Talk:Human Diversity

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 April 2020 by reviewer Gpkp (talk · contribs).

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

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warne's speculations

This is regarding this edit which has been reverted by others and restored by me a couple of times. As a compromise, I edited it for brevity, and to focus on what the review had to say about the book itself, but now this has also been reverted.

There are multiple problems here. For one, Warne says that 'experts' would find this unsurprising, but three 'experts' he lists are part of the same fringe "human biodiversity movement' that is already sympathetic to Murray. These experts are ot representative of the field, which Warne is most certainly aware of. So superficially, this review isn't really saying anything other than that the book is a rehash. "People who agree with Murray's other work will also agree with this book, because it isn't saying anything they (we) don't already know".

On a deeper level, it's worse: The insinuation here is that anyone who doesn't already know and agree with Murray's pseudoscience is therefor not an 'expert'. It's trivially easy to find sources which disagree with Murray's conclusions, but most of have better things to do that write reviews of this particular book.

If we're going to include this, we would need to present this in such a way as to not pass-along Warne's opinions as a bland fact. To put it another way, Warne is not qualified to decide who is and is not enough of an expert to disagree with this book's conclusions.

The other part of the paragraph is Warne's speculation. Warne is preemptively impugning the motives of anyone who disputes Murray's claims. Being "politically biased" does not make any rebuttal of Murray's claims any more or less accurate or valid. More importantly, Warne is not qualified to speak to this, nor is his speculation directly relevant to the book itself.

Yet another issue that Warne is far outside of the mainstream. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Warne, we don't have any easy way to provide this context to readers. By including this review, we are presenting a fringe opinion as being blandly informative. This is a WP:PROFRINGE issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neisser is hardly fringe, he's one of the world's most cited psychologists and the great majority of his work was completely unrelated to this topic. I also can't find anything to support the claim that he's sympathetic to Murray or human biodiversity or even that Neisser is considered controversial at all. Perhaps you're referring to his role in developing the Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns report as part of a task force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association; but it made very measured, qualified, mainstream conclusions, and the Board of Scientific Affairs of the APA is about as authoritative, reliable source as you can get. If you have sources to support the claim that he's "fringe" I'd be interested in seeing them.

As for Warne's qualifications, I fail to see how a psych professor published in a mainstream psychology journal is less qualified than, say, a literary critic.

I suppose you could find some reliable sources on the topic (I doubt you'll find better than the Knowns and Unknowns report) and compare the the book, but that sounds a lot like OR. Hi! (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Neisser was not necessarily profringe. But Warne certainly is. One of his main career activity seems to be arguing that genetics plays a role in racial gaps in IQ testing, which is definitively fringe. So his opinion regarding Murray's book insofar as it relates to the same themes is not suitable for this encyclopedia, per our guidelines, e.g. WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]