Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differential K theory

Differential K theory

Differential K theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There is no significant coverage from outside the walled garden of racialist research publications except for a scant handful of criticisms. The criticism I see is not enough to justify an article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Differential K theory seems to easily pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines - of course saying that it's notable is completely independent from issues like whether it's debunked, fringe, correct, whether criticisms made of it are justified, etc, etc. Our job as editors is to determine whether there are enough reliable/notable sources to write an encyclopedia article on this subject, and there are. Personality and Individual Differences, a peer-reviewed journal with respectable academics on its editorial board (elsevier.com/journals/personality-and-individual-differences/0191-8869/editorial-board) has published multiple articles (1985,2008,1995,2012,2013,2014,2016) on differential K theory. There are more sources that could be included too. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Differential K theory seems to easily pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Based on what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The references in the current article (only one of which is by Rushton), the additional references I listed above, etc. It seems that differential K theory has, since 1985 received "significant coverage [note: much of it hostile] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We could write an encyclopedia article based on the takedowns alone! NPalgan2 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the slightest evidence that this theory has any traction outside its little walled garden. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just not true that Rushton's theories are ignored outside a "walled garden of racialist research publications". Personality and Individual Differences is a mainstream journal, not a pay-to-publish scam. Rushton contributed a chapter on his closely related GFP theory to this handbook in 2011; a compendium of "the top global researchers within the area of individual differences" aiming to give "authoritative and engaging surveys of current scholarship, and lucid and provocative synopses of contemporary debates". http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781444343120 NPalgan2 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

• Keep While there is an identifiable group of authors who write on this subject and a small set of journals which publish the majority of the papers, these are not the only cases where it is referenced. Some examples, in addition to those already cited, are:

• Zack Z. Cernovsky (July 1995). "On the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J. P. Rushton". Journal of Black Studies. 25 (6): 672–679.
• Weizmann, Fredric; Wiener, Neil I.; Wiesenthal, David L.; Ziegler, Michael (1990). "Differential K theory and racial hierarchies". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 31 (1). American Psychological Association (APA): 1–13. doi:10.1037/h0078934. ISSN 1878-7304. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Figueredo, Aurelio José; Vásquez, Geneva; Brumbach, Barbara Hagenah; Schneider, Stephanie M. R. (2004). "The heritability of life history strategy: The k‐factor, covitality, and personality". Biodemography and Social Biology. 51 (3–4). Informa UK Limited: 121–143. doi:10.1080/19485565.2004.9989090. ISSN 1948-5565. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (This author has published many artilces on the subject, several with Rushton)
• * Voracek, Martin (2009). "Suicide Rates, National Intelligence Estimates, and Differential K Theory". Perceptual and Motor Skills. 109 (3). SAGE Publications: 733–736. doi:10.2466/pms.109.3.733-736. ISSN 0031-5125. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• * Figueredo, Aurelio José; Vásquez, Geneva; Brumbach, Barbara Hagenah; Schneider, Stephanie M. R. (2004). "The heritability of life history strategy: The k‐factor, covitality, and personality". Biodemography and Social Biology. 51 (3–4). Informa UK Limited: 121–143. doi:10.1080/19485565.2004.9989090. ISSN 1948-5565. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

While the theory is offensive it is unquestionably part of the academic discourse, even if only to refute it. Unfortunately we are not in a position to judge even some of the journals in the 'walled garden' as unreliable. How would we make that decision? Are the topics and theories which are offensive not-RS while they are OK to cite for the positions which do not offend us? Do we have any reporting which brings the credentials of Personality and Individual Differences and Intelligence, both published by respectable scientific publishers, into question? Are journals like Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology not reliable because they have published Rushton on this topic?

I am quite willing to be convinced otherwise, but until I see some way to segregate, by policy, evidently reliable sources by some criteria other than a value judgment on their research I have to say Keep. Jbh ^Talk 16:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)