Talk:Pioneer Fund - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 19 June 2011 (→Murray and the Ford analogy: My opinion on the matter.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:17, 19 June 2011 by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) (→Murray and the Ford analogy: My opinion on the matter.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Pioneer Fund, 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Twin Study Conclusions

I think this statement is misleading if not false.

"The studies, along with similar studies, have demonstrated that the heritabilities of intelligence and personality measures are 50 percent or more."

My understanding is that the various studies of the heritability of IQ (or similar measures) have revealed a range of values of from something like 20% to 70%. The number is often reported as 50% as a sort of compromise. But "50% or more" is as misleading as it would be to say 20%.

I recommend a more nuanced statement of the "conclusions" of these various studies, avoiding the word "demonstrate," which suggests something more definitive than we have.

Eperotao (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Good observations. Go for it. Will Beback talk 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposing view sources

To summarize:

Self-published by the Pioneer Fund:

Not self-published:

Lynn, R. (2001). The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
- Weyher, H. F. (2001). Preface to R. Lynn, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. (pp. ix-lxii). Lanham, MD: University Press of America
  - Rushton, J. P. Book review. Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1431-1433
Rushton, J. P. (2002). The Pioneer Fund and the scientific study of human differences. Albany Law Review, 65, 207-261

All of the not self-published sources fullfill the criteria for WP:RS. That those who wrote them have a particular POV is not relevant. WP:NPOV allows sources representing a POV as long as all significant views are present. That some dislike these researchers is just ad hominem. The criticism against the journal Personality and Individual Differences can possibly only apply to Rushton' s review of the book since only his review appeared in this journal. Not the other sources. Furthermore, the article critical of the journal was written nine years before Rushton's review and referred to ties between Rushton and Eysenck who was the editor of the journal. At the time of the review Eysenck was dead. As such I see no reason to exclude any of the not self-published sources. Regarding the self-published material by the Fund I see no justification for excluding it if keeping self-published material by the SLPC.Miradre (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rushton is a primary source. Primary sources can be used for content, but secondary sources need to be used to establish proper weight. aprock (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The book review is not a primary source. If it is then all critical book reviews of Race, Evolution, and Behavior should be removed. Regarding the Albany Law Review article so is it mainly a review.Miradre (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer grantees are of course primary sources when writing about the Pioneer fund. We can include it of course, with due care.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Where is that supposed policy? A review is always a review, regardless of who writes it. Its reliability is judged by where it is published.Miradre (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the description for primary sources at WP:PST: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved. aprock (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is like arguing that a researcher writing a review article on his general area of research is a primary source when in fact most review articles are written by such researchers. Thus, Misplaced Pages should prohibit most scientific review articles which is of course false. You selectively quoted only part of the policy. A review article is always a review article and a secondary source. Regardless of who writes it. Its reliability is judged by where it is published.Miradre (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the policy, then I suggest you take up your issue on the talk page of the policy. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the policy, I suggest you seek further community input, either through an RfC or on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do so yourself if you disagree to me adding material fulfilling all criteria for acceptable sources.Miradre (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Except Miradre, you do not appear to have a WP:CONSENSUS for adding them. I am also opposed to these sources, at least in part because they are too closely associated with the topic -- which aprock points out makes them WP:PRIMARY sources. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are also arguing that Misplaced Pages should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved"? Miradre (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that. Here is what I wrote in the first response to you: "Primary sources can be used for content, but secondary sources need to be used to establish proper weight". aprock (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the book review is a secondary source. Unless you want to start removing critical book reviews regarding Rushton's book. The Albany Law Review article is a review which is also secondary source.Miradre (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Pioneer Fund grantees are primary sources when writing about the Pioneer Fund. Their views can certainly be used, but secondary sources are needed to establish weight. aprock (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no such policy. Persons involved in an area are allowed to write an review regarding this area. Your claim means that Misplaced Pages should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved".Miradre (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your denial of its existence doesn't make the policy disappear. And there is a world of difference between "most scientific review articles researchers doing research in that area" and the review by the president of the Pioneer Fund of a book by a member and beneficiary of the Pioneer Fund on the topic of the Pioneer Fund -- a relationship so thoroughly incestuous that you'd expect everybody involved to have severe birth defects (metaphorically speaking). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He was not head at the time of the review. What are your objections to the other sources?Miradre (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether he was head or not is irrelevant. Those are biased, primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources with a view is not in itself a criteria for exclusion. You are also arguing that Misplaced Pages should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved"? Miradre (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseum of a point already rebutted. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He became the head the same damn year he wrote both those reviews -- so you're simply splitting hairs. The other sources are parties to the exact same piece of academic incest. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that he was not head when he wrote the Journal article because he refers to another person as head. Regarding the other sources, you are arguing that Rushton has an undue relationship with the Albany Law review? That Lynn had such a relationship with publisher of his book on the fund? Miradre (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the primary source be excluded. Four the fourth time (previous three: , , ), what is needed is a secondary source to establish the appropriate weight to be given to the views of Pioneer Fund grantees. aprock (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although I have previously argued for the exclusion of these sources, I would be prepared to entertain them if a WP:SECONDARY source gave them notice. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These are secondary sources, see below.Miradre (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a false analogy and a total misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages policy. If a prominent member of the Brookings Institute is writing about the Brookings Institute that's a primary source. If a Brookings Institute member is writing about butterflies, and they are a specialist in butterflies, that is not a primary source. This is simple. Don't pretend otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not it is not a false analogy. The policy page makes no such exclusion.Miradre (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that a if a member of an organization writes about that organization that is equivalent to somebody writing about a topic they are an expert in? The policy page makes no such exclusion because it doesn't cover insanely bad faithed interpretations of itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." So when Lynn and Rushton writes about the part of the history of the Fund they were not involved in, then these sources are secondary.Miradre (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again (previously ), if you have a problem with the policy itself, I suggest you take up your issues on the policy talk page. aprock (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the same to you.Miradre (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also again -- argumentum ad nauseum of a point already rebutted. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It would appear, from the above, long-winded and circular, discussion that we still do not have a WP:CONSENSUS for the inclusion of these four Pioneer Fund-affiliated sources, lacking a secondary source demonstrating what WP:WEIGHT they are due. As such, the status quo continues until either a consensus is gained for their inclusion here, or through an RfD, or until the facts underlying the current (lack of) consensus changes. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is not preference in WP:BRD for that a particular version, such as the status quo, is automatically better or prefered.Miradre (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) WP:BRD is only an essay -- WP:CONSENSUS is the policy. (ii) Unless you can get a consensus for any change, the status quo holds. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing there stating that the status quo is the preferred version.Miradre (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do think we have WP:CONSENSUS here and it doesn't agree with you. A single editor cannot hold consensus hostage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is a logical consequence of that policy. If anybody could unilaterally seek to impose their own preferred version, the consensus would be impotent. STOP WP:WIKILAWYERING! Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, I have introduced a new point. See below.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As such, I propose we cite them only for arguments regarding that part of the Fund's history they were not involved in. Thoughts? Miradre (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they are still primary sources -- their later/current involvement with the Fund makes them an interested party in relation to the earlier history as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See the comparison with the military historian above. Your argument would apply to him as well but does not according to policy.Miradre (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre would have us believe that Rushton became the president of the Fund in 2002, but was "not involved in" the Fund when he wrote two reviews that same year. I say WP:Complete bollocks! Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He was not head when he wrote book review. He was certainly involved in the sense of receiving money. But I propose we do not cite him regarding the Fund's history from the time he started receiving money but only for the time period before. On analogy with the military historian above.Miradre (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that (i) he hhistorian in question did not rise, immediately after writing his book, to the head of the German (or Allied) High Command, and that the source in question wasn't a history of said High Command, the analogy does not seem to be appropriate (Rushton's relationship with his subject matter is a lo closer than the historian's). A further differentiating feature is that a historian is a recognised expert on history -- Rushton is not. Therefore the former is a WP:RS on history, the latter is not. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a soldier's personal relationship with a war is much more intense and closer than Rushton's is with the fund. I do think both Lynn and Rushton qualifies as experts on much the research sponsored by the Fund.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Equine sado-necrophilia

As Miradre appears wholly unwilling to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I'm withdrawing from this conversation until either (i) there looks to be at least some chance of the WP:CONSENSUS shifting, or (ii) a new and compelling argument is introduced to freshen up the corpse. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 19:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But I did introduce a new argument above by proposing to limit citing these sources to the time before the authors received funding in accordance with the policy on secondary sources.Miradre (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But it hasn't convinced anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A possible way forward

Something about this dispute doesn't make sense to me. I understand that Miradre thinks this article is excessively critical of the Pioneer Fund, and wants it to be less so. But a few months Miradre himself was making this article more critical of the Pioneer Fund.

In these two edits Miradre added additional criticism of the fund from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In this edit, Miradre removed a viewpoint defending the fund from the lead, causing the lead to have an entirely anti-fund perspective. The lead contained both pro-fund and anti-fund views before Miradre removed the viewpoint defending the fund.

A few months ago Miradre also made the article about Race, Evolution, and Behavior more critical of the book. More recently he's complained that both of these articles are too critical. I think that if Miradre now thinks these articles should be less critical, he should self-revert some of his own earlier changes that made them more critical. Would anyone object to that idea?Boothello (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst self-reversion of immediately recent changes should always be acceptable (both to allow one to correct one's own errors, and because no consensus can have developed around the new version), according the 'right' to self-revert older changes would appear to be an implicit acceptance of WP:OWNERship, which I think sets a bad precedent. I also don't think it would solve the underlying problem. What we need is greater breadth of (reliable, prominent, third-party) opinion, not less. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that Miradre has specifically held up his insertion of criticism into Race, Evolution, and Behavior as evidence for his claim that he does not edit in a POV manner. . aprock (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New source

Here is a new source from a book by Pergamon Press by a non-PF grantee. It mentions both Lynn's book and the Pioneer Fund favorably. Miradre (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn's book states that Helmuth Nyborg is a Pioneer grantee. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So is Lynn's book now suddenly a reliable source since you are quoting it?Miradre (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not for writing a wikipedia article, but certainly for verifying names of grantees in wikipedia talk page discussions like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is still a double standard. Which policy states that there are differences regarding what is a RS for the talk page and article itself? Clearly the same standard applies in both cases.Miradre (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you have written is incorrect. The guidelines for what content is permitted in articles does not apply to the content of messages on talk pages. Of course care has to be taken when making statements about living people. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is this supposed policy? WP:RS does not state that there is a different standard for what is a RS on the talk page.Miradre (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This source (Google Translation) states:

The group of eugenics around Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredsson form a tightly woven and highly productive network of people who quote each other's work, help each other, and publishes a small number of journals being edited by group members. All find support for their work in the Pioneer Fund, and all helping to arm the utmost extreme right wing of the "scientific" racist arguments.
Helmuth Nyborg, now a former psychology professor at Aarhus University, belongs in this group.

I would therefore question whether he can be considered a third-party, either on the PN, Rushton, or any of the other members of this "network". Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you are quoting is not a RS.Miradre (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine -- I'm not proposing introducing it into the article -- I'm merely using it here on talk for impeachment purposes. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not become more of a RS because you quote it on the talk page.Miradre (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that the piece comes across as overtly partisan and combative, making it clearly a primary rather than secondary source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note the parallel discussion at WP:RSN#The Pioneer Fund. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, please read the policy on NPOV. Material with a POV is not disallowed in WP. If that was the cause then much of the anti-PF material should be disallowed.Miradre (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have. Nyborg is clearly "offering an insider's view of event", and is thus a WP:PRIMARY source. For my (concurring) opinion on how such primary sources may be used, read my post dated 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC) above. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY states that such a source is secondary when describing the time before the personal involvement of the author.Miradre (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That part must be in one of those fancy invisible fonts. I can't see it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It also ignores the fact that Nyborg's personal involvement in the Rushton/Lynn/Gottfredsson network, and their disputes and controversies, appears to extend back quite a way. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That quote contains the implicit assumption that the secondary-source writer is a recognised, non-partisan expert on the subject matter. A non-historian writing their memoirs of WWII would still be a primary source, even where they cover events to which they were not directly a party. Last I checked Nyborg is not a Historian of Science, Sociologist of Science or similar. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is your own OR interpretation. Again, wikipedia is not limited to only "non-partisan" views, whatever that it. Please read WP:NPOV, views with a POV are allowed. Nyborg is clearly an expert on the scientific research funded by Pioneer.Miradre (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the WP:POT OR accusation again. Miradre: my interpretation is no more OR than your "WP:SECONDARY states that such a source is secondary when describing the time before the personal involvement of the author." Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV clearly states that different views are are allowed in Misplaced Pages. We do not for yourselves decide what the "truth" is and present only this particular view. Regarding WP:SECONDARY, see my quote above.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

After a reasonable amount of discussion, Miradre is still the only proponent of this source, in face of multiple opponents to it. I therefore claim WP:CONSENSUS & declare WP:DEADHORSE on this topic. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I presented a new source. As far I see only you and another editor disagreeing. You seem very quick to claim consensus.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because you're so quick to WP:WIKILAWYER & argumentum ad nauseum. And although Nomoskedasticity hasn't explicitly rejected your source, they have expressed skepticism of your argument. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nyborg is a Pioneer Grantee and has a credibility that is so bad that he had to rely on supporting testimonies from Rushton when he was accused of scientific misconduct.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source

This time it is Ulric Neisser. Head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence. Not in any way a PF grantee. The source is his review of Lynn's and Tucker's books on the Pioneer Fund in "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists?", Contemporary Psychology , Volume 49 (1): 5, 2004. Any objections to including it? Miradre (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide us with the full text? It doesn't appear to be available online. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No. That is copyright violation.Miradre (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note that it was discussed in #Citations must be verifiable above, with concern expressed about quotes being taken out of context. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do can cite a limited part of the article as per fair use. The final part of the article, after a discussion on what racism is: "By this definition, we cannot conclude that people are racists just because they accept grants from the Pioneer Fund. Other evidence would be needed to reach that conclusion in individual cases. How about the Pioneer Fund itself? Has it made a positive contribution, or would the world have been better off without it? Such counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to decide. The world would surely be better off if there were no racists at all, but that is not an option. Would history have taken a different turn without Harry Laughlin's expert testimony on sterilization and such matters? It is hard to be sure, but anyway he would probably have testified even without Draper's support. The Pioneer Fund's later efforts in the battle against school desegregation and civil rights, so carefully documented in Tucker's book, were lost causes that ended as complete failures. All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus. As for who is a racist, that no longer seems worth worrying about."Miradre (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This piece is highly ambiguous. (i) It gives the PN a pass on its activities only because they were (in hindsight) futile. (ii) It explicitly sidesteps the question of whether the PN (or its affilaites) was racist. Really, it is too equivocal to be useful, particularly lacking the wider context of the rest of the article to compare it to. Also, I'd be interested in seeing Tucker's response, which was apparently attached as part of the same journal issue. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Neisser does not sidestep the issue. He quite rightly states that just receiving a grant from the PF does not make one a racist. Neisser is in no way a PF grantee. Exactly what policy would disallow this notable view? It is hard to think of a more important view on this matter than that of the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence.Miradre (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been able to verify the quotes by Neisser. But I agree that his testimony is not unambiguously positive. He says that the racist agenda has been mostly harmless (I don't really see on what he bases this argument, it is at best highly speculative - at worst it ignores important facts), and then he says that the fact that they have engendered debate on important issues and encouraged good studies on the subject (either by some of the less problematic studies they have made and by encouraging good research as a response to their bad research) and ends out giving PF a "weak plus". I think his arguments are highly problematic, even wrong, but it is not wrong to represent his opinion as being fairly apologetic in tone. It is of course a reliable source and it probably should be included.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclear what the bad research is supposed to be. Just your personal opinion? Neisser notes that Tucker mainly avoids discussing the research itself and instead concentrates on what is in essence ad hominem attacks which can be seen as an attempt to discredit the research that way.Miradre (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely we need to know about the proposed edit in order to be able to evaluate the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are something else to consider. Neisser thinks that the books complement one another since they both have different POVs and tend to be selective in what they state. By reading both one gets a more complete picture. As such I think this demonstrates that Lynn's book itself should be allowed as a source in the article. Furthermore, it is hard to argue that Tucker with his long history of attacks against the PF is any less involved than Lynn. If Lynn's book is a primary source, then so is Tucker's book. Thus, either should both books be allowed as sources or none.Miradre (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tucker's book is a good secondary source: it is a regular academic book, written by a historian of science. Neisser's article is an opinion piece or essay, to which Tucker wrote a response in the same journal. Lynn's book is a promotional book on the Fund, written as official historian of the Pioneer Fund. It is clearly a primary source. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion as an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor. Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, thinks that both books are partisan views and that reading both gives a more complete picture. Tucker is as involved with the Fund as Lynn but from the opposite side, so either both should be in or both be out.Miradre (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense, Tucker's economic future does not depend on him saying negative things about the Pioneer fund.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Lynn's. I repeat, Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, thinks that both books are partisan views and that reading both gives a more complete picture.Miradre (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Lynn commonsense says otherwise - he is unlikely to bite the hand that has fed him for so many years. Well, as I have stated I think we can include Neisser's view which sees them both as partisan views. But we must remember that Neisser's opinion is not definitive both books have been reviewed by others, and the general weight of the reviews fall out in Tucker's favor. That is the book that non-pioneer scholars actually use to describe the history of the fund, Lynn's is not.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source that Lynn is receiving any support currently? He of course have his pension as well as likely getting a large income from his many books. He does not depend on the Fund. One could as well say that Tucker has based his career on attacking the Fund and its research. I have listed numerous reviews finding support for Lynn's book. Neisser's view is of course by far the most important of all as the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence. He views both books as partisan. Tucker is as involved with the Fund as Lynn but from the opposite side, so either both should be in or both be out.Miradre (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn has received several hundred thousands of dollars from PF -- I rather doubt if his royalties would match that (his books would hardly seem to be best sellers). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could as well argue that most of Tucker's career and thus his income has depended on attacking the Fund. He is as involved as Lynn.Miradre (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you could not -- unless you can find some evidence that Tucker, unlike Lynn, is making large amounts of money off his books. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Amazon, Lynn's most-best-selling book appears to be The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide -- ranking only #1,419,944 -- so unlikely to generate any substantive royalties to speak of. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the prices. IQ and the Wealth of Nation is likely the book that has sold best historically. $100 for a copy. Likely most university libraries in the world has a copy.Miradre (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Price≠royalties. Chances are not every university has one. Once every university that wants one has one, sales drop off (as they'd only have to replace the occasional damaged or worn copy). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are for example, 600 copies of that book in libraries in the US, but apparently only 14 in libraries in the UK. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on what source? Still, 600x100=$60,000, just for US libraries for this single book. Adding up all sales to universities worldwide of his books likely make a very large income considering their prices. Not to mention that his books are also likely often bought outside academia. Current amazon ranking says little regarding how well they sold when released.Miradre (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WorldCat. And ~~600x100=$60,000~~ -- "Price≠royalties"! And even if this wasn't true, $60,000 is less than 1/10th what he received from PF. You assume without evidence that all universities would buy his book. Many won't. Either from budgetary reasons, lack of interest in what he has to say, the fact that their primary language of tuition isn't English (has this book been widely translated?), or a combination of these reasons. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claims are simply WP:OR based upon heroic assumptions -- up against the verifiable fact that he's taken over half a million dollars from the PF. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Research funding≠personal income. Unlike royalties from books. He likely got a very good deal from his later obscure publisher after IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Most likely most of sales price.Miradre (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In anycase it doesn't matter only a fool would argue that Lynn has no conflict of interets in relation to thre Pioneer Fund and it would require extremely good evidence to argue that Tucker has such a COI. This is beating around the bush on minor points is becoming quite disruptive.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tucker obviously has a long history of involvement with the PF considering his publications. Just from the opposite side of Lynn.Miradre (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What has been the main objections against letting the Pioneer Fund's researchers present their view which have been published in academic journals and in books by non-vanity publisher? 1. They are partisan. Well, Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, thinks that Tucker's book is also partisan. 2. They have history of involvement with the Fund. Tucker is as involved with the Fund as Lynn but from the opposite side, for a large part of his professional career and publications, so either both should be in or both be out.Miradre (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just look at Tucker's publications: . They are almost all about race research. He describes his research as "My research interests concern the use--or more properly the misuse--of social science to support oppressive social policies, especially in the area of race. I seek to explore how scientists in general, and psychologists in particular, have become involved with such issues and what effect their participation has produced." He is clearly a partisan.Miradre (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, researching an area doesn't make you partisan - you should realize how incredible obtuse that argument is - it would mean that we couldnt cite any expert in anything. There is however a clear difference between researchers paid by interest organizations to conduct research in specific areas (such as Eysenck's work on tobacco and cancer, and Lynn's work on the pioneer fund) and researchers with tenure who can pursue their research free of economical interests. If you cannot grasp the distinction then there is nothing more to talk about you have wasted enough of other people's time now and if I didn't know you so well by now I might think you were simply trolling.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A completely valid research area. He has been awarded several prizes for his research in the history of psychology. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So is research on race and intelligence.Miradre (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop. It is irrelevant, you are swaying no one.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not irrelevant. No double standard. Tucker's book is partisan. Tucker has been involved with the fund for most of his professional career. If the supportive researchers' articles and books are primary sources, so is his critical. Misplaced Pages policies are not for just excluding the views of one side.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Should not the readers be able to read both views and decide for themselves? Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, thinks that this provides a more complete picture than either of the books alone.Miradre (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Will it suffice if I state my agreement that Neisser's view should be included a third time or do you want four or five?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, and not a PF grantee, should be included is of course obvious. Currently we are discussing the status of the two books on the fund, Lynn's and Tucker's. I suggest a timeout, see below.Miradre (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should take a look at everything Neisser had to say in that article, before deciding -- I mislike being led by the nose. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is of course wise. I cannot for copyright reasons copy the whole article here. May I suggest taking a time-out in order to allow everyone interested some time to look at the article elsewhere? Miradre (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the source

Copies of Neisser's review/essay and Tucker's reponse are temporarily here and here. Mathsci (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mathsci. Hmmm -- "Lynn’s book begins with a self-serving 53-page Preface by Harry Weyher..." This would be the same preface that Miradre has been pushing on us at every opportunity? It describes grantee William Shockley, for whom Lynn "reserves his highest praise" as "a particularly odious racist". The general tone appears to be neutral (to mildly positive) towards Tucker, and scathing towards Lynn. I don't think anybody reading it would consider Neisser to regard Lynn's book as a WP:RS. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "Race, Evolution, and Behavior ... presents his “evolutionary” theory of race differences, which I will not describe here because it turns my stomach." -- a somewhat visceral description. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The question now is what material from this source should we include on it in this article? Most of it actually would appear to be more relevant to Richard Lynn, whom it eviscerates. However there is still some relevant information on Shockley, Rushton, Lynn himself, etc, in connection with the PF. It would appear that the closing paragraph (quoted near the top of this thread) does not in fact accurately reflect the overall tone. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. As a book review, it gives a fairly accurate description of the books. Neisser is not particularly complimentary about the accuracy of Lynn's descriptions of some of the grantees. Then, right at the end of the review he switches to essay-mode: he tries to clarify what he himself might mean by the word "racist" and its implications in the particular context of this fund and the research and researchers involved. The final paragraph gives a tentative conclusion based on that line of reasoning, not a summary of the book review. Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the text: " Unlike Lynn, he does not seem very interested in their research and does not try to describe it." " On the other hand, some of the research projects funded by Pioneer (as chronicled in Lynn's book) did produce important findings." "Here Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: “Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science”" I have already summarized the final part above. Can quote this part again: "On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."Miradre (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reproducing a few sentences is not how texts are summarised. Please could you give a brief summary, in your own words, of the content of Neisser's article, instead of cherry-picking sentences out of context? It seems that prior to my posting the two links, the previous descriptions given of Neisser's review (and Tucker's response) were serious misrepresentations. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can we say "cherry picking"? "Lynn’s book begins with a self-serving 53-page Preface by Harry Weyher", "Others have remained relatively obscure, but Lynn is proud of them all and never breathes a word of criticism.", "Lynn reserves his highest praise for William Shockley, the Nobel physicist who became obsessed with race, crime, and reproduction in the 1960s. At the time many of us found Shockley a particularly odious racist, but to Lynn he was “a courageous and tireless campaigner for research into the causes of human and race differences and for thoughtful consideration of eugenics” (p. 193). Perhaps this is because Lynn himself, like Shockley, is particularly worried about “dysgenic fertility” (i.e., the tendency for the poor and incompetent to have more children than the rich and smart, with allegedly dreadful consequences for the average intelligence of the population in the long run). He has even written a book about it (Lynn, 1996), undeterred by the fact that mean IQ scores have been rising (not falling!) for about a century. (For other positions on dysgenics, see Neisser, 1998.)", "Laughlin also served as a congressional witness in connection with the Immigration Act of 1924. As one would expect, he strongly advocated screening out the wrong kind of immigrants. Lynn's presentation of Laughlin's views makes them sound almost reasonable". Neisser's review is, in general, highly unflattering of Lynn's books. To take the few neutral-to-mildly-complimentary things Neisser had to say about it out of context is to misrepresent the source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Neisser states "Could both accounts be right?" It is clear that he thinks so and that they present complementing pictures. Tucker excludes research, Lynn excludes political advocacy. I repeat from the conclusion, Neisser's final statement: " "On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus." This final judgement should obviously be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. "It is clear that he thinks" no such thing -- as the above quotes that are scathing about Lynn and his "odious" and 'stomach-turning' fellow travellers clearly demonstrates. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted he also states that Tucker does not mention the research. His final verdict is a weak plus.Miradre (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not mean that he thinks "that they present complementing pictures." His impression is that the Lynn book presents a "self-serving" picture that give high praise to an "odious racist", is "undeterred" by the facts, and "never breathes a word of criticism" of the PF's racist bias. In other words he gives every impression that he regards the Lynn book as worthless. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-serving was only in regards to the preface by the former head. As Neisser states Tucker avoids writing about the research which is what makes Neisser give an overall "weak plus" for the Fund. Obviously, without this on the reserach the impression would have been only negative.Miradre (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) The "self-serving" preface is a fair sized chunk of the book (53 pages) (ii) You haven't explained the other scathing quotes. (iii) There is nothing in the review that indicates that Neisser considers Lynn's book to have any merit whatsoever. (iv) The "weak plus" is only because Neisser concludes that most people simply ignore the more odious ideas that the PF pushes (presumably including Rushton's 'stomach-turning' book). Again you are flogging a WP:DEADHORSE, if you expect anybody to agree that Neisser's review places either Lynn's book or the PF in a generally positive light. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1. But only part of the book. 2. I have never denied that Neisser was critical of the book. I have stated that he also found Tucker's book missing. 3-4. "On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus." You seem to be flogging a WP:DEADHORSE by denying that Neisser's overall conclusion was a "weak plus" for the PF.Miradre (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I will ask you to cease and desist violating WP:TALK by misrepresenting my statements. I directly addressed what you purport to be "Neisser's overall conclusion" (it is more an afterthought than a conclusion, in that it does not in any way act as a summary of the earlier material) in my point (iv) in my immediately previous post. To say that I am "denying" it is therefore utterly without foundation. So drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass -- nobody is buying what you're selling. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I will quote the whole final part of the review which was after a discussion on how to define racism: "By this definition, we cannot conclude that people are racists just because they accept grants from the Pioneer Fund. Other evidence would be needed to reach that conclusion in individual cases. How about the Pioneer Fund itself? Has it made a positive contribution, or would the world have been better off without it? Such counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to decide. The world would surely be better off if there were no racists at all, but that is not an option. Would history have taken a different turn without Harry Laughlin's expert testimony on sterilization and such matters? It is hard to be sure, but anyway he would probably have testified even without Draper's support. The Pioneer Fund's later efforts in the battle against school desegregation and civil rights, so carefully documented in Tucker's book, were lost causes that ended as complete failures. All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus. As for who is a racist, that no longer seems worth worrying about."Miradre (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as these earlier statements: "Unlike Lynn, he does not seem very interested in their research and does not try to describe it." " On the other hand, some of the research projects funded by Pioneer (as chronicled in Lynn's book) did produce important findings." "Here Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: “Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science”" Also, "Could both accounts be right?" It is clear that he thinks so and that they present complementing pictures. Tucker excludes research, Lynn excludes political advocacy.Miradre (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass of trying to deny that Neisser see both books are as valuable for different aspects as well as that the overall conclusion regarding the Fund was slightly positive.Miradre (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre: nobody is accepting that final paragraph, which you have already previously quoted out of context, as representative. WP:DEADHORSE. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the whole final conclusion of the review. See also the other statements I quoted. Please do not conflate yourself with everyone else.Miradre (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, as stated above. WP:DEADHORSE. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Trying to deny that Neisser has gave "weak plus" to PF in his final conclusion as well as that he stated that Tucker's book does not attempt to try describe the research which has been important is as a WP:DEADHORSE.Miradre (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseum of already rebutted points. (Also violation of WP:TALK.) See #Equine sado-necrophilia above. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Denial is not a rebuttal. Again see my quotes above. It this a case of Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it?Miradre (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:Complete bollocks (besides being flagrant violation of WP:AGF & WP:TALK]]): "(iv) The "weak plus" is only because Neisser concludes that most people simply ignore the more odious ideas that the PF pushes (presumably including Rushton's 'stomach-turning' book)." Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You may disagree with Neisser's view in the conclusion and think that it is incorrect. This does not change what he stated. See also below.Miradre (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You claim that Neisser see no value in Lynn's book. Again, that is obviously false. Apart from the conclusions, again see these earlier statements: "Unlike Lynn, he does not seem very interested in their research and does not try to describe it." "On the other hand, some of the research projects funded by Pioneer (as chronicled in Lynn's book) did produce important findings." "Here Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: “Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science”"Miradre (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some more quotes: "Pioneer-sponsored research has indeed shown that the Black/White IQ difference is substantial, that it appears consistently in virtually every study, and that it has diminished very little over the years since research began." The question of environment and genetics remain opens but this an example of important research sponsored by the PF.Miradre (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Equine sado-necrophilia (again)

As Miradre appears wholly unwilling to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I'm (again) withdrawing from this conversation until either (i) there looks to be at least some chance of the WP:CONSENSUS shifting, or (ii) a new and compelling argument is introduced to freshen up the corpse. Unless stated otherwise, I wish to be on record as objecting to any characterisation Miradre places on my own comments or Neisser's review. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any version. Obviously Neisser's review is very important and I will be adding some material from it to the lead in order to achieve NPOV. The lead should include all notable views as per NPOV. Not only critical ones.Miradre (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Murray and the Ford analogy

How legitimate is Murray's analogy that "the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation"? At first glance, the PF relationship to its founder's ideology is much closer as (i) it was created specifically to advance ideas relevant to that ideology (whereas the Ford Foundation makes grants "for projects that focused on strengthening democratic values, community and economic development, education, media, arts and culture, and human rights" -- which seems largely unrelated to antisemitism), (ii) the main driving force behind the FF appears to have been Henry Ford's son Edsel, rather than Henry Ford himself & (iii) as far as I know, unlike the PF, there was no particular ideological commonality between Henry Ford's antisemitism and the ideological views of the management of the FF. As such the analogy would appear to be "unduly self-serving" and I would question its appropriateness for inclusion, lacking an independent WP:SECONDARY source discussing it. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You could find a reliable source that makes that argument, and add it to the article to counterbalance Murray's view. BTW, it's not true that today's Ford Foundation does not fund anti-Semites:

In 2003, The Ford Foundation was critiqued by U.S. news service Jewish Telegraphic Agency, among others, for supporting Palestinian NGOs that that were accused of promoting antisemitism at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. Under considerable duress by several members of Congress, chief among them Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Foundation apologized and then prohibited the promotion of "violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state" among its grantees, itself sparking protest among university provosts and various non-profit groups on free speech issues.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) Your quote in no way contradicts my point that the purpose for which the FF was created "seems largely unrelated to antisemitism". If you give out sufficiently much money for sufficiently long, sooner or later somebody is going to make an accusation of (in this case rather indirect) misuse. (ii) An unduly self-serving comment from a partisan should be removed, not simply left in place in the hope that some balancing comment might arise. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you suggest removing the quotes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, too? Their comments are outrageous and biased, and directly related to their main mission, the filling of the organization's (already very full) coffers with even more money by exaggerating the prevalence and importance of racism in America.

My point is that everybody's comments can be interpreted as self-serving and biased in a controversial topic like this. Misplaced Pages articles should report all significant views, and Murray is certainly a notable player here. Whether his analogy is appropriate or not is not for us to decide. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If the SPLC started to make tortured analogies in order to cover their own arses -- then yes I would. But they aren't, they're simply making an assessment on a topic in which they are widely accepted as having expertise. Attempting to claim an equivalence between SPLC's evaluation and Murray's analogy is about as tortured as that analogy was. Given the (controversial) author & (partisan) publication, the source in question could easily be considered a WP:QS, and the claim fail WP:ABOUTSELF as both "unduly self-serving" and making claims about third parties -- which is explicitly part of Misplaced Pages's verifiability criteria. Hrafn_Stalk 11:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC is all about tortured analogies. Commentary is not a reliable source???? That's absolutely ridiculous.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is apples and oranges. If you can find multiple sources which refer to the FF as antisemitic today then maybe there'd be something to it. Also, AFAIK the FF does not currently support racist research. PF does. Murray, is not a particularly unbiased source here either. The quote is a lot more informative about Charles Murray and is views, than it is about the Pioneer Fund.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Murray's analogy appears to be discussed (or at least mentioned) in Spring, Joel (1997). Political Agendas for Education. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates. p. 41. ISBN 0805827668. -- but I don't have access to this book to see what it has to say. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant passage from Spring's book can be viewed in Google Books. He just quotes Murray, saying that this is how he defended himself. I will restore the Murray bit citing Spring's book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The rule against "unduly self-serving" sources is for selfpublished sources. The Murray quote was cited to a secondary source (Spring's book) so it's unreasonable to say it can't be included because it's self-serving. I see that none of the people removing this from the article have responded to Victor Chmara's point about that, and the last person who removed it (Nomoskedasticity) didn't respond to Victor's point about this here or when Victor challenged them in their user talk. What kind of content discussion is this? Article content should be determined by policy-based reasoning, not by sheer force of numbers in which policy-based arguments are ignored.Boothello (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the quote is presented without context. While it is attributed to Murray, this does try to make it seem like this is a factual statement. But of course any one even vaguely familiar with the situation knows that this is a completely flawed analogy - FF does not fund racist research, PF still does. Honestly, we really shouldn't be using Murray as a reliable source, and if we do attribute something to him, it should be made clear that he is not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see Boothello was serious about policy-based arguments here being ignored. Allow me to quote what Victor Chmara said earlier: "Whether his analogy is appropriate or not is not for us to decide. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth." Your response to that was to say that Murray is not unbiased. This is irrelevant when his viewpoint is being described in a secondary source. We must report what secondary sources say, not selectively exclude information from secondary sources when this is based on our own opinions about who is reliable or what is a good analogy.

If you cannot address policy-based reasoning about this paragraph, I understand that you may just continue reverting it until you hit 3RR. However, the more this happens, the more it will attract the attention of people like myself, who are watching these articles but only get involved when someone's behavior is becoming disruptive. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund white supremacist?

I'm quite hesitant to step into this hornet's nest, but who is calling the PF "White supremacist" in the beginning of the article? I took a quick glance at the three notes in support of that, and I don't seem to be able to find anything about it there. Plenty of accusations about racism, so that's correct, but what about white supremacism? Is there perhaps a better source? Långfredag (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. , , , , , , , and that's just for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But 21 talks about Mankind Quarterly, not PF. I can't see what it says about the PF specifically in 22. 23 doesn't say that about the PF (it refers, if I'm not mistaken, to some of the professors who recieved grants). 20 and 24 are not online, so I'll have to take your word för those. 19 and 25 seem to say so, though. Good job! Långfredag (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories: