Talk:A Troublesome Inheritance

Comment
The Talk Page is longer than the article! List of articles that can be added is found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.72.183 (talk • contribs)

The "reception" of the book is also longer than the summary! No discussion of sales figures? No discussion of rank on the New York Times best seller list? Only how the High Priests of the Narrative didn't like the book! 173.173.20.99 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's because the book sold poorly. A Troublesome Inheritance was a flop. The New York Times Best Sellers chart can easily be bought and sold depending on the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.61 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Two source lists good for checking the assertions in the book
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues, and the bibliography  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is best to remove the Jon Marks citations because they are ideologically fueled hatchet jobs.74.14.72.183 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marks is actually more of an expert on the topic than Wade is, as anyone familiar with the reliable sources on the topic is well aware. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources
Edits such as this seem to be motivated by nothing more than dislike for Jared Taylor, and should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been previous discussion among editors concluding that the American Renaissance publication is basically not a reliable source on any other topic than the opinions of the American Renaissance publishers. That is why that source is highly disfavored in Wikipedia mainspace on most topics. On the other hand, here what is at issue is the opinions of various people about Nicholas Wade's new book, so just about any verifiable published source with a review of the book seems germane and appropriate for this article. See  the Wikipedia reliable source content guideline for more details on why some sources are better for sourcing Wikipedia articles than others, based on what considerations. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is unclear to me why we would use a review by a fringe self-described "race realist", which was published nowhere but his own "race realist" website, when dozens of reviews are available from mainstream outlets, representing a broad range of views, including the paleo-whatever-ism of Charles Murray. Are Jared Taylor or John Derbyshire experts on race or human genetics? Or are we including them simply because their views are extreme and notorious? I suggest that if we expand this article by summarizing the currently cited reviews, the article will be in pretty good shape without any explicit citation to the extremists. &mdash; goethean 18:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion. My educated guess is that the great weight of reviews of Wade's book by readers who actually know genetics will pan the book and urge readers not even to bother reading it. While the book is newly published, it's all right, in my opinion, to cast a wide net for reviews of the book, not least because then Wikipedians can point out which sources (mostly uninformed sources) take Wade's main argument seriously, and which sources (predominantly informed sources) point to specific gaps in his facts or his logical structure in his new book. Right now, I'm erring on the side of inclusiveness in editing this new article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Taylor's piece can be included as a source for this article. The fact that a book is controversial doesn't mean that we can go away from the standard practice of only using reliable sources; and Taylor is a particular problematic source to use. I also think the article overall is verging on being in WP:Linkfarm territory; it should't be a collection of each and any reviews that are written about the book; unless those reviews are used to back up specific points in the text (we don't need a dozens diffs simply to say there is a book out there). Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me to request the new book from my friendly local public library (I'm not too far back in the request queue, so I should have the book at hand in a while) to keep a close eye on further edits to this article. I have many more important books to read on related topics, but I may as well keep this article on my watchlist as more reviews of the book are published in professional journals on the topics the book covers. If an editorial consensus develops here that the sources for reviews of the book should be restricted solely to sources that are undoubtedly  Wikipedia reliable sources on the topics the book discusses, I would not oppose that consensus. Meanwhile, I note that another editor is using the existing published reviews to expand discussion of the book's content and argument, which seems like a very constructive and helpful way to build out a new Wikipedia article about a newly published book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Review from epjournal
Can any editor with the time properly edit in [www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP1205090520.pdf this review]

More: --The Master (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521482247869874
 * https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/nicholas-wade/a-troublesome-inheritance/
 * http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-59420-446-3

Critical Reception section is biased
How do I put the banner with the scale in this article (can't remember the name)? There are many good reviews of this book but none are included in Critical Reception. There's a bias against race realist input as if race realism is a fallacy, yet the evidence is shifting more and more towards proving race realists correct. 165.143.155.55 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, reviews of this book that are truly independent and by subject matter experts are just about uniformly negative. If you have recommendations of well prepared reviews that view the book favorably, how about listing them here? The Wikipedia reliable sources content guideline provides all of us a lot of guidance about what sources to look for when preparing a Wikipedia article about a published book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of those "subject matter experts" are not "truly independent" as you claim. The passion with which they talk show a strong political bias. It's a fact that many closet race realists in the field cannot give this book a positive review to protect their jobs and shy away from the subject altogether. The reviews at WSJ and Washingtonpost were not negative and there were others. I don't have the time to look for them or to figure out how to put up the biased banner in this article but it IS biased towards race denialism. 165.143.155.55 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's get real. People with tenure in academic positions don't have to worry about how "to protect their jobs" in the sense described here. Rather, they would gain more notice as scholars if they followed the data and came up with something new and different. But the important point is that they have to follow the data to gain favorable notice, and so far most scholars who have spent the longest time looking carefully at the data do not agree with former newspaper reporter Wade, and are not shy about saying so. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's get real. People with tenure in academic positions have been fired for alternative views on sex and race, it's not uncommon. If you knew anything about the research into genetic differences between the races you'd know this book is quite in line with current scientific understanding. Some researchers may not like the conclusions that he draws, but they are sound conclusions based on the evidence. Looking through your history you have a clear political agenda and should not be involved in editing this page. If you'd like to start learning about the new research into genetics and race I'd recommend starting with Christopher Stringer's 'Rethinking Out of Africa.' I'd also recommend watching some CARTA symposiums on the topic. You can find several on the University of California Television's YouTube channel. -- Booktorium (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no conspiracy theory. Alternative views generally don't get published because they have no scientific basis. This book has been denounced by an unprecedented number of scientists working in a variety of different disciplines. For Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Can you find any favourable reviews of Wade's book that are not included in this article? If you want to understand why we can't classify people by "race" you might want to read this article by Guido Barbujani.Dahliarose (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of talking about the contents of the book, this page is clearly a slanted attempt to attack it. It is clear to anyone who reads this article that the writer does not agree with the book and has crafted the page to discredit it. There is no reason the reception section should be so massive in proportion to a summary of the book. There is no reason that "The book has been widely denounced by scientists" should appear at the top of the page, when something to the effect of "this book has been the subject of intense controversy among scientists" would be far more accurate, as the vast majority of scientists have not opined on the matter, so saying "widely denounced" is absurd. Just look at the proportion of scientists who think race is real versus not. Both sides of that debate are heavily populated. Citing to a letter of a few hundred scientists denouncing the book is not a random sample of opinion among scientists. I can't believe this even needs to be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4600:A665:E9A5:A7BD:51B3:AF39 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Letter signed by many population geneticists against A Troublesome Inheritance + Responses
Look at these two: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/08/geneticists-say-popular-book-misrepresents-research-on-human-evolution.html http://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists/

& include this as a response http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/at-least-erroneous-in-faith/

74.14.22.58 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wade's reply: http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/2014/08/Response-to-NYT-letter.pdf 105.184.176.43 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Feldman's, Stanford population genetics professor and letter signatory, has written a post detailing Wade's failures of scholarship from the standpoint of the scientific community.

The community? Does he speak for the scientific community? Who has anointed him?

http://stanfordcehg.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/echoes-of-the-past-hereditarianism-and-a-troublesome-inheritance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 402DL (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

add this positive review of ATI
http://takimag.com/article/wading_in_the_zeitgeist_fred_reed/print#ixzz330ot77ea 74.14.72.65 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no apprehensions to me adding this in?

Heading text
Taki Mag is a, how do I put this, "shitrag". Nobody should take it or you seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.61 (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary
I think that the IP editor who commented here that the summary section should not include criticism of the book's thesis has a point. It is perfectly fair to include critical comments that reviewers have made about a book in a section on its reception, but a section devoted to summarizing the book's thesis should only be about explaining what the book says - not about passing judgment for or against its ideas. H. Allen Orr's opinions about the merits of the book's thesis should be moved out of the summary section and into the section on the book's reception. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with the premise of your editing suggestion, but it's a good-faith suggestion, so let's discuss your recent edits of the article today (which I just rolled back) here, and see what all the other editors watching this article think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A neutrally edited article does not stuff a section that should be only a neutral description of a book's contents full of criticism. It is foolish to suggest otherwise, and you seem unable to make any meaningful counter-argument. Beyond that, the supposed "consensus" for the previous version, which you used as an excuse for reverting me, does not exist. Rather, there was a dispute between Goethean and an IP; I've tried to encourage the IP to discuss here, but with no luck so far. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add that I made numerous changes to the article, and that you reverted all of them, which included undoing changes that had no relation to the issue of whether Orr's comments should be in the summary or the reception section. Please be aware that that is aggravating behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, ImprovingWiki, but that is because the overall condition of the article previously seemed to enjoy consensus, resulting from the edits of several other editors. I note for the record that I let you revert back to your desired state of the article and invited discussion here. I agree with your implicit suggestion that Goethean should be invited here to discuss the article edits. (I just checked his talk page, and didn't see an invitation here from you to him.) I'm eager to hear from the other editors what they think about how the reliable, published sources describe the book and what due weight would be here in describing a book that has been panned by many knowledgeable reviewers. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This behavior is common from WeijiBaikeBianji. I have asked the admins to deal with his disruptive behavior. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji Deleet (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I note for the record that that case is still in deliberation and that an arbitrator comment suggests that the boomerang principle may be applied in the decision on the request. The kind of behavior that is actually common from me is to carefully compile source lists that I continually revise and expand and to create good articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * good point, the entire edit should not be reverted if the issue was only a portion of he edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WeijiBaikeBianji, please be clear about what you are saying. You seem to be saying that because "the overall condition of the article previously seemed to enjoy consensus, resulting from the edits of several other editors" you will revert any edit made by me, without discussion, no matter how minor, and no matter what change is made. Sorry, but if that is your position, it is not acceptable. It implies that because of some supposed "consensus" the article is perfect and should never be changed. Surely you can't mean to say that? Edits should always be assessed on their individual merits. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation to be clear about my editorial judgment about how to improve the encyclopedia here. I am discussing, which is why I am here on the article talk page. There is a standing Wikpedia policy that requires Wikipedia to be edited on the basis of reliable sources. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires an article about a published book, as a book, to be organized in any particular way. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources evaluate the same book in the same way (here, as a lousy book), it is perfectly okay for an article about the book to give due weight to what the sources actually say. We are not required to hide the ball from the readers of Wikipedia if they are coming by this article to find out more about the book and how accurate its contents are and whether or not it has been convincing to readers knowledgeable about genetics. If the book is a dog, we are permitted to call it a dog. I think that the edits to the article over the last month or so by several different editors reflected the sources, so I didn't see any problem with those. There are of course still issues of style or taste or emphasis to discuss here, and perhaps some newly published reviews, but I didn't think the article was in bad shape, even though I had rather little do with writing it, at the beginning of this week. Your statement "Edits should always be assessed on their individual merits" is of course correct and provides a basis for discussion here. (P.S. Have you invited the other previous editors of this article to visit this discussion?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of editorial decision whether to separate the summary of the book from the commentary on it or whether to intertwine them. There is no policy or guideline that I know of that can force a decision in either direction, such a decision is taken by editorial consensus. I think there are good arguments in term of clarity and organization to separate the summary from the commentary. I would like to hear what the argument for intertwining them in the summary section? IF the summary section has commentary from third parties then perhaps a dedicated section to reception is not necessary. I don't see WeijiBaikeBianji actually addressing this issue, since separating summary and commentary neither hides the critique nor censors it but simply makes it more easy for the reader to know what is summary and what is commentary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, exactly. WeijiBaikeBianji apparently wants to mix the summary with the commentary to make the book seem as bad as possible. It would be more appropriate to keep the two separate; if the book received a mainly negative response, then that can be stated in both the lead and the commentary section, so there is no need to confuse matters by mixing summary with commentary. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that since several editors have contested this and none except Weiji have defended the current version (originally introduced by WeijiWaikeBianji on september 9th) it should be safe to say that consensus does not support his change and it should be reverted. Weiji's claim that his edit "enjoyed consensus" seem disingenuous in the middle of an edit war.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed, it appears the current version is against the majority consensus and NPOV, perhaps the editor will agree to self-revert? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems it has already been reverted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Letters that "denounce" the book are pretty useless, they dont give any specific reason for why they dont like the book and why they disagree. No data for why he is wrong and the rest of people they "denounce" too (Murray, Lynn, Jensen etc.). I cant even see why we should include this reviews they are just politcal correctness nonsense that disagree cause it can offend people - both even spend their time screaming about racism as that is a measure to refute the data. I find them rather useless to include.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually very highly significant that scientists who in some cases were cited by Wade have seen how their work was cited and have decried Wade's misuse of their findings. That's an unusual response to a popular book--usually everyone in academia is happy to get publicity for their research. I have some higher-priority editing projects to take care of first, but my plan is to find specific pages in Wade's book where various authors are cited, and then note whether or not those authors have publicly disagreed with Wade's book, as more than 100 scientists (cited or not) already have done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is significant in itself that his sources, denounce his representations of them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem is largely that they people who denounced the book havent given any specifics on why. I read through the two links to "decouncing" the book. They just write they disagree and never give specifics beyond screaming racism.MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They are under no obligation to oblige you to give "specific reasons".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, but usually "everyone in academia is happy to" give evidence for their positions. If it's signicant that all these experts are "denouncing" Wade's book, it has to be equally significant that all these experts refuse to refute it. Surely out of these dozens of scientists denouncing the book, at least one could produce a scientific refutation of it, if their objections have a scientific basis. (By comparison, suppose a Young Earth Creationist were to misuse some scientist's research. I'd expect the scientist to be able to explain, in detail, exactly how his or her research does not support the YEC position. Stephen Jay Gould did something like that when creationists misinterpreted his punctuated equilibrium. He didn't just denounce the creationists and refuse to give reasons. The difference in responses might suggest Wade is not as far off base as the creationists are.) Given what's at stake, it seems remarkable that no one does, particularly as this debate has gone on for decades and refutations should be ready to cite. If there were a research program someone could undertake, for example, to demonstrate purely environmental causes for test score gaps (such as systemic racism), why haven't any of the hundreds of motivated researchers done these studies in the past several decades? Instead we seem to be rehashing another round of the Bell Curve wars, in which ideologically motivated critics vie to outdo each other with vehemence, without ever explaining how it contradicts the available evidence, and without ever detailing the additional research that would be required to settle the issue if it's as unsettled as the refusal to give reasons suggests. -- Teratornis (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that they denounce something without giving a proper reason, beyond a political correctness anti-racism scream. How is that something worth to address? But if some of the people who Wade cite disagree with him, it might be worth something. MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the letter? WHere exactly is that "political anticorrectness antiracism scream". They simply state that their research findings do not support the speculations made by Wade. That is a pretty specific reason. And furthermore they refer to Dobbs for additional critiques.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As already stated above, our job as Wikipedia editors here is to discuss how reliable sources evaluate the book. If we link to those sources, readers can decide for themselves how convincing the critiques are. It is well documented that this book has received a highly unusual number of critical reviews, and that scholars whose work is cited in the book disagree with the book's conclusions, and we shouldn't deny readers that information about the book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just honestly think it seems like political correctness stunt. But did you figure out if any of the guys Wade cite have denounced the book?MicroMacroMania (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * THEY STATE SO IN THE LETTER. Please read it. How can it be a "political correctness" stunt to point out that Wade abuses other peoples research by trying to make it support conclusions it doesnt support. That is a SCIENCE STUNT. Honestly, you need to try a little harder.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is not a stunt at all, but a commentary about science by working scientists who research the issues discussed in Wade's book every day. You could hardly ask for a better source for a Wikipedia article about a book than expert commentary about the very book itself by scientists who in several cases are cited directly by the book. (As an aside, there is some back-and-forth both in the article and here on the talk page for the article about who has read Wade's book and who has not, so perhaps it is a little bit useful here to ask which Wikipedians have read the book. I read Wade's book the last time I inserted edits into the Wikipedia article, attempting to note which pages were the exact page where certain statements in the book were made. I have been reading some other books since then, but I expect to take a second look at Wade's book to double-check that this Wikipedia article accurately reflects the reliable published sources, including the book itself, as this article goes through more edits.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt the letter is a "stunt," because I'm sure all of the signatories are fully aware of the fate that awaits anyone in academia who gets tarred with the "racist" label. But I can certainly ask for better commentary about a book than a denunciation without reasons. As Christopher Hitchens said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Surely these distingished academics can produce a better refutation of Wade's conjectures than a simple argument from ignorance (what has not been proven true is therefore false). Wouldn't we expect competent scientists to lead with their strongest arguments, namely arguments from evidence, rather than fall back on a fallacious argument? The letter itself does not establish whether it is a reliable source about the validity of the book's claims, or a reliable source about the perfectly understandable discomfort of scientists who fear being associated with the book, or who are uncomfortable with inadvertently discovering things that go against their own liberal leanings (which they are perfectly entitled to hold - politics has never been under any requirement to adhere to science, but we would like scientists to try to make clear when they are wearing their science or politics hats). It seems obvious that as evidence for genetic influence on behavior continues to accumulate, the scope for books like this one can only increase. As Peter Singer pointed out years ago in A Darwinian Left, "If your belief in equal rights and opportunities for all – and against racism, sexism and other kinds of discrimination – is based on there being no biological differences between people, then you’ll find it very hard to know what to do if clear evidence of biological differences actually appears." Wade's critics have had plenty of time to figure out what to do. Is this the best they have? -- Teratornis (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles Murray's conflict of interest
I believe the article should state that Charles Murray is the co-author of a book which also made widely-criticised claims regarding race and intelligence, because this fact is highly relevant to the statement that he gave this book a positive review. He is not a neutral party in this academic dispute, but the current wording of this Wikipedia article (except at the end) makes it sound like he is (and not everyone will read the article until the end). As to the new wording I propose, Murray's Wikipedia article describes him in its lead as a political scientist, not as a sociologist, so I propose to remove the potentially-misleading word "sociologist" and add after the word Murray, "who also (co-)authored a book on race and intelligence,". The word "sociologist" is potentially-misleading because some people will assume that a typical sociologist is liberal or left-wing, and therefore this sentence reads like it's seeking to give Murray's review more weight than it merits (because a positive review by a neutral liberal sociologist would be more surprising than a positive review by someone who already held the same opinions).--greenrd (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is of little value: most specialist know each other, publish papers with each other, go to the same conferences. It is even truer of the minority (new) opinion. Having the same ideas is not a conflict of interest.


 * This is an interesting rationale. If there is a source (and I think this is rather likely) that says these things about Murray's review of A Troublesome Inheritance, then this information is surely on-topic for this article and helpful for readers of Wikipedia. Has anyone found commentary about the differing reviews of the book, and "where those reviews come from" in terms of the ideological commitments and scientific backgrounds of the reviewers? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * we should include the bell curve link, relevant/notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits in June 2015
I am opening a talk page discussion section about further article edits after reverting some recent edits that are, in my opinion, completely inconsistent with an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article about a book that has been reviewed by many reviewers. Please note that I have the book in my office from which I edit Wikipedia, and I have paper or downloaded copies of just about every review of the book that has been published anywhere. Let's discuss what the reviews and other sources about the book say and make sure that this article accurately reflects reliable sources with  due weight on what those sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's very common on wikipedia to use the book in question as a primary source for an overview. An encyclopedia article on a book, that doesn't describe the book's content and only attacks it is very odd indeed. That stub of an overview is far from perfect, but can be worked on and improved with direct citations and e.g. topic headers. Currently it's better than nothing. Without the overview the article reads like a political and ideological attack on the book, contents of which are hardly mentioned. The criticism of the book and its reception should be a subnote and a neutral overview of the book's content form the main part. You can and should explain with citations Wade's thesis without agreeing or disagreeing with it, as per WP's guidelines. 87.93.7.202 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * These statements would be a lot more convincing if you pointed to any of the templates or other guidelines from WikiProject Books, which is a WikiProject I follow actively. The simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has to reflect  reliable sources, and the reviews of Wade's book by scholars in the relevant disciplines mostly write that Wade did a bad job of putting the book together. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No. You describe the book's content neutrally and then add reception and criticism. This is the encyclopedic way to write an article on any book. Now a description of the book's thesis, content, arguments etc. is nearly completely missing, and only a reaction is given. That is not right. If you think the overview is badly written, which it is, then it's the right thing to improve it with better language, citations, topic headers and other neutral descriptions etc. and not to remove it completely. It's better than nothing currently. 188.67.127.111 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The book itself is obviously the most reliable reference as to what the book actually says.  Beyond that, there is other people's commentary.  Tuntable (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Who has read the book, and has the book at hand?
I have a copy of A Troublesome Inheritance continually checked out of the friendly local public library for looking up passages as editing of this Wikipedia article continues. I read the book soon after that library first obtained it, back in 2014. I rarely see comments about the actual content of the book by people who have read the book here, so I thought I'd check to see who else has read the book and has it at hand. I have to agree with the majority of reviews that the book does a poor job of summarizing recent human genetics research and its implications, but it's a fair comment that the current version of the Wikipedia article about the book probably still needs expansion, including more specific references to where (on what page) Nicholas Wade makes various statements, along with more specific responses from reviewers about those. It seems that overall the book has not enjoyed the sales and the influence that the author originally hoped for. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to revert an edit three times.


 * And it is not the first time you remove edits on the content of the book. I agree that is a poor overview and should be improved upon with citations etc. but currently there's no adequate summary/overview of the book. Only couple of lines. And that should be the main content of an article on a book, the book's content. And the criticism, reception etc. in relation to that.


 * You clearly have a view that is negative towards Wade's thesis. And behavior genetics and related controversial fields of science and humananities in general. Ideological and political advocacy do not belong to an encyclopedia. It is true that the late Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Murray, Wade, Cohcran & Harpending (of 10,000 Year Explosion), Clark (A Farewell to Alms) are not in the mainstream of today's science or humanities, but this is not a popularity contest. They are not fringe, or creationist type unscience either, quite to the contrary their views are coherent and rational, and well within the larger scientific discourse, from which minority voices cannot be shunned or silenced as politically or ideologically unwelcome. E.O. Wilson got the water bucket treatment and shouts of fascist in the 1970's, today he is one of the most revered academics in his fields of study. From the Blank Slate we are progressing towards an increasingly biological view of man, not just with behavioral genetics, but also with evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology. Wade's thesis, like Wilson's 40 years earlier, stands on its own and can only be tested by time, and for the time being has its voice in the discourse. It is a potential paradigmatic change that has gradually been strenghtening in the past 40 years. And in an article of Wade's book, like on any book, the main voice should be that of his book. And other voices in reflection. And the reflection should be analytical (as per the WP guidelines on books you linked earlier). A group of academics, who have not read the book, pretty much calling him a racist with little comment on his thesis, does not qualify as analytic reflection. The article is "A Troublesome Inheritance" and not "the ideological dismissal of A Troublesome Inheritance". 188.67.235.166 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed, if I understood correctly, that you also claimed in reverting the edit that I am someone who's evading a ban. Care to explain your basis for that accusation? As a casual commentator, who has commented on articles or edited them rarely, I have never been even warned for my conduct. A dynamic IP that changes automaticly when you connect to net is completely common place, and not a basis for you to make accusations. Looking at your own editing history over a longer time in topics concerning human genetics, there seems to be a good reason to question whether you are advocacy editing, i.e. strongly pushing a certain viewpoint in several related topics and deliberately trying to keep out conflicting views. Which is not allowed. 188.67.154.167 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible changes of the summary

 * 'Disclaimers: First, I (as yet) have read neither the book, nor any one of its more 'weighty' reviews, nor the protesting letters from scientists he quotes. (The book is definitely on my list of books to acquire and read; but I have a backlog there.)  Secondly, I am a mathematician to my profession, with more of an amateur interest of evolution; even if one of my published papers actually in its title refers to phylogenetics, in reality, this, as my other publications, only concerns pure mathematics.  I have attended some conferences on bioinformatics and similar topics in the intersections of biology and mathematics; and have read some books and articles on population genetics, and some more 'biological' exposures of evolution related stuff; but I have good reason to believe that I suffer from the "qualified amateur's disease"; i. e., I think that I at rather specified questions may have an understanding of questions  'at the edge of present knowledge', while on the other hand I probably have many larger or smaller "blind areas", where I do not only lack knowledge, but also may lack an understanding of my lacunes.  (I think that this is a general problem, when a professional scientist dabbles at a field, without having the thorough broader education about it provided to those who study it professionally.)

The present disposition of the article seems to be rather reasonable: A lede, summarising the context and book content, and mentioning the substantial criticism; a brief summary of the book, and a longer section about its reception and the controversies accompanying it. Within this framework, I however would suggest an extension of the summary. However, considering the edit history, and the discussion threads supra, I understand that this preferrably should be preceeded by some agreements on the talk page first.

First of all, DrD001 and others, giving the work itself an "unbiased and factual" description never could or should include tries to justify its theses by us editors claiming that its critics must be wrong 'for obvious reasons'. I'm especially referring to this statement, included into a proposed section Overview here here (and very wisely quickly removed):
 * As odd as it appears, and for apparently political reasons, mainstream ideology rejects such evolution science. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, at least 30,000 years ago, meaning that we are all about the same. Why evolution might stop in substantial matters but continue in cosmetic features would take a great deal of explaining. Why it might stop among humans but continue among lower animals is just as slippery. Those who deny the last 30,000 years evolutionary explanation make strange bedfellows with Biblical creationists, who deny the whole package.

I am honestly surprised that a person with scientific schooling suggests inserting this material in this manner. I'm sure you're aware that you present this as the wp (Wikipedia) editors conclusions, which is not acceptable with wp standards. You should know how to present a cited author's opinions or conclusions in a way that is different from the citing author's. (Am I right in surmising that this is the way you handle conclusions from cited authors not having been able to reproduce your own research results, possibly because they missed an important factor in the prerequisits?  You surely could sum their results up, while at the same time making it clear for any qualified reader that doing so does not automatically imply that you endorse their conclusions!)

In other words, if you could source some parts of your suggested addition as coming from or summing up conclusions or opinions by Wade in hos book, then we might consider adding them to the summary' section.

On the other hand, whether the opinions you quote or those you criticise are closer to the reality, actually is irrelevant in a "summary" or an "overview". However, if the factual discussion is what interest you most, then I'm perfectly willing to discuss them, but not here. We could discuss this on your or my user talk page, where broader discussions are quite OK. (The talk page of an article, on the other hand, is primarily intended for discussions of the contents of the article.) I would however ask you first to read our article Meme carefully, if you are not already acquaintanced to this concept. Briefly, the concept, and accompanying theory, asserts that at a certain stage human evolution passed from mainly operating by selection of genes to a cultural evolution, where selection of ideas, habits, and skills became more important. I do not at all ask you to agree with the proponents of this theory; but in order for us to have a fruitful discussion, you should at least know what you criticise. (I hope you agree that if the theory of a cultural "memetic" evolution mainly replacing the genetic one in modern humankind does hold, then this would indeed contribute "a great deal of explaning", which you asked for in your article contribution.)

I see, from the quotation from Orr's review, that Wade actually himself makes a distinction between the first and the second half of the book, where he considers the second half as more "speculative". Since you have access to the book, can you confirm this? If so, I think this should be added to the summary - of course without Orr's disparaging comment. (Actually, I do not find it very strange, that an author, writing about a scientific subject, but turning to the general public, should make this kind of division. It is not that unusual to separate a more factual part of a 'popular science book'from a more speculative one.)  It then would be possible to distinguish Wade's "factual claims" from his "speculations". However, as far as I understand from the article and the review quotations, much of the fundamental criticism concerns the part that Wade actually considers 'factual'; and if this be the case, it probably should be mentioned in the reception section. JoergenB (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also read Orr's review : it offers a fair endorsement of the first half of N. Wade's book (minus some slight reservations), which one wouldn't expect after having read this curiously biased wiki article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.167.246 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, JoergenB, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Yes, I still have Wade's book at hand. I keep it in my office continually because, as you note, this article has had some rather controversial edits and it is always best to refer to the book when editing a Wikipedia article about a book. Yes, Wade distinguishes a first part of his book in which he says he is summarizing current research from a second part of his book in which he says he is presenting some speculative hypotheses, and it is my recollection that an earlier version of this article made that clear, with citations to the specific page numbers of Wade's book (which I looked at directly to verify this point at the time). But perhaps the article edits since then have made that issue less clear. Reviewers have commented on both parts of Wade's book, noting his different stated purposes in the two parts. I am also interested in reviewing the WikiProject Book general outlines and guidelines for how to write a Wikipedia article about a nonfiction book. Since anyone was last active in adding new, sourced content to this article, there have been some new reviews of Wade's book published, and it would be good to incorporate new information from those reviews into updates of this article. I have also become aware of an editorial practice (I'm not sure how much it has been fixed as a content guideline) here on Wikipedia suggesting that summaries of books or movies or other creative works not be excessively long. I'll try to check that point too. I'll keep Wade's book at hand in my office as edits to this article proceed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A new book with commentary on A Troublesome Inheritance
Hi, everyone,

I recently finished reading a newly published book that I can recommend wholeheartedly as a source for updating many Wikipedia articles, including this one. Author Daniel J. Fairbanks is a professor of genetics and author of a previous book about genetics for nonspecialist readers. His book does a great job of summarizing and analyzing results from current human genetics research. In the Epilogue of his book, on pages 152 through 154, he disagrees with one of the premises of Wade's book, based on findings of current genetic studies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He also talked about R&I:

"The same can be said for educational attainment. So-called racial differences in IQ scores are more a consequence of disparities in socioeconomic status and the quality of education than of any genetic differences between ethnic groups. Efforts to improve educational quality and opportunity can increase the economic benefits associated with increased educational achievement." --The Master (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)--The Master (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Feldman
From the article, one has the impression that Marcus Feldman, article was final, that no one ever tried to rebutt it, answer it. Is that true? Is this just a politically correct way to having the last word in this article and thus influence the readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.186 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a suggested edit? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Any more reviews besides those already cited?
Does anyone have any citations to reviews of the book besides those already mentioned in the article text or here on the talk page? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 19:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions
An IP editor is trying to make changes that appear to be aimed at discrediting critics of A Troublesome Inheritance and its author, Nicholas Wade. I reject them as an inappropriate form of editorializing and original research. One change alters a sentence reading "Critical reviewers state that Wade goes beyond scientific consensus" by replacing "state" with "claim". The change is presumably intended to try to diminish the importance of the criticism of Wade. See WP:CLAIM for the inappropriateness of that kind of change.

The added content reads, "The letter did not contain any citations to support its assertions." (The letter referred to is one criticizing Wade and his book). The addition seems to be simply an attempt to try to dismiss Wade's critics, and, as such, is completely inappropriate. It is no different in effect from adding an assertion to the effect that Wade's critics were wrong or that their criticisms were unsupported. The very last thing the article needs is editorial commentary of that kind, added by editors to try to support or attack critics or defenders of the book. A neutrally written article should simply note what was said in the letter; there is no need to note what it did not do. Note that the fact that citations were provided for the content added does not mean that it is not original research: inappropriate use of a cited source can also constitute original research.

Incidentally, the IP's most recent edit summary here contains abuse directed against me as a Christian. I would strongly advise the IP editor to cut out the personal abuse and simply stick to the subject. Insulting me for being a Christian will not help you make your case and is the kind of thing that could potentially lead to a block. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The IP editor is keeping up its abuse of me as a Christian ("I suspect the removal of these edits is due to anti-science religious motivations"). I again invite the editor to desist from such behavior and discuss the article in a reasonable manner here. I have requested article protection. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the article for a week. Both of you are edit-warring, and any more of that will result in blocks. Any more personal attacks in edit summaries likewise. Discuss it here and work it out. If you can't, then start a neutrally-worded RfC to get a community view on the edits. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP editor who wants to make the addition has behaved in a persistently unreasonable fashion. He or she should have discussed the issue on the talk page immediately after the first revert. Instead, the IP has reverted over and over again in an attempt to get the content included, reverting not only me but another IP editor as well. We have both edit warred, as you note, but the IP editor's behavior has, by any fair assessment, been objectively worse. In all this time, the IP has shown exactly no interest in talk page discussion. I hope that changes but see little reason to think that it will. As for the IP's addition, it is completely inappropriate, supported by no one other than the IP itself, and I think stands no chance of becoming accepted. Naturally anyone can place a request for comment if they wish, but I am not sure it is worth it (maybe it would serve a purpose if it convinces the IP that there neither is, nor is likely to be, support for its addition). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Article Slant
Large sections of this article use dishonest framing to work in a clear editorial slant that is unwarranted by the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Vagueness isn't helpful. Stick to reliable sources about this book. Do not add original research or synthesis of unrelated sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My wording seems like a fair summary of mainstream science in this field. If someone has a specific disagreement, they should mention it, but it's not synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to be clearly in conflict with, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution, measures should be taken to bring this article in line with articles about the science and the actual underlying science. Grayfell's edit warring in service of an idealogical agenda is not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for edit warring, but for future reference:
 * This article falls under WP:FRINGE, and like all articles, it must be based on reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, we do not soft-sell fringe ideas on biological racialism. Beyond that, we stick to reliable, independent sources. Any summary of sources must be direct and uncontroversially relevant to this specific book. This almost always means that all sources will specifically mention "A Troublesome Inheritance" by name. The sources added by the IP did not mention this book, or its author. Therefore using that source to argue in favor of the book's position is classic SYNTH. If something has changed in the six years since the book was published, we would need a reliable source to directly tell us this, and that source needs to directly connect this to the book. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Please stop making unwarranted changes to the introduction, Skllagyook. The statement originally made was by journalists from the New York Times, while the new citation was made by a scientist in the relevant field whose peer-reviewed work has been published in academic journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:6900:36E2:C912:714D:B6BA:1D3C (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second ref is a letter written and signed by several scientists, not by journalists. That is very clear in the source, link here https://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists
 * From the source:
 * "As scientists dedicated to studying genetic variation, we thank David Dobbs for his review of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” (July 13), and for his description of Wade’s misappropriation of research from our field to support arguments about differences among human societies.
 * 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. 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"
 * Five scientists wrote/released the letter, and list of scientists who signed/endorsed it (under "Signatories" after the letter, at/toward the bottom) is much longer and made up of various other scientists in relevant fields.
 * Adding Murray's opinion to the lede as a definitive scientific opinion when his view is a minority is very undue. Please see WP:UNDUE. Also, the WP:CONSENSUS is that racial hereditarian views such as Murray's are WP:FRINGE and should not be given undue prominence. Please see this Rfc discussion and decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence
 * (Murray's opinion is already included in the body of the article in a due manner). Skllagyook (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote by Orr
Should the following quote be included in the article? (I boldly removed it, but was subsequently reverted.) "Wade also thinks that 'evolutionary differences between societies on the various continents may underlie major and otherwise imperfectly explained turning points in history such as the rise of the West and the decline of the Islamic world and China.' Here, and especially in his treatment of why the industrial revolution flourished in England, his book leans heavily on Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms (2007)."

I don't see how this extended quote improves the article. It's overly detailed compared to the rest of the section, making it incongruous for the reader, and it's not entirely clear what (if anything) is being criticized. This material seems to be adequately summarized by the summary in the previous section: "In the second part of his book, Wade proposes regional differences in evolution of social behavior explain many differences among different human societies around the world." Stonkaments (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Orr's review touches upon virtually ever complaint scientists have had with this book, and as such, serves as a great overview of the countless criticisms. Orr's expertise is right in line with this review, and as such, warrant inclusion based on that alone. If there are concerns about Orr being overrepresented here, the solution would be to add additional commentary from other scientists, not to remove Orr's comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Orr's review is valuable and warrants inclusion―a full paragraph in the article is currently devoted to it. But that doesn't address whether including this quote specifically is appropriate/due weight. Stonkaments (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment above explicitly addressed this. Orr's critique is representative of the countless scientific critiques. If you want to remove these quotes, then they should be replaced with quotes covering the same critiques from others, which would likely expand the section significantly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Orr may be a respected scholar, but presenting his views in multiple paragraphs as well as gaudy block quotes gives disproportionate weight to his views alone (and let's face it: block quotes are often just lazy and look tacky). The reception should not be "the book as according to H. ALLEN ORR (and some other scientists)", yet that's how it reads. What is best would be to rely more on third party sources that comment on the reception and controversy, and less on individual reviews, which are primary sources with respect to the views expressed, and can be cherry-picked. MPants, do you have secondary sources that support your assertion that Orr's views are representative summaries of countless critiques, or is this your own conclusion? --Animalparty! (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fact, and as that statement is not contained in the article, your obvious attempt to cry WP:OR here is pointless. OR does not apply to talk page discussions or our individual decision-making processes.
 * And I have multiple sources for it:    Orr's review is, handily, the most widely-cited review of this book and Orr's views are echoed and referenced by numerous other reviewers (including all of those above as well as several more used in the article). Per our guidelines at WP:NPOV, the reception section damn well should be "as reviewed by H Allen Orr" or something very much resembling that, otherwise we're not conveying a neutral and accurate summary of the sources.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up duplicated sections
My edit here is an attempt to combine the "Reception" and "Response" sections, the latter of which was almost entirely duplicative, with the exception of Wade's response and Feldman's critique. I moved Feldman's critique up with the rest of the criticism, and renamed the latter section "Wade's response to criticism".

I also added that Wade claims neither Coop nor Eisen responded to his request for corrections following their letter; he wrote that Coop never responded and that, while Eisen promised corrections, none were forthcoming.

, I cannot understand why you would not assume good faith and instead accuse me of "obfuscating an attempt to remove criticism and edit war with a misleading edit summary"—nothing could be further from the truth. I was in the middle of editing when you summarily reverted my prior edit with nothing other than "WP:UNDUE", and so I took pains to make clear in the summary that "obviously it's relevant and DUE that Wade's critics didn't respond to his request for corrections". What's the point of including the letter from Wade but leaving out that he was frustrated by a lack of response from the letter's authors? And regardless, you've reverted (without comment) the fact that I cleaned up a great deal of duplicated material. I just don't get the hostility and unfounded accusations.

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See my edit summary. You attempted to remove criticisms of the book and re-inserted disputed material with that edit. Your edit summary said nothing about the removal or the readdition, only about merging sections. It's all right there in the diff, for anyone to see. There was no lack of WP:AGF, there was only me pointing out the fact that your edit summary was highly misleading. If you feel that reflects poorly upon you, then I would suggest in the future that you not mention one thing in the edit summary while you do three things, at least one of which you'd just been reverted on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw your edit summary—what criticism of the book did I remove, exactly? If indeed I did so, it was certainly unintentional. Also, I didn't mention "one thing", I mentioned at least four: "Renamed "Response" section, which was largely duplicative of the "Reception" section, moved Feldman's article to the latter, and renamed "Response" to "Wade's response to criticism" as that was the only remaining information not already included above. As for the reversion claiming "WP:UNDUE", obviously it's relevant and DUE that Wade's critics didn't respond to his request for corrections." Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "In an open letter to The New York Times, the book was denounced by over 139 professors of biology and genetics." You also put a level one section heading on Wade's response, as if his response was anywhere near as relevant as the actual criticism. I mean, the criticism is probably the only reason the book qualifies for an article. I can't find a single result in the first three pages of a google result that doesn't mention the letter signed by the scientists. I also can't find one in that same range that mentions Wade's response, except in to note in passing that he made one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you read the text you've been reverting in the article? I ask because, as I stated, I only removed duplicated sections. You will still find, under "Reception": "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." It's accompanied by a block quote from the letter. Unless there are two letters signed by 139 professors, I fail to understand what I "removed". As for a "level one section heading"—I don't even know what that is, and didn't "put a heading" on anything. As I explained, I thought rather clearly, I simply kept the only non-duplicated information (after moving the Feldman criticism) and renamed it to reflect what was left; it made little sense to me that there was both a "Reception" and a "Response" section that duplicated information about the letter, and it seemed Feldman's criticism wasn't so different in subject, date, or conclusion that it warranted a "Response" section as distinct from the "Reception" section preceding it. And while I'm sure your unsolicited suggestions to me were intended to be constructive, I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't like to reconsider or rephrase it, as I didn't "mention one thing in the edit summary while [doing] three things" in any way, and it appears to me that you aren't even aware of the content of the material you've near-instantaneously reverted. Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, yes, I love being told I'm mansplaining WP practices by an editor with [checks notes] 1/40th as many edits on [checks notes] 1/14th as many pages edited as I. I'm sure your experience and competence with WP outstrips my own by leaps and bounds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way suggesting I have more experience—I freely admit to being a novice. But do you suppose you could respond substantively to the above? Again, did you actually read the article and my revision and, if so, what criticism did I remove? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way suggesting I have more experience—I freely admit to being a novice. Then perhaps you should read the article on mansplaining before you next use it to dismiss something someone tells you. Being told you're wrong about something is not what being mansplained to is. It is, in fact, possible for a woman to be wrong about something, and for a man to correct her without a misogynistic motive. I would, at this point, remind you that I have not had, until the moment you mentioned mansplaining, any reasons to suspect you were a woman, and good reason to suspect otherwise.
 * Immediately jumping to the conclusion that bigotry of some variety underlies an objection to your editing is a generally bad practice, as it makes it functionally impossible to collaborate with you for anyone bothered by the incivility of it. It is, in fact, the least bigoted people who are most likely to be bothered by the accusation, and I'm sure I don't need to explain why alienating the least bigoted people is a bad idea.
 * As for the rest of your comment: the response section simply needs to go. The bit you removed was important for context of writing about Wade's response (hence my objection; the repetition elsewhere was mostly immaterial), but the notion that Wade's response to the criticisms of his book bears anywhere near the weight of criticisms from a hundred and forty subject matter experts is ridiculous. We would barely consider a single expert's dissent from that sort of consensus, let alone a non-expert like Wade. Giving Wade's response a section heading amplifies it far beyond NPOV.
 * The proper way forward would to reduce the verbiage covering Wade's response and move it and Feldman's review to the reception section, then delete the response section. A single sentence characterizing it would be the best balance, like Wade responded, denying the assertions of the scientists and stating that his book presents a "principled" objection to racism.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disputed edits
IP 2601:18A:C500:330:0:0:0:0/64 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll note that the phrase is WP:OR as well as WP:GEVAL (not to mention WP:WEASEL); none of the sources cited in the first paragraph under § Reception mention praise for the book, let alone . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. By far the most notable thing about this book is the unprecedented letter signed by 139 senior subject-matter experts saying it misrepresents the science of human population genetics. Everything else about this book pales in comparison to that extraordinary fact. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was an extraordinary letter, and remains so 10 years later. The book was 'praised' by people with no background in population genetics. If someone writes a book about cosmology, and it's roundly criticized by cosmologists, but praised by linguists, something's seriously wrong there. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)