Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Opinions are roughly divided between those who consider this original research by synthesis, and those who want to keep it because they disagree or consider that it is a notable topic and just needs rewriting.  Sandstein  05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Biology and political orientation
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article needs a complete re-write to be even encyclopedic. It currently is a synthesis (WP:SYNTH) of primary studies and relies on media reports from fox news etc covering the studies rather than secondary sources from the peer reviewed literature for weight (WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It often fails to actually cite the studies and instead cites newspaper who are nowhere near reliable enough for the text (WP:NOTNEWS). The article appears even worse than after the last AfD. The last closer noted that the article was a poorly-written melange of primary sources and news coverage, this is still the case. It also synthesis other vague related topics into the article such as how attractiveness influences voters. and whether conservatives are more attractive (based on an online poll of all things).

In summary, the article relies on a synthesis of news reports and primary studies and would require a rewrite to be encyclopaedic as it is unsalvageable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites many peer-reviewed studies including secondary reviews. It is a rapidly growing research topic. The many newspaper reports establish the notability. Furtermore, arguing that the article could be improved is not a reason for deletion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've misread me, I am saying it can't be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Meets WP: GNG as there are reliable sources. How is this original research? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? No one mentioned original research, re-read what I said. The article is an original synthesis of primary studies and newspaper reports. Look at the content, to be anything close to encyclopaedic it would need a complete re-write. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, there are secondary sources. Newspapers are used as sources in numerous Wikipedia articles and establish notability. There are no arguments introduced that are not in the sources so there is no synthesis. If you think the contents should be improved, then it would be better to edit the article in order to do so, not delete it completely. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what we have is newspapers reporting on single studies being stitched together into a complete article. It is the combination of these studies together into the article that is the original synthesis. It also violates WP:FRINGE as well. Newspapers aren't reliable for new claims in biology like this, particularly not ones based off speculation on new and potentially controversial studies. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these are reasons for deletions. No new arguments not in the sources are introduced. Newspapers establish notability and can give details not in the studies by interviewing researchers as is the case here. The exact studies cited by the newspapers can certainly be added to the article if needed. WP:FRINGE states that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources and allowed although peer-review is obviously preferred. The article also has secondary peer-reviewed sources. In short, your are arguing for improvement, not deletion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lean toward Delete. Even if there were the possibility of an article on this topic, nothing here should be in it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? What is wrong with for example secondary peer-reviewed sources? Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't any.
 * To clarify how I read the nominator's reasoning; it's a synthesis of primary sources and press releases about those sources, with no secondary commentary. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Here is one secondary peer-reviewed source widely cited in the article: . There are also newspaper articles but no press releases. Newspaper articles are reliable sources and establish notability. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That source says Original Paper at the top, it's not a secondary review paper. The newspaper articles are not reliable for what they are being used for in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article doesn't have to say "press release" to be a press release. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary reviews can of course be "original papers". If you read it there is no new research but just a summary of prior research. The newspapers are reliable for establishing notability. They are also critical, ask other researchers, and are not "press releases". If the actual studies are needed they can be easily be added to the article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stubbify and rewrite. There is a reasonable article to be written about this topic - but it should be written by someone who is interested in and capable of describing this controversial field of research in a balanced way based on a wide spectrum of high quality sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything concrete you are objecting too as incorrect? If the article contents should simply be improved, then please cooperate doing that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not my job to teach you how to write a balanced article. And even if it were I tried for a long time to no avail. You should either rethink your editing to the point where you at least make an effort to find and include literature that doesn't support your own view or you shouldn't be editing these articles at all. I would like to assume that you edit in good faith and that you are simply not aware that the narrow body of literature you happen to consistently choose whenever you write an article related to the nature/nurture debate is not representative of the entire field. But given that for the last three years I and a significant number of other editors have been telling you this, I cannot assume good faith anymore. You know very well that your articles present a tendentious view and you are seemingly very happy to sit back and make others make the hard work of bringing them up to scratch. I am not playing that game. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad you do not have any concrete examples. That could have improved the article if there are problems as you claim. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are almost funny. But not quite.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To Academica Orientalis: Anything you can point to as being a reliable secondary source?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Already pointed out this peer-reviewed secondary review article which is referenced multiple times in the article: . Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Academica suggests I have posted the titles of a few on the talkpage. The point is that I shouldn't have to do that. He should have done a broad literature search when he started writing the article instead of building it as a showcase for a single article he happens to like. Obviously the best sources would be review articles in social and political psychology, and in behavioural genetics. The handbook of social psychology mentions the Alford study an suggests that it was notable as sparking the field of genetic/politics studies, and then goes on to criticize the methdology it used. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I have not created the article. I have added secondary review sources. Newspapers are reliable sources in Wikipedia. They can show notability and some things not stated in papers such as in interviews with researchers. I have not denied that you added some criticisms to the talk page and to the article. But if you do not state concretely what you think is further problematic, then your argued concerns cannot be addressed. Disagreeing with some of the contents is not a reason for removing all of the contents of the article. That seems more like disliking this research field in general rather than scientific arguments regarding the findings in the field. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the main contributer to the article. You have added onesided sources and written a lopsided one eyed article strongly biased in favor of the same viewpoint you have continously pushed iver the past many years. If I was motivated by my "dislike of the  the research field" I would vote delete. I have no problem with wikipedia having articles about topics I don't find palatable - but I do have a problem with articles deliberately designed to mislead readers by showing them only a particular part of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, claiming an article has problems with the contents is not a reason for deleting the article. That is a reason for improving the article. If you think the article is POV, then you should cooperate improving it, not just simply delete it.Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OMFG, what is wrong with you? I AM NOT VOTING DELETE FOR THE FOURTH FUCKING TIME! The article needs to be rewritten by someone who is not you. That is what I am voting. And I have done who ever will have to rewrite it a huge fucking favor by spending an hour and a half supplying a shitload of sources. on the talkpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing all the contents is not dissimilar and the same arguments against apply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. An interesting topic, substantially sourced. There is room for improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep and improve. Very interesting peer-reviewed WP:RSes about this topic indicate that the interesting but at least to me not at all surpising fact that one's inborn disposition to certain personality traits influences their general political orientation.  Any WP:RSes which say that it does not could be included, but I'd be surprised if there are any. Chrisrus (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then if you had read either the talkpage or the rest of the discussion you would have been surprised.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, I just read the article and looked at the cited papers, not the above discussion. But if you say that there are such papers I believe you.  Please do include them in any planned rewrite if you plan to participate in a rewrite.  I look forward to reading it.  But this page is only for discussing whether articles should be deleted or not deleted, and so if you want the article to survive in a different form, this is not the right place to discuss anything short of total deletion. Chrisrus (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, something short of total deletion can be discussed. Two examples: redirect and merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you want to do? More to the point, what do you want me to do?  I thought you wanted an up/down on deletion from us.
 * You want to "stubbify" it? What does that mean in this context?  What exactly do you want to leave behind?
 * It's got some good WP:RSes. Are you asking that they be more objectively described? Go ahead.  All that sounds like an "article improvement" discussion, which are supposed to take place on the article's talk page, right?  So why are we here?
 * You mention "merge", just as an example, what with? Do we have another article about research into the a biological basis for general tendency towards certain types of worldview?   The article left this reader wanting so much more, but not less.  Liberalism as a Mental Disorder came to mind.  Think of those who tend to go with the crowd vs. boat-rockers.  Where do headaches come from, when the topic turns to anything controvertial in some people but not others?  Those who can't shake beliefs that nature is not to be violated, vs. a thing to be conquered; I could go on all night.  I'd love to merge with lots of stuff.  What do you think of this: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1602/2749.short? Take your offence that it describes your particular slant as a brain condition and use it to find the same type of thing but this time about them. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen to this, you'll enjoy it: http://www.radiolab.org/2009/sep/07/ Specifically, you can skip to 00:23:23, and another at 00:48:18throught to the end and let me know if that's not the damnedest thing that just might be true that you've ever heard in your life.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if there isn't another article like it, I suggest interested wikipedians can create a more encyclopedic version of the article post-AfD that actually aligns with secondary sources. There is nothing here to prevent that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stubbify and rewrite after having done a careful literature survey. The article at present is a hotch-potch, a random pot-pourri that uses a few hand-picked primary sources as well as related press reports. Some of the choices of sources seem hard to justify, e.g. the research of Satoshi Kanazawa. Until a more comprehensive and representative set of secondary or tertiary sources can be found, the article will fail to be unencyclopedic. At the moment it presents controversial material uncritically without reference to later commentary. Mathsci (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that an article could possibly be improved is not a reason for removing almost all of the contents but for improvement. The newspaper articles are not press releases. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say they were press releases: I wrote press reports. Why suggest your own faulty misreading? But, returning to the point about sourcing and how the article is written at present, I can see no way of salvaging paragraphs such as, "Kanazawa argued that general intelligence developed in order to help solve evolutionarily new problems while for evolutionarily recurring problems there were more specific instincts proscribing how to behave. Those having higher general intelligence are furthermore argued to be relatively more likely than those with lower general intelligence to ignore and act contrary to instinctual responses. To be more altruistic towards those being more genetically similar and acquaintances than towards strangers as well as being religious (see also Evolutionary psychology of religion) are argued to be evolutionarily based instincts. Higher support for social welfare for strangers as well as atheism are therefore argued to be more relatively more common among those with higher intelligence." Maunus has produced what seem like good sources on the talk page of the article. What needs to be done is for someone to read them, to absorb them and then summarize them in intelligible English, without giving undue weight to controversial theories which have not been accepted. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with a few sentences is not a reason for removing almost all of whole article contents. Neither is the existence of sources claimed without concrete examples to contain opposing views. If there are opposing views they should of course be added. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was just one example. It seems fairly typical of the parts which you have added to the article. Controversial sources presented uncritically and in a barely decipherable form. The heritability section has similar problems. Completely different sources have to be used when writing articles like this, so not much seems salvageable. Gathering the sources is the first step in writing any article properly. Mathsci (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand you are arguing that the article is POV. Possibly, but that is not a reason for removing almost all the contents. If you have concrete, sourced examples of what arguments are missing I would be happy to add these arguments. Although I of course hope you will do so yourself so the article can be NPOV.Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a precedent for stubbifying your non-neutral articles as was done with Race and crime.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Does not actually address the issues I raised above. If you have any concrete examples of missing arguments needed for POV then please state them. Considering that you have admitted not reading sources you claim show POV problems one may wonder what your arguments are based on: . Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is correct I didn't read those sources for that article. But then again neither did you. But why do you bring that article here, are you proposing it for deletion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable topic with coverage in mainstream media and scientific journals. Some people arguing for deletion are taking a very tendentious line, refusing to provide clear statements of what is wrong with the article, and comments above indicate that this AfD is based on a dispute over article content. AfD is not the place to resolve disputes over article content.  If a topic is notable, it should stay unless people can demonstrate that the article content is entirely worthless and unsalvageable.  Some of the content is a bit unclear or jargony, but it aims at NPOV, and I can understand it even if certain people can't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse other editors of being tendentious, it can be inflammatory (see the essay WP:AOTE). Examples were given above, for example the heritability section. A controversial study using controversial (obsolete) methods and a newspaper press release are the main sources for the entire section. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is false. There is a peer-reviewed secondary reviews source. It also mentions the study that you dislike. The NYT article is not a press release. Heritability is by no means dead, see this review article in Nature Reviews Genetics: Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete Merge and redirect to biopolitics immediately looks like flavor of the week psycho-propaganda, with File:Amyg.png placed prominently at the top and seemingly designed to resemble a cartoonish face marked 'conservative', when upon further examination, it turns out to be a view of a brain from the underside with the amyg centers in red. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Note: Vote changed to merge and redirect, in light of revelation below that there is already an article covering this same area. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The results of the study showed that conservatives had a larger amygdala,[10] a structure of the brain associated with greater sensitivity to fear and disgust emotional learning." WTF???  Is this "new age" grammar?  Are "fear and disgust" nouns, or verbs?  Is this seriously the best you can do?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that this error is a reason for deleting the whole article? I see no cartoonish face and disagreeing with an image is hardly reason for deletion of all other contents. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am arguing that the whole article ought to be deleted because it is very much like a case of an Emperor that is wearing no clothes, and I'm not afraid to say so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who'd like to see this stubified, but there does not seem to be any coherent golden-thread to the research which might one day give us a useful article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources all cover this clearly. Quite encyclopedic.  Good way to explain why people think a certain way.   D r e a m Focus  04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I think the topic is notable and if written without the major issues I would support a keep, I think suggesting that the article (C rated) in it's current state has no actual issues is plainly absurd (what happened to Article rescue squadron actually trying to fix articles as the basis for keep). I suggest the closer have a look at the article to see the issues that have been mentioned by the delete/stubify votes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. Any issues in the article should be discussed on its talk page and dealt with.   D r e a m Focus  11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as synthesis. This article pulls together unrelated studies and creates a new topic.  If any of the studies have any notability, which is doubtful, then they can be put into their own article.  We put together for example the view that there is a liberal gene and that liberal and conservative brain structures differ.  If this were a field of study worthy of an article then we should be able to find a secondary source that writes about both theories.  Much of the article is about the differences between liberal and conservative psychology, which is irrelevant unless the sources say that the psychological differences have a biological difference.  TFD (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Oh, and in Italy, for example, liberals are conservatives. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an original topic, see the recent special issue of Political Psychology titled "Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics, and Behavior", but yes it is a horrific mess of inappropriate synthesis, weight issues and unreliable sources. There is a conspicuous absence in the article of any discussion on the interplay between the environment and biology (c.f. this article with the introductory review in the aforementioned special issue) which might betray POV issues, as well as a lack of any discussion on the considerable inferential issues associated with this subject (e.g. as in Aue et al. 2009 or Theodoridis & Nelson 2012). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the type of article which should be kept, even if it needs considerable re-writing for improvement. Re-writing rather than deletion would be the appropriate action here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that re-writing would need to start from scratch. There is nothing worth keeping in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the 28 May 2012 issue of Political Psychology below. TFD (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as per WP:NOTCASE. This is starting to get into the territory of a specific essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Might be suitable as part of coverage in another topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per the concerns of WP:SYNTH. I'm sure an actual valid encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, however, this article would need to be completely rewritten to become so.  Per WP:TNT, sometimes it is a lot easier to just delete and start over from scratch rather than trying to improve an article that would need to be completely rewritten.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Synthesis of various sources, misrepresentation of sources, over-reliance on low-value sources. This article has no redeeming qualities. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would not say that it has no redeeming qualities, nor would I say that there's no synthesis. This is a strange article, which while factually true, I am unsure what to do with it.  It may need TNT and starting over from scratch, but it seems like an awful lot of work would be erased. Place me in the 'confused' camp. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stubbify and rewrite after having done a careful literature survey and being written inline with WP:MEDRS. This subject exists, we ought to have an article.  However, the article is currently so poorly written that it is unlikely to be rewritten in a manner meeting core reliability policy for medical science articles (or, for that matter, for the long standing custom and practice in academic social science topics).  We use no field reviews, ie sources that are secondary for Medical Science are currently cited.  Rather case studies are inappropriately SYNTHesised.  The article needs to proceed outwards from secondary sources in the sense of MEDRS: reviews and field reviews; not from case studies or experimental studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Synthesis in what way? This has not been elucidated. RL0919 in the last AfD reads SYNTH incorrectly, but that's not surprising, as everyone who has ever voted Delete and used SYNTH as an argument has done the same thing. And of course, he got to have the last word, last time, so I could not address that, but I am pleased to see that the first substantial argument for Delete from TFD zoomed straight away to parrot him, so I get a chance to refute it.
 * SYNTH is a content concern, and should never really show up at AfD at all. There is no such thing as synthesis of sentences to make an article, or synthesis of ideas to make an article topic. SYNTH is, loosely speaking, a rule to prevent reasoning by WP editors (yes, that is potentially ironic), because they might fall foul of logical fallacies. The only circumstance WP:SYNTH addresses is statements that are potentially erroneous because they rely on an interpretation of the implication of two sources. There are no such statements in this article; each statement in this article is linked to a source, which directly verifies the statement. That is all that is required to avoid SYNTH, ever. If individual statements do not fit into the article's scope, that is for editors to decide on the article talk page. An article's scope (the article name) is what we are deciding here at AfD, and it is judged on its merits, not the merit of the content supporting it. To be fair, there was some, I guess you could call it Sourced Original Research in the article, extrapolating facts directly from what was claimed by a single source, but that is not SYNTH either. There was also a passage with "voice" issues, where the statements made by the studies were stated directly, rather than pointing out that they came from a study. That also has been rectified.
 * Now I understand that there are some practical considerations (I call them cop-outs, but that's just me, apparently), such as, everyone is sick to death of how Talk page and RFC discussions never get anywhere or never get anyone to show up, respectively. But I must contradict unequivocally, the assertions that the article content as it stands is worthless.
 * There is a huge disconnect between the opinions voiced here by Delete voters and the state of the article; too much to be merely variances in opinion. To be fair, there is some bowing and scraping before the supposed magnificence of its interestingness by Keep voters as well. I would love for all of the studies to be as well referenced as the Ryota Kanai study has become since the last AfD, but that is not possible, yet. The article has improved greatly, and will come into its own in due course, whether it is deleted this time or not. The studies will continue, with the same focus, and more and more content will be available for it. Hopefully it will one day be possible to split it into MRI scan, Genetic, and Behavioural/Functional sub-articles.
 * There is a small issue that may need to be addressed at some point, although at the moment it does not threaten the article or even these proceedings very much, only Acadēmica Orientālis' peace of mind. As can be seen in this AfD alone, Maumus cannot restrain himself from making personal attacks against AO, with IRWolfie tag-teaming to a lesser extent, and Fifelfoo to a lesser extent again. Both sides are at fault, but I am concerned that AO will be blocked for adding content similar to what I removed from the article. There is no need to sanction those who added that material, or AO, but failing that, the sanctions should at least be balanced. This has gone on in various fora; the Talk page, the Reliable sources noticeboard, and WP:ANI (Fifelfoo absent from the final forum).  Anarchangel (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the first point, "There is no such thing as synthesis of sentences to make an article, or synthesis of ideas to make an article topic.": actually synthesis of disparate topics into a single articles without a reliable source making the connections is a reason for deletion (and has been used as an argument in AfD successfully). If there is a novel combination (or synthesis) of topics, then it is done through original thought and is non-encyclopedic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason for deletion where? Not WP:DEL. Lots of things are used as arguments in AfD successfully. Some of them are in WP:ATA. The word "topics" occurs nowhere in WP:SYNTH. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As summed up by Jimbo himself in the recent past on the topic of novel combinations of topics (not this article in particular):
 * This is a classic type of article that I have seen many times in the past, in which someone has a new idea to lump together a bunch of related things under a new name, and tries to justify the existence of the article by noting all the valid references to the underlying related things. The problem is often that to a casual reviewer, the sourcing looks good.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) (removed the strong delete part IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC))
 * You are quoting someone out of context, they commenting on a totally different article. What does that have to do with things here?   D r e a m Focus  14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am showing that voting delete based on the argument that it is an article which is made by grouping separate topics together in a fashion not done in reliable sources, is a valid one to make. (Anarchangel stated that it wasn't) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dream_Focus posted this at Jimbo's page, note that my comment was not meant to imply that Jimbo had commented on this particular AfD, I never suggested that, see (currently open here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. If we admit that there is any connection at all between the mind and the brain, it follows that "biology may be linked with political orientation" as the lead says. Beyond that, all the current state of research seems to offer is a morass of meaningless alleged correlations, and that's what the article now is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Samuel: Yeah, that's what I meant by 'flavor of the week'... The scope of an article with the title 'Biology and political orientation' ought not be restricted to new-fangled, recent stuff. "Scientists" have been making failed attempts to link the two (at the behest of those govts who pay them) for an embarassingly long time, all of which have eventually come to naught. (See physiognomy) One of the most successful was Freud's theory, that how your parents potty train you determines how liberal you will be. Surely that falls under the scope of 'Biology and political orientation'. Then it should also mention that the Nazi doctors certainly did a lot of theorizing in that same regard, as they found it of particular interest to their ends. Etc., etc., etc. So, all this crapola is really nothing new - but the current article's incarnation reads only like an advertisement for the latest babble, and so ought to be outright deleted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The best theory came from W. S. Gilbert (1882): "Nature always does contrive, That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder what WSG would have made of Mrs T, who saw herself as being a Conservative in the Liberal tradition of Gladstone. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How very fortunate for those who know so much better than any scientific literature, past present or future, what observations are meaningful and which are not. It must make voting on these sorts of things so easy for you. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. One key issue that, in the absence of secondary source review articles, claims made in primary sources are being taken onboard here by Wikipedia without any proper critical filter of the methodology and reporting. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MistyMorn claims that peer reviewed science articles do not have a "critical filter", a critique which has no basis in WP guidelines. Even if I give the benefit of playing devil's advocate, this is old ground, covered above by Academia Orientalis, and at the previous AfD. If only news articles (establishing notability) are used, it is claimed that they lack sufficient peer review or lack scientific credibility. If only primary sources (peer reviewed with scientific credibility) are used, it is claimed they do not show notability. That is why there are both types of sources in the article. It would be fair to say that I have gotten so used to the goalposts being moved, that I have learned to score on the rebound. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So as to respect WP:CIVIL, I'm keeping out of this kind of tendentious "no basis in WP guidelines", verifiability, not truth kind of argument, which I find intellectually insulting. Suffice it to say, that as an experienced peer reviewer myself, I feel more comfortable where the WP:MEDRS content guideline can be applied to protect Wikipedia from nonsense such as this] and much more. I honestly don't know whether the page should be deleted, stubified, or what. My knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is too limited to hazard a view. What I will say is that, in its current form, I find this page painfully embarrassing...  Starting from the deliberately eyecatching, but encyclopedically absurd illustrations at the top. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct! The article, such as it is, depends on its own interpretation of primary sources; a fatal flaw. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a synthesis problem, although not one normally considered to be part of WP:SYNTHESIS.  The assertion that all these papers are in the same topic is a unique synthesis, even if some (many, most) of the papers, are misinterpreted by AO.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a kind of synthesis that is required for writing an article uincorporating more than one source - we can hardly expect all sources to state "This article treats the same topic as articles x, y & z"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As Maunus and TFD  both rightly point out, much of the content has nothing directly to do with Biology and political orientation. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. We (Wikipedians) do need to synthesize topics, but:
 * Most (all?) of the disparate papers are not on this topic, and
 * There is little evidence that this topic (Biology and political orientation) is a notable one on which something can be said.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anarchangel. When major news organizations cover scientific topics, they act as secondary sources - even if they lack scientific accuracy, their widespread coverage provides an imprimatur of legitimacy to indicate that these reports are not mere random noise, but of general interest and relevance.  And primary sources, when summarized according to their main conclusions from their abstracts, are reliable sources.  The focus of the article is broad - we could have a narrower article on the correlation of liberalism and higher IQ, backed by plenty of data, but there seems to be room.  Adding new facts into an old article is not "SYNTH", it is "writing Wikipedia"! Wnt (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or stubify) [reconsidering] . As I see it the underlying the question here is not whether the topic announced by the title is potentially notable, but whether suitable secondary-source review articles in reputable peer-review journals in the field of biology or general science (eg, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) currently exist to provide the scientific basis for a tertiary, encyclopedic approach. Objecting that WP:MEDRS has no bearing on a scientific topic focusing on both human biology and political science, and in which epidemiological methodology  is key (including the especially complex area of genetic epidemiology), seems to me to be missing the point about Wikipedia's role as a reliable tertiary source (WP:TERTIARY). —MistyMorn (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A recent (28 May 2012) issue of Political Psychology states that "...over the last several decades, research incorporating neurobiological approaches has reached into the core of human behavior and remains central to issues of enduring concern in political psychology... The majority if not all of the critical work in this area has been conducted outside our own field of inquiry with little if any input from our disciplinary brethren. ("The Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics, and Behavior", 28 May 2012)  IOW words it is only as recently as the end of last month that anyone (except Wikipedia editors) have attempted to gather together unrelated studies in the hope that a new field of study will emerge.  While this may happen, per WP:CRYSTALBALL it is too early to write a coherent article.  TFD (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a brand new field, see eg. "Review article: biopolitics after three decades - a balance sheet" published in 1998, or this book published in 2001, "Biology and Political Science". On a side note, we appear to have another article, Biopolitics, on the same subject (although the definitions section is unrelated). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The artile Biopolitics treats a completely different topic - namely the concept developed by Michel Foucault.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, apart from the material in the definitions section it is the same subject. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the term "biopolitics" is not (as far as I know) a term commonly employed to refer to studies that set out to explore possible biological associations with individual political tendencies, maybe the scope of the Biopolitics page needs some rethinking? There currently seems to be something of a disconnect between sections. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Biopolitics as a term describing the use of biological methods in political science was not uncommon and predates Michel Foucault's usage, but appears to have fallen somewhat out of vogue as far as I can tell. Biopower covers Foucalt's usage and describes the history of the term as used elsewhere. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right I was thinking of our article on Biopower (which is also terrible) - in any case the word biopolitics is definitely very commonly used for Foucault's concept. At least in my field that usage of "biopolitics" is the only one I know of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not so out of vogue after all. Alford's 2008 review of the field is titled "The New Empirical Biopolitics" and there is a long standing series edited by Somit and Peterson called "Research in Biopolitics" that published its 10th volume this year . --92.4.177.142 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This paper gives some useful context about the use of the term: "The Competing Meanings of 'Biopolitics' in Political Science: Biological and Post-Modern Approaches to Politics". --92.4.177.142 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 92.4 FM. I suspect you may already have registered a Wikipedia account at some time, but you're posting good stuff here, imo. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response/clarification here --92.4.177.142 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The anon has convinced me that there is already an article that should cover this topic called biopolitics, and that 'biopolitics' is a current and common field of discussion. And when we have two articles about the same thing, we're supposed to merge them. I am thus altering my vote above from "delete" to "merge and redirect". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia should approach the "two competing" usages of the term biopolitics, but I too am now reconsidering my !vote (and feel that something genuinely constructive may come out of this AfD...). —MistyMorn (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially Michel Foucault's usage dominates, but biopolitics in the other context is also occasionally used. Active researchers don't really seem to have any particular convention in naming their field, biopolitics is a more historical usage. The paper I linked above suggests abandoning the term for these reasons (as well as possible Nazi connotations). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep OK it's not the best written article and the referencing could be improved. Perhaps it should be completely rewritten. However even as it is, it clearly demonstrates that some research by reputable institutions has identified a link between brain structure and political inclination. This research has been reported in secondary sources. Therefore it's notable and we need an article on it. In time, rewrites, stubordination (don't like "stubbify"), etc may happen. Mcewan (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.