The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to J. Philippe Rushton. Consensus is that this should not be an article topic. There's not yet consensus about whether any content should be merged and where to, so this redirect is a temporary measure until subsequent discussions figure out what to do with the content in the history. Sandstein 09:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This theory is a fringe theory which is treated at the article about J. Phillippe Rushton who created it. The article was created by an editor who cited his own article in favor of the theory published in a journal with a reputation for publishing low quality racialist research without rigorous peer review. It did not cite any of the many works ridiculing or debunking the theory. The article is best redirected either to Race and intelligence (which is the wider context for the theory) or to J. Philippe Rushton where it is described as well as the main criticisms of it. Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by offline canvassing, as the appearance of a newly registered account within an hour of AfDing this article already suggests. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Rushton. In general, I haven't seen much mention of the cold winter theory in discussions of recent human evolution, and while it's been mentioned by a number of other authors not currently cited in the article and may yet be vindicated by future research (inasmuch as we now have many known education/intelligence alleles, and research is gearing up on detecting signals of natural selection using ancient genomes & contemporary whole genomes), it does not seem to be a particularly important topic at the moment and would be better off in context in some other article - Rushton being the obvious one - until it can be expanded out into more than a stub. --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 19 November 2016 (GMT)
KeepTheory is discussed seriously by multiple scholars in mainstream journals and is not fringe by definition. See [1]. ·maunus has a history of misrepresenting views he doesn't like as "fringe". ·maunus's speculation that I was canvassed offline is entirely untrue and the only POV pushing is his relentless and dishonest attempt to misrepresent academic views which he doesn't like as "fringe", which indeed has a long history. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors opinion of "particularly important" is irrelevant. Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the original theorist. This is shown in the references. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well is it false that only Rushton discussed this? And is it likely that Maunus didn't know that? Surely dishonest censorship is worse than the so called "incivility" of pointing that out? How should I phrase this to be civil? Maunus accuses me of being canvassed offline above. Should I put in "suggests" to be civil? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by offline canvassing, as the appearance of a newly registered account within an hour of AfDing this article already suggests." Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should I have written "Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by the dishonest tactic of pretending only one person discussed this, as Maunus's AfD statement suggests." Is that civil? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly more interested in how an apparently new editor knows that "maunus has a history of misrepresenting views..." but regardless, just stick to the argument about the topic and cease squabbling about how you think Afds should be formatted, or what you think of the nominator, and you'll be fine. I actually think there's a valid argument for keeping -- but you're messing it up with your toxic behaviour here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My "toxic behavior" (complaining about your silly formatting and the obvious dishonesty of the OP) shouldn't really affect the obviously bogus deletion effort here. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge somewhere, but no preference amongst the options already suggested. Maintaining a separate article is undue weight for this very fringe theory, and will be a magnet for racist POV-pushing. Joe Roe (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe theory having been discussed seriously in mainstream journals. Calling it "racist" is just irrelevant. Yes genetic racial difference theories are "racist" in some sense. Calling them "racist" doesn't disprove them. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to "prove" or "disprove" things. Our only concern is determining how independently notable this theory is so we can cover it with a neutral point of view and due weight. The proposition that there are racial differences in intelligence is fringe science that no mainstream anthropologist accepts, therefore this explanation of that difference—posed by notorious racist crank J. Philippe Rushton no less—is certainly very fringe. The only coverage in mainstream journals I can find is a single article in Intelligence and another refuting it. That does not constitute significant coverage. It might merit a line or two in a related article. Joe Roe (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's exactly my point that we're not here to prove or disprove. Or express personal distaste. Which is why I said caliing the theory/theorist "racist" (whatever you mean by it) is irrelevant. Pretty much just name calling. Your assessment of the status of the proposition of genetic racial differences among anthropologists seems pretty irrelevant, even if true which I doubt. The anthropological subfields of psychology or behavior genetics are relevant. Cultural anthropologists aren't trained in psychometrics or heritability estimates. They can say "we are all equal" though I guess. Not sure how relevant that sentiment is. The simple fact is that this has been discussed in mainstream journals, and by policy can have an article. Of course I expect policy to be ignored because you're "fighting racism" or whatever. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This theory is not about psychometrics or heritability estimates it is about human evolution, which is an anthropological topic. And the status of this theory among scholars of human evolution is that it has zero support and no scientific paper has ever been published about it in a mainstream journal about human evolution. It has been commented upon by only in the context of discussing the race/IQ topic - but it is not considered a serious hypothesis among those who specialize in the study of human evolution. That is why we can have it as a section in the R&I articles - but not as a stand alone article about a theory of the evolution of human cognitive abilities.·maunus · snunɐɯ·13:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an evolutionary theory based on a heritability estimate of psychometric variation. It's an interdisciplinary theory. One must estimate genetic variation before one can posit a theory to explain it. EO Wilson for one seemed to consider it valid evolutionary reasoning, so your extreme "zero support" claim is simply not true. Actually it's a lie. Please list all of the evolutionary biologists that have opposed this theory. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the theory is created by psychologists trying to play evolutionary anthropologists does not make the theory interdisciplinary. Dont shift the burden of evidence. Please list any articles about the theory published in mainstream evolutionary anthropology journals. Please show where it is mentioned in textbooks about human evolution. Please show me where it is mentioned in mainstream reviews of the literature on the evolution of human cognitive abilities. Wilson (who does not specialize in human evolution) has not published anything to the effect of supporting the theory, but is on record stating off hand in an interview that he didn't think Rushton's theories would be so ill received if they weren't about humans - which is not in fact a statement of support for "cold winter theory" nor peer-reviewed publication that actually would demonstrate scientific standing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·13:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to imply the theory is opposed by evolutionary biologists. There's Joe Graves I suppose, who publishes in "Social Texts". This is really the province of evolutionary psychology. Which anthropology journals would you expect to find an evolutionary psychology theory in? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you are simply not following. Joseph Graves is a geneticist with a specialty in fruit flies and scientific racism, not in human evolution. No evolutionary anthropologist who specializes in the development of human cognitive ability has to my knowledge even given mention of this theory in their works. You will not find it mentioned in works about human evolution. Probably because to the evolutionary anthropologist it is an absurd hypothesis to presume that mere temperature or distance from equator should exert a uniform selective pressure that favors the evolution of cognitive ability - in terms of an ecological understanding of interaction between environment and survival it is so simplistic that it is risible. Read some books about human evolution and see what the theories that are current in regards to the development of cognitive skill, I assure you that this is not among the serious contenders. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·16:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. I asked you to demonstrate that evolutionary psychology theories need to be verified in the evolutionary anthropology literature. You gave no examples. So until you can supply meaningful critiques of evolutionary psychology from evolutionary anthropology, we can just ignore your ad hoc hurdle. And even if you did supply it it would be a notable debate. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The theory regards human evolution, and all articles in wikipedia must by basic policy represent the scientific mainstream consensus in the given field. So yes, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate that evolutionary anthropologists consider this theory notable outside of its status as a curiosum in the history of scientific racism. It is not possible or necessary for me to prove a negative - evolutionary anthropologists do not write about it in relation to the evolution of human cognition because it is a non-starter. Mainstream anthropologists and scientists write about it only in the context of the R&I debate to debunk it as the flawed and invalid argument it is. You can find a slew of reviews of Rushtons book that mention it of course (generally negatively), but this shows that the theory is not independently notable, but only as a brainchild of Rushton to which it should be redirected.·maunus · snunɐɯ·17:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect somewhere Yeah, I don't work a lot in this subject area but as the full extent of Mikemikev's obsession with racial superiority theories -- here and apparently on Rationwiki as well as other forums -- it seems clear that we have a person with issues, who is working single-mindedly to advance his POV across a range of platforms. We don't need a fork article for this fringe theory. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Doesn't seem to be enough out there to sustain its own article. No strong feelings on where the redirect points, both options given above seem like reasonable targets. Ajpolino (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a detailed reply to this matter at the fringe theory noticeboard. Apparently, that was the wrong place to place it, so I will copy it to here.
Not well respected among the media or scientists in general, no. No hereditarian model is. However, the point of Wikipedia is not to cover things that are generally well respected, but things that are notable. Wikipedia covers quite a lot of fringe science already that is almost unanimously rejected by the scientific community. As an example think of the recent claims by Bem et al., which are covered in the precognition article. As this article's creator, I thought it suitable that Wikipedia should cover a well known theory in this area. Note, this area concerns differences in cognitive ability between human populations, not human evolution in general for which this theory is not very well known (as noted above). As an example of the notability, consider the discussion (p. 443ff) of this model in Earl Hunt's 2010 textbook, the latest comprehensive textbook in this field (532 pp.). Earl Hunt is quite critical of this model and instead prefers Diamond's model. He refers to them both as just so stories given their speculativeness. Hunt himself published a paper back in 2006 criticizing the results put forward by Templer and Arikawa.[1][2] As an alternative, I did consider putting this model under a person. The problem is that the model has been supported or positively discussed by a number of different authors over the years, making it difficult to place it under a single author. Rushton, Lynn, Arikawa, Templer, Hart, Jensen, Kanazawa and probably others. Thus, it seemed a bit difficult to place it under any of them. As Hunt remarks in his discussion, neither of these authors were the first to propose such a model, Herodotus was (p. 444). Should it be placed under him? That seems seriously misfitting. Thus, it seems to me that this model is notable enough to be included, and it is difficult to place under one particular person. I can think of two remaining options: 1) leave it where it is as a stand-alone article, and 2) add the content to the Race and Intelligence article. One could also consider the nations and intelligence article, but the model isn't really about nations, but about populations. Some nations happen to map fairly well to the populations that have been living there for some time, while in other cases (North America, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa), this isn't so. --Deleet (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I can add more references to the article (such as Hunt's criticism). I know the field well because I research the same topic, although I've not published anything for or against this model. --Deleet (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't? You cited this work as supporting the model "Kirkegaard, Emil O. W.; Fuerst, John (2016). "Inequality in the United States: Ethnicity, Racial Admixture and Environmental Causes". Mankind Quarterly. 56 (4)."·maunus · snunɐɯ·12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to whatever article is the most suitable. Seems unlikely that this fringe theory article could even have enough content to justify a standalone article. It is a useless fork. Ceosad (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Templer, Donald I.; Arikawa, Hiroko (March 2006). "Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective". Intelligence. 34 (2): 121–139. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002.
^Hunt, Earl; Sternberg, Robert J. (March 2006). "Sorry, wrong numbers: An analysis of a study of a correlation between skin color and IQ". Intelligence. 34 (2): 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.004.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.