Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:50, 23 April 2011

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article J. Philippe Rushton, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Psychology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Rushton2012 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

2005 - June 2006 June - August 2006 August - November 2006 early 2007

Penthouse forum?

Actually, Weizmann et al., (1991) accused that that Rushton and Bogaert (1987) cite Noble (1982) who cited a journal on penis length which turned out to be the Penthouse Forum which is not a pornographic magazine. Rushton never cited Penthouse forum.MoritzB 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the material you deleted.

• There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum."

It doesn't mention Weizmann at all. Can we say that Cernovsky did not make the above criticism? It was 12 years ago. Has Rushton ever responded to it? If so we can include the response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cernovsky did make that criticism which was erroneous and mentioned Weizmann. Cernovsky writes: "In a similar vein, some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum (see a review in Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991)."

Actually, Rushton cited Noble (1982), not the Penthouse magazine according to Weizmann. Because Weizmann is the source of Cernovsky's claim we can conclude that Cernovsky was wrong.

See:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LdRO8CMZDVEJ:faculty.buffalostate.edu/hennesda/example%2520review%2520paper.doc+%22who+cited+a+journal+on+penis+length+which+turned+out+to+be+the%22&hl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=eng

Rushton's reply:

"Another error that critics make is to focus on highly salient minor points and so obscure the larger picture. Thus, concerning reproductive behavior, Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, and Ziegler, (1990, p. 8; 1991) ridiculed references to the ethnographic record (e.g., French Army Surgeon, 1898/1972)... and thereby sidestepped my global review of sexual behavior and AIDS." MoritzB 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So how shall we summarize this? "Rushton has replied that he did not cite Penthouse Forum but rather had cited a paper which cited it." Is that correct and fair? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge Rushton never replied to Cernovsky. It would be more appropriate to say that there is no reference to the Penthouse article in Rushton's paper. Cernovsky's source (Weizmann et. al.) says that Rushton cited Noble's paper which had a reference to the Penthouse forum. However, this criticism is far-fetched and a very minor point so I doubt that it should be included to the article at all.MoritzB 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is hardly "far-fetched" and has been repeated often. It's better to address these kinds of issues rather than ignore them. Can you propose any language to describe the situation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an LTE on the topic:

• A case in point is the 1987 article he co-authored with Anthony F. Bogaert entitled, "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis", which appeared in the Journal of Research in Personality (volume 21:529-551). This is the work upon which much of his now infamous address to the AAAS was based...In a similar veln, but more contemporary context, Rushton & Bogaert rely heavily on information about penis anatomy among "Blacks" and "Whites" from a 1982 article whrch appeared in "Forum: International Journal of Human Relations". Much to our amusement, we discovered that this "journal" is published by Penthouse Magazine and was described In Magazines for Llbrarles (4th edrtion, 1982:454) as "a pocket-slzed Penthouse without the nudes"! -L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herrlng Newsletter of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology

So apparently Cernovsky is not the only one to make this criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, according to Weizmann et. al. Rushton's data about racial differences in sexual characteristics lacked quality".

MoritzB 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's too vague. We can't just say he's been criticized without mentioning what the criticisms were. "Lacked quality" isn't sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism itself is vague because it targets a minor aspect of Rushton's r-k selection theory about racial differences which doesn't rely on the data criticised. The reader is not even introduced to the theory so he has no idea what the criticism is all about.

I propose: For example, according to Weizmann et. al. Rushton's data about racial differences in sexual characteristics was very old or unreliable."

MoritzB 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's totally off-topic. The criticism we're discussing here is the use of the Penthouse Forum as a source. You claim that he never used it, while three researchers in the field say he did. Does anyone have access to "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis", and if so can we confirm that "Forum: International Journal of Human Relations" is not cited in it? If not then we need to go with the previously cited criticisms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LdRO8CMZDVEJ:faculty.buffalostate.edu/hennesda/example%2520review%2520paper.doc+%22who+cited+a+journal+on+penis+length+which+turned+out+to+be+the%22&hl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=eng

MoritzB 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So at best we have Rushton citing a paper which cites the Penthouse Forum (per Hennessy's interpretation of Weizmann). On the other hand we have L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herring who say they personally found the Forum citation in "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis". A better summary would be:

• There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum." L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herring have also criticized Rushton's use of the Penthouse Forum as a source. Defenders of Rushton say that he did not cite the magainze directly, but instead cited a paper that in turn cited it.

Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Hennessy is one of the critics of "scientific racism" and is definitely not a "defender of Rushton". If he has any biases they are against Rushton. Thus, I strongly suspect that Hennessy is right.

IMHO, it would be ridiculous to include two different factual accounts of Rushton's paper to the article. I think I will e-mail Rushton and ask him to scan the paper.

MoritzB 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that both references are to the same paper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann et al., (1991) and Rushton and Bogaert (1987) are the papers in question.MoritzB 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know what paper or book Weizmann is referring to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting credible journalism

Charles Lane journalist covers the Supreme Court of the United States for the Washington Post and has for at least six years. Had his writing on this topic not been credible, he would not hold his job. moritzb has provided no factual evidence that Rushton was not reprimanded for ethical lapses, or that the University reversed itself. Hence, mortizb accusation of POV pushing is more aptly directed at himself.Skywriter 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you intentionally deleted factual information of Rushton's accomplishments and gave undue weight to Lane's accusations. MoritzB 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Identify precisely what you allege was deleted.Skywriter 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

" Rushton has published more than 250 articles and six books, including two on altruism, one on scientific excellence, and co-authored an introductory psychology textbook. Over ten of his papers have appeared in Intelligence a journal for which Rushton sits on the editorial board along with seven other signatories of an opinion piece "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". Co-signer Douglas K. Detterman is founder and editor of the journal that republished the opinion piece."MoritzB 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Look again, moritzb. The above is a false statement. You are mistaken. That material has not changed and is in tact in the current and previous versions.Skywriter 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, these are not Lane's accusations. He is a reporter. These facts appeared in Canadian newspapers and in the student newspaper at his university. That he was reprimanded twice in one year is fact.Skywriter 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever they are they don't portray Rushton fairly like the 2005 article "Rushton Revisited" in Ottawa Post, for example. MoritzB 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some press clippings:

• Professor Philippe Rushton has been reprimanded by university officials for not getting authorization to take his controversial research from the University of Western Ontario to a mall in downtown Toronto....Last week, Prof. Rushton was barred for two years from using a pool of first-year students for his research after conducting a survey without the approval of a university ethics committee. The students were asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about sexual performance. "University reprimands Rushton" The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: May 3, 1989. pg. A.16
• Professor Philippe Rushton has been barred from conducting research on students after a university committee found he'd done an unauthorized study which included asking volunteers to describe their genitalia....In a detailed questionnaire, student research subjects were asked to reveal several aspects of their sexual performance, including penis size, how far they could ejaculate and information about sexual partners, Cummins said... There are also questions about whether Rushton had approval of the university's main ethics committee for a survey he conducted at the Eaton Centre in Toronto last December. He paid 50 Orientals, 50 whites and 50 blacks $5 each to answer a questionnaire on their sexual habits. "Rushton barred for conducting unapproved study", Leslie Papp, Toronto Star. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 29, 1989. pg. A.4

These confirm the Lane account and can be added as additional references. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The addition of that information would imbalance the article. The events which happened in 1989 are no longer notable or relevant and are not even mentioned in recent newspaper articles about Rushton. See: "Rushton Revisited" in Ottawa Post. MoritzB 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reprimands of university professors are not common and are worth reporting. The fact that the incidents occured in 1989 doesn't make them less relevant - this article covers the subject's entire life, not just the last ten years. The fact that the reprimands directly concern his research makes them relevant to the subject's scholarship (unlike, say, sleeping with a student). If you think "Rushton Revisited" is a stellar article we can include it as "further reading". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just read "Rushton Revisited". It isn't a general profile of Rushton, but rather a review of the current (as of 2005) viewpoints on his work on race and intelligence. It may be usable as a source for those newer views. But the article's omission of some biographical details doesn't mean we shouldn't include the reprimand in this biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter added four paragraphs about 1989. One paragraph would be entirely sufficient.MoritzB 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've consolidated it down to three paragraphs. Surely you don't propose that the subject's activities and publications prior to 1990 are no longer material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that the Google search for "Rushton Revisited" has among its top ten hits American Renaissance and Stormfront. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was reference removed twice?

Users with computer IDs of 68.4.56.48 and 130.242.58.37 have both removed the reference that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified VDARE as a hate group. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=VA&m=.3

Do you care to explain why?

Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editor(s), but I removed it again because this article is about Rushton, not VDARE.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the SPLC are a well-known far left wing activist group, and as such their opinions are no more authoritative than the opinions of Stormfront. They routinely "identify" groups as hate groups, by their own definition. They are entitled to do that of course, but their activist position by defintion makes them biased and thus unreliable.82.71.30.178 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism by Southern Poverty Law Center violates wikipedia policy

This article violates so many wikipedia policies that I don't even know where to begin. It is against wikipedia policy to make libelous claims about living people or to smear them by implying they are racists or members of hate groups using poorly sourced material. You especially can not use self-published sources to do this. Misplaced Pages policy is clear: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material The references to Rushton by the SPLC are a self-published website & thus clearly violate this rule. The SPLC must be removed from the article immediately. Needpics (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the past, the SPLC has not been considered a self-published source because they apparently have an editorial system to review materials before they're published. "Self-published" usually refers to material published directly by the author without any editorial system, such as a blog or a vanity press book.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages does not want to repeat any libellous material. Libel is a matter for law courts and if the SPLC or other source has printed such material the first recourse would be to ask them to withdraw their material and then to sue them for libel if they don't. I'm not aware of anything like that here. If Rushton or his defenders have issues rebuttals to any of the assertions in the article then we should include those. But otherwise it's not clear that there's anything libellous in this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC is clearly self-published because they are the ones who are publishing their own views. Their views are not being published in an independent source or distributed by an independent source. Beyond that, the fact that our only source for the SPLC's criticism is the SPLC itself means that their views are not particularly notable. Further, many of their views might be considered extreme minority views and to give them space in this article violates wikipedia's undue weight policy. Keep in mind that this source must be held to a higher standard because what they are saying is so inflamatory. Misplaced Pages's policy is clearly stated at the top of this page: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Implying someone is a racist or a member of hate groups is potentially libelous, thus we can not use unpublished sources, minority view sources, or sources that are not notable claims if we are going to include such material. Needpics (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times publishes its own views too, but that doesn't mean that an individual reporter's article is self-published. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for the standards on sources. What material do you believe is "potentially libellous"?   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the New York Times is published by the New York Times Company & individuals such as Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd & Frank Rich are published in the New York Times. There is no author listed for the claims published by the SPLC other than the SPLC itself & there is no publisher for the claims made by the SPLC other than the SPLC. That's what self-published is. But even if it were not self-published, the SPLC's views on Rushton are not notable as evidenced by the fact that no reliable source has reported on their views. Our only source for their views is the SPLC itself. If no one else is reporting on their views on Rushton, then that means it is not a significant view point & deserves no representation in wikipedia. And I consider it potentially libelous when they describe Rushton as venemous. In addition to being self-published, not notable, & potentially libelous, it's also an extreme minority view point. Only the SPLC has used the term to "venomous" to describe Rushton. Misplaced Pages articles must be written with NPOV. Editors should not be searching the web for whatever dirt they can find about a living person & sticking it in their wikipedia articles. Needpics (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In most ways, Michelle Ilse Weyher fit the cliché of an Upper East Sider. The blonde housewife was married to a big-deal lawyer. She had a pet Chihuahua named Mr. Peeper, whom she carried around in a Sherpabag. She occasionally wrote letters to the editor of The New York Times with advice to fellow dog owners. But Weyher stood outinone very bigway. Her charity work was notfor the Junior League or the Met, but for New York's oldest hate group: the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that has supported all manner of racist pseudoscience since 1937.

Virtually all the people who create white nationalist ideology are funded by them," says Heidi Beirich, a writer at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups around the country. The list of Pioneer Fund grantees includes a who's who of "race science" figures: Richard Lynn, an Irish professor who once said that certain groups of people need to be "phased out"; Michael Levin, an NYU professor who was lauded by white supremacists for his 1997 book Why Race Matters; Arthur Jensen, a Berkeley professor who spentmuch of his career writing about the black-white IQ gap.

Michelle Ilse Weyher was the Germany-born third wife of the Pioneer Fund's former president, Harry Weyher. The organization had grown up and grown old in New York City, sup ported by rich city boys like Weyher. It was originally founded by Nazi sympathizer Wickliffe Draper, a philanthropist who advocated segregation and sending blacks to Africa.

After 44 years as the fund's president, Harry Weyher died in 2002. The torch was passed to J. Philippe Rushton, a Canadian psychology professor and hero to white nationalists. Heis notorious for a 1985 book claiming that penis size is inversely proportional to intelligence, i.e., that black men with large penises are inherently stupider than white men with small penises. (Rushton refutes the idea that the fund is a hate group.) To keep the memory of her husband alive, Rushton invited Michelle Ilse Weyher to sit on the board. Like her board colleagues-professors around the U.S., Canada, and Europe-Michelle Ilse Weyher was also a published author-only her claim to fame was not exactly academic. Last year, Weyher self-published an 86-page book titled Barking for Biscuits under the pen name "Mr.Peeper." This tale of "a charming Chihuahua snob from NYC's East Side" was dedicated to her husband, who was also a dog lover.

When she wasn't writing fiction or cavorting with her four-legged friend, Weyher played a role in the Pioneer Fund's selection process. She helped to decide which applicants received the few grants the fund gave out each year. Some went to legitimate scientists studying genetics or intelligence, while others went directly into the pockets of big-league white supremacists.

— Warp and Woof Maria Luisa Tucker. The Village Voice. New York: May 30-Jun 5, 2007. Vol. 52, Iss. 22; pg. 12, 1 pgs

An organization headed by a prominent University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor has invited four researchers with ties to hate groups to speak at a May conference in Turkey.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the renowned Austrian economist who made headlines in 2005 over remarks he made in the classroom about gays, has invited the researchers to express viewpoints that some civil rights organizations call "academic racism."

They're scheduled to speak at the second annual conference of the Property and Freedom Society, an organization that Hoppe founded in May 2006 to promote "Austro-Libertarianism," according to the organization's Web site.

The conference is scheduled at the Karia Princess Hotel in Bodrum, Turkey, between May 24 and 28.

"This looks like a very serious academic racist event," said Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, a quarterly publication that monitors hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala., provides tolerance education programs and fights legal battles with hate groups. It has publicly denounced several of the individuals scheduled to speak at Hoppe's conference.

One of the invited speakers is Richard Lynn, a professor at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland who is considered at the forefront of the eugenics movement.

Lynn is listed on the board of directors for the New York-based Pioneer Fund, an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a "hate group."

..."The Mankind Quarterly," a journal that receives funding from the Pioneer Fund, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"It sounds like a pretty high-level gathering of high-level academic racists," Beirich said of the event.

She said Lynn, Vanhanen and Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, and Jean Phillippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund, "are the movers and shakers ... in this world" of academic racism.

"There are very, very few organizations that will accept money from the Pioneer Fund because of their racist history," Beirich said.

— Researchers tied to hate groups get invitations Lawrence Mower. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Mar 11, 2007. pg. 1.B

On first glance, Jared Taylor, 55, looks perfectly credible. People who write about him tend to mention his clothing and how nice it is, how remarkable that he is not wearing boots, jeans and a dirty undershirt. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, for example, called him "impeccably dressed," and the Southern Poverty Law Centre has called him the "cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy."

With the help of annual grants from the Pioneer Fund (a private American trust set up in 1937 to promote white racial purity, which is now less overtly racist, and headed since 2002 by J. Philippe Rushton, the notorious race researcher in the University of Western Ontario's psychology department, whom former Ontario premier David Peterson once said he would fire if he could for his views on racial IQ differences), Mr. Taylor conducts a continent- wide public relations campaign in which he is neither academic nor journalist, but a racial pundit who trades on the good names of Yale and Sciences Po, the Institute for Political Studies in Paris, to promote white pride and argue against racial integration. As such, he has spoken his mind everywhere from Fox News to the Queen Latifah Show.

— How not to handle a genteel racist; Joseph Brean. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jan 27, 2007. pg. A.1

Controversial Canadian professor Philippe Rushton, best known for shocking the world in 1989 with a paper arguing some races were smarter than others, is back with another study saying blacks are not as genetically gifted as whites or East Asians. Sixteen years ago, his theory was incendiary. This time around, it was greeted with a shrug. What's changed?

Then, three years ago, he became president of the Pioneer Fund, a foundation incorporated in 1937 with the goal of "race betterment, with special reference to the United States." Among other things, it funds scientific studies that examine the differences between human beings based on gender, race and class.

The Pioneer Fund has a checkered history. One of its first funding grants in 1937 paid for the U.S. distribution of a Nazi Party film on eugenics. The fund's primary benefactor, Wickliffe Draper, was interested in the idea of repatriating U.S. blacks to Africa and later offered significant financial support for legal battles to oppose the racial desegregation of schools in the U.S.

That activity has led critics to charge that the Pioneer Fund hides an ugly political agenda behind its veil of science. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit advocacy organization, bluntly calls it a hate group.

— Rushton Revisited; Andrew Duffy. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Oct 1, 2005. pg. A.1.Fro

A civil-rights organization famous for tracking hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan is now watching several university professors who have suggested that weak parts of the population should be eliminated through a modern version of eugenics.

Although anyone browsing the Internet can find dozens of sites espousing these beliefs, it is especially dangerous when those thoughts come from respected professionals, said Heidi Beirich, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks the academic movement.

"One thing these academics can do is they provide justification to people for their racist beliefs," she said. "If you have a Ph.D. after your name, you have a lot more clout than Joe Schmo who's talking about how evil the Jews are."

As more research money became available in the last 10 years, the rekindled eugenics movement accelerated and attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Beirich said.

"It's definitely re-emerging. At the early part of the (20th) century, eugenics was a very big topic of research ... in the last 10 years it's become resurgent because you have the funding," Beirich said.

She said that most of the research money is coming from the Pioneer Fund, a nonprofit organization that pays for the study of heredity and race. The fund supported the eugenics movement when it began in the 1930s and now spends millions each year on research that looks at genetic differences between the races.

The movement is also growing because researchers interested in eugenics are getting better organized, Beirich said.

Much of their work is published in American Renaissance and Mankind Quarterly, journals that are written in scientific language but don't follow such scientific conventions as peer review - the process that gives other researchers a chance to verify research results.

These researchers also move in the same circles, attend the same conferences, review each other's books and exchange correspondence.

"They know each other very well," Beirich said. "They have gotten their act together. They shouldn't be taken lightly because I think we're going to be hearing more from them in the future."

J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, is one of the researchers at the top of the watch list at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Rushton has researched the differences between the races for years. He has compared IQ scores, brain size and fertility rates of blacks and whites. His studies have led him to conclude that blacks as a whole will never measure up to whites, he said.

"Give them the best opportunities. But I think we have to learn to live with the differences. On average, there are going to be fewer geniuses, fewer people in the top professions," Rushton said.

"The ironic thing is, most of these people are not geneticists," Beirich said. "Rushton literally spends a lot of his time measuring penis size and head size."

— STIRRING UP ACADEMIA ; RESEARCHERS HOP ON SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS TO PROMOTE THEIR CAUSES Series: Against Their Will North Carolina's Sterilization Program; Danielle Deaver JOURNAL REPORTER. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Dec 12, 2002. pg. 1

J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, will speak March 11 as part of DarwinFest, a lecture series examining the work of Charles Darwin in recognition of his 200th birthday. WVU spokesman Dan Kim said Rushton's talk will explore altruism and human relationships.

Race won't be part of Rushton's discussion at WVU, but his research on race has led the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights activist group to pin the racist label on him. His controversial claims appear in his book "Race, Evolution and Behavior."

— WVU speaker called racist: Rushton claims that intelligence a race factor. Cassie Shaner. The Dominion Post Washington: Feb 15, 2009.

There are several examples of mainstream newspapers quoting the SPLC on Rushton, the Pioneer Fund, or related persons. It would be incorrect to say that the SPLC's view of Rushton is not significant. Other than perhaps the Pioneer Fund, and his university, I doubt any other institution has devoted as much attention to Rushton as the SPLC.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided links to any of your sources. Further you have not demonstrated that the SPLC's comment about Rushton being venemous is notable. That is the criticism that is in the article and the only source the article gives is the SPLC itself Needpics (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to take your concerns about the article seriously if you can't be bothered to look up citations. Will Beback has done a lot of research on this matter and I find the sources that he has provided convincing. The SPLC has been quoted frequently by the mainstream media and in a manner similar to the way it has been quoted here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

His sources may be convincing but they are not relevant to the way the SPLC is being referenced in the article. The aricle cites the SPLC calling Rushton "venemous" for a comment he made about black people in Toronto. This is a very inflamatory criticism of Rushton but there's no evidence that it is notable & wikipedia policy demands that all controversial material(especially of an inflamatory & negative nature) in articles about living people be well sourced & notable. In order to show that it is notable, one would have to produce reliable credible published sources (independent of the SPLC itself) that mention the offense the SPLC took to Rushton's comment about Toronto. Otherwise wikipedia is not reporting on a controversy, it is creating a controversy. Needpics (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that comments, pro or con, about a subject have to be notable in order to be included. We have a requirement that they have to appear in a reliable secondary source, but not they have to be noted in a second secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a requirement that we don't give undue weight to minority view points. The view point that Rushton's comments about Toronto were venemous is a minority view point. We also have a requirement that controversial material, especially of an inflamatory & negative nature not be poorly sourced. The SPLC meets wikipedia's definition of a poor source because it's A)self-published and B)extremist (far left politically) both of which violate wikipedia's rules for sources. Needpics (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my reading of available sources that discuss the subject, I'd say that the majority view is expressed by the SPLC. It certainly does not represent a fringe view on this matter. That said, we don't need to quote that exact word, "venomous". I've entirely re-written it.

• Rushton wrote an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen which blamed the destruction of "Toronto the Good" on its black inhabitants. The Southern Poverty Law Center called the piece "yet another attack" by Rushton and it criticized those who published his work and that of other "race scientists".

That's neutral and does a better job of summarizing the SPLC article.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC are the only ones who had a publicly expressed problem with Rushton's comment about Toronto so that by definition makes it a minority view. In addition, the SPLC are self-published political extremists which makes them a poor source as per wikipedia's definitions. To include poorly sourced material of a negative inflamatory nature violates wikipedia's policy when it comes to articles about living persons & no amount of rewording can change that. Needpics (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution." Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and praise

An editor added this assertion:

• His work in this area is highly controversial, recieving as much criticism as praise.

Do we have a source that says so directly, or are we deciding that on our own? If the latter, then that might be considered original research and should be left out. If the former, then we should attribute that view.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed criticism from intro. There are three whole sections for criticism in the article already. I appreciate the emotion that this mans claims can bring, however, intros are for basic info and not for immediate condemnation by hostile opposition. I am not atempting to condone his work or refute the criticism, it is simply massively POV to have such hostile criticism in the introduction for a living person of repute who has as many supporters as opponents.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After trawling the records, the aforementioned part that was previously in the intro, can be seen to have been first added on the 19 March 2009 by anonymous editor 99.255.5.248 - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/99.255.5.248 - This editor then reverted an admins wise decision to remove his POV addition. Several other anonymous edits kept it there, despite rv's from admins. This should not be re-added to the intro.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the intro is there to recap the material of the article. If there is a large section of the article on criticism, it is normal that it will be reflected in the intro. Also, the material in the intro is sourced so there are no BLP violations that I see there.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete ongoing discussions, as you did with your last talk edit. It is not normal to have an article take a massively POV position on a living persons work in the intro. Criticism is included in 3 whole sections and should of course be included. However, as can be seen, even just from this article, Rushton has just as much supporters as detractors. In light of this, including damning criticism of him and his work in the intro is as POV as including fawing praise. Please also see the above paragraph for infoGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that Rushton has as many supporters as detractors. Ramdrake is correct that the intro should summarize the body of the article. Since the controversy is significant it should be mentioned in the intro in some way. Could you, Gaius, suggest some text which would reflect that content and that you'd find acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If Rushton's work is regarded as incorrect, racist, or poorly researched by a large number of notable scientists, then it is imperative to mention that in the introduction. GSMR (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rushtons work is regarded as sound by a large number of notable scientists, and derided mostly by non-scientists. Shall we put that in the intro?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's right - David Suzuki, and my anthro textbook disagree. However, if this can be supported, then sure, go ahead. GSMR (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To G.O.P. - If we have sources which make the same conclusikon as you then we can include that. But it would be original research for us to draw our own conclusions about the careers of critics.   Will Beback  talk  17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rushtons work is regarded as sound by a large number of notable scientists, and derided mostly by non-scientists. GOP, can you provide a source for that? So far, I have seen many editors ask you for references for your changes, but you just keep edit-warring and reverting. With all due respect, please provide sources or please leave this bio alone.--Ramdrake (talk)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, 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 suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now is a good time to review this article in light of the best sources; you are welcome to suggest new sources to ensure that this article and other articles on Misplaced Pages are well sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some new sources, they do be much more good if incorporated into the article main text than in a further readings sections:

• Buist, Steve (17 Apr. 2000). "The Race-Research Funder". Hamilton Spectator (Ontario). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995), "The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions" (PDF), Society, 32: 7–17
• Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
• Winston, Andrew S. (1996). "The Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton". Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless. 5 (2): 213–229. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

·Maunus·ƛ· 20:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Heres another one which is in favour of his academic freedom and against political correctness, it also detailedly explains how his academic peers at his own institution rejected his work.

• Barry R. Gross "The case of Philippe Rushton" Academic Questions Volume 3, Number 4, 35-46, DOI: 10.1007/BF02682900

And this one: Andrew S. Winston. The Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol 5, No. 2, 1996, 231-250 Copyright Human Sciences Press, 1996. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HEre's an MA thesis {pdf}·Maunus·ƛ· 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a book with a long chapter on Rushton's academic case arguing in favour of his academic freedom. (it does leave out the nasty details of the 1988 Ethics board incidents) Hunt, M, 1999. The new know-nothings: The political foes of the scientific

study of human nature. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Maunus. There are plenty of edits ahead. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone verify the Knudtson book?

I'm checking references here, and I'm wondering if anyone has the Knudson book, which appears in few libraries, at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sitting in one of America's biggest research libraries and its not in their catalogue...·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Try Knudtson with 't'. An Amazon.com search confirms "Despite the occasional media stereotype of Rushton" appearing on p 176 of their particular vol. RashersTierney (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the spelling error that I copied-and-pasted from the article references (which I have now fixed in that regard). I'm having trouble confirming the nature (that is, the reliability per Misplaced Pages policy) of this source. I'm particularly interested in verifying the E. O. Wilson quotation. (P.S. What is the first published source for the Eysenck quotation later in the same paragraph? That shouldn't be cited to a partisan website, but rather to one of Eysenck's published writings, which I may have at hand in my office.) Thanks for the help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to self: once I ran the Amazon searches, I found that one "quotation" was just flat wrong (it wasn't in proper scholarly quotation form showing what words were omitted) and both were misleading. I have deleted those (and the accompanying section heading) in the interest of WP:V and WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that nothing from that book belongs in the article--the book appears to be a good source about Rushton. But the overall context and tone of the book should be better represented in statements cited to that book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

its not in the catalogue not with the ISBN either, I also can't get it with interlibrary loan it seems.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of this book and I can confirm both quotes are in it. Here are pages 175 and 176 showing the whole first quote: And here's page 190, with the E.O. Wilson quote. This quote in the article is slightly off (the book actually says "a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk"), though it doesn't change its meaning - I'll change that one in the article to make it accurate, but I don't think there's anything wrong with including these quotes. They were in the source, they weren't being misrepresented in a way that changes their meaning, and there's nothing that violates NPOV about including support for Rushton in sources where it exists, especially next to the quantity of criticism in this article.

Being unable to verify a source is not a good reason to remove something from an article. In fact it's one of the examples of article ownership behavior listed at WP:OWN: "I don't own the book, so I can't confirm your source." You should assume good faith about whoever added the quote to the article rather than assuming they misrepresented the source. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The quotes aren't inaccurate, but they're cherry-picked , and the Wilson is synth if it implies something about Rushton's work with r/K selection theory. EO Wilson's remark was made to Knudsen verbally-and wasn't given in the context of Rushton's work with r/K selection theory, nor did Wilson commit to any opinion about the Rushton's research. Wilson was conceding that studying genetic variation by geography isn't generally considered controversial except when studying human populations, and the author's context were suggestions that Rushton may have support by other (anonymous) scientists but they're not coming forward. The "Oh, no!" quote by Rushton about "racial superiority" elsewhere in this article is also cherry-picked, from the same book. Rushton is quoted elsewhere on page 163 saying the opposite, "One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes canonly meaningfully be said to be cherry picked if there are other quotes that could have been chosen that give a different picture - we haven't seen any quotes by Wilson or Knudtson to the opposite effect. In this case cherry picking doesn't really apply because if we include quotes we will have to include both quotes that support and criticize Rushton - tey would of course still have to be picked out from the large array of possible quotes.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Knudtson's chapter on Rushton is somewhat critical overall, but not in a way that goes against what's stated in these quotes. Knudtson doesn't think Rushton lacks credentials as a scientist, or isn't taken seriously as a scientist - his criticism is mostly over whether it's a good idea for scientists to research such socially-sensitive topics.

Also the whole chapter is about Rushton's r/K selection theory so the Wilson quote is presented in the same context there that it is in the article, so I don't see a synth issue here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We dont need Knudtson to put Rushton's credentials in doubt there are plenty of other quotes to that effect to choose from. I think perhaps a good idea is to remove the quotes altogether - it is the kind of thing that is immensely difficult to handle in controversial articles because it makes the articles turn ut being quote farms of counterarguments when trying to balance the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered now that lots of block quotes in an article is a pretty reliable sign of POV-pushing in the article. I have to agree with Professor marginalia here that the quotations as they appear in the article misrepresent their source. I would be delighted to see more of what Wilson has said about the whole hypothesis that Rushton defends. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As to cherry-picking: the chapter in Knudtson gives much more space to critical views than "supportive" views, and Wilson's perhaps more accurately described as "neutral" than "supportive". The criticism is not narrowly focused on whether or not the area should be studied at all--the criticisms are about his methods, data, and findings. There is nothing in Wilson's quote to suggest he was making any claims about Rushton's data, conclusions, or methods related to r/K selection theory--it was a blander statement about geographic variation being a valid area of study in biology and that such studies for human populations are often controversial. This is no small distinction - Rushton's work in with r/K selection theory is the focus in only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter, and Wilson is not quoted giving any opinion about it. Instead, the couple of pages describe only the strongly critical opinions about how Rushton applied it. The way the book is used in #19 is more bothersome imo than #13 because of the many eyebrow-raising quotes in the book about other things Rushton has said that would seem to confirm what critics charge him with. What it boils down to is that somebody decided that the article needed more "balance" so they flipped through the pages of this book to find found a handful of seemingly "supportive" quotes. That's not an especially adept way to achieve NPOV-more of a "make do". The real NPOV concern suggested in Knudtson (#13) might be whether or not Rushton's work in "altruism" should be given more weight here. I have no opinion-I don't know enough-but if Rushton is more notable for his work in altruism than race differences, it probably warrants more coverage here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the quotes have been cherry picked so that they don't represent the whole of the book. That is a valid concern. But again it can be circumvented by simply not including quotes, but summarising the criticisms and supportive arguments in anaarrative prose style.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Professor marginalia for further discussion of the context of the Knudtson book. On that basis, I have begun bold edits of the section. Consider this reply to the talk page my notice to all editors that I will boldly edit any aspect of article text on the basis of sources, as I find the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Boldness is encouraged. Moving forward is the pressing issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I think you should read the chapter if you're able to. I have the book right in front of me, and it's simply false to state that Rushton's r/K selection theory is the focus of "only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter." The entire chapter is titled "Rushton on Race" and there's very little of it that does not discuss this theory. I don't know how to prove this without scanning every page, which I don't think is reasonable.

I'm concerned that the content of this article is now being dictated by a consensus of editors who either haven't read the book, or who have read it but are willing to misrepresent its contents here, since they know most other people haven't read it. I don't think this is an appropriate way to determine the content of an article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can scan it and send me a copy I'd be glad to read it. As I said I don't have access to the book through my university library.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to email it to you since I'm not sure if posting the whole thing publicly would be a copyright issue. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, please email me.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have now had a chance to read the chapter and I must say that I agree with Weiji and Professor that the quotes chosen misrepresented their contexts. Knudtson's statement that Rushton is respected for his work in altrusim and published in wellrespected journals is given as a contrast to his work on race which is published largely in non-peer reviewed, journals such as Personality and individual differences and mankind quarterly - kndutson very clearly shows that Rushtons work on race is not well respected and not endorsed (the only one's presented as uncritically supporting him are his friends ) even by other sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson. The Wilson quote is even more problematic because it leaves out the second half of the quote in which Wilson very clearly states that his reasoning would be completely logical if speaking about non-human animals, implying that this does not necessarrily mean that it is logical for humans, and that he is in basic disagreement about the ethical aspect of drawing up racial hierarchies. I think the chapter by Kndutson is excellent and I actually think it should form the basis for most of the biographical discussion on Rushton - I think Knudtson is extremely fair and sensitive in his treatment of the topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think everything Knudtson writes about Rushton is more nuanced than blanket support or criticism. He says that some of Rushton's research about race has been published in controversial journals like Mankind Quarterly, but he also mentions that some of it has been published in reputable academic journals too. I do agree that this info from the chapter shouldn't be presented just as support for Rushton, but it shouldn't be presented just as criticism either.

I think it's the same with the Wilson quote - it's not pure support or criticism. He mentions the need for "special safeguards" in race research, but also says that "the basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning" in the context of Rushton's r/K theory. Knudtson himself refers to Wilson as an example of "scientific sympathy-for the most part publicly silent-for Rushton's evolutionary thinking on race." I read this to mean that Wilson thinks there's nothing inherently unscientific about Rushton's race theories, but that it's also inevitable that the public will be more sensitive to theories like this when they involve human groups rather than nonhuman animal groups, and because of that he thinks special safeguards are necessary.

Being as Wilson is one of the founders of r/K theory, I think his opinion about Rushton is worth including here as long as we can do that in a way that accurately presents the nuances of it. Is it okay if I suggest a way to include Wilson's opinion in the article that accurately summarizes it in the Knudtson book? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilson says its solid evolutionary reasoning in the context of non-human animals. Wilson's statement is I think deliberately ambiguous - it could mean that deep in his heart of hearts he feels blacks are really inferior and that Rushton is right but is being victimized because of his political incorrectness - but it could also mean that he thinks Rushton is committing a basic scientific mistake by applying a theory designed for describing animal social behaviour to humans, a mistake that might have grave political and ethical consequences.

I agree that Knudtson is very nuanced as well, but he also makes it very clear that he doesn't find the theory scientifically convincing or ethical and that he sees it as being rejected by a majority of scholars in the field. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ferahgo-Frankly, I came to the opposite conclusion--that Wilson's "cautiously worded" comment to this one author is being misapplied to convey some authority to Rushton's work with r/K selection theory--and to do so is original research. The statement "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher" is pretty tepid "support", if that was Wilson's intention. All that Wilson defended was Rushton's "basic reasoning"; he was talking about the notion of geographic variation. If Wilson stands behind Rushton's work we'll need to source it somewhere that actually says this. "Honest and capable" is the bare minimum demanded of all scientists--but it's not the same as giving a stamp of approval to their research. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think the best solution is probably just to summarize everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including all of the same ambiguity present in the source. Unless there's an objection I'll make a proposal sometime soon about how the article should handle this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree Ferahgo. We should include everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including the fact that the book states that Wilson is one of Rushton's reluctant supporters. I propose the following be added to the article:

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two co-founders of the r/K selection theory Rushton's cites)is one of Rushton's reluctant supporters and stated the following:

Wilson added that even though society should be able to "handle" most areas of sociobiological debate, "when it comes to racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed."

All three sources are page 190 of Knudtson's book. Btw there's nothing in the slightest bit ambiguous about what Wilson said. I'm not going to be denial about Wilson being a supporter and say he's being ambiguous, because what he's saying is very clear. He's saying the controversy over Rushton's work is emotional and political, not sicentific, and that's why the same theory applied to any other animal but humans would have been accepted. No different from the fact that a lot of people can accept the theory of evolution when it comes to other animals, but can't accept the idea that humans evolved. But like Ferahgo says, we should just put the totality of Wilson's comments in and let the reader interpret it. Mixaphone (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked up p175-176 of Knudtson, which is cited for "through most of his career as a psychologist, he has been seen as a highly competent researcher" in the lead. While he does make this statement, it is in the midst of impugning the scholarly integrity of one of the journals he most frequently publishes in, and impugning Rushton's own integrity in failing to mention his racialist work in his Guggenheim application (and a number of other topics). It therefore appears to be cherry-picking Knudtson. Hrafn (talk · contribs) 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on Rushton and his work section needs reorganization.

I'm still learning what is standard practice for biographical articles on Misplaced Pages. (It would probably be a good idea for us who are editing this article to look at featured articles about living persons, especially if we can find those about persons who write on some of the same subjects Rushton writes about.) I have no doubt that some kind of section something the current "Opinions on Rushton and his work" section is fairly standard for a biography article. (The title may not be quite the usual title, but we can check and see what is usual.) Surely the current organization of the section, however, is not encyclopedic and not reader-friendly. Rather than long direct quotations from other books, we should be giving a narrative account, perhaps in chronological order, of the various reactions evoked by Rushton's life and career, taking care to fairly represent the weight of opinion in the broader community of scholars. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree competely.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to integrate the critiques with the descriptions of his two main theories: genetic similarity theory and r/k selection theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynn and Rushton?

Have any of you read anything commenting on Rushton's work by Michael Lynn? The article at doi:10.1016/0092-6566(89)90029-9 (Journal of Research in Personality Volume 23, Issue 1, March 1989, Pages 1-6 ) and the follow-up at doi:10.1016/0092-6566(89)90031-7 (Journal of Research in Personality Volume 23, Issue 1, March 1989, Pages 21-34) look quite interesting. I only just found those articles while searching for the writings of a different author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Altruism work

It should probably be noted that his genetic similarity theory of altruism has also been criticized and is not generally accepted either. see for example the critiques following this article .·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also this volume: J. R. Royce & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 73-81). New York: Plenum Press.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

and this: L. Mealy , Comment on the genetic similarity theory. Behavioral Genetics 15 (1985), pp. 571–574. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vague criticism

I removed some criticism which seems to be the standard copy paste disparagement levelled at an unpopular theory: "based on statistically flawed evidence", "failing to understand and misapplying theory". I think some detail is needed about precisely what is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.41.214 (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The section "Application of r/K selection theory to race"

Now it contains only criticisms. We could add supporting research. But the better would be to just have a short description and note that there is criticism and support and refer to the main article.Miradre (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As such I propose summarizing this to "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported as discussed in the article about the book."Miradre (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't support that proposal.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Otherwise I will add supporting sources instead.Miradre (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be WP:GEVAL, for one thing. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously only mentioning criticisms is not neutral.Miradre (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not obvious -- and in any case that is a false dichotomy. The article must give WP:WEIGHT "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", not give them equal weight, a priori (as simply stating "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported" would). If it were to turn out that one viewpoint were a "tiny minority" view then "only mentioning criticisms" would be WP:NPOV. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article about the book it is the critics who are the minority view. Not the proponents.Miradre (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Such a within-article count-up is however not what WP:WEIGHT is asking for. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The same argument can be applied to the criticisms.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not an argument for or against either viewpoint -- it is a statement that WP:WEIGHT does not ask for "counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article" in determining how much weight viewpoints should be given, nor does such a counting give an accurate approximation of what that policy is asking for. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The point being that there is no evidence for that the criticisms are more important than the support.Miradre (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that the section does not make any mention of the fact that evolutionary biology is moving away from r/K selection as a useful heuristic (a point made in r/K selection theory). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A 1992 article is hardly evidence for current status.Miradre (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to any literature suggesting a reversal of this long term trend? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The many studies supporting Rushton's rK theory in the last few years is one example.Miradre (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that they'd be sufficiently numerous to reverse the trend Stearns reported (which had citations decreasing from 42/year in 1977-82). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me as it is. It contains Rushton's viewpoint and criticisms. Rushton's view is actually fringe considering the fact that r/K selection theory has been almost completely abandoned by Life History Evolutionists. I don't know of any actual experts in that field who support Rushton. E.O. Wilson, one of the founders of r/K selection theory, gave Rushton an endorsement for his book however that isn't even worth mentioning considering the fact that it's an endorsement and not a proper critique. All of the other supporters for the theory appear to be hereditarian researchers who are not experts on evolution and appear to be endorsing it as a compliment to their own work. Graves on the other hand is an expert on Life History Evolution and has provided a detailed critique. The addition of his criticism meets WP:WEIGHT. I recently replaced Kittles and Long (2003) with Sternberg et al. (2005) although the last sentence may need revising in order to more accurately describe the content in that reference. EgalitarianJay (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of researchers and articles supporting the theory as stated in article about the book. NPOV requires the views of both sides also here when describing the theory.Miradre (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to at least 3 reliable sources written by prominent evolutionary scientists the theory was dropped in the early nineties. If you want to contest that get a source that contradicts that statement directly - not through synthesis from minor studies that still apply the model. I have checked two recent textbooks in evolutionary ecology neither mention the model.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some books from the early nineties are hardly evidence for current statues. It is like citing papers from the 90s in order to refute current physics papers.Miradre (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is "evidence" unless and until you can provide contrary evidence that mainstream evolutionary biology (not just a few researchers in evolutionary psychology and related fields) has since rehabilitated it. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just a few researchers. Close to 40 has written many peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Pointing to critical 1992 books does not invalidate current research.Miradre (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Joseph L. Graves the theory has been falsified by empirical experiments and virtually abandoned by life history evolutionists. He supported this claim by citing the lack of references to the theory in the BIOSIS database in 2001. Unless evidence can be provided that the theory is now currently in wide use and that other experts have given critiques of Rushton supporting his research I see no reason to alter that section. EgalitarianJay (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples: Miradre (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Miradre: (i) given the idiosyncratic way you calculate such statistics, your "close to 40" is worthless from an evidentiary viewpoint. (ii) Unless the "current research" has been able to overturn the prior findings in evolutionary biology (and as far as I can see, they don't even address them), they remain invalidated. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

what do they say about the theory? Mentioning it is not enough - otherwise Graves and stearns mentions would count to its credit.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Various statements. Mostly they just describe the theory. Certainly does not describe it as falsified or incorrect.Miradre (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That isn't evidence either way - using that observation to contradict Stearns and Graves would be synth. Just like trying to use a handful of studies that happen to agree with Rushton to suggest that he has scientific credibility is synth.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is better evidence for the current situation than your 1992 books. Graves is obviously incorrect regarding the current situation as per these textbooks.Miradre (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How? A mere description of the theory does not validate its usage or confirm that the theory has currency among modern Life History Evolutionists. Also at this point we are looking for detailed support for Rushton's application of r/K by evolutionary biologists. Where is it? EgalitarianJay (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was "falsified" or not used then this would obviously be mentioned in the textbooks. Would be inappropriate to learn out incorrect theories. Why would evolutionary biologists who usually deal with non humans comment on Rushton's application to humans? There are a lot of comments on the theory, both supporting and negative, by other branches. Which should be mentioned as per NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No such thing as "obviously incorrect" about a reliable source - and you also can't contradict a positive statement with negative evidence. Graves btw also repeats the claim in two later articles about Rushton. It is less than a week ago that you chastised me for not backing my rejections of "expert testimonies" up with sources (then I did) - now you are rejecting two expert biologists based on your own original research. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not rejecting. I am noting there are opposing views. As per NPOV opposing views should be included.Miradre (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding supporting views but where are they? If you can find some evolutionary biologists who provide a supportive critique of Rushton's application of r/k selection to human races then I would not object to that. EgalitarianJay (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted lots of textbooks do not reject rk theory in general. There are lots of for example psychology researchers supporting the Rushton's theory. There is no reason for that only evolutionary biologists, who seldom do research human psychology, should be allowed to comment on Rushton's theory.Miradre (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are switching topic: You have not provided any actual contradiction of Graves and Stearns conclusions. Circumstantial SYNTH evidence is not valid. Regarding your new topic RK selection is not a psychologic but an evolutionary biology theory and psychologists can talk about rushton's application but have no expertise regarding the theory itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your original complaint, Miradre, was that the article only contained criticisms and that we should provide support to bring balance or simply note that there are criticisms and support. If we're going to mention supporting views I think it would be appropriate to cite authorities. If there are no authorities supporting Rushton then the logical thing to do is simply present Rushton's perspective and the authoritative criticisms that address his work. That is what has been done. A handful of Rushton's colleagues who are associated with the Pioneer Fund have given Rushton positive endorsements and attempted to compliment their own theories with his but none of them are authorities on evolutionary biology. Graves is an authority. Kenneth Kay Kidd, one of the co-authors of Sternberg et al. (2005) is an authority. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect description. I have cited close to 40 reserachers and around 25 peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Most are not associated with the Pioneer Fund.Miradre (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide one or two by scholars who are qualified to give an expert opinion on Life History Evolution? If so they should be added to the article. Simple endorsements of Rushton's views don't lend any credibility to his position. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not simply endorsements. The papers are actual empirical evaluations of the predictions of the theory.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true - the Crovovic paper for example doesn't even use the terms in the evolutionary sense Rushton does but about culturally determined reproductive strategies. I haven't had a time to look at the other papers, but then again I doubt you have either.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I see no reason not to add them. Can you present the studies you want to add here? EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Later_favorable_studies. Now, I am not asking that they all be here. My preferred alternative is simply saying that there are support and criticisms which are discussed in the main article.Miradre (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

<--- Wow, thanks for pointing out another article that is in need of a total overhaul thanks to your editing. How you think that the fact that you snuck in Rushton's racist research as a reliable source into that article supports your contention here is beyond me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any actual argument in reply to what I stated?Miradre (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, not sure what kind of an "argument" you're looking for here. That a racist author's own racist works shouldn't be used to support the racist views found in those racist works? I think that just goes by "common sense".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Several of the points in that article are based on Rushton's research itself and I notice that quite a few are marked as dubious. I'm in favor of leaving the criticism portion as is (though the last sentence probably needs revision) and simply adding some comments about work that supports Rushton with appropriate references. Graves criticisms are not discussed in great detail. His argument is simply mentioned and referenced. That's keeping it simple and if the supporting views of Rushton can be kept that simple it would benefit the article. EgalitarianJay (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you count the researchers there are close to 40 so it is not just Rushton. But I will add some supporting views if simply referring to the article is not acceptable.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No Miradre we DO NOT simply "count" the number of names attached to supportive articles, most of whom are likely to be grad students working under the direction of others, and all of whom are unlikely to have a sufficient background in evolutionary biology to express an expert opinion on the validity of r/K theory. This has been pointed out to you before, but you continue to WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT this point. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are around 10 different lead researchers. Do you really insist that the section should only have criticisms when there are numerous peer-reviewed articles and many researchers supporting the theory? I will be taking this to WP:BLPN if this continues.Miradre (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) I "really insist" that you cease and desist talking about your "close to 40 so" as though it means anything. (ii) I "really insist" that we take a look at the prominence (and relevance of expertise) of your "10 different lead researchers", per WP:WEIGHT, before including them in the article. (iii) I "really insist" that the section give due WP:WEIGHT to the expert opinions of evolutionary biologists on the validity of r/K selection, and that the opinions as to its validity of those outside that field should be given far less weight, even if more recent (I'd be far more likely to take the opinion of a plumber, even if given last week, as to the state of my plumbing, than that of an electrician, even if given today). You are welcome to take it to WP:BLPN, but I would point out that issues as to scientific acceptance of theories are more relevant to WP:FTN, where this article has already been posted. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented for that the critics are more important than the proponents. You comparison to plumber is flawed. A better comparison would be between a plumber and municipal water supply employee. Obviously the plumber is better person to ask. Regarding for example if there are psychological empirical evidence in favor of the theory for humans, ask psychologists, not biologists who usually study animals and plants and not humans.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. Joseph L. Graves is a prominent evolutionary biologist, the proponents are not (at least AFAIK). In fact as you have not presented any evidence that they have any expertise in that field -- making my "electrician" analogy perfectly on-point. From what I have read, one of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology (and its purported "psychological empirical evidence") is that it inadequately deals with the issue of heritability. This is an issue where biology (and specifically genetics) has primacy, not psychology. There is also the question of whether any of the studies you are promoting actually verify the validity of r/K theory, or simply assume. it. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you have read but these supporting studies certainly also look at heritability. Furthermore, the origin of differences are irrelevant for if there are differences. The studies show that there are group differences that vary as they would according to Rushton's theory. Maybe Rushton's evolutionary explanation for these differences are wrong. This does not change that these empirical findings are still there.Miradre (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be unintentionally misusing primary sources here. Do you have any secondary sources? aprock (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have for example the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. Maybe those critical of Rushton's theory are misusing primary sources? Miradre (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What does the encyclopedia say? aprock (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite neutral and states that the empirical evidence is mixed.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Could you provide the relevant quotes and page numbers please? aprock (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 713-716. There is a lot to quote but regarding mixed evidence: "Empirical evidence for this theory is mixed." Miradre (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you could post some of the relevant text. aprock (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And do the authors have expertise relevant to evaluating the validity of r/K theory (my impression is that they're criminologists, not evolutionary biologists)? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using evolutionary theories.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using" phrenology either. But where a hypothesis has been discredited in its primary field, continued usage in secondary fields does not substantiate its legitimacy. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychology or criminology are not discredited. rK-theory is not discredited in biology. I again point to the many biology textbooks mentioning the theory neutrally.Miradre (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first assertion is a non sequitor. Your second is unsubstantiated. None of the texts you point to appear to be in the field of evolutionary biology, so may not have caught up with current thinking from that field. Their existence does not refute expert opinion from that field that it has in fact been discredited. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the textbooks again. Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false. Many of them are certainly dealing with evolution. They are certainly much more recent than the 1992 books.Miradre (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

None of them contradict the statements of the 1992 studies and only work as SYNTH. And the claim has been repeated in studies from 2001 and 2002. You will need an explicit contradiction for your claims to be any thing other than OR. We have three evolutionary biologists saying that R/K theory is discredited and is not current in biology. You need more than examples of exceptions to that rule to counter those very strong claims.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They certainly show the the concept is not dead after these dates. They do not declare the concept to incorrect or falsified. Your studies does not define some kind of definitive truth which you seem to be thinking.Miradre (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH. Get some quotes to supprt your cause. Like these ones:·Maunus·ƛ· 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The theory of r- and K-selection was one of the first predictive models for life-history evolution. It helped to galvanize the empirical field of comparative life-history and dominated thinking on the subject from the late 1960s through the 1970s. Large quantities of field data were collected that claimed to test predictions of the theory. By the early 1980s, sentiment about the theory had changed so completely that a proposal to test it or the use of it to interpret empirical results would likely be viewed as archaic and naïve. The theory was displaced by demographic models that concentrated on mortality patterns as the cause of life-history evolution. Although demographic models are known for their density-independent approach and focus on extrinsic mortality, these models can incorporate many ecological features captured by r- and K-selection, such as density-dependent population regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations. We highlight the incorporation of these factors in recent theory, then show how they are manifest in our research on life-history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Explanations of the repeatable suites of life-history differences across populations of guppies originate from demographic models of predator-driven age-specific mortality. Recently, careful examination of guppy demography and habitat has revealed that density-dependent regulation and resource availability may have influenced the evolution of guppy life histories. In the field, these factors covary with predation risk; however, they can be uncoupled experimentally, providing insight into how they may have synergistically driven guppy life-history evolution. Although life-history theory has shifted away from a focus on r- and K-selection, the themes of density-dependent regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations are integral to current demographic theory and are potentially important in any natural system." (r- AND K-SELECTION REVISITED: THE ROLE OF POPULATION REGULATION IN LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION David Reznick, Michael J. Bryant, and Farrah Bashey 2002)·Maunus·ƛ· 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comparative Primate Ecology by P . C Lee (2001) p. 78 "R/K theory was widely used in early studies of life history .... The model has now been replaced... because a large number of studies have shown that the r/K model does not explain" ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Directionality theory: an empirical study of an entropic principle in life‐history evolution. Martin Ziehe Lloyd Demetrius. Proc. R. Soc. B 7 June 2005 vol. 272 no. 1568 1185-1194 "In the 1970s, the model of r–K selection emerged as an influential response to this challenge (Pianka 1970, after MacArthur & Wilson 1967). Although this model provided some qualitative insight into the relationship between ecological constraints and life-history characteristics, its weakness as a predictive model is now recognized (Stearns 1992; Reznick et al. 2002). These shortcomings derive largely from the fact that the r–K selection model (in its analytic expression as distinct from its more qualitative claims) is essentially concerned with populations in which fertility and mortality variables are independent of age. Accordingly, the model is unable to explain in quantitative terms the correlation between ecological conditions, such as density-dependent constraints, and age-dependent life-history characteristics, such as age of sexual maturity, reproductive span and longevity. "·Maunus·ƛ· 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• The K-factor, covitality, and personality. from washington.eduAJ Figueredo, G Vásquez, BH Brumbach… Human Nature, 2007. Springer"When the empirical evidence failed to completely support the original r/K theory, however, other theorists suggested that the model was incomplete and that variation in predation needed to included in the model (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey 2002). Once this parameter was incorporated, demographic theory became the predominant view for understanding mechanisms underlying life history strategies (Stearns 1992). This theory focuses on age-structured populations, specifically attending todifferential mortality rates across age groups (Charlesworth 1980). Current life history theories tend to incorporate features from both r/K and demographic theories. A universal feature of all these models is that environmental effects operate through age- or stage-specific effects. Thus, density-dependent regulation or stochastic effects interact with demographic selection, so that the predicted optimal life history is a function of both demographic selection and the way these additional environmental effects are manifested" (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey 2002:1515)."·Maunus·ƛ· 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• The discounted reproductive number for epidemiology. TC Reluga, J Medlock… - Mathematical Biosciences and …, 2009 "The r{K selection theory was originally envisioned as a continuum between r selected species in resource-rich environments that evolve to maximize productivity and K selected species in resource-scarce environments that evolve to maximize efficiency. The nomenclature derives from the simple logistic-growth model where r represents the per-capita growth rate and K denotes the carrying capacity. In application, however, r{K selection has most often been treated as a polar dichotomy because there is no natural continuum between the carrying capacity K, measured in the same units as the population's size, and the growth rate r, measured in units of inverse time. Although it is a convenient caricature, r{K selection theory has been largely abandoned."·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your own sources does not state that theory has been falsified. Only that it was incomplete. "Although demographic models are known for their density-independent approach and focus on extrinsic mortality, these models can incorporate many ecological features captured by r- and K-selection, such as density-dependent population regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations." r/K theory lives on in a modified version.Miradre (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. This is not how people write about a theory that is still considered viable. Notice how they all write about it in the past tense? R/K theory lives on in a modified version much like polygenism does. That is how sciences progresses it builds on the errors of the past. r/K theory was one of them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread Figueredo et al you quoted above: "Current LHT tends to incorporate features from both r-K and demographic theories. Integrating age-specific mortality parameters provided better predictions and mechanistic explanations for the relationship between the environment and life history strategy (Wilbur, Tinkle, and Collins, 1974). As a model of ecological causation, Pianka's (1970) version of r-K theory has thus been extensively elaborated and revised since the 1980s (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey, 2002; Stearns,1992). Nevertheless, as an organizing principle for empirical description, the general patterning of life history traits has gained continued support (e.g., Rushton, 2004)."Miradre (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Or from the conclusions of your first paper: "This new life-history paradigm has matured into one that uses age-structured models as a framework to incorporate many of the themes important to the r–K paradigm."Miradre (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of opposing views

See this deletion: Deleted material: "The Fund, Rushton, and the prior head have criticized these accusations and argue that the Fund has funded much important but controversial research. " Neither Rushton's review or Lynn's book are self-published.Miradre (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No books were referenced, only online documents -- and WP:SELFPUB also applies to questionable sources (whether self-published or not). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So if I do a full referencing you will not disagree to the sources?Miradre (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing questionable about about a scholarly journal. Or a book by a researcher. Certainly, such views may be disputed by others, but they are WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Knudson(1991). Personality and Individual Differences is a questionable source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And no, Lynn's self-serving hagiography of the Pioneer Fund is not a reliable source, and Weyher's preface to it is even less reliable. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A twenty years old view certainly does not prove anything regarding the current status. The book is no less reliable for being supportive than Tucker's for being critical.Miradre (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) It's for a nine-year-old article, so a "twenty years old view" is as least as relevant as "the current status." (ii) As far as I know, there's been no change in the overly-cozy relationship between that journal and Rushton (isn't one of the Editors-in-Chief still Rushton's thesis advisor?), so no reason why things should have changed. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

2011-1991=20. I have reported this to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Philippe Rushton. Please continue discussions there.Miradre (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will "continue discussions" anywhere I choose, thank you. Given that this topic has been extensively discussed both here & on WP:FTN, extending the discussion to WP:BLPN would seem to be unnecessary. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing in the lead

I recently did a partial revert of an edit that Volunteer Marek made to the article's lead section a week ago. Volunteer Marek immediately undid my revert, stating that there's nothing wrong with the sources he added, so I'll go through them one at a time.

• The first is the Pioneer Fund's own website, which mentions that Rushton is its current president, but doesn't discuss the accusations of racism or white supremacy that have been made against the fund. Therefore, this shouldn't be cited for criticism of the fund.

• The second is page 18 of Anti-semitism: a history and psychoanalysis of contemporary hatred by Avner Falk. Page 18 of this book criticizes the Pioneer Fund, but Rushton is only mentioned in a single sentence that lists several grantees of the fund, and the book has nothing to say about him beyond that. This book does not mention that he is the fund's president.

• The third is The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. This is the only reliable source that criticizes Rushton in the context of him being president of the fund, so it is the source that I kept.

• The fourth is The Republican Party and Immigration Politics: from Proposition 187 to George W. Bush. This book does not mention Rushton at all, so to cite this in order to criticize Rushton is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS.

• The fifth is this article at a website called the Bethune Institute. A google search for information about this site produces no results about it except for the website itself, and most of the google search results are about either unrelated topics, or a separate website (.com not .org). Since there does not appear to be any information available about the website hosting this article, or who runs it, I don't think it satisfies WP:RS.

The policy of WP:SYNTH is very clear: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is what you've done. You cited the Pioneer Fund website to show that Rushton is the current president of the fund, and you combined this with sources that criticized the fund but not Rushton, in order to use this as a criticism of Rushton. You also included a source that appears to be unreliable. Tucker’s book The funding of scientific racism criticizes Rushton in the context of him being the fund's president, so that's an acceptable source for this sentence. But the rest of the sources you've added do not support this sentence, and should not be used for it in a BLP article.Boothello (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ought to find some reliable sources (directly) on the subject (the Google Books search turns up 166 hits). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Erickson, Paul (2010). Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory, Third Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 1442600691. appears to have some relevant information. Unfortunately Google Books cuts out part way through the first paragraph on the topic (on p598). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Potentially useful discussion on Rushton's theory, but nothing on his leadership of PF:
    • Richards, Graham (1997). 'Race', Racism and Psychology. New York: Routledge. pp. 286–287. ISBN 0415101409.Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Velden, Manfred (2010). Biologism, the consequence of an illusion. Goettingen: V&R unipress. pp. 116–122. ISBN 3899717481.
  • A large number of the Google Books sources tie Ruston simultaneously to the PF & to controversy. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You can remove the first source (the PF itself). I did not put it into the article, it was already there. I'm also not the person who put the bethune institute into the article and I don't know anything about it - it may or may not be reliable. The rest are reliable sources - Falk is a reliable source, as is Wroe. The sources are sourcing the nature of the Pioneer Fund - that is what they're for. Hence there's no synthesis. Nothing is being combined, no conclusions are being drawn that are not in the sources (for example, the sources are not used to state that Rushton himself is a white supremacist - though other sources could probably be found to source that - that would be in fact SYNTH). It seems that you do not properly understand the WP:SYNTH policy.

What is the source that I included that "appears to be unreliable"?

Here's more, not like it's hard to find: , pg. 85, other, "Racist beliefs", "Racist", , , ,.... I could go on but that should be more than enough. Do you want me to put all these sources into the article?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:LEDE states "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." Given Rushton's close, and prominently controversial, association with the PF, first as a very prominent & highly publicised grantee & fellow-traveller, then as president, it would appear that some description of the PF is warranted in terms of establishing context and summarising a prominent controversy. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn: I'm not saying the lead shouldn't mention this at all. This is a sourcing problem, not a POV problem. I'm saying that this should be cited to sources that are specifically criticizing Rushton in the context of him being the fund's president, rather than sources that criticize the fund but not Rushton.

To Volunteer Marek: the synth policy does not allow us to combine multiple sources to reach or imply a new conclusion. Do you honestly believe it implies nothing about Rushton himself to say that he is the leader of an organization associated with white supremacy? Based on the point of view that's been apparent in your edits thus far, I think you know perfectly well that this reflects negatively on Rushton, and I think that's the reason why you added it to the article. For you to claim now that you think this implies nothing about Rushton is very disingenuous.

There was a discussion about something similar here on the article Race Differences in Intelligence (book). The book was published by Washington Summit Publishers, which some sources have called a white supremacist publisher. The question was whether this information could be included in the article, cited to sources that criticize the publisher without mentioning the book itself. According to your argument, these sources could be included just to describe "the nature of the publisher". Every uninvolved editor who commented in that discussion rejected this argument, and said that this could only be mentioned in the article if it's cited to sources that discuss it while criticizing this specific book. Replace this book with Rushton, and its publisher with the Pioneer Fund, and you have the exact same situation on this article that these editors pointed out was unacceptable.

Both you and Hrafn have mentioned that there are reliable sources which criticize Rushton in the context of him being the fund’s president. Therefore, this sourcing problem should be very easy to solve by replacing some of the existing sources that don't mention Rushton with new sources that do.Boothello (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Boothello: as long as the (i) article avoids WP:Synthesis by not directly linking Rushton to claims made about the PF that do not directly mention him & (ii) avoids WP:COATRACK, I see no reason why the article needs to restrict itself solely to sources "that are specifically criticizing Rushton in the context of him being the fund's president" -- which will generally be talking mainly about Rushton himself, not the Fund (e.g. Neisser(2004): "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." -- colourful, gives a rather visceral characterisation of Rushton's book -- but useless for a general/summary characterisation the PF). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the entire article should be restricted to sources that are specifically criticizing Rushton in the context of him being the fund's president. Please don't keep making strawmen out of what I say. I am only talking about the sourcing for a single statement in the lead: "Since 2002 he has been head of the controversial Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been widely criticized for financing research that promotes scientific racism and has been frequently associated with racism and white supremacy." This statement is currently cited to several sources that are criticizing the fund but not criticizing Rushton, which is an example of what you described as synthesis: directly linking Rushton to claims made about the PF that do not directly mention him. As I described above, when a similar issue was discussed about the article Race Differences in Intelligence (book), it was agreed that statements like this are unacceptable synthesis.

If the information we can present about the fund in this context is limited by what the source material says about it, then that's just how it is. We have to limit ourselves to what the source material supports directly. In the case of Lynn's book, this meant that the accusations against the book's publisher couldn't be included in the article at all, because there was no source discussing them in the context of criticizing the book. The situation with this article is exactly the same. Unless you have a response to this specific point, I'm going to change the sourcing for this sentence to include only sources that are criticizing Rushton in the context of him being president of the fund.Boothello (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To repeat again what I already said above: the sources are describing the nature of the Pioneer Fund, which is notable and important information in this context. There is no synthesis. I don't think you understand - or are pretending not to understand - the policy of WP:SYNTH. There are no independent conclusions drawn. No sources are synthesized to make statements which are not in the sources themselves.

Think of it this way. Suppose we have an article on a guy named Joe Smith, who happens to be the head of an organization called "Fairly Obscure Organization that a Lot of Potential Readers Have Not Heard About" (FOOtaLPRHNHA), which is involved in funding "ideas of type A". And there are sources which say "FootaLPRHNHA funds ideas of type A". It would NOT be WP:SYNTH to write in the lead of the Joe Smith article "Joe Smith is the head of FOOtaLPRHNHA, an organization devoted to funding ideas of type A". No Synth there, just encyclopedic, relevant content.

If you really think this is a WP:SYNTH violation ask for a third comment or start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're just filibustering now. You're repeating the exact same thing you said in your last comment, without acknowledging what I said in response about what your wording implies about Rushton, or what was concluded in the RFC about an identical issue on the article about Lynn's book. There's no need to have a second RFC about this same question. I don't think there's anything more for us to discuss about this. I modified the lead to cite sources that criticize Rushton directly, and I don't think it should be changed unless you can address the points I made in response to you instead of continuing to repeat yourself. You've undone reverts of this material from me and EglatarianJay several times already, and I don't recommend continuing to edit war over it.Boothello (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not "filibustering". I am repeating what I said before because a) you appear not have comprehended what I said and b) you did not address my reply. So let me repeat myself for the third time, this time around in a form of a question:

What is the conclusion that is reached, that is not explicitly stated by sources?

There is none. The sources cite what has been said about the Pioneer Fund, pretty much verbatim.

I have no idea what RfC you're talking about - I don't see one at either Lynn's article or on the ones on his books. Maybe I missed it.

Yes I've reverted you a couple times - because you are removing well sourced content, per apparently IDON'TLIKEIT. Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to ask for an outside opinion on this. And besides, it's not like there's a shortage of sources which call Rushton these things directly, many of which I've already provided above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

...and the difference between my version and your version is that you replaced "white supremacy" with "eugenics". Now, they are known for sponsoring eugenics related research so it's not like I have a problem with that being in there. But it should be added rather than replaced. Here's some more sources which explicitly talk about Rushton, the Pioneer Fund and their sponsorship of white supremacists: , , .

Here's a source which explicitly calls Richard Lynn a white supremacist, mentions Pioneer Fund and links Rushton to them all Murray and Herrnstein's use of sources like Rushton and of white supremacist writers like Richard Lynn illuminates their ideological links to the Pioneer Fund.

Or here's another one He (Rushton) has also received funding from the Pioneer Fund, an organization with explicit white supremacist commitments

And of course there's much more out there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

if going into detail about the PF, we should also mention the view of Ulric Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Race and Intelligence. In a review of both Lynn's and Tucker's books on the Fund and after a discussion on how to define racism, he concludes:

"How about the Pioneer Fund itself? Has it made a positive contribution, or would the world have been better off without it? Such counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to decide. The world would surely be better off if there were no racists at all, but that is not an option. Would history have taken a different turn without Harry Laughlin's expert testimony on sterilization and such matters? It is hard to be sure, but anyway he would probably have testified even without Draper's support. The Pioneer Fund's later efforts in the battle against school desegregation and civil rights, so carefully documented in Tucker's book, were lost causes that ended as complete failures. 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." Contemporary Psychology , Volume 49 (1): 5, 2004Miradre (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've been dragging that one singular, unique, cherry picked and misinterpreted quote across a dozen discussions now so it's so covered with lint now one can't see the actual words, and the general consensus seems to be that one vs. couple dozen sources means it's probably not a good idea for the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How it it a "singular, unique, cherry picked and misinterpreted quote"? Neisser is obviously a very important source as the head of the APA's task force on race and intelligence. There are other source published in scholarly journals and non-vanity publishers supporting the fund. That these are from persons connecting with PF is not relevant when writing regarding the period before the their involvement as per WP:SECONDARY.Miradre (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

One more time. Yes, the fact that all the sources supporting the fund which have been published in "scholarly" journals, are in fact connected to the PF is relevant. As you've already been told a half a dozen times, including over at RSN. Another case of IDIDN'THEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Neisser is in no way a PF grantee. Again, WP:SECONDARY explicitly states that sources by an involved person are still secondary for the time before the involvement. It seems to be a case of IDIDN'THEARTHAT from your part.Miradre (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on lead section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This dispute is over a sentence in the lead section of this article: "Since 2002 he has been head of the controversial Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been widely criticized for financing research that promotes scientific racism and has been frequently associated with racism and white supremacy." This sentence is cited to several sources that criticize the Pioneer Fund without criticizing Rushton specifically, as well as the Pioneer Fund's website which shows that Rushton is its president but does not contain any criticism of him or the fund. My perspective is that this is WP:SYNTHESIS because it combines sources that say one thing (that Rushton is the president of the Pioneer Fund) and sources that say another thing (that the fund is a racist organization) to imply a conclusion (that Rushton has racist connections) which is not explicitly stated by these sources. A similar RFC, about a book by Rushton's colleague Richard Lynn, decided that it is synthesis for the article to use sources that are criticizing the book's publisher without criticizing the book itself. I think the problem with the Rushton article is essentially the same, but at least two editors disagree with this. Input would also be welcome about other aspects of the article being disputed.Boothello (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've listed about a dozen sources now (please see above - I don't feel like relisting them again here just because one particular editor insist on following IDIDN'THEARTHAT) , and about half of them do in fact criticize Rushton directly. Hence Boothello's contention is false.

Regardless, let me repeat myself, even without the half dozen sources which address Rushton directly, there's no synth here: Suppose we have an article on a guy named Joe Smith, who happens to be the head of an organization called "Fairly Obscure Organization that a Lot of Potential Readers Have Not Heard About" (FOOtaLPRHNHA), which is involved in funding "ideas of type A". And there are sources which say "FootaLPRHNHA funds ideas of type A". It would NOT be WP:SYNTH to write in the lead of the Joe Smith article "Joe Smith is the head of FOOtaLPRHNHA, an organization devoted to funding ideas of type A". No Synth there, just encyclopedic, relevant content.

Boothello is confusing the words "imply" and "infer". He is inferring. The text is just stating what is in the sources without any kind of implication made in the text of the article. Of course a person can infer whatever they fancy from a particular piece of text - on that basis I can call ANYTHING synthesis, just because I happen to infer something from it which is not explicitly stated in the source. For example in the article on Apples it says that "China produced about 35% of this total" and this is sourced. But wait, this is SYNTHESIS! because it implies that China has taken over the global apple market and will strangle the US economy by someday withholding apples from apple starved Americans. See how easy that is. The complaint of WP:SYNTH is completely specious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with Volunteer Marek's view. First, much of the criticism against the PF is for the time before Rushton become head. To blame Rushton for this is obviously incorrect. Secondly, does being associated with the PF automatically means that one is a racist? No, according to Ulric Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force and race and intelligence. "By this definition, we cannot conclude that people are racists just because they accept grants from the Pioneer Fund. Other evidence would be needed to reach that conclusion in individual cases." Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists?, Ulric Neisser, Contemporary Psychology , Volume 49 (1): 5, 2004. Miradre (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First, much of the criticism against the PF is for the time before Rushton become head. - No, this is simply false. Rushton became head in 2002. This source's from 2010. This source's from 2010. This source's from 2010. This source's from 2004. This source's from 2009. This source's from 2009. Additionally, it's not like Rushton was not associated with the fund before he became it's head. Nor is it like he "turned it around" and made it stop publishing racist material afterward.

Then Miradre asks "Secondly, does being associated with the PF automatically means that one is a racist?" and uses Neisser (again, this was already discussed half a dozen times including at RSN, but nm that now) to answer, no: "By this definition, we cannot conclude that people are racists just because they accept grants from the Pioneer Fund." - ok. But then the article text does not conclude or say that Rushton is a racist just because he accepted grants from the PF. It just says that the PF is often associated with racism and white supremacy - which they are, per the dozen+ sources provided. Readers can draw their own conclusions, just like Mr. Neisser did. Mirardre's quote actually supports the contention that there is no WP:SYNTH violation here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sources seem to refer to a work by Tucker from 2002. Thus, they are referring to the time period before Rushton become head. To call Rushton racist because he heads a fund that may once have been started by a racist is wrong. Exactly how has the fund advocated racism since Rushton has become head? That is what would enable the readers to decide for themselves. Miradre (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, completely false. Will you please quit making stuff up? For example, the 2009 source is from ... 2009 and doesn't refer to anything from 2002. The first 2010 source is from ... 2010. It refers to Tucker's 2002 work but it also explicitly states "Upon succeeding to the presidency (of the fund) Rushton embarked upon a perfervid defense" - so it's obviously talking about Rushton's time as head of the fund. The other sources are also ... from the year they were published in! How crazy is that? Ok, now, if somebody makes a false statement once, as you did above, that could be a mistake. If they do it twice in a row, as you did above, well, I'm willing to AGF and say that's a mistake as well. But if it's done three times in a row then that person is shamelessly lying and there's no point in not calling the WP:DUCK a duck.

And anyway the criticisms of Rushton were all made after he became head of the fund - so there's not even a point there to argue about. The fund is STILL funding racist research, is STILL associated with eugenics and white supremacy, and is STILL publishing racist material - per the sources already provided. All the sources refer to the PF in the present, not the 1930's or 1950's or whatever. And somehow, I think you do know this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rushton has published some material in defense of the Fund? Is that the only thing you can find as evidence for "racism" by the Fund after Rushton become head in the sources? What is your source for that the Fund under Rushton is associated with eugenics or white supremacism? The last if particularly strange, all of Rushton's research would place East Asians, not whites, as having higher average IQ. Regarding IQ research on group differences being racist in itself, if that is what critics call "racism", then this should be clearly explained.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to that, as I've already replied several times. There's a dozen sources up there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, possible problems from before he become head is not relevant.Miradre (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problems (i.e. racism), were not "possible" but very real, and they were not limited to "time before he become (sic) head". So stop. Making. Things. Up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That claim is what would be most interesting for the reader to know. What has Rushton done exactly after becoming head that is racism? Published some articles in scholarly journals in defense of the Fund? Sponsored research on IQ and race? Anything else? Miradre (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"I've listed about a dozen sources now (please see above - I don't feel like relisting them again here just because one particular editor insist on following IDIDN'THEARTHAT) , and about half of them do in fact criticize Rushton directly. Hence Boothello's contention is false."

The issue is that even though there are sources that criticize Rushton directly in this context, you and Ramdrake won't allow the article to cite those sources. I've made two attempts at replacing the sources currently in the article that don't mention Rushton with other sources that do, including some of the sources that you listed here. The first time I tried this you reverted me, and the second time Ramdrake did a drive-by revert without any comment. Listing these sources on the talk page isn't helpful if you and other editors will tag-team to revert any edit that tries to use them.Boothello (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"you and Ramdrake won't allow the article to cite those sources." - I'm not sure what you're talking about. If this is all there is too it, then yes, please by all means, add the other sources I listed to the citations. Like I said there are about a dozen or so sources which cite the same thing and I just picked two of them - I guess we could add all twelve or so if you really want to. But please don't change the text along with changing the citations.

Honestly, if this is what the dispute is about then there really is no dispute - add the sources, just don't change the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If we change the sources, we'll likely have to change the text a little too. The current text is based on sources that don't mention Rushton. If we replace those sources with ones that criticize Rushton directly, the new sources will likely say something that's a little different. So the text of the article will have to be changed to reflect that. That's just how sourcing works at Misplaced Pages: our job is to look up what the sources say, and then make the article an accurate reflection of that. We don't decide ahead of time what we want the article to say, and then look for sources to support it, as you seem to want.Boothello (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment There is no shortage of reliable sources calling Rushton racist - published both before and after he became president of the Pioneer Fund. There is no shortage of sources calling the Pioneer fund racist - both before and After rushton became its president. What exactly is being argued here?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Volunteer Marek above. It's not that sources that criticize Rushton don't exist, but my efforts to add them have been reverted by Marek and Ramdrake. Ramdrake didn't explain his reason for reverting, but apparently in Volunteer Marek's case it's that he's dead-set on keeping the exact wording this section had when it was based on sources that don't mention Rushton. So when I replace the sources that don't mention Rushton with sources that criticize him directly, and update the wording of the lead to match those sources, he and Ramdrake revert the edit.Boothello (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, given the sources I've provided above, suggest the wording of the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. Here's the wording I propose: "Since 2002 he has been head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been widely criticized for its association with scientific racism and eugenics." This would be cited to page 214 of The Funding of Scientific Racism, and pages 6-9 of The Nazi Connection. This is a slightly condensed version of the content I tried to add in my last edit, which was reverted by Ramdrake. I already explained why I'd like to replace the sources that don't mention Rushton with ones that criticize him directly, but here are my reasons for changing the other things I did:

• A single sentence doesn't need to have more than two sources. Of the sources that you provided, I think that The Funding of Scientific Racism and The Nazi Connection are the two best, because they are from well-respected authors and publishers, and devote a large amount of space to criticizing Rushton and the Pioneer Fund.

• We don't need to include the word "controversial" if we're going to also say that the Pioneer Fund has been widely criticized. If it's been widely criticized, then it's obviously controversial, so including the word "controversial" is redundant.

• The Funding of Scientific Racism and The Nazi Connection, as well as most of the other sources you linked to that criticize Rushton directly, criticize the fund more for eugenics advocacy than for white supremacy. I replaced the term "white supremacy" with "eugenics" because that's more accurate to the sources.

• Right now, around a quarter of the lead section is devoted to information about the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund has its own article, and this article is supposed to be about Rushton himself. That's why I condensed this sentence to summarize the controversy surrounding the fund, without taking up as much of the lead as it currently does.

Do you find this change acceptable? If not, we can wait for other editors to comment in the RFC, and see whether they prefer my proposed version over the current version.Boothello (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment: I think it is totally appropriate to note the reputation of the Fund independent of Rushton's recent leadership; it is not SYNTHESIS. It is notable that the Fund has been criticized since its founding in the 1930s (years which I added) on grounds of supporting scientific racism, eugenics theory, and white supremacy, but readers coming to this article may not be familiar with it, and they deserve to know. In addition, the Fund made large grants to Rushton for his work before he was chosen to lead it. Parkwells (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If an editor has documented sources that say Rushton has changed the direction of the Fund, those can be added to the body of the article and the lede, but that does not appear to be the case.Parkwells (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Could the people commenting here please address the specific changes I'm proposing? A lot of people are still assuming that I want to remove the criticism of the fund entirely, which I don't. I've made this clear already.Boothello (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm uninvolved here, as this was linked to in response to a comment from me in Boothello's talk. But I feel the current lead is going into too much detail about the Pioneer fund. The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, but the rest of the article has only a single paragraph about Rushton's relationship to the Pioneer Fund. But information about the Pioneer fund is taking up a big part of the lead. And some of the information in the lead, like about the Pioneer Fund having been criticized since the 1930s, is not summarizing any part of the article at all. Its also not clear how this relates to Rushton, since in the 1930s he was not even born yet. This stuff belongs in the Pioneer Fund article, not here.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Volunteer Marek, Miradre and I have all made our opinions clear. This section is for comments from uninvolved editors responding to the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothello (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Note to people commenting here: this dispute is not over this article should mention Rushton's relationship to the Pioneer Fund, or the criticisms made against the fund. I don't think anyone disagrees that it should. The dispute is over what's an appropriate way to describe this, and more specifically whether it can be cited to sources that criticize the fund but don't mention Rushton, or whether it should be limited to sources that are specifically criticizing Rushton in this context.Boothello (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor: I haven't edited this article and I'm not sure I've read it before either. My view, on examining the discussion above and recent history of the article, is that there shouldn't be any problems with mentioning criticism of the Pioneer Fund in the lead of this article. It's clearly relevant to Rushton's biography, since he runs it, and as long as it's well-sourced I don't see how it could violate WP:BLP. The precise phrasing of this sentence is a matter for debate, but it should reflect what the post-2002 sources say: if they say the Pioneer Fund is associated with racism and white supremacy, it's not POV to say so. Robofish (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As somebody quesioned my revert, the reasons were because the original edit removed sources which seemed by consensus to be needed there. Now, if consensud is that some of these sources can be donw without, I won't obect.---Ramdrake (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A full self-disclosure should have mentioned your long-term involvement in the general race and intelligence controversy as well as with Pioneer Fund article.Miradre (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it behooves you to lecture anyone on full disclosure untill you disclose which account you used to edit with.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I have never claimed that I was "uninvolved" regarding this article.Miradre (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Robofish -- there is no problem with the current wording. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1. On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton, by Zack Cernovsky, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25 (July 1, 1995), p. 672.
2. Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32, 43-50.
3. On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton, by Zack Cernovsky, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25 (July 1, 1995), p. 672.
4. Roediger, H. L. III., Rushton, J. P., Capaldi, E. D., & Paris, S. G. (1984). Psychology. Boston: Little, Brown.(1987, 2nd Edition)
5. Gottfredson, Linda (December 13, 1994). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". Wall Street Journal, p A18.
6. "Rushton Revisited", Andrew Duffy. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Oct 1, 2005. pg. A.1.
7. Cite error: The named reference splcenter.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. from Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)pg 190
9. from Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672) pg 190
10. Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672) pg 190

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment