Talk:Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't read much of the book yet (though I already note that Lynn is a bit too "right wing" for my liking), nor any of the reviews besides Hamilton's lengthy one, and I'm trying to study for exams over the next week, so try not to be too hasty on this one. Richard001 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I summarised one review for the BLP of Richard Lynn before this stub was created and another afterwards. W.D. Hamilton's review is a piece written under exceptional circumstances, as he died of malaria before it could be revised or prepared for press, as described in the editorial preamble. A large part of the review is devoted to Hamilton's own very personal musings - he called his piece a "rambling essay". He was undoubtedly an exceptionally distinguished scientist as evidenced by his Royal Society Research Professorship, one of the highest scientific honours in the UK. The other published review, with a more detailed critique even if shorter, is by the distinguished experimental psychologist N.J. Mackintosh, also an FRS. Both describe the book as being on the verge of political correctness and both salute the gathering of so much relevant data. I am unable to evaluate whether this book is noteworthy or not. I would assume there are many much more widely cited books, possibly classics of long standing, in psychology or evolutionary biology which do not have their own special article on the WP. It might fairly be argued that the current insubstantial article is a fork of the BLP of Lynn: this is probably my own view at present. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

PS I'm not pushing for this article to be deleted, I'm just sceptical that it is notable, how are we going to get past a stub if there is no real debate/controversy centering upon the book? Alun (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• It's irrelevant to this book's notability status whether there are articles on less notable books or whether there are not articles on more notable books.

That's what I said, but it was you who brought it up when you said "though the author having his own article does give it a slight boost over a book with a less notable author." The notability of the author is irrelevant to the book. I'm glad you agree. I also agree with you that we don't see eye to eye about what is notable. I don't consider a few reviews a demonstration of notability. Most books will get some sort of review when published, that's in the nature of the publishing business, that doesn't make them notable. What makes them notable is if they demonstrate something remarkable, like to inspire a scientific debate, or in the case of literature a literary debate. This book seems to have failed this test, though other books with the same theme have generated considerable scientific and general media debate (the Bell Curve for example). This book is not established within any select group of notable scientific books. Alun (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, another way to establish it's notability would be to expand it beyond a two sentence article, because it's clear that a two sentence article about a book hardly establishes it as having generated notability as a publication. That notability must be about the book and not about dysgenics as a subject. If you want to discuss dysgenics then please do so on the dysgenics article. Alun (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that? When have I (or anyone else) ever tried to discuss or write about the general subject of dysgenics here? Richard001 (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thinking about something else. I've been thinking about this and I think you're probably right that this may be borderline notable. Although I'm sceptical about the book's notability, I do tend towards inclusionism. I suggest that the best thing to do is to work on expanding the article. I'll remove the notability template. Alun (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

By the way, if you want a similar article to nominate for deletion you might consider The Gene Bomb. I tagged that one for notability myself but left it be when I saw there were a few reviews of it. I don't think any of them were for a 'general audience' though; it's certainly more borderline than this. I don't really feel like reconsidering it myself, as I went to the trouble of uploading a cover image and all. And I'm an 'inclusionist'. Richard001 (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I realised that it's not easy to expand an article if you have to spend all your time on the talk page defending it. So I though it would be better to leave it for the time being to see if it gets expanded. Alun (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Additional sources

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

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

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

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. --Zero g (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I think that pretty much covers it then. Shall we take the notability template down? By the way, if sources that aren't easily accessible had to be taken down we would have to remove basically all citations to peer reviewed journals etc, which would pretty much destroy Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this book is notable. The fact that it is no longer officially in print must be some indication. Rather than having a not particularly useful debate on a talk page, please take some time to (a) summarise the contents in a coherent way (if that is possible) (b) summarise the reviews (as I have partially done elsewhere). I have no idea why somebody thought the list of contents would be of the slightest interest in an encyclopedia. As I say this article seems to be a fork, created immediately after new content on the book was added to the main article Richard Lynn. The fact that no encyclopedic content has yet been added to this article seems to confirm this. Please try to write a serious article (not a stub). After that it might be sensible to have a debate. At the moment we are discussing a non-existent article, a useless and uninformative list. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 'contents' section, that's really more of a place holder for an actual synopsis of the book (see my hidden comment). The conclusion sections at the end of each chapter of the book would make these easy to write - I like it when books do this). Having a contents section certainly provides a lot more information than having nothing, especially when the chapters have names that provide a good indication of what the chapter is about (as scientific literature tends to). They're also very easy to generate - it's often just a matter of locating a website that has a contents list and pasting it here. Richard001 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to understand why it's not in print--the used copies are going for incredible prices ($550 on Amazon), which would usually prompt a publisher to print another run. This book didn't generate the level of controversy of The Bell Curve (what book does?), but enough people have read it and commented on it to make it notable. A fair number of people are here engaged in this conversation, and all know about this book. In the academic world, anyone who has tried to make sense of the heritability of IQ issue has probably read it, and that is a lot of people. The fact that some extreme right-wingers praise the book is unfortunate, but it actually reinforces the book's notability.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just musing here, but wouldn't a yardstick of academic notability be how many peer-reviewed papers actually cite the book as a source?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To investigate the significance of Lynn's 1996 book, "Dysgenics, Genetic deterioration in modern populations", I searched for citations using Google Scholar, a good tool for this purpose.[1][2][3] I considered papers published after 2000, not by Lynn and not book reviews, i.e., independent research citing Lynn's book. I found three papers/books by Kevin MacDonald, a psychologist; MacDonald (2006) "An evolutionary perspective on human fertility", Population & Environment,[4] MacDonald and Hershberger (2004), "Theoretical Issues in the Study of Evolution and Development" in "Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development",[5] MacDonald (2002) "Conclusion: Whither Judaism and the West?" in "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements",[6]

The other papers appear to be mostly papers on psychology, education and archaeology. In reverse chronological order, they are Shatz (2008) IQ and fertility: A cross-national study, Intelligence, [7] Ramsden (2007) "A differential paradox: The controversy surrounding the Scottish mental surveys of intelligence and family size", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,[8], MacEachern (2006), Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century, World Archaeology,[9] Nunes (2006) "Deafness, Genetics and Dysgenics" Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy,[10] Cocodia et al. (2003), Evidence that rising population intelligence is impacting in formal education, Personality and Individual Differences, [11] Meisenberg (2003) "IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think", Mankind Quarterly,[12] Howard (2001), Personality and Individual Differences, "Searching the real world for signs of rising population intelligence",[13], Geary and Flinn (2001), Evolution of Human Parental Behavior and the Human Family", Parenting,[14], Thienpont (2001), "Intelligentie, genetica, en de samenleving" in "Biologie van de geest: psychologie en pedagogiek door de genetica u",[15]

The paper by Meisenberg appears in Mankind Quarterly,[16] "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race", and not a journal of biological science or population genetics despite the title of the paper. (See wikilinked article for the quotation source and more information of this publication of the Pioneer Fund). I was unable to identify any of the authors of the papers as biologists or geneticists.

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

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

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

http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1030204318.html;jsessionid=AF6D11B3DAFF4F4B4F3FE03F68774403.ehctc1 --Zero g (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

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

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

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

In terms of notability the question is basically whether it meets WP:BK, which it seems to. It only requires more than one work on the subject, including reviews, and there are at least 13 of them. It's not exactly so clear on academic books though.

I have added a synopsis of the book, having finished it yesterday. I will be going away for a week to ten days tomorrow, so don't expect me to participate here for a while. Richard001 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a good synopsis to me. Nice job. --Zero g (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but to be WP:NPOV there needs to some critique.PB666 ^yap 13:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why bother though, it looks like Richard001's effort isn't appreciated as per the discussion on the Richard Lynn page by the five musketeers. --Zero g (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)