Talk:Dysgenics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Discussion to pre-empt inevitable dispute

I am not sure if it is notable enough yet, but multiple papers indicate that there may be differing rates of dysgenic fertility between racial groupings. I do not consider this claim to be racist at all; in fact, theoretically, this could well be an issue for anti-racists to address more than anybody else.

Please state your concerns. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My only concern right now is that you haven't cited these papers yet. We can talk once you do. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

One crass example: Lynn's eponymous book states this in multiple places e.g.; now, while he is arguably a racist, does this necessarily poison such a paragraph? Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because Lynn is universally considered to be an unreliable source by serious scholars. Note e.g. that this paper recently needed to be retracted simply because it came to the attention of the journal that it relied in part on his deeply flawed data (background here if you're curious). If we have actual population geneticists in good professional standing making arguments about dysgenic fertility, we can potentially include those in this article, assuming we do so in a manner that is consistent with WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Is there some kind of WP-internal ruling on Lynn though? If someone writes a book called "dysgenics" they should certainly be a possible primary source in that discussion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable. We can describe Lynn's views, as we already do in this article, so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline. If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way, feel free to bring the matter to WP:RSN. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Do I have to describe him as some kind of demonic force multiple times over in one article. How about e.g. pointing to the (supposedly) flawed data you brought up in a note one time.

If you want to include a whole paragraph on what left-wing academics think of him, I will (reasonably) have to dig up favorable reviews too (e.g. W.D. Hamilton's one, cf.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2000.6440363.x) Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way" is btw. just another example of the extremely adversarial language you have been using in every single interaction we've had so far. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is no longer a constructive conversation. Take it to a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 Please do NOT edit-war. Your reverting of my removal of your favorable coverage of Richard Lynn's POV on dysgenics violated WP:EW. The justification in your edit summary, that "Absolutely unacceptable, we virtually had a conversation about Lynn yesterday", makes no sense. That conversation between you and Generalrelative did not reach an agreement, let alone a consensus of multiple editors, but rather ended abruptly when you gratuitously insulted GR. If you think you'll be able to get a consensus for the edit that I reverted, a policy-compliant way to accomplish that would be to ask about the Lynn source at WP:RSN or WP:FTN. NightHeron (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Generalrelative called including the book "the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable."
• I did not insult anybody, but rather indicated that he had (more or less) insulted me multiple times over; and I will continue stating this fact whenever they do so in future interactions.
• My edit actually made the Lynn paragraph more NPOV/narrow; I will reconsider such a move in the future if it immediately results in large, potentially well-sourced passages being removed.
  • Btw. if any of you two immediately use my honest attempt at finding a consensus here to make Lynn an unreliable/blacklisted source more generally, I think we're really entering thin ice.

Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• GR's next sentence says "so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline", which your edit does not do. The white supremacist theories of Lynn and his ilk, based on faulty data and faulty reasoning, are rejected by mainstream science. This was discussed extensively on Wikipedia in 2020 and again in 2021, resulting in a consensus of editors that WP:FRINGE applies to those sources. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  So what does this mean for the article? It is not "universally rejected"; I have (some) scientific credentials and disagree with this blanket statement. Any concrete suggestions beyond "controversial"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  How is he not universally rejected? If you think that doesn't apply to him because there are some fringe groups that still accept his work, okay, but GR was referring to "serious scholars" specifically. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I see. So, I assume that refers to people with "critical" pre- and "studies" suffixed to their paycheck?

  In all seriousness: it annoys me that the same handful of editors constantly go from contentious talk page to talk page doing little more than stating "I (dis)agree with X" in complicated, sometimes even borderline Wiki-lawyering ways to shift consensus in their favor.

  Imagine I went to every single talk page relating to race, sex differences, gender etc. and made broad statements there that related little to the actual conversation... Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) This means that it's okay to mention relevant views of Lynn so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science -- just as a creationist source could be mentioned in an article about evolution, provided that it's made clear that the creationist POV is rejected by modern science. Of course, neither white supremacy nor creationism is "universally rejected". NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  However, dysgenics is not the same as race science simpliciter. As such, this ruling should not apply.

  How about we set up a designated controversies/criticism section once I provided the edits I've been "promising". Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why the ruling for Flynn somehow doesn't apply here? It's still about human genetics. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  The consensus on racial pseudoscience certainly applies to Richard Lynn, who for many years presided over the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. He has zero credibility as a scholar. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Zero credibility as a scholar of what? I seriously doubt that Shockley has to be removed from all articles about early computing because he was a racist. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  A bad analogy. Shockley won a Nobel Prize for work that had nothing whatsoever to do with his racist views. Richard Lynn's notability comes entirely from his efforts to promote race pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Richard Lynn has credibility regarding the views of Richard Lynn. Other people have credibility regarding whether Lynn's ideas were viewed as complete crackpottery, plausible enough to motivate further research, worrying enough to justify action even in the absence of certainty, or conclusive. We can write this article in a way that gives Lynn's ideas a fair shake while also accurately describing their place within scientific and political thought. Jruderman (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  ^ Precisely this. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. How about we replace "controversial" by "highly controversial" and add a note with the pdf Generalrelative provided? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Still has the FALSE BALANCE problem. To quote GR, any mention of Lynn's views on this topic needs to "make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline". NightHeron (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  "False balance" - as of now the article states dysgenics does not occur. It even cites a passage stating this is so "counterintuitively" without any further clarification. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  This statement is false. I can name you multiple nobelists that have admitted dysgenics is a danger relatively recently. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Mainstream science" on this topic means genetics. The opinions of scientists with no expertise in the field, any more than Shockley had expertise on questions of race, are irrelevant here. NightHeron (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

New source: Sear and Townsend 2023

There's a decent source (Sear and Townsend 2023) that might be included in article. I also added one quote. 51.6.193.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)