Talk:Ronald Fisher

Ronald Fisher was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2017.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biology High‑importance

	Biology portal Ronald Fisher is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

R. A. Fischer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is eugenicist one of Fisher's main identities, even the first one?

Fisher was a eugenicist. That was a terrible, wrong, but not uncommon belief in his time. Is that one of his main identities, or even the first one? Recently it appears that someone has insisted in inserting the word eugenicist as Fisher's first identity.

I do not see that as an identity for Winston Churchill. It appears on Francis_Galton's page but it is after his other identities "statistician, polymath, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist". The question is, what is Fisher known and remembered for? We should include his eugenics views and his work related, but we should put it in perspective too.Js2g (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a founding member of "the Committee for Legalizing Eugenic Sterilization" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3704332?seq=1) and was editor of the Annals of Eugenics for 20 years (1934-1954, https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/timeline/543d5b1328f51f0000000004). Seems hard to argue that it wasn't part of his identity Hadleywickham (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding these references. It does appear part of his identity, just not what he is remembered for. It seems to me the current order (statistician, geneticist, and eugenicist) of his identities is an acceptable one. Js2g (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics was part of Fisher's work. But was it important enough, relative to his other work, to mention in the opening paragraph? That seems a much tougher case to make. For example, the article correctly notes that John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett, and Horace Darwin were other founding members of the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society. But none of their articles include eugenicist in their opening paragraphs. Why should only Fisher's? Rubincausalmodel (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we are willing to consider his work in "biology" or "psychology" prominent enough to be listed in the first sentence, there's no reason to exclude "eugenics". He did far more work in eugenics than in legitimate biology. As for what he is "remembered for", if he is not remembered as a eugenicist, then that is a misconception which should be corrected in this article. April Sagan (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You mention Keynes and Punnett, yet we would have to include Karl Pearson as well. It is worth noting that the journal Annals of Human Genetics was once the Annals of Eugenics. There is a serious problem with the effort to smear Fisher after his death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C01:2E70:D0AE:6D62:B6AA:8CBA (talk • contribs)

Karl Pearson's support of eugenics is mentioned in the lead of his article, though not in the first sentence. The fact that the Annals of Eugenics changed its name does not mean that early issues are not problematic. Take Karl Pearson and Margaret Moul's article on the "Problem of Alien Immigration: On the Intelligence of the Alien Jewish Children", in volumes 1 and 2.[1] which uses an analogy of breeders of cattle to Jewish immigration.

However, it does seem like the Annals took a very different tone when Fisher took over as editor. Gone are the explicitly political aims to of using the scientific study of eugenics, to guide morals and legislation. Instead, it focuses more clearly on Genetics and Mathematical Statistics. Just compare Pearson's VALE! [2] and Fishers new forward.[3] Editorship seems to coincide with taking over the Galton chair of eugenics at UCL.

I'm inclinded to say that it should be mentioned in the Lead, possibly the first paragraph but not the first sentance.--Salix alba (talk): 09:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is about consistency. Wikipedia has several articles about prominent eugenicists (including a Nazi named in this article!) without the same identifier.B1db2 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my initial deletion because I wanted some feedback about my reasons. B1db2 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a reason to change a consensus on Wikipedia. We decide how to write about a subject based on coverage of that subject in independent reliable sources, not based on how different subjects are covered differently in different sources. If there are indeed eugenicists whose role in eugenics is not covered on their pages but is a core part of their encyclopedic notability, I do encourage you to discuss that on the talk pages for those articles. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, although I don’t see a consensus established on this issue. It appears to have been unilaterally decided by one editor. However, I am a bit rusty. I am inclined to delete the identification based on the discussion so far. Advice appreciated. B1db2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, a cursory search at the talk page history shows that this has been discussed in dozens of edits over several years by more than one editor. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find discussions about his involvement in eugenics, but nothing until the June 2020 edit about the identification in the lead sentence. In fact, for a few years he was not introduced as a eugenicist until an anonymous user added it in June 2020. Then it was deleted and then added again. This is hardly a consensus and the current Talk page doesn't resolve it. B1db2 (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think society as a whole is having a major reassessment of Fisher. When Gonville and Caius College stated in June 2020 that they would remove the window of Fisher[4] that changed the weighting we should give to the eugenics. The we have UCL removing his name from Centre for Computational Biology.[5]. His bio on the UCL page now has a prominent section on Eugenics.[6] --Salix alba (talk): 07:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt we should have a prominent section on eugenics, but I think we should be careful about how we identify people. His role in eugenics is secondary to his occupation and scientific contributions, and I don't think his recent notoriety changes that. Anyway, Wikipedia appears to be the only mainstream reference source that introduces him that way. Not sure that helps credibility B1db2 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Race

The section describing Fisher's involvement with the UNESCO declaration on racial equality (he opposed it) has been removed recently for not being suitably sourced (rather than any other reason). If there's a need for secondary sources, will these do>

The page about Fisher at the Fisher Centre for Computational Biology, University College London: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/departments/genetics-evolution-and-environment/gee-labs/r-fisher-centre-computational-biology/ronald-fisher

This post by the Science History Institute: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/ronald-fisher-a-bad-cup-of-tea-and-the-birth-of-modern-statistics

This paper from the American Historical Review: https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/112/5/1386/41062 Tslumley (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the text, because the stated objection in removing that text was a concern about WP:NOR due to a lack of secondary sources. As you note, there is no actual lack of secondary sources, they just happened to not be included in that subsection yet. I've pulled in what should be more than enough to establish the veracity of the simple factual claims in that section, which are attested in dozens of strong WP:RS, but of course it's good to start the WP:CONSENSUS train often and early. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say, please don't let what I already did discourage you from adding those sources too. To my mind more references on this material are now pretty redundant since the simple claims in the article are thoroughly established in secondary sources from academic journals to major book publishers (and just packing in too many citations for the sake of it runs up against WP:CITEKILL), but those sources probably give lots of ideas for how to expand the subsection's contents. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for refs. It seems they pretty much trace to the primary source, which is the UNESCO "The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry" publication. In my expansion of this section, I simply referred to the primary source, with added page numbers for ease in finding the exact quotes. Charldee (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stated concern, for which I introduced those references, was avoiding WP:NOR. Replacing all of the secondary sources with the same original primary source and cherry-picking quotations from it only sets the text up to be deleted again for the same reason. I have no objection to creating a standalone section for this material, but whatever WP:CONSENSUS eventually emerges from this it's already clear that it needs to be based on in-depth scholarly statements in reliable sources, not just selections from the primary source. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the secondary sources aren't there to provide a substantially more in-depth or alternative take on the material that's in the primary source. I introduced them simply to satisfy editors who seemed to want secondary sources that would establish that he really did write these things and it really is notable enough for the article and it really does belong to part of his legacy as a scientist. It can't both be true that the material should be removed because we haven't included secondary sources about it and that the secondary sources need to be removed. So an explicit consensus is needed between those positions. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This version seems much better (to me) then the previous version, which I had edited out. Perhaps I was overly concerned about WP:NOR? Rubincausalmodel (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Fisher held "strong" views on race is argumentative and without cited basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C01:2E70:B4A8:56CE:2BDB:334C (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be cited in the introduction if it's cited elsewhere in the article. —howcheng {chat} 23:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno; such views may be one of the main reasons nonbiologists and nonstatisticians come to this article now days. Prolly oughta stay in the lede. Anyway, some of the sources are in the original argumentation itself, where the strength of Fisher's views is noted by a consensus-forming group he was working with, thus secondary. It seems to me a direct link to the cited work's URL (in my book this is https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_97ea8be3-7f7c-4ee0-b76e-c94c352a77e5?_=073351engo.pdf ) might be in order for our ref named "UNESCO1952," rather than just another page that maybe lets you run a script to get the PDF. Can this not be improved within the constraints of the citation template we're using here? - phi (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Fisher-stainedglass-gonville-caius.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenicist in first paragraph

@50.125.75.197 As has been stated multiple times, his "eugenicist" title has its own separate paragraph in the lede and does not need reiterating with just "eugenicist" among his actual occupations, just as most eugenicists do not have it listed among their occupations in the lede. Reaper1945 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]