Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

RFC on lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that's a problem with the rest of the article. The section on the Pioneer Fund and Rushton's role in it should definitely be expanded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Agree with Robofish -- there is no problem with the current wording. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Also agree with Robofish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• At the first glance, this sentence seems to be "POV" and could be rephrased. On the other hand, Pioneer Fund looks exactly as a racist organization. As a more general comment, I noticed that even Carl Linnaeus was described as a scientific racist, and even James D. Watson, the discoverer of DNA double helix, was described as a "racist" in his BLP article. I think that bringing politics to science is generally a bad idea and does not help creating a neutral encyclopedia, but possibly not in this case.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And frankly, let's not waste our time here. I just fixed it. Noticing accusations of racism two times in a small paragraph is more than sufficient for those who want to emphasize it. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's two times because once it is in relation to Rushton's work itself, while the other time it is in reference to the PF. I also think that "scientific racism" and "racism" are not the same thing (one is a proper subset of the other), hence it might make sense to include both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

I have added the POV tag:

As is, the article is very heavily slanted in an anti-Rushton direction in a manner that is not supportable by non-POV, even allowing for a reflection of what the majority opinion on Rushton may be. (Note that it is not merely a matter of what is said, but also how it is said.) This is particularly bad as research in areas relating to race suffer from an undue degree of political correctness and unfair attacks on those who deviate from the politically correct opinions (cf. e.g. the controversy around the Bell-Curve.)

Generally speaking, if someone is a poor researcher, proposes incorrect ideas, whatnot, it is possible to refute him while being fair and objective. By the guidelines of Wikipedia, any other means of refutation (or, as case may have it, "refutation") is not allowed.

I point in particular to the introduction, which contains the following:

His work in this area has been criticized by researchers and civil rights organizations as being racist in nature.[1][2][3][4][5] Since 2002 he has been head of the Pioneer Fund, a research organization that has been accused of promoting scientific racism and which has been frequently associated with white supremacy.[6][7][8][9][10]

This quote makes out a disproportionate part of the introduction. It uses an excessive amount of references. (Which usually implies that the authors absolutely want to prevent any questioning---not that the statement is actually more true. If one reference can be found for a faulty claim, then it is almost always possible to find ten for the same claim.) It is highly one-sided, seeing that he has supporters among other researchers. It attempts guilt by association in combination with mere accusations. (A is a friend of B, B has been accused of X; ergo, A is bound to be guilty of X. I further note that the reasoning around the Pioneer Fund and its researchers tends to be circular, the accusation of B, in turn, arising from the association with A.)

I would encourage a comparison with the far more objective and factual (if also shorter) German article.

(Disclaimer: I am not familiar with Rushton's work outside of hearsay and do not in any way vouch for its quality. Neither do I make a statement on whether the accusations of racism are true. This comment is a matter of fairness, adherence to policy, and concern about the general climate of debate where politically incorrect opinions around race is concerned.) Michael Eriksson (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This quote is important as it gets to the point of Rushton's work. We've had way too many attempts at misrepresenting this work in the past. The "excessive references" is there because of attempts like this to remove this information from the article. The "excessive references" show that this isn't just one source which makes this claims but that this description can be found in a whole bunch of them (another dozen or so could be easily added). I'd be happy to just have one reference there if folks just stopped trying to remove this well sourced and pertinent info. He is the HEAD of the Pioneer Fund, which is different then just, you know, happening to just know someone who's sort of racist. Since most readers are probably unfamiliar with PF the description of its activities is likewise encyclopedic information.

I'm going to remove the tag because this seems like nothing more than an exercise in IDON'TLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@ME, it seems that you are making a POV argument based on weight and WP:UNDUE. I suppose the description of the Pioneer Fund could be made more concise by removing some of the WP:WEASEL words. Maybe this is better "... Pioneer Fund, a foundation widely described as racist." Or maybe "... Pioneer Fund, a foundation listed by the SLPC as a hate-group." aprock (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@ME: I agree the lead goes into too much detail about the PF. Another problem is that several of the sources being cited for this sentence don't mention Rushton, so citing them for a sentence that's critical of Rushton is borderline WP:SYNTHESIS. I tried to fix this problem before, but Marek would not allow it. You're welcome to try and improve this part of the article if you want. There is a similar dispute on the main Race and intelligence article here between Marek and a few others. Your input there would be helpful.Boothello (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, stop and look at the comments by uninvolved editors section right above this one:

• Robofish: if they say the Pioneer Fund is associated with racism and white supremacy, it's not POV to say so.
• Nomosckedasticity: Agree with Robofish -- there is no problem with the current wording
• Martin Hogbin: Also agree with Robofish.

Boothello, please stop trying to go against consensus. Or are you going to try and pretend that you have consensus here like you are doing on Race and Intelligence?

Boothello, please refrain from using deliberate provocative, accusatory and battleground language such as "Marek would not allow it". There was a discussion. Outside opinions were provided. They did not agree with you. So it ain't me.

@Aprock, I'm fine with your first wording "... Pioneer Fund, a foundation widely described as racist.". I disagree with the second wording simply because the SLPC is not the only group that has used this kind of description - it is one among many - and because I expect that if it's just attributed to the SLPC people will try to remove it based on some notion that SLPC is a "biased source".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and use the first. aprock (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, my impression from the article is that one of its central targets is to discredit Rushton. That, however, is unencyclopedic---Wikipedia is not a tool to convince the readers about a specific POV, but to give them objective informtion by which they can form their own opinions. My impression from the talk pages is similar: Briefly skimming through them at the time of my edit, I found editors referring to Rushton as e.g. a "douche"---something which casts considerable doubts on their neutrality. Hand on heart: Can these editors say that they have no hidden agenda, no POV or particular message, that they wish to push for the sake of the agenda? ---not for the sake of writing a high-quality article. I note that Marek above seems to presuppose that the Pioneer Fund and/or Rushton are, in fact, racist and that the article should demonstrate this. However, this is merely his personal opinion---not an objective fact. (Even if there are others who share this opinion. After all, this opinion is not of the the-sun-is-yellow kind, but better compared to nuclear-power-is-bad.)

To be more specific in terms of POV, consider the following alternate wording of my original quote (nevermind problems elsewhere):

His work in this area has been controversial and accusations of racism have been made, in particular in light of his positition as head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation subject to similar controversy.

Here the same general information is brought over, but it is done in a NPOV manner. Specifics about who-said-what do not belong in the lede, but should be cleanly integrated in the main text, in a neutral manner, and giving both sides a reasonably fair say.

I note in particular, that these accusations of racism are not consensus opinions and do not co-incide with the self-perception/-description of the involved parties (to the best of my knowledge). I further stress that the phrase "racism" is often thrown around in a manner that is not justifiable, usually with the agenda exactly of unfairly discrediting someone with an opinion lacking in political correctness.

Finally, the attempt to justify the excessive references is not convincing. On the contrary, it strengthens my impression that their addition is an attempt to force a particular POV, rather than an attempt to verify the truth of a statement. Effectively just more of "People have disagreed with me in the past, so I will just throw on more references so no-one dares question what I consider the truth". Michael Eriksson (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that Marek above seems to presuppose that the Pioneer Fund and/or Rushton are, in fact, racist and that the article should demonstrate this. However, this is merely his personal opinion---not an objective fact.

Sigh. *Beat head against wall*. I'm going to repeat this ONE. MORE. TIME. I am sick of having to repeat it over and over again. So please read what I write:

This is not MY "opinion". It is the information that is given in RELIABLE SOURCES. And that's sourceS, not "source". As in many of them. PF fund and Rushton ARE widely regarded as racist, hence it should not come as a surprise that it is trivially easy to find reliable sources which say so. Like dozens of them. In fact, the racism of PF and Rushton, is oftentimes the main subjects of discourse in some of these sources. As a result the Wikipedia article reflects what the sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@ME, I appreciate your concern. If you have specific sources, or questions about specific sources, by all means present them. aprock (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms in the lead

Nam84 is repeatedly deleting criticism of Rushton from the lead, on the basis that "Whether the work is 'racist' is an opinion based on the a priori assumption that it is incorrect. This has no place in science. If it is correct it is not racist. Partisan name calling can be left out." I would point out that:

1. We have no basis for concluding that this opinion is "based on the a priori assumption that it is incorrect" -- it is just as reasonable (if not more so) to assume that the opinion was based upon an analysis of Rushton's work.
2. We have no basis for concluding that Rushton's work is "correct" (in fact a number of sources for concluding the opposite). Therefore we have no basis for concluding that it is "not racist".

Thus is can be seen that the rationale for removing the material is wholly unsubstantiated and begging the question. Given a choice between a wholly unsubstantiated argument and reliable sources, we go with the reliable sources. This should particularly be the case where these sources are articulating what seems to be a substantial body of scholarly opinion critical of Rushton's work -- which should be given WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The APA has no consensus on the accuracy of this work. That would be appropriate to put in the lead. The "Southern Poverty Law" centre's etc. partisan and ill informed name calling is not. This is not "criticism", in the scientific sense. It is denouncement. These denouncements from special interest groups are certainly noteworthy and can be documented, but I consider them peripheral to the academic debate. I suggest moving to a later section. Nam84 (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"We have no basis for concluding that Rushton's work is "correct" (in fact a number of sources for concluding the opposite). Therefore we have no basis for concluding that it is "not racist"."

We have no basis for concluding that Rushton's work is "correct" (in fact a number of sources for concluding the opposite). Therefore we have no basis for concluding that it is "racist".

Please tell me you see the partisan absurdity here? Nam84 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you bring up begging the question, that is exactly the logical fallacy accusations of "racism" commit. Nam84 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1. No, WP:RSN has determined the SPLC to be a WP:RS for the opinion that some person or group is a racist, especially where WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed (as it is in this material).
2. Please demonstrate where those accusing Rushton of racism are 'begging the question', as opposed to simply summarising their conclusions on the basis of more detailed research, or similar. Stating a conclusion is not begging the question unless it can be demonstrated that the conclusion rests upon (a restatement of) the conclusion.
3. "Therefore we have no basis for concluding that it is "racist"." -- yes we do -- many prominent WP:RSs calling him a racist. They only way you have for impeaching these opinions is proving him (with WP:RS substantiation, not simply making the unsubstantiated assertion that he might be) "correct".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• On the basis of , we would seem to have a strong basis for concluding that Rushton's claims are neither "correct" nor "scientific" -- but rather that "the predictions that Rushton derives from the r/K model are arbitrary, and these predictions are supported by selective citation and misrepresentation of the research literature and by the use of unreliable sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are really getting it. This has nothing to do with our idea of what is correct. This has to do with the current scholarly consensus. Which is "no verdict as yet". Does your scientific source call Rushton a "racist"? Please quote that line. If not, how can it be used to support the assertion. The SPLC certainly call Rushton a racist, but this is based on their black advocacy, not science. It is disturbing that cites from special interest groups are being mixed with scholarly sources to support an assertion they do not. The denouncements from political lobby groups are noteworthy, but not for the lead. The lead should state that there is currently no scholarly consensus for Rushton's work. Nam84 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) You have provided not substantiation of your claim that there is "no verdict as yet" (Neiser et al explicitly reject Rushton's explanation: "There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation"), and what I have read indicates that he has little support outside his small circle of fellow travellers. (ii) No my "scientific source" restricts itself to criticising his pretensions to scientific scholarship -- but presumably considers his motivations outside their remit. I have however come across dozens of sources, including experts on racial prejudice, describing him as "racist". I can start piling them into the citation for this statement if you like. How many would you like? (iii) I would note that there are two citations beyond SPLC for the statement already. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Surely even you would know that? The genetic hypothesis is actually the most widely supported in academia. See Snyderman and Rothman. As should be clear, the opinions of the doubtless milions of non-specialists should not only not be "piled on" to the lead as you threateningly put it, they should be entirely absent. Nam84 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) Except that Rushton is claiming that there is evidence of a genetic interpretation -- so Neiser et al is contradicting him. (ii) What part of "including experts on racial prejudice" did you fail to comprehend? (iii) Snyderman and Rothman (a) predates this controversy & (b) offers little in the way of relevant opinion (being concerned with the validity of intelligence testing rather than the validity of claims of racial differences on the basis of these tests). It provides no basis whatsoever for claiming that Rushton hypothesis "is actually the most widely supported in academia." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually you have a point there. Nevertheless Snyderman and Rothman is the only indication we have of majority opinion. Neisser et als fence sitting doesn't help us either way. I fully comprehend the phrase "expert on racial prejudice". But Rushton's work has nothing to do with prejudice, it has to do with psychological variation with respect to race. So it is irrelevant. But feel free to present all of your sources here for consideration. I maintain that one sided denouncements with respect to an unresolved scientific question are totally inappropriate, at least in the lead. Nam84 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the sense in which I use denouncement:

To criticize or speak out against (someone or something); to point out as deserving of reprehension or punishment, etc.; to openly accuse or condemn in a threatening manner; to invoke censure upon; to stigmatize; to blame. Nam84 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give equal validity to WP:FRINGE claims. Unless you can provide evidence that the academic community gives Rushton's claims substantial credibility the article must give WP:DUE weight to his critics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(i) Unfortunately it is not only a 24 year old "majority opinion", but an opinion on a different topic -- as such it offers no support whatsoever. (ii) Neisser et al is not "fence sitting" -- they are explicitly stating that "there is certainly no [direct empirical] support for a genetic interpretation" -- and thus there is no direct empirical support for Rushton's claims. (iii) We have reliable sources stating that it misrepresents "psychological variation" (and inappropriate physical measurements for adequate proxies for these "psychological variation") for a basically meaningless and "arbitrary" definition of race and reliable sources stating that his claims are racist. This is not irrelevant. (iv) Given that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that Rushton's work has any academic credibility, the sources already in the article would appear sufficient to support their claim, and I see no point in digging more up unless and until somebody mounts a credible challenge to their conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect that Snyderman and Rothman does not cover scholarly opinion on the genetic hypothesis. In fact it is the only such survey.

There are any number of sources that support Rushton. Simply copying some vague criticism from one that opposes him proves little. Would you like me to do the same? The question is still unresolved. Copying from a blog "it is necessary to demonstrate (to the public and misinformed members of academia) that this is a yet unresolved issue of pressing social importance. Levin (1997), Jensen (2000), Gottfredson (2005), Sesardic (2005), and Hunt and Carlson (2007) have laid out the case for bringing closure to the issue"; "With regards to the questions of evolved ancestral differences, Rowe (2005), Rushton and Jensen (2005), Murray (2005), Hunt and Carlson (2007), and Lee (2009) have already discussed the proper tests that would provide dispositive results: hybrid comparisons using modern genotypic analysis." A significant number of researchers agree that a genetic explanation is most likely.

Rushton's regular publication in top academic journals is the best evidence of his academic credibility. The fact that you are unaware of this calls into question your suitability to edit this article.

All of this is largely a distraction from the main point that the perjorative of "racist" is unscientific and should not be in the lead. Nam84 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) On closer examination, Snyderman and Rothman is merely an opinion poll of psychologists and education specialists -- not a review article. As such it has very little determinative value. (ii) The blog that you quote (abc102.wordpress.com) appears very WP:FRINGE, so I'd expect that his list of references is cherry-picked from Rushton's fellow travellers (and a number of the names do sound very familiar). (iii) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and if a significant number of reliable sources call Rushton a "racist", then the article will reflect this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Your claim, "But Rushton's work has nothing to do with prejudice, it has to do with psychological variation with respect to race" brings us right back to my original point in this thread -- you cannot claim that Rushton's claims cannot be racist because they are scientific, when the scientific basis of his claims has been repeatedly challenged by reliable sources (see Anderson, Judith L. (1991). "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 32 (1): 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0078956. ISSN 1878-7304. for a further example). Even Neisser, who you describe as "fence sitting", describes Rushton's work with utter disgust ('stomach turning' in one instance). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P)

So the scientific basis of Rushton's claims has been challenged *presents one source to that effect from 1991*, so Rushton's work is unscientific, so he is a racist, and the article must state that in the lead. Brilliant! It is difficult to assume good faith here. The fact that he is regularly published in top peer reviewed journals is all the evidence you need of his scientific credibility. Sadly, it is your credibility that is looking shoddy here. Please reference where Neisser describes Rushton's work as "stomach turning". Nam84 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) r/K selection theory "was discarded by biologists studying life-history evolution by the early nineties", so it is unlikely that the analysis of Rushton's misuse of it would have changed significantly since 1991. (ii) No. We have (as I stated above) reliable sources stating that his claims lack legitimate scientific basis AND reliable sources stating that they are racist -- each from their respective fields of expertise. (iii) Your claim that "he is regularly published in top peer reviewed journals" is unsubstantiated. (iv) Neisser, Ulric (2004). "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists?". PsycCRITIQUES. 49 (1). doi:10.1037/004224. ISSN 1554-0138.. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Rushton is published in top peer reviewed journals. He is a regarded as a scientist by his peers. Accusations of "racism" are peripheral. Any further prevarication will result in third party review. Nam84 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides here is Neisser from your source explicitly concluding that Rushton's work is not racist: "People who hold beliefs 1 and 2 are racists whether or not they assent to 4 or 5. (They might simply not care about ability differences.) By the same token, someone who believes that a given group has inferior or superior skills in some areas (i.e., who holds beliefs 4 or 5, might not hold 1 and 2 at all. It doesn't seem appropriate to apply the term racist to such a person." Neisser's gut reaction to the work is also irrelevant. Nam84 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No. (i) Neisser did not state that Rushton is not a racist, only that somebody would have to hold views 1 & 2 to qualify -- but offers no opinion as to whether Rushton meets this criteria. (ii) In any case, Ulric Neisser is an expert on intelligence testing and cognitive psychology, not racial prejudice -- so his opinions as to what does, or does not, constitute racism is hardly expert. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Rushton's work is not racist. Please read more carefully.

So please list your "racial prejudice experts" and go throught their arguments. Needless to say, accusations of racism levelled against a living person should be considered extremely serious. Nam84 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So please list your "racial prejudice experts" and go throught their arguments. - it is not our job to try and argue with sources or try to "debunk" them, but to present them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused. Why do we want to take out reliable sources and what they say? Though we do need to be careful not to over state what is in the sources. Who calls Rushton a racist? I'm not seeing it. There is criticism that his work is unscientific and leads racists to use it to show why they promote 'the truth'. Let's step back and make sure we are not getting worked up for no reason. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources stating that Rushton is a racist [and/or that his work is racist]

• Knudson (1991 -- already in the article) states that Rushton's work is an example of "Racist theory" -- "intellectual speculation purporting to divine a convenient hierarchy of race-related differences between human groups" (p6). And quotes Barry Mehler, an expert on academic racism , stating that Rushton is a racist (p168). This doesn't include Mehler's reasoning, but I can probably track this down from Mehler's own work. Another sources quotes Mehler's definition of Scientific racism as "the belief [often based on skin color, country of origin, or economic class] that the human species can be divided into superior and inferior genetic groups and that these groups can be satisfactorily identified so that social policies can be advanced to encourage the breeding of the superior groups and discourage the breeding of the inferior groups."
• Neubeck, Kenneth (2001). Welfare Racism. New York: Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 0415923409. cites Rushton as an example of rearguard biological racism and cites Henry, Frances (2002). Discourses of Domination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802084575. for their definition of racism as "based upon the false assumption that physical differences such as skin colour, facial features, and hair colour and texture are related to intellectual, moral or cultural superiority". Substitute 'unsupported claim' (per Neisser et al) for "false assumption" and you have Rushton to a 't'. (also cf Mehler's definition.)
• Perry, Barbara (2009). Hate Crimes. New York: Praeger. p. 112. ISBN 0275995690.
• Dobratz, Betty (2000). The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0801865379.
• Spickard, Paul (2000). We Are a People. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 16. ISBN 1566397235.
• Banyard, Philip (2005). Ethical Issues and Guidelines in Psychology. New York: Routledge. p. 54. ISBN 0415268818.
• Falk, Avner (2008). Anti-Semitism. New York: Praeger. p. 18. ISBN 0313353840.
• Lemke, Thomas (2011). Biopolitics: an Advanced Introduction. City: NYU PRESS. p. 19. ISBN 081475242X.
• Fairchild, Halford H. (1991). "Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity". Journal of Social Issues. 47 (3): 101–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb01825.x. ISSN 0022-4537.
• From Student Resistance to Embracing the Sociological Imagination: Unmasking Privilege, Social Conventions, and Racism, Haddad, Angela T.; Lieberman, Leonard, Teaching Sociology, v30 n3 p328 41 Jul 2002

Need I keep digging? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would note that this list does not contain books or articles that are not available online without subscription, that I therefore have not been able to personally verify as stating that Rushton is a racist. One example of this is Cronshaw et al (2006), which is already cited in the article for this statement. Others may be found using: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rushton has never stated the subjective opinion that any group is superior to any other. We therefore have sources offering a speculative opinion on Rushton as a person. Neisser has demonstrated that Rushton's work is objectively scientific and not racist, and as an expert on the subject matter his opinion carries weight. One doesn't need to be a so called "expert in racial prejudice" to distinguish claims of superiority from an attempt to objectively describe reality. In fact, experts in the subject matter are best placed to do that. I know there are other sources that share this sentiment. Perhaps the solution is to state the difference of opinion: "Some scholars speculate that Rushton is a racist, while others consider his work to be objective science." Perhaps a separate section on this controversy is also appropriate. Nam84 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks:

1. 'Is more intelligent' = "intellectual ... superiority"; 'is less promiscuous' = "moral ... superiority".
2. We have sources describing Rushton's work as "Racist theory", "scientific racism" and similar. Read the fracking sources before you comment on them!
3. Neisser made no mention whatsoever of "Rushton's work", other than to state "I will not describe [his book] here because it turns my stomach".
4. "objectively describe reality" "The predictions that Rushton derives from the r/K model are arbitrary, and these predictions are supported by selective citation and misrepresentation of the research literature and by the use of unreliable sources."(Weizmann, Fredric; Wiener, Neil I.; Wiesenthal, David L.; Ziegler, Michael (1990). "Differential K theory and racial hierarchies". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 31 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1037/h0078934. ISSN 1878-7304.)
5. They haven't merely "speculated" they have straight out stated it -- see WP:WEASEL. And no reliable source has said that his work is "objective science" -- your alternatives for opinions are "racist" or 'not-necessarily-racist-but-stomach-turning'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Going through your sources most of them simply assert that Rushton is a racist without any kind of argument. And they are just passing references, based on hearsay and assumption. Mehler offers his opinion that asserting some groups are superior is racism. Rushton never has, please find Mehler's quote of Rushton asserting this so that his argument can be tied to reality. Meanwhile we have the head of the APA treating the issue in great detail and concluding that Rushton's work is not racist, based on the same definition. It is disturbing that you would trawl for any passing negative reference to Rushton in diverse fields throughout history and then concentrate and present them as mainstream opinion. Rushton is published in peer reviewed journals, his work is regarded by scholars in the field as science not racism. This is a smear job. Nam84 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"'Is more intelligent' = "intellectual ... superiority"; 'is less promiscuous' = "moral ... superiority"."

Please tell me you know that that is your opinion? Some groups regard fecundity as superior, the most superior of attributes in fact. Nam84 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In response to the edit summary of this edit: "Whoa there, you have yet to quote Rushton as claiming any group was superior on the talk page. This is a biography slander, very serious", I would point out:

1. That I did not state that anybody states that "Rushton as claiming any group was superior". I said that they said that either he a racist. They do (that and/or that his work is racist).
2. I would further point out that he does in fact claim that 'mongoloids' (whatever the hell that bullshit label actually means) are intellectually superior to 'Caucasians' (funny how widely people from the Caucasus region seem to have spread) are intellectually superior to Blacks.
3. Given that so many people call him a racist, and the think tank he runs racist (not to mention that said think tank was set up by Neo-Nazis to promote racist ideas), it is hardly letting the cat out of the bag.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"[...] Rushton was asked if he believed in racial superiority, he said, "Oh, no!" He said, "from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value--if it even means this. And we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments."."

Wikipedia editors should be able to show enough discernment to avoid joining in demonstrably groundless name calling. Nam84 (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And when asked about the possible impact of his childhood in Apartheid South Africa, he gets rather defensive and hot under the collar. Whilst he might convince himself that he's all "objective", few others are buying that story. Just because his racism is subconscious, doesn't mean its not there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

1. "Going through your sources most of them simply assert that Rushton is a racist without any kind of argument."
   • There is nothing in either WP:DUE or WP:Verifiability that requires sources express an explicit argument in expressing a viewpoint. Your complaint therefore has no basis in policy.
2. "And they are just passing references, based on hearsay and assumption."
   • Your conclusion is simply an unsubstantiated assumption.
3. "Mehler offers his opinion that asserting some groups are superior is racism."
   • Yes.
4. "Rushton never has"
   • WP:Complete bollocks -- Rushton has made a career out of pretending to demonstrate, on the basis of dodgy data and dodgy methods, that some (rather arbitrarily constructed) racial groups have differing levels of qualities that most people would consider "superior" versus "inferior".
5. "Meanwhile we have the head of the APA treating the issue in great detail and concluding that Rushton's work is not racist, based on the same definition."
   • Different, and quite probably directly-conflicting definition, and no explicit opinion on Rushton's work, other than it is 'stomach-turning'.
6. "Please tell me you know that that is your opinion?"
   • So people aren't getting their fetuses checked for Downs Syndrome (etc, etc, etc)? Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue!

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to deconstruct this part:

It is disturbing that you would trawl for any passing negative reference to Rushton in diverse fields throughout history and then concentrate and present them as mainstream opinion. Rushton is published in peer reviewed journals, his work is regarded by scholars in the field as science not racism. This is a smear job. Nam84 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The article already had sources stating that he was a racist before I got involved in the issue. You disputed the claim, so I simply went ahead and found (the low-hanging fruit of) the many many more sources out there supporting this as a "significant viewpoint". It is a widely held view in academia that Rushton is a racist -- just as it is a widely held view that the science underlying his claims is very, very dodgy. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that "his work is regarded by scholars in the field as science". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? Rushton's regular publication in top peer reviewed journals for the last few decades and up to this day is evidence of his scientific standing. The groundless name calling of a few cherry picked out of field social scientists should form nothing but a footnote. Nam84 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"How many times do I have to say this?" Argumentum ad nauseum is hardly compelling. "Rushton's regular publication in top peer reviewed journals..." is a wholly unsubstantiated claim. That the scientific merits of his work has been repeatedly shredded by serious scientists (including those working in fields whose work he has attempted to co-opt) cannot be swept under the carpet, nor can the fact that he and his work has been repeatedly described as "racist" by numerous serious social scientists. They are "significant viewpoints" which, per WP:DUE, must be given space "in proportion to [their] prominence". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Social "scientists" are basing their name calling on the assumption that Rushton's work is incorrect. Whether Rushton's work is correct is still an open question in the relevant field, which is not social science. Quite why social scientists feel the need to namecall people on one side of an unresolved debate outside their field is something of a mystery. Possibly it as something to do with their self image. This whole sorry phenomenon is entirely irrelevant to the scientific question with which Rushton is concerned. That Wikipedia editors seek to perpertuate and give prominence to this kind of vulgarity is disturbing, but perhaps unsurprising. Nam84 (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That "whether Rushton's work is correct is still an open question in the relevant field" is likewise a wholly unsubstantiated claim. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that Rushton's work has achieved any traction whatsoever (other than with his small group of, mainly Pioneer Fund-funded, fellow travellers). His claims have been repeatedly ridiculed by scientific heavyweights such as Joseph L. Graves, Richard Lewontin and C. Loring Brace. He quite simply has no scientific credibility with which to defend against charges of racism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dick "Fallacy" Lewontin? You are pushing a long discredited POV. Try James R. Flynn for an argument that is cited by modern psychology/behaviour genetics professionals. None of the "heavyweights" you refer to are cited in the modern debate. This is embarassing. Nam84 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that neither of the two sources cited by Lewontin's Fallacy for the acceptance of Edwards' critique are nearly as disparaging of Lewontin as you would suggest. Both Speicher, Michael (2010). Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3540376534. and Dawkins, Richard (2004). The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 061861916X. agree with Lewontin that the overwhelming proportion of genetic variation is intra-group not inter-group, they merely suggest that by claiming that race is of "virtually no genetic or taxonomic importance" he extended his point too far. Neither source give any impression of taking a view on the controversy that comes even close to validating Rushton's position, so your impeachment of him looks rather threadbare. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm amused that you state that the relevant field "is not social science", then turn around and promote the views of Flynn, a social scientist. It should also be noted that Rushton's own biological credentials are virtually non-existent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population".

— Witherspoon DJ, Wooding S, Rogers AR; et al. (2007). "Genetic similarities within and between human populations". Genetics. 176 (1): 351–9. doi:10.1534/genetics.106.067355. PMC 1893020. PMID 17339205. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that what I've read about genetic differentiation into populations of origin indicates that it is far more complex, nuanced and fluid than Ruston's Mongoloid/Caucasian/Negroid schema would suggest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you may have an agenda and know you are inserting disinformation, but on the off chance that you are somehow stuck in a 1970s biology mode, here goes. It is true that there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. What bearing does this have on the question of whether race IQ differences are genetic? Precisely zero. Edwards, Speicher and Dawkins (real scientific heavyweights?) are not attempting to validate Rushton. They are invalidating Lewontin, and their reasoning is beyond question. "There is more genetic variation within races than between them, so the race IQ gap is not genetic"? In what universe does that make sense? Try getting a bag of marbles, use the blue ones for IQ+ alleles the red ones for IQ-, and the hugely overwhelming number of others for irrelevant/neutral genetic material (for height, hair texture, lactose metabolism, skin color, body fat, the 95% junk DNA, etc.), and see if you can distribute them so that there is more variation within two or more groups than between them, and one group has all of the IQ+ alleles. Easy, just mix them up then select and distribute the tiny proportion of IQ affecting genes for each group, plus a couple of other trait producing genes to produce an identifiable group. You could even create a continuous 2 dimensional spectrum of variation, which could still be operationalized for sampling by selecting arbitrary areas. In fact that would be the only way to describe it. This is why Lewontin is out of date, and this is why out of field social scientists are most likely to parrot his "trivial factoid" to this day, because they like his non sequitur conclusion, without understanding the logic. The fact that there is any genetic variation between groups leaves open the question of group associated traits. 15% genetic variation between groups could include a world of phenotypic differences.

As Nisbett (a prominent supporter of a cultural explanation for the IQ gap) put it: "Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups (Nisbett, 2009, p. 94)."

Rushton's Mongoloid/Caucasian/Negroid schema is of course a crude but practical model of the current geographic distribution of genes. The geograhpic variation is one dimension of the total variation. The overlapping bell curves that result from this model show that the underlying variation is not discrete or homogenous for each group. Similarly the different averages show that geographically linked variation exists. That is "race". It is used just the same in biology.

Flynn is a social scientist and a psychologist who is respected in this field. As opposed to a social scientist who is not, such the utterly peripheral people you reference simply because you like the fact they call Rushton "racist". Can you reference Flynn using the term racist?

Your sources are woefully old and do not represent the current theory. Clearly they have been selected to match your POV. Perhaps if I took a dislike to Priestly I could insert "The oxygen theory has been debunked by alchemy heavyweight Lavoisier. Priestly is widely considered an oxygenist.[reference 26 romantic fiction writers]" into the lead. But that would be transparent dishonesty and bias.

And all of this seems to be largely a distraction from the main point that groundless partisan name calling should be left out of the lead.

Aggresive but ignorant people like you are the reason wikipedia has no credibility.

RfC: Neisser on Rushton

Does the cited source (Neisser, Ulric (2004). "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists?". PsycCRITIQUES. 49 (1). doi:10.1037/004224. ISSN 1554-0138.) support the claim that "Ulric Neisser, head of the American Psychological Association task force on Race and Intelligence considers [Rushton's] work to be not racist in nature", as stated in this article's lead? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Generalize lead to summarize multiple opinions, not focus on Neisser - Can someone supply a quote or two from the Neisser source, so we can see exactly what words Neisser used to describe Rushton & his work? Also, there is already an entire section "Opinions on Rushton and his work" in this article, and Neisser is not mentioned in that section. So there is something flawed about the lead: it should contain a sentence or two which summarize the Opinion section. The lead should not single out one single opinion (Neisser's), which doesnt even appear in the Opinions section. A good path forward may be: (1) Get the quotes from Neisser, then add a sentence or two into the Opinions section which paraphrase Neisser (using Neissers own phrasing). (2) Eliminate the Neisser sentence from the lead; and (3) Add a couple of new sentences to the lead which summarize the totality of the opinions in the Opinions section (for example: "Rushton's work has been variously characterized as unique, racist, shoddy, scientific, and biased" ... Im just making up these characterizations for the sake of example ). Also, the lead may benefit by removing footnotes (footnotes are optional in lead paragraphs), and removing the names of his critics ... that sort of detail is often better handled in the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The following is the end of Neisser's review (of two books offering opposing views of Rushton's Pioneer Fund, neither of them by Rushton himself), in which he first makes his only direct reference to Rushton's work (in the first quoted paragraph), and then makes his (tentitive) conclusion):

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.

So we come back to the questions. Are all these people racists, or are some of them serious researchers? Can one be both? A racist, presumably, is a person who holds an attitude called “racism.” But what is that? Oddly, neither of the books under review offers a definition. It is with some trepidation that I propose one here, but it seems necessary to do so if we are to move beyond name-calling.

1. The essential core of racism, to my mind, is a deeply held conviction that members of some particular group are less worthy—somehow less entitled to respect or dignity or rights—than are the members of one's own group. There is often a further conviction that contact with such individuals is somehow contaminating; among other things, it may lead to what racists call “miscegenation” (i.e., the birth of mixed-race children).
2. For such an attitude to count as racism, the group in question must be defined by what used to be called “blood” (i.e., descent from other members of the same group). A person is an X (member of the target group), if and only if his parents (or at least some of his ancestors) were Xs. Different historical versions of racism have used different criteria to define their targets. The Nazis, for example, had strict rules about how much Jewish ancestry made a person a Jew. American racists often define people as “Black” if they have any Black ancestors at all; this is called the “one drop of blood” principle. Note the asymmetry: In such a belief system, one drop of White “blood” does not make a person White. Racists usually regard membership in the target group as all-or-none: Whatever the technical criterion, a person either is or is not a Black, a Jew, and so on. (Similarly, opponents of racism often assume that a person either is or is not a racist.)
3. There may be an accompanying belief that members of the targeted group are de facto enemies, deliberately working against the interests of one's own group. This attitude is common during wars, but the conviction that certain groups are “secretly plotting against us” may be held even in peacetime. (It often goes with anti-Semitism.)
4. There may be a belief that members of the target group are intellectually or physically inferior to one's own people (in certain respects), but this is not a necessary aspect of racist attitudes. (For example, it does not typically go with anti-Semitism.)
5. Contrariwise, there may be a belief that members of the target group are intellectually or physically superior in certain respects: Jews are clever, Asians are intelligent, and Blacks have rhythm and ability in sports.

Once the criteria of racism have been laid out in this way, it becomes obvious that they need not all go together. People who hold beliefs 1 and 2 are racists whether or not they assent to 4 or 5. (They might simply not care about ability differences.) By the same token, someone who believes that a given group has inferior or superior skills in some areas (i.e., who holds beliefs 4 or 5, might not hold 1 and 2 at all. It doesn't seem appropriate to apply the term racist to such a person. 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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That passage from Neisser doesn't have sufficiently direct discussion of Rushton to be used as a source in this article. First, the article is reviewing books by persons other than Rushton. Second, the assessment of "racism or not" is directed at the Pioneer Fund, not Rushkin as an individual. Third, Neisser makes it clear he finds Rushkin's research distasteful, so it would be misleading to include Neisser in the article to claim that Rushin is "not racist" since that is a very incomplete, and misleading representation of Neisser's viewpoint. For those reasons, it is best to leave the Neisser quote of of the lead. Could the Neisser infomation be used in the body of the article? Perhaps, if there were a subsection devoted to the Pioneer Fund, it could be included; or in the Pioneer Fund article (in fact, Neisser is already mentioned in that article at Pioneer_fund#Responses_to_criticisms. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was more or less my impression as well. As the editor who introduced it into the article,then edit-warred to retain it (Nam84), has now been indef-banned as a WP:SOCK it probably is largely moot now. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Biological support for a biological explanation?

Given that Rushton is offering an explicitly biological explanation for his (disputed) data, with an explicitly ecological and evolutionary biological/anthropological foundation, I find it odd that he appears to have so little support among biologists, anthropologists and ecologists. I'm sure that there are more on both sides than documented here, but would be surprised if I'm found to be mischaracterising the overall balance of opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and the like criticising Rushton's claims

• Lewontin, Richard (1996). "Review: Of Genes and Genitals". Transition. 0 (69): 178–193. JSTOR 2935246. (I would note that I can find no evidence that even his critics on Lewontin's fallacy appear to support Rushton's work, or claim that "'Oriental,' 'Black,' and 'White'" is a useful schema.)
• Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627. ISSN 1463-4996.
• Brace, C. Loring (March 1996). "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist, New Series. 98 (1): 176–7. JSTOR 682972.
• Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
• Anderson, Judith L. (1991). "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 32 (1): 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0078956. ISSN 1878-7304.
• Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
• Leslie, Charles (2002). New Horizons in Medical Anthropology. New York: Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 0415277930.
• Kuznar, Lawrence (1997). Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. p. 104. ISBN 076199114X.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and the like supporting Rushton's claims

• Harpending, Henry. Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)