| Revision as of 18:53, 9 January 2011 editSamuelRiv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,552 edits →Change page title to Pioneer Fund, Inc. upon reviewing IRS990 and a similar org: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:58, 19 November 2024 edit undoMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,405 edits →Disambiguation Page is Needed: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (458 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=b |1= |
|
{{WikiProject New York City}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low}} |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=low}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|genetics=yes|genetics-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|genetics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Genealogy |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Demographics}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months | |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bouchard not funded for racial hereditarianism but article implies that. == |
|
== True Pioneers == |
|
|
Science of the future = rediscovering the wisdom of the past. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Citations must be verifiable== |
|
|
What is the source of this claim? This reference #5 is not verifiable: |
|
|
: ], who was the chairman of the ]'s ] on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."<reference>According to critic ], who was the chairman of the APA's ] on intelligence research. Neisser gave support for ]'s argument in a review of Lynn's history and defense of the fund, ''The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund'' (2004). Neisser stated that "Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: 'Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science.'" Neisser concludes, in agreement with Lynn and against ]'s critical 2002 book ''The Funding of Scientific Racism'', that the world was ultimately better off having had the Pioneer Fund: "Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."<endreference> |
|
|
] 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think that the source should say, "Neisser, U. (2004). Serious scientists or disgusting racists? Contemporary Psychology, 49, 5-7." |
|
|
|
|
|
::But, I can't seem to find a copy of this online to see if these comments are taken out of context. I have found material in these articles in the past, were quotes were used in a selective manner that was a bit deceptive. So I do think it would make sense to go back to the source to see if this text is in it at all and to see if it is a fair quote in keeping with whatever else he wrote. ] 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm removing the content in accordance with ]. ] ] 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::While the original paper doesn't appear to be readily available, the quotations above are in "A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence ". However because that paper appears to be published on some sort of science blog I'm not sure if it would qualify as a sufficient source in its own right. It may be sufficient as a way of verifying the quotations though. ]] ] 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::After 10 months, a response to futurebird's concerns seemed appropriate and are not adequately addressed by the web source cited. I agree that it doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source (no editorial standards or independent review). I'll verify the quotation when I have an opportunity. ] ] 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|], who was the chairman of the ]'s (APA) ] on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."<ref name="Neisser">{{cite journal | last =Neisser | first =Ulric | title =Serious scientists or disgusting racists? | journal =Contemporary Psychology | volume =49 | issue = | pages =5–7 | publisher = | date =2004 | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Neisser's article in Contemporary Psychology is a book review of ]: ''The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund'' ], ] c2001., ISBN 0-7618-2040-x and ]: ''The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund'' ], c2002., ISBN 0-252-02762-0. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The third paragraph begins with, "Lynn's book begins with a self-serving 53-page Preface by Harry Weyher, President of the Pioneer Fund from the 1950s until his death in 2002." The fourth paragraph says, "Lynn reserves his highest praise for William Shockley, the Nobel physicist who became obsessed with race, crime, and reproductions in the 1960s. At the time many of us found Shockley a particularly odious racist, but to Lynn he was 'a courageous and tireless campaigner for research into the causes of human and race differences and for thoughtful consideration of eugenics' (p. 193)." |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::On page 6, Neisser says: |
|
|
