Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

Wikipedia 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)

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)

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.

Please consider this appended to my suggested text above, just below the block quote. Let me know if you'd like to propose any changes. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC about suggested statement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that the proposed text should be included. This RfC is not a vote count, instead I'm looking at the arguments made and whether they are founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Proponents of including argued:

• The book is one of the things Wade is best known for, and therefore should get proportionate coverage in his bio.
• There's strong evidence that the viewpoint Wade expresses does not enjoy mainstream scientific support, as indicated by the letter signed by more than a hundred scientists. It's therefore appropriate to fairly represent the (lack of) support for Wade's ideas in the scientific field.

Neither of these arguments was much addressed by the opposers. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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)
• Support 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. The only argument's I've been given towards exclusion consist of the assertion that WP:BLP somehow "overrides" WP:NPOV, meaning that we "cannot" say this much about it. The argument is a non-sequitur, full stop. This is the most notable event in Wade's life, and as such, should be the most prominent part of his bio, which this proposal still doesn't even do. However, this proposal represents a good, reasonably well-balanced compromise, and as such, is the best option for settling this issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 28 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^C 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^C 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 Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 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^C 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 [1] (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^C 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]

  2) Ewen Callaway, "Geneticists say popular book misrepresents research on human evolution", Nature: [3]

  3) Michael Hiltzik, "Racism, the misuse of genetics and a huge scientific protest", LA Times: [4]

  For expert commentary, see:

  4) Jerry Coyne, "Why Scientists Decided to Issue an Indictment of Nicholas Wade's Book", History News Network: [5]

  5) Mark A. Jobling, "Trouble at the races", Investigative Genetics: [6]

  6) Marcus Feldman, "Echoes of the Past: Hereditarianism and A Troublesome Inheritance", PLOS Genetics: [7]

  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 ^{review transgressions}/_{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)
• Support the suggested edit, but without the addendum sentence. When the source for his expected denial is an article detailing how 140 scientists say he's wrong, the idea that we should give any credence to his assertion that they are all somehow misunderstanding his not-at-all-racist-really argument seems reminscent of the Lobsterson fanbois. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment on this subject. It is necessary and proper to include criticism of a subject's works and writing, especially where that criticism is from SMEs, published in reliable sources (NYT and a peer-reviewed journal), relevant, and given due weight. The proposed text meets these qualifications, in my opinion. This is the same standard we apply to anyone who publishes works that are considered controversial or just plain wrong by a significant segment of the scientific community. One could argue that it would be undue weight if we did not include this criticism. Wikipedia has no requirement to document subjects in a flattering manner, we do not even necessarily have to be "fair", even with BLPs. What we have to be is NPOV, verifiable, and accurate as to what reliable sources tell us. This should not be a controversial edit here, the scientific community has been exceptionally clear in rejecting the views of people like Wade and Murray.

  As to whether discussing Wade's book constitute's undue weight, my understanding is that this book is one of the more significant things that make the subject notable. We wouldn't say that it is undue weight to discuss Principia on Newton's page, would we? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Hyperion35's comment right above. I was thinking the same thing: it may feel awkward sometimes to focus on one work of someone who's had a long and distinguished career, but it's what we standardly do when one work's impact (positive or negative) has been much greater than all others. It may at times be disappointing to those who already knew and were looking for other, more detailed information on some less well-known aspects of the subject (like, e.g., many would already know about Newton's Principia but would be more curious about his work on alchemy). However, it's an encyclopedia's job to proportionally reflect the attention given by existing sources to the various aspects of the subject, and this edit proposal does just that. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The objections to the content seem oddly misplaced. While I recognize the WP:CRYBLP arguments in some of them, a lot of the others are questions of WP:WEIGHT or WP:SUMMARY which are largely editorial questions that should be resolved through normal editing. I suppose that the reticence of the editing environment could cause a situation where every edit needs to be proposed through this nonsensical and laborious process, so fine, but in an ideal good faith world, there would be an addition that provided more context (and removed the current emphasis on Charles Murray's opinion found in the text) and could be tweaked to achieve the best possible result for the reader. Right now, the article's current text doesn't really capture the precise issues with the book and the proposed text does a better job. Could it be improved? Almost certainly. But that improvement should be on top of the proposed addition rather than a stamping of the foot and a sticking out of the lower lip as I am seeing in this conversation in part. jps (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like a perfectly clear, neutral, and proportionate summary of the situation. I'll also add that putting "strong" in front of a !vote is fine, but this ain't going to be a snowball. The strength of anyone's emotions won't make their arguments automatically any more or less persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Greyfell: That's very true, but I think we both can agree that a "Tyranosupportus" counts as at least, 6, maybe 7 !votes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This looks ok to me, and significantly better than the both-sides-ism of the present article, which repeats the usual error of modern journalism of showcasing opposing views as if they are equally significant when they aren't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: In short, FRINGE applies, the suggestion is DUE when comparing Wade to critics, its length is appropriate (with remedies available for anyone who disagrees), and quotation from the scientists' letter helps keep the section brief.
  First, Wade's scientific beliefs in this book are FRINGE, and I am not sure anyone has argued otherwise. If someone disagrees, please say so. Many of our arguments are proceeding on the assumption that there's near-universal agreement on this point. Since this section is discussing a book that contains fringe views, our policies emphasize that we need to contextualize those views using mainstream, reliable sources. This is true even though this article is not primarily about the book or Wade's fringe views, with the Mentions in other articles section of FRINGE applying most specifically.
  To ensure that Wade's views are presented in proportion to their prominence in RS, I'd argue that, conservatively, we should present criticism vs. support at a ratio on the order of 100:1. The scientists' letter is good evidence for at least 140:1. At any reasonable ratio, pro-Troublesome Inheritance views would deserve a negligible, perhaps vanishing, amount of treatment in this article. Before Generalrelative removed a direct quote from Wade's response letter, the majority (about 57%) of the section on Troublesome Inheritance explained and supported Wade's views. At least two !voters in this discussion have objected on UNDUE grounds but supported versions of this article with such inappropriately skewed coverage.
  I continue to oppose the MANDY-esque addendum language for similar prominence-proportion reasons; it might be DUE if we spent 1,500 words or more summarizing how RS criticize the book. I would accept Generalrelative's addendum if necessary as a compromise to achieve consensus, but it seems none of the opponents of this proposed language have changed their minds since the addendum.
  The suggested language is not too long in comparison to the biography as a whole. In absolute terms, I think three paragraphs is not an unusual amount of space to afford to a writer's best-selling book. In relative terms, I believe the suggested language is disproportionate to the current size of the article but that the appropriate remedy is to expand other parts of the article. His time as NYT science reporter could surely be expanded. When compared to the pre-debate version, which spent about 260 words on the book, the suggested language is only slightly longer (280 words, 294 w/ addendum).
  Editors hoping to keep the Troublesome Inheritance section short should support inclusion of a quote from the scientists' letter, as it's probably the most succinct way to convey to readers the significant mainstream opposition to Wade's book. Absent a letter signed by so many subject-matter experts, we might need to quote or paraphrase from many more individually-authored reliable sources to properly contextualize Wade's views. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.