keep its focus on Wade (who is a journalist) and not wander off into broader debate over sociobiology itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The section looks like it was written by Marks himself. At the very least, someone should put up a disputed neutrality warning. 70.197.84.231 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages being used for self-promotion

Who is Jonathan M. Marks, and what does he have to do with the NY Times writer? Posing as information about a general dispute with certain of Wade's writings Mr. Marks or his amanuensis is merely drawing attention to himself. "In other news Kevin Federline said Vanilla Ice's music sucks." Housewares (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ii removed the criticism from Jonathan M. Marks since the source was self-published (blogspot). Such sources shall not be used about living persons per WP:BLPSPS. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

TFair enough--if Marks had a notable involvement with the subject it would deserve a concise description rather than the movie-poster-style blurb placed over his name. Housewares (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Jonathan Marks is a respected molecular anthropologist, although one who tends towards polemicism. Certainly more respectable than Wade. 171.64.203.240 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

12 May 2021 edits. Wade's response to criticism

In regard to this edit series, i support the inclusion of Wade's response to his critics. This seems obvious to me that if criticism of his work is notable enough for inclusion, his response is presumptively worth including as well. The edit summary provides no real indication as to what the problem is, only that we should take it to talk. Ok, here we are. What exactly is the problem with this material? Bonewah (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the history (which may be incomplete) is: On 2 December 2014 31.48.190.58 added the critical letter. On 16 January 2015, 84.121.56.93 added Mr Wade's reply. On 22 April 2021, Generalrelative removed Mr Wade's reply. Then Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 and John2510 tried to re-insert but Generalrelative reverted them all. I believe that Generalrelative is correct to say that a consensus is required to re-insert Mr Wade's reply, and I believe that the editors who oppose Generalrelative are correct to point out that the response to the critique is allowable and would provide some balance. However, I propose: get rid of the critique too. It is a letter to the editor so removal could be justified with WP:BLPSPS and a consensus would be required to re-insert it. Would each side accept that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For my part, that seems acceptable. The letter and reply dont say much that we dont already say elsewhere and the citation (currently ref 14) could be moved to the next sentence "Other scientists argued that Wade had misrepresented their research". I imagine we could find a place for the citation used in the removed text as well. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: Thanks for opening up this discussion. My case for not including the response was stated in my edit summary: Wade's reply is WP:UNDUE when weighed against the stated view of over 100 geneticists and biologists. That policy states, in part: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. If you're skeptical that Wade's view really represents such a tiny minority, just look at the wide variety of critical sources cited at the main article A Troublesome Inheritance. Perhaps I should also have pointed to WP:FRINGE, since one of the things these geneticists are criticizing Wade for is the view that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence. An RfC over at Race and intelligence has recently affirmed that this view is fringe and therefore needs to be treated consistently with that guideline. How the language here would reflect that can certainly be debated, and I'd be happy to do so. For the record I'd be happy to include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it.

@Peter Gulutzan: Thanks to you for compiling that timeline. I will just add that 1) Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 appear to qualify as WP:SPAs, so their edits alone would typically not be considered as building a consensus. And 2) WP:SELFPUB makes it clear that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That applies to all of the nearly 140 geneticists who signed the letter. Further, this letter was discussed at length in a secondary source, in this case Science: That's not just some letter to the editor. That is a major and thorough repudiation which is newsworthy in and of itself. If anythings, we should cut the views of David Dobbs and Charles Murray, neither of whom are experts in the filed of genetics. Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I find Wade's response to be somewhat disingenuous: While it's true that the book does not posit a genetic link between intelligence and race, and indeed acknowledges the consensus view that such a link is unlikely, the book nonetheless works very hard to posit a mechanism by which such a link could work as well as claiming that such a mechanism is likely to exist (indeed, that's the central thesis of the book). On top of that, his book assigns a genetic importance to race which is not found in the views of actual geneticists (hence much of the criticism).

With that in mind, I agree with Generalrelative that adding Wade's response would be an exercise in false balance. The suggestion that Wade's response carries any appreciable weight in comparison to the critiques from dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists is spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. We are not presenting Wade's views as correct or incorrect, we are simply presenting them as Wades views. If this were an article about Race and intelligence for instance, then i would agree with you that Wade's responses would have no place in that article. However, this is not an article about race, its an article about Wade. Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). This is an article about Wade, and by extension, his views, and so this is the appropriate place to represent them. WP:FALSEBALANCE agrees, saying in part "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" (emphasis mine again). Again, we are not doing that here. Moreover, if either false balance or undue was an issue, then the problem would be with including Wade's books about the subject of race and genetics, not with his response to criticism of the book. Look at the preceding paragraph in the article. It contains the line "...in which he argued that human evolution has been "recent, copious, and regional" and that genes may have influenced a variety of behaviours that underpin differing forms of human society." Thats the fringe claim, not some note that his critics are wrong. But even there we are not running afoul of any Misplaced Pages rule. There is no problem with articles that describe fringe beliefs and their adherents. The issue is in presenting those fringe views in articles about the mainstream view. Bonewah (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. Considering that over a hundred scientists have concluded "this book supports a racist view of intelligence," it's fair to call that "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." Wade dismisses this without addressing their arguments in a way that would be WP:UNDUE even were he an expert in the subject, arguing against a single other expert. When one considers that he's a non-expert arguing with over a hundred experts... Yeah, that's a false balance.

Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). I don't see how that is a positive argument for the inclusion of Wade's claim that most scientists haven't read his book. In fact, WP:WEIGHT also says "Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view," and the claim that "none of these scientists have actually read my book" is, without a doubt, a minority view so tiny as to be insignificant.

Now, my opposition is not to the inclusion of Wade's response at all, but to the inclusion of the ridiculous (and rather petulant) notion that none of the signatories had read his book. If you were to write something that better characterized Wade's response without lending weight to his numerous fallacies, I'd be okay with that. For example:

Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book, and saying that it presented a "principled" objection to racism.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this suggested text. Very much in line with my suggestion above that we include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support this proposed language. I would slightly prefer just the first half, ending it at "...book." It's important to maintain the WEIGHT on the objections of a large group of scientists by keeping our note on Wade's response brief. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. When there is disagreement like this, the best solution is to provide the reader with both sides and let him decide. It's unfair to provide only one side of an argument, especially when elimination of the other side is based upon editors' personal views on the validity of the arguments. John2510 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. Once again, we have someone attributing something they don't like to a "personal view". What I wrote was not a personal view. One of the central theses of Wade's book is that race is much more genetically meaningful than geneticists have claimed it is, a thesis which, when combined with his other cherry-picked assertions about racial genetics and the heritability of IQ form a mechanism by which the relationship between IQ and race could be explained (assuming that Wade were actually correct in his numerous assertions). This is not opinion, but rather a logically inescapable consequence of any informed reading of the book. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That boils down to: You're certain that your conclusion is "inescapably" right to any "informed" person, therefore readers should be prevented from reading the opposing view. John2510 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, prove me wrong, then. You've read the book, right? And you have a functioning grasp of genetics as it pertains to race, right? Until then, your objections are nothing but hollow rhetoric. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of Wade's defense. As a fallback, I would support removal of both the attack and the defense. I think it's absurd to suggest that an individual's defense of his personal position is UNDUE, simply because he is making it himself, rather than as a group. Generally, when an individual's actions are attacked in a public way, the significant and relevant defense is the one that person gives.John2510 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Including Wade's defense is appropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also note that Wade's defense of his actions was quoted in the Science article that is cited as a source for the attack. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution Apparently, Science thought his position was significant and appropriate to include. I submit that WP should as well. It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including.John2510 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including. That's what we're discussing here: whether his response is worth including.

It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. I have good news for you then. No one is basing their position here on such reasons. You've simply misread the discussion above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? If both sides of the argument are to be included, then we need to include his response, and not just the attack. It's apparent the editors of Science realized the need for that. John2510 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems there is some support to simply excluding the block quotes entirely, which is fine by me. That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable, and, as such, should be just removed. Ive made a compromise edit, feel free to modify, revert, etc so long as you discuss why here. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion. Please don't make such an edit again. Both me and Generalrelative have proposed compromises, including specific wording in my case, which Generalrelative has endorsed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable. What kind of reasoning is this? It seems you're arguing that WP should not discuss responses by experts to controversial claims because of course experts will challenge such claims. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not making such an absurd argument. Would you mind clarifying? Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but I also object to the "remove it all" edit being considered a compromise. Peter Gulutzan suggested it above, Generalrelative gave a good-faith counter, and there hasn't been any discussion of it's merits since. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, is the core of the objection the fact that Wade's response includes the claim that the critics must not have read Wade's work? The reason i ask is the same as my response to Generalrelative: The quotes we had tells the reader almost nothing. The critics say "you misrepresented my work" Wade says "you misrepresented my work". Ok, how? In what way? The only thing we really say is that there was criticism of an ill defined nature. The quotes do nothing to clarify anything, so if the jist of it all is that there is criticism then we might as well just say that. In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. Maybe we could say something to the effect of Wade replys "As no reader of the letter could possibly guess, “A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race." Or if you prefer "Perhaps I could point out an error in one of the few specific statements in their letter. They charge me with saying that “recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results.” I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that “It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ.”. Im not in love with block quotes in general, but if we are going to quote Wade's reply then we should at least quote something that provided the reader with useful information. Bonewah (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. The whole point of this discussion is to determine how much to say about Wade's response. Given the vast difference in expertise and numbers here "not much" is pretty much the target. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. And i see no reason to paraphrase Wade's response to his critics while quoting those critics directly. If the problem really is the part where Wade says his critics must not have read his works, then perhaps we simply say "Wade responded in a letter "“A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race.". At least that quote tells the reader something sort of informative. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would we want to use this BLP as a platform to uncritically present Wade's fringe view that the scientific consensus on race is an anti-evolutionary myth? As to the rest of your argument, i.e. (I see no reason..., the reason is presented very clearly in WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. Neutrality does not mean presenting both sides; it means presenting all sides according to WP:DUE weight; and in this case Wade's own view counts for almost nothing when weighed against essentially the entire scientific community. There is no ambiguity here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. Again, I want to emphasize that this argument is a non-sequitur. Our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE apply to the whole project, just like WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:MPOV do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For me, that claim about critics not reading is not the core of my objection, although I agree it's problematic. I'm mostly focused on WEIGHT. Many scientists promoting a consensus view are criticizing one scientist who promotes a fringe view; we should reflect the asymmetry in this article. There are many single-sentence summations (not direct quotes) of Wade's letter that I would support including. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll just add to this that Wade is not a scientist. He's a journalist. And he now writes for blacklisted publications like the NY Post. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, there doesn't appear to be a consensus to include the attack in the absence of his defense, which calls for both to be removed. John2510 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that A Troublesome Inheritance promotes a fringe view claiming evolutionary genetic effects on differences in IQ and in social/political activities between races and nations -- a view that's rejected by the consensus of geneticists -- it is sufficient that we have the one sentence that's already there quoting a well-known person (Charles Murray) in support of those fringe views. Any more attention to that POV would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The current version of that section looks fine to me. The operative policy in such a case is WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

John2510's statement is correct, and NightHeron's statement is false, WP:FRINGE is not a policy. However, WP:BLPSPS is a policy and Mr Wade is alive. And Generalrelative did not give a "counter" to what I said -- WP:SELFPUB does not trump WP:BLPSPS and anyway read the last sentence of WP:SELFPUB before quoting it again. At least 3 editors have said they would accept removal, and re-insertion after removal would require consensus (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL), nobody tried to "counter" that observation. However, I don't dare do the removal because I think there is an edit war in progress. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the worst wikilawyerly argument I've ever read. Ever.

It carries absolutely no weight with me, and has made a serious dent in the weight I will ascribe any argument you make in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed quotes from criticism pending any consensus to include them in the absence of his defense. I've left mention of the criticism, together with the footnotes, so that any reader may explore the issue further if he chooses to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

^I have no idea who's comment this is^ mine starts below. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

<-Ok lets start from the top. @Mpants and @generalrelative, the reason i keep emphasizing the fact that this is an article about Nicholas Wade and not one on Race and Genetics is because the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views and, more importantly, what 'claims' are even being made in the first place. Lets look at WP:Fringe theories. The 'in a nutshell' sums up what im talking about nicely "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." (bolding mine). The bolded statement is the relevant one here. So an article about Race and Genetics would be the 'mainstream idea' noted above and the *contents* of Wade's book would be the 'idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field'. However, since this is an article about Wade himself the claims that Misplaced Pages are making are threefold:

1. That Nicholas Wade wrote a book titled 'A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History'
2. The the book in question solicited (notable, in my opinion) objections from geneticists et al.
3. That Nicholas Wade responded to those critics.

The contents of Wade's book is mostly irrelevant in this regard because we are not presenting the contents of the book as either true or false, we are merely noting that Wade wrote them, as is appropriate in a biography. So, @Firefangledfeathers as well, while its important to note that the contents of Wades book runs counter to the mainstream view, this article is not the forum to weigh those claims. Additionally, because we are not making any claims about the contents of the book, WP:FRINGE is not relevant here.

Ok, moving on. @NightHeron, if a one sentence quote from Charles Murray is sufficient, then i propose we remove the quote from Murray (which also adds nothing to the article) and replace it with one from Wade which is, at least, responsive to the criticism we also feel is notable. And, i want to re-iterate, i do feel that his critics claims are notable enough to be included here, i just dont think this is the place to litigate those claims.

@Firefangledfeathers, why should we use a direct quote from his critics but not one from Wade himself? Honestly, if you want to write a summary of the whole thing that quotes neither, im fine with that, depending on the wording, of course. But if we are going to quote his critics directly, then we should do the same for Wade. I see no reason for the dissimilarity.

Hopefully this clears up my position on this. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The unattributed entry above, and the edit, were mine. Sorry. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views That literally flies in the face of WP:FRINGE and is not, and has not ever been a policy or guideline on this project. There is a proposal above with three editors behind it. Either get behind it yourself, or offer your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No it is literally what fringe says. As for your demands that i "get behind it yourself, or offer your own" i did offer my own, here based on what the editors in question claimed was their issue. And what was your oh so helpful response? To call me a troll diff, even taking the time to go back and make your comment even more caustic that it was already. Bonewah (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fringe views are fringe regardless of the subject of the article. Since you contend that FRINGE says "literally" the opposite, can you point to that part of the policy. If you are suggesting that your quotation of the policy above justifies your view, I think you need to explain further. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You say this article is not the place to weigh fringe claims against mainstream views, but I am certain that the correct such place is everywhere on Misplaced Pages. There should be no dark corners or walled garden of Misplaced Pages where fringe views are presented uncritically. I am very far from understanding how you are interpreting FRINGE. In your quote from the nutshell, I find the two sentences you didn't bold to be pertinent. This article is either "about the minority viewpoint" or it isn't. If it is, then we need to contextualize. If it is not, then we should minimize. Part of FRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, is specifically about fringe mentions in "other articles":

Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources.

You see no reason for dissimilarity in this article's treatment of Wade and his critics, I see the discrepancy as mandated by our policies and good sense besides. Do you believe, in general, that BLP articles about purveyors of fringe theories should give equal weight to them and their mainstream critics? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  At least three editors have expressed support for removing the critique quote in the absence of Wade's defense, so I don't think it's accurate to say that your proposal is the only one that's gotten any traction. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Stonkaments, the denial is classic WP:MANDY stuff and should be excluded because WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You think that makes a consensus? This is right now 3 against three, and your side has:

Misrepresentations about policy.

Pointy edits.

POV pushing.

That's not a consensus. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a consensus. I said your claim that your proposal was the only one with any traction was false. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. I agree, so let's work towards that before making any more changes. Generalrelative made a bold change and was reverted; the next step in the WP:CYCLE is discussion. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me try a simpler formulation. This is not the place to discuss the rightness or wrongness of Wade's book. This is a biography, not an article about race. @ Firefangledfeathers to answer your question directly, I believe BLPs are for biographical information. There is ample reason to include a brief note of criticisms, where relevant (and, again, I think these criticisms are relevant here) and ample reason to note his reply. Keep in mind that all this yammering about Fringe, about Undue, about a dozen other rules people think apply is over a *single sentence*. Hell, its even less than that, its about if we should quote the man or paraphrase him. But here we all are, so ill put it back to you; you said you were ok paraphrasing his reply, but not quoting him directly. Why? And if you were to write the paraphrase, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I really think you need to look up the definitions of "compromise" and "whitewash", because you really seem to be confusing the two. The reaction to this book is a big part of what makes Wade notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

My preference is to exclude his response entirely. As a compromise, I am okay with a short paraphrase. Why a paraphrase but not a quote? Because full quoting gives Wade's view more weight than short paraphrasing. My compromise paraphrase would be a truncated MjolnirPants suggestion: "Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book." I get that this discussion is intense and none of us can maintain our perfectly polite posture forever, but I have to object to "yammering" as a description of good-faith application of Misplaced Pages policy. The fact that there are "a dozen" guidelines cautioning against inclusion of Wade's response is revealing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If Wade defends Wade against more than 100, he is in the position of a tiny minority. So: Whether we like or not, according to WP:DUE there is only one option: The cristicism has to be included, his response not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as Due requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and the source we are quoting thought it necessary to repproduce Wade's response in full, I would say that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics. But if we are going to endeavor to fairly represent this debate, and fairness is the important part of Due that so many seen to want to overlook, then the fair way to do it is to either carefully quote both, or carefully paraphrase both. Bonewah (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: Rsk6400's argument is based on what the policy WP:DUE says. As to your statement that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics –– when Wade is a science journalist reporting on genetics and "his critics" in this one instance are 139 genetics professors –– I find it utterly baffling how someone (even in their very subjective view of fairness) could think this. It is certainly diametrically opposed to the principle of due weight. Generalrelative (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If this were an article about genetics, then you would be right. It is not. Its an article about Wade. And the viewpoints being expressed here are 1) Wade wrote a book. 2)the geneticists in question feel wade misrepresented their work and 3) Wade thinks his critics misrepresented his work. To give voice to Wade's critics while silencing him is manifestly unfair, which is exactly what Due tells us to avoid. The science article we use as a citation published Wade's response in full and is, therefore, the view (that Wade feels the critics misrepresent his work) that is most prominently represented in the published, reliable source. And what does Due tell us to do in that circumstance? Represent them in proportion to how the sources represent them. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an article about Wade, who wrote about genetics, so the views of geneticists are indeed deserving of a good deal of weight. Misplaced Pages is not "silencing" a widely-published author if we refrain from giving them the last word about their book (particularly when Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that last word). XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that MANDY says, in part: If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, which is the case here. Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Mandy is an essay, not policy. And pretty much everyone has said that the geneticists views are deserving of inclusion here. And if removing what someone said isn't silencing them, then you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing. This is even more absurd when you consider that the source for this reprinted Wade's reply in full and as the last word. But I guess reiterating that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV in general both say that we must represent views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" won't do much good at this point. Even though the published, reliable source we use does exactly what you say we must not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an essay, but an essay that makes a good point. Running a reply after the piece it replies to is typical practice for many publications, particularly scientific journals; it does not indicate that the publication in question regards the reply as the definitive take. And to say that omitting a statement about the thoroughly unremarkable event of an author standing by his own book is "silencing" strikes me as quite hyperbolic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing That is true. You have a wrong definition. Galileo Galiei was silenced. Giordano Bruno was silenced. Nikolai Vavilov was silenced. Wade is still free to write whatever he wants, and there is even a large newspaper ready to print it. All that happened is that one website, Misplaced Pages, does not cite that one quote of his. That is not silencing by any meaningful definition. Otherwise you would have to repeat everything I say, since if you do not, you are silencing me by your own definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Section break

It is apparent that we can't agree on a version to keep while this dicussion is taking place. I would like to propose either (a) the version with the critics' quote and Wade's quote (this was status quo before Generalrelativity's first removal) or (b) a version with no mention of the book at all. I am unsatisfied with both options, which is probably a good sign. If someone has another proposal, feel free to make it. In general, I would love to focus on building consensus and not edit warring in the meantime. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD would call for option A I believe. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about we leave mention of the book, but take out all the details about criticisms and praise and responses and so forth until we hash out what to say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem with including Nicholas Wades response is that it requires either a summary or a quote from it, either of which potentially misrepresents Wade's position or the position of the scientists letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I take it then you would support an edit that either paraphrases Wade, or quotes him directly but doesn't misrepresent anyone's position? Im fairly confident that I could construct that. Bonewah (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how including Wade's quote misrepresents the position of the scientists. You could argue that Wade misrepresents the scientists (though I don't agree), and/or that the scientists misrepresent Wade, but by including both quotes (clearly attributed to their authors) and not making any claims in wikivoice, Misplaced Pages is simply documenting the debate and not misrepresenting either side. Stonkaments (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I could see something like, "Wade issued a statement in response to the letter disputing the allegations" Based on the Science article where it is reproduced in full as an addendum to the piece, but as there isn't any analysis of the statement in secondary sources to my knowledge, to include Wade's own reasoning is arguably undue. My own point is that one could take one of several sentences made by Wade in the statement as a quote, which could variously make Wade's response appear differently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: see here where I did something very similar, which Stonkaments reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So is the dispute over whether the letter should be included or over whether Wade's response should? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wade's response. The Scientists' letter quote was removed in the middle of the discussion about Wade's response, in an extremely WP:POINTY way, with Bonewah calling that a "compromise". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The dispute was originally about Wade's response. Fairly early on in the discussion, some editors began disputing inclusion of the letter as well, especially in saying that both should be included, or neither. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Or, at least as far as I'm concerned, both can be paraphrased. The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. @Hemiauchenia:, if you were to paraphrase the scientists criticisms, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested language

Based on an examination of the sources cited here and at the main artilce A Troublesome Inheritance, as well as a rereading of WP:NPOV, here is my suggested language to describe the book:

In 2014, Wade released A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, in which he argued that human evolution has been "recent, copious, and regional" and that genes may have influenced a variety of behaviours that underpin differing forms of human society. The book has been widely denounced by scientists, including many of those upon whose work the book was based. On 8 August 2014, The New York Times Book Review published an open letter signed by 139 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology. After publication, the letter was signed by 4 more faculty members. The letter read:

Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade's implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade's conjectures.

The book was further criticized in a series of five reviews by Agustín Fuentes, Jonathan M. Marks, Jennifer Raff, Charles C. Roseman and Laura R. Stein. which were published together in the scientific journal Human Biology. Marks, for instance, described the book as "entirely derivative, an argument made from selective citations, misrepresentations, and speculative pseudoscience." Other reviews were more moderate in their criticism, such as that of H. Allen Orr, who wrote in The New York Review of Books that "Wade's survey of human population genomics is lively and generally serviceable. It is not, however, without error. He exaggerates, for example, the percentage of the human genome that shows evidence of recent natural selection."

Note that I've included only responses from subject-matter experts, i.e. geneticists and population biologists. That excludes Wade of course. I would be willing to compromise somewhat and include a paraphrased version of his WP:MANDY-esque retort such as MPants suggested above, but that's about as far as I believe WP:DUE allows us to go in the interest of compromise here. Striking comment that could be construed as non-neutral Generalrelative (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Per the suggestion below from Silver seren, I'll offer specific wording for a paraphrase of Wade's response:

Wade issued a statement in response, saying that these scientists had misunderstood his intent.

References

1. ^ Coop, Graham; Eisen, Michael; Nielsen, Rasmus; Przeworski, Molly; Rosenberg, Noah (8 August 2014). "Letter to the Editor of The New York Times Book Review (Letter from Population Geneticists)". Retrieved 25 September 2014. We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade's conjectures.
2. Balter, Michael, "Geneticists decry book on race and evolution", Science, 8 August 2014
3. Human Biology 2014; 86 (3).
4. Human Biology 2014; 86 (3).
5. Marks, Jonathan M. (1 July 2014). "Review of a Troublesome inheritance by Nicholas Wade". Human Biology. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
6. Orr, H. Allen (5 June 2014). "Stretch Genes". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
7. Balter, Michael, "Geneticists decry book on race and evolution", Science, 8 August 2014

RfC about suggested statement

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the suggested edit above a balanced and neutral statement about Wade's book that is WP:DUE for this article? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh, so your idea of compromise is to make the article even more unfair to the subject? Unsurprisingly, I object. As stated above, Due clearly states that we are to fairly represent all significant viewpoints. To claim that Wade's viewpoint on his own work is not significant is sophistry. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is a good read if you're interested in finding out where some of us are coming from on this issue. And WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The suggested text looks fine to me. It's concise, encyclopedically toned, and in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Thank you for your research. I continue to propose "Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book" or something of similar weight, as about the maximum MANDY allowable by DUE/FRINGE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Im still waiting to hear why a paraphrase of Wade's position is ok and Wades on words on his position is not. Bonewah (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Addressed above. Here's a diff. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Just adding that I've said much the same thing at least twice, much higher in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Obviously, per above ad nauseam. Bonewah (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Addendum, WP:NPOV Clearly states that it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." An edit that quotes Wade's critics at great lenght while going out of its way to exclude Wade's response is in no way fair, proportional and without bias. WP:FRINGE does not supercede Neutrality. Indeed, FRINGE also insists that we represent each side fairly and proportionally. It takes some powerfully motivated reasoning to conclude that a policy that insists on fairness actually requires us to be unfair, but that is what the proponents of this edit have done. Bonewah (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This level of detail is UNDUE for the article on Wade; it would of course be appropriate for the article on the book itself, where it appears it was largely copied from. The proposal also disregards the many editors' feedback here that Wade's response warrants inclusion. MANDY and NPOV argue for–not against-–including Wade's response. Stonkaments (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  MANDY and NPOV argue for–not against-–including Wade's response. I would suggest that you reread both. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  MANDY is an essay and nought more, and and fie on all you that are treating it in this discussion like it is policy. As for NPOV, Generalrelative, does NPOV not say that all significant viewpoints be included, with their respective DUE WEIGHTS? Where in NPOV, Generalrelative, does it state that only one viewpoint gets included and the opposition and any response gets excluded entirely? That seems to be what you're arguing in your (unnecessarily snippy) reply to Stonkaments Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  "significant viewpoints" - that's the key: Wade's viewpoint is FRINGE, so while it might get a short mention here, it means we need avoid giving it equal weight (FALSEBALANCE) with his critics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, RandomCanadian is entirely correct. Here's the key quote from NPOV (you'll see it quoted above as well, in my first response on this talk page): Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. As has been explained again and again and again in this discussion and in the above, when the claims of a single journalist are weighed against those of ~140 subject-matter experts, the single journalist's view is quite obviously that of a tiny minority. There is really no ambiguity here at all. My addendum which indicates that Wade disputed the letter is more than enough to represent the significance of his response to our readers. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me that anyone here is treating WP:MANDY as anything other than good advice. My own approach is clearly stated above: WP:MANDY is a good read if you're interested in finding out where some of us are coming from on this issue. And my suggestion to Stonkaments that they try rereading it was rather gentle when you consider the fact that they'd gotten the entire point of the essay precisely backwards. Generalrelative (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Stonkaments, er, no, they do not. NPOV indicates going with what reliable independent sources say, and ignoring affiliated and self-published sources (including the subject). We are not a newspaper, where the editors always give the last word to the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well, the reliable, independent source we cite reprinted Wade's response in full. Sadly, that fact, along with the fact that WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and even the much cited WP:FRINGE all say clearly and immediately state that we are required to represent views 'in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" will be ignored. Bonewah (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have tried to stay out of this discussion, as I really dislike the entire subject, but I have a suggestion for a comparison to a non-controversial individual. We have a page for the famous biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck where his works are discussed. Much of the discussion involves quoting other sources and individuals about his work, some of it complimentary and some of it critical. The article is also clear (although it could be clearer) that his views on evolution, while remarkably well-developed for his time, turned out to be incorrect. My point is that we absolutely should be quoting criticism of a subject's works on that person's article, and we should note when their works are dismissed, criticized, or invalidated by mainstream scientific consensus. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Tyranosupportus this proposal. The continued arguments against it are not persuasive in the slightest, and do more to undermine my faith in the editors making them than anything else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing wrong with it. Including Generalrelative, XOR'easter and Firefangledfeathers, that makes 5:2. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Support per the reasons given above. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) (See new comment below)

• Oppose. This is an article about the person, not about the book. This level of detail about the book's reception is excessive for a biographical article, per WP:COATRACK. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Do it right an RfC with no canvassing and a short question might have some weight so if you want a decision that can be taken seriously we can discuss that way. Would be even more serious if people didn't bring up essays or call opponents liars. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Update: I see that Generalrelative is now trying to make a short serious question after getting counsel from Redrose64. I suppose that there's no need to ping everyone who !voted before the question was changed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a good overview of what is clearly a primary subject of notability for Wade. And it properly exhibits the response by the scientific community on Wade's pseudoscience cherrypicking in the field of race and intelligence. I do think his response should be represented as well, so some attempt of properly paraphrasing needs to be done, even if it will be difficult. Separately, I am concerned about the number of pseudoscience POV pushing users on this talk page, though I guess that's what this topic area is always like. Silverseren 02:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I've offered my own attempt at paraphrasing above in response to this suggestion. Generalrelative (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would you care to cite a diff where a user pushes pseudoscience in this talk page? Bonewah (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone that is supporting Wade's viewpoints is pushing pseudoscience. Silverseren 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also, if you want me to be specific, up above you said "so your idea of compromise is to make the article even more unfair to the subject". There is no being "unfair" to the subject. He is a pseudoscience pusher, that fact needs to be represented in the article with the response by the scientific community. To not do so is to violate the FRINGE rules we have here on Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  "I do think his response should be represented as well..." His response isn't represented in the proposed edit. That's the core issue in this discussion. John2510 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  And an addition that includes his response can be accepted as well. But, regardless of that, the material above showcasing the response to his pseudoscience is needed in the article. Silverseren 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  See my addendum above. Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Including, and quoting at length, from attacks on Wade's work, without including his own defense is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Readers will be presented with on only one POV - unable to educate themselves and make informed decisions. The fact that it is Wade himself defending his position is all the more reason to include it. When someone is attacked, we typically like to know what they have to say for themselves. It's brief enough that the only reason to exclude it would be to deprive readers of understanding both sides of the argument, which violates NPOV. While the proposed edit piles on from the previous UNDUE version, with more criticisms, even Murray's defense of Wade's work has been stripped out, with no explanation. The excuses provided here are bogus justifications for not only violating NPOV, but turning this BLP into a one-sided attack on Wade. If there's a consensus to ensure that no one can consider other points of view then, well... that's Misplaced Pages. Given that this is a BLP, an appropriate entry would be along the lines of stating that his book faced criticism (including a brief summary and footnotes), which Murray and Wade defended (including a brief summary and footnote). Anything more is UNDUE in this context. John2510 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Actually I did give an explanation: I've included only responses from subject-matter experts, i.e. geneticists and population biologists. Murray is neither of these. Note that I also cut the critical remarks by David Dobbs for the same reason. Generalrelative (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Including, and quoting at length, from attacks on Wade's work To call the quotes from actual scientists about Wade's misrepresentation of their work "attacks" is complete and utter bullshit. Full stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  And because you believe Wade's statements were misrepresentations, it is critically important that readers not be exposed to contrary views, lest they reach a different conclusion. POV much? It's appalling they way some WP editors see WP as a tool to persuade (by only telling one side of an issue), rather than to educate and to provoke thought. John2510 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not about what I believe, as I've said countless times thus far, and which should be obvious to anyone with the competence to work on this project, but what the actual experts in this subject believe. FFS. P.S. The blatant hypocrisy of that personal attack is noted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  The number of times you say something doesn't add to its validity. The critics allege they Wade's statements are misrepresentations of their work. Wade contends they are not. You believe the former and not the latter, and therefore want to censor the latter. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of personal opinion. It is Misplaced Pages that weighs the views of subject-matter experts more highly than those who have no relevant expertise. When the subject is genetics, it is therefore geneticists whose views hold weight. If a journalist like Wade says to a geneticist "My book accurately represents your genetic theory" and the geneticist says "No it doesn't", there really is no contest as to whose view we should be presenting as notable. Now multiply that by approximately 150. Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that Wade is right and 140 something geneticists are wrong about how genetics work? Wait, strike that, you absolutely are suggesting that, what I mean to ask is if you've got the cajones to state it outright, so we can just get the WP:AE ball rolling on your impending topic ban right away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I clearly said nothing of the kind, but the fact that you would make such a frivolous threat to seek administrative action for my affront to disagree with you tells us a lot about you. Wade's statement that you want to keep out is not one about "how genetics work." It's a comment about whether he took a position on the cause of racial differences in IQ results - responding to an allegation that he mischaracterized his critics' work. He's as entitled to have an opinion on what he said and meant as anyone. Probably more. John2510 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's what I thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Generalrelative: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 4,600 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: Thanks for your query and for the information. I'm hoping that MPants has now fixed the problem. Please do let us know if there are any continuing issues with the RfC's formatting. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

    It's now showing correctly, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly written, appropriate use of high-quality sources, adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as OP. The suggested text above was my attempt to balance the need to respect WP:NPOV and the desire to compromise with those who disagree in good faith. Now that this is officially an RfC (thanks to MPants for adding the template and reformatting), I'll ping XOR'easter and Firefangledfeathers in case they'd like to restate their opinions in !vote form for greater visibility. I'll also ping users who have contributed to the conversation above but haven't weighed in here yet: Guy and Hemiauchenia. If I've missed anyone, please let me know (or ping them yourself). Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Poorly written, inappropriate use of a low quality source, violates two guidelines and a policy. I'll ignore the biased question whether it's merely "due" and concentrate on greater reasons it's unacceptable, and on the matters that were discussed earlier (the quoted critique and the response). (1) The quote is from a letter to the editor about a book review by David Dobbs. Generalrelative violates the MOS:SIC guideline by omitting the important first words of the first sentence. It actually said "As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, , political institutions and economic development." The omitted first words are important because they were what Wade may have been responding to, and they're false. Mr Dobbs's review does not discuss anything about IQ or intelligence. When the context is "we know it contains a falsehood", that's WP:RSCONTEXT guideline violation. (2) WP:BLPSPS policy says "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." A letter to the editor fits that. The suggestion (far above in the thread) that we can ignore WP:BLPSPS and try WP:SELFPUB instead won't work, you can't wave a policy away and anyway WP:SELFPUB says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (3) The letter has five authors (Coop, Eisen, Nielsen, Przeworski, Rosenberg), they submitted "on behalf of" others, it's arguably true that the letter was "signed by" others but WP:INTEXT says attribution has to be to "the source", not the applauders. (4) There is no good evidence in this article that Mr Wade said something about a race/intelligence correlation, so it's irrelevant that such a correlation is bad in the estimation of both the critics and Mr Wade. So, if anyone is here due to Generalrelative's notice to the Race+Intelligence talk page or MjolnirPants's post to WP:FTN, please actually read this talk page's entire thread before believing that the subject is related to the pages you were called from. (Notifying WP:BLPN would have been right but might be unnecessary.) (5) I urge the closer to read the entire thread since many of the supporters' statements and actions are exposed in earlier sections, and especially note that, if the critique is removed, yet more re-insertions without consensus would yet again violate WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  BLPSPS and SELFPUB don't apply. This letter wasn't self-published; it was submitted to, accepted by, and published by the New York Times. The part of BLPSPS you quote isn't referring to letters to the editor, but user-generated comments on blog posts. The letter wasn't "arguably" signed by others; it just plain was. The other signatories are noted via link at the end of the letter and their names and affiliations are available at the link. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Added to this: the letter's notability and the fact that it was signed by ~140 senior human population geneticists is attested by Science (and this is clearly cited in my suggested text above). Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan:, I also want to comment on your SIC→RS:CONTEXT claim and your point (4). The beginning of the sentence omitted by Generalrelative says (with my added emphasis) "As discussed by Dobbs and many others". Dobbs didn't directly discuss intelligence, but many others had. No falsehoods involved. Regarding SIC, the meat of the quote is the opinions of its authors, not the fact that others have discussed similar points. Finally, there's great evidence that Wade has engaged in speculation about race/intelligence, and it's the reliable sources quoted in the suggested text. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It just sounds in your long rant here that you're trying to defend the WP:FRINGE pseudoscience views of Wade that is very much a derided and debunked race and intelligence claim rejected by the scientific community. Silverseren 04:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For a bio of this size, it looks like a WP:PROPORTION vio to me. I would suggest trimming it down to about 3 sentences. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand the oppose arguments on the grounds that this would be too long or out of proportion: this is actually shorter than the current text about this, and more succinctly gives the main elements. The NYT letter could still be summarised further, but the proposed text definitively seems a step in the right direction, to correctly describe the serious criticism the book attracted from topic experts, while avoiding FALSEBALANCE counter-statements (NPOV is "neutral according to what the reliable sources say", not "entirely, strictly 100% neutral"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Repeating myself: If Wade defends Wade against more than 100, he is in the position of a tiny minority. So: Whether we like it or not, according to WP:DUE there is only one option: The cristicism has to be included, Wade's response not (the short paraphrase is OK). Walls of text by people who don't care about WP's rules don't make me change my mind. Our readers have a right to be informed about mainstream science. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've already said as much, but I should probably make my !vote harder to miss. Like RandomCanadian, I don't find the "too long" or "out of proportion" arguments persuasive. It's concise, encyclopedically toned, and in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. The length and level of detail are appropriate for the topic, since the reception of this book is a significant part of why the author is noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support most of this: we should be following our policies on fringe views here, which require us to cover what geneticists actually made of Wade's book. With respect to the addendum reporting Wade's rejection of the letter, this isn't ideal per WP:MANDY since it is just an unannotated quote of Wade's response, which for our purposes is a primary source. A Nature blog post mentions Wade's rejection of the letter (from a different response by Wade?) without just quoting it. There might be better sources out there for the aftermath of the NYT letter. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Jerry Coyne, one of the signatories of the letter, wrote up such a piece with an extensive discussion of Wade's rejection on his blog, Our letter to the New York Times criticizing Nicholas Wade’s book on race. This is on the edge as an RS, but if Wade's response is to be included, we need some kind of non-fringe context. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - of course it's not due, this is a BLP article, and that amount of detail is unwarranted, considering the length of the article, and especially the way it's framed as a quote in the middle of the article. The short summary in the paragraph above is sufficient. Leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Wildly UNDUE to make two-thirds of his 70+years biography on just the latest one of his books, especially since it has it’s own article one could simply say “criticized” in a line or two and leave the rest to a wilkilink. Also clearly UNDUE to cherrypick quotes of no particular significance to his life. And no, not neutral - this proposed text is strongly negative and limited to criticisms. Do better to use Google or read Amazon and get a better view of his work and less an ATTACK article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  The following secondary sources attest to the fact that the quoted letter is indeed of particular significance to Wade's life:

  1) Michael Balter, "Geneticists decry book on race and evolution", Science:

  2) Ewen Callaway, "Geneticists say popular book misrepresents research on human evolution", Nature:

  3) Michael Hiltzik, "Racism, the misuse of genetics and a huge scientific protest", LA Times:

  For expert commentary, see:

  4) Jerry Coyne, "Why Scientists Decided to Issue an Indictment of Nicholas Wade's Book", History News Network:

  5) Mark A. Jobling, "Trouble at the races", Investigative Genetics:

  6) Marcus Feldman, "Echoes of the Past: Hereditarianism and A Troublesome Inheritance", PLOS Genetics:

  I'm not sure what one gains by linking to Amazon.com however. User-generated reviews? Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  The secondary sources which you cite as proof that the letter is significant all cite Wade's response, either in full or in part. FRINGE does not supersede NEUTRALITY. Bonewah (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  In saying that "FRINGE does not supersede NEUTRALITY" you're arguing against a straw man, and you seem to be misunderstanding the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. No one is claiming, and no one could logically claim that the fringe policy supersedes the neutrality policy, because the former policy is part of the latter one. From WP:FRINGE: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight... The article explains the POV of Wade's book and quotes Charles Murray supporting it. That's enough. When geneticists in large numbers say that Wade is misrepresenting their work, and then Wade says that he's not, per WP:UNDUE it is not appropriate for us to quote a non-geneticist claiming that the geneticists are wrong about their own work. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Two points in response to Bonewah: a) I was clearly replying to the allegation that my suggested text represents cherrypicking quotes of no particular significance to his life. Pointing out that my argument doesn't respond to some other argument which I (and others) have addressed elsewhere is unhelpful. And b) my suggested text does cite Wade's response in the addendum. What it does not do is give his response equal weight with the statements of scientists. That is precisely what is required by the policy WP:BLP for discussing allegations of wrongdoing: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance. Reported ≠ quoted. Generalrelative (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE perfectly, especially the part where it says that we must "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I have no idea why a quote from Charles Murray is appropriate or, 'enough' but a quote from Wade is out of bounds. What i do know is that including several paragraphs from Wade's critics while excluding Wade's reply is not fair, or proportional and certainly not without editorial bias. The sources named both in the article and offered here all reprint Wade's reply either in full or in part and yet, neutrality be damned, editors here are insisting that somehow fringe allows them to exclude Wade's response altogether. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE perfectly, especially the part where it says that we must "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Yet here you are, stridently opposed to us following that "proportionately" part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Bonewah: Why on earth do you keep on making the demonstrably false claim my suggested text attempts to exclude Wade's response altogether? Did you miss the Addendum I added days ago? Is this all a big misunderstanding? Generalrelative (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative:I did miss the addendum because everyone was arguing so vociferously for so long that that Wade's response should be excluded in its entirely. I still contend, however, that quoting his critics at great length while offering a weak, single sentence paraphrase of his reply is not proportional or neutral. @MPants at work: yet here I am, disagreeing that you have followed the "proportionately" part at all. Bonewah (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Aha, I'm glad to hear this. We may disagree about a great deal, but at least now, hopefully, the conversation will be a bit clearer. Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When a non-geneticist, writing for the general public, makes claims about genetics that are rejected by over a hundred geneticists, my understanding of the word "proportionately" is that we're being quite generous in giving Wade a weak, single sentence. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll say that I think noting Wade's response is necessary: it's the difference between showing that he argued about it versus implying he just quietly accepted their judgement. But anything beyond that is quite clearly a false balance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that, FWIW. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 16:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The number of sources covering the letter presented here are enough to justify writing an article about the letter itself. The closer should probably bear that in mind when reading objections decrying the weight it's given here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Totally disproportionate for a biog aricle. This is borderline COATRACK and quite pointless considering that an article about the book exists. There the contents of the book, its ideas, and the controversy it sparked can be explored in full. A sentence or two about the book is all that is needed or apt here. Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Titanic survivor ancestor

Regarding this edit by Generalrelative, I don't think the claim is self-serving enough to require a third party source. I'm open to having my mind changed, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't mind at all if you or anyone else wanted to restore it. Honestly it seemed like an uncontroversial cut to me. Anything even marginally controversial can wait until the current RfC is finished. But I would suggest that the heading "Personal life" should be changed to something more appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim would seem more appropriate to the "early life and education" section, which generally covers ancestry when it's worth mentioning. I'm still a little too on the fence when it comes to WP:DUE to restore it right now, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment