Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 15 October 2012

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 Hans Eysenck, 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 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.

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I find it rather hilarious that people have associated racism to that chart rather than, I don't know, pregnant mother's intake of fish; indexed by culture? Or good dietary standards indexed by class(I know that you idiots will contradict me, but that was the social ladder of the time)

There IS science there, you just have to have a brain to see it, he merely stated there was a correlation, not that there was causation.

Poverty and the "meat" one must eat when they are truly destitute?

Soul Food?

Does that make the graph shape up to you?

Really it makes me sick that you people are willing to call him a Nazi just because you happen to be so racially sensitive that you end up looking like self-hating rascists.

Oh, wait, American, I see. 75.173.64.10 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at the pages of eugenics-supportive people, and this is yet another that seems quite POV. He disagreed with the nazis? It's a bit peculiar to state that without further explanation, as what he is famous for is that he actually agrees with the nazis in a couple of ways most people don't!

Really? Please provide a verbatim quotation and reference. Paul Magnussen 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Next line should be sufficient. -v

For some reason, the intro does not mention that he was a life-long member of the British Eugenics Society

I went through his autobiography recently, and he certainly was against the Nazis. He had a Jewish step-father. His father tried to get him to join the SS, but he refused - it turned out that his father's mother was Jewish, and his father was trying to protect him. And so on. Charles Matthews 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, he abandoned his university education, family, homeland and language rather than acquiesce to Hitlerism by joining the SS. He was happily married to a Jewess to the end of his life. In fact, his biographer (Gibson) writes that he was so repelled by pre-war German culture that he even wrote to his father English, though the latter barely understood it. Seems like a strange Nazi to me... Paul Magnussen 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Examining the text from top to bottom: "Brilliant" teacher?

That seems to be the consensus of his students (see e.g. Nyborg, The Scientific Study of General Intelligence). Have you a dissenting opinion? Paul Magnussen 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"He did not hesitate to publish material that many people have found ideologically, financially or politically inconvenient, or otherwise objectionable." Sounds like a line from a favourable eulogy to me.

It isn't: I wrote it. Paul Magnussen 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It paints him as the brave independent scholar, is that really so obvious? Quite a lot of people see him as a despicable racist, after all, so I should think that description depends on you Point Of View.

Encyclopædias are concerned with facts, not popularity contests. If you know of a statement of Eysenck's that qualifies him as a despicable racist, please quote it, and the source. Meanwhile, here is a statement of his that seems to bear on what you're saying:

A ‘racist’, to me, is one who views other races with hatred, distrust and dislike; one who wishes to subordinate them and keep them in an inferior position. An ‘egalitarian’, to me, is one who feels friendly to other races, likes their members and feels favourably inclined towards them, one who has no wish to appear in a superior position towards them, or dominate them in any way. These attitudes are not logically related to a demonstration that different racial groups are, or are not, innately equal with respect to psychological abilities, personality traits, temperamental characteristics, motivational indices, or what not; I am not a racist for believing it possible that negroes may have special innate gifts for certain athletic events, such as sprints, or for certain musical forms of expression; I am not a racist for taking seriously the empirical demonstration that Maoris are superior on tests of verbal fluency to whites. Nor am I a racist for seriously considering the possibility that the demonstrated inferiority of American negroes on tests of intelligence may, in part, be due to genetic causes; I would be a racialist if I did not consider very seriously, and without bias, all alternative hypotheses suggested to account for the observed facts, or if I deduced from the facts such conclusions as that segregation was justified.

(from Race, Intelligence and Education, p.11) Paul Magnussen 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Eugenicist qualifies as despicable by me, and the British Eugenics Society was undoubtedly racist. -v

“undoubtedly”?

‘I agree that the only reasonable thing is to be noncommittal on the race question — that’s not the central issue, and it would be a great mistake to be sidetracked into all the emotional upsets that go on in discussions of racial differences. We should be quite careful to dissociate eugenics from it — eugenics’ real concern should be with individual differences.’ (Raymond Cattell, Interview in ‘The Eugenics Bulletin’).

If you so choose, you’re free to believe that Hitler endorsed eugenics, therefore endorsing eugenics automatically makes someone a Nazi; just as you’re free to believe that Mussolini ate spaghetti, therefore eating spaghetti automatically makes someone a Fascist. But none of this has anything to do with a Misplaced Pages article on H.J. Eysenck, beyond the fairly uninteresting historical datum of what names he was called by people whose preferred mode of debate is name-calling. Paul Magnussen 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eysenck was not shy, in later work, of giving attention to parapsychology and astrology." Again, the brave frontiersman. Since when was "not shy" appropriate for an encyclopedia? Vintermann 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being a racist and being open to differences between races based on scientific evidence. Which was what Eysenck basically was criticised for. However, his views on this were notably changed by the end of his life, but his view that one should support anything that was found in a scientific matter never changed. Even if it was against the public opinion. This is the main theme of his autobiography. --218.215.9.135 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the piece about the sensation-seeking scale really belongs here. This was, surely, the work of Zuckerman rather than Eysenck. Indeed, along with Costa and McCrae, Zuckerman may be seen as a major rival to Eysenck. His "Alternative Five" model of personality is a different model to Eysenck's P-E-N model. Cardamom 195.93.21.1 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am relative newcomer to Wikipaedia, so was not quite sure how to put in sub-headings. I now see that this can be done putting in the appropriate number of equals signs, as explained elsewhere in Wikipaedia. I also see that placing tildes is an easy way to sign your contributions.195.93.21.1 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics Society

The British Eugenics Society awarded me with a grant for research I did on the Inheritance of Neuroticism. Neither Eysenck nor I were "racist" individuals. We were both in search of "truth". By the way, Hans Eysenck was by far the brightest individual I have ever know during the 84 years of my lifetime. Sirswindon (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

Sometimes individuals who are not racists promote views that are.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck assaulted?

From Race and intelligence, note #48, referencing Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). “Suppressing intelligence research: Hurting those we intend to help”, N. A. Cummings Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm. New York: Taylor and Francis. ISBN.

"Gottfredson 2005a summarizes the history of harassment and violence in this area: ... 'Eysenck, for example, physically assaulted by protesters during a public lecture at the London School of Economics.' " -- This sort of experience is hardly usual for scientists and is therefore worthy of note. Can anyone who knows something about this incident please add a line or two about it to the article? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an eye-witness account in Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson (2nd edition, Scott-Townsend (1997), ISBN 1-878465-23-6), pp.34–38. It's too long to summarise easily. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I have undone the insertion of the section on conversion therapy, pending further discussion, as unsubstantiated.

This section was based on the allegations one one gay gentleman; the fact that the allegations were made is substantiated by the references given, but their content is not. However, the allegations are (in that revision) presented as fact, despite the hostility manifested by the term "psycho-Nazi".

By contrast, I refer to pp.194–195 of Eysenck's Fact and Fiction in Psychology (Penguin, 1965)):

'I cannot pretend to be devoid of feelings of revulsion for homosexual practices, but equally I cannot feel that these feelings of mine should necessaraily form the basis for other people's conduct. As long as no public harm is done, it does not indeed seem right to punish people for deviations from the normal sexual patteern, which are either inherited and, therefore, outside their control, or initiated in public schools, in the army, or in prison, under conditions for which the homosexual himself can hardly be held responsible. Indeed, it would seem wrong for society to condemn the homosexual but to do nothing about the breeding grounds of homosexual practices.

Neither am I very much impressed by the argument about national decadence. From the reign of Queen Elizabeth I to the reign of Queen Victoria, the English were a byword on the Continent for their strong homosexual tendencies. At the same time, however, England was becoming the most powerful country in the world.'

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

I have reverted an edit to this section by WeijiBaikeBianji which contained the rationale: the article "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" makes no specific mention of the book The Bell Curve.

The Bell Curve is mentioned in the first sentence! (see reproduction given in its Misplaced Pages entry.)

Furthermore, in his book Intelligence: A New Look (ISBN 1-56000-360-X), P.213, Eysenck explicitly states: "The document was drafted to set the record straight after the media's onslaught on the Herrnstein and Murray Book "The Bell Curve" ". Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I added references for Eysenck's views of the book The Bell Curve.

Since 2006, this article included boilerplate text referring to all 52 of the signatories of the statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Several of the signers are living persons, and the boilerplate paragraph was not accurate in regard to all of them. I looked up Eysenck's personal views, adding references, and updated the paragraph. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over Eysenck's nationality

In view of the recent flurry of edits over Eysenck's nationality, I have asked his son Darren to clarify the matter. His reply (11 April 2011) in full:

"My dad was definitely British of German origin. He became naturalised in the thirties."

Since there were only a few months left in the thirties when war broke out, and since a German would presumably not be allowed to take British nationality during the war, this indicates that Hans Eysenck took British nationality before WWII. I hope this settles it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that this (obviously good faith) recollection does settle it. My own father fought in the British forces in WWII, but I would not necessarily assume that I knew details of his life in the 1930s, or of his army career during the war, though he often told us stories of Normandy. Contrary to the view that Eysenck was already naturalised, in his autobiography, he (Eysenck) writes:

Eysenck makes it clear that he was an "enemy alien" and a German in the early part of the war, at least. He explicitly states that he had not been in Britain long enough to qualify for naturalisation. (I think that at least five years of residence would have been required.) I'm not sure why you think this is a major issue, though, or even an issue at all. He was clearly an anti-Nazi (which is perhaps important in the light of later attacks on his character) and was apparently allowed to go free in London at an extremely sensitive time.

Eysenck also states that he was not British in 1940:

I can find no evidence for your suggestion that naturalisation was suspended during the war. My best guess is that Eysenck became a British subject during the 1940s or early 50s. In the end, though, what does it matter? His views on the subject of national identity are ones with which I can completely relate:

Time to tune into Wallander on BBC 4 (Swedish with English subtitles) by VPN from UTC-07 to Bournemouth. Boppet (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Possibly the naturalisation paperwork still exists somewhere — if anyone cares enough to find it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Later work: paranormal abilities

In the paragraph "Eysenck's later work" the sentences

"Despite this strongly scientific interest, Eysenck did not shy, in later work, from giving attention to parapsychology and astrology. Indeed, he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal abilities."

have the reference which leads to: "Eysenck, H.J. (1957), Sense and Nonsense in Psychology. London: Pelican Books. p. 131."

In my opinion, the corresponding part needs a new source or is to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.156.81 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So the only source for beliefs he supposedly expressed in his "later work" is one of his first books, published in 1957.

I have added a reference to Explaining the Unexplained. (1993). The preface says in so many words: "We consider that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that 'paranormal' human abilities are real". Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Material on Pioneer Fund added by Maunus

This material seems to me to be a) POV, containing phrases such as 'recipients of Pioneer Fund grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism', and b) irrelevant, since such comments belong (if anywhere) in the article on the Pioneer Fund and not Eysenck's biography.

• I have attempted to revert this edit, but my revert has been overridden.

• To avoid an edit war, I have therefore requested adjudication by an independent referee. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to request adjudication when your change is reverted, you just need to start discussing on the talkpage - you can see how it works in WP:BRD. Also I didn't add the material I readded it after you removed it without giving an explanation here first. It is a fair discussion whether his relation to the pioneer fund is relevant - perhaps it isn't that relevant in the big picture, that will have to be decided based on what reliable sources about him say. I reacted mostly to the way you rephrased and moved the issue so that it no longer made sense. In your phrasing there was no way to know why his relation to the pioneer fund was seen as controversial, because you just called it a fund that does hereditarian research. That is of course not the reason it is controversial - it is controversial because it does hereditarian research of a particular kind and has frequently been described as promoting scientific racism. It makes no sense to mention his controversial relation with the fund and then shy out of saying why it is considered conrtoversial. You also moved the mention of the fund from the section of race and intelligence to the section on tobacco research which makes sense since the fund didn't fund his research on tobacco but on race.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics

In Intelligence: A New Look, pp 189-194, Eysenck says that he was a member of the council of the Eugenics Society. He strongly defends eugenics and categorically asserts that it has nothing to do with Nazism. Can this be added to the article using that source? There are more references to Eysenck and eugenics, they seem to mainly be from his critics. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck and the extreme right

The following statements in this section were all unreferenced. Please provide references for all of these before restoring the section:

1) After his Publications about Psychoanalysis and Intelligence, Eysenck became a supporter of the extreme right.

2) Eysenck supported the Far-right Thule Society and published articles in the german newspaper National Zeitung and Nation und Europa.

3) In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's jewish background.

4) Additionally, he wrote the preface to the book "Das unvergängliche Erbe" by Pierre Krebs, a French author of the extreme right, which was also published by the Thule Society.

5a) Eysenck called the equality of humans an 'untenable ideological doctrine'.

Please provide references for all of these.

5b) Therefore he was criticised as 'racist'.

certainly few would deny that Eysenck was criticised thus, so that may pass.

As to

6) In his Book "Die Ungleichheit der Menschen" pulished in 1989, he argued that "amerikanische Neger" (american negros) are genetically less gifted than whites:

"Die Ungleichheit der Menschen" is merely a German translation of "The Inequality of Man" (Maurice Temple Smith, ISBN 0-8511-7050-1 (UK) or EdITS, ISBN 0-912736-16-X (US)), so a page reference to either of these will suffice.

Furthermore, the terms "extreme right" and "extreme left" have become so confused and emotionally loaded as to become effectively meaningless. The fact that person a views person b as right-wing has no place in an encyclopædia (except possibly to the extent that person a's views have). Some Americans view Bill Clinton as being of the extreme left — which would probably have amused Karl Marx considerably if he'd had a sense of humour.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Futhermore:

This posting is to invite to continue the discussion, with those who added to Eysenck’s biography, the suggestion that he was part of the extreme far right. I shall add to this discussion by stating that Hans Eysenck was never part of any so called “extreme far right.” Nor was he a part of any other “extreme” other than having an extremely high IQ. As a scientist he deplored Freud’s lack of scientific method. I have not seen the quotations from the National Zeitung etc, so would Mauris please provide the exact reference, or a copy of the full quotations. If Eysenck supported the Thule Society, please give the evidence that he did so. If he wrote that “the equality of humans was an untenable ideological doctrine” did he not mean that “equality of DNA” is vastly different from “equality of opportunity?” I know of no one who believes that all humans are biologically equal. I was a student and colleague of Eysenck, and knowing him, I can attest he was never a ‘racist.’ He wrote that the difference between black and white Americans was based on a very small significant difference in IQ scores. His writings were based on two over lapping Gaussian curves with a small difference in the means. At that time, IQ was considered to be genetically determined, therefore the small difference in the overlapping curves provided evidence for the difference between the two groups. His critics have tried to make the public believe he was writing that all black Americans have lower IQs than every white American, which he knew was absurd. Please will those holding a different view, present their facts. Sirswindon (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to argue this. I reverted the removals because they were made based on spurious claims of their being unsourced. I don't care about the inclusion either way. There is a rather larger body of literature describing Eysenck's view on the relation between race and intelligence, and the ways in which it can be seen to be a kind of scientific racism. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. I haven't reviewed the sources presented by User:Widescreen, so I don't know if they support the claim that he had far right ties or sympathies. His writings have certainly been frequently used by the American far right in support of claims about IQ being innate and unequally distributed between putative biological races. I am taking the article off my watchlist do with it what you want.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