{{quotation|In the closing years of the 20th century, the activities of the Pioneer Fund continued to be political as well as scientific. Those activities included vigorous opposition to immigration; more exactly, to the immigration of non-Whites into the United States. At present, the Board of Directors includes Richard Lynn himself as well as J. Philippe Rushton, who became President of the Pioneer Fund after Weyher's death. One of its most recent projects was the widespread free distribution of a small book by Rushton, an abridged version of his ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995)''. The book presents his "evolutionary" theory of race differences, which I will not describe here because it turns my stomach.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The quotation cited above appears in the last portion of the last paragraph. The concluding sentences of the review follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus. As for who is a racist, that no longer seems worth worrying about."}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I would say that the overall tone of the Neisser review is broadly consistent with the other content of the lede. Neisser says that the Pioneer Fund funded organizations and individuals that he clearly considers racist either explicitly or by implication. I would agree with Furturebird, above, that Neisser was quoted in "a selective manner that was a bit deceptive". ] ] 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Copyrighted pictures must meet the Fair Use Standard== |
|
|
|
|
|
The copyrighted picture used in the criticism section doesn't meet fair use. One of the standards was that the information conveyed is necessary and can not be produced by other means. The picture is a black and white of what looks like a researcher measuring two anonymous girls. The researcher is collecting data, I suspose, during twin studies. As far as II understand this, there's nothing about this photo that requires its use here despite its copyright protection. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems to me that the use of ] in this article satisfies the criteria listed for fair use. Consequently, I asserted fair use for the image. The photograph is of ], a Mankind Quarterly board member, making a measurement as part of an anthropometric study of heredity. It illustrates the work that the Pioneer Fund supported in the 1920s to 1940s and I know of no free equivalent that would convey that information. ] ] 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with Wsiegmund's assertions about the image. ]] ] 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Funding anti-immigration etc.== |
|
|
I removed a section pertaining to funding which the Fund has apparently given to fighting immigration, since it was sourced from somewhere called 'Antipas Ministries', which seems to be a website promoting the idea that ] is upon us, and largely the self-published work of one S. Shearer. |
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of minutes later, Ramdrake put the paragraph back, saying he had sourced it from something more reliable. There are a number of problems here: |
|
|
* Ramdrake credits Shearer with having written the article he cites, when in fact the author is a Paul Lombardo; |
|
|
* It is not at all the same article as was previously used; and so perhaps unsurprisingly |
|
|
* The new article Ramdrake links to does not support the paragraph it is being used to support: indeed, it makes no mention of anything in that paragraph, except for backing up the fact that the Pioneer Fund gave money to the FAIR. |
|
|
* Ramdrake restored the link, at the end of the article, to the strange, unreliable website. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently, I have changed the paragraph so that it accurately reflects what the source says, and corrected Ramdrake's citation. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no doubt that this Fund has given money to causes such as this, but one does have to be careful about citing things in a proper manner, and that all statements are properly attributable to reliable sources: it's just good scholarly practice. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't have time at the moment, but there are numerous sources that describe the funding efforts ofthe Pioneer Fund. I'll add some later and restore deleted text as appropriate. For the future, it's more helpful to mark unsourced text with a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag so other editors can find and add sources. You also appear to have deleted sourced information. I'll restore that too unless you can give a clear reason for its deletion. ]] ] 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sourced information I deleted was either not actually backed up by the article that Ramdrake found (in the case of the funding), or was sourced from unverifiable websites (see below). |
|
|
|
|
|
:::While the primary source was not suitable, it was itself sourced. All of the assertions were easily verifiable. After consulting a newspaper archive I've rewritten and restored the amterial with fresh sources. ]] ] 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Center for New Community== |
|
|
|
|
|
The Center for New Community is an organisation -- and an extremely obscure organisation at that -- in whose political interests it is to portray the Pioneer Fund as a right-wing extremist group. Consequently, opinion pieces on their website do not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed, scholarly article. The fact is, their description of Rushton's work (I personally do not agree with Rushton, not that it should matter) in the excerpt is a caricature or straw man designed for political propaganda effect. In essence, any small group of people can register a .org domain, say that they are a 'human rights advocacy organisation', and self-publish hatchet jobs on (admittedly dubious) scientific opinions with which they do not agree. An opinion coming from a Steven Jay Gould or someone of that calibre would be far more credible for the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
To put it another way: if the article is arguing that the Fund has ''x'' political orientation, then citing a small organisation whose website proclaims them to have ''not-x'' political orientation as a source regarding that Fund fails WP:RS, which states that preference should be given to peer-reviewed, scholarly sources, followed by mainstream, respected, but non-academic sources, and then only others -- and if there is disagreement, the specific views of each source should be spelt out. WP:RS further says that 'the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is'. In essence, there is precisely ''no'' evidence of editorial oversight in the material on the CNC's webpage: they can, in effect, say whatever they like and put it there...and they have not even earnt the notability which the likes of the Southern Povery Law Center enjoy. They promote an obscure form of 'faith-based social justice', which is not really a 'mainstream' viewpoint, and nor is it really relevant to the article. As I say, criticism from more recognised sources is a lot more credible. |
|
|
|
|
|
''Anyone'' can set up a website and put on it their views of the Pioneer Fund -- or anything else -- but that does not mean that the views are relevant. Particularly not if they stoop to the level of caricature instead of addressing the hard facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does that answer your question, Ramdrake? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Afterthought: the quote from the CNC doesn't even add anything to the article anyway. It says that Rushton is currently the head, which is mentioned earlier in the article; it gives a brief summary of the history of the organisation -- in loaded terms -- which is ''also'' already covered in the article; and it then describes (in rather crude terms) Rushton's research, which is ''yet again already described elsewhere''. So it gives no new information, but simply -- through its sloppy scholarship/deliberate caricature/progadandistic tone/call it what you will -- lowers the overall level of the section in which it appears. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:You are entitled to your opinion, and the CNC is entiled to its opinion. 39k on Google tells me the CNC is a notable, if not very well-known organization. Criticism of the Pioneer Fund will come mostly not from peer-reviewed journals (as it doesn't do science), but usually from other organizations, mostly one concerned with human rights.--] (]) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The CNC are well entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that it is important or relevant, any more than my own (or yours). I have rewritten the paragraph, so that it doesn't continue lowering the tone of the article through childish strawmen, while still trying to capture the points they are making. I also contextualised the nature of the source a bit better (I hope), as per WP:RS or however it's referred to. |
|
|
::I understand that criticism of the Pioneer Fund probably wouldn't appear in peer-reviewed journals, but nonetheless there are sources more notable and respectable than this CNC which could be referred to...the Fund has received a lot of bad publicity, so couldn't claims made in the mainstream media be used instead? I do think they'd carry more weight than the opinions of an obscure NGO. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Sorry, forgot about the source (and after all that waffle above about citations!). Glad we could come to a compromise: I certainly am not trying to whitewash anything here, but I do feel that if the criticism has a certain intellectual weight, it is more likely to be taken seriously, and not dismissed out of hand as simple smear tactics. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Center for New Community has been cited on the Pioneer Fund in several newspaper accounts, giving credence to it it as a reputable source. ]] ] 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Neutrality tag== |
|
|
This article has been NPOV tagged since December 2007. Are there still concerns that require this tag? If so, they should be listed here at the talkpage, so that the problematic sections can either be fixed, or removed. If no one has specific concerns, then let's just pull the tag. Thanks, ]]] 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The list of funding recipients says that Pioneer gave money to promote racial hereditarianism research. That is true, but the largest recipient, Bouchard, who got several million dollars for the MISTRA twin studies, was fighting the battle of heritability and genetics for individual IQ, not race differences. I don't think Bouchard ever had anything to do with ''racial'' hereditarianism and the article should not group him with the others in that respect. Likewise a lot of Jensen's research was about IQ heritability (and the establishment and validation of a "g"-centered psychometric view of intelligence) in individuals. Until the early 80s it was debated whether genes have much influence on intelligence at all (i.e., in individuals, not as part of a question on race differences) and whether intelligence could be quantified using IQ tests, and Pioneer paid people like Jensen and Bouchard as soldiers to win that battle, which they did. Jensen of course also wrote papers, probably with Pioneer money, about racial IQ differences and their supposed origins, but Bouchard does not appear to have been involved in that type of work, or if he was it was not what Pioneer paid him for (MISTRA).] (]) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
:As far as I can asecertain, it was added in February 2007. A month later, the editor who added it seems to express some satisfaction with the state of the article.], and that was the last time he commented here. I think it's time to remove the tag, which appears to have remained only from inertia. ]] ] 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
== Bot report : Found duplicate references ! == |
|
|
In , I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) |
|
|
* "Berlet" : |
|
|
** <nowiki>Southern Poverty Law Center Retrieved April 15, 2008.</nowiki> |
|
|
** <nowiki>Berlet, Chip. ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved July 16, 2006.</nowiki> |
|
|
] (]) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Does this organization still exist? == |
|
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of ], posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by ] through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the ], as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- ] (]) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website is defunct. Internet archives of the website indicate the director died in 2012 and half of its assets were given to another organization. Google search reveals no current output from this organization, all mentions of it are refer to pre-2012 activity. Lots of other unrelated groups using "Pioneer Fund" in their name. |
|
: There are a lot of edits back and forth on this article. It would be particularly helpful if additions to this article were cited to sources. I've just verified one source (I have it in my office) previously cited in this article, and I will probably be gathering more. The sources mentioned in the ] article don't seem to be in the hands of many Wikipedians, but they of course would be helpful for this article too. Sourcing is good. Let's look up sources and check statements in the article as edits continue. -- ] (]) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this organization defunct? It appears to be. ] (]) 12:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
== High-quality sources for editing this article. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, Richard Lynn died in 2023, so is no longer the director. I could find no evidence of the organization's activity or articles about it's activity or about Director Gerhard Meisenberg's activity in the past 2 years. However, that does not mean it is defunct. For example, according to SPLC it funded American Renaissance, and that is still active. ] (]) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Getting to know the various articles in this category during the ] alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the ]. And following up on some citations I found in those Misplaced Pages articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject. I've had a chance now to obtain the book mentioned for a while in the article here, and the follow-up book by the same author is on its way to me from the friendly flagship university library. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== By whom? == |
|
* {{classicon|FA}} {{aye}} {{cite book |title=The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund |last=Tucker |first=William H. |authorlink=William H. Tucker |publisher=] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-252-07463-9 |laysummary=http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/65rwe7dm9780252074639.html |laydate=4 September 2010 |ref=harv }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's been some edit warring over a "By whom?" tag that {{u|Socksage}} has sought to include in the sentence {{tq|The organization has been classified as a hate group and has been described as racist and white supremacist in nature}}, so I'm starting a discussion thread. In my view "By whom" is clear from the four cited sources. We do not need to list each of these four sources. Their views are not remotely controversial. See e.g. ]. Socksage, please present your reasoning and await a new consensus before re-adding this contested tag. Thanks, ] (]) 23:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
* {{classicon|FA}} {{aye}} {{cite book |title=The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology |last=Tucker |first=William H. |authorlink=William H. Tucker |publisher=] |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-252-03400-8 |laysummary=http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/20/cattell |laydate=30 August 2010 |ref=harv }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Replacing "has been classified as" with "is" seems like the obvious fix. ] (]) 23:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
The first listed book, of course, is directly related to this article, and is a wonderful source finder for facts about the Pioneer Fund and its activities, as well as for the life and work of ]. I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for most of the articles in the related category here on Misplaced Pages. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic bans from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- ] (]) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Perhaps Socksage has a point. Wouldn't this require attribution per ]? For example, when an organisation is called a hate group by SPLC, we practically always attribute it. It would be fine if multiple sources had described it as a hate group, but checking the sources it seems it comes from the SPLC, and is not mentioned in many of the reliable sources on that sentence specifically. It would be better to simply change the intro "classified a hate group by the SPLC". ] (]) 20:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Found another source. == |
|
== External links / website == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a note, it seems both website external links are defunct now. I don't think the Pioneer Fund exists at either address, so both are a 'historic website' or 'defunct website'. ] (]) 04:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
Blackmon, Douglas A. "Silent partner: How the South's fight to uphold segregation was funded up North." Wall Street Journal. 11 Jun. 1999. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Disambiguation Page is Needed == |
|
== Change page title to Pioneer Fund, Inc. upon reviewing IRS990 and a similar org == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are already multiple Pioneer Funds in the hat notes, and I will be adding yet another for this one (https://pioneerfund.vc, see notability here: https://www.inc.com/sam-blum/silicon-valleys-biggest-investor-is-canadian.html). The one I am adding has the exact same name "Pioneer Fund" so the hat note will no longer be sufficient. |
|
I was checking out the IRS990 forms for Pioneer, since all our sources citing grant recipients seem to be pre-2000, and upon checking and , it seems there are two Pioneer Funds. One is "Pioneer Fund" based out of Denver, whose grant recipients include children's museums, Colorado I Have A Dream, education programs for underprivileged youth, and a whole bunch of very non-eugenicist stuff. The other is "Pioneer Fund, Inc." based in New York City, which grants pretty much exclusively to the research we all know and love. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to move this page over to a disambiguation a couple months ago, but was busy and someone reverted the change before I was able to create the new page - fair enough. Leaving this note as I'm beginning the process again! |
|
So the two ''really'' need to be distinguished, because Pioneer Fund does a lot of good for the community and doesn't have a main website - the best summary I found is at , describing Helen M. McLoraine who founded it in the 1960s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I therefore propose moving this article to ]. I have already put up a "not to be confused with" notice, but let's get this done. I'll leave this notice up for 7 days before moving it myself, but I tend to forget things, so please do it without me if you agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S.: checking out IRS990 shows the full history of support for the New Century Foundation, which was at $40k for FY2008, and seems biannual. ] (]) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
:This seems likely to be the primary topic either way, so it probably shouldn't be moved, definitely not without a ]. You can create a disambiguation page without moving this one. ] (]) 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
The list of funding recipients says that Pioneer gave money to promote racial hereditarianism research. That is true, but the largest recipient, Bouchard, who got several million dollars for the MISTRA twin studies, was fighting the battle of heritability and genetics for individual IQ, not race differences. I don't think Bouchard ever had anything to do with racial hereditarianism and the article should not group him with the others in that respect. Likewise a lot of Jensen's research was about IQ heritability (and the establishment and validation of a "g"-centered psychometric view of intelligence) in individuals. Until the early 80s it was debated whether genes have much influence on intelligence at all (i.e., in individuals, not as part of a question on race differences) and whether intelligence could be quantified using IQ tests, and Pioneer paid people like Jensen and Bouchard as soldiers to win that battle, which they did. Jensen of course also wrote papers, probably with Pioneer money, about racial IQ differences and their supposed origins, but Bouchard does not appear to have been involved in that type of work, or if he was it was not what Pioneer paid him for (MISTRA).Sesquivalent (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Website is defunct. Internet archives of the website indicate the director died in 2012 and half of its assets were given to another organization. Google search reveals no current output from this organization, all mentions of it are refer to pre-2012 activity. Lots of other unrelated groups using "Pioneer Fund" in their name.
In addition, Richard Lynn died in 2023, so is no longer the director. I could find no evidence of the organization's activity or articles about it's activity or about Director Gerhard Meisenberg's activity in the past 2 years. However, that does not mean it is defunct. For example, according to SPLC it funded American Renaissance, and that is still active. Camipco (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Just a note, it seems both website external links are defunct now. I don't think the Pioneer Fund exists at either address, so both are a 'historic website' or 'defunct website'. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I tried to move this page over to a disambiguation a couple months ago, but was busy and someone reverted the change before I was able to create the new page - fair enough. Leaving this note as I'm beginning the process again!
