Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pioneer Fund

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 3 October 2010 (→Found another source.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:48, 3 October 2010 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs) (→Found another source.: new section)(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.

WikiProject iconOrganizations Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York City Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

True Pioneers

Science of the future = rediscovering the wisdom of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.27 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations must be verifiable

What is the source of this claim? This reference #5 is not verifiable:

Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."<reference>According to critic Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research. Neisser gave support for Richard Lynn's argument in a review of Lynn's history and defense of the fund, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (2004). Neisser stated that "Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: 'Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science.'" Neisser concludes, in agreement with Lynn and against William Tucker's critical 2002 book The Funding of Scientific Racism, that the world was ultimately better off having had the Pioneer Fund: "Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."<endreference>

Skywriter 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the source should say, "Neisser, U. (2004). Serious scientists or disgusting racists? Contemporary Psychology, 49, 5-7."
But, I can't seem to find a copy of this online to see if these comments are taken out of context. I have found material in these articles in the past, were quotes were used in a selective manner that was a bit deceptive. So I do think it would make sense to go back to the source to see if this text is in it at all and to see if it is a fair quote in keeping with whatever else he wrote. futurebird 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the content in accordance with WP:RS. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
While the original paper doesn't appear to be readily available, the quotations above are in "A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence ". However because that paper appears to be published on some sort of science blog I'm not sure if it would qualify as a sufficient source in its own right. It may be sufficient as a way of verifying the quotations though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After 10 months, a response to futurebird's concerns seemed appropriate and are not adequately addressed by the web source cited. I agree that it doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source (no editorial standards or independent review). I'll verify the quotation when I have an opportunity. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the American Psychological Association's (APA) 1995 taskforce on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."

Neisser's article in Contemporary Psychology is a book review of ]: The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund University Press of America, Lanham, Md. c2001., ISBN 0-7618-2040-x and ]: The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c2002., ISBN 0-252-02762-0.
The third paragraph begins with, "Lynn's book begins with a self-serving 53-page Preface by Harry Weyher, President of the Pioneer Fund from the 1950s until his death in 2002." The fourth paragraph says, "Lynn reserves his highest praise for William Shockley, the Nobel physicist who became obsessed with race, crime, and reproductions in the 1960s. At the time many of us found Shockley a particularly odious racist, but to Lynn he was 'a courageous and tireless campaigner for research into the causes of human and race differences and for thoughtful consideration of eugenics' (p. 193)."
On page 6, Neisser says:

In the closing years of the 20th century, the activities of the Pioneer Fund continued to be political as well as scientific. Those activities included vigorous opposition to immigration; more exactly, to the immigration of non-Whites into the United States. At present, the Board of Directors includes Richard Lynn himself as well as J. Philippe Rushton, who became President of the Pioneer Fund after Weyher's death. One of its most recent projects was the widespread free distribution of a small book by Rushton, an abridged version of his Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995). The book presents his "evolutionary" theory of race differences, which I will not describe here because it turns my stomach.

The quotation cited above appears in the last portion of the last paragraph. The concluding sentences of the review follows.

All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus. As for who is a racist, that no longer seems worth worrying about."

I would say that the overall tone of the Neisser review is broadly consistent with the other content of the lede. Neisser says that the Pioneer Fund funded organizations and individuals that he clearly considers racist either explicitly or by implication. I would agree with Furturebird, above, that Neisser was quoted in "a selective manner that was a bit deceptive". Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted pictures must meet the Fair Use Standard

The copyrighted picture used in the criticism section doesn't meet fair use. One of the standards was that the information conveyed is necessary and can not be produced by other means. The picture is a black and white of what looks like a researcher measuring two anonymous girls. The researcher is collecting data, I suspose, during twin studies. As far as II understand this, there's nothing about this photo that requires its use here despite its copyright protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the use of Image:Otmar von Verschuer.jpg in this article satisfies the criteria listed for fair use. Consequently, I asserted fair use for the image. The photograph is of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a Mankind Quarterly board member, making a measurement as part of an anthropometric study of heredity. It illustrates the work that the Pioneer Fund supported in the 1920s to 1940s and I know of no free equivalent that would convey that information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wsiegmund's assertions about the image. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Funding anti-immigration etc.

I removed a section pertaining to funding which the Fund has apparently given to fighting immigration, since it was sourced from somewhere called 'Antipas Ministries', which seems to be a website promoting the idea that Armageddon is upon us, and largely the self-published work of one S. Shearer.

A couple of minutes later, Ramdrake put the paragraph back, saying he had sourced it from something more reliable. There are a number of problems here:

  • Ramdrake credits Shearer with having written the article he cites, when in fact the author is a Paul Lombardo;
  • It is not at all the same article as was previously used; and so perhaps unsurprisingly
  • The new article Ramdrake links to does not support the paragraph it is being used to support: indeed, it makes no mention of anything in that paragraph, except for backing up the fact that the Pioneer Fund gave money to the FAIR.
  • Ramdrake restored the link, at the end of the article, to the strange, unreliable website.

Consequently, I have changed the paragraph so that it accurately reflects what the source says, and corrected Ramdrake's citation.

I have no doubt that this Fund has given money to causes such as this, but one does have to be careful about citing things in a proper manner, and that all statements are properly attributable to reliable sources: it's just good scholarly practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment, but there are numerous sources that describe the funding efforts ofthe Pioneer Fund. I'll add some later and restore deleted text as appropriate. For the future, it's more helpful to mark unsourced text with a {{fact}} tag so other editors can find and add sources. You also appear to have deleted sourced information. I'll restore that too unless you can give a clear reason for its deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The sourced information I deleted was either not actually backed up by the article that Ramdrake found (in the case of the funding), or was sourced from unverifiable websites (see below).
While the primary source was not suitable, it was itself sourced. All of the assertions were easily verifiable. After consulting a newspaper archive I've rewritten and restored the amterial with fresh sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Center for New Community

The Center for New Community is an organisation -- and an extremely obscure organisation at that -- in whose political interests it is to portray the Pioneer Fund as a right-wing extremist group. Consequently, opinion pieces on their website do not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed, scholarly article. The fact is, their description of Rushton's work (I personally do not agree with Rushton, not that it should matter) in the excerpt is a caricature or straw man designed for political propaganda effect. In essence, any small group of people can register a .org domain, say that they are a 'human rights advocacy organisation', and self-publish hatchet jobs on (admittedly dubious) scientific opinions with which they do not agree. An opinion coming from a Steven Jay Gould or someone of that calibre would be far more credible for the article.

To put it another way: if the article is arguing that the Fund has x political orientation, then citing a small organisation whose website proclaims them to have not-x political orientation as a source regarding that Fund fails WP:RS, which states that preference should be given to peer-reviewed, scholarly sources, followed by mainstream, respected, but non-academic sources, and then only others -- and if there is disagreement, the specific views of each source should be spelt out. WP:RS further says that 'the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is'. In essence, there is precisely no evidence of editorial oversight in the material on the CNC's webpage: they can, in effect, say whatever they like and put it there...and they have not even earnt the notability which the likes of the Southern Povery Law Center enjoy. They promote an obscure form of 'faith-based social justice', which is not really a 'mainstream' viewpoint, and nor is it really relevant to the article. As I say, criticism from more recognised sources is a lot more credible.

Anyone can set up a website and put on it their views of the Pioneer Fund -- or anything else -- but that does not mean that the views are relevant. Particularly not if they stoop to the level of caricature instead of addressing the hard facts.

Does that answer your question, Ramdrake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: the quote from the CNC doesn't even add anything to the article anyway. It says that Rushton is currently the head, which is mentioned earlier in the article; it gives a brief summary of the history of the organisation -- in loaded terms -- which is also already covered in the article; and it then describes (in rather crude terms) Rushton's research, which is yet again already described elsewhere. So it gives no new information, but simply -- through its sloppy scholarship/deliberate caricature/progadandistic tone/call it what you will -- lowers the overall level of the section in which it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, and the CNC is entiled to its opinion. 39k on Google tells me the CNC is a notable, if not very well-known organization. Criticism of the Pioneer Fund will come mostly not from peer-reviewed journals (as it doesn't do science), but usually from other organizations, mostly one concerned with human rights.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The CNC are well entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that it is important or relevant, any more than my own (or yours). I have rewritten the paragraph, so that it doesn't continue lowering the tone of the article through childish strawmen, while still trying to capture the points they are making. I also contextualised the nature of the source a bit better (I hope), as per WP:RS or however it's referred to.
I understand that criticism of the Pioneer Fund probably wouldn't appear in peer-reviewed journals, but nonetheless there are sources more notable and respectable than this CNC which could be referred to...the Fund has received a lot of bad publicity, so couldn't claims made in the mainstream media be used instead? I do think they'd carry more weight than the opinions of an obscure NGO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about the source (and after all that waffle above about citations!). Glad we could come to a compromise: I certainly am not trying to whitewash anything here, but I do feel that if the criticism has a certain intellectual weight, it is more likely to be taken seriously, and not dismissed out of hand as simple smear tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Center for New Community has been cited on the Pioneer Fund in several newspaper accounts, giving credence to it it as a reputable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article has been NPOV tagged since December 2007. Are there still concerns that require this tag? If so, they should be listed here at the talkpage, so that the problematic sections can either be fixed, or removed. If no one has specific concerns, then let's just pull the tag. Thanks, Elonka 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can asecertain, it was added in February 2007. A month later, the editor who added it seems to express some satisfaction with the state of the article.Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1#Article lead, and that was the last time he commented here. I think it's time to remove the tag, which appears to have remained only from inertia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Berlet" :
    • Southern Poverty Law Center Retrieved April 15, 2008.
    • Berlet, Chip. ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved July 16, 2006.

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of edits back and forth on this article. It would be particularly helpful if additions to this article were cited to sources. I've just verified one source (I have it in my office) previously cited in this article, and I will probably be gathering more. The sources mentioned in the Wickliffe Draper article don't seem to be in the hands of many Wikipedians, but they of course would be helpful for this article too. Sourcing is good. Let's look up sources and check statements in the article as edits continue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

High-quality sources for editing this article.

Getting to know the various articles in this category during the Arbitration Committee case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those Misplaced Pages articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject. I've had a chance now to obtain the book mentioned for a while in the article here, and the follow-up book by the same author is on its way to me from the friendly flagship university library.

The first listed book, of course, is directly related to this article, and is a wonderful source finder for facts about the Pioneer Fund and its activities, as well as for the life and work of Wickliffe Draper. I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for most of the articles in the related category here on Misplaced Pages. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic bans from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Found another source.

Blackmon, Douglas A. "Silent partner: How the South's fight to uphold segregation was funded up North." Wall Street Journal. 11 Jun. 1999.

  1. Neisser, Ulric (2004). "Serious scientists or disgusting racists?". Contemporary Psychology. 49: 5–7.
Categories: