Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewontin's Fallacy

Lewontin's Fallacy

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

This article has a long and convoluted history, perhaps unsurprising given that it relates to several controversial subjects, but it seems to me that one fundamental question about the article has never been satisfactorily answered: does an article about a single paper written as a response to another meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Clearly there are some single papers that might merit an article: Watson and Crick's Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid is an obvious example. However, in relation to this paper, the evidence that it has had much real effect on the debates regarding 'racial categories' seems sparse. The debate has moved on since Lewontwin's work, and Edward's response, and neither position can be considered to represent the current consensus (in as much as any consensus exists). To give a single paper in an ongoing debate an article of its own seems to be applying undue weight - and as has been acknowledged on the article talk page it is inherently liable to breach WP:NPOV (as the present title self-evidently does, thought to be fair to those supporting the present article, this has been acknowledged, and alternate suggestions have been offered). One could respond that the solution to this would be to find counterarguments to Edwards, but this will inevitably lead back to the context of the general debate, of which Lewontwin's work, and Edward's response was but a small part. No doubt some of the existing content would be suitable for merger into related articles, though I suspect that the topic is already adequately discussed in most cases, but for the rest, I suggest that deletion is the best way forward - Wikipedia does not need an article on a not particularly noteworthy single episode of an ongoing debate - particularly one which by its very subject is inherently skewed from NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paper seems to have had significant impact as the issue is referred to as Lewontin's Fallacy in numerous books about genetics and race - see the search links above. Warden (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, Google books returned 68 results. Google Scolar gave 34. Whether this could be described as 'numerous' is I suppose a matter for debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two which indicates that numbers greater than nine might be considered numerous. The article is also a relevant precedent, being about another individual paper which had much impact. Warden (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (but where?) It seems logical that a paper giving a polemic and critical treatment of another paper is best treated together with the larger issue at stake than on it's own. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the results of Google searches, Edwards' article is clearly notable, and the term "Lewontin's Fallacy" is widely used to refer to the argument expounded therein; see e.g. • Armand Marie Leroi (March 14, 2005), "A Family Tree in Every Gene", The New York Times • Chetan Batt (2010), "The spirit lives on: races and disciplines", in John Solomos and Patricia Hill Collins (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, SAGE Publications, p. 115, ISBN 978-0-7619-4220-7 • Jonathan Marks (2010), "Ten facts about human variation", in Michael P. Muehlenbein (ed.), Human Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, p. 270, ISBN 978-0-521-70510-3 • Jonathan Michael Kaplan (January 17, 2011), "'Race': what biology can tell us about a social construct", Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, John Wiley, doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857. And so on. --Lambiam 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "Lewontin's Fallacy" does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the Leroi NYT article, and Edwards is only mentioned once. So the topic may be covered, but the Edwards article is not. Do any of the other articles you mentioned specifically discuss the Edwards article? Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change in which the Fallacy is proposed has 2700 cites on Google Scholar plus much further discussion so it seems to be of sufficient interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't that an argument for having an article about Lewontwin's book, rather than Edward's response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be good to have material about both and the nature of the issue, which the present article does a fairly good job of. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The 'issue' is ongoing, and yes it needs proper coverage in Wikipedia - though this is difficult, given the controversial nature of the debate, and the fact that much of it isn't just about abstract 'science', but also about the politics of particular societies (notably the US, where this debate seems to get the most interest) - but is this particular episode that notable? And should we use a snapshot of a particular past debate as a starting point for an article on the subject? I think not. Articles should be about topics, not single events in an ongoing debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the matter, Lewontwin put up a half-baked mathematical argument to advance a view with significant ideological and cultural consequences, and a real statistician showed that the mathematics he used was wrong because it ignored correlations. The incident is a paradigm of bodgy science being exposed by correct science in an area where the stakes are high (also think climate science). For this reason at least, the issue is important enough for its own article. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Surely if this was the case, we should be able to write a reliably sourced article on the topic the distribution of genetic diversity within and between populations, rather than a very poorly sourced article about a single article by Edwards? By the way, is it really appropriate to call Lewontin's work "half-baked"? Surely there are BLP implications about making such bald, unattributed accusations of professional incompetence about a living person. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something neutral like “Dispute over the proposition that race is not a valid taxonomic construct”. —teb728 t c 02:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Race and genetics, though that article is a dog's breakfast in my opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea why you mention Race and genetics; that article deals only briefly with the subject of the nominated article. Meanwhile a neutral title such as I propose would remove all of your objections to the article. 1) You say the article is about a single paper: Although the present title references a single paper, in fact the present article is about both Lewontin’s and Edwards’ theories. A title like I propose recognizes that fact. 2) You say the article does not cover work since Edwards, but a title like I propose expands the subject to include any current consensus. 3) You say the article is inherently POV: The present title is POV, but a neutral title is possible. —teb728 t c 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Something shorter than this might be an appropriate addition to a more general article on race, but standalone and particularly with the current title it is difficult or impossible for it to be neutral. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable topic discussed in numerous reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you track down some of those sources? I can't find much discussion of this specific article, not enough to meet our notability requirements. Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, or possibly merge into History of the race and intelligence controversy. aprock (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into an article which is on a properly recognized encyclopedic topic. Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled. In what way is an academic paper by a Cambridge scientist not a "properly recognized encyclopedic topic"? Is there some policy reason for this claim, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? 212.183.140.45 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC): trolling by ipsock of community/ArbCom banned editor Mikemikev[reply]

The topic - the question as to whether 'race' can be correlated with genetic diversity - is clearly encyclopaedic. As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested otherwise. The question is whether this particular episode in the debate meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and is better treated as a separate article than as part of the general debate. Given that the debate has moved on, and that the article is inherently prone to breach WP:NPOV, I suggested that it isn't. And no, there is no automatic 'notability' attached to scientific papers. This one has probably attracted more attention than many, but that doesn't mean we need to treat it as notable in its own right: indeed, it is only 'notable' at all in that it is a part of the broader debate. We don't have an article on Lewontwin's original argument, and we don't have individual articles on other more recent work - why (other than a catchy title) should this be treated differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. It's difficult to figure out how to evaluate single articles in the literature, but I think the closest guideline would be WP:NBOOK.

1. The book has been the subject[ of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. - of the seven cited references, the only one that discusses the Edwards paper at any length is Sesardic, who says

To think otherwise is to commit a statistical mistake that has recently been labeled ‘‘Lewontin’s fallacy’’ (see Edwards 2003). An argument that is due to Lewontin and that has been uncritically accepted by almost all philosophers is that racial classification is of virtually no genetic or biological significance just because the genetic differences between the races on a number of arbitrarily selected loci are typically found to be swamped by the corresponding within-race differences. But as Edwards has shown, Lewontin completely ignored the aggregation effect of these inter-group differences in allele frequencies on different loci, which could (and arguably does) support a racial taxonomy—without a need for a very big average variation between the races on a locus-by-locus basis. Even with Lewontin’s condition satisfied (i.e., the within-group variation being much larger than the between-group variation), a clear group structure can still emerge on the basis of these aggregate properties of populations. It should be emphasized that Lewontin’s fallacy was exposed long before Edwards’ article in 2003. An especially clear explanation is given in Mitton (1977) and (1978), the articles that somehow missed the attention of most scholars, including Edwards himself (personal communication). [Emphasis added]

I have italicised the bits where Sesardic talks about the paper. The rest of it is a discussion of Lewontin and what's wrong with his argument, an idea which, he points out, pre-dates the Edwards paper. The Edwards article has been fairly widely cited, certainly, but citations of the article are not the same as coverage of the article.

2. The book has won a major literary award. - Change that to "scientific award", and we still have nothing.

3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - change that to "field of scientific inquiry" and we still have nothing. Sure, it is fairly well cited (52 cites on ISI Web of Science) but that's not supported by secondary sources.

4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country - not as far as I can tell.

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. - not the case; anyway, this probably wouldn't translate well to a single article.

The other major problem that the article has is that it is almost entirely WP:SYNTH. Most of the references come from sources that do not actually discuss the Edwards article, but rather, Lewontin's. That's not to say that the Edwards article doesn't have useful information, but our article shouldn't exist. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added further sources to the articles, such as The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, The Ancestor's Tale, and DNA: promise and peril. It is also true that Lewontin's Fallacy is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME by far. There is a significant amount of discussion within the academic field about Edwards' paper and it is definitely notable. Silverseren^C 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided so far show "a significant amount of discussion within the academic field" or definite "notability". That seems to be unsourced personal opinion. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the paper is cited so much is the discussion of it. And how do these sources not provide notability? They are significant discussion about the paper. It is not personal opinion when there are sources that are discussing it fairly extensively, especially when it is discussed in college textbooks. Silverseren^C 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have provided no sources so far which discuss it "fairly extensively." Citations are no evidence of that. The article is an unnecessary fork. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello? The sources right above that I linked. Are you just ignoring them or what? Silverseren^C 21:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]