Talk:Richard Lynn/Archive 2

Merge Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations into this article
It has been suggested at Talk:Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, an article with little content, that its subject is an out-of-print book that is not very notable and has largely been treated with indifference. It may be better to treat it in this article which provides context and background for the book.

The following discussion is copied from Talk:Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (with minor formating edits to headings). Please add your comments on the merge proposal below that discussion after the subheading "Merge content of the book into this article".

Notability
This book is nowhere close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for books:


 * 1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
 * 2) The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3) The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
 * 4) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
 * 5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

Clearly five reviews in specialist journals and a single short newspaper article are not enough to establish notability, we need multiple independent commentaries on the book otherwise there is not enough material for this to be anything other than a brief description of the book itself. Furthermore the article must remain about the book and not become a pov-form for the Dysgenics article. Was it the subject of a media controversy when it was published (such as the "Bell Curve")? Was it a best seller (as the "Bell Curve" was)? This book seems to have generally been received with indifference except by a few supporters of this right wing political ideology and a couple of journal reviews. I'm going to put it up for deletion in a few days if there is not more evidence of notability provided than this. Alun (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I think saying it is 'nowhere close' is rather silly; it's certainly close to being notable if it does fail. I'll also point out that it only has to meet one of these points, not all of them, in case it's not obvious to anyone.


 * It does fail 2-5 though, so it's basically a question of whether it meets point 1 (though the author having his own article does give it a slight boost over a book with a less notable author). One part of this requirement that I hadn't read clearly was the clause about serving a 'general audience'. Taking that into account I'm less sure about its notability. There probably is more reception material available for the book than I have gathered here in a brief web search, but you're right in pointing out that most of these articles are not for the 'layperson'.


 * However, the guideline is not clear how much has to be for the layperson (I'll have to bring this up; looking at the talk page this criterion also seems controversial). I think even the article in Sunday Times is enough (and who is to say what other coverage it got - this isn't even from the Times webpage, and material from newspapers 12 years ago is unlikely to be found easily online (or offline), so finding even one or two articles may indicate there have been others). One page also says "Chris Brand's review of Dysgenics was first published in the Internet magazine, PINC [Politically Incorrect]"; an "internet magazine" is certainly not a 'specialist journal' as you called it.


 * It seems that there are several more reviews in journals, so I doubt the number of reviews will be a problem. It's really a question of whether there is enough layperson material out there (though I suspect this is the sort of subject journalists wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole for fear of being labeled racist right wing Nazis, thus my concern with this requirement.)


 * Finally, one of the reviews was by a well known biologist, Bill Hamilton.


 * I'm not sure why you say furthermore the article must remain about the book and not become a pov-fork for the Dysgenics article; why do you think it would?


 * I'm sure you are aware that there are many - perhaps even the majority - of books (and academic journals - not many of them get discussed in newspapers) out there that have less indication of notability than this one. I'm not saying that their not having been deleted means this one shouldn't be (there are a lot that I should be taking to AFD myself, I'm just too lazy/busy), but if we're going to be consistent across the board I think a lot of other articles should be getting the cut sooner or later if this one does.


 * I haven't read much of the book yet (though I already note that Lynn is a bit too "right wing" for my liking), nor any of the reviews besides Hamilton's lengthy one, and I'm trying to study for exams over the next week, so try not to be too hasty on this one. Richard001 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I summarised one review for the BLP of Richard Lynn before this stub was created and another afterwards. W.D. Hamilton's review is a piece written under exceptional circumstances, as he died of malaria before it could be revised or prepared for press, as described in the editorial preamble. A large part of the review is devoted to Hamilton's own very personal musings - he called his piece a "rambling essay". He was undoubtedly an exceptionally distinguished scientist as evidenced by his Royal Society Research Professorship, one of the highest scientific honours in the UK. The other published review, with a more detailed critique even if shorter, is by the distinguished experimental psychologist N.J. Mackintosh, also an FRS. Both describe the book as being on the verge of political correctness and both salute the gathering of so much relevant data. I am unable to evaluate whether this book is noteworthy or not. I would assume there are many much more widely cited books, possibly classics of long standing, in psychology or evolutionary biology which do not have their own special article on the WP. It might fairly be argued that the current insubstantial article is a fork of the BLP of Lynn: this is probably my own view at present. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a question of whether it meets criterion (1). I think that the main reason it doesn't meet the first criterion is that there are relatively few reliable sources online that refer to this book, and the reviews are all from academic publications that one would expect to review such a book irrespective of it's importance, that doesn't show notability, mostly these reviews were shortly after publication. The book created no major controversy, was not discussed widely in the general media or the scientific media and is not used as an academic text. The first criterion states that "some of these works serving a general audience", but all we have is a single, very short article from the Sunday Times (I'm not sure that PINK doesn't count as a specialist site, because it seems to me that a site called "Politically Incorrect" is a specialist site, and specifically one where a book on dysgenics would find great favour, as it is obviously specifically for those of a right-wing bent). Because this article is about the book and not about dysgenics as a subject, it seems to me that we will never be able to get past a stub because there is just not enough written about the book itself to make it more than a stub article. Let's face it even several hundred reviews on publication are not enough to establish notability. Now if there were a series of article/letters especially written to either rebut or support the book (but not a reviews) by eminent scientists, then notability would be more apparent. For example Lynn and Vanhanen's IQ and the Wealth of Nations received a great deal of attention, and is therefor notable. It was especially commented on here in Finland where Vanhanen's son is the prime minister, needless to say Matti Vanhanen had to distance himself from his father's so called "research". Indeed if the book had produced a great deal of controversy then notability would be clear. This tomb seem to have been generally greeted with indifference except for a few reviews in journals that one would expect to cover this sort of publication whether it was important or not. Probably the reason is that Lynn seems to rely on heritability as his main reason for assuming genetic aetiology of a trait, but the misuse of heritability has been extensively documented in the past, especially in the 1970's in Montagu's Race and IQ, where it was comprehensively shown that heritability is a property of populations (see Dobzhansky (1973) "Genetic diversity and human equality") and not traits, and especially that for complex human traits heritability estimates tend to ignore the large covariance between environment and genes, leading to a general suspicion regarding heritability generally within the scientific community (see most articles in Montagu's "Race and IQ"). Mostly scientists probably think this has been dealt with and is not important. While we're on the subject of Montagu and Dobzhansky, you say that Lynn's book in notable simply because Lynn is notable. But let's face it Ashley Montagu and Theodosius Dobzhansky are giants of 20th century science, their contribution to science bestrides the world in a way that Lynn never will, and yet every book they ever wrote does not have a Wikipedia article, the notability of an academic does not denote that every publication of said academic is notable. Montagu's Race and IQ does not have a Wikipedia article, but it is supremely more notable than Lynn's "Dysgenics", it is considered the definitive refutation of Arthur Jensen's Harvard Educational Review paper "How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement?" Indeed I cannot understand why Jensen's paper doesn't have an article of it's own, now that paper is certainly notable and much more notable than Lynn's book. Certainly there are other articles on non-notable books on Wikipedia that should be deleted, but I fail to see how this fact is at all relevant to this article. Alun (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I'm not pushing for this article to be deleted, I'm just sceptical that it is notable, how are we going to get past a stub if there is no real debate/controversy centering upon the book? Alun (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant to this book's notability status whether there are articles on less notable books or whether there are not articles on more notable books. I was simply pointing out that if we are to be consistent a lot of other book articles should be nominated for deletion if this one is. Your ideas of what is required for notability are quite different to mine; I thought that a couple of reviews in reliable sources were enough, or, taking the general audience clause into account, a couple of reviews/articles etc aimed at a general audience. Given how vague the notability guidelines are perhaps we should seek to establish which of us is correct; according to you hundreds of reviews aren't enough.


 * Regarding what to write, we write what we would for any other book article; basically a little background, a summary of the book (summarizing a 200 page book provides plenty to write about) and its reception. There are at least ten reviews of it so I don't see any shortage of sources here either. If it is decided that the book meets notability requirements the article could be expanded far beyond a stub. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant to this book's notability status whether there are articles on less notable books or whether there are not articles on more notable books.
 * That's what I said, but it was you who brought it up when you said "though the author having his own article does give it a slight boost over a book with a less notable author." The notability of the author is irrelevant to the book. I'm glad you agree. I also agree with you that we don't see eye to eye about what is notable. I don't consider a few reviews a demonstration of notability. Most books will get some sort of review when published, that's in the nature of the publishing business, that doesn't make them notable. What makes them notable is if they demonstrate something remarkable, like to inspire a scientific debate, or in the case of literature a literary debate. This book seems to have failed this test, though other books with the same theme have generated considerable scientific and general media debate (the Bell Curve for example). This book is not established within any select group of notable scientific books. Alun (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, another way to establish it's notability would be to expand it beyond a two sentence article, because it's clear that a two sentence article about a book hardly establishes it as having generated notability as a publication. That notability must be about the book and not about dysgenics as a subject. If you want to discuss dysgenics then please do so on the dysgenics article. Alun (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying that? When have I (or anyone else) ever tried to discuss or write about the general subject of dysgenics here? Richard001 (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thinking about something else. I've been thinking about this and I think you're probably right that this may be borderline notable. Although I'm sceptical about the book's notability, I do tend towards inclusionism. I suggest that the best thing to do is to work on expanding the article. I'll remove the notability template. Alun (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression that you were a deletionist myself. I would probably call myself an inclusionist too, if I had to pick between that and 'deletionism'. Regarding the connection with the Lynn article, you can also see this book as a 'subarticle' of the author's, which allows readers to learn more about him than they otherwise would (well, not at the moment since it's just a stub). But I don't consider an article being a subarticle of another much more than a tiny boost to its notability; as I have pointed out elsewhere, virtually any article can be framed as a subarticle of one or more others of higher notability. Although you've removed the template, I would still like to get some wider input before I consider expanding it (and that will also have to wait at least a week until I have a break); I would like to make sure that nobody else out there wants this deleted.

By the way, if you want a similar article to nominate for deletion you might consider The Gene Bomb. I tagged that one for notability myself but left it be when I saw there were a few reviews of it. I don't think any of them were for a 'general audience' though; it's certainly more borderline than this. I don't really feel like reconsidering it myself, as I went to the trouble of uploading a cover image and all. And I'm an 'inclusionist'. Richard001 (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I realised that it's not easy to expand an article if you have to spend all your time on the talk page defending it. So I though it would be better to leave it for the time being to see if it gets expanded. Alun (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said below in a different conversation, working on an article that might get deleted in the future isn't exactly my cup of tea. If I was to expand this I would probably begin by writing a decent synopsis of the book, which would contribute nothing to determining its notability. Expanding on the reception might help to summarize the many reviews so an overview of them can be gained without reading them all, and quite a lot of them are not freely available, but I think it should still be possible to adequately determine if the article should be deleted without me doing potentially worthless work on it.


 * I'm working on getting a free photograph of Professor Lynn, and will ask him if he recalls any 'general audiency' articles on the book that might give its notability a boost. Following up on the criticism mentioned in the Sunday Times article (see the end; was it published elsewhere, or based on the original research of the journalist?) might also provide more sources (we especially need critical ones; a lot of the reviews are from sympathizers). Richard001 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources
Apparently Vining has written a review: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2584772, as well as Harpending http://www.jstor.org/pss/3037699, and Loehlin http://www.jstor.org/pss/1049316. I'm not sure however if sources that aren't easily accessible should be included. --Zero g (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A review by Thomas Jackson in the American Renaissance http://www.amren.com /ar/1997/04/#article3 --Zero g (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also 1997 reviews by Jones and Lamb, cited in the Vining review. Any article in a peer-reviewed journal can be cited in a WP article. Whether it is accessible to a particular WP editor (e.g. a schoolchild) is irrelevant. I glanced at the three reviews on jstor above. It seems that all mainstream reviewers agree that Lynn gathered a substantial amount of very useful data relevant to heritability, etc, unavailable to prewar eugenecists; that the book is occasionally weak on the finer points of analysis when it touches subjects such as anthropology or genetics; and that eugenics is still to some extent taboo politically. Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for clarifying that. --Zero g (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a review was written about the book in the Salisbury Review by Antony Flew, I haven't been able to find a link to the actual text however. "You can't say that!," Antony Flew, The Salisbury Review, Spring 1998. (Review of Richard Lynn's Dysgenics) --Zero g (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that pretty much covers it then. Shall we take the notability template down? By the way, if sources that aren't easily accessible had to be taken down we would have to remove basically all citations to peer reviewed journals etc, which would pretty much destroy Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this book is notable. The fact that it is no longer officially in print must be some indication. Rather than having a not particularly useful debate on a talk page, please take some time to (a) summarise the contents in a coherent way (if that is possible) (b) summarise the reviews (as I have partially done elsewhere). I have no idea why somebody thought the list of contents would be of the slightest interest in an encyclopedia. As I say this article seems to be a fork, created immediately after new content on the book was added to the main article Richard Lynn. The fact that no encyclopedic content has yet been added to this article seems to confirm this. Please try to write a serious article (not a stub). After that it might be sensible to have a debate. At the moment we are discussing a non-existent article, a useless and uninformative list. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 'contents' section, that's really more of a place holder for an actual synopsis of the book (see my hidden comment). The conclusion sections at the end of each chapter of the book would make these easy to write - I like it when books do this). Having a contents section certainly provides a lot more information than having nothing, especially when the chapters have names that provide a good indication of what the chapter is about (as scientific literature tends to). They're also very easy to generate - it's often just a matter of locating a website that has a contents list and pasting it here. Richard001 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to understand why it's not in print--the used copies are going for incredible prices ($550 on Amazon), which would usually prompt a publisher to print another run. This book didn't generate the level of controversy of The Bell Curve (what book does?), but enough people have read it and commented on it to make it notable. A fair number of people are here engaged in this conversation, and all know about this book. In the academic world, anyone who has tried to make sense of the heritability of IQ issue has probably read it, and that is a lot of people. The fact that some extreme right-wingers praise the book is unfortunate, but it actually reinforces the book's notability.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just musing here, but wouldn't a yardstick of academic notability be how many peer-reviewed papers actually cite the book as a source?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm way too busy to expand this beyond a stub; if you want to know more you'll have to read the book and/or its reviews. I'm also not going to bother expanding if there is even a slight chance it will be deleted. Expanding an article so we can discuss whether it should exist seems to me like a particularly absurd way to waste time. Until its notability seems certain I'm unlikely to do anymore on the article, and reading the rest of the book, its reviews, and studying *drags self away from Wikipedia* will have to come first even if it is notable. The number of citations would indeed be a good indicator of notability as well. Richard001 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Why is this same conversation going on in two seperate sections? Alun (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of citations on Web of Science (which covers the most important subset of peer-reviewed journals) is 41. In the social sciences, that's a respectable number, especially for a book. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually very familiar with what a 'respectable' number of citations is, but I'll take your word for it. I'm guessing books don't get cited as often because they tend to just collect material from existing primary literature and have little original research? Richard001 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is part of it. More of a problem, from my point of view, is that books are not peer reviewed, for the most part. Some publishers are quite good and exercise stringent editorial oversight. Some exercise almost none. Review articles, published in journals, are frequently cited. They serve much the same purpose as a book, usually have extensive footnotes, and are peer reviewed according to the editorial standards of the journal. The author is usually invited by the journal editor to write the review. I have been unable to find a review article for dsygenics. That is a measure of the lack of scientific interest in the topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While the book isn't as notable as some of Lynn's other works, I think Anthon.Eff makes several good arguments in favor of inclusion. Given the amount of available reviews and Richard's enthusiasm I'm confident that a decent article could be created. How about we have a mock vote and see where people stand on this? --Zero g (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for an RfC to get an even wider audience, as I have this feeling the regular editors around here are fairly nearly split down the middle. We need more input.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not skilled with Web of Science, but was only able to find 11 citations. All were book reviews and the most recent was published in 2000. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that an RfC will actually generate much more input; I have had pretty poor experiences using the process myself. I have already asked for input at several other talk pages too (dysgenics, eugenics, WikiProject Genetics and Books) An AfD might be necessary to get wider input.


 * What, in the opinion of those who think it should be deleted, would be enough to secure notability? Can it possibly meet requirements if no more 'general audience' material is found? Richard001 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't worry overmuch about "general audience" notability. I would concentrate on what other peer-reviewed papers have cited this book (excluding reviews of this book and works by the author himself - people are known to be prone to self-quoting, especially in academic media). If we're looking at a handful of citations, then I'd doubt it could be considered notable enough.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another factor to consider is the distribution in time of publications citing the work. A few citations soon after publication followed by a lapse of interest may be indicative of work with no lasting value and/or that has been superseded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll finish reading the book around Sunday and then I'll look at reviews and citations and see if I can come up with anything more. Richard001 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To investigate the significance of Lynn's 1996 book, "Dysgenics, Genetic deterioration in modern populations", I searched for citations using Google Scholar, a good tool for this purpose. I considered papers published after 2000, not by Lynn and not book reviews, i.e., independent research citing Lynn's book. I found three papers/books by Kevin MacDonald, a psychologist; MacDonald (2006) "An evolutionary perspective on human fertility", Population & Environment, MacDonald and Hershberger (2004), "Theoretical Issues in the Study of Evolution and Development" in "Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development", MacDonald (2002) "Conclusion: Whither Judaism and the West?" in "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements",


 * The other papers appear to be mostly papers on psychology, education and archaeology. In reverse chronological order, they are Shatz (2008) IQ and fertility: A cross-national study, Intelligence, Ramsden (2007) "A differential paradox: The controversy surrounding the Scottish mental surveys of intelligence and family size", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,, MacEachern (2006), Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century, World Archaeology, Nunes (2006) "Deafness, Genetics and Dysgenics" Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, Cocodia et al. (2003), Evidence that rising population intelligence is impacting in formal education, Personality and Individual Differences,  Meisenberg (2003) "IQ Population Genetics:  It’s not as Simple as You Think",  Mankind Quarterly, Howard (2001), Personality and Individual Differences, "Searching the real world for signs of rising population intelligence",, Geary and Flinn (2001), Evolution of Human Parental Behavior and the Human Family", Parenting,, Thienpont (2001), "Intelligentie, genetica, en de samenleving" in "Biologie van de geest: psychologie en pedagogiek door de genetica u",


 * The paper by Meisenberg appears in Mankind Quarterly, "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race", and not a journal of biological science or population genetics despite the title of the paper. (See wikilinked article for the quotation source and more information of this publication of the Pioneer Fund). I was unable to identify any of the authors of the papers as biologists or geneticists.


 * I count nine independent journal citations in the last seven years, less than two per year. The meager attention that Lynn's book still receives is from psychologists, educators and related fields. I found no citations by biologists or geneticists. It is likely that its poor distribution in academic libraries (missing from those of Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College) and its out of print status are correlates of this disinterest.


 * I concur with Mathsci (above). "I would assume there are many much more widely cited books, possibly classics of long standing, in psychology or evolutionary biology which do not have their own special article on the WP. It might fairly be argued that the current insubstantial article is a fork of the BLP of Lynn: this is probably my own view at present." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm sceptical of it's notability. The reaction of the academic community and the press to this book can bets be described as indifference. Alun (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I looked at some of the comments on the book online. Also looked at google hits. I posted on sci.anthropology.paleo for many years, I have seen many similar topics come forth concerning the declining IQ and the great white nomads of the steps who were all 120+ IQ. In terms of humans genetics, this stuff is fiction and should not be in a human genetics section. I am surprised that an AfD for the page has not been done. really. I will look at the book reviews on monday in JSTOR. I am not a big fan of Henry's work in molecular anthropology, well see what he has to say about this book.PB666 yap 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read two of the reviews on this book, on from a political science journal was positive it does not seem to be overtly negative and neutral, the issue I see in Henry's review is something that I don't know is acceptable. Who from a medical anthropology background has reviewed the book, are negatively selective traits assessed by clinicians?

Henry harpending does molecular anthropology, he is noted for work done on mitochondrial eve and other loci. Dysgenic traits in a given enviroment should have assigned selective coefficients, in principle the idea is correct, in fact I debated the issue in college from that point of view, but since I have worked in genetic typing of people who have inflammatory disease I have found that things are not so simple, variable environemnt plays a key role, and until someone can sit down and place factor X creates selection coefficient Y for gene Z then there is very little to do except speculation. Is a book review on this book really needed for wiki?PB666 yap

Merge content of the book into this article

 * Support per nomination. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose A good summary of the content was added to the article today. The amount of sources provided is sufficient to proof notability. Also, I don't see how merging would benefit this article so it would be equal to deletion. If notability is really an issue I suggest putting it up for deletion instead. --Zero g (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ultimately a question of notability; there is always going to be some loss of information if it is merged here. An AfD might be better for this purpose, as it should generate more input. The academic notability guidelines are too fuzzy for me to decide on this one. Richard001 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. There is already more material here; the list of contents is not particularly useful, but a comprehensive record of published reviews (including that of Haag) would be very useful. Mathsci (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. A book is not notable just because it's been published and reviewed. Alun (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. It makes sense to cover the man, his ideas, and his books in one place. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support As per Mathsci and Alun.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With no comments since 2 July 2008, closed with the result merge and a tally of (5,1,1). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge
As I said before, I would have preferred an AfD. Clearly the full content of the article can't be preserved by merging, so the article is effectively being deleted. Richard001 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, given consensus has not been reached (two editors objecting to the merge) the article must stay as it is or be put up for deletion. --Zero g (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above merge shows a 5-1 split in favor of merging, with you being the sole disagreeing editor. This is a consensus, though it's not unanimous.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Had the above discussion been about merging the article with the 'smurfs' article the outcome had been just as invalid with one editor disagreeing. Wikipedia works this way to avoid that small groups of editors can make ridiculous changes based on 'consensus'. --Zero g (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Zero g, as per WP:CON, consensus does not require unanimity. The result remains valid whether or not you agree with it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend an AfD, to get more opinions. --Elonka 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, the contents of the article has already been merged into Richard Lynn (or most of it, anyway), and the merge was endorsed 5-1, with strong arguments in favor. Are you suggesting the whole merge be undone and the process restarted because the lone dissenter will not accept the consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Might Elonka possibly mean RfC? Her comment seems quite confused and unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka almost certainly means AfD (a typo is very unlikely), which I agree with. I would also oppose merging; I only avoided saying so because I thought it would be taken to AfD to get some fresh input from someone other than this tiny sample of people here. An RfC would in theory be just as good, but, unless my experiences are far from representative, the RfC process is basically useless. Anyway, it's a question of notability, and AfD is the best place for that. Richard001 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this makes it 3 people who think this merge is improper. --Zero g (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of an exaggeration to assert that the article "is effectively being deleted" by the merge, in my opinion. Regarding content, I removed the chapter by chapter synopsis because I didn't think it really added anything. But, that is more style than substance. Some of the sources may satisfy WP:RS and could be converted to inline citations; some appear to be published on personal websites, however, with no editorial oversight. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is no exaggeration to say it has been deleted. That it is partially covered by a parent article does not mean it hasn't been deleted. Richard001 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If Richard001 wants to point to sections which weren't included in the Lynn article, but which he thinks should have been, I'd invite him to bring them here so we can discuss them.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is probably already too much on the book here. Imagine trying to cover all of Lynn's books thoroughly in a single article if you will. Richard001 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Elonka. You are intervening here as an ordinary editor. I wonder whether you could step back a moment and take the trouble to examine the history of this and related articles? I am suggesting this as a courtesy to other editors, because your brief statement is made out of the blue, two weeks too late and in the wrong place. Like every other WP editor interested in "Richard Lynn" related articles, you had the possibility of commenting on the merge at the appropriate time and place. If you want to edit this and related articles, c'mon in. If you came here because you are tracking the edits of User:Zero g, please be more careful in the future so as not to create needless wikidrama. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It might be helpful to clarify the situation. The wikipedia fork on Lynn's book Dysgenics was created only after summaries of reviews of the book started to be added to this page. At the time the fork contained only a list of contents and was not expanded (apart from adding a synopsis) because Richard001 expressed doubts that the fork would survive. No material has been lost, although it was suggested that all reviews could be added to the references here (including those by Jones and Haag which seem to have got lost in the wash). Walter has transferred all this data here. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not a fork. A fork is either an article that duplicates another on a POV article created with the intention of being POV. I wish you would stop saying fork, and acting like I was even aware that the section here had been expanded. Please learn what a fork is and/or stop being so disingenuous. Richard001 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on the book was created after details from reviews started to be added here. That seems like forked content. (I am not even sure that your own synopsis of the book Dysgenics was strictly speaking permissible.) You also suggested creating an article on a book by Lynn that was published just one month ago. Although I always assume good faith, the fact that you added a wikilink here for your stub on the book created immediately after my addition of a review seems to speak for itself. Or am I missing something here? Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't watching this article; I didn't review recent history before adding the red link. My synopsis was just a summary of the book; I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is a difference between summarizing someone's views and suggesting approval of them, as I'm sure you can understand. I didn't suggest creating an article on the book at all; yet again you are misrepresenting me. I suggested adding a mention of the book here to keep the article up to date (Lynn informed me of the new book when I was arranging a photograph to be taken for the article). Of course, if a book is notable an article should certainly be created for it (this sometimes even happens before a work is released for highly anticipated books, so you're suggestion that we have to wait years before creating an article on a book is highly absurd). Richard001 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was put up for deletion, feel free to comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. --Zero g (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating
Would 'low' importance for psychology be appropriate? Richard001 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section
I have deleted the words "and who is also well known among Neo-Nazis and hate groups" in the introduction beacuse no where in the source given (reference 3) was this mentioned. 81.132.36.58 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Libel
I asked Lynn and he responded that he never said that incompetent cultures should be phased out. This quotation should be removed because it is libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.10.24 (talk) 12:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's certainly not something that should be placed in the second sentence, and even if he did say it, he certainly doesn't stand by the statement, so we shouldn't present it as if he does. If it is to be readded it shouldn't be in the lead and it should be pointed out that he denies having ever said such a thing. Richard001 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation is Richard Lynn, "Review: A New Morality from Science: Beyondism." by R.B. Cattell. Pergamon Press, New York, 1972. Pages xvii and 482. Irish Journal of Psychology 2 #3 (Winter 1974). It complies with my reading of WP:BLP which does not advise basing content on unsubstantiated assertions by anonymous editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That Lynn denies this is something he has said himself both to me and the editor above. Specifically, he has said that he was quoting a book. In situations like this it is far wiser to avoid potential libel than not to, don't you think?


 * I have now read the review in question. It is certainly not clear that these are his views. It is a review of a book called A New Morality from Science: Beyondism by Raymond Cattell (which sounds like a revolting and profoundly stupid advocacy of an "evolution" based ethics), and is basically just a summary of the book, though he doesn't exactly 'quote' the author, but seems to rewrite the books message in his own words. His own views on the book remain unclear, though one would have to suspect he was sympathetic towards them. Richard001 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(uninident) The review is uncritical. It praises Cattell's brilliance and recounts Lynn's own interpretation of the book's message, apparently in Lynn's own words:

Other published reviews  do not use the extreme language of Lynn and give a quite different view of the speculative nature of the book, as evidenced by the detailed table of contents. . Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is disappointingly unclear whether Lynn is summarizing the book's message or his own, but for you to make your own interpretation of which it is and then add it to the article seems like OR to me. If you want to re-add this to the article you are going to have to make it clear that it's not clear what is his opinion and what is Cattell's, and keep in mind that he has denied agreeing with the sentiment of the above quote (though one hardly gets the impression that he disagrees from the review). That he called him brilliant is pretty trivial. I think he was brilliant too - look at his biography - but that doesn't mean I agree with his ideas on morality, which seem to confuse fact with value (as does your http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=361 it seems, where it doesn't seem clear that whether there are racial differences in intelligence is independent from whether it might result in racism. Lynn seems guilty of the same fallacy himself, worshipping natural selection as if it is something other than a blind algorithmic process that creates selfish, short-sighted organisms), and the distinction seems quite remote among almost everyone else too). I don't think there is anywhere in the review where it can be uncontroversially said that Lynn is in agreement with Cattell's message. Richard001 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR applies to main space editing, not to the talk page. It was not helpful of you to use the word "stupid" to describe Cattell's book. Unlike some of the other reviews of Cattell's book (I have not read Haag's), Lynn does not use quotation marks to indicate whether he is quoting from the book. At present I have no opinion as to whether these writings of Lynn are relevant for his biography, even in a footnote; on balance I would probably think not, although the review could certainly be listed in the bibliography. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If a WP:RS exists for Lynn's disavowal's of what most editors would read as agreement with or advocacy of Cattell's opinions, that may be appropriate to add in compliance with WP:NPOV. Private communications do not satisfy WP:V, however. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that Lynn is not quoting from the book, Mathsci. You can look for any particular passage at . How we could possibly differentiate between his views and Cattell's is not clear. Richard001 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Richard001: I said Lynn was using his own words to describe the content/message of the book and that on balance it was probably better not to use this passage because it is so ambiguously written. In other words I was agreeing with you! Please read what I wrote a little more carefully :-) Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, you don't appear to understand Wikipedia policies on reliable sources or original research. If we have a reliable source that quotes Lynn then we can use it. The SPLC quotes Lynn thus: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." The article is by "Barry Mehler, associate professor of history at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich., is a leading authority on the modern eugenics movement and executive director of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism." That is a reliable source, as long as we correctly attribute the claim, then it is not libel. If the SPLC is wrong then find a reliable source that contradicts it, if Lynn really did not say this then he must have published a rebuttal, find it and put it in the article, that's how we achieve neutrality, by including all points of view, but don't try to censor what we do publish in the article, especially when we have a source to support it. Indeed it's just wrong to say that incorrectly making a claim is libel, libel is the deliberate publishing of lies. On the OR front, claiming that Lynn has "told me personally" is clearly OR, Wikipedia uses published sources to verify it's content, it does not use the claims of editors, you need to find a published source where Lynn specifically repudiates the SPLC's quote. Alun (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply because something was published by a "reliable source" does not mean it is appropriate treat it as truthful. If Nature published an article claiming the Earth was made of green cheese, we wouldn't be changing anything here to that effect. If the source is itself using another source, and it is not clear whether that other source represents Lynn's views at all, we should not be presenting it otherwise. If these are so clearly Lynn's views we should not have to quote mine from ancient reviews; surely there should be a wealth of sources where he unambiguously states the same thing. I understand that we cannot say that Lynn denies this without sourcing the claim of denial; I was not the one who said that. If Lynn wants to clarify his position he will have to say so on his website or something. Richard001 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's "truth" got to do with anything? That's the weakest argument I've heard for a very long time on Wikipedia and displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. It's also a call to censorship because it means that any editor could call for the removal of any source, however reliable because they don't think it's "true". I suggest you look at Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, where it clearly states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. I don't see any "quotemining" going on, what I see is a reliable source, Barry Mehler, quoting Lynn as advocating genocide. It's simple. The simplest way to counter the source is for you to find a reliable source from Lynn that contradicts this claim, rather than trying to censor the information. Alun (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Representing Lynn's discussion of Cattell's opinion as if it were a summary of Lynn's own opinion could amount to a serious misrepresentation. Lachrie (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the review. No doubt about it: Lynn is mouthing Cattell's views. How could anyone argue otherwise?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

South Asians
The following paragraph should probably be included in the article; it is not really notable enough to be an article on its own, but it is a distinctive feature of Lynn's system:
 * South Asians/North Africans are a racial group identified by psychologist Richard Lynn. They are defined as the people of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf States, the Near East, Turkey and North Africa and their diasporas around the world. Lynn argued that South Asians/North Africans were one of ten genetic clusters in the human species identified by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al. in their mammoth 1994 book called the History and Geography of Human Genes''.  Traditionally South Asians/North Africans were lumped in with Europeans in a single racial group known as the Caucasoids however Lynn argued that there were enough genetic differences between the two populations to treat them as separate races.

Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems relevant and notable enough to include in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Birth, family, personal life
His date and place of birth are not stated in the article. There is also nothing about his family or personal life. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
The Wikipedia policy on neutrality is unambiguous and clear. A lack of neutrality can be evidenced by a variety of criteria, but is particularly clear when a writer adopts a participant POV instead of an observer POV. Due to the clear participant POV adopted by the writer, as well as the evident deprecating tone in the article section Controversy, I am disputing the neutrality of this section and the entire article, and flagging it accordingly.

Here is a signal example of participant POV in the Controversy section:

"For example, the majority of the data points in Lynn's book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" were not even based on residents of the countries in question."

This sentence evidences a critical tone and conclusions of the Wikipedia editor, but this section of the article purports to discuss controversies in the academic community, not as an artifact of the Wikipedia writing process. The particularly telling wording "not even" here is a tip off, but the entire section is contaminated throughout by the opionions of the Wikipedia writer here.

Another example of editorial bias and particpant POV injection is revealed in the following:

"Other studies have found that blacks in Africa with a good education score better on IQ and other standardized tests than do whites. Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that African black students enrolled in westernized schools scored higher on progressive matrix tests than did American white students."

The Wikipedia writer is here citing a study that the writer believes contradicts hypothesis or data presented in Lynn's book. However, the topic sentence of the Controversy section clearly indicates that the controversies that will be discussed were raised by third parties, not by the Wikipedia writer.

These shortcomings of neutrality leave me with a negative impression about the objectivity and scholarliness of the writing in this article. This is ironic, because I believe that the matters and positions in Lynn's book are potentially divisive and require the most reasoned and thorough criticism possible.

I will try to revise this article in the near future, barring improvements made by the original editors in line with the policy problems identified here. Contrablue (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with you. The article is clearly trying to disrepute Richard Lynn and his research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensplash (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Crawford-Nutt (1976) is cited by Kamin (1995), a direct criticism of Lynn's work by a third-party reliable source. I think it is an extreme interpretation of POV and OR guidelines to argue that including content based on that source is somehow inappropriate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s been more than a year since the NPOV tag was added, but most of the problems with this section still haven’t been fixed yet, and there’s been no further discussion about them. Is anyone going to make a serious effort at this? --Captain Occam (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

what happened to peer review?
Assuming Lynn is not just cooking the books to justify a prejudice, it seems he doesn't understand the implications of what he is saying. He says, for example, the average IQ of Ethiopia is 63. How can that possibly make sense to anyone? The standard deviation of IQ tests is supposed to be 15. So 70% of the Ethiopian people have an IQ between 48 and 78!! This is laughable. Is he saying that in the streets of Addis Ababa one would come across imbeciles who can't tie their shoelaces all the time? Is he saying that if you bring a good sample of Ethiopian babies to the UK, say, and let them live in Surrey and send them to school there, practically all of them would be special needs? Is there no peer review before this sort of BS is published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.230.233 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALK and WP:RS. Criticisms of Lynn is covered. You are welcome to expand that section, or any section, but please avoid original research. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

By the Wikipedia Manual of Style, usually the lead section doesn't have any citations.
In the ordinary case, the lead section of an article summarizes sourced information from the body of the article. Of course all citations should be shown for sourced information (and sourced information is especially important in the biography of a living person), but the references belong in the body. Maybe some editor can rewrite before I get to this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Scientific Racism

''In a recent paper in 2010 about IQ in Italy, Lynn concludes that IQs are highest in the north (103 in Friuli–Venezia Giulia) and lowest in the south (89 sic ! ( Salvatore Quasimodo, Luigi Pirandello, Vincenzo Bellini, Ettore Majorana etc. etc.) in Sicily) and highly correlated with average incomes, and with stature, infant mortality, literacy and education. According to him "the lower IQ in southern Italy may be attributable to genetic admixture with populations from the Near East and North Africa". In the same way, he thinks that this explanation "also accounts for the IQs of around 90 for several countries in the Balkans whose populations are of partly European and partly Near Eastern origin".'' Errare umanun est, perseverare autem diabolicum --Davide41 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Davide41, please accept my humble apologies for reverting your edits here after seeing them on my watchlist. (I mistakenly thought that they were article edits rather than talk page edits.) What are some good sources that would show that Lynn's views are mistaken, which I take it is your view as someone who lives in Italy? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

" the lower IQ in southern Italy may be attributable to genetic admixture with populations from the Near East and North Africa "

Lombard domination (6th–8th c.) or the Norman conquest of southern Italy spanned most of the eleventh century ? There is no trace. Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. --Davide41 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
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. 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) 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have one (or is that three?) of Lynn's books at hand, and am still doing updates to the Intelligence Citations bibliography. I encourage everyone who visits this page to  suggest new sources and comment on the sources already listed. For  biographies of living persons, it is especially important to source article edits carefully. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Useful sources for further edits of this article.
Getting to know the various articles in the same category as this article during the recent Arbitration Committee case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the  mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those Wikipedia articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject, especially the several publications that have been written or edited by Richard Lynn.





I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for most of the articles here on Wikipedia related to Richard Lynn's life or publications. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic sanctions from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)