Talk:Superior: The Return of Race Science

Criticism

The book has been criticised on various "right-wing" platforms like Taki's Magazine (Steve Sailer's review) and the Quarterly Review (Edward Dutton's review). The current article only mentions praise for the book. I think it should inform the reader that criticisms of it were made (cogent, in my opinion). How should we deal with this? cagliost (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, cagliost, for bringing this to the Talk page. I think any criticism by a reliable source should be included in the Critical reception section, in the same way the other reviews are: succinctly, without quoting large blocks of text from the review (that seems to be a common mistake). I'm not sure the Quarterly Review can be considered a reputable source - upon cursory examination, it seems to be a self-published blog without editorial oversight. I'm not familiar with Taki's Magazine, but at least it appears to have an editorial board. I think you're familiar with the concept, but here's a link to WP:RS for anyone reading who may need a refresher on source reliability. I do note that Sailor writes from the point of view of someone who disagrees with the way the book characterizes his own work, so that's going to take some careful writing when including it. The book just came out, I would expect more reviews to be produced by mainstream publications, providing us with opportunities to enrich the article. Robincantin (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Taki's mag is basically VDARE with a slightly nicer page layout. It was previously edited by Richard Spencer, and its where John Derbyshire published the article that was racist enough to get him fired from the National Review. There's no need to cite fringe sources here. Nblund ^talk 23:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the existing article gives a whitewashed impression to the casual reader, that the book was universally praised. The existing reviews cited are all uncritical in both senses of the word. Another critical review is by Gerhard Meisenberg in Mankind Quarterly. Now, all these may be "unreliable" sources, but Meisenberg, Sailer and Dutton are all notable enough people to have their own Wikipedia pages. Does anyone see a solution to giving a more balanced assessment of Saini's book? cagliost (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's everyday editing frustration, as you well know, cagliost: we'd like the article to have a little more of this, more balance, fun facts about somebody, but just can't find any reliable sources to be able to include it. It's not whitewashing, we got to go with what the sources tell us. Reviews include the Financial Times, not remotely a left-wing outlet. In the reviews mentioned, I made a point to include any criticism, minor as they may be. I do note that several other positive reviews by credible sources went out since I wrote the original article, so I wouldn't be surprised it they got included at some point, even that would be somewhat repetitive. Anyway, if you feel strongly about it I suggest you keep your google alert on, the review you want by a credible source might come eventually. Robincantin (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a well-written critical response here: https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race-science-a-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2B6C:FC00:3185:F0C8:144B:B50A (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Quillette is widely considered an unreliable source (see here). The article in question seems to be typical: it first builts a series a strawman arguments then sets fires to them. Robincantin (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus based on what? Considered by whom? By some biased leftist wiki editors? In fact, the reviews of books in quillette have been surprisingly good --> https://quillette.com/2019/03/29/denying-the-neuroscience-of-sex-differences/

The link you gave as a justification for the unreliability of quillette is useless at best. You have a bunch of people too lazy to google the credentials of someone like Spencer Case who then go on to cherrypick as to what makes a source unreliable. I doubt that these people would question the authority of, say, TheGuardian or HuffPo, both infamous for their fluff pieces and badly researched articles, especially on science.

The authors do cite her work and the criticism are cogent. If Saini fails to even define the object of her investigation or engage with the literature in this field in an unbiased way, then the place of publication is irrelevant. It is a well-known fact that Blacks score lower on IQ tests than Whites, there is nothing "apparent" or doubtful about it. What is up for debate, however, what the cause of this phenomenon is. This a fact s basic that it occurs in virtually all textbooks. If Saini ignores this, that is noteworthy! Last but not least, Saini is unable to grant her interlocutors on the other side that they might be driven something other than racism!

The fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2BD7:FA00:7CE4:DCDC:B48C:1C82 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)