All this is stale news, and has been hashed out countless times before — including in this Talk page. That there are differences between races is not in dispute. If this is racism, then so is the statement that Swedes on average are taller than pygmies. Nor is it in dispute that Prof. Eysenck thought that there might be a genetic component to performance differences (see his own statement above). Neither is he responsible for the antics of the American far right. All the rest is POV or just name-calling, and as such has no place in an encyclopædia. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Apparently User:Widescreen based his claims largely on this analysis of racist discourse in Gergmany which notes that Eysenck contributed to two German far right publications. The source says: "Eher in Form einer knappen Skizze möchte ich auf die Affinitäten der Texte von Singer, Jensen und Eysenck zum Rechtsextremismus verweisen. Singers Text operiert mit zentralen Argumenten von Arthur Jensen und Hans-Jürgen Eysenck. Diese aber fungieren als die Kronzeugen der “rassistischen Internationale”, wie Michael Billig eindrucksvoll nachweist. Sie widersprechen den rassistischen Argumenten der rechtsextremen Presse nicht etwa, sondern lassen sich z.B. in “Nation Europa”, einem in der Bundesrepublik erscheinenden rechtsextremen Zentralorgan, seit Jahren regelmäßig zitieren, um nicht zu sagen: feiern. Darüberhinaus geben sie solchen Organen Interviews, schreiben darin etc. Eysenck stellt sich zudem rückhaltlos hinter rechtsextreme Theorie-Zirkel wie z.B. das Kasseler Thule-Seminar. Zu dem von dessen Leiter herausgegebenen Buch mit dem Titel “Das unvergängliche Erbe” verfaßte er das Vorwort, in dem er gegen die Gleichheit der Menschen wettert, indem er sie als “unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin” abtut. (in Krebs 1981, S. 12) Im gleichen Buch findet sich ein offen rassistischer Artikel von einem Jörg Rieck “Zur Debatte der Vererblichkeit der Intelligenz”, der sich in vielen Zitaten und in mehr als 50 Anmerkungen auf Arbeiten von Jensen und Eysenck stützt. Rieck plädiert hier u.a. mehr oder minder verdeckt für die genetische Verbesserung des Volkes durch Auslese. Der Name Jörg Rieck steht wahrscheinlich als Pseudonym für den Neo-Faschisten Jürgen Rieger, dessen Kernthese lautet: “Die Geschichte ist eine Geschichte von Rassenkämpfen.” (Billig 1981, S. 118) Neuestes Beispiel für die immer noch anhaltenden rechtsextremen Aktivitäten von Eysenck: In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird. Stolz verkündet die in letzter Zeit immer offener antisemitisch auftretende Deutsche Nationalzeitung, die von dem bekannten Alt-Rechten und Führer der Deutschen Volksunion Dr. Gerhard Frey herausgegeben wird, daß Hans-Jürgen Eysenck “seit längerer Zeit zum Mitarbeiterstab der Deutschen Nationalzeitung und des Deutschen Anzeigers gehört.”"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just more of the same: no verbatim quotes from Prof. Eysenck in any of this. My German is rusty, but I'll translate this later if no one else does. Right now I don't have the time. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just did translate it, and it is the same old attack on Professor Arthur Jenson and Hans Eysenck, calling them racist and fully behind right-wing extremist theory. The Misplaced Pages article already contains: “Some of Eysenck's later work was funded from the Pioneer Fund, an organization often criticized for allegedly promoting scientific racism.” There is no objection to adding a line citing these other attacks, which did occur; however there is no factual evidence that Eysenck was a so-called right-wing extremist. Sirswindon (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the link to extreme right

It's a question of this chapter, being deleted by other users, arguing there are no sources for this supplements.

There are a lot and high-qualitive Sources which show the link between Eysenck and the extreme right. I found much more, but I selected the follwoing, because it's able to use them online.

• de:Pierre Krebs (Hrsg.): Das unvergängliche Erbe. Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit. Tübingen 1981, Eysenck wrote a preface for this book of an famous french Member of the Thule Society a representative of intellectual extreme right.
• Eysenck wrote also an hole chapter for krebs book "Mut zur identität". This informations can't be denied. Also the article in the neo-nazi-press is easy to check.

Further some indipendent scientiffic autors also found this connection to the extreme right. All these sources got an high quality and were found in Google Scholar wrote by experts on extrem right politics.

• Michael Billig, Andrew S. Winston (Hrsg.): Psychology, Racism & Fascism. scholar. online
• H. J. Eysenck: Die Ungleichheit der Menschen. Orion-Heimreiter-Verlag, Kiel 1984, S. 245.
• Schwindel mit Zwillingen. In: Der Spiegel. Oktober 1978 online.
• Jens Mecklenburg: Was tun gegen rechts. Espresso-Verlag, Berlin 2002, S. 456 f. scholar
• Hans-Jürgen Eysenck: Freud – Retter oder Scharlatan? In: National-Zeitung Nr. 18 vom 27. April 1990, S. 7.
• de:Siegfried Jäger: Der Singer-Diskurs sowie einige Bemerkungen zu seiner Funktion für die Stärkung rassistischer und rechtsextremer Diskurse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Siegfried Jäger, Jobst Paul (Hrsg.): Von Menschen und Schweinen. Der Singer-Diskurs und seine Funktion für den Neo-Rassismus. Diss-Texte Nr. 13, Duisburg 1991, S. 7-30 scholar.
• Leonie Knebel, Pit Marquardt: Der Versuch die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen. In: de:Michael Haller, Martin Niggeschmidt (Hrsg.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012. scholar online
• Roger Griffin: The Nature of Fascism. St. Martins Press, New York 1991, online scholar
• Peter Kratz: Die Götter des New Age: Im Schnittpunkt von „Neuem Denken“, Faschismus und Romantik. Elefanten Press Verlag, Berlin 1994, online
• Tomislav Sunic: Against Democracy and Equality - The European New Right. 3. Auflage. Arktos Media, 2011, S. 141 ff. online

So the Sources are absolutley high-qualive works of scientiffic researches. There's no reason to deny Eysencks commitment on extreme right politics. --WSC 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen anything but name-calling. Prof. Eysenck was a famous scientist, and that is his claim to an encylopædia entry. If you have evidence that he fudged scientific experiments or data because of his (alleged) political beliefs, then please present it; otherwise his politics are as irrelevant as what he had for breakfast. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul Magnussen, you didn't unterstand the information correctly. The autors of the sources abouve, confirm that Eysenck was connected to the (continental) european extreme right. Some call it the "new right" or the "extreme right intelligence". Especially to the Thule society but also to far right newspaper. He supported these groups and wrote some artikles and book-chapters for their racist publications. You can find the confirmation for that also in the German National Library record of Krebs book Eysenck wrote a preface, for example. So nobody can't deny these facts. But these faces aren't part of our article. So its necessary to add it. So I wrote a chapter, which was delated because of the lack of sources. That was not correct. So I demonstrate the sources again. Some of them in english some in german.

It's neccessary to add the chapter about the far right activitys of Eysenck or the article is not balanced. --WSC 07:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand the rules of Misplaced Pages; in particular, those relating to POV and relevance.

'Right' (in this sense) is a POV term, now reduced to little more than a term of abuse: in various usages, it may mean:

1) Favouring the interests of the capitalist class over those of the working class.

2) Favouring the interests of one's own race over those of other races.

3) Favouring the status quo over radical change.

But these various attitudes need not cluster together, and often do not. Were the dockers who marched in support of Enoch Powell right-wing (2) or left-wing (1)? Was the 1989 convulsion in the communist countries right-wing (1) or left-wing (3)?

Note also that 2) is logically independent of the objective demonstration that various races have on average, or have not, particular characteristics.

Add to this what I said above and now repeat: that Prof. Eysenck was a scientist, not a politician, and his politics are therefore irrelevant, unless you can show that they interfered with his science.

I haven't noticed you leaping up and down about Leon Kamin or Stephen Jay Gould, whose politics apparently did dictate their science… Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul Magnussen, I'm lucky to have your opinion on the chapter. But it seem so, there are some missunderstandings.

1. It wasn't anyones fiction to talk about the term "right" it was taken from the reliabel sources. That means, the authors of the sources talk about the "extreme right". We can't change this term. The authors also talk about "scientiffic racism". If you rather want this term as heading, we can talk about that. The wp article Extreme_right seems to be clear. But it's possible to take a term was not translated from german to english. I found some really good sources in english. Roger Griffin, for example, wrote in his book, "The Nature of Fascism" in the chapter "Non-European and Post-War Facism" about eysencks link to Krebs. If you prefer the term Post-War Facism, we can also talk about that. But we have to take a term was found in the source. We can't invent a term for the heading.
2. You claimed, that the politic activitys of the scientist Eysenck are irrelevant. Sorry, but I never heard such a assertion. Especially because Eysenck wrote about his scientiffic findings in nazi-newspapers like Nation Europa or National-Zeitung. Or gives a hole chapter to neo-nazi Pierre Krebs book "Mut zur Identität" about the difference of intelligence between races. So you can see, the far right activitys of Eysenck are closely linked to his scientiffic researches. Thats why you can't conceal this interesting points.

Futher, I'm not interested in Leon Kamin or Stephen Jay Gould. This is the talk page of Eysenck. --WSC 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that your characterisation of these publications is correct and that Prof. Eysenck did actually write for them (as opposed to allowing publication of previously-written material), have you considered the possibility that he would write for anyone who paid his fee? Apparently not.

I see no factual evidence in any of the above about what his politics actually were; just guilt by association. Neither do I see any 'links' to his scientific researches, causal or otherwise.

We're obviously talking past each other. If you persist with this, I shall ask for it to independently adjudicated. OK? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter! He wrote long prose in these nazi-publications about "negros" and the "jew" Sigmund Freud. If he was corrupt and did it for the money is another point. But that was not apparent form the sources.

Futher you don't have to see any "links" (excuse my bad english) to his scentiffic work. The authors of the sources have to do this. And they have. So this objection is conjecture. --WSC 17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good! Exactly what did he write about "negros" and the "jew" Sigmund Freud? In German is fine, but give the source, please. However, you might note in passing that Eysenck a) was part Jewish himself and b) was happily married to a Jewess. Rather a strange anti-Semite, one might think. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If I read the sources correctly his first wife was jewish. You can find the sources at the german WP-article. In german you can find a really detailed description of his far-right activities in one publication of the de:Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung: here another good description can be found at Leonie Knebel, Pit Marquardt: Der Versuch die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen. In: Michael Haller, Martin Niggeschmidt (Hrsg.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012. online at google-books. He wrote about "negros" ("neger") in his book: Die Ungleichheit der Menschen. (The unequality of Mankind) Ullstein, Berlin 1989. I don't know if it's published in english? In the nazi-newspaper "National-Zeitung" he wrote an article about Sigmund Freud. But these facts are all verifiable at the scientiffic sources I gave. wp:or is not allowed. --WSC 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

His second wife/widow, Sybil, is Jewish; I have no information as to his first wife, Margaret.

I gather you want the equivalent of the relevant German Misplaced Pages section, in English. I find that no more substantial than your previous posts; it's all innuendo and guilt by association. The only allegation of fact is that he referred to negros as "unbegabter", which translates in to English as "ungifted" or "untalented". The source is allegedly the German translation of The Inequality of Man (yes, it is published in English). I can find no such statement; it is so evidently false that it would amaze me if I could.

I have asked for a third-party opinion Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Paul Magnussen, now I habe to tell you, that Misplaced Pages is based on sources. I have given these sources. So there is no reason to doubt that. All informations can be found in this excellent sources I gave. --WSC 19:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have access to the sources, why don't you give the page numbers and verbatim quotations? At the moment it's just what someone else said he said.

I have to say that it seems to me not beyond the bounds of possibility that this is an attempt to discredit his scientific work by ascribing to him political views that he did not, in fact, possess.

Incidentally the Index of The Inequality of Man has no entry for Negro(s), Black(s), African American(s) or Race. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The most sources are online. Why don't you take a look by yourself if you don't trust my words? But I have to correct myself: Eysenck just write the preface of Krebs book " Das unvergängliche Erbe." Not this chapter. That was a mistake. At google-books there is a tool to search the book. So type in "Eysenck" and you will find the textpassage. But you are right! I add the pagenubers.

The Textpassage was found in the book Leonie Knebel, Pit Marquardt: Der Versuch die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen. In: de:Michael Haller, Martin Niggeschmidt (Hrsg.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012. scholar online. I try to translate it for you: Eysenck wrote about his fiend Jensen: "He also saw no way for the reasoning only invironmantal impact is the reason for the underpreforming of Negros in Intelligence-tests. It was sourced with the number 72 Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung by Hans J. Eysenck. I'm sorry about that it wasn't the unequality of man it was "Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung" I correct that soon. --WSC 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're going to correct it in the German version of Misplaced Pages too.

Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung is the German translation of Race, Intelligence and Education (The IQ Argument in the US). I can't immediately find that quotation in the original English, but you are substantially correct: Jensen and Eysenck were friends; and neither thought that the observed IQ differential was adequately explained by the environmental hypotheses so far advanced. This is stale news. And it's not a political view, it's a scientific one.

What would you say are the characteristics of the Extreme Right? Beating up the opposition, refusing to allow them to speak, threatening their children?

These were the tactics of Prof. Eysenck's opponents, not of Eysenck. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it's just the translation of the german term, the authors of the source used. I found the word "negro" Wihtout any problems repeatedly --WSC 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I am here to offer a third opinion. First off, the Thule Society dissolved between 1920 and 1925, so it's absurd to assert that a 8 year old Eysenck somehow supported it. Perhaps "Thule-Seminar" was intended? The other verifiable facts, the authorship of the preface of the Thule Seminar book and his views on american black intelligence heritablity cannot be combined to draw the conclusion that he shared a far-right ideology. This is improper synthesis. Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. His scientific views are not in dispute. All that's been produced on his political views is name-calling and unsupported inference. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is referring to the Thule Seminar. As far as the far right, there's no synthesis being performed. The fact he wrote a preface for TS and his views on African American intelligence only SUPPORT and ILLUSTRATE an otherwise established (by sources) fact that Eysenck had far right views .

Never trust a wikipedia-article. The Thule Society means the same as Thule-Seminar. --WSC 17:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's improper to combine multiple sources to "support and illustrate" an assertion (especially a controversial one) that none of the sources themselves made. This is the very definition of improper synthesis. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

But the sources do! So I don't understand the point? --WSC 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As WSC says, it's simply NOT the case that "none of the sources" make the assertion that Eysenck was associated with the far right. He was. Sources say so. There is a link to one right above your last comment. Click it please. "Support and illustrate" very obviously refers to ADDITIONAL evidence for an assertion.VolunteerMarek 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, a third opinion is inappropriate in this instance (never mind that it's not binding). 3O is applicable in a dispute between two people, not several editors.VolunteerMarek 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't enforce that requirement strictly, and this dispute, at least the recent section above, appeared to be primarily between two editors. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

True enough. Neither do we consider third opinions binding, particularly if the provider has not paid attention to the discussion and links provided so far.VolunteerMarek 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right that my opinion is non-binding. But I resent the implication that I did not study the situation fully. I have looked at all the links and I believe that assembling them together to form a conclusion about the political affiliation of Eysenck would be improper synthesis. Controversial claims require the strongest sources. Cobbling together a bunch of "evidence" for a conclusion is exactly what our synthesis and original research policies are designed to prevent. The strongest source is Liang, and that's merely an offhand epithet, not a critical discussion of the political views of Eysenck. While my opinion may be non-binding, our policies on synthesis are non-negotiable, and I strongly feel that what is being attempted here is improper synthesis. I like where Itsmejudith is going with this below. Source the facts that you can source, and leave it at that. Gigs (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO A CONCLUSION. Widescreen and others: I have no problem with Eysenck being “accused” of supporting the extreme right. But to attempt to offer what has been put forth here as “proof” is ludicrous. I personally knew the man for almost 50 years; yes he was very controversial, but he was never racist or part of the extreme far right. He fled Germany to escape from the far right. His had a Jewish wife --- need more be said? As to the use of the words “American Negros” --- the use of Negro by a European writer was not considered racist. If you read his work, he wrote about what was at that time a very, very small (but statistically significant) difference in IQ’s between the means of two populations. Would someone please present some real evidence of Eysenck being racist. Last, this is not opinion from several editors. This is about facts and the use of loaded words and innuendos to denigrate a remarkable individual.Sirswindon (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a conclusion, we need to go back to reliable sources as I listed above. --WSC 04:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, we can source the fact that he wrote the preface to Pierre Krebs' Das Unverganglich Erbe. That should be in his list of works, which should be divided into authored books, edited books, journal articles and other. The preface is mentioned in a few academic texts on the far right, but mainly in passing. I'm not sure if there'll be enough to write up any comments about the linkage with Krebs. @Widescreen, there's such a thing as RS but there's also such a thing as synthesis, let's work together in a way that respects all the WP pillars. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we can source much more. He also wrote in extreme right newspapers like National-Zeitung an Nation und Europa. The National-Zeitung calls him part of the staff. And there are some more points to depicted. Some sources call Eysencks point of view racialistic. Futher he was part of the science council of the cultural magazin Mankind Quarterly, which support racial segregation. He also published a Interview in a british extreme right newspaper. The synthesis have to contain all of these facts if you want to have an balanced article. --WSC 00:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, it never even occurred to me that anything was being inferred from the fact that Eysenck used the word "Negros". This was the standard term in the UK, until the euphemism treadmill caught up with it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Negro" is itself a euphemism for "Black". I agree, though, that its use is not worth remarking on, and when we're dealing with a translation into German, there is even less that can be inferred about terms used. I thought the point was that Eysenck had stated that black people were less intelligent, which was and is controversial, to say the least. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Black people have historically, on average, scored lower than other groups on IQ tests, that much is undisputed fact. Nor is it disputed that blacks have historically, on average, been disadvantaged, environmentally and otherwise. What is disputed is whether these disadvantages account for the observed disparity in IQ scores.

Jensen and Eysenck both considered that the environmental explanations so far advanced did not adequately account for the data, stating their reasons in their books. This resulted in the furore that you're aware of. Neither ruled out possible future environmental explanations, nor considered that the genetic explanation was proven.

(One of Eysenck's favourite examples was that of George Washington Carver, who was refused an education because of his colour and had pretty much every environmental disadvantage the sociologists cite, but who nevertheless turned out to be one of the greatest geniuses the USA has known.)

See Prof. Eysenck's own statement, quoted above on this page on 26 January 2006. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about your imagination of Eysencks nobleness. --WSC 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement you just made, speaks volumes as to your agenda. No, Hans was never "noble; he had faults, but he was never a right-wing extremest, or a racist. As for me --- I knew Hans Eysenck --- now I would like to know more about you and your agenda. Note, I have put the IQ debate stuff where it belonged. Sirswindon (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@WSC: Nothing to do with my imagination. All documented; that's the point. Paul Magnussen (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To refocus. WSC, I am trying to look through your sources but finding them hard to access. Could you please pull out three you think we should consider, with full bibliographical details? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the online accessible above. These are most scientiffic overviews about far right movement and their thinking. --WSC 08:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

All the sources so far adduced show is innuendo. For instance, WSC apparently deduces, from the fact Eysenck contributed to Mankind Quarterly, that he supported segregation (see above).

To show exactly how valuable this kind of inference is, I quote verbatim from the introduction to Eysenck's The IQ Argument (the American edition of Race, Intelligence and Education , page ii). Italics in the original:

"There are two points I wish to make here, although I have made them again in more detail in the body of the book. They are so important that repetition may serve to underline their relevance to the discussion. The first point is that whatever conclusion we come to with respect to the Negro's low IQ, as compared with the white American's, this conclusion does not, and cannot, justify any argument in favor of segregation. Segregation on racial grounds is morally wrong and ethically unacceptable. "

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't confund my opinion and the source! That would be a beginning of a real discussion. --WSC 18:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You were the one that dragged in Mankind Quarterly, presumably in the belief that it proved something. You have yet to produce any statement of Prof. Eysenck's that shows his views were what you suggest. I have just produced one that shows they were not. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The same flaw all the time! It't wasn't me that draged in Mankind Quarterly. I found it in a source. Please stopp address reproches to me. --WSC 10:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

An on-line search shows that Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung bears the inscription "Aus dem Englischen von O. Fetkenheuer und Uwe Rheingans". I have therefore deleted the sentence about this, since the English contains no such statement as that asserted. If someone can present a verbatim quotation from the German, then fine; although all it would show would be that Herren Fetkenheuer and Rheingans didn't do their job properly. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I also found this coherence in a source. So it's not on you to criticise the sources. Therefor I put the sentence back into. Remember it was not found in Eysencks book. This context was found in a source writes about Eysencks book. So you can't establish WP:OR. --WSC 10:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Magnussen, I do appreciate the time you are taking to debunk this attempt to link Eysenck to the so-called extreme right. It is unfortunate that so few individuals are able to understand the very small (yet significant) difference between the two groups in Eysenck's IQ study. What is Widescreen's agenda (motive) with regard to Eysenck? Those of us that had a close relationship with Hans knew he was never a racist nor a follower of the far right. After reading some of the references given by Widescreen, they turn out to be the same-old rehashing of non-scientific junk. If Widescreen persists in continuing to re-post this stuff, we may need to find a senior Misplaced Pages editor to make a decision as to what is to be included in this article. Sirswindon (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

--WSC 10:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Widescreen, “Weasel words” are exactly what is written in your references. If they had offered factual evidence that Eysenck had used faulty methods or statistics, etc., you might include that in the article. But no, all they did was repeat the same old accusations without citing any evidence to back up their statements. I agree with your recent addition to this Talk section; that is why your edits do not belong in the article. Sirswindon (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I glad to see you've shot your bolt. Now you beginn to criticise reliable sources. This is called POV here. That means the violation of the five pillars of wikipedia. If you continue your behavior, you will be blocked. It's not on you to ciriticese reliable sources like that. --WSC 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The only reliable information in your sources is as to what names Eysenck was called. Second-hand assertions as to what he said are of no relevance when the first-hand sources — his books and articles — are available. I have quoted two of them in refutation. Despite repeated requests you have failed to produce any actual quotations from Prof. Eysenck in support in your thesis. I suggest that this is because you cannot, as he never wrote any such things. Prove me wrong. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Magnussen. Please request a Third Party Opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:3O --- Widescreen may not understand that when someone writes something in a journal or other publication, it does not become a valid fact. I am age 88, and have spent my life defending truth and fighting "hearsay" opinions: "Scholarship demands thorough research; examining many conflicting sources then weighing the evidence and explaining how and why it was weighed as it was; also objectivity in assessing the validity of the material and attempting to present an unbiased credible summary with detailed citations." What Widescreen has posted does not meet the standard of scholarship. Sirswindon (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Magnussen: Are you kidding? These publications are high quality works in politic science and one in psychology. The works are all being cited by other scientiffic authors. And all authors write the same: Eysenck was well connected to far right politic circles. Both, british and american authors and also the german authors write aboute the tys between Eysencks theories and the far right ideology. And also Eysencks commitment and support of these far right groups. Your rabulistic argumentation is not suitable to deny these facts. Your quibble Critics borders on the ridiculous. It seems to me, you won't accept the far right activities of eysenck. A scientist who believes till his death in the late 1990ies that there are different races in mankind. A fact was beeing obsolet since the early 1980ies.

I've listed 10 excellent sources who all wrote the same with different focusses. But if you were interested in this case, you would find much more. I selected, especially for you, online available sources, so you have the chance to check them by yourself. Some are germanlanguaged what you don't understand. But also the english sources are not seems to be persuasive to you.

I think thats a deliberately violation of WP:NPOV. --WSC 14:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources you have found probably are reliable. I would like to check them all out, but you really do have to give full bibliographic details. That Eysenck wrote a preface to Krebs' book is well sourced (German national library catalogue page ). But this catalogue entry says that the book was translated from French. We should find out whether there was an original French publication, and whether it carried the preface by Eysenck. Then we have to work through all the other references with due care. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Billig text is here. It is described as "a pamphlet"; since it is by a psychologist and has been placed on line by a professor, we need to discuss whether it is a reliable source or not. Many of the claims it makes about Eysenck can be checked out, e.g. did he publish in Mankind Quarterly, how frequently. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Another fault. The book of billig is published printed: and well cited by other scientiffic authors. What you found is a chapter, available online. --WSC 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not available online, which is not a problem in itself, but do you have access to a copy? Do you have page numbers? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have found it in academic library catalogues in the UK, and it is actually a pamphlet, 40 pages. Michael Billig went on to publish a number of social psychology books and seems to be a mainstream academic. This text, although a pamphlet, is cited by scholars, and I would see it as a reliable source, although further opinions can be sought at the reliable sources noticeboard. We would need to have page numbers if it is to be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did publish in it, and I see that one of the co-founders was Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Years ago the journal of the Eugenics Society was highly regarded, however many of its articles did not meet the test of Scholarship. As this Talk continues, WSC, please let us have your frame of reference. My frame of reference (my background) has been in Science, in particulars Statistics and Experimental Design. Please let us know about yourself, as that may assist in understanding your support for the material in your edits. The items you have referenced may have appeared in a number of respected journals and other publications but they do not appear to meet the test of Scholarship --- "Scholarship demands thorough research; examining many conflicting sources then weighing the evidence and explaining how and why it was weighed as it was; also objectivity in assessing the validity of the material and attempting to present an unbiased credible summary with detailed citations."

May I suggest that all parties to this discussion read the Misplaced Pages article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Arthur_Jensen It is well known that Eysenck's work followed that of Jenson. The Jenson article is an objective, well written presentation of Jenon’s work. If only WSC could find a way of presenting Eysenck’s work, instead of just placing labels such as “Racist” and "Extreme Far Right." Everyone, please follow what Itsmejudith has suggested, and then find a way of presenting the material objectively as in the Jenson article. Until then, nothing should be included in the actual Eysenck Article. Sirswindon (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

User:sirswindon, is still willing to deny reliable sources. This behaviour is called POV-pushing here. POV-pushing is not allowed. POV-pushers will be blocked. --WSC 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey ho, here we go again.

a) No one disputes that Prof. Eysenck was accused of being right-wing; his critics were obliging enough to scrawl "FASCIST EYSENCK HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEAK!" on the wall of Birmingham University, in case anyone should miss the point. That much is certainly fact; and the fact belongs, if anywhere, in the Criticism section, where it already resides.

b) @WSC, you have still produced no facts, except the fact of the accusations — which I don't doubt is well documented.

c) You observe that Prof. Eysenck believed "that there are different races in mankind". In this you are correct: there is an entire chapter in Race, Intelligence and Education entitled What is race?, in which he adduces the findings of serological genetics, and quotes I.I. Gottesman's definition from Social Class, Race and Psychological Development. You are certainly entitled to believe that this makes him right-wing, just as you are entitled to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden. But this belief has no place in an encyclopædia.

d) My German is indeed rusty. But I did four years of it at school, and lived in Germany in 1973. So it's still quite adequate to see that the "sources" you adduce are just more name-calling and unjustified extrapolation.

e) "POV-pushers will be blocked". You relieve me: calling anyone "right-wing" is POV ipso facto.

I certainly have no objection to any factual statement being included, including that of what criticisms were made, if these are considered more than the usual unbalanced rantings; and provided they're confined to the Criticism section. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Criticism sections aren't the way to go with articles on controversial topics. It is much better to deal with both (all) sides of arguments under topic headings throughout. A chronological structure may be the most appropriate for a biography. The way the Jensen article had Criticism and then Responses to criticism gives Jensen the last word, which is not necessarily appropriate. Also note that Jensen is still alive, so our BLP rules apply - they don't with Eysenck, although the requirement to treat the subject neutrally is always there. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Fine. My only concern is that unsubstantiated accusation not be presented as fact. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You both were wrong. In fact you deny and delate information taken from reliable sources by using rablulistic and quibble allegations against the sources I've present. During I argued by using high-qualaty and scientiffic sources you both used only far-fetched allegations. And show the deliberately missunderstandig of the content or the quality of the sources. Thats not persuasive. 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widescreen (talk • contribs)

I have decided to enter this talk page discussion. Many highly regarded journals contain articles that do not meet the test of scholarship. It appears that even if Eysenck’s work on the difference between two races were seriously flawed, that fact would have nothing to do with his political views or whether or not he was a racist. Shouldn’t it be required for one of you to present evidence from one of Eysenck’s own writings to establish he was a racist or that he was from the extreme Far-right. That a writer in a respected journal calls someone a racist, is not evidence of racism. The Eysenck article states: “After his Publications about Psychoanalysis and Intelligence, Eysenck became a supporter of the extreme right. Eysenck supported the Far-right Thule Society and published articles in the german newspaper National Zeitung, which called him contributor, and Nation und Europa." The key word here is “supported” therefore where in any of the references is evidence that Eysenck supported the extreme right or Far-right. Eysenck did not publish articles, the newspaper published them. Contributing an article is not evidence of support for something. Reproaching Freud and referencing his Jewish background may have been in poor taste but it is not evidence of Eysenck being connected to the Far-right. Writing the preface to a book by an author accused of being in the Far-right is not evidence that the preface writer should also be accused of being of the Far-right. What I find especially reprehensible, is all this name-calling in this section of the Article. So far, no one has presented an objective/measurable definition of the so-called “Far-right” followed by evidence that Eysenck was a member of such group. Until that is accomplished there is no logical reason for including this subject in the Eysenck Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InigmaMan (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, one contribution user! What makes you believe I dosn't found the word "supported" in the sources? To be exact in Jäger: Der Singer-Diskurs sowie einige Bemerkungen zu seiner Funktion für die Stärkung rassistischer und rechtsextremer Diskurse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Siegfried Jäger, Jobst Paul (Hrsg.): Von Menschen und Schweinen. Der Singer-Diskurs und seine Funktion für den Neo-Rassismus. Diss-Texte Nr. 13, Duisburg 1991, S. 7-30.

I don't know. --WSC 07:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I have removed the unsupported statement about the German translation of Race, Intelligence and Education. That book purports to be a translation of the English version; and if it indeed contains the alleged statement, then it is not. An "it says that" assertion by Prof. Eysenck's detractors won't do. WSC, produce an in-context, verbatim quotation from it, with a page number, or go away. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Paul Magnussen, but it's not on you to ciriticize any valid, scientiffic source, just because you have an other opinon. We cannot deny sources why you are doubt it. This is rather the real meaning of Point of View and the reason we have to use sources. Ok, you try to deny Esencks connections to far right. Write an article in an peer-reviewed magazin. Than you have the right to deny something.

If your sources say that a book contains something that it does not, in fact, contain, then clearly they're not "valid and scientiffic".

If you have access to the book, then why can't you produce an in-context quotation and page number?

If you don't have access to the book, then you have no business contradicting other people about what it says. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WSC. I cannot find anything in what you just posted above as evidence that Eysenck actually was a racist or a supporter of the Far-right. Question: Have you read his Autobiography “Rebel with a Cause” (published in 1990)? Pages 215-228 explain his motivation in writing about race, IQ and equality in his books as well as articles in many publications. On page 228, he ends his chapter with: “It is odd, and indeed paradoxical, that my most determined opponents should have been people with whose aims I completely agreed.” Eysenck’s autobiography is the best evidence of his not being either a racist or a supporter of the Far-right. If you have not read his Autobiography, I can understand why you might wish to accept what you suggest are reliable references. But in this discussion, the most factual evidence is from Eysenck himself. For certain he was accused of all sorts of things, but he never became a supporter of the extreme right. Therefore what you have inserted into the Criticism section of the Article needs to be re-written. Where it is written: “Eysenck became a supporter” it should be written: “Eysenck was accused of becoming a supporter.” Where it is written: Eysenck supported the far-right Thule Seminar” it should be written: Eysenck was accused of supporting the …..” As to the reference to Freud’s background, it may have been in poor taste, but it is not evidence of Eysenck being a racist of part of the extreme right. This entry should be eliminated. Writing a preface to a book by someone accused of being of the Far-right is not evidence that preface-writer also should be accused of being of the Far-right. This entry also has no place in the biography of Eysenck. As to Eysenck calling the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ --- in his Autobiography Eysenck writes quite clearly that lack of equality has to do with biological differences, and not equality before the law, etc. Eysenck’s thesis is that none of us are biologically equal. The references provided are a repeat of the Jenson issue, and do not deal with Eysenck’s thesis. I do apologize for being so long winded, but since Eysenck is no longer with us, his Autobiography must be used in his defense. InigmaMan (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey two contribution user! Eysencks autobiography is not a scientiffic source it's literature. Of course it's possible to add what Eysenck thinks about his own activitys. But it's not the relevant part of the chapter. You forget that all the authors of the sources you criticized are more differentiated than Eysenck was.

But it's good to see, nobody deny the main facts of the text anymore, like at the beginning of this debatte. Of course it's possible to ballance the text out. I think I would be helpfull to mach the statment to his authors. But fist, it's necessary to add the part of the text about Eysencks statments about "negros". Because it's taken by an reliable source. --WSC 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point you should get advice at WP:RSN. Ask for help from a German speaker, because I think we are having real trouble in communicating. You need to give full bibliographical details of the sources and say which statements you want them to support. I'm a regular contributor at RSN but will abstain from commenting on the request, because this needs wider attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Please can you give me a hyperlink or a example for the "full bibliographic details". I just cited the books with german academic standards. I've never noticed the english standard are different.

Do you think my english is as lousy as you suggested? :o) --WSC 20:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A full reference for a book is the author, title and publisher, and very importantly, the page number. Edition if there is more than one. For an article, the author, article title, name of the journal, volume, issue, date. Your English is better than my German, but I don't edit de.wiki, and don't even edit fr.wiki although my French is nearly good enough. Editing an encyclopaedia does need good language skills, but proposing things on a talk page is easier. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(Widescreen, Itsmejudth, and Magnussen --- as a point of interest, have you read Eysenck’s Autobiography?) I am planning to edit the Article and I would appreciate comments before I make the changes. 1) Where it is written: “Eysenck became a supporter” it will be changed to: “Eysenck was accused of becoming a supporter” The change is being made, as this is an accusation NOT a fact. 2) Where it is written: “Eysenck supported the far-right Thule Seminar” it will be changed to: Eysenck was accused of supporting the far-right Thule Seminar” The change is being made, as this is an accusation NOT a fact. 3) Reproaching Freud my have been in poor taste but it is not evidence of racism or being part of the Far-right. This sentence will be eliminated as it is not relevant. 4. The sentence regarding Eysenck having written the preface to a book written by someone accused of being a far-right writer is not evidence that Eysenck himself was of the Far-right. It will be eliminated as it is not relevant. 5) That Eysenck called the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ is not evidence he was a racist. On pages 220-221 of his Autobiography, Eysenck makes it clear he is referring to physical and mental abilities. Therefore, unless references are able to prove that stating that all humans are not equal (biologically) is racist, that sentence will be eliminated. (Of course, if you want to write: Eysenck was accused of being racist because he wrote that the equality of humans is an ‘untenable ideological doctrine’, with a footnote that he was referring to biological equality --- so be it.) 6) Last, I plan to place a quote from Eysenck’s Autibiography at the conclusion of this Criticism section, as I believe it is relevant: In his Autobiography, Eysenck answered critics who called him a Racist or a Fascist with: “It is odd, and indeed paradoxical, that my most determined opponents should have been people with whose aims I completely agreed.” (The reference is: "Eysenck, Hans J. 1990, p. 228">Eysenck, Hans J., Rebel With A Cause (an Autobiography), London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1990, pp. 215-228 InigmaMan (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

See above.

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.

Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have indeed read Prof. Eysenck's autobiography, and also the biographies of Gibson and Buchanan, as well as a fair amount more generally on the present subject of contention. Paul Magnussen (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to Eysenck writing a chapter in Pierre Krebs' Mut zur identität. We would need a source for that. The book itself can be the source so long as we have a chapter listing, and I can't find one online anywhere. I searched in the German National Library, and the book definitely existed, but nothing about the chapters. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudth, I agree that it is imperative that facts and not only accusations are presented. That is why I have suggested the above edits to the article. Before I make changes to Section 3.1 of the Article, please comment on what I have written above. If you feel I am not being objective, let me know. I am still having a problem with undefined terms such as Far-right and Racist in this Article, without having measurable definitions. I know I am repeating myself, but why is it proof Eysenck was a racist if what he did was show poor taste in how he reproached Freud? Maybe his critics could call him “anti-Freud” but what has race got to do with this? Can someone please explain? InigmaMan (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are genuinely new to Misplaced Pages, welcome. Please closely read our policy on Neutral Point of View. We are neither here to expose people's views nor to cover them up. We should reflect the coverage in good sources. That is why I am trying to work out what sources are available, and what they say. We do not have to define terms ourselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have several of Prof. Eysenck's books, including Race, Intelligence and Education, The Inequality of Man, and his autobiography. Please let me know if you want anything looked up. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article by Billig (currently reference nº 34 in the main article) is on line:

http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/homepage.htm

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the policy of being neutral. In section 3.1 of the Article it is written: “After his publications about Psychoanalysis and Intelligence, Eysenck became a supporter of the extreme right.” The term “extreme right” is defined in the Far-right Article in Misplaced Pages. Using Misplaced Pages’s definition of the term, nowhere in any of the references is there evidence of Eysenck actually supporting the extreme right, or the Thule Society. Being neutral I have no objection to section 3.1 indicating Eysenck was accused of supporting the Far-right, etc. That is the neutral position. The non-neutral positions would be either eliminating the items entirely or leaving them as presently written. InigmaMan (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He wrote a preface for Krrebs book, that is certain. It seems he also published in Mankind Quarterly and in two German right-wing papers, and took money from the Pioneer Fund. We have at least two academics writing about this: Billig and Griffin; they should be our principal sources alongside the biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That he took money from the Pioneer Fund is, I believe, not disputed. He said something about taking money wherever he could get it, since, since nobody else would fund the research. I will try to find the exact quote. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand the german sources doesn't mean we cannot use them. I would be glad if you accept the academic standards. Futher, a autorbiographie ain't a scientiffic release. It's literature. It's really unpleasant to repeat the rules again and again. --WSC 07:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? No-one is saying we can't use German sources. I agree that an autobiography is a primary source. In your list of supposedly good sources you included one of Eysenck's books, translated into German. That is a primary source. Would you like to address the question of the chapter in Mut zur Identitat? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It don't matter whos ment. My arguments applies to all. You still haven't understand, that I just cited the book of Eysenck because it's good style to do that. The things Eysenck sayed in the book and the conclusion, wat that means, is taken from the secondary source! And these source cited the german translation of Eysencks little book. So of course you have to cite the german version, because the german version was cited in the secondary source. Please don't try to deny the findings of the sources any longer.

FYI: RSN-case. --WSC 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

But WSC, you haven't cited the book of Eysenck, despite repeated requests to do so: all you've cited are second-hand assertions about it.

The technique of saying that your opponent asserts something that he doesn't actually assert, and then attacking that assertion, is called a Straw Man argument; and I suggest that that's what we have here.

And if a secondary source says that a primary source asserts something that it does not, in fact, assert, then ipso facto it's not reliable. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And as for Eysenck's attitude to Jews, as supposedly evinced by remarks about Freud, I quote the following from his autobiography (2nd edition, p.35):

"Certainly at school and later on in life most of my friends were Jewish, as is my second wife. So were many of my colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry. When it is remembered that only about one person in a hundred in England is Jewish, it is obvious that the Jews have an attractive quality for me, possibly related to their high intelligence, their wit, their culture and their love of education, which distinguishes them as a group. All this is quite independent of the horror of the Holocaust which should always be in the memory of anyone who feels like criticizing Jewish national aspirations. I am nether proud nor ashamed of being a German — after all, I had little to do with it — but I can never forget what my fellow-countrymen did to the Jews, and will always have a feeling that there is a huge debt that can never be repaid."

Note also that one of Eysenck's grandmothers was Jewish, and died in a concentration camp.

As to his politics, he says (p.85): "When I put all these ideas into The Psychology of Politics, and later on The Psychological Basis of Ideology, I encountered for the first time the hostility and hatred of the militant left. Hitherto I had always thought of myself as essentially socialist in outlook. Suddenly, and without any change in my views, I was cast in the role of a right-wing extremist, a fascist, and an enemy of the working class." Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sry. But now your argumentation is getting absurd. It's a reliable secondary source you citicizing. Bring any source which denys the statement. You can't deny any reliable source by your own beliefs. --WSC 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have had enough. WSC and Itsmejudith, I expect you feel the same way. I've requested medation. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you want. You will not succeed with your attempt to deny reliable sources. --WSC 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources you found are mixed, which is not surprising when you simply make one search in Google Scholar. Mediation will help to take this forward and I hope we will all participate. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What brings up the question where to search for scientiffic sources than in an scientiffic database? --WSC 12:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A scientific database, yes. Like Web of Science. Not Google Scholar. And then when you have found some possible sources, you are meant to access those sources, read them all the way through, and then decide if and how they can be used in Misplaced Pages. The Buchanan biography, for example, should be a good source for us. But I can only see part of it in Google Preview. Some of the sources you posted are only visible in Snippet View, which is completely useless. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well If you pay the bill of WoSc. I will seach there. Scholar is a good solution if you don't have the time to visit the university library. Futher it's possible to check the hits. E.g. if the source is cited by other authors and so on. Will you now deny the online availible sources too? Just because you have the chance to check the sources?

It's curious Buchanan's full biography dosen't write about the fact, Eysenck published in the german far-right magazins and books, he only knew the publication in "beacon", the english far-right party-magazine, Eysenck also flirted with. Is it possible Buchanan only used english language sources? However, I'm tired of repeating the same arguments ever and ever. If you have serious objection which makes the sources I colleced doubtalbe, please put them up for discussion. --WSC 14:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In following this ongoing TALK, it appears that Magnussen is attempting to differentiate Facts from Accusations, Itsmejudith is acting in the interest of Misplaced Pages Policy and Widescreen seems to have a personal agenda --- note the manner in which he is attempting to defend what he wrote in Section 3.1 of the Article. Widescreen did not follow the fundamental Misplaced Pages principle of NPOV (Neutral Point of View). As written, Section 3.1 violates WP-NPOV. In the face of evidence that Eysenck was not of the extreme right, nor was he anti-Jewish, the question must be asked: What is Widescreen’s personal agenda in pursuing his attack on Eysenck? InigmaMan (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey six-contribution user! It seems you know more about the rules of wikipedia than anyone else do. I personally are more assailed by doubts if you are a socketpuppet of one of the useres beein part of this diskussion or if you are a meatpuppt. I haven't quite decided this question yet. But I think in this case it won't take years to decide that. --WSC 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen use of abusing a fellow talk contributor is a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. I have tried to make Section 3.1 more neutral correcting your non-neutral position which violates WP-NPOV. Please try to be civil in your dealings with others. And more important, forget your agenda and attempt to be NEUTRAL InigmaMan (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in have a conversation with a socketpuppet or meatpuppet. Log in under your real account, and we can have a debatte. --WSC 16:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, I had Dr Buchanan's biography out of the library a couple of years ago, and can probably get it again. It's critical of Eysenck, I would even say hostile, but the references appeared to me to be conscientious and detailed, so I would agree it's potentially a good source.

You said (above) that we don't define terms. Could you tell me where to find the definitions we're using for "far right" and/or "extreme right"? They seem to me to be weasel words — specifically, just vague terms of abuse. If it can be shown that Prof. Eysenck was a member of, or voted for, some particular party, then let us say that. Likewise, if it can be shown that he advocated segregation, or discrimination on racial grounds, then let us say that, and people can make the appropriate inferences. But we will have confined ourselves to verifiable facts. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@WSC, could you explain what you mean by "rabulistic"? I can't find it in the dictionary. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

de:Rabulistik. --WSC 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Far-right is defined in Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Far-right_politics The Far-right (also known as the extreme right or radical right) refers to the highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics. Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior.ref>Woshinsky, Oliver H., Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior (Oxon, England; New York City, United States: Routledge, 2008) p. 154.</ref Should Widescreen present evidence that Eysenck had been an active supporter of “the highest degree of rightism” he might have a reason for his attack, however he is unable to provide evidence for that extreme position. In reviewing the Misplaced Pages definitions of the terms used, Widescreen is “hung by his own petard.” Those contributing to this article must take the position required by Misplaced Pages Policy, WK-NPOV. There is no referenced evidence that Eysenck was ever a supporter of what Misplaced Pages has defined as the highest degree of rightism, i.e. the Far-right. InigmaMan (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@WSC Thank you. The word appears not to exist in English. My German dictionary (Cassell's) translates Rabulist as pettigfogger, hair-splitter. Requiring evidence for insulting assertions may be hair-splitting to you; however, as I understand, it is required by Misplaced Pages policy. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Mgnussen: Whatever you say. --WSC 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As to Race, Education and Intelligence (or its US edition, the IQ Argument): If WSC can supply a page number to substantiate his allegations about what it says, I will be happy to send a PDF of that page to a mediator. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I prefer secondary sources than WP:OR. --WSC 21:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

R, I &E is a secondary source; the primary source is Jensen. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You won't understand the relation between primary and secondary source? Right? Ok, I try again. The sources I listed here discussed the work of Eysenck among others. So these are secondary sources. Eysenck may be a secondary source for the works of Jensen. But thats not crucial. --WSC 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Have you come up with a direct quotation from Eysenck (with page number) instead of a doctored paraphrase yet? I mean, if you're interested enough in the bloke to spend all this time and effort, don't you think it would be useful to read what he actually said, instead of just what someone else says he said? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1) I am unable to read the references that were provided in 3.1 National Zeitung and Freud. Please, would someone give the verbatim entry so it can be used to measure if it meets the level of being in the highest degree of rightism as defined in the Far-right Misplaced Pages Article. (Eysenck may have been guilty of rudeness and/or poor taste, but does what is in the reference reach the highest degree level of rightism as defined by Misplaced Pages?)

(2) Regarding 3.1, that Eysenck called the equality of humans an “untenable ideological doctrine” First, after examining (http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter2.htm) there is nothing more here than a repeat of the Jenson-Eysenck IQ controversy. That those of the Far-right chose to use the work of Jenson and Eysenck, does not make Jenson and Eysenck of the Far-right. Second, would someone please provide the actual context in which Eysenck is reported to have written: “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” in order for us to ascertain if he were describing biological equality or if he were being racist. If no one is able to do this, then that alleged connection must be deleted. InigmaMan (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Schiori-Lang

This is fully scholarly (Ashgate) and a good source for his writing in the National-Zeitung. Please do not remove again. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to Chris Brand's opinions

This is something I wrote at ANI: I find it disconcerting that out of all the reviews for Eysencks' 2010 OUP biography (written by R. Buchanan) only the one by Chris Brand is linked in the Misplaced Pages article! Steven Rose might not be the most neutral commentator on R&I, but his review of that book was published in The Lancet. Andrew Winston also reviewed that book and said "But Buchanan has succeeded beautifully and Playing with Fire is an outstanding scholarly achievement" in doi:10.1002/jhbs.20488. William H. Tucker also reviewed it in Isis (journal) and said "Buchanan's treatment of his subject is commendably evenhanded." Yet, another review is doi:10.1177/0957154X11423888. Nassir Ghaemi also reviewed it and wrote "this biography does justice to him." Why does the article on Eysencks need to be written from Chris Brand's POV? Because transforming this biography into an article about the book would be silly, I'm going to remove Brand's opinions about the book as wp:undue. You're welcome to create a balanced article about Buchanan's biography, not WP:COATRACK this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, we should never disparage our sources. It's unencyclopedic. If a source is good enough to use it is good enough to use. We can of course balance with alternative sources.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an interesting one from Michael Eysenck: . Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Eysenck

Michael Eysenck is an interesting case, certainly: although he co-authored books with his father, after the latter's death he seems almost to have disowned him; to the extent that in Psychology for A2 Level (Psychology Press (2001), ISBN 1-84169-251-4) he completely represents his father's work by quoting out of context, and ignoring other quotations that would have rebutted his case — or so it seems to me.

For example:

On p.393 he (and his co-author) say that 'Jensen (1969) and H.J. Eysenck (1981) argued that genetic differences might be involved' in the issue of differences in intelligence (on average) between between races.

But H.J.E. first argued it, and more fully, in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), which was entirely devoted to the topic. There is no mention of this, and no reference to it in the back, although that book caused more fuss in Britain than any other work on the subject.

Then on the next page, we find:

'Herrnstein & Murray (1994) published the controversial book "The Bell Curve", in which they argued that there are genetic differences in IQ. Since these differences are inevitable, why are we wasting money in trying to educate individuals who will never progress beyond a fixed potential?'

The first sentence is certainly true. However, I cannot recall, nor can I now find, anything remotely likely the second, and I notice that there are no quotation marks nor page reference.

And on p.394 again:

'Indeed, the whole notion of "race" has been questioned, and seems to have no scientific definition.'

Well, now. There is one in RI&E (p.36): ' are populations that differ genetically and may be distinguished phenotypically (i.e. by appearance). Races are not species; they are able to interbreed, and are fertile when they do.' (etc.)

It seems strange that MWE, at least, should be unaware of this. Maybe Ms. Black wrote this part of the book.

Or how about this?

'Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The genetic distances between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates...',

from Jensen, and published two years before Psychology for A2 Level.

The authors again:

'Even H.J. Eysenck (1981, p.79) admitted that the issue cannot be resolved by experimental evidence: "Can we... argue that genetic studies... give direct support to the hereditarian position? The answer must, I think, be in the negative. the two populations (black and white) are separate populations, and none of the studies carried out on white people alone, such as twin studies, are feasible." '

But this quotation from Eysenck & Kamin's "The Intelligence Controversy" is itself a quotation from RI&E (p.117), which continues:

'...critics are perfectly right in saying that the genetic evidence existing at the moment is not conclusive.

However, it constitutes presumptive evidence which is quite strong, and cannot be disregarded. Any argument aimed at disavowing the genetic evidence runs into difficulties which may be more disturbing to the environmentalist hypothesis than anything postulated in this book.' (etc.)

The authors kindly inform us:

'This illustrates the extremely political nature of the debate.'

It does indeed, but perhaps not quite in the way intended.

So MWE certainly has the academic qualifications of a Reliable Source; but his comments seem biassed to me. I have no conjecture as to the reason (well actually, I have got a conjecture: maybe he didn't want his own children getting death threats, as HJE's did).

At first glance, even this review seems to me, at first glance, to be misleading: for instance, as I recall, HJE said neither that "smoking is a very minor risk factor for disease" nor that "psychoanalysis reduces the chances of recovery from neurosis." He did say that available data "fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder"; but that's not at all the same thing. I'll spare you the rest. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Knebel and Marquardt

The response on WP:RSN was that this is a reliable source, and I agree. Nevertheless, I am OK about it staying out until we have a page number for the assertion. It may be that we want to take more from this source and perhaps we could summarise it in a different way. I would remind everyone that you should not be writing material up from sources that you have not read in their entirety. I am currently reading Stefan Kuhl's The Nazi Connection. By the way, a reliable secondary source takes priority over a primary source, unless it can be shown that the secondary source is mistaken. Even the best sources make errors. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

To whom do we have to show that the secondary source is mistaken?

I have read Race, Education and Intelligence in its entirety. I'm willing to make bet with WSC: I will send you, Itsmejudith, my copy, with a return envelope. If Eysenck actually says (N.B. not, is construed by someone else to imply) "negroes are less gifted than whites" in it, I will pay the postage both ways; if not, WSC pays it.

I have noted what the book does say on your Talk page. Do I need to repeat it here? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Magnussen, you liar! The sentence is not Eysenck wrote "negroes are less gifted than whites" the sentence was: "he argued that "amerikanische Neger" (american negros) are genetically less gifted than whites." You just set the quotes wrong to have another argument against the reliable sources. My AGF is depleted. Stop telling lies here! This is not your kindergarden. This is a serious discussion. --WSC 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see (I think): you're saying that Eysenck argues for a conclusion that doesn't actually appear in the book. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to pass copies of books around. I'm sure I could obtain it quite easily if and when it comes to that. What we all need to do is to take several steps back from this. We have two biographies of Eysenck that should be principal sources for us. They can then be supplemented with more recent scholarship. I'm sure that Eysenck never made such a bold categorical statement. But if a scholar thinks that his arguments amounted to such a view, that is worth including. Alongside any opposing views, of course. Hope that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No! We need to go back to all relevant and reliabel sources. The biographys dosn't mention the far-right activitys of Eysenck in germany. So what german scientiffic authors have to say about eysenck is relevant, too. Especially in Marquardt and Knebels chapter about the roots of modern eugenics. I don't accept these making of compromises by ignor relevant sources. Thats not encyclopedic, thats POV. Thats why we include the opinion of this authors! --WSC 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith As you wish. But if we're going to document everyone who couldn't distinguish what Prof. Eysenck actually said from what they thought he meant, it's going to be a long article. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, aren't there some sort of rules about insulting other contributors? Are they enforced? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are rules. You can take out a Wikiquette alert, which rarely results in anything. Since this article is under ArbCom restrictions, the best thing is probably to make a report at WP:ANI. Or just ignore it. Also remember, there is no deadline. Knebel and Marquardt is a scholarly source. I want to read it but it is third on my list after Kuhl and Buchanan. If no-one here has read it then the whole point is moot. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I this discussion about doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94341-1_6? Well, it seems to be. The "juicy" part seems to be all one page, which you can preview in GB as well . It's a good secondary source for citing things like the preface to Krebs's book. What exactly is this dispute about? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It must be repeated here and elsewhere --- this is what Eysenck's work was about: He did not write that ALL Black people are less gifted than ALL Whites --- what he wrote is that given two sets of IQ Scores (two overlapping bell-curves) the statistical mean of the Black population is slightly lower than that of the Whites; only by a few points, however statistically significant. Assuming that difference were, say three points, then it could be written that 47% of all Whites have lower IQ’s than the average Black person (which certainly could not be considered racist). Sirswindon (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

English far-right groups

Eyseck also wrote an article for an far-right group in england. In the magazin called beacon. This magazin was the journal of the "National Party". Again there are multiple sources. This should added too. --WSC 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned, but the information has to be taken mainly from Buchanan, who thinks that Billig made a mistake in not realising that the interview was given some years earlier. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, p. 321 or so. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There are much more sources than Billig and Buchanan. In case of doubt we can mention both publication dates. --WSC 10:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish heritage

The discussion in this article appears one-sided. See Buchanan p. 304. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that Eysenck deny his jewish roots to publish in the german far-right newspapers. They won't let him publish as jew. But I'm not sure if this is relevant? --WSC 12:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing we need to be careful about. Eysenck was unaware of his own Jewish heritage until after WWII, when the facts about his grandmother came out. As far as I can tell, Eysenck did not profess the Jewish faith, nor was he of Jewish descent in the female line, which I seem to remember are the usual criteria.

Of course there are those who consider anyone with a drop of Jewish blood to be a Jew, just as someone with a drop of black blood is considered to be you-know-what. Personally, I don't think we should be using their definitions. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

During all the years I personally knew Hans, he never considered being part of any religion. He and I were, so-to-speak, somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. Sirswindon (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Belief in the paranormal

@WSC, in your edit of of 11:59, 3 October 2012, why did you (apparently) delete the reference I added to Explaining the Unexplained to support the statement that "he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal abilities"? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A Serious Discussion

As this is a serious discussion, then it is important that the participants comprehend some basic statistics, which explain what Eysenck and Jenson wrote. They did not write that ALL Black people are less gifted than ALL Whites --- what they wrote is that given two sets of IQ Scores (two overlapping bell-curves) the statistical mean of the Black population is slightly lower than that of the Whites; only by a few points, however statistically significant. Assuming that difference were, say three points, then it could be written that 47% of all Whites have lower IQ’s than the average Black person (which certainly could not be considered racist). When Eysenck called the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ he was referring to biological equality. He makes this quite clear on page 221 of his Autobiography. Examining the reference: (http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter2.htm) ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ cannot be found. Therefore it is crucial for someone to provide the actual context in which Eysenck is reported to have written: “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” in order to ascertain if he were describing biological equality or if he were being racist. If no one is able to do this, then that alleged connection must be deleted. Last, since this is a serious discussion, after reading all the what has been written in the revised Section 3.1, including all the references, it appears it must be titled Alleged Relations, as no proof has been offered that Eysenck actually had relations with or supported right-wing groups as defined by Misplaced Pages. Sirswindon (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary. Source do speak unambiguously of "relationship". See the quotes. But relationship is a pretty broad concept, which includes relationships like writer-publisher, celebrity-fan or even enmity. So I don't see any problem using "relationship", but I don't think this is something worth debating at length, so I'm fine with "alleged" in front as well; see WP:ALLEGED though. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a duty not mislead, as well as to be logically accurate. To speak of Eysenck's 'relationship' with the far right appears to put him in the same camp as Colin Jordan and Lincoln Rockwell. And although there may be some who are quite happy with this portrayal, I don't think it's been established that it's justified. IMHO 'alleged' is better. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that using "relationship with the right-wing" for the founder of the American Nazi Party would be superfluous (to say the least). Tijfo098 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please will the person who posted that Eysenck called “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” copy the exact text and page number from where it is written; then inform us as to the context in which it appeared, i.e. was it regarding biological equality as Eysenck reported in his Autobiography? I have searched through the references and cannot find the text anywhere. Sirswindon (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a serious discussion here? I think we have a debatte here which is try to deny reliable sources with sophistic argumentations and WP:SPAs. I don't think thats a serious discussion. --WSC 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, if you can produce a copy of the exact text with the words that Eysenck called “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” than do so. I have looked through your references and it is not there. You continue attempting to defend your "agenda" with name-calling but do not produce evidence. Please give us the exact text from your references with page numbers and the context to which it applied. If your references are reliable you should be able to quote them line by line. If not, your sources are not reliable. And please --- keep this a serious discussion. Sirswindon (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in german, but of course taken from a secondary source! The Book is this: and you can find it even online: search for “unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin”. --WSC 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. So the original passage is apparently in the preface to Krebs, Page 12. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

According to WorldCat, Krebs' book is only available at 6 libraries, 2 in Germany and the rest in Switzerland , but someone could verify the primary source if they really doubt the secondary. Given that it involved no translation, I don't see much reason to doubt it. An apparently different printing seems much more widely held: Tijfo098 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The following snippet from Krebs, pp. 11-12 can be gleaned from Google Books (it's a full paragraph):

Es scheint, daß die einzigen Menschen, die immer noch an eine als Identität gedeutete Gleichheit zu glauben scheinen, schlecht informierte militante Linke in den kapitalistischen Ländern sind, die unter dem irrigen Eindruck stehen, sie repräsentierten eine Form des Marxismus, während sie in Wirklichkeit nur die traurigen Überreste der stalinistischen Verirrungen der dreißiger und vierziger Jahre darstellen. Nicht einmal Rousseau, der Vater des modernen Egalitarismus, ist so weit gegangen, und die schlimmen Folgen des Glaubens an etwas, das in Wirklichkeit eine unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin ist, haben nunmehr viele Menschen von der Absurdität dieser Grundsätze überzeugt.

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Widescreen’s references (above) are nothing more than a repeat of the Jenson-Eysenck controversy. Included In the references is "unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin" without citing where, when and in what context Eysenck is supposed to have called “the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine.’ "

Zu dem von dessen Leiter herausgegebenen 
Buch mit dem Titel "Das unvergangliche Erbe" verfaBte er das Vorwort, in dem 
er gegen die Gleichheit der Menschen wettert, indem er sie als "unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin"abtut. (in Krebs 1981, S. 12)

What this says is that Eysenck rails against the of the equality of people which he dismisses as “untenable ideological doctrine.” It does not say he called “the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine.’ Should Widescreen quote original text by Eysenck, we might be able to understand the context in which this might have been written. Until then we must rely on what Eysenck wrote concerning this subject. All that I have been able to find is where he wrote that humans are not biologically equal. The following is from page 220 of his Autobiography:

“The major argument in-modern times is between those who define 
equality in terms of social status, and those who define it in terms of 
equality of biological inheritance. Equality of social status has always 
been a socialist idea, and it is certainly possible to argue about its 
desirability, or the possibility of achieving it. Equality of biological 
abilities and traits is a chimera which no thinking person should 
entertain for one moment. This statement has nothing to do with any 
political or social preconceptions. As Lenin pointed out: 'When one's 
experience and reason testify that men are not equal, then one 
understands under equality the equality of abilities or the equivalence of 
bodily strength and mental capacities of men. It is quite obvious in this 
sense that men are not equal. No single reasonable man and no single 
Socialist ever forgets this.' Lenin goes on to characterize as an 'absurdity' 
the idea of extending equality into these spheres, and concludes by 
saying: 'When Socialists speak of equality, they understand by that social 
equality, the equality of social position, but not at all the equality of 
physical and mental abilities of individual persons.”

At this point in our Serious Discussion, it is clear that taking out of context something Eysenck may have said or written, and not referencing where and when this might have occurred does not meet Misplaced Pages standards for being referenced material, Sirswindon (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a serious discussion. And now I will add somthing serious: I've never heard such a nonsens bevor! Eysenck worte the preface of a book of a far-right writer and called the equality of people as he actually did. A secondary source summarize the preface and cited one sentens as quintessence of Eysencks opinion. Some of our Eysenck-fans think it's possibele to reason this away. What "context" do you mean? The context of civil rights? Or of biological racism or social Darwinism? The authors of the secondary source set the context. In the same book a author plead for a genetically selection of people. So what context is meant in your view? --WSC 05:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

IThe point in the reliable secondary source is borne out by the snippet from the original, so it can go in. Not hedged with "alleged". We need to move away fron generalisations to specifics, like this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I take you at your word! I also think we should clear the oppinion of Eysenck. The Authors call Jensen and Eysenck crown witness of all modern racists. I thik this phrase point out their meaning much better. --WSC 07:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "crown witness" mean? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

--WSC 09:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From that dictionary definition, it's a word that is used figuratively in German, which doesn't mean it can be used figuratively in English. It seems to have two meanings in English: Queen's evidence (state evidence in the US), or chief witness. Those meanings are separate in English. So, no, we cannot use that term, as there is no translation that will pick up all the nuances. If you want a further opinion on that, you could ask on the reference desk for language. And you perhaps misunderstand what I mean by specifics. One example often quoted in Misplaced Pages is how we write about Hitler. We do not say "Hitler was a very bad man". We say "x number of people died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz". Then the reader can deduce what they like about Hitler, and if they are a normal person the scale of the evil will be apparent. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes! And there's no critic or reception chapter in the article Adolf Hitler. But wherefrom do we know Hitler was antisemitic or "racially motivated"? These are all things mentioned in this article? Please stopp this sophistry. It's boring! --WSC 10:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not sophistry to use language so that people can understand what you mean. You can put in "crown witness" if you like, but I guarantee that no English speakers who don't also know the German original term will have a clue what you're on about. It will just sound stilted and annoying. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Google translates that as star witness which is idiomatic and preserves sense well enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of points: some people tune their discourse to their audience. Others change their views over time. So we should not use the auto-biographical passage to dismiss what he wrote in Krebs' unless the passage from the auto-biography invoked by Sirswindon above is explicitly claimed by Eysenck to be a clarification or amendment of what he wrote earlier. Second, the logic of the passage in Krebs' seems to be that "Identität gedeutete Gleichheit" is untenable and that it's a view only held by ill-informed "stalinists" living in the West, and that not even Rousseau—the father of egalitarianism—went that far. Does anyone here have a good suggestion for translating "Identität gedeutete Gleichheit"? This is the thesis that Eysenck dismisses in Krebs' (not Rousseau's). Tijfo098 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats what Eysenck wrote. But the interpretation of what he wrote is a job for a secondary source. What they wrote in what coherence is signifficant for us. --WSC 10:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The passage/chapter in the secondary source (which is written by de:Siegfried Jäger, who seems to be a linguist focused on pragmatics and discourse analysis) deals with the philosophy of Peter Singer. Eysenck and Jensen are identified there as the central source of inspiration for Singer's ideas (see Peter Singer#Evolutionary biology and leftist politics for what those are). Jäger then says that in Krebs' book Eysenck 'railed against the equality of people, presenting it as an "untenable ideological doctrine"'). I'm fine with citing Jäger's interpreation with attribution because the original text by Eysenck is rather murky. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Eysenck barks against left-wing and the equality of people in a far-right book which supports racial hygiene. That needs a third party interpretation. --WSC 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Left" is not a monolithic entity; it's quite possible to criticise what the British call "the Loony Left", without criticising the Left in general. In fact Eysenck said he considered himself a socialist (see above). Paul Magnussen (talk)

Thank you Tijfo098 for your being a scholar. We need more like you!!!! What the so-called secondary sources wrote is misleading and NOT significant. That others tried using Jenson and Eysenck to spread their racist agendas did not mean Jenson and Eysenck were racist. Sirswindon (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with both your suggestions, Tijfo, both the "star witness", and the use of Jager, attributed. I take it that we are sure that Eysenck's preface was not published anywhere in English? I did see a reference to Krebs' book being translated from French to German, but can't find any holdings of any such book in French. Just that we are struggling with the languages, and it is always a good idea to look back at the language in which a text was originally written. I know Eysenck wouldn't have written his preface in French, but he might have written it in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

He might have written it in French; he spent the spring and summer of 1934 in Dijon, "a busy time which I used to learn the language, become acquainted with the history of the country, and to read as much literature as I could. (autobiography, p.42). Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. That book 1981 was only partially written and edited by Krebs. (Hg.) in "Pierre Krebs:(Hg.): Das unvergängliche Erbe, Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit. Mit einem Vorwort von Hans-Jürgen Eysenck, Tübingen 1981" stands for (ed.) aka editor. And the contributions were all in German. Jäger goes on to discuss/flame another chapter in that book by "Jörg Rieck" (an alleged pseudonym for a neo-Nazi). This is the table of contents from Worldcat :

• Gedanken zu einer kulturellen Wiedergeburt / Pierre Krebs --
• Wiedergewinnung der Identität / Peter Binding --
• Die nominalistische Wende / Armin Mohler --
• Gleichheitslehre, Weltanschauung und Moral / Alain de Benoist --
• Der organische Staat als Alternative in Evolas Vorstellung, Nietzsches Projekt und Saint-Exupérys Botschaft / Pierre Krebs --
• Der Konflikt der antiken Kultur mit dem Urchristentum / Alain de Benoist --
• Über den Sinn der Geschichte / Giorgio Locchi --
• Der Mensch, das soziale Wesen / Jacques de Mahieu --
• Von der Konsumgesellschaft zur organischen Wirtschaft / Guillaume Faye --
• Empirische Wissenschaften zur Gleichheitslehre / Rudolf Künast --
• Zur Debatte der Vererblichkeit der Intelligenz / Jörg Rieck --
• Die bildende Kunst von heute im Fadenkreuz der Kulturrevolutionäre / Richard W. Eichler.

Wolrdcat also says: "Responsibility: hrsg. von Pierre Krebs ; mit einem Vorwort von Hans Ju¨rgen Eysenck". And the paragraph in the preface/Vorwort right after the one I quoted specifically addresses Eysenck's hopes for the book. It starts with "Hoffen wir, daß das Erscheinen dieses Buchs die Rückkehr zur Vernunft bei allen jenen fördern wird, die für das Erziehungswesen, für Sozialdienste und andere Institutionen verantwortlich sind, wo sich irrige intellektuelle Voraussetzungen " So it's highly unlikely it was text previously published anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at some of the names in that TOC, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Jacques de Mahieu and fr:Giorgio Locchi probably had their contributions translated into German by someone else. But there's little reason to assume that those of German-speaking authors like Armin Mohler or de:Rolf Kosiek (Rudolf Künast) or "Jörg Rieck" (alleged to be Jürgen Rieger by Siegfried Jäger) had to be translated. I doubt that Eysenck's German was so poor as to require translation. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The rulings of woolly-minded judges may require "interpretation" by subsequent courts; but Prof. Eysenck, in general, said exactly what he meant, and no more, as clearly as he could.

There seem to be only two possible "interpretations" of what he was referring to as an "untenable ideological doctrine": biological equality, or equality of rights.

We already know that he thought the evidence was against biological equality; and there is no evidence except "interpretation" that he meant the equality of rights. Therefore the presumption should be that he meant the former.

In case there should remain any doubt, I quote the following from the Introduction to Race, Education and Intelligence (pp. 9–10), in full:

" the reader is consequently entitled to ask in which direction the writer's own political and social beliefs and attitudes go. This is an unusual position, but the logic of the facts suggest that such a 'declaration of interest', as it is called in Parliament, is not out of place.

My recognition of the importance of the racial problem, and my own attitudes of opposition to any kind of racial segregation, and hatred for those who suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion) were determined in part by the fact that I grew up in Germany, at a time when Hitlerism was becoming the very widely held doctrine which finally prevailed and led to the deaths of several million Jews whose only crime was that they belonged to an imaginary 'race' which had been dreamed up by a group of men in whom insanity was mixed in equal parts with craftiness, paranoia with guile, and villainy with sadism. No one who ever heard Hitler in full spate, as I did when all of us Berlin school children were herded into the Tempelhofer Feld to listen to one of his tirades, is ever likely to underrate the strength of the emotions involved in racial hatred; my own reaction was one of hatred for these purveyors of hatred, intolerance for these apostles of intolerance, but not unreasoning opposition for these protagonists of unreason. It seemed to me then, as now, that human problems, like all other problems, have to be settled on a factual basis; "

Note that this is in his most supposedly "racist" publication. That should settle it — although I doubt it will. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Magnussen, please add this to the Article as part of what Eysenck wrote in defense of the attacks on him. Sirswindon (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. Please refer to the arbitration committee sanctions at the top of this page. We can definitely include that Eysenck denied being a racist, but it should be referenced to secondary sources I suggest the biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Primary sources are permitted if used carefully"? Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What other ultimate source for his views can there be, but his own words? How can a second-hand report of what he said be more reliable?

If extracts from secondary sources are not direct quotations, are they not paraphrases, with the associated risks of distortion? Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If one single source (Buchanan) is allowed to be quoted extensively --- Eysenck must also be allowed to be quoted in his own defense. Referring to the sanctions at the top of the page --- being neutral is a requirement and hearing from bothe Buchanan and Eysenck is being NEUTRAL. If Magnussen doesn't replace his edit, I shall. Sirswindon (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth noting also that at this point Eysenck was not actually "denying" anything: when he wrote the above, the book had not yet appeared, and so the furore had not yet erupted. It was merely an "on the record" statement of his views.

This is not to say, of course, that he hadn't already trodden on the corns of the Far Left: he did that in the '50s when he demonstrated the the personalities of Communists and Fascists were similar. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Some confusion, I fear

I don't mind this material being added to the article. But it definitely looks like it was added to the wrong section. It says little about his links (or lack thereof) with the right-wing groups discussed in that section. Yes, it's apparent Eysenck disliked Hitler aplenty, but the Nouvelle Droite (of Krebs & co.) and generally the New Right has a broader spectrum. The section on "Genetics and Intelligence" seems more appropriate for that long quotation. If you find something that Eysenck said in defense of the various concrete allegations that he is connected to this or that group, then that would be on topic in the last section. But nobody accused him of being connected to Hitler (or the NSDAP) directly, so that's a bit of a straw man to use such a large quote to rebut.

May I suggest you Google "Dr. Hans J. Eysenck - Nazi Brain Scientist"? But perhaps you only meant "nobody on Misplaced Pages (yet)"?Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Really weird!!! http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/Bevilaqua/Bevilaqua_bio.html Sirswindon (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A shorter note/paraphrase that he disapproved of Hitler's "racial hatred" would be okay though. Actually, Buchanan has a few more examples of places where Eysenck and his right-wing "fans" were in disagreement. You can expand on that from p. 325 if you wish. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck's distances himself, not only from Hitler, but from those who"suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion)". So yes, I suppose the stuff after that about Hitler could go. But if he'd distanced himself separately from every different group of right-wing loonies, how much time would he have had for anything else? Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe it belongs in this Section as it is part of what Eysenck wrote in 1973, regarding his not being a racist. It has been shortened, and belongs in the Article in order to maintain the Section being NEUTRAL. Sirswindon (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck stated his own views in the Introduction to Race, Education and Intelligence: " the reader is consequently entitled to ask in which direction the writer's own political and social beliefs and attitudes go. My recognition of the importance of the racial problem, and my own attitudes of opposition to any kind of racial segregation, and hatred for those who suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion) were determined in part by the fact that I grew up in Germany, at a time when Hitlerism was becoming the very widely held doctrine which finally prevailed and led to the deaths of several million Jews whose only crime was that they belonged to an imaginary 'race' which had been dreamed up by a group of men in whom insanity was mixed in equal parts with craftiness, paranoia with guile, and villainy with sadism. "

Tijfo098, you suggested: “ A shorter note/paraphrase ….would be okay.” Taking your suggestion I cut out more than half of it. Don’t you feel that over 400 words on behalf of Buchanan is somewhat excessive and hardly Neutral? Sirswindon (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As concluding remarks on these connections, Buchanan writes: "For those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, his links with far right groups revealed his true political sympathies. Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist, they were being promulgated by a scientist willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda." Buchanan footnotes this observation with a quote from William H. Tucker| who described Eysenck as "Jensen's dark doppelganger". Buchanan however disagrees with this stark interpretation: "Yet the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor implicit in this accusation appears to be seriously misleading in Eysenck's case. More than most, what you saw was what you got." Buchanan goes on to argue that Eysenck's research was thinly spread across numerous domains to conclude that "There appeared to be no hidden agenda to Hans Eysenck. He was too self-absorbed, too preoccupied with his own aspirations as a great scientist to harbor specific political aims. Buchanan then addresses Eysenck's handling of his public image in this matter: "Harder to brush off was the impression that Eysenck was insensitive, even willfully blind to the way his work played out in a wider political context. He did not want to believe, almost to the point of utter refusal, that his work gave succor to right-wing racialist groups. But there is little doubt that Jensen and Eysenck helped revive the confidence of these groups. It was unexpected vindication from a respectable scientific quarter. The cautionary language of Eysenck's interpretation of the evidence made little difference. To the racialist right, a genetic basis for groups differences in intelligence bore out racialist claims of inherent, immutable hierarchy." Buchanan exemplifies Eysenck's cautionary approach with a number of concrete examples from Eysenck's writings, and concludes that "If the appropriation of his work by right-wing groups brought him baggage that would be hard to shake off, how then did he construe his relationship with them? Curiously enough, he saw himself as a kind of enlightened scientific shepherd, guiding the blinkered and ignorant toward more sensible positions. Good research would eventually help temper all social wrongs and excesses. The trouble for Eysenck was that empirical science was clearly taken to be part of the problem as well as the solution. Its very impartiality was itself held up to question. The lack of consensus on the technical issues fed open-ended arguments about truth, social justice, and how we should live. Thus the controversy ran on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs)

You're welcome to abbreviate/paraphrase that if it bothers you so much. I had a hard time deciding what to leave out. And for better or worse, Buchanan is the only independent source that has written a book-length biography of Eysenck. (Buchanan's book was pretty well received by most academic reviewers, look a few sections above for links.) What other independent sources do you have to offer? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize; it is that the way it is presented, seems to ramble, and not make points crisply. Maybe Magnussen will want to take a hand at editing your take of what Buchanan wrote. I will also go over my copy of Buchanan to see where he concluded; “Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist….” The problem I keep having is that knowing Hans personally for over forty years, and having read just about everything he wrote, I cannot find anywhere where he was ‘racist.’ Maybe I am unable to define ‘racist’. Am I being racist when I conclude that based on IQ testing, it appears that, on average, the native inhabitants living in Japan appear to have a slightly higher IQ than white people living in the United States? I do appreciate what you have contributed to this discussion, I am only trying to walk the NEUTRAL path. Sirswindon (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no agreed definition of racist that isn't hopelessly vague; that what makes it such a useful term of abuse. The best attempt I've seen comes from Thomas Sowell:

' "Racism" is a term not only used very loosely by many, but also a term for which a more precise definition is not easy to achieve. In various usages, the term applies to the ideas of (1) those who have an animosity to those of another race, (2) those who believe that people of another race are genetically inferior, (3) those who believe in discriminating against people of another race, out of sheer self-interest, and (4) those who believe that people of another race or ethnic group are less capable, or have other undesirable traits, as of a given time, even if for non-genetic reasons. Those who believe all these things at the same time provide the clearest examples of racism. But all four notions need not go together and often do not.' (Conquests and Cultures, p.364).

Does this help?

Note also that Buchanan cites the view of Eysenck as racist as appurtaining to those "looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck", not his own. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Magnussenn, you have pinpointed the problem. Buchanan, and all the rest, commit the sin of naming rather than explaining. When I have a moment I want to see if Buchanan ever presented a definition of racist or if he offered any evidence of “willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda." After writing this what did he mean by: "Yet the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor implicit in this accusation appears to be seriously misleading in Eysenck's case. More than most, what you saw was what you got." As you pointed out, Buchanan cites the view of Eysenck as racist as appertaining to those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, not his own --- this is not clearly presented in what Tijfo098 wrote. Tijfo098, do you understand why I am confused as to how this has been presented, and would it be possible for you to rewrite it in a way as to be understood by the average (100-IQ) reader? Sirswindon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a verbatim quote from Buchanan that I put in the article, in quotes: "For those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, his links with far right groups revealed his true political sympathies. Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist, they were being promulgated by a scientist willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda." Yes, the 2nd sentence contains anaphora. Except you, nobody else was confused by it insofar. But feel to paraphrase it in a way that you find easier to comprehend. Tijfo098 (talk)

Is this better? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Better Sirswindon (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO Buchanan would have done better to put a colon after "sympathies", rather than a full stop. Paul Magnussen (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Die Zeit published a book review of Krebs' in 1982. And surprisingly it's online . Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's biography

In this section I'm gathering reviews of the 1980's biography of Eysenck by Tony Gibson. Insofar, I found:

• : "Gibson has succeeded in producing a well-rounded and informative biography. Using his personal knowledge of his subject Gibson paints a sympathetic, but not uncritical portrait. Few, however, would agree with Gibson's elevation of Eysenck to a position of Freudian proportions, although his comparison of Eysenck and Freud is illuminating." The author of that review, WF Bynum, has a bio blurb at doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)90291-4.
• doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198507)21:3<245::AID-JHBS2300210314>3.0.CO;2-3
• doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1983.tb00569.x

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Effects of smoking

At the moment, although it's in the section on Eysenck's views, this subsection only contains criticism of his funding. It seems to me that this is relevant and should remain; but first the piece should say in brief what his views were.

I have Smoking, Personality and Stress, I will fill this in when I get time.

Does anyone know the relationship (if any) of this book to Smoking, Health and Personality? Paul Magnussen

I saw a couple of points in :

There's probably more in Buchanan on smoking. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that from MWE. Some of it, at least, appears to me to be misrepresentation (see my comments on him above). Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the source is weak because it lacks the rigor of footnoted page numbers or even a list of references, etc. So I'm only suggesting it here as a starting point for further investigation; I'm not proposing to use it directly in the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing versus far/extreme right

Bizarre though it may seem, I have to agree with Widescreen on this one. Maggie Thatcher was on the right wing of the political spectrum, Michael Foot on the left wing; and no one would have thought it remarkable, had HJE supported either of their positions. It's only the supposed association with overtly racist groups that's caused all the hysteria; and those are called far (or extreme) right. I think Maggie Thatcher would agree. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

it is Bizarre using extreme anything. Can't we have something that is more NEUTRAL? Sirswindon (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something you can find in sources? --WSC 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading the present content of this section it is NOT about Eysenck’s “Relationship with right-wing or extreme right groups. Eysenck never had any relationships with these groups. It is about “Alleged positions Eysenck took which might have fostered extreme right-wing agendas.” Can someone re-title this section --- it is not about Relationships he did not have any. Sirswindon (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Even this may be an over-simplification. As far as I make out, there are at least three types of HJE's critics:

• Those, simply ignorant, who think that HJE advocated racial discrimination;.

• Those who maintain that his assertions were factually incorrect (insulting, etc. etc.), and therefore he should not have made them.

• Those who maintain that, regardless, his assertions give aid and comfort to the Enemy, and therefore he should not have made them.

Or of course a combination of the above.

At bottom, as I have said before, I consider "far/extreme right" a POV term, in that very few people admit to belonging to it — it's always a term used by their opponents. If someone can come up with a different term that embraces all these groups (and no one else), that's fine with me. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But Marquardt, Knebel and Jäger done that. Eysenck was part of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quaterly too. A magazin claims racial segregation. A attitude Eysenck itself called racistic in his book Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung. Jäger called him a wholeheartedly supporter of the Thule-seminar. I'm not sure, what you have done here for the last days? --WSC 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

At least partly, I've tried to show you that name-calling is not an indication of a Reliable Source — clearly without effect. Back to the drawing-board.

How about if "far-right" were put in quotation marks? WSC, would you accept that? Sirswindon? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would accept that. Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WSC, I personally knew Eysenck for over 40 years, that is more than the past few days. I understood his motivation in writing articles and books as he did. But no one can provide valid evidence of where he “supported” or “expoused” the values of the "far-right." You can write “he was part of the advisory council of Mankind Quarterly.” or that someone asserted he “wholeheartedly supported the Thule-seminar.” None of those accusations would provide proof in a court of law that he was a "racist" or a supporter of the "far-right." Hearsay, hearsay and more hearsay. I do understand that for some reason or other, you wish to place a label on Eysenck. Being NEUTRAL, I have gone along with your (and a few others) desire to include this section in the Eysenck Article. But it must be NEUTRAL and include only FACTS . Being on an advisory council of an organization IS a fact. Attending a seminar IS a fact. But neither provides proof that Hans Eysenck was a supporter of the agenda, or values of the "far-right." Eysenck would ask you to judge him on his whole life and not that he was on a certain advisory council or that he attended this seminar or some other seminar. So everyone, yes include the section in the article, be factual, and try to do it in a NEUTRAL way. `Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You said you know Eysenck well. But you were pretty surprised when you hear he published in far-right magazines and books. However, it's not interesting what anybody of us thinks about the issue. It's a question of what is written in the reliable sources. The fact, you still didn't realize the sources are listed abouve are all reliabele sources shows the way this discussion goes well. 1. the fact is being doubted, 2. the statement in the sources being doubted, 3. The author or the sources is being doubted, 4. Some user say the world is relatively/sources are relatively/truth is relatively.

When everybody of the Eysenck-fans realize this is all useless, than the word "neutrality" is mentioned to relativize the statmant in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean you cannot make any statments or have to make weak-statements, it means you have to make statements which are well sourced and do not overstate any meanings above others are also importend and well sourced. The sources represent the meaning of social-scientists such as political-scientists who are specialists in far-right political goups and opinions. Not as the author of the biography who is more interested in Eysencks research-profile.

You cannot deny the statements in these sources. So please stopp trying this over and over again. --WSC 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We do not deny that the statements were made: what we doubt is whether they a) are reliable, and b) represent fact, not opinion. Since distortions and Straw Man arguments abound in this topic, reliability cannot simply be assumed.

Do you not have access to an English-language spelling-checker? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijo098, please explain to Widescreen that SCHLORSHIP is what we are about. We are not, as Widescreen writes, DENYING statements in his sources. We are attempting to differentiate between facts and what is opinion, hearsay or accusations. We accept that someone wrote this or that. But is what they wrote: Fact, Opinion, Hearsay, etc. We do not have an Agenda; we have not deleted any the statements in the article, but neutrality requires what has been written be clarified as to being facts or opinion, hearsay or accusations. Widescreen's political-scientist specialists in far-right political groups and opinions would agree with what I have just written. Sirswindon (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You talk about facts? Thats really amusing. What facts? To write a preface on someones book is no support? Or what's your point now? Stop that fucking POV-sophistry. I'm not as dump as other useres you try to fool! I've had a lot of controversys like that. It's always the same blah blah. "No.. No.. you can't take the source verbatim. That's not correct and think at the NPOV!" Why don't you give up? Let the sources speak for itself. Than you come neare the NPOV.

@Paul Magnussen: I'll use a English-language spelling-checker when you stop that sophistry. Deal? --WSC 23:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As you will; if you wish to appear sloppy and careless, it's no concern of mine. Talking of which: the error message at the bottom of this page "Referenzfehler: Es sind -Tag gefunden." seems to have have been produced by something you did, since no one else has invoked the German version of Misplaced Pages; so please fix it.

The fact of the Preface is in the article, as you wished. So what are you complaining about now? Paul Magnussen (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very sad to see this come to an end with Widescreen not able to be civil: "Stop that fucking POV-sophistry." is not what we expect from a Misplaced Pages editor. Very sad. Sirswindon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

However. We use the term far/extrem right now. Which one would you prefer? --WSC 05:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The article already says "Eysenck was accused of being a supporter of the extreme right"; this seems to be factually correct, and so I'm happy with it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I think thats less than ideal. But I still don't understand why this cannot be mentioned in the heading? Thats what it goes about in the chapter. --WSC 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, please could you translate for us the last line in the German Section "Bezug zum Rassismus und Rechtsextremismus" Er stellte Eysenck als einen neben Arthur Jensen maßgeblichen Akteur in der Wiederaufnahme akademischer Rassenforschung nach dem Zweiter Weltkrieg|Zweiten Weltkrieg dar. Is this from Billig, if so why isn't the page number given? Sirswindon (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course (but it's a really complicate sentence): "He constitutes Eysenck, among Jensen, as a significant agent for resumption of scholarly racial-research after 2WW" but I'm not sure if this is a good translation. I don't know why theres no page number given? But the sentence was not added by me. --WSC 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "He placed Eysenck with Jensen as"?

So does he consider scholarly racial-research to be a Bad Thing? Does he think that it would be better to ignore the reasons for the racial IQ gap than to understand them?

Is that the basis of his criticism? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"So does he consider scholarly racial-research to be a Bad Thing?" I think this edit is itself racistic. Sorry to say that so. I AGF because it could be also a lack of understanding. The different coulor of the skin and other marker doesn't constitute mankind is divided in different races. In modern biology different races are declined because population genetics found that the genetic differences in man are negligible. Futher the datas Eysenck used for his research were forged, see Cyril_Burt#"The_Burt_Affair". But I don't want a discussion about typical far-right themes. I want to talk about reliable sources about Eysenck. --WSC 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, you are at it again --- That see "Cyril Burt" was not about Eysenck, it was about Burt forging his work --- stick to the facts! Sirswindon (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

First, befor you claim any knowledge here, make sure you really know of what you talking about. --WSC 20:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right Widescreen: the only relevant topic here is reliable sources on Eysenck. Sorry. I withdraw my question. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may make an on-topic comment, I prefer "far right", which seems to be the direct translation of the Germaan "extremrechts". This came up before on far left, which we use as the equivalent of French "extreme-gauche". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased with "far right" (in the heading). But "extremrechts" or "rechts-extrem" means right "extremism" better: "right-wing extremism". --WSC 20:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has defined far-right and right-wing politics: politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Search&search=far-right+politics%3A&redirs=1&profile=default, http://en.wikipedia.org/Right-wing_politics --- It is written: “also known as the extreme right” “Refers to the highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics.” Now to carry this discussion to the highest level of extremism (absurdity) I have changed the Section in the Article to: “far-right/right-wing/extremist" politics. Sirswindon (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be a decision of anglophone user. But just right wing is to unspecific. --WSC 04:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't rely on our own definitions, because that would be circular. I don't like the use of slashes. A simple "far right" expresses the meaning clearly enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the terms should be included as that shows how ludicrous the accusations appear. If Itsmejudith doesn’t like slashes then accept: Alleged relationships with “far-right” --- “right-wing” --- “extremist” --- “racist” --- groups and politics. As the man said: "All or None" Sirswindon (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the accusations are ludicrous; but none the less, we don't need them all in the heading. "Far right" seems fine to me, since we already have "alleged". Paul Magnussen (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all of us here on TALK (with the exception of Widescreen) now agree on a Section heading, I hope we are ready to put the entire section to bed --- finito, fertig, terminado, fini, voltooid, dokonçeno. faerdig, acabat, valmis, gotowy, kész. ARE WE FINISHED? Sirswindon (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for my part. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I would like to see if there are more further reliable sources.. I am also searching for an alternative heading - "alleged" is not great - within NPOV of course. Also, it could probably be shortened. Even better would be not to have it as a section on its own at all, but the facts dispersed into the article. I will refer to some other biographies of academics whose work has been confidential, and maybe others would like to as well, so we have the same reference points. There is not need to be in a hurry about any of this unless someone feels that the current text is grossly unsatisfactory. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree.

a) The hoohah over research into race and intelligence is only a small part of Prof. Eysenck's career, and the article is already quite long, with that section taking up a disproportionate amount of space.

b) The hoohah as a phenomenon certainly does deserve more space. But it embraces far more people than just Eysenck alone; and since the criticisms levelled at him were the same as those levelled at Jensen (for instance) and others, there's no point in repeating them on the c.v. of every individual: a pointer to History of the race and intelligence controversy should be sufficient. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should be much longer, and agree with linking to relevant articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the references are about the Jenson/Eysenck controversy. I doubt if you will find others. As for me all of this is part of the Genetics and Intelligence heading, but Widescreen wanted it highlighted. I have no problem with that so long as it is headed “Alleged” because 99.9% of the reference are about alleged stuff and the few facts which are not on point. Widescreen will disagree, but he would not if he were an academic (which I doubt he is). The article will never be perfect, but nothing ever approaches perfection, so what is new? Fifty years from now, Hans Jürgen Eysenck will be known and remembered as having been a brilliant British psychologist. All the accusations as to his having supported the extreme right will have proved to be nothing more than --- “a tempest in a teapot.” Sirswindon (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Jensen & Eysenck only? Not at all: merely from memory, other involved in the controversy include Chris Brand (fired), Linda Gottfredson (tenure almost lost), Raymond Cattell (award contested) & J. Phillipe Rushton (investigated), not to mention everyone's favourite target Herrnstein and Murray… need I go on? And those are just the tip of the iceberg — I'm sure Widescreen could come up with lots more.

Enough. I hope we've all got better things to do, even Widescreen. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sin of Naming rather than Explaining

Widescreen you are too much. So Eysenck was a member of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quarterly. Thank you for letting us know that fact, which tells us absolutely nothing about actions he might have taken in trying to advise the publication as to its choice of articles to be published. Having served in the academic community for a number of years, I have always found it interesting to see individuals such as yourself, launching witch-hunts attacking faculty members with this or that accusation, without offering FACTs to support their attacks. It is the sin of NAMING rather than EXPLAINING. If you cannot give us evidence of where he supported racist articles in the Mankind Quarterly, or where he wrote such articles, just offering that he was on their academic advisory council is just another one of your wild accusations that serving on the academic council of a Journal (accused of publishing right-wing articles) makes him right-wing. Can you provide evidence of what was his motivation in serving on the publication’s advisory council, and when and what he did as a member of the council? All you have provided is the FACT that he was on the advisory council, now please provide the dates he was on the council, what meetings he attended, and any minutes showing what he might have contributed. Since it is possible he was on the council for only a short time and never attended any meeting, unless you can provide more than just the one fact that he was on the council, the line you inserted must be removed from the article. “Eysenck was a member of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quarterly.” Sirswindon (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god! --WSC 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Prof. Eysenck was an advisory council means nothing, unless you can show what advice he was giving (if any). Otherwise, for all you know, he might have been advising them that their previous policy was completely wrong. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found when and apparently, one reason, why he joined the advisory council. Sirswindon (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is well sourced and relevant. We are also following one group of scholarly sources that mention this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it appears that that Buchanon gives the date and suggests a reason for Eysenck becoming a member of the Council. "In 1974 Eysenck became a member of the academic advisory council of the Mankind Quarterly, joining those associated with the journal in attempting to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle. Buchanon pp.322-23" Sirswindon (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable material and talk-page disruption

Sirswindon removed this passage claiming it fails WP:V. This is not so. Quote from Buchanan p. 320:

Footnote 180 in Buchanan says:

And p. 321 discusses the 1978 row between Eysenck and Rose (in Nature and elsewhere) over the Eysenck interview which appeared in Beacon. In fact, the entire p. 321 is about the interview in Beacon; I'm not pasting it all here. I suggest Sirswindon self-reverts or I'll have to file a WP:AE report, not just for this removal but for all the tendentious disruption in the threads above. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What tendentious disruptions? Granted he has stated his viewpoint rather energetically, but certainly no more so than Widescreen; and if I can put up with Widescreen calling me a liar and a sophist without calling the cops, surely we can settle this the same way?

I personally have no objection to any verifiable statement being included, although of course I have my own ideas about over-emphasis. In which connection, I note that Buchanan continues: "Nonetheless, being approvingly cited by the National Front demonstrated very little about Eysenck's political motives."

And as to the Beacon interview, he also says (top of p.322): "However, the charge that he knowingly gave an interview (and tacit endorsement) to a far-right group seemed unfair." Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how

is over-emphasis given that it summarized two pages from the book. We do devote far more space to Buchanan's evaluation of these accusations, but completely removing the summary of the accusations (and names of the main accusers) makes the whole section uninformative, doesn't it? Or maybe that is the goal here? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly.

I'm told that the bases of Misplaced Pages are facts and Reliable Sources; POV material is anathema.

Accordingly, what are the facts here?

Prof. Eysenck has written a book about race and intelligence. Its findings are lauded by various right-wing groups. The question therefore arises as to what his own political opinions are, since it is not unknown for supposedly scientific work actually to be coloured by the writer's politics.

Eysenck's politics

So:

• What are Eysenck's politics? Socialist, he says. It was in the article, but has now gone. I still have the reference.

• His views on racial (or sexual or religious) discrimination? He's stated them: they're in the article.

• On segregation? Ditto.

• On Nazism? Ditto.

• On the National Front? There is his letter to the Times (not — yet — in the article, but quoted by Buchanan, p. 322) saying that he and Jensen were both 'strongly opposed to any form of racialism including that advocated by the National Front.'

If anyone has produced an any statement of his contradicting the above positions, I'm unaware of it.

Criticisms of his politics

But it is certainly a fact that criticisms have been made.

What is the basis of these criticisms? Apparently not his stated political opinions.

Is it his behaviour? Has he bashed immigrant children, broken the shop windows of Jewish businesses or looted Indian ones?

No. He has written for periodicals, some of whose other contributors are considered by the critics — possibly correctly -- to be right-wing. And this is the best anyone can come up with in the 40 years since R, I & E was published. And that too is already in the article.

Does it mean anything? To take a journal already mentioned, the Times has right-wing contributors (I remember an editorial a while ago about how wonderful the British Empire was for everyone under it rule). And note that even Buchanan — who is quite critical of Eysenck on several counts — acquits him of anything worse than naïvety on this one.

So the whole thing consists of insinuation and opinion — it is, in a word, POV.

Fascist behaviour?

What are the characteristics of Fascism that everyone considers so objectionable? Beating up opponents? Denying them the chance to speak? Terrorising their families?

These were the tactics of Eysenck's critics, as documented. His children's lives were made so miserable that he felt obliged obliged to change their names by deed poll. So whose behaviour was Fascist?

This is, in part, was I meant by over-emphasis: concentrating on the mouse and ignoring the elephant in the room.

Eysenck's writings

There is also, of course, criticism of the content of his writings, in particular, R, I & E; which brings me back to Reliable Sources.

Eysenck stated his conclusions precisely, with great care, the proper scientific reservations and at some length, in R, I & E; I have quoted them verbatim on Itsmejudith's talk page.

I have been at some pains to stop prejudicially distorted second-hand accounts of these conclusions from being inserted into the article. The distortion itself shows that the sources are not Reliable.

So thank you for the reference to that is the goal; it describes the tactics of the critics exactly: "keep the enemy's positions as vague as possible"; "As a propagandist, whatever you do, don't let 's statements into the article"; "A lead that describes as "far-right" is much better than something like "someone who considers that the causes of measured differences in IQ may be, in part, genetic".

"When you read in the paper that 'experts' have disagreed, it is always wise to find out first whether they were in fact expert in the subject under discussion… that is, people who have specialised in the relevant fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics and intelligence testing, have contributed significantly to these areas, and are familiar with the enormous amount of research which is relevant to a discussion of the field."

and also:

" an almost universal belief to the effect that anyone is competent to discuss psychological problems, whether he has taken the trouble to study the subject or not, and that while everybody’s opinion is of equal value, that of the professional psychologist must be excluded at all costs because he might spoil the the fun by producing some facts which would completely upset the speculation and the wonderful dream-castles so laboriously constructed by the layman."

Has R, I & E been faulted on statements of fact, here, by experts?

Apparently not by Billig, who seems to be a sociologist; the gravamen of his charges appears to be that of giving aid and comfort to the Enemy, and thus not based on the accuracy of the science at all. Nor by Barnett (a zoologist or ethologist?): his reference to R, I & E as 'inflammatory' and 'insulting' is mere name-calling, hence POV.

Over-emphasis

Now back to over-emphasis. I certainly don't deny that the attacks on Eysenck are of encyclopædic interest, if only as a psychological and political phenomenon. Nor do I assert that they're confined to the Left. Ad hominem attacks on figures whose writings the critics are unable to rebut factually — those of Chomsky, for example — are just as common from the Right. Eysenck himself said:

"Politicians of all creeds tend to regard psychology with suspicion, not because it is in league with any particular brand of politics, but because it attempts to substitute factual evidence and scientific reasoning for stereotyped thinking and undeviating adhesion to dogma. The politician is used to seeing dogma opposed to counter-dogma; to find a case argued on its factual merits deprives him of his favourite weapon."

But these attacks are only dribble in the ocean of criticism that any scientific assertion of genetic differences between groups — however trivial -- attracts. Whole books have been written on the subject (e.g. that by Segerstråle), and the same criticisms that are made of Eysenck, have been made of Jensen and all the others that I won't bother to enumerate.

I therefore submit that the proper place for them in the the article on the History of the race and intelligence controversy, with a pointer from the current article.

Sorry for the length of this, and also for a certain amount of inevitable repetition of what I've said previously. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it needed to be said. It is about scholarship, which I have defined before and will do so again. Taking one's research out of context is done all the time. But as you wrote, those who want to continue the debate concerning the validity of genetic differences in IQ, do so where it is covered and not in this article. Sirswindon (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Verification requested

This edit added that Eysenck's joined MQ "attempting to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle". The citations given are rather confusing. Please provide a brief quotation from the source(s) supporting the part of the statement I quoted herein. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Buchanan, p.349 : "In the post-Jensen era, the Fund attempted to reinvent itself as a benevolent provider for mainstream behavioural science. Nevertheless, it appeared to place a priority on funding research into bio-genetically grounded psychological differences, including racial differences. Affiliate journal Mankind Quarterly' was a favoured destination for man Fund recipients. (etc.)"

And of course: "Whatever the agenda of the Pioneer Fund, one should not assume it was shared by all researchers it supported. " (ibid.) Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That says nothing of Eysenck's motives for joining the board. See WP:SYNT. From that passage we might as well speculate that he did it just to get money from PF because they liked to dish out funds to MQ regulars. But such speculation does not belong in Misplaced Pages articles. We need sources directly supporting the statements per WP:V. Insofar I don't see statements discussing Eysenck's motivation, so it should be removed from the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Buchanan Pages 322-323 – “Eysenck had joined the advisory board of one such journal, Mankind Quarterly, in 1974 on the invitation of Richard Lynn. those associated with the Mankind Quarterly attempted to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle in the late 1970s.” A motivating reason for Eysenck joining the board. He later started his own Journals. Sirswindon (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More removal of content cited from secondary sources

Edit by Paul Magnussen. Please explain why those passages selected by a secondary source are not representative of HE's views on R&I. And explain why you think a secondary source discussing HE's role as a "prolific popularizer" should not be included in this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that no explanation was given, I've added them back. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Eysenck may be described as a "prolific popularizer", no objection there.

But as to the rest (which I think you did not add back) being representative of HE's views:

The second quotation (of which the elided passage is "such as transfer from the natural mother to a foster mother)" is taken out of context, in that all the evidence adduced to support this statement — the "facts when it was written", many pages, up to and including the study by Ronald Wilson (1972) — is omitted.

It's only this that makes Barnett's dismissive statement seem superficially plausible.

The sentence from R, I & E is not taken out of of context and does seem representative, and I apologise for deleting it along with the rest.

The comment on it, however, is just invective and belongs to no apparent domain of knowledge. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that just your own personal judgement? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with GRECE

Apparently prefacing the book of Krebs was not the end of it. Here are some snippets I found searching for Eysenck and GRECE:

• p. 48: "Eysenck's book, On the Inequality of Man, has been published in a French translation by Copernic, GRECE's publishing house."

• Economic and Political Weekly - Volume 14, Part 4 (1979) - Page 1874: 'Judging by their exposure to the limelight, the main components of the New Right are GRECE (the Research and Study ...) whose successful titles include Hans Eysenck's "The Inequality of Man" in translation and "Race et Intelligence"'

• p. 150 (this one has page preview) "The publication by Copernic of works such as Hans Eysenck's L'Inegalite de l'homme (The Inequality of Man) or the collaborative Race et Intelligence (under the pseudonym Jean-Pierre Hérbert) showed how thin was the cultural veil drawn across GRECE's sociobiological outlook." The book introduces "Copernic" on p. 145 as "GRECE's own publishing house".

• p. 12: "12e Colloque national 4 décembre 1977, Palais des Congrès, Paris - « Les illusions de l'égalité », avec Thierry Maulnier, Hans J. Eysenck, Henri Gobard, Julien Cheverny, Alain de Benoist."

• p. 280 "Douzième colloque national au Palais des Congrès de la Porte Maillot : Les illusions de l'égalité, avec Thierry Maulnier, Hans J. Eysenck, Henri Gobard, Julien Cheverny et Alain de Benoist. Février-mars 1978. Le G.R.E.C.E. crée l'événement... " Note that the publisher of this is Copernic.

Apparently he also took part in at least one GRECE-related seminar in France besides GRECE being the effective publisher of his book Inequality of Man in France. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tremendous work! This research is revealing. But it showes also, that you can't take Buchanan serious. He dosn't direct his attantion on Eysencks relationship with far right groups and doesen't examine this issue in-depth. I don't want to aggrieve anyone, but I think the buchanan part is a bit essayistic. --WSC 09:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very useful. The Die Zeitung article you mention in a thread above is a highly reliable source. But Buchanan's biography is still reliable for this article. Gibson's too. We can't write an article about an academic and disregard the full length biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't say the biographys aren't reliable. I said, you can't take them serious for the right-wing-issue. And this biographys shoulden't quote any conjectures about Eysencks purposes or what he really thought about that issue. We are an enzyklopedia. Not readers digest. --WSC 10:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading what is being written here, makes me ask “where is scholarship?” Reading all the references it is still Impossible to know if Eysenck had any right-wing motivations in what he wrote. As to Widescreen’s remark: I don't say the biographys aren't reliable. I said, you can't take them serious for the right-wing-issue. And this biographys shoulden't quote any conjectures about Eysencks purposes or what he really thought about that issue. We are an enzyklopedia. Not readers digest.” He is correct, being an encyclopedia none of the material regarding allegations, conjectures, or what Eysenck might have thought, belong in the Article. Encyclopedias are about FACTS. Sirswindon (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AE request

I've asked uninvolved admins to intervene over there. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An introduction this time (instead of a preface)

: "Pearson's earliest publications include Blood Groups and Race, Eugenics and Race, Race and Civilization, Early Civilisations of the Nordic Peoples (all London: Clair Press, 1966; some later distributed by The Thunderbolt Inc., an organ of the American Nazi party). Most recent is his Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe, with an introduction by Hans Eysenck (Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend, 1991), a book Stefan Kühl calls "the most comprehensive defense of scientific racism in the United States since 1945. Pearson's racist views and his connections to both the old and new right have been discussed in many sources. " And the WorldCat entry confirms: "Responsibility: Roger Pearson ; with introduction by Hans J. Eysenck." Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of extensive quotes from Bartlett

By Including Bartlett’s extensive Quote, you have included what is NOT the present accepted academic position regarding how much genetics plays in determining the IQ of an individual. Therefore if you include Barnett, than the most widely held view must also be included. (It is also what Eysenck wrote concerning Individual Differences). What you included:

Barnett follows with a quote from another book by Eysenck: “the whole course of development of a child's intellectual capabilities is largely laid down genetically, and even extreme environmental changes . . . have little power to alter this development. Barnett lambasts the latter with: "As we know, this statement is in conflict with the principles of genetics, especially the interaction of heredity and environment. Nor did it correspond to the facts even when it was written.”

From “Child Development and Education” by T.M. McDevitt and J. E. Ormrod, 2007. Evidence for Hereditary Influences Earlier we mentioned that measures of information processing speed correlate with IQ scores. Speed 
of processing depends on neurological efficiency and maturation, which are genetically controlled. 
From this standpoint, then, we have some support for a hereditary basis for intelligence (Perkins, 
1995). The fact that children with certain genetic defects (e.g., Down syndrome) have, on average, 
significantly lower IQ scores than their nondisabled peers (Keogh & MacMillan, 1996) provides 
further evidence of heredity's influence. But perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from twin 
studies and adoption studies. Twin studies Numerous studies have used monozygotic (identical) twins and dizygotic (fraternal) twins to get a 
sense of how strongly heredity affects IQ. Because monozygotic twins begin as a single fertilized egg 
which then separates, they are genetically equivalent human beings. In contrast, dizygotic twins are 
conceived as two separate fertilized eggs. They share about 50 percent of their genetic makeup, with 
the other 50 percent being unique to each twin. If identical twins have more similar IQ scores than 
fraternal twins, we can reasonably conclude that heredity influences intelligence. Most twins are raised together by the same parent(s) and in the same home, and so they share 
similar environments as well as similar genes. Yet even when twins are raised separately (perhaps 
because they have been adopted and raised by different parents), they typically have similar IQ 
scores (Bouchard & McGue, 1981; N. Brody, 1992; Mackintosh, 1998; Plomin & Petrill, 1997). In a 
review of many twin studies, Bouchard and McGue (1981) found these average (median) 
correlations: Identical twins raised in the same home: .86 Identical twins raised in different homes: .72 Fraternal twins raised in the same home: .60 The correlation of .72 indicates that identical twins raised in different environments tend to have very 
similar IQ scores. In fact, these twins are more similar to each other than are fraternal twins raised in the same home.

If you wish, please appeal to an independent reviewer, but until quotations from references that represent the view accepted by the majority of the academic community are also included, that portion of Bartlett must be deleted. Sirswindon (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is: this is from a reliable secondary source and should not be deleted. You may find something equally authoritative to balance it with. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As to reliability: this is a statement about genetics. Is Bartlett a geneticist? I don't know, I'm not familiar with him; I'm merely asking. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Bartlett material is almost too laughable to be taken seriously. Few (if any) geneticists believe that heredity doesn’t play a significant role in determining the level of a person’s IQ? The question has always been: “It is not how high is your IQ, it is what do you do with it?” Please bring in an independent reviewer with an academic background. Sirswindon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) First most of this "quotes from Bartlett" are actually quotes from Eysenck (as quoted by "Bartlett"). And his name is S.A. Barnett not "Bartlett". A brief bio of him appears here "Professor S A Barnett, formerly Professor of Zoology, Faculty of Science, ANU" meaning Australian National University. And a longer bio can be found here. He seems qualified enough to select quotes from someone, even if you disagree with his comments on them. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please let me put this a different way: Tijfo098 and Itsmejudith, It is obvious that you both have high three-digit IQs. Did your DNA significantly contribute to your high IQ --- and are the low two-digit IQs, all due to their environment? (We all know someone in a great environment who hasn't a brain in his head.) Please re-read what was placed in the article from Barnett and you will agree to delete it. Sirswindon (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Hans Eysenck (1973). Race, Education and Intelligence. Maurice Temple Smith. pp. 9–10. ISBN 0-8511-7009-9.
2. Cite error: The named reference HallerNiggeschmidt2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles