Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 8 May 2011

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

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

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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

Psychology Unassessed

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

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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Vague criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of opposing views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boothello: as long as the (i) article avoids WP:Synthesis by not directly linking Rushton to claims made about the PF that do not directly mention him & (ii) avoids WP:COATRACK, I see no reason why the article needs to restrict itself solely to sources "that are specifically criticizing Rushton in the context of him being the fund's president" -- which will generally be talking mainly about Rushton himself, not the Fund (e.g. Neisser(2004): "At present, the Board of Directors includes Richard Lynn himself as well as J. Philippe Rushton, who became President of the Pioneer Fund after Weyher's death. One of its most recent projects was the widespread free distribution of a small book by Rushton, an abridged version of his Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995). The book presents his “evolutionary” theory of race differences, which I will not describe here because it turns my stomach." -- colourful, gives a rather visceral characterisation of Rushton's book -- but useless for a general/summary characterisation the PF). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How about the Pioneer Fund itself? Has it made a positive contribution, or would the world have been better off without it? Such counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to decide. The world would surely be better off if there were no racists at all, but that is not an option. Would history have taken a different turn without Harry Laughlin's expert testimony on sterilization and such matters? It is hard to be sure, but anyway he would probably have testified even without Draper's support. The Pioneer Fund's later efforts in the battle against school desegregation and civil rights, so carefully documented in Tucker's book, were lost causes that ended as complete failures. All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research —research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus. As for who is a racist, that no longer seems worth worrying about." Contemporary Psychology , Volume 49 (1): 5, 2004Miradre (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

RFC on lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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