Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race Differences in Intelligence (book)


 * 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The result was   Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Race Differences in Intelligence (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book, published just as Wikipedia was beginning to establish notability guidelines for books, appears not to meet any subpart of those guidelines as they are currently implemented on Wikipedia. The book has had little notice from the public and no uptake by serious scholars on its topic, which is very controversial. The core policy of WP:NPOV may also be implicated here. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richard Lynn. I don't see a violation of NPOV: there is a lengthy section of criticism and responses. Although you say there is no uptake by serious scholars, the page cites 2 articles in scholarly journals, one of which is a review of this book, and Google Scholar claims 161 cites. There's also a review in Education Review. For me the only issue is whether it should be merged to Richard Lynn (whose article already includes a briefer discussion of the book) or kept; there maybe aren't enough sources yet to establish separate notability, and many sources seem to group together Lynn's ideas from multiple publications, so discussing them all at once makes sense. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED which means we don't delete discussion of ideas just because we find them distasteful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Worth thinking about A merge without redirect might be a good outcome here. I am intimately familiar with the research literature on this topic, and following the Google Scholar link you kindly shared, I see that many of those hits are to articles by the same few authors who are funded by the author's funding source or are hits by keyword coincidence and not specific citations to the book. (The book is unfortunately titled in that regard.) If other editors are interested as part of this AfD discussion, I could cite quite a few current reliable sources on the broader and narrower topics of the book to show that the book is not mentioned even by scholars who are surely aware of its existence and writing about the same topic in more recent years. Thank you for your prompt reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * since all of his works use the same wacky data sets and come to the same wacky conclusions and have the same reception and impact, perhaps a merge to a Works of Richard Lynn for all of his stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I am not a personal fan of this book, this and this, I think, count as significant reviews, and thus it satisfies criteria one. Or am I missing something here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the gushing "review" by Rushton is by no means significant third party notice. Rushton and Lynn are part of the little walled garden of people that get published using scienc-y sounding content to support their fringe views and publish through the Pioneer Fund -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not hung up on this vote of mine; if consensus were to say that the sources are fringe, then I may reconsider. Is a fringe review the same as a trivial one? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fringiness of sources does not relate to triviality of coverage, it relates to reliability of sources. Furthermore, that matter is less of an issue as the source in question is also not independent, per RedPen and re the Pioneer Fund. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: What counts as "independent" reliable sources about the book? I see that the notability guideline for books asks us to look for books that have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I don't think that has happened here. Moreover, the  general notability guideline reminds Wikipedians to look for a topic that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" when creating an article. Wikipedia is  not a directory, and indeed a different crowd-sourced project is already attempting to have a webpage for every book. I ask, because there is a book, a reliable secondary source by a professional scholar published by a university press, that points out that many books by Richard Lynn are "reviewed" by reviewers who receive funding from the same ideological funding source that Lynn receives funding from. Below I will include a block quotation from the book (which, oddly, does not appear on Wikipedia with its own stand-alone article, even though it has many independent favorable reviews) to respond to another editor's question here about the reviews that Lynn's book has received.

"In keeping with the Satterfield plan's desire for maximum publicity, the different projects supported by Pioneer often functioned in a nicely coordinated fashion, the fund's journals providing multiple sources of promotion for work done by the fund's scientists. Jensen's book, Straight Talk about Mental Tests, for example, received effusive praise in reviews in both the Mankind Quarterly and the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. (However, true to Pearson's obsession with racial purity, in the former he complained that Jensen's discussion of racial differences in IQ considered the correlation between the test scores of blacks and their 'estimated degree of Caucasoid admixture' but neglected the effects 'of black genes amongst segments of the population classified as white'; the true racial difference was reduced not only by blacks whose 'white genes' raised their IQs but by whites whose unrecognized 'black genes' lowered theirs.) The reviews thus completed a convenient cycle in which Jensen, a scientist whose work was supported by Pioneer, wrote a book, which was then highly recommended in two journals whose publication was funded by Pioneer and finally sent gratis to college and university officials throughout the country by FHU, whose purchase and distribution of the books was also paid for by Pioneer.

American Renaissance also joined with Pearson's journals in highlighting the work of Pioneer grantees. In 1997, for example, Richard Lynn published Dysgenics, arguing that the eugenicists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had been correct in predicting the deterioration of Western civilization as a result of modern medical techniques and charitable assistance to the poor, which had combined to allow the transmission of 'defective' genes and the reproduction of an underclass that was genetically less intelligent and less moral. Between AR and Pearson's two journals, the book was discussed at length four times, all these reviews agreeing that the West, burdened with its black population, was heading for a 'genetic dead end' and certain that, as one reviewer put it, 'some sort of compensatory meddling will be required if human evolution is ever to return to its once healthy course.' The most obscure works supported by Pioneer, unlikely to be noticed elsewhere, received much attention in these interlocking outlets."

- William H. Tucker

Thanks to everyone participating in the discussion here, which will help me know better going forward how to maintain and build a better encyclopedia in collaboration with all of you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per and a lesser extent the comments by .  This book is not A Brief History of Time notable, but it is notable.  Multiple different search sources confirm that.  Subject meets WP:NBOOK, specifically Criterion 1, and per NBOOK (and all other criterion) all a subject has to do is meet one to meet notability guidelines.  ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  08:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question Inasmuch as 's and 's comments preceded the citation of a scholarly study of how books like the book under discussion gain multiple nonindependent reviews, all supported by the same funding source, are we sure it can be shown that "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" have provided sufficient sourcing for an article about the book? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Simply because otherwise non-related reviews and publications might have had the same funding source and are possible part of a vast conspiracy to propagate scientific racism seems quite a stretch, and not the topic of this debate. The book itself meets WP:NBOOK which is what this deletion page is about, the sources are valid.  Just because the American Immigration Council and Amnesty International both receive funding from George Soros does not mean that they are invalid as sources just because they are both funded by him.  When I first read this nom, it struck me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I really want to reiterate, Wikipedia is not censored and just because we might find a book's topic abhorrent does not mean it is not notable just because we say it isn't. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that this book meets WP:NBOOK, presumably you mean to say it satisfies criterion #1. In that case could you cite the multiple independent sources which have covered the book at length? aprock (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Page 1 of a Google search gives many sources that directly reference this book. In addition to what was pointed out above, this book is clearly notable.  The Southern Poverty Law Center directly references this book describing the Author in it's case for his racism. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at those sources and none of then appear to be independent if the book. Were there specific sources that you had in mind? Have you reviewed any of them in particular? aprock (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think there is a degree of IDHT being displayed at this page, as well as a tendency to confuse notability with being fringe. The fact that the book is very much fringe, and has been largely discredited, doesn't make it not notable; if anything, a book like this has greater need of a carefully neutral article than a more mainstream one. I don't believe neutrality is a criterion for reviews establishing notability; so long as they are non-trivial, which I believe them to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 07:17, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur, there seems to be much WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, there are topics on UFOs, psychics, even the Flat Earth Society. All of these things are fringe and hugely discredited, but that doesn't make them any less notable.  If anything, what is paramount and most important is for Wikipedia to cover these topics from a neutral point of view, as is policy.  To censor and withhold information simply because it is not mainstream is no better than supporting the material they purport as true.  ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  02:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lynns notable book would be the two books on IQ and global inequality that he wrote with Tatu Vanhanen, this book is so unimportant in his oeuvre that it isnt even listed in his biography currently. Perhaps his book on Dysgenics is also notable. This one is just a o so repetition of the same argument that he always makes, and no one seems to have paid it much mind.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, this book [is referenced directly] by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They directly cite this specific book three times in making the case why he is guilty of scientific racism, not to mention the other references mentioned by myself and others. To me it seems all of the merge and delete votes have cited little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT ever since the notability has been established.  I would like to remind all Wikipedia is not censored. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  02:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned by SPLC also does not constitute nontrivial coverage, and in fact the guidline syays quite clearly that it has to be the primary subject of multiple nontrivial publications. Keep banging on the notcensored drums loud enough and someone might hear you. This has jackshit to do with censorship, Lynns views are already represented prominently in many articles. Since the consensus here seems to be towards merging by the way the censorship argument is completely irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen there is little consensus here. Some want it kept, some want it merged, others are on the fence. I would like to see what we can do to build some consensus here.  To me, being cited by one of the largest racism fighting institutions in the world, while not establishing notability by itself, coupled with the host of academic sources posted here go above and beyond what is required by WP:NBOOK Criteria 1, if someone can point me to a policy/precident that specifically says academic reviews and papers do not establish notability, I would be happy to admit I'm wrong and drop the argument, but the coverage I find for this book specifically to me lends more than enough notability and credence to having its own article. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing anything on the SPLC about this book from the link you provided. What exactly is that link supposed to show? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * racial differences in intelligence are one of the most important reasons for the differences in the wealth and poverty of nations that are present throughout the world (the other main reason being the presence of a market economy or of some form of socialism or communism). Intelligence is a major determinant of competence and earning capacity, so inevitably the European and Far Eastern peoples whose populations are intelligent achieve higher standards of living than other peoples who are less intelligent. directly quoted from his book, This is on top of the other sources linked. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, all that's been produced are a couple of book reviews, and a couple of sources which cite the book. If that's what it takes to satisfy WP:NBOOK so be it. I view the guidelines a little differently I suppose. aprock (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand of WP:GNG it is so the subject matter can be covered neutrally in line with content guidelines. As that is clearly the case here, this is the primary reason I argue for inclusion. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  06:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you've made it clear that you have a different understanding of the notability guidelines. As best I can tell, book hasn't received significant coverage independent of the sources.  You disagree, based on ... google searches that bring up contemporaneous book reviews, and some critical articles?  That level of notability is so low that almost every book published would qualify. aprock (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Richard Lynn' If Richard Lynn has written notable books that deserve their own articles separate form his biography this is not it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question If I may ask is this based on any specific policy or guideline? <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOTABILITY and in specific WP:NBOOK it fails all of the 5 criteria. Reviews of academic books, especially bad ones, do not in inherently constitute non-trivial published works. BAsically all academically published books are reviewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes this book notable is the widespread criticism specifically The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. 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. Review after review about this book, points out its notability.  Not to mention what I pointed out above.  Academic reviews are still reviews. and fulfill notability requirements. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  03:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I (nominator) will accept a close with keep I appreciate everyone's thoughtful discussion here. I was genuinely puzzled about what the 2014 standard is for notability of a book to bring about a stand-alone article about the book on Wikipedia, because there are many reliable books on closely related topics that have never had articles about them on Wikipedia, and at least two or three from the "other side" of Lynn's argument that were previously AfDed and merged into other articles. I note for the record that some of the other editors participating in this discussion, namely  and, are aware of a 2010  ArbCom case with several findings of editor misconduct (none applied to any of the editors commenting here so far) and ongoing discretionary sanctions. I'm here to reality-check a recently contentious article to see if one of the reasons it is contentious is simply that it is much ado about an otherwise non-notable book. Editors here who commented on rationales for keeping the article helpfully suggested sources that can be used to improve it, and I can now tell that I have been much too stringent in my past evaluation of notability about books here on Wikipedia and may as well create a dozen or more new articles about books that are far more notable—and better works of scholarship besides. I may even need to revisit the issue of hiving off separate articles for articles about books that were merged out of sight in years before I became an active editor here. Where I come from on this issue is simply that I have been researching the topic with the resources of an enormous university library system at a university with an active research program on the topic for more than two decades, since long before Wikipedia existed. Gradually, especially since I read the ArbCom case file, I have begun to figure out why Wikipedia is so askew from the balance of points of view found in the professional literature. I will do my part to seek out sources impartially and with full regard to core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wish all of you who celebrate the Independence Day holiday a happy holiday and look forward to seeing you again on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />

Lynn's IQ and the wealth of nations has over 1200 holdings in Worldcat; this has about 120. Insignificant as part of his total work--apparently a rather routine recapitulation of his ideas. For controversial authors, attempts to make separate articles for each of their less important books amounts to promotional overemphasis. There's not even a need to merge--anyone actually looking for this particular book will know to look under the author.  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does technically meets the current standards for books, having received "non-trivial" reviews. This is in my opinion a very low standard, as a high percentage of non-self published fiction and all serious academic books get non-trivial reviews. Since that the actual standards are not very helpful, in practice we deal with notability concerns by arguing about the substantial or independent nature of the reviews--for almost all books brought here, including this one,  I could argue these in either direction, and depend like most of us on  our own intuitive sense of importance in the field. But  has raised a much better criterion above which can be useful for controversial non-fiction, one which I think will often clarify discussions like this: the importance of the book in the author's overall work.
 * 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.