Talk:A Troublesome Inheritance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Troublesome Inheritance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 12 months

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article A Troublesome Inheritance, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Citations

The block quote about the signatures by scientists is uncited. Why not remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AristotelianIntegralist (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AristotelianIntegralist: I have explained this: It is (I think fairly clearly) not uncited/unsourced (as I explained in an edit summary). It is derived from the second cited ref. Here is that source: http://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists/

And here (as just quoted by me in the previous Talk page section) is the quote (much of which is in the blockquote in the article):

"As scientists dedicated to studying genetic variation, we thank David Dobbs for his review of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” (July 13), and for his description of Wade’s misappropriation of research from our field to support arguments about differences among human societies.

As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjecture."

Skllagyook (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AristotelianIntegralist: I recently noticed that you removed sourced information in the lede which has stood for a significant amount of time as WP:CONSENSUS, and in your edit note (somewhat confusingly) accused me of vandalism for having restored it. Accusations of bad faith and vandalism are not appropriate and are against Wikipedia policies (see WP:NPA and WP:AGF) and are puzzling in this context. I explained, in my edit summaries and here in Talk in response to an IP editor, for restoring the material in the lede. If you have objection, please discuss them in talk rather than edit warring and making accusations. That you. Skllagyook (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Orr

Should the following quote be included in the article? (I boldly removed it, but was subsequently reverted.[1])

Wade also thinks that "evolutionary differences between societies on the various continents may underlie major and otherwise imperfectly explained turning points in history such as the rise of the West and the decline of the Islamic world and China." Here, and especially in his treatment of why the industrial revolution flourished in England, his book leans heavily on Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms (2007).

I don't see how this extended quote improves the article. It's overly detailed compared to the rest of the section, making it incongruous for the reader, and it's not entirely clear what (if anything) is being criticized. This material seems to be adequately summarized by the summary in the previous section: "In the second part of his book, Wade proposes regional differences in evolution of social behavior explain many differences among different human societies around the world." Stonkaments (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Orr's review touches upon virtually ever complaint scientists have had with this book, and as such, serves as a great overview of the countless criticisms. Orr's expertise is right in line with this review, and as such, warrant inclusion based on that alone. If there are concerns about Orr being overrepresented here, the solution would be to add additional commentary from other scientists, not to remove Orr's comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Orr's review is valuable and warrants inclusion―a full paragraph in the article is currently devoted to it. But that doesn't address whether including this quote specifically is appropriate/due weight. Stonkaments (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above explicitly addressed this. Orr's critique is representative of the countless scientific critiques. If you want to remove these quotes, then they should be replaced with quotes covering the same critiques from others, which would likely expand the section significantly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orr may be a respected scholar, but presenting his views in multiple paragraphs as well as gaudy block quotes gives disproportionate weight to his views alone (and let's face it: block quotes are often just lazy and look tacky). The reception should not be "the book as according to H. ALLEN ORR (and some other scientists)", yet that's how it reads. What is best would be to rely more on third party sources that comment on the reception and controversy, and less on individual reviews, which are primary sources with respect to the views expressed, and can be cherry-picked. MPants, do you have secondary sources that support your assertion that Orr's views are representative summaries of countless critiques, or is this your own conclusion? --Animalparty! (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact, and as that statement is not contained in the article, your obvious attempt to cry WP:OR here is pointless. OR does not apply to talk page discussions or our individual decision-making processes.

And I have multiple sources for it: [2] [3] [4] [5] Orr's review is, handily, the most widely-cited review of this book and Orr's views are echoed and referenced by numerous other reviewers (including all of those above as well as several more used in the article). Per our guidelines at WP:NPOV, the reception section damn well should be "as reviewed by H Allen Orr" or something very much resembling that, otherwise we're not conveying a neutral and accurate summary of the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up duplicated sections

My edit here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Troublesome_Inheritance&oldid=1023877774] is an attempt to combine the "Reception" and "Response" sections, the latter of which was almost entirely duplicative, with the exception of Wade's response and Feldman's critique. I moved Feldman's critique up with the rest of the criticism, and renamed the latter section "Wade's response to criticism".

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

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

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I saw your edit summary—what criticism of the book did I remove, exactly? If indeed I did so, it was certainly unintentional. Also, I didn't mention "one thing", I mentioned at least four: "Renamed "Response" section, which was largely duplicative of the "Reception" section, moved Feldman's article to the latter, and renamed "Response" to "Wade's response to criticism" as that was the only remaining information not already included above. As for the reversion claiming "WP:UNDUE", obviously it's relevant and DUE that Wade's critics didn't respond to his request for corrections." Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In an open letter to The New York Times, the book was denounced by over 139 professors of biology and genetics." You also put a level one section heading on Wade's response, as if his response was anywhere near as relevant as the actual criticism. I mean, the criticism is probably the only reason the book qualifies for an article. I can't find a single result in the first three pages of a google result that doesn't mention the letter signed by the scientists. I also can't find one in that same range that mentions Wade's response, except in to note in passing that he made one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants:, have you read the text you've been reverting in the article? I ask because, as I stated, I only removed duplicated sections. You will still find, under "Reception": "On 8 August 2014, The New York Times Book Review published an open letter signed by 139 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology. After publication, the letter was signed by 4 more faculty members." It's accompanied by a block quote from the letter. Unless there are two letters signed by 139 professors, I fail to understand what I "removed". As for a "level one section heading"—I don't even know what that is, and didn't "put a heading" on anything. As I explained, I thought rather clearly, I simply kept the only non-duplicated information (after moving the Feldman criticism) and renamed it to reflect what was left; it made little sense to me that there was both a "Reception" and a "Response" section that duplicated information about the letter, and it seemed Feldman's criticism wasn't so different in subject, date, or conclusion that it warranted a "Response" section as distinct from the "Reception" section preceding it. And while I'm sure your unsolicited suggestions to me were intended to be constructive, I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't like to reconsider or rephrase it, as I didn't "mention one thing in the edit summary while [doing] three things" in any way, and it appears to me that you aren't even aware of the content of the material you've near-instantaneously reverted. Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes, I love being told I'm mansplaining WP practices by an editor with [checks notes] 1/40th as many edits on [checks notes] 1/14th as many pages edited as I. I'm sure your experience and competence with WP outstrips my own by leaps and bounds.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

00:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way suggesting I have more experience—I freely admit to being a novice. But do you suppose you could respond substantively to the above? Again, did you actually read the article and my revision and, if so, what criticism did I remove? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way suggesting I have more experience—I freely admit to being a novice. Then perhaps you should read the article on mansplaining before you next use it to dismiss something someone tells you. Being told you're wrong about something is not what being mansplained to is. It is, in fact, possible for a woman to be wrong about something, and for a man to correct her without a misogynistic motive. I would, at this point, remind you that I have not had, until the moment you mentioned mansplaining, any reasons to suspect you were a woman, and good reason to suspect otherwise.

Immediately jumping to the conclusion that bigotry of some variety underlies an objection to your editing is a generally bad practice, as it makes it functionally impossible to collaborate with you for anyone bothered by the incivility of it. It is, in fact, the least bigoted people who are most likely to be bothered by the accusation, and I'm sure I don't need to explain why alienating the least bigoted people is a bad idea.

As for the rest of your comment: the response section simply needs to go. The bit you removed was important for context of writing about Wade's response (hence my objection; the repetition elsewhere was mostly immaterial), but the notion that Wade's response to the criticisms of his book bears anywhere near the weight of criticisms from a hundred and forty subject matter experts is ridiculous. We would barely consider a single expert's dissent from that sort of consensus, let alone a non-expert like Wade. Giving Wade's response a section heading amplifies it far beyond NPOV.

The proper way forward would to reduce the verbiage covering Wade's response and move it and Feldman's review to the reception section, then delete the response section. A single sentence characterizing it would be the best balance, like Wade responded, denying the assertions of the scientists and stating that his book presents a "principled" objection to racism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edits

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

I'll note that the phrase "strongly praised and sharply criticized" is WP:OR as well as WP:GEVAL (not to mention WP:WEASEL); none of the sources cited in the first paragraph under § Reception mention praise for the book, let alone strong praise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. By far the most notable thing about this book is the unprecedented letter signed by 139 senior subject-matter experts saying it misrepresents the science of human population genetics. Everything else about this book pales in comparison to that extraordinary fact. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was an extraordinary letter, and remains so 10 years later. The book was 'praised' by people with no background in population genetics. If someone writes a book about cosmology, and it's roundly criticized by cosmologists, but praised by linguists, something's seriously wrong there. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find countless letters written to authors of controversial books if you look hard enough. It's become fairly obvious you're arguing from a position which is ideological in nature, and not at all subsiding with WP:NPOV. 38.130.151.13 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including the scientific reception to the book is supported by Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies, not ideology. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This letter was actually unprecedented for the number of top subject-matter experts who signed it, as is noted by the secondary sources we cite. Having inspired this level of unequivocal condemnation from the scientific community is arguably the most notable thing about Wade, by far. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edit 2

Generalrelative is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring

Wade's position and subsequent comments are well defined in the linked source, why the undiscussed edit? 38.130.151.13 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reversion ≠ edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree - I trust you won’t continue then. 2605:59C8:26AD:E00:2976:1E6F:849C:2266 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, by all means expand on why you think the author’s explanation isn’t worthy of reference. The floor is yours :) 2605:59C8:26AD:E00:2976:1E6F:849C:2266 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) The author's response is discussed in the article. 2) It's WP:UNDUE for the lead because 139 "leading population geneticists" > 1 journalist. See also another section of NPOV: WP:FALSEBALANCE. 3) The letter signed by 139 geneticists is a key aspect of the book's notability, as I stated in the thread above and is backed up by numerous secondary sources, which is why it is due for inclusion in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've subsequently removed the entire sentence related to the now disputed "open letter". I think this provides a much more reasonable lede than prior. 38.130.151.13 (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of the scientists' letter is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. The letter itself is in large part the source of the work's notability. Seems entirely reasonable to include it in the lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that tracks, I’m afraid. It seems a bit contrary to WP:NPOV to reference a letter to a written work’s author and not reference its cohesive and appropriate rebuttal. Given my summary of said rebuttal was editwarred by GR, I’ve since removed the sentence, I’m sure @Generalrelative is able to understand. 2605:59C8:26AD:E00:2976:1E6F:849C:2266 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely consistent with WP:NPOV, which means fairly representing all the significant views of independent, reliable sources. What is not consistent with NPOV is giving equal validity to both "sides" of a given dispute. Wade has a clear conflict of interest regarding the scholarly reception of his book, making his rebuttal WP:UNDUE unless discussed by sources independent of Wade himself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]