Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 19 May 2015

Avi Tuschman

Avi Tuschman (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)

single book, with excepts from reviews. That's not enough for notability as NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, 1 book isn't enough, especially when all the sources are reviews. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Admittedly, when I read the first 2 sentences, which semed to assert that Tuschman is an "evolutionary biologist" without an advanced degree who was born in "Stanford, California" (for the non Stanford-alums reading this, Stanford is in Palo Alto and although the university has a zipcode, the Standfod maternity hospital is in Palo Alto, as is the faculty housing. So unless he was born in a dorm...). HOWEVER, the sources are there. WP:AUTHOR stipulates "work must have been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This first-time author got reviews in major publications. There's a profile in the Palo Alto Weekly (it's not your typical "local" paper, this is Palo Alto). more abstractly, the book generated discussion of the idea it proposed, again in serious places including NPR and the Georgetown Public Policy Review. Also, he did get the Phd a few sentences in, and reviews ran in many of the Anglosphere's major publications , as did interviews So, yeah, a first time author can certainly pass WP:GNG this one does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Forbes article is a contributor blog without editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Forbes.com_blogs). SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

point taken. But what I'm seeing is that he sparked conversation among serious people, like other Forbes "contributors" here's a whole Carrie Sheffield column on his book . Salon.com published a chapter or two. And, in general, the major outlets gave him serious coverage. The Washington Post started assigning him reviews of other "big idea" books, a meaningful accolade. Taking this up one level, what is the point of deleting an article on a anthropologist/author who has made this kind of splash with a first book?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your !vote, but just thought I should point out that coverage from a Forbes contributor isn't that helpful for establishing notability. As for why this was nommed, see this thread at COIN. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. I understand the COI/paid editing problem. And while I have to look through the whole list, I think Tuschman's publisher should fire the guy, or get a refund because it is a truly lousy bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Our Political Nature. I don't think that WP:AUTHOR is met but WP:BKCRIT is per and other sources. Doing this would concentrate the article on the book, rather than the author, for who the sourcing is substantially less strong. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would support refactoring it to be about the book, as the book seems notable enough, the person not. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose renaming/moving to book title. The book certainly could support a stand-alone article. But sources for an article on Tuschman exist. They just need to be added to the article. Which should be 'kept. as I iVoted above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Hello. I have already introduced myself as a paid editor on the Talk page for this article. I am assisting Dr. Tuschman in this project. Here is what we have to say about this proposal to delete the article:

We are not asking at this time that any of the material below be added to or retained in the article; we realize that Misplaced Pages is a joint project for the use of the world at large and not a vanity-publishing house. The material below is only for the purpose of establishing WP:Notability and most of it, we realize, is not suitable for the article itself. We know that all editors will work together on the exact details of what this article will contain once the matter of WP:Deletion has been satisfactorily settled. We urge and expect careful consideration and dissection of the material we present below, as well as all other material on this page.

A. Dr. Tuschman is Notable because he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Definition of significant: "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."

Note the following:

Professor John R. Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, has stated that Dr. Tuschman "clearly does" make a "unique and important contribution" to the field of "psychological, biological, and evolutionary bases of political beliefs." Political Science Quarterly, pages 545-47. http://psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19304

Genetics and epigenetics professor Gil Atzmon of the University of Haifa has written that Tuchman’s book has "caused an uproar in the United States” and that it illustrated how significant was the role that genetics plays in determining political positions.

Above: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4570458,00.html

Columnist Cedric Muhammad, writing in Forbes:

“. . . it is the first book that I’ve read which credibly attempts to present a unified view of political science, anthropology, genetics, neuroscience and primatology, making a compelling case that we are hard-wired to be liberal or conservative by nature, environment and adaptation . . ."

Above: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cedricmuhammad/2013/10/29/michael-smerconish-and-pete-dominick-make-me-uncomfortable-what-centrist-independents-reveal-about-liberals-and-conservatives/3/

Above reprinted in Chicago Tribune at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-nsc-why-are-we-liberal-or-conservative----q-and-a-20131029,0,295802,full.story Link is broken.

Eva Saiz, in her article "En América Latina la clase media ha hecho que se encoja el espectro político," El País Internacional, October 5, 2013, states that Dr. Tuschman has added "a new perspective that unfailingly links our political orientation with our natural and biological predisposition" ("suma al debate una perspectiva que vincula de manera indefectible nuestra orientación política con nuestra predisposición natural y biológica . . . ")

Above: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/10/05/actualidad/1380978589_342496.html

Atal Singh, in "The Science of Political Orientation," Fair Observer, September 29, 2013, has called Dr. Tuschman's work "the first book to reveal the science underlying political orientation" and wrote that "Several renowned scholars are saying this is an important, groundbreaking book."

Above: http://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/science-political-orientation”

Chris Mooney in Washington Monthly, April 28, 2014, wrote that Dr. Tuschman "has written a vast and often difficult book that attempts nothing less than a broad evolutionary explanation of the origins of left-right differences across countries and time—and does so by synthesizing such a huge body of anthropological and biological evidence that it’ll almost bury you.”

Mooney wrote that Dr. Tuschman has a "strong" or "highly developed" theory as to "why biopolitical diversity exists among humans. . . . If he’s right, a dramatic new window opens on who we are and why we behave as we do. . . . Tuschman’s book attempts a feat that those of us monitoring the emerging science of politics have long been waiting for. . . It may or may not stand the test of time, but it certainly forces the issue.

Above: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/on_political_books/the_origin_of_ideology049295.php?page=all

B. Dr. Tuschman has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics)

Criterion 7 may be satisfied "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

We do have a list of lay publications and video clips from news organizations wherein Dr. Tuschman has been interviewed regarding his expertise. You can see that list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Avi_Tuschman&oldid=659577688. We don't propose to restore that list, and we submit it to you only for the sake of establishing Dr. Tuschman's Notability for the sake of this discussion.

C. Common outcomes: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Literature

From above: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates