Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I thought Wikipedia does not allow original research

Paragraphs like this seem to lower the articles credibility:

Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups (see Arithmetic mean). For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:

First of all it appears to be original research. You cite no well known expert of any kind making that claim. It reduces the complex field of genetics to a simple formula, and it's presented in a way that implies it contradicts Jensen. Could you please leave your own arguments out and stick to citing experts? Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not making original arguments.

Yeah, the citation really isn't about anything expert, it's about definitions (see Arithmetic mean). I'm not sure that citing a standard mathematical practices is OR - if you'd like I'll try to find a better cite for that...might not be as clear, but I'm sure we can find one. --JereKrischel 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was reply to the Flynn Effect edited out?

The Flynn Effect is mentioned as a devestating challenge to Rushton, but when a cogent reply complete with an actual quotes to frequently cited experts was added, you edited the whole thing out. Why are you trying to show only one side of debate, and the side of the debate you show is not attributed to any experts. Why was all this edited out?

However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:

1. We do not know what causes the test score changes over time.

2. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence.

3. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same.

4. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.

5. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin.

Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic. Critics claim that the genetic difference between males and females is an order of magnitude greater than any observed difference between "races".

Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkely writes:

If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.'''''''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

That was directly copied from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/jen.htm. We're not allowed to copy websites and present them as original here. If you want to quote, or paraphrase, that's fine, but outright copying, AFAIK, is not allowed. --JereKrischel 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the faulty syllogism is a direct quote from Robert C. Nichols and the quote from Jensen can be found in his book. The argument in between originated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Then the quote should be *quoted*, and referenced, not presented as written by Wikipedia editors. --JereKrischel 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect criticism of Rushton's 3 way model

You write:

One will note that at the same time Jensen defends the idea of race, his self-described analysis undercuts the 3-"race" hierarchy Rushton supports, and instead notes a 4-"race" distribution.

He doesn't undercut Rushton. Rushton never said there were ONLY 3 races. But his study is focused on the 3 broadest population groups. The existence of a fourth race (which btw is probably a mix of races) does not undercut the idea of 3 MAIN races. Again can we please just stick to reporting facts and quotes and leave our own personal interpretations out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the 4 distinct clusters clearly indicate more "main" races than Rushton supposes - it really means he needs to go back to all his studies and re-analyze his data in terms of the additional "main" race. None of the clusters mentioned were any closer or farther from each other to be able to conclude that two of them could be treated either as a sub-group of one, or a mix of two. Even the thought that there might be mixes of races large enough to form distinct groups challenges Rushton, because then he'd have to analyze his data with regards to permutations and combinations of A/B/C. I think we can find a better way of stating it, but it seems pretty obvious from the citation. --JereKrischel 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But Rushton's study is precisely focused on the three largest racial categories. How does the existence of a smaller racial categroy in anyway contradict his research? That's like someone doing a study on the 3 major cities in a country and then others complaining that they ignored the rural towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Rushton is trying to say that people in city #1 are the smartest, and people in city #3 are the dumbest, with city #2 in between. He asserts this is because city #3 was founded first, and city #1 was founded last, and more recent cities are inherently smarter. Ignoring the rural towns and suburbs inbetween these cities, he has kept himself ignorant of larger patterns - for example, between city #3 & city #2 (dumber and dumbest), there is a suburb which "mixes" the two, is older than any of the cities, and is even smarter than people in city #1. Now his neat "evolution" has been shattered, since now the oldest area, and the newest area are the smartest. Adding in additional combinations and permutations of suburbs and rural towns inbetween the "cities" he has measured only further confounds his theory. --JereKrischel 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The selection of a number of groups to divide people into is (in general) arbitrary (but there are heuristics for such a selection). It doesn't follow necessarily that one person's view that people should be divided into 4 groups for analysis A is contradictory with another's view that people should be divided into 3 groups for analysis B. --Rikurzhen 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that it's arbitrary, but the conclusion of Rushton (neat, sequential "evolution" of races in a linear fashion), is thwarted by groups that do not fall along the line he draws. Of course his premise can't possibly hold in the first place, since evolution is a continuous process and isolated groups will continue to evolve in parallel, but it is particularly contradicted by additional biogeographic "races" he hasn't taken into account in his analysis. --JereKrischel 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know those groups don't fall into the lines he draws? You have to start evolutionary research somewhere and so it makes sense to start with three largest genetic clusters of human-kind. Rushton is only one man. It's hard enough for one researcher to analyze hundreds of studies on 60 different variables when comparing the 3 largest races, but the existences of smaller races, along with divisions within races, is a challenges he leaves to future scholars. The existence of a 4th race would only undercut Rushton if Rushton theory was dependent on there being only 3 races, OR if the 4th race could be shown to somehow contradict his data. In neither case that's true, so your statement should be removed. Even if if you were right your statement should still be removed since your editorializing. It's hard enough to agree on an edit when we just report the facts. Adding original analysis and interpretation will make it impossible. And your statement about isolated groups evolving in parallel in no way contradicts the fact that throughout evolution, a populations that branch off earlier tend to be less K selected than populations that branch off later. Within primates, monkeys branched off earliest and are much less K selected than Hominoids branched off last and are the most K selected. Apes are intermediate in both K selection and splitting off date. This clearly contradicts your claim that parallel evolution makes splitting off dates irrelevant. In fact the pattern can be extended all through evolution, and not just within the primate branch which itself branched off later than others orders of mammals which are less K selected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

I certainly don't know if additional clusters and groups that have been identified since Rushton's claims of a tri-level hierarchy fall along the lines he draws, and neither does he without further research. Also, the branching you refer to between homonid species is a completely different beast than with imagined "branching" within a single species. The other question you beg is which group is the branch, and which group is the trunk - especially when actual genetic studies show no greater distance between the biogeographic categories Rushton promotes in the order he asserts. There are also many cases of a later "branch" in the evolutionary ladder leading to a dead end, while earlier "branches" ended up evolving into higher species.

The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't. We can certainly find a better way of stating the issue, but trying to defend Rushton from every logical fallacy he commits certainly isn't appropriate. We can work on the wording together and find a decent compromise, I'm sure! --JereKrischel 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying things like "The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't" can you please try to be a little more open-minded on this issue? The point is you can point to the existence of a fourth race, independent of the three largest races Rushton studies, without making the biased assertion that such a finding undercuts Rushton's research. Why do you have so much difficulty adhearing to Wikipedia's neutral perspective policy? In fact Rushton knew from the outset, that the 3 race model does not include all humans, but only the 3 largest populations which seems a good place to start. The existence of a 4th race, or even a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th race is in no way a logical fallacy on Rushton's part since he's studying only the 3 largest races. Does the existence of xyy people undercut all the research finding differences between men (xy) and women (xx)? Does the existence of bisexual people undercut research on the two main sexual orientations (homosexual & heterosexual). Does the existence of additional kingdoms undercut research of biologists comparing the animal kingdom with the plant kingdom? If the sasquatch is suddenly discovered, does that undercut research done comparing known primates? And of course there are case of earlier branches that eventually go on to outdistance branches that were once higher. However if you're on the first branch, and you don't do any more branching, then by definition you're less evolved than higher branches. As for inter-species/intra-species comparisons, I think that's discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if it seems if I'm not being open minded - I'm not trying to insist that in the article Rushton's opinion should not be expressed, but I think we should make it clear when his opinion is challenged by others. Certainly as part of NPOV, we should flatly state conflicts without asserting who is right or wrong - the fact that Jensen's observed 4 clusters contradicts Rushton's asserted 3 clusters does not assert that Jensen is right, and Rushton is wrong. It could very well be that Rushton is correct and Jensen is mistaken.

Insofar as your analogies, yes, xyy people do challenge the differences between men and women, bisexuality and the continuum of sexual preference does challenge a simple homo/hetro POV, adding an additional Kingdom does require a new look at classifications, and a missing link would certainly challenge ideas about primate evolution. When your basic premise is that all humans can be ordered into 3 races, and you've observed a continuum upon which they all lie, and a 4th cluster, or 5th, or 100th is found, your simplistic notions need to be re-examined, and the studies need to be repeated. --JereKrischel 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Rushton has never implied "all humans" can be ordered into these 3 groups, but is just referring to a pattern in 3 of the main groups. A single sentence giving this caveat is probably fine, maybe along the lines of: Some other branches in human history, such as the SE Asian and Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans may not have direct relevance to Rushton's model. (These look like the major branches not discussed, according to the trees in Cavalla-Sforza's 1994 book.p. 78) --Nectar 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he does: "Of course there are subdivisions within the three major races." He asserts that all other groups are just subdivisions of his imagined 3. The trees pointed out by Cavalli-Sforza illustrate quite clearly how he is both mistaken, and how the data he believes points out a 1-2-3 pattern needs to be re-examined. In the trees you can see how grouping North East and South East Asian as "Mongoloid" distorts the relationship that actually puts North East Asians closer to Caucasians. At the very least, he needs to repeat the studies which compared the "Mongoloid" group, and separate them out - without that data, the linear "evolution" he claims can't be asserted, since the mistaken categorization in his interpretations could have skewed the data in either direction.

Regarding the proposed wording change, I think it moves us in the right direction...maybe something like The observed genetic trees of biogeographic diversity illustrate large groups not well addressed by Rushton's tri-race model. For example, SE Asian, Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans represent a distinct branch of the tree farther away from Caucasian than NE Asians, leaving significant uncertainty as to the accuracy of studies which may have included them in other groups. --JereKrischel 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because Rushton believes that there are divisions within the 3 races in no way implies a denial of races outside the 3 races. Indeed I can quote a section from his book that makes clear he recognizes the existence of races outside the big 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Please, feel free to quote the book - it seems he's contradicted himself here by other statements, and having a clear example of that will be helpful. --JereKrischel 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On page 235 of his book he writes "Of course it is simplified to divide all the world's people into just three major races. This ignores 'Negritoes' and 'Australoids', but also subdivisions within the macro races." Note that Negritoes are believed by many to be the original people of South East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the cite - I'll be sure to work in his self-contradiction and admission of gross over-simplification. Considering his tri-level hierarchy is predicated on the linear evolution of three "races", these additional complications he admits to puts his entire hypothesis in question. --JereKrischel 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop working your own opinions into the article. Wikipedia articles must remain neutral and asserting something as a "contradiction" or constantly putting your own spin on things, and interpreting the facts for the reader represents an unwelcome bias. And Rushton never used the term "linear evolution" that's just your interpretaion. And in my opinion the existence of other races outside the big 3 call nothing into question. Feel free to quote experts criticising his theory but working your own interpretations into the article is wholly unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Wait a second - interpreting the facts for the readers seems to be what you're trying to do - I'm merely presenting the facts as they are. Fact - Rushton predicates his tri-level hierarchy on the concept that there is a linear progression from african to caucasian to asian. Fact - genetic trees show that not only are there more than 3 branches, but that they include continuous adaptation on every branch. Your opinion about whether or not those two facts are contradictory seems to be an attempt to spin things in a particular way, whereas simply stating the contradiction exists, and allowing the readers to decide for themselves which one may be true and which one false is the only way to remain neutral, don't you agree? Now, of course the bold statement of facts can be considered POV pushing, so I'm sure we need to work on the exact language, but the basic concept being illustrated here is Rushton's contradictions with others - to work your own interpretation into the article, and defend Rushton with original theories of your own seems inappropriate.

Who said anything about "linear"? Let's not put words into Rushton's mouth.

The real question is, how can we alter the wording so that we convey clearly the contradiction faced by Rushton (by experts and their research), without prejudging whether or not Rushton, or the other experts are correct? That is the key to NPOV here, and I greatly appreciate your help in finding a way to express the facts in a sympathetic way. --JereKrischel 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction is in your head. All Rushton is saying is that the 3 largest races branched off at very different times and these splitting-off dates correlate with his r-K continuum. It's fine to mention the existences of races outside the big 3, but the existence of a 4th race in no way contradicts the existence of the 3 largest races, nor does it contradict the chronological correlates he found among them. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over again. Perhaps the page should just stay protected so that we can both move on.

People are unable to handle Rushton's findings so slap on neutrality tags. Skinnyweed 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be totally rewritten, preferably by someone who is not biased against rushton. First of all this article should be about rushton and his ideas. Instead it is basically an essay on why rushton is wrong. Each point made by rushton is followed by a comment as to why the point is incorrect. The job of this article is not to prove rushton right or wrong, it is only to tell about his ideas. All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary. The article is also full of words which are not subjective and is worded to make rushton's ideas seem false. That is your opinion, it has no place in a wikipedia article. JereKrischel you have shown by the way you answer other peoples questions that you are not objective on this subject and should not have a hand in writing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs)

Rushton's theory is extremely controversial, to say the least. No suggest that including treatment of criticisms of his work by main stream scientists is "not necessary" is simply out of the question for an encyclopdeia. Pete.Hurd 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say criticism couldn't be included, I just said it should be at the end of the article instead of a point for point critique of his view. The essay is completely against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs)

There's no rule that articles must be fawning treatments of their subjects. The articles must be verifyable and NPOV (meaning fair, and balanced). You might suggest that the article disproportionately represents criticisms, but I think you are going to have to argue that it over represents the criticisms that exist in the scientific/popular communicty, not that the criticisms amount to more than 50% of the article. If you disagree, or feel that the article has already done this, then I suggest you invesigate a Request for Comment. Pete.Hurd 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is possible to have a good, sympathetic article with clear point by point critiques of his extreme minority POV (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a vehicle for personal promotion, or for tin-foil hat POVs put forward as truth, and before my work here, the article was fairly fluffy, and although some portions had been added to provide balance, it was poorly organized.

Now, if you just wanted to put down the basic facts about Rushton and what he's written, without going into immense detail about why he thinks he's right, we wouldn't have to go point by point to illustrate to the reader that his POV is not incontrovertible fact. I'm sure we could prune the article down to his short bio, and a list of his works with no glowing or critical commentary.

Lastly, I'm sure we can all agree that we're all not totally objective, and it is our willingness to work with others of differing objectivity that will help us find NPOV and produce a good article. If we told anyone with an opinion to refrain from editing wikipedia articles, we wouldn't have much :). Anyway, 152.163.100.69, I hope we can work together to make a better article. I clearly think that the critiques should be there, but we could compromise and remove any POV mention on either side of his research (just simply state he is a controversial researcher and president of the Pioneer Fund and leave it at that). I'm open to other compromise alternatives you could come up as well. Thanks for your comments! --JereKrischel 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article "Race and Intelligence" already makes about all of these points. You may wish to keep within this article's subject, which is J. Philippe Rushton. --Ramdrake 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Balanced" doesn't mean it has to give equal stature to all opinions. Rushton is very widely criticized both in the media and in the community. Therefore, I don't think it would do to present his position as a widely-recognized one, especially with the amount of criticism it has gained. The article should make it clear that his views on a number of points (especially his r-K hypothesis, to name one) are those of a very small minority. --Ramdrake 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example is how he can ascribe a "branching-off" date of ca. 200,000 years ago for Negroids, when that date places them early in the development of the Neanderthal, and about 150,000 years before the apparition of Cro-Magnon. If Negroids and Caucasoids had branched off this early, one of them would have likely retained significant Neanderthal-like traits, otherwise one would have to postulate they converged again to both have the appearance of modern man. That's just not the case. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are the numbers Rushton chose in his hypothesis, so I will let him defend them. He did seem rather certain of what they were, regardless of the archeaological and historical problems with it. --Ramdrake 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction: this is an article about Rushton and his ideas, and how they are received in the world. It would be unfair to present them as gospel, as they obviously are not, so a representative segment of criticism is needed on the subject. Would you consider an article about the Flat-Earth Society that failed to mention science has long ago demonstrated the Earth is (nearly) round? Same applies here: if one talks about Rushton, one must mention that his theories are at best controversial and at worst full of holes, as this is how they are considered. --Ramdrake 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok there is at least a few things which i think should be changed: "Foreshadowing the massive controversy that would erupt over his later racial theories" The word "massive" is a subjective term that i don't think should be included in this article. (unsigned by 205.188.117.69)

Hmm "extreme" controversy? Actually, controversy is keeping it polite. This man has been called a racist and his entire work dismissed as pseudoscience or bad science by more than one. So, yes I think a majorative epithet (?) is warranted here.--Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In short: no. Within group genetic differences are much larger than between-group differences in humans. This was demonstrated by Cavalli-Sforza and also duplicated. Also, Rushton's argument is based on humans being able to discern these "genetic differences" between races. If one demonstrates that genetic differences between races are smaller than between individuals of a same race, then Rushton's hypothesis falls flat. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see above, this is logical. This argument has been presented by several critics of Rushton. It is not OR. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is extremely controversial, and that's while being polite. We can also call it contested, called bad science, if you want. It's all been said. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" because that's what Rushton says they are, without giving the proof. When you say something about someone, but you haven't (or haven't yet, in the case of the judicial system) brought proof of what you say, what you say are "allegations". And yes, if Rushton sounds like a racist, maybe that's because he's been called exactly that by more than one. It is all documented. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim seems to be a bad quotation of Jensen. His argument in it's context is more complex and seems to basically be arguing against Lewontin's Fallacy. (Jensen's italics also got left out of the quote here.) I think the race section should just summarize the race section at race and intelligence in a single paragraph and direct readers there for more information; it's not as big a controversy among biologists as it's sometimes made out to be.[1] --Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Page unprotection request

Any edit wars ocurring seem to have been cooled. Unprotecting the page would make things easier.--Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Holding unpopular views is not (those in Colorado may substitute "ought not") to be cause for firing a professor. That's why there is tenure, so professors are free to discuss unpopular ideas which may (or may not) be true. Many of Rushton's critics defend his right to espouse his views, and his right to conduct research into the topic (even while they may think he's wrong and/or doing poor quality science). There is no contradiction there. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why your so against changing words to make the article seem more professional and less like an opinion article. That should be the goal of wikipedia.

Well 205.188.117.69, I think I agree with you, representation of the theory and it's criticisms makes for a proper article. I thinkthe best way to do it is to present his theory bit by bit, and and present the other sourced and documented criticisms so they can be compared point for point. So I think you & I agree. I disagree with this other guy, 152.163.100.69, who says "All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary" I assume you also disagree with such whitewashing. Pete.Hurd 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know people who have worked with Rushton, who say he's a very nice guy. Attributing to me the view that he has horns growing out of his head etc. is a straw man, and fails the WP:AGF etc. standards WP editors are expected to live up to. Pete.Hurd 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. The examples above are not weasel words if they are verified by sources. For example: "in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of" are not weasel words if sources are provided to establish that the theory is controversial. Since that has been done, it's not controversial, it's just a fact you don't like mentioned. Similarly, "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" would be a classic example of WP:WEASEL were it not for the fact that the prominent scientists are named, and their criticisms of the methodology is presented & discussed, statements supported by good sources are not weasel words. Pete.Hurd 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you're denying that the theory is controversial? You think that the theory is controversial, but that this claim is not adequately documented? Or you just flat out think that it would be impropper to state that the theory is controversial in an encyclopedia entry? Pete.Hurd 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "extremely controversial" is used in the Encyclopeia Brittanica Online, one example from the Herrera y Reissig, Julio entry "His poetry, extremely controversial in its own time for its innovations in form and language, was ... ". I don't see why Rushton's science can't be documented to meet such a status. Pete.Hurd 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. All I am saying is that the language of the article should be more neutral, you are being too nit-picking of everything I say. If rushton is a racist, let the FACTS speak for themselves. Let's not spoonfeed the readers the opinion of the author. That is not what wikipedia is about. "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data on IQ scores " You see how the word "devastating" is not neutral. It's an opinion. You can just say a "challenge to Rushton's viewpoint is". You see how that is more neutral but still retains the information. I don't understand why you are so attached to these words that are not neutral. These words make the article look amateurish. I have looked at other articles about controversial figures, and they do not use the kind of opinionated terminology.

As for the britannica article, you are bound to find poorly worded phrasing in some parts. I know for a fact that there are also spelling mistakes and factual errors in britannica articles so saying that doesn't mean anything.

Sorry, edit conflict

To all the unsigned users: It would be nice of you to create yourselves an ID in Wikipedia and start signing your comments. Otherwise, this will get to be a mess very soon. No weasel words here, just stating the obvious.

Then, for the record: I am not against putting in this article more of Rushton's theories, as long as they are accompanied by cited criticisms (if there are any). To 205.188.117.69 (and possibly 64.12.116.69, who seem to be the same person, judging from their interventions - but I may be wrong!) your gist seemed to be pushing for having Rushton's hypotheses showcased here while toning down the rebuttal of his theories and the amount of controversy they generate. As Pete.Hurd pointed out, this sounds like whitewashing and I don't think the majority of the editors here want that.

As for the alleged weasel words used in the text, while I concur that several points in the article are badly cited, I don't think many of them are really weasel words, just poorly cited points (sorry for repeating myself).

As for my opinion, like everybody else, I'm entitled to one. I'm not trying to impart it on the article (please do see that I haven't touched the article yet), but I think I am within my rights to say that if we should include this or that point about Rushton's opinions, properly cited criticisms (if there are any) should also be included to appropriately represent the controversy around this character's opinions. Commendations about his work, also if properly cited, should also be included. The fact of the matter is, criticisms of his works and his opinions are plenty, and IMHO praise is somewhat rarer. I'm of the opinion that Wikpedia should also present this in order to offer a balanced reflexion of the subject. If anyone has problems with this, please let me know. If I go counter to a WP policy, please also let me know. Insofar as I know, I haven't done that yet. --Ramdrake 22:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"you are being too nit-picking of everything I say". Maybe you should be more careful in your choice of rhetoric. You contend that "in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of" and "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" are weasel words, and in your all-caps bold font accompanied by a sing-song "WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS...... REPEAT IT UNTIL IT SINKS IN." ... well, I think you ought to stand by what you say, if you are going to state things so vehemently. Since you use the phrase "Ask yourself, would you see this kind of wording in the encyclopedia britanica. The answer is no." more than once, I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that, yes, in fact, it's not uncommon in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I still don't understand how you can hold that "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" amounts to weasel words if it's properly documented. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You see your doing it again. You are just nit-picking. You don't see my point at all? I just think that the article should state facts. If a prominent scientist says "rushton is a racist" you can put it in as long as you quote him.

I used the encyclopedia britanica as an example by mistake. I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head.

Ok maybe "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss" isn't a weasel word. I just quickly cobbled together a few quotes to make a point. Do I have to laboriously go over the entire article?

What about "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data". Is "devastating" not a weasel word. Come on now. At least give me that one.

Personnally, I'd go for "most serious challenge". I personnally think "devastating" is a bit melodramatical. --Ramdrake 23:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can state the facts without having these unattributed opinions.

"I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head." are you accusing me of fabricating the Encyclopedia Brittanica quote? Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, i think your way too sensitive Pete Hurd. I just didn't expect someone to be able to quote from the encyclopedia that's all.

• Laugh* Ok ... EB is on-line [2] and has a "search" function. (BTW, "you're" not "your") Pete.Hurd 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ramdrake, "most serious challenge" is good. That's exactly the kind of change I think would make this a better article.

Well, if we take those points one by one and take the time to discuss them honestly, I believe we can achieve something together. It's just that you first came across as complaining that there was too much undeserved criticism of Rushton's theories. That's why I launched in those long explanations trying to demonstrate how and why that criticism was deserved. Now, if you say the wording of some comments and criticism needs to be revised to be more factual, I agree. I won't go around boilerplating everything "weasel words", but I did get your gist. I'm not a good editor for long spots: I get too passionate about the things I write about to be good at it. But I think I can do a decent job rephrasing stuff that's poorly worded for whatever the reason may be. --Ramdrake 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

I copied the article to a sub-page in the talk space: Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Draft 1. Why not take a shot at working on a compromise text on that page? You might make more progress that way. --Rikurzhen 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikurzhen. I've gone ahead and did my best to rephrase most of the objectionable passages that user (unsigned) listed. Here's hoping this helped move the article in the right direction. --Ramdrake 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone noticed that two of the pro-Rushton reference are by Rushton himself? Not sure that's quite approriate. --Ramdrake 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Is race a valid concept?" portion and the "Critiques" paragraph that's right after the "Genetic similarity hypothesis" are both basically about the same thing. I think they should be merged together somehow. M314abc 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but they make two separate points. One challenges the very tenability of race as a biological concept, and a case can be made for the existence of races as a biological construct. The other challenges that based on what can be construed as the biological concept of race, people can recognize one another based on genetic similarities (this is one of the central arguments of Rushton's work). This one is much harder to defend, as if race is to exist as a biological construct, it is not based on genetic differences (which are much larger within races than between races), but based on biogeographically differential distribution (frequency in the population) of an unknown number of alleles. It would be important that both points are preserved if the sections are to be merged. --Ramdrake 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"First, he asserts that Mongoloid populations could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasoid populations of the Western world. Second, he also argues that Negroid populations with their allegedly more reproductively-minded behavior were especially at risk for AIDS."

I changed a few things and I will tell you why. First what does rushton mean by outdistance? I am pretty sure he means technologically, but if you know differently i think that should be clarified. Using the word "outdistance" is vague and does not mean anything by itself. I think there needs to be another word their clarifying what is being "outdistanced". If you can think of something better than technologically then put it in. I'm also pretty sure rushton thinks that "mongoloids" are more intelligent than "caucasians" and that is the reason for the "outdistancing". I think the "reproductively-minded" is a little too P.C., "promiscous" is a better term. Finally I changed alleged because it is a non-neutral term. Seems like a word to avoid (like claim, believes etc.).

M314abc 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, regarding Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Rushton seems fairly clear that this "outdistancing" is genetic first, and intellectual and behavioral second. From his readings, I get the impression he thinks Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids are soon to go their separate ways, evolution-wise. That is why I think it's unwarranted to restrict the difference to the sole field of psychometrics (intelligence).

Second, Rushton is very careful not to use the word promiscuous anywhere in his description of Negroids, so I wouldn't put that word in his mouth. What he does say is that their behavioral strategy is geared towards reproduction based on numbers rather than intensive rearing. And lastly, if you were going to use "promiscuous", I can't see how you would balk at using "alleged". Rushton says Negroids are this way and that, and to prove it, he has only statistical circumstantial evidence that his detractors have long since torn to pieces. So, yes he is asserting something without solid evidence, and in English, that's an allegation. --Ramdrake 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain some of the changes I made. I just moved the Cavalli-Sforza part from the "genetic similarity theory" critiques section to the "Is race a valid concept". Changed "Population geneticists, such as Cavalli-Sforza, have found that genetic differences " to "has argued that genetic differences". (more neutral wording) Changed "identifiable groups (various "races") are in fact of much greater" to the sentence "(i.e. "races") are of much greater magnitude than genetic differences" (fact not a very objective term) Took out "Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory is based on the assumption that individuals can discern genetic similarities and differences." (sentence is not very neutral and unecessary.) Took out "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " (not a neutral sentence and unecessary) M314abc 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rearranging took out the part about the critical basis for Rushton's theory. Without it, the discussion about race as it pertains to this article is close to pure vacuity. Rushton uses his "Genetic Similarity Theory" to validate why historically speaking, people have tended to associate with like characters. From a purely social aspect of life (who are your friends), he makes it a genetically-based impulse, and then uses it to sustain his r-K hypothesis. The two sentences you took out are necessary (contrary to what you were saying), and possibly not neutral (I agree on this point), but it is one of the bases to critically refute Rushton's arguments. These sentences are needed. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well alledge is one of those words that make rushton's opinions seem highly dubious. It is the same problem I have with the word claim (a word to avoid). It's not that I necessarily think rushton is right in what he says. I just think that "say" is a better word because it doesn't have a negative (or positive for that matter) connotation. I just think we should let the facts speak for themselves and let the readers judge on their own whether he is a racist or not (a lot of evidence indicates that he may in fact be racist). It's the same reason I took out the dubious sounding sentences below. M314abc 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then how about changing "alleged behavior..." to "behavior Rushton argues they exhibit"? That would also work for me. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my edits. I think I did too many at once. I will try to do one edit at a time and explain why.M314abc 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I just explained a bit further up there why I reverted your edits. I would have tried to salvage something, but this was too intricate for my poor mind. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out the following sentence again "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " I think this is a bad sentence because for one, it is unecessary. If you read the sentences that precede it you can basically infer that information already. Second, this article doesn't need to tell us what to think. You have to ask yourself who is saying this sentence. Is it an expert opinion, or is it the person who wrote this sentence. I think we should stick to quoting of actual scientists. M314abc 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I also moved back part of the statement of a lack of relationship of penis size to reproductive frequency. I think it is important to articulate how much of Rushton's theories are NOT supported by evidence. --Ramdrake 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

neutral language

This article's language can probably be improved to avoid pov-pushing. That would generally look like:

• "X argues" instead of "X [alleges/claims/asserts]." (The current wording of "Suzuki thundered" should be changed to "Suzuki argued...")
• "The [argued/attributed/putative] phenomenon" instead of "the [alleged/claimed/asserted] phenomenon."

--Nectar 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Race and Cavalli-Sforza

"Cavalli-Sforza's results are not hypothesis, but fact. Previous version led to believe it was two competing hypotheses. Not." I'm not so sure about saying that something is a fact. I don't think we should be indicating that what he says is an absolute truth. Sforza interprets his results one way, but if you read his wikipedia article, other researchers interpret it differently. I mean there is a whole other wiki article on the validity of "race" as a concept. There is by no means a consesus among scientists. Sforza should be included in this article, however , mainly because Rushton uses data taken from him. You have to realize though that there are critics of Sforza's work too. (look at the end of his wiki article). "In a paper published in 1997, Shomarka Keita and Rick A. Kittles have criticized the primary methodology used by Cavalli-Sforza" M314abc 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism levelled at Cavalli-Sforza is about the "inappropriateness of using a priori predefined racial categories and then sorting genetic diversity as much as possible into these categories." It is not about the fact that there is more genetic variation within the same race than between races.

However, if you must I wouldn't object to using the quote from the economists about Cavalli-Sforza: "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all." [3] (The Human Genome Survey, 1 July 2000, pg. 11)

I think this challenge is central to the criticism levelled at Rushton's hypothesis about the Genetic Similarity Theory. --Ramdrake 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW. I think we can improve this article by working together like this.

I'll think about how to change the above sentence, but will leave it like it is for now. I personally think we should move that part down to the "Is race a valid concept" category. To me it seems obvious that the genetic similarity hypothesis hinges on whether or not the concept of race is valid. So i don't think it necessarily has to be in the paragraph right after the "genetic similarity.." section. It seems likes its just a little repititous. I realize that it is slightly different. I think it would be better if all the Cavalli-Sforza stuff was in one section instead of being split up. M314abc 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said earlier on the talk page, I don't object to moving this section, as long as it is made clear the genetic similarity theory hinges on a concept of races where races are genetically dissimilar. The current (biological and debated) concept of race is based differing biogeographic distributions of alleles, which doesn't support Rushton's hypothesis. --Ramdrake 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what this boils down to is - taking into account "Lewontin's Fallacy" - selecting pairs of individuals at random would find on average greater genetic similarity between individuals of the same ancestry than across ancestries.--Nectar 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you could say one way or another. Cavalli-Sforza's studies find potentially more genetic differences between members of the same race than between menbers of different races. The only way to salvage this is through Lewontin's fallacy, invoking biogeographic distribution of allele frequency. However, Rushton's Genetic Similarity Hypothesis postulates that two individuals of the same race tend to associate because of genetic similarities. Given what Cavalli-Sforza has shown, I think it pretty much makes Rushton's hypothesis moot. --Ramdrake 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"More variance within groups than between groups" means a specific thing. If one group has variance represented by the numbers 1-5, and another group has variance represented by 2-6, more variance occurs within each group than between them and there is substantial overlap --but the groups still have different means. (i.e., randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups.)--Nectar 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups Cavalli-Sforza's findings demonstrate exactly the reverse. Also, we are talking here about a mechanism by which people would identify each other and associate together based on genetic similarity. Please see [Human Genetic variation]]. Can you propose a mechanism by which this could be done? --Ramdrake 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza constructed a tree of human genetic clusters. The thing about clusters is that the units being clustered exhibit similarity with each other in the measurements being evaluated, otherwise they aren't clusters. Detection of degree of relation would occur by detection of traits.--Nectar 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, we're talking about the detection of specific similar traits. I believe Rushton's hypothesis was that association was based on overall genetic similarity. I see a difference here. The first might work, but the second is disproved; however, re-reading Rushton, it seems pretty clear to me he meant the second. --Ramdrake 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If Lewontin is correct, then ethnic membership contains no meaningful genetic data. If the argument in Lewontin's Fallacy and the data in Cavalli-Sforza's clusters and in race in biomedicine is correct, then ethnic membership is statistically a proxy for genetic information. Most of Rushton's treatment of the subject, though, is not about ethnicity but about family members, spouses, friends etc.

Rushton devotes a section of his 1989 article to detection mechanisms in humans and animals.ctrl f Detecting Some of these are imprinting mechanisms, and seem to support arguments that exposure to ethnic diversity is valuable for children. His arguments and evidence are each debated in a number of ways in the reviews following the paper.--Nectar 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White

Do you happen to know who "Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:" who is this guy. His name appears under the "validity of race as a concept" column. The article though doesn't seem to say who he is. I think we need to make that addition.M314abc 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be Francisco Gil-White, a rather eccentric character in his own right, who wrote a scathing refutation of racial science (some of his points are way off the mark, but some of them are quite pertinent too). It can be accessed here: http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrintro.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs)

Our conclusion previously discussing this[4] is that Gil-White (1) makes many errors, (2) has questionable professional credibility, and (3) doesn't make any points that haven't been made better by notable authors, such as Gould. We should just cite Gould etc. for these points. Jensen wasn't responding to Gil-White, as the only exposure Gil-White's online book has received appears to have been through Wikipedia. If anybody's on the fence about any of these points, look at his articles on other subjects on his webpage and compare them to the Wikipedia articles on those subjects. --Nectar 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Nectar, that was your conclusion, which didn't quite meet consensus. While it is agreed that Gil-White made errors (I mentioned so earlier), and is eccentric (granted too), I think the discussion was that some of his points had some credibility. After all, Rushton was investigated by the police for possible incitation to hatred, and some of his students at the university tried to have him expelled. Compare to Gil-White whose students circulated a petition to have him reinstated (along with his course),and it starts to look to me like the pot calling the kettle black. So, I wouldn't ditch Gil-White just yet (although I might take him with a grain of salt).--Ramdrake 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an accurate comparison. Rushton is a professor who is on the editorial board of Intelligence, is a fellow of the relevant scientific societies and associations, and has been supported by big names in the field like W. D. Hamilton and E. O. Wilson. Gil-White doesn't have any professional qualifications besides the brief position from which he was fired.

The conclusion that was reached[5] between Coroebus and I at the previous discussion was bipartisan. There doesn't seem to be any reason to cite Gil-White's website instead of the well-known and much superior published work by Gould, Sternberg, or the other authors Coroebus links to. (Why cite someone who needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we can cite respected scientists?)--Nectar 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the psych articles Coroebus links to, their abstracts can be read at sciencedirect.com or I can post the full text.--Nectar 00:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comparison wasn't meant to be 100% accurate. Obviously Ruston has the backing of at least part of the scientific establishment, while Gil-White only had the endorsement of his students. As far as professional qualifications go, let's please also admit in evidence that Francisco Gil-White holds a Ph.D. in cultural and biological anthropology and he has been published in several anthropological, psycholgical, and behavioral journals to the tune of about 15 publications in 6 years. Eccentric? Certainly! Provocative? Certainly. A kook without qualifications? No, not at all.

Please take note that several others of us didn't agree with the conclusion. Coroebus didn't agree either (if that's what you mean by bipartisan conclusion). --Ramdrake 12:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

? Coroebus' characterization of Gil-White's online book as "a paranoid rant" seems to be pretty unambiguous.--Nectar 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful, I believe you're getting pretty close to quote-mining. Coroebus did use those terms, but he was referring to this researcher's more global views, including political conspiracy theories and the likes. His contract wasn't renewed by his university, but it is meaningful in this discussion to point out that the reason he wasn't renewed had nothing whatsoever to do with his work and his publications on race and intelligence. --Ramdrake 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those are warranted interpretations. Coroebus' response to your defense of the link to Gil-White was:

The link is of pretty poor quality though. Things like this, this, or this are going to present a much better counterpoint than such a paranoid rant from someone who isn't massively credible, Jay Joseph or Stephen Jay Gould do a much better job than Gil-White. --Coroebus 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White stated exactly what you say he didn't:

"...The objection to this course must therefore be sought elsewhere. But one will not have to look far. The UPENN psychology department to this day teaches IQ research as if it were science, so Gil-White was effectively a whistleblower in his own department."[6]

Gil-White's department agreed:

"Your description of how you will approach the last several topics of the course seems to have little to do with the psychological issues involved and instead to hinge on political interpretation of historical facts. The committee feels that this focus may not be appropriate for a course in psychology"

It doesn't seem possible to spin those statements in a positive direction. His department seems to be disaproving of his approach that neglects engagement with the psychological issues in favor of one-sided politics.--Nectar 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, he was let go for his political, anti-establishment views.

And here's another quote from Coroebus: "I do object to the reference that his department has somehow debunked him, in particular, contrary to your point 1, the main objections to his course seem to have been "your description of how you will approach the last several topics of the course seems to have little to do with the psychological issues involved and instead to hinge on political interpretation of historical facts. The committee feels that this focus may not be appropriate for a course in psychology", which is not, as far as I can see, an assessment of his scientific view of IQ testing (he may not have a scientific view of IQ testing, but that is beside the point)."

I'd rather we stopped arguing about what is after all a rather minor player in the field and moved on to something more constructive. Granted, the guy is very eccentric, and some of his ideas are off-base, but still he has done some genuinely good research, and some of his arguments are quite valid. If he levels some well-founded criticism at Rushton, we should leave it, I say. --Ramdrake 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White isn't a minor player in the field because nobody has read his website except for Wikipedia editors and his former students. The above interpretation of Gil-White's and his department's description of why his course was rejected clearly goes against the actual quotes. If you're saying Gil-White's above quote is the opposite of what really happened, why would we want to cite someone who can't be relied upon instead of respected scientists? If you want to cite Coroebus's opinion, it would be better to cite his conclusion (quoted in my last comment) rather than a comment made half-way through the conversation. Some WP editors have never come to bipartisan agreements, but it's not uncommon for more reasonable editors to do so. If you can convince Coroebus to withdraw his opposition then we can continue this conversation.--Nectar 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess this doesn't really matter anyway; the current quotes of Gil-White are a red herring in that section. As long as populations are genetically non-identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection.--Nectar 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Nectar, is that besides identical twins, every individual can be seen as a non-identical population to everyone else - much of the argument here is whether or not the observed biogeographical differences yield differences of that significance. Take any population identified by Rushton (negroid/caucasoid/mongoloid), and you'll find varying degrees of r/K selection within that group more significant that between groups. Not to mention that even if populations are genetically identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection based on the environment.

I would assert that if Gil-White is too fringe to mention, Rushton and the other Pioneer Fund folks fall into that same camp - especially on the Race and intelligence page. --JereKrischel 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"More variance within groups than between groups" means a specific thing. If one group has variance represented by the numbers 1-5, and another group has variance represented by 2-6, more variance occurs within each group than between them and there is substantial overlap --but the groups still have different means. (i.e., randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups.) The significance or non-significance of the gap between those two means can only be determined by phenotype analysis (measuring traits).

While Gil-White's work in race and intelligence has never been cited except for by Wikipedia, you can see the actual standing of researchers like Jensen by reading the literature in the field. Check out, for example, the introduction to the Arthur Jensen article (a "King among Men" etc.), or the survey of expert opinion at the race and intelligence article (Jensen is the leading researcher in the position that was supported by the majority of experts) .[7] The APA statement on intelligence references Jensen and Lynn,[8] and Thomas J. Bouchard, also a grantee, was one of the members of that task force. Note that Ulric Neisser, who led the task force, has expressed views on the Pioneer Fund that are quite reasonable.[9] --Nectar 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want to see the manner in which mainstream sources reference a figure like Lynn, check out Discover mag's 2005 summary of their 1982 issue. [10] --Nectar 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, how do you assert the negative of "Gil-White's work in race and intelligence has never been cited except for by Wikipedia"? And don't you think that the "position that was supported by the majority of experts" (that being a "partially genetic explanation") does not nearly conincide with Jensen's POV as closely as you seem to imply?

Also, insofar as measuring significance, I think that the large gap is not in merely measuring phenotypes (which are not 1-to-1 causal to allele differences), but isolating the specific function and mechanism by which that phenotype is expressed. That is to say, unless you can both determine a specific genetic difference between two groups, and show that this difference is the direct cause of measured traits, you have only a guess as to the reason for a correlation (as opposed to let's say, environmental or cultural factors). --JereKrischel 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't find any references to Gil-White's R&I work in the professional literature, but you're free to search (that's probably where the burden of proof lies).

2. In the Snyderman and Rothman survey the average estimate of the heritability of IQ differences within the black population was only slightly lower than the estimate for within the White population, suggesting they view the supposed heritable contribution to the gap as being significant (unless even economically privilaged people with gifted IQs were subject equally to the same environmental effects that lower the scores of other blacks). I don't see any reason to believe respondents supported the partly genetic hypothesis but didn't support those who have most prominently done the research and formulated the arguments for that hypothesis --but we can't really know.

3. Yeah, phenotype analysis including heritability determination. --Nectar 12:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to contribute Nectar then go to the draft (below).M314abc 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman

Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims. If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.

Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results.[11] --Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Do you think we should unprotect this article? I think it's time to let other people contribute.64.12.116.69 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to semi-protect it, it seems that we're getting somewhere with non-anon editors. --JereKrischel 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rushton and the extreme right

We should incorporate information from sources like this one: [12] Ultramarine 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Raised during apartheid in South Africa

My apologies, Nectar, but stating the undisputed fact (not simply an accusation), that he was raised in South Africa during a period of white-dominance and apartheid is not a criticism. If we were to assert he was a racist because of that, that would be an accusation and criticism.

I believe we can probably find direct criticisms like that to cite in a later section, but it seems relevant, informative, and neutral to make it clear under which system of government he was raised. If anything, it may give him a more sympathetic light. --JereKrischel 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think Nectar is right about that sentence. While it may be a factual sentence it is worded in such a weasely way. Saying both "White dominance" and "Apartheid" is a little over dramatic. Two adjectives that both mean basically the same thing? The sentence's connotation is definitely not NPOV. I mean, why is this sentence in there? I don't think it serves any real purpose except to give a reason for rushton's "racism". (unsigned by User:70.138.28.71)

Maybe we should remove one or the other (it is a bit redundant), but not both, as it gives some historical context to where he comes from. --Ramdrake 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can buy working on the tenor of the sentence without removing the relevant information. Let me see what I can come up with. --JereKrischel 01:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the sentence "was raised there under the race-based apartheid system controlled by a white minority" is even worse than the sentence it replaced. I still don't see how apartheid needs to mentioned at all. I think most people already know that South Africa had an apartheid system. The readers don't need us to spoon feed them. If we have that sentence why don't we also say "Rushton was born in England, a country that had a large empire that exploited native people". Or you could say "Rushton was born in England, a country that embraces multiculturalism and does not restrict immigration based on race. We could also add "He moved to Canada, a majority white country". Or "He moved to Canada, a country that guarantees rights to citizens of any race". See how these sentences state facts yet are either unecessary or not NPOV. (There are other sentences in this article that could use some work too) I mean take any subject and you can follow that subject by a factual statement giving it a certain connotation. For instance we could write "Gil-White, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania until his contract was "denied renewal" in 2006". This type of thing needs to be avoided in general. Even if I personallly don't change these types of sentences, someone else eventually will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.28.71 (talk • contribs)

Hmm.. well, I think if Stephen Jay Gould's family had moved to Cuba when he was young, it wouldn't be necessary to say "moved to communist Cuba" instead of "moved to Cuba." (Some critics see Marxist influence on his scientific positions.)--Nectar 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be important to say "pre-communist Cuba", if one was talking about a specific prior era that although familiar to us folk over 35, may not be generally known to others. Since South Africa is no longer under apartheid rule, it is notable (though not a criticism), that Rushton was raised during that era. Much in the same way one might say that some historical figure lived in Imperial Japan, or Colonial America, or post-war Germany. --JereKrischel 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason the editors at Gould's page would reject "communist Cuba" is that, though it's historically accurate, mentioning it implies it's relevant. In this case that would be an implied connection between his time under communism and his supposed Marxism. When detail isn't relevant from a neutral pov, it's problematic if including it also advances unintended connotations (e.g. Gould is a communist). That's the difference between these examples and examples like Colonial America. Such connotations shouldn't be presented under Wikipedia's neutral voice, but rather attributed to the sources that advance them. (Details that are relevant from a neutral point of view, on the other hand, may frequently come down on one side of a debate.)--Nectar 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you, Nectar - I think the editors at Gould's page would reject "communist Cuba" because that is what it is today, and mentioning its form of government does not uniquely identify an era readers might not be familiar with. And certainly, no matter what you think of Rushton, his ideas, or apartheid, his time there during his formative years is highly relevant. Whether he developed a subtle racism during that time, or whether he developed significant sympathy for those being discriminated against would be a matter of POV - but in either case, give his notoriety on race-issues, it is critical no matter what implication you draw. --JereKrischel 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has changed the information that was present in the given reference. The references states "I was born in Bournemouth, England, in 1943. . . We emigrated to South Africa and later to Canada so I went to school in several places." Do we have any basis to speculate on what ages he was there for?--Nectar 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. A post written by Rushton himself indicating the ages he was there. I've put the reference in. --JereKrischel 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

-oids

Mongoloid, Caucasoid, or Negroid have become obsolete since Rushton wrote his 2000 book, and his more recent articles have primarily used other terms. (The US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), for example, were changed in 2004, deleting terms like "Black," "White," and the -oids in favor of "African Continental Ancestry Group" etc.ctrl f ethnic) I think Asian, Caucasian, and African are what we should use, including a note clarifying what they refer to in this context.--Nectar 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Rushton used obsolete terminology is not up to us to correct, though, don't you think? I think we should use the terms he uses when speaking of his works, and when citing his later articles, use more recent terminology. Otherwise, we're interpreting his works, not reporting on them. --JereKrischel 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't hold for describing the work/writings/thoughts of individuals in the more distant past. --Rikurzhen 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias describe things from a current perspective using current language, so in that sense articles are not just reportive. Articles use Native American instead of Indian even when referring to source written pre-1960s. --Nectar 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just continue to use "Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid", as Rushton primarily does, to be true to his words when talking about his specific works, and include a note clarifying that since his choice of these words in his earlier works, such terms have become "obsolete"? --JereKrischel 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia to use obsolete language unless there's a special reason to. As well, Rushton's more recent works primarily use other terms, so prioritizing the older terms doesn't seem important.--Nectar 23:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think when referring to his older work, we should use the language he used, and when referring to his more recent work, use the language he used. We can indicate to the reader that his old terms are now considered "obsolete", although I'm not sure what your definition of that really means. My concern is that a white-washing of terms he has used regularly paints an inaccurate portrayal of his work. For example, what happens when "Asian/Caucasian/African" becomes obsolete, and it is considered more proper to say "Eastern Hemisphere/Western Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere"? One might very well state that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between Asian/Mongoloid, Caucasian/Caucasoid, African/Negroid - after all, there are significant populations in Africa which are as white as anyone (and therefore considered "caucasoid" by Rushton), and there are certainly Asian populations which he would not count as Mongoloid (or not consider at all in his 3 "races"). While I think it may be appropriate to give the reader notice of his "obsolete" language, revising it seems beyond what we should do. --JereKrischel 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a one-to-one correspondence between Asian/Mongoloid etc. so it is necessary to include a note to clarify, but in the big picture the terms are pretty equivalent. North Africans are considered to be predominately of Caucasian (Middle-Eastern) background with sub-Saharan admixture.ctrl f north african South Asians, if that's the Asian group you're referring to, are also in the Caucasian branch.

What matters is not the terms that were used and are now not used, but the concept they referred to, which is still used -- there are branches of human biogeographic history, including Asians, Caucasians, and sub-Saharan Africans. It's now not appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to Native Americans as Indians or Savages, or to Africans as Negroids. A scholar.google.com search will show usage of the -oids has tapered off in the scientific literature in the last few years.--Nectar 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nectar, I respectfully disagree with you. It may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to Native Americans as Indians or Savages, but if the entry is reporting on someone who DOES, we should not censor or revise what they have said. (See Nigger for a perfectly reasonable example of encyclopedic use of the otherwise "obsolete" word) Furthermore, as you've clearly pointed out, the term "African" in place of "Negroid" would be inaccurate, lumping in North Africans, and the term "Asian" in place of "Mongoloid" would also be inaccurate, as South Asians are considered Caucasoid.

I think, however, you are correct that we should point out that the language that Rushton has used in his past work is inappropriate. How we do that without being too POV against Rushton, I don't know...perhaps we can include a note as to his recent change of terminology? Do you have an example of his more polite terminology in later works, compared to his obsolete terminology in his earlier workds? --JereKrischel 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Re: "African" in place of "Negroid" would be inaccurate. Africans being used to refer to sub-Saharans, and North Africans being used to refer to North Africans does occur in the literature. South Asians for these purposes are Caucasian and referred to as such. Treatments of these subjects usually define how they're using terms, so it shouldn't be a problem for Wikipedia to do this also.

2. Re: we should not censor or revise what they have said. Cavalli-Sforza and Rushton used the oid terms to refer to concepts. The terms have changed, but the concepts have remained the same. If an article is on a source that refers to Native Americans as Indians, it may note that usage, but the article itself will refer to them as Native Americans, not Indians. (e.g. "[X source] argues Native Americans..." instead of "[X source] argues Indians...")--Nectar 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the concepts of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid really have any new terms that refer to the same thing - besides being very rough and inexact (quite arguably meaningless) geographic categories (since there are certainly Negroid Europeans, and Caucasoid Africans), they are also contradicted by genetic distance trees of Cavalli-Sforza. My point isn't to argue their utility though, but simply to point out that they don't have "non-obsolete" analogs. --JereKrischel 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's Rushton and Jensen's treatment of race in Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.[13] --Nectar 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure if "Whites/Blacks/East Asians" would be any more "appropriate" than "Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongloid" - I had thought you had meant that Rushton used "African/Caucasian/Asian", geographic indicators which although sloppy and inaccurate, may be considered less offensive than "oids"...but White-Black-East Asian seems to really be even worse.

It also seems that they specifically use the term Negroids/Caucasoids/Mongoloids - are there other recent papers where they entirely eschew those terms? --JereKrischel 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This paper is probably going to be the best representation of Rushton and Jensen's current preference in terminology, and the terms they predominately use in it are Whites/Blacks/East Asians. The -oids appear when they define their terms, and at least one of them has a second mention later in the (51 page) article. The sensitive nature of ancestry and ethnicity may mean the terminology isn't as precise as the concepts discussed in areas like that which Cavalli-Sforza works in, but that just means treatments of the subject need to define how they're using the terms. Whites/Blacks/East Asians seem pretty standard so there aren't any problems with using those, but that article has a much broader scope than the main discussion of this article --r/K selection theory applied to human populations. I think Caucasian/African/East Asian are the best choice for this article because, as you point out, they refer to biogeography.--Nectar 09:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that by revising the actual terms they use (White/Caucasoid, Black/Negroid, East Asian/Mongoloid), to Caucasian/African/East Asian, we're disrupting their terms - they just don't mean the same thing. Could we just italicize or quote the obsolete terms they use, and have notes regarding their "obsoleteness"? --JereKrischel 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Risch et al.'s 2002 "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease"[14] defines African, Caucasian, and Asian in the same way Rushton defines Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid:

"The continental definitions of race and ancestry need some modification, because it is clear that migrations have blurred the strict continental boundaries. . . For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. . . Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."

. . .

"With this [Human evolution section] as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion - that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]."

--Nectar 09:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed more appropriate to use the specific MeSH terminology (2004), if the point is to end the use of "obsolete" terms. From the NLM site:

Ethnic Groups and Geographic Origins—Categories I and M: The MeSH descriptor Racial Stocks,and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004 along with Blacks and Whites. Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.

The use of "Africans/Caucasians/Asians" seems just as obsolete as "Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid". --JereKrischel 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Those formal subject headings aren't used in the literature. A google scholar search limited to 2006 yields 15 hits for "european continental ancestry group" and 6000 hits for "caucasian." [15] --Nectar 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "obsolete" in this context meant something akin to "politically incorrect" or "offensive" (otherwise, why bother changing from the -oids?). Regardless of the search results (which include uses of the word "cacuasian" that do not directly correlate with the term "caucasoid"), it seems that if we're trying to be polite, academic and modern, we should use the NLM guide, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Our job is to use the language that's used by the scientific community. Caucasian etc. are the mainstream terms in terms of politesness, academics, and modernity. Obsolete here means replaced in mainstream usage by another term.--Nectar 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that absolute rate of results in Google Scholar is a poor metric for determining obsoleteness - it seems clear that the scientific community uses a plethora of terms, and I think we do a distinct disfavor to their intention and accuracy when we try to replace one with another, when both are visibly used. That being said, if we're going to follow best practices as defined by NLM guidelines, we should go ahead and do that.

I guess my question is this - do we continually monitor frequency of usage of terms and change the article as things are updated? Or do we find a best practice guideline (NLM), and hold to that as an acceptable academic alternative, even if it hasn't percolated into study abstracts yet?

I vote for either using the language that Rushton uses directly (and still does even in his later papers), or using the best practices as defined by NLM. --JereKrischel 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Search yields of the literature are the only way to quantify current usage of terminology. In this case, there aren't any competing terms for broad ancestry: 6000 is not comparable to 15. If terms change in the future, reference works must change their terms to reflect the field, and this applies to NLM as well. If usage of "European continental ancestry group" increases by 40,000% to equal usage of caucasian, we can compare the pros and cons of the two terms.

re I vote for either using the language that Rushton uses directly (and still does even in his later papers)

Rushton and Jensen 2005, the best publication to gauge Rushton's most recent usage, primarily uses whites/blacks, but since caucasian/african has comparable usage in the literature and specifically refers to ancestry (the topic of this article) instead of socially defined groups (the topic of Rushton and Jensen 2005), the latter seem to be the best choice.--Nectar 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we're not clear on the reasons for using the terms...if the issue is to use what Rushton uses, then the "-oids" are accurate (even used in R&J2005 for their definitions), or white/black/east-asian is accurate - both can be considered "obsolete", by a number of measures. If we're going by best practices, I think the NLM site defines that quite clearly, and for the least "obsolete" terms, their definitive guidelines should be followed. To choose something that isn't a noted best practice (despite its measured frequency of use without regard to context), that also isn't directly used by Rushton (but is by others), seems a poor choice. --JereKrischel 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The answers to these points are all present above. The -oids each only appear once or twice in the 51 page 2005 article, so it can't be said those are Rushton's currently used terms. White/Caucasian etc., as the mainstream terms that appear throughout the scientific literature, cannot be considered obsolete by any commonly accepted measures. Since "European continental ancestry group" does not appear in the literature, it would be inappropriate to use that term. (NLM is just one body among many, and they all may use different terms.) Since Risch et al.'s description of caucasian is exactly the same as Rushton's description of caucasoid, it's quite a stretch of the imagination to say there are any problems with using the non-obsolete equivalent of the obsolete term. If you're arguing white/black should be used instead, it's clear that geographic ancestry terms are the more appropriate non-obsolete equivalent.--Nectar 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, Rushton actually uses Mongoloid/Negroid/Caucasoid in most of his writing. If we'd like to move away from the NLM terminology, back to the "oids" that Rushton uses, we can move in that direction. --JereKrischel 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)