Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Race

Race in the study of human biodiversity has already been covered at race and intelligence and vetted by editors on both sides. The section here wasn't as concise or as accurate.--Nectar 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I still have major problems with how it has been covered at race and intelligence. In this section, the critical discussion is happening over the validity of Rushton's concept of race - which is not what is disucssed in the section you inserted. --JereKrischel

? Regarding the validity of race, Rushton, Cavalli-Sforza, and Risch et al. 2002 regard Asians, Caucasians, and Africans as being genetically non-identical populations due to their non-identical population histories. How is that different from the biological part of the discussion that occurs in race and intelligence?--Nectar 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The section was written over the course of a year by editors from both sides, but changes to the section can easily be proposed and discussed.--Nectar 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still strongly disagree with replacing the section with that found Race and Intellience. The objections remain the same as stated above by JereKrischel. We need to focus on Rushton's concept of race, which isn't the same as Cavalli-Sforza's.--Ramdrake 11:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any published reports that Rushton has a unique concept of race? --Rikurzhen 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't his work itself, asserting a 1-2-3 stepwise progression of "races" on a spectrum, particularly unique? One can clearly make a strong argument for biogeographical groups, but there isn't any way you can reasonably assert that these groups of cousins should lie on a spectrum as if they were ancestors (with some "older" races and some "younger" races) - each biogeographic group has continually been affected by natural selection - it does not just stop in place. I think this goes to the idea of immutable race, and both of you have agreed that such a concept isn't viable. --JereKrischel 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If that were true of Rushton, then it would be damning. But it's a violation of WP:NOR even to assemble published facts in a novel way. What's needed is a discussion of his views of race -- by him/others -- on which to base any material for the article. --Rikurzhen 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I'm not doing any OR here - I'm just quoting Rushton: Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.. I agree, it's damning, but it's far from anything original - it's pure Rushton. --JereKrischel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually that quote is just fine. This kind of text could be found in any textbooks on the subject. It was your characterization of Rushton which was damning. If this is all you were referring to, then it would definitely be OR to make the conclusions you were presenting above. --Rikurzhen 04:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this further quote will help you understand how he damns himself: This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites. Here he clearly identifies the "splits" as being into immutable groups - completely ignoring the continuing natural selection in both the "Blacks" and the "Whites". He treats his "races" as if they were in a grandparent-parent-child relationship, rather than a cousin relationship, which of course you understand as true. --JereKrischel 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing wrong here wrt "immutable" races. The populations did in fact diverge (i.e., they were once one and then became many semi-isolated populations) with reduced interbreeding as evidenced by the variation in neutral allele frequencies (note: the frequencies of selected alleles can be maintained even against high geneflow). The part of this that seems more unique (but I don't know really) to Rushton is that age need not predict functional differences. He could be right or wrong on that point. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake (above), can you illustrate how Rushton's concept of race is not addressed by this race section? --Nectar 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the current section discusses more specifically Rushton's interpretation of other works on the significance (or the arbitrariness) of races. It takes less for granted that races do exist and correlate strongly with the social constructs we currently refer to as "races". In that sense, I feel the current section is less POV in trying to describe the controversy (as relates to Rushton's theories) rather than being a piece of apology for his views, which I feel the Race section from Race and Intelligence is.--Ramdrake 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, this race section is currently disorganized and confused regarding the field. Referencing Gil-White, who runs a vanity webpage but has never been published or cited in this area except for on Wikipedia, doesn't help. In contrast to the presentation in this WP article, here's Rushton's argument in the abridged version referencing Cavalli-Sforza. (Cavalli-Sforza would agree with these statements.)

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology. The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place... (p.40)

All that's needed for discussion to occur of the possibility of biological differences in the traits Rushton looks at is for socially defined races to be genetically non-identical. This is the reason why the race and intelligence race section and this race section have the same concerns.--Nectar 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, Gil-White is certainly more than a vanity web-page. A quick google search shows a number of citations in many books. If we were to eliminate citations to him, we might as well start eliminating all reference to anyone connected with the Pioneer Fund.

Insfoar as Rushton is concerned, his peculiar assertion that there is a 1-2-3 progression of his "races" because of their 1-2-3 "splitting" based on date, and the immutable race and ignorance of parallel natural selective pressure on what are cousins, not grandparent-parent-child relationships, is certainly nothing at all like any other biogeographic diversity research. Cavalli-Sforza specifically decries the use of his work to assert any classical races: "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise." The fact that Rushton uses his work as support for his fringe theory is particularly interesting, given their complete disagreement on the issue. --JereKrischel 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Rushton make any of those statements on race? His abridged book seems to be dealing with races as statistical concepts, rather than essentialist concepts:

To a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. . . True all humans are brothers (and sisters). But we all know that brothers and sisters can still be very different from one another. . . There is a lot of variation within each of the three races. The full range of variation will be found within any of the major racial groups. Still, group averages are important.

He's asserting there "most people can be clearly identified" in his 3-tier hierarchy - this is a social construct, not a genetic one. Taking a look at the genetic maps, such as Cavalli-Sforza, one clearly sees, contrary to Rushton's assertions, that the blending "to a certain extent" is a gross simplification, and completely arbitrary. --JereKrischel 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza didn't argue that regional genetic variation doesn't exist:

The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin. Human races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races. To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be "lumpers" or "splitters." Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 19).

There may or may not be objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting, but Rushton doesn't claim there are. He stops at 3 groups because of trait analysis, not genetic analysis:

...Nevertheless, my simplified three-way division serves a purpose. In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. The three-way classification is scientifically justified because it shows a consistent pattern for many different traits (p.43).

--Nectar 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He stops at 3 groups in a completely arbitrary manner - and you're right, he does so based on stereotype and faulty data, not actual genetic data. His three-way classification is scientifically unjustified because it does not stand up to scrutiny on the genetic level. He could just as easily have divided the "races" into left-handers, right-handers, and people with straight hair, and asserted a three-way hierarchy. In this way, he is fairly unique - his concept of "race", as opposed to a geneticist's concept of "race", is completely different, although he claims to base his ideas on their work. We shouldn't conflate them, don't you think? --JereKrischel 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:His three-way classification is scientifically unjustified because it does not stand up to scrutiny on the genetic level. This is where your opinion departs from Cavalli-Sforza's. Cavalli-Sforza states clustering does exist (3-60+ clusters), but there's no statistical reason to prefer one level of detail (number of clusters) over another:

The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for racial distinction. Minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other. Only "core" populations, selected because they presumably underwent less admixture, confer greater compactness to the clusters and stability to the classification tree (p. 19).

Cavalli-Sforza argues there's no statistical reason to discuss "racial distinction" at the level of, say, 3 clusters (look at Image:Rosenberg_1048people_993markers.jpg for the 3 clusters identified in Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005), but Rushton identifies a speculative phenotypic pattern at one of those levels, providing heuristic incentive that's absent from unanalyzed genetic data.--Nectar 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nectar, could you please try to use a less hermetic language: but Rushton identifies a speculative phenotypic pattern at one of those levels, providing heuristic incentive that's absent from unanalyzed genetic data. I'm also a trained scientist (although I diverted from neuroscience to computer science nearly 20 years ago, thus my neuroscience is understandably rusty), and quite fluent in English, but the complete meaning of this sentence nevertheless escapes me. Using a plainer English would help the flow of ideas; using the kind of hermetic language noted above is, IMHO an impediment to the exchange of ideas.--Ramdrake 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine.. Cavalli-Sforza's statements mean the choice of what level of detail to look at the clusters at depends on the question being asked. If the question is simply 'how many clusters are there,' Cavalli-Sforza argues the question cannot be answered '9' or '60' on a purely statistical basis. If the question is 'are there clusters that correlate with an observed pattern,' then the question is indeed answerable. In this case, it can be answered by looking at Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005.--Nectar 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rushton doesn't look at clusters that correlate with an observed pattern - he starts off with the idea that there are three "races" based on "splits", and ignores evidence that contradicts his 1-2-3 spectrum based on the dates of the splits, including clusters. Were the research he cites to have been conducted based on genetic analysis (let's say, testing IQ of people, and matching it to their genetic information, so that he could genetically, rather than stereotypically, cluster people together), you may have a point there. Instead, he makes a huge, unjustifiable leap between the data based on social identification and constructs, and genetic clusters.

Again, I propose that you could find clusters that had a 1-2-3 pattern by choosing any arbitrary group (pisces, libra and gemini, as per astrology), and observe a correlation. Rushton makes the fatal error of asserting that the cause of such a pattern is due to "splits" tens of hundreds of thousands of years ago, and ignoring the continuing pressures of natural selection on all populations in all environments. Does that make sense to you Nectar, or am I not being clear? --JereKrischel 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, you are being clear. It can be speculated that Rushton started off at one point or another, but the published result looks at statistical correlations between two sets of measures (the identified traits on the one hand, and the biogeographic clusters on the other hand). Critics' argument that he ignores contrasting data should of course be covered in the article. Tang et al. 2005 found people's self-identification was an accurate predictor of continent of ancestry, so it's not an unjustifiable leap of faith to state self-identification as e.g. East Asian correlates highly with East Asian ancestry.

There are certainly group differences between many different kinds of groups, such as right- or left-handedness. In the case of Rushton's theory, he makes an evolutionary psychological argument for group differences deriving from climate and environment. I agree that the topic would benefit from discussion of recent selection, but Rushton doesn't make any denials that it could occur, and that general possibility has only recently been discussed more in the literature (evolutionary psych has generally denied that recent selection could have occured, as did e.g. Gould), partially due to continuing advances in genetics (e.g. Wang et al. 2006). --Nectar 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The unjustifiable leap of faith is when self-identification is 1) limited to preconceived social classifications, and 2) represents only fractional association, e.g., East Asian self-identification may correlate with having at least some East Asian ancestry, but it does not correlate with the exclusion of any other ancestry. I understand that making such a leap can be based on rational thought, but it seems fairly clear the rationale isn't very strong - YMMV, of course. --JereKrischel 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if Rushton were to have simply stated that his 1-2-3 pattern maps to latitude, he probably wouldn't have as much of a problem. I think the evidence, both within human groups and within biological species in general, show significant differences in rate of mutation (with more mutation happening in hotter latitudes), which could be seen as promoting r vs. K reproductive strategies. The problem, as I see it (and as I believe he is rightfully criticized by others for), is that he has chosen to map his pattern onto arbitrary social constructs, rather than what we know is the driver of natural selection - the specific environment. This, of course, is on top of his assertion that the three "splits" are still effective today - as the latest studies have shown, we continue, to this day, to be subject to selective pressures, and there is no reason to believe that the selective pressure stopped in mid-stream during his asserted "splits". Again, I think that there is real science happening here, and it is important, but unfortunately, Rushton does a poor job of summarizing, analyzing, and presenting it. --JereKrischel 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Rushton states that his 1-2-3 pattern maps to mean temperature, with the populations in the colder climes being "more evolved" than those in warmer climes. However, upon close examination, his hypothesis breaks down under several aspects. I can expound on this if you wish; I'm just not sure how familiar you are with his hypotheses, so I don't want to bore you with details on the first go. --Ramdrake 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) It doesn't matter if you think Rushton started with "preconceived" ideas. The end result is he looks at statistical correlations between two sets of measures, one of them being the genetic clusters Cavalli-Sforza identifies. (2) People who identify as being East Asian indeed have on average substantially more East Asian background than other backgrounds. (3) Identified genetic clusters aren't "arbitrary social constructs". Populations that have breed more within themselves then with other populations indeed have different histories and are genetically non-identical. (4)Global human populations have certainly not interbred to the point that human population history no longer matters. (5) Re Ramdrake, the question in this section is confined to what role does the validity or non-validity of the racial groups Rushton looks at play in his work.--Nectar 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nectar, but Rushton looks at correlations, and then asserts causality. And in regards to Cavalli-Sforza's clusters, he doesn't map his data to the four clusters asserted, nor has he gone back and analyzed his other dubious citations in light of there being four, rather than three major biogeographic groups.

In regards to "substantially more East Asian background", you've hit the nail on the head - these people are *not* monolithically one thing or another, and any analysis which hangs its hat on "substantially more", when there is no analysis of what particular *qualities* that may yield in expression, is weak at best.

At what point would you admit that global human populations have interbred to a point where classical "races" no longer matter? Seeing as Cavalli-Sforza found several dozen groups, spread throughout the world, continuing to "split" even into recent history, don't you think we've already established that the complexity of biogeographic diversity already doesn't map to these preconcieved ideas? When 20% of the global population is "mixed", will that be enough interbreeding? 30%? 70%? Can you even show me a "pure" white, black, or east asian person anymore? --JereKrischel 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Rushton's looking at 3 groups that contain the majority of but not all humans. When asking if these groups can be validly considered to represent different genetic averages, the relevant information is that they do conform to non-identical genetic clusters. (2) Re "not monolithically one thing or another" This is converting statistical statements into simple dichotomies. East Asians are predominately of East Asian genetic background, meaning genetic influence in that group will be predominately East Asian. (3) The 3 clusters under discussion that Cavalli-Sforza identified correlate with the total genetic variation within those groups. Interracial marriage rates are quite low in most of the world. Nearly all native Japanese and Nigerians in their countries, for example, are entirely of those backgrounds. At current rates, the North American or global populations wouldn't become genetically homogeneous any time in the next couple hundreds of years. All populations need in order to vary in genetic traits is to represent different genetic averages.--Nectar 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem Rushton's theory has is not that he's looking at an arbitrary three groups, but that he's asserting causality based on when each group "split" - 200,000, 110,000, 50,000 years ago. Remember, his definition of "race" is based on these "splits", and is in fact, contradicted by the research he cites. Perhaps he could be correct, if these splits completely genetically isolated each "race" into completely different environments, and no interbreeding occured, but as you admit, such monolithic purity is unheard of. Not a single person alive today can assert that all of their ancestors have isolated themselves for 50,000, 110,000, or 200,000 years - AFAIK, the most recent common ancestor is actually closer to 2 or 3 thousand years ago.

Cavalli-Sforza did not find 3 clusters. The PC analysis found four clusters.

And where does this idea of "genetic average" come from? I think you're taking a valid idea (genetic variation), and conflating it with an invalid one (taking social categories of "race", and asserting they represent "average" populations). For example, you could just as well divide the world into 6' and above, and 5'11" and below. Each of these "races" generally breed only within their group, and can be seen as genetically "distinct" in the same way any other arbitrary division can. The problem I see with Rushton in particular is that he asserts causality that just doesn't pass muster. As I've said before, he might have had a good point if he had limited his analysis to latitude, but to assert that ancient splits have anything to do with genetic diversity today (especially since during that entire time, natural selection was still in effect), is odd, don't you think? --JereKrischel 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletic???

Ok, first of all, Just look at the Olymbic metal, China usually ranked second. Tell the rest African nation that they are athletic. American wins most of their metal by track & field, swimming, basketball...etc(Because they have both black and white races) Korean ranked 4th in 2002 world cup.No African or American team ever reached All this sports competition tells how athletic a nation can be. I have some African American friend and they are some of the nicest kid in the school. Does that make this theory wrong? It's not the gene that influence the action, it's the enviroment!!!!

Imagine if born in a poor African american neighboorhood, and you don't even know who your father is. You are surround by violence, drugs and sexes related crime. Tell me, unless you have a good influence by your mentor, you are never getting out the circle, the only way out for these black are either dealing drug, working at a low paying wage job or get a decent education(which in most cases are low).

In most white district, since the highier paying jobs generates more funds for school. They are less likely to have drug related violence or drugs. I won't say there is no drug, cuz you all know it ain't true, there's drug everywhere, it's only the matter of how much. Kids in this enviroment focus more about what sport to play or what college goes to. The poor keeps getting poorer, the rich gets richer because of education difference.

-- Above comment was posted by 70.171.166.136 on July 20, 2006 -- Writtenonsand 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

testosterone?

Rushton has written on putative variation in testosterone levels, but there currently isn't mention in the article. I have a study here that should probably be added.[1] Did that topic get moved out in the recent reorganizations of the article?--Nectar 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with intelligence, only with certain diseases, and it's connection to certain diseases is only speculation. I'm honestly amazed people still take Rushton's penis size theories seriously- they're complete bunk, along with most of the other garbage he pumps out.

Most scientists would be surprised at your implied claim that varying levels of testosterone have no effect on brain development and individual differences (e.g. sensation seeking, psychoticism and neuroticism[2]).--Nectar 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but penis formation happens later in development than the testosterone surge associated with behavioural variation, boys and girls don't have much, if any, difference in circulating testosterone during penis formation. Unlike the literature on behaviour, I know of no data demonstrating an organizational effect of androgen exposure on penis length (see Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999 The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Arch. Sex. Behav. 28, 213–221, for a review of the lack of evidence) Pete.Hurd 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The connection between testosterone and penis length is made by the anon above, but not by Rushton. Here's Rushton's summary of his argument about testosterone from the abridged version of his book: "Testosterone acts as a "master switch." It affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime, and sexuality, not just in men, but in women too. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in the teenage years."[3] (Bogaert & Hershberger 1999 is an interesting article, BTW, thanks.)--Nectar 03:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If penis size is such a big factor, explain why China has the highest rate of prostitution out of anywhere else in the world. Explain why Japan has a massive pornography industry with some of the most bizzare sexual fetishizations to come out of it. Explain why Thailand has massive child pornography, child prostitution, and child sex slavery rings. Explain why China had extremely high poverty and crime levels up until the victory of the Communist party. Explain why many studies have shown white penis sizes and black penis sizes to be very close in size in many cases. Explain why Scotland has the highest murder rate out of anywhere else in the developed world yet the smallest non-white population in the UK. Explain why there aren't any white gangs in LA yet there are a number of fillipino, vietnamese, and other asian gangs. Whites are the only race to lack gangs predominantly made up of white members in LA, unless you count neo-nazi gangs, which, at the most, might spray-paint a swastika on a jewish synagogue or something. Not to mention that the Japanese are extremely impulsive people. Surely this isn't heavily reinforcd by Eastern Thought and Bushido?

What I'm getting at is that many, many of Rushton's theories and ideas are directly contradicted by real-world instances. You also do realize that most chinese and japanese who came to the US were rich to begin with, right?

Once again I wanted to point a few other things out. The aborigines of Papau New Guinea, the Papuans, score in the 85-90 range on IQ tests, despite how people of Australoid descent usually have the smallet and least convoulted, although by a very small amount, brains out of any human ethnic group. This is an interesting contrast to Australian Aborigine IQs, who score extremely low on IQ tests and score low even on IQ tests designed specially for them, albeit rather higher than standard ones. Surely there must be something else at work, considering how closely related the two peoples are? The Inuits, who have the largest recorded cranial capacities out of any human ethnic group, only score 91 on their IQ tests and Inuit communities have extremely high crime rates, higher than even US aboriginal communities. Second of all, the racial bell curve people usually quote is from the time the original Bell Curve book came out. Which was 12 years ago. Surely the average black IQ, along with all the other races, hasn't gone up?

And another thing on penis sizes, something Rushton ignores. I've seen a number of studies that show white and black penises to be very close in size, in fact I saw one Canadian Science Journal study that showed white penises to be larger, although by a small amount, than black penises. I've heard one of the reasons why most people think black men's penises are larger is because they look larger when unerect, while white penises look smaller when unerect. In reality, white penises and black penises differ very little in size. Second of all, hispanic penis size is actually very similar to east asian penis size, sometimes slightly larger, sometimes the same. Yet hispanics commit the second most amount of crimes out of any other ethnic group in the US, and the vast majority of mestizo nations are crime-ridden and poor, bordering on third-world level.

Brain Size Gene

The portion on brain size genes is completely unsupported by contemporary science, and the cited sources have little to do with the proposed claims.

The source for these claims come from “Gene Epression/scienceblogs” and deal with “Blood of the British” and “Nerd/Geek/Dork - my breakdown.”

None of this has much to do science, let alone “brain size genes." I have removed this portion from the article. If you continue to cite bogus sources I will see that this article is removed.

The referenced source. http://www.scienceblogs.com/gnxp/

New study

Boy, I'm not sure if I want to wade into this article, judging from the general level of vitriol, but I thought I'd at least post this: "Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study" (from the 14 September 2006 Daily Mail) British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who previously created a furore by suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace...He claims the 'glass ceiling' phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity. I've not found the actual study yet, and from the news item I can readily come up with major criticisms, but it was deemed newsworthy and is probably Wikipedia-worthy... -- Scientizzle 05:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that only goes to show how much of a bigot the man is. (stricken by author of comment)--Ramdrake 11:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the reference: Jackson, D. N., & Rushton, J. P. (2006). Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479-486. Pete.Hurd 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is in contradiction with how many studies that find no difference or only negligible ones?--Ramdrake 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, he does seem/claim to provide an explanation for this. Havn't read the paper yet, it's sitting in my printer tray. Pete.Hurd 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does also provide a nice, logical explanation for why "Blacks have lower intelligence". Doesn't mean he's right. Let us know when you've read the paper.  :) --Ramdrake 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.03.005 --Rikurzhen 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Boy, after reading the abstract...[alarm bell sound] there's an awful lot of easy pickings to tear this study to shreds. My institution doesn't subscribe to the journal, so I can't pick it up now, but I hope to in the future. Is it time to add an "Intelligence and gender" section to this article? -- Scientizzle 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is already an article on Sex and intelligence.--Ramdrake 19:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I meant as a subsection in this article to discuss his latest work. Sex and intelligence hasn't been updated since this study came out, so it could probably use some of the new info. -- Scientizzle 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I go to the University of Western Ontario, and the study is already being torn to shred by the head of the department of psychology. In the campus newspaper the head of the department says something like "I've given up trying to argue with him...he seems to like subjecting himself to ridicule"...the article points out that to prove intelligence he uses SAT scores which have been known to be systemically bias for decades Dowew 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if he said in the campus newspaper you should be smart enough to know he's probably saying it for political reasons. What better way to score points with the female students than to ridicule Rushton. Rushton's scholarship is actually superior to 99% of academics, it's jus that he's held to a much higher standard because he has the courage to research controversial issues. Rushton could be completely wrong, but he's outstanding in his scholarship, integrity, and originality. 134.117.83.241 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And btw, SAT scores may actually be less biased than standard IQ tests, in that the Flynn Effect for SAT scores is much less than IQ suggesting the measurement is more stable. 134.117.83.241 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you have such a high opinion of Rushton compared to 99% of academics, 134.117.83.241, but I don't think your singular character assessment brings forth NPOV. If you could put aside your obvious admiration for the man, and help us improve the article bit by bit, I would greatly appreciate the help. In particular, please let us know where you think POV is being pushed the other way, so we can edit to appropriately address your concerns. Thanks! --JereKrischel 06:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

134.117.83.241, do you honestly think I pick up chicks by badmouting a douche like Rushton ? I suggest in future that if you want to argue a point of prejudice you sign in with a username. The quote I am refereing to is "I have given up debating him and just marvel at the longevity and consistency of his willful ingorance" which was said by Prof Bob Bailey director of environmental research at western. This quote is taken from the UWO Gazette from Friday Sept 15 vol 100 issue 10. I will scan in the entire article and see if I can post the jpg somewhere...unfortunatly the Gazette website does not have an up to date digital archive. Dowew 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

===Scans===

Hey, Sorry the scan took a while. I got a little busy. I suggest save it to your computer before it gets deleted. Dowew 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• File:Rushtonscan1.jpg
• File:Rushtonscan2.jpg
• File:Rushtonscan3.jpg

Dowew 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits and reverts

Would Users Minorcorrections and Liketoread please discuss their edits on the talk page rather than just reverting to their own version? These edits were reverted by the regular editors of this page for a reason (I presume it has something to do with POV). Thanks!--Ramdrake 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked this question in the edit summary. Since I didn't think to reply directly in the edit summary, here is my reply here:

Q:Ramdrake if you were interested in making this article better why have tags been on for months.

A:Because I sincerely think these edits do not improve this article but rather just make it biased and POV.--Ramdrake 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But you've done nothing to improve the article for months so obvioulsy couldn't care less about it, as long as nothing that defends Rushton's scholarship or character is added. The article as it stands is nothing put a series of quotes and half the article isn't even about Rushton but about broader disputes over race. Many of the quotes are not even about Rushton or his theory but about race in general, and Rushton's ideas and methods are attacked without showing his side of the story. Also, what's with ridiculous terms like continent African ancestry group. Just call them Blacks, Whites, and North East Asians, since these are the primary goups Rushton studies. If you want to use broader labels say Caucasian and East Asian. 134.117.83.241 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You have every right to have Rushton as your personal hero, but to say things like anthropologists agree with his view of the "evolution" of races is pushing it a bit, not to mention totally unreferenced. If you want to add stuff, I strongly suggest you please do two things: 1) reference every affirmation that's not totally obvious. 2) Discuss any and all major changes before making them, otherwise you run the risk of being systematically reverted. Regards,Ramdrake 02:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rushton's not my personal hero I just respect academics who are not afraid to say what they really believe publicly since so many are dishonest about their true views. And I'm not the one who added the changes you describe but since I support those changes, let me make it clear that the splitting off sequence Rushton draws on is not controversial. It's broadly accepted that modern humans evolved in Africa and that the split between Europeans and North East Asians is relatively recent. I'm shocked that anyone here would even require a citation for something so basic but I'll do my best to add one. 134.117.83.241 02:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, 134.117.83.241 (who apparently is located in Ontario, where Rushton is a professor), the "split" Rushton describes is very peculiar to his own beliefs - anthropologists do not assert that any "splitting" arbitrarily stopped evolution in its tracks - Rushton uses the splits to describe a linear evolution, when in fact (notwithstanding the high degree of mixture we all have), if anything, the "splits" only divide us into distant cousins, not earlier and later evolved life forms. I'm glad that you respect Rushton, but trying to serve as an apologist for his racialist beliefs is POV pushing. Let's work together to improve the article, and address your concerns one at a time. What would you like to address first? --JereKrischel 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel you've misunderstood Rushton's theory. Nowhere does Rushton suggest that splitting stopped evolution in its tracks. What an absurd statement that reveals a total misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. I'm very concerned that you don't have the understanding to be editing science related articles. Liketoread 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, WP:NPA. I think JK has demonstrated an understanding of the issue more than sufficient to speak to this issue. You, on the other hand, by stubbornly reverting to your version, seem to be demonstrating a lack of flexibility. Please remember that WP can only advance through the cooperation of its editors. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that changes be discussed here fully before being implemented on the article page.--Ramdrake 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No I assure you from JereKrishel's comments he has no understanding of evolutionary biology, and if you think he does then you have no understanding of evolutionary biology. Of course human populations are cousins, and this is true of all life on Earth, and has nothing to do with the subtle point Rushton's making. And you are demonstrating a lack of flexibility with your kneejerk reverts that prevent progress to be made to an article that's been tagged. If you really were interested in being flexible, instead of reverting back to a version that's been tagged as POV, you would fix problems with the changes that you object to. I have not seen any attempts from you or JereKrischel to make the article more neutral or to improve the quality in any way, despite the fact that you both watch it like a hawk. But if other people want to come in and improve the quality of the article, you two have not earned the right to stop them. Liketoread 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, Liketoread, I'm sure we can work together to make this a better article. Your edits are POV pushing, and as Ramdrake has pointed out, other editors are respectfully disagreeing with you and asking you to address one issue at a time with us. This is a consensus driven endeavor, and I know that we can work together to find that consensus. Please, pick one particular issue you have a difficulty with, and let's focus on that, come up with a viable compromise, and then implement it. Thanks! --JereKrischel 19:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The primary issue I have a problem with is that the article is very POV in that it makes plenty of room for all of Rushton's critics including people who are not even criticising Rushton at all, but the concept of race in general; but you revert new editors who are trying to add comments by Peter Knudson which show that prior to researching controversial issues, Rushton was seen as highly competent. In addition, you quote a criticism of Rushton applying r/k within a species within the social class theory section, but revert data Rushton cites showing that such criticism is misguided. Also, in the race section the article implies that Rushton thinks there are only 3 races, when from the outset Rushton has acknowledged the existence of other races outside the big 3. Also, I agree with the poster that we should use simple terms to describe the genetic clusters like North East Asians, Caucasians, and Blacks. In short the article is very poorly done and I would hope that you would not discourage the efforts of new editors with kneejerk reverts especially since unlike you and Ramdrake, these new editors appear to have read Rushton's book. Liketoread 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To start with, several of your key additions aren't cited. Second, the racial terminology has already been discussed at length here, and the current terminology was the consensus of many editors, not just JK and myself. For the r/K hypothesis, several issues are left out, among which the fact that the proponents of the hypothesis have stated that their model is not meant to be applied within species, so your quote from Rushton in his self-defense doesn't hold too well. Another thing is also the Peter Knudson quip, which says nowhere that Rushton was seen as highly competent until he started researching controversial issues. Without this context, it is but only quote-mining. And although Rushton has acknowledged the existence of other races, he still pools everyone from around the world as just 3 races. I could go on, but I guess you get the gist of it. If you want to bring up your changes one at a time, we can discuss them calmly. As they are, they do not help the article, nor its POV balance. In short, the edits were such that it was better to revert them than to try to fix them (which happens often enough). You can bring all the points and proposals up on the talk page and we can discuss them one by one.--Ramdrake 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Liketoread, I understand your concern about POV. Can you be specific with just one example to start with? That is to say, quote a small section you feel is POV, explain why you believe it to be so, and propose an alternative for us?

In response to your "Asian/Black/White" terminology, I'll briefly recap the previous discussion. Rushton uses "Mongoloid/Caucasoid/Negroid" in his writings. Someone came in and wanted to change that because the terms were "obsolete", and Rushton has in recent writings used both his old terms, and newer terms. The best practice for groups was found on the NLM site, and it was decided if we didn't want to use the "obsolete" terms, we could use the best practice terms asserted by NLM.

If you'd like to blanket change back to "Mongoloids/Caucasoid/Negroid", I wouldn't have a problem with it, since they are the terms Rushton historically has used. However, interpreting his "oids" into Black/White/East Asian is an unacceptable gloss I think. The only reasonable alternative to the "oids" is the NLM best practices, IMHO. --JereKrischel 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't oppose the "oids" terminology either.--Ramdrake 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the terms Rushton historically used (i.e. back when he first started) were Orientals, Whites, and Blacks. Those are the terms he used in the table we present, and those are the terms he used in his original 1989 paper. When Oriental became politically incorrect, he switched to East Asians, Whites, and Blacks. The fact that you two think Rushton primarily uses the oid termonology tells me you have not read much of his work, and really shouldn't be editing his article. And Rushton never embraced all of humankind in his theory and the constant attempts to imply that Rushton only recognizes three races are simply bad faith attempts to discredit him. Rushton has said many times that he is focused on the 3 main races although races OUTSIDE the big 3 as well as divisions within each race may also be of interest. Liketoread 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at this [4], you will find that Rushton indeed uses the "oids" terms, although he has also used the words you mentioned as well. And unfortunately, this overinclusion criticism has indeed been leveled at him. (I'm trying to find a suitable quote). I may not be an expert on Rushton, but I am familiar enough with his writings to edit this article, contrary to your implications.--Ramdrake 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oids are not his primary termonology and the fact that you two keeping pushing it reveals your bad faith efforts to discredit this man that have been bothering me since I discovered this article. It's obvious that the two of you lack the knowledge and neutrality to edit this article in a productive way. And if you find a quote of someone of note calling Rushton too inclusive than I suppose you can include it (although the article needs far less quotes, not more) but it is a lie for the article istelf to claim that Rushton only recognizes 3 races. It's a gross misrepresentation of his work, and it's deliberate bad faith editing. Liketoread 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also stop the personal attacks.--Ramdrake 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oids are his primary terminology - please read his 'Race, Evolution, and Behavior' - http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf, page 9. He considers them the "scientific terms". Also his work "Rushton, J. P. (1988). Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids in evolutionary perspective: A commentary on Lynn. Mensa Research Journal, Number 24, 30-32.". Many other of his articles also use this terminology: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm

You can also look at his 'Race, Evolution, and Behavior' paper for clear evidence that he does grossly simplify the world into Mongoloid/Caucasoid/Negroid. Although he puts in small disclaimers here and there, all of his data is put into those three buckets, in ways that have been harshly criticized by folk such as Lieberman - http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf

In regards to "including 3 races" compared to "rather than the 3 races", the note is important - one of the primary critiques of Rushton is that he inappropriately categorizes people in ways that aren't backed up by genetic studies, such as those done by Cavalli-Sforza. --JereKrischel 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On page 43 of the online version of his book he writes: Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a "Black" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A "White" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an "Oriental" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results. I think these are the terms we should use because they're nice and simple, easy to understand, plus they're the same terms he uses in his chart which we cite, and so as to avoid confusion we should use those terms too.__Minorcorrections 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So are proposing moving all the language to "White/Black/Oriental" as per his chart? --JereKrischel 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second that proposal although it would be better to say East Asian instead of Oriental since Oriental implies Rushton hasn't changed his language with the times. Keep in mind that all of Rushton's theory is based on the data summarized in his chart, and that data is based on very narrow definitions of the 3 main races. For example Rushton may use terms like Caucasoid at times, but all of his data is based on people of European ancestry, and none of it was sampled from non-White Caucasians like those who live in India. Now this could be a valid criticism of Rushton, because it's kind or arbitrary to only study a narrow part of the Caucasian race, and kind of biased to exclude Caucasians from less economically developed countries that would pull the Caucasian IQ average down. In Rushton's defense however, there's really not enough genetic data at this point to conclusively state how many races there really are and what category all the peoples of the world fall into so he's focusing on the 3 best established races, and is focusing on populations that can be easily categorized. Liketoread 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you imply that Rushton has changed his language, I would submit the latest incarnation of those labels is possibly the most appropriate, especially if some of the former ones are now considered obsolete or socially inappropriate, no?--Ramdrake 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for going off topic (since we should be discussing how to improve the article not whether or not Rushton's theories are correct or not), but Liketoread, I think you show an understanding of the criticisms of Rushton with your statement "there's really not enough genetic data...to conclusively state how many races there really are". This is the primary critique of Rushton, the assertion of arbitrary groups based on selective criteria of "race". Whether or not "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid" or "Negroid" are the "3 best established" is a bit of a red herring - they are certainly historically the three common divisions used by eugenicists and other unsavory types, but whether or not the have been "established" in any valid way is an issue open to criticism.

Back on topic, it seems that perhaps the problem here is that we have turned his biography article into a tit-for-tat regarding his theories, drawing in reference upon reference to refute this or support that. Would anyone be averse to a full scale purging of any sort of arguments explicitly supporting his r/k theory, or explicitly denouncing his research? The POV battle, I believe begins when someone pro-Rushton adds information regarding his theories, and lists a host of supporting data/citations/etc. Then someone adds information showing the problems with that support. Then someone adds information showing problems with the problems...etc, etc, etc. Could you write the article in such a way where we make clear he is a controversial figure, who has supporters and detractors, but not try to showcase the validity or invalidity of his works? I think a lot of the information is good information, but maybe this isn't the right venue for it...any comments? --JereKrischel 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, I believe your assertion about Rushton putting all the data he finds into one of his 3 buckets is incorrect. In fact, he excludes a lot of data that can't be classified as either Oriental, White or Black. Here's a quote from his review on brain size: Among the problems we encountered in conducting our review were the following; (1) What groups should be included in a racial category?...We decided to (1) focus primarily on East Asians, Europeans, and Africans, so we excluded Amerindians, Australian Aboriginees, and East Indians[[5]]. __Minorcorrections 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, Minorcorrections, the problem is that his r/k-theory, based on his assertion of "splits" between Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids as a reason for a "tri-level hierarchy", is nullified by the exclusion of other racial groups that have different "split" dates. Not to argue for or against his theory (since that's really not the point of discussing the article), but not only are exclusions important, but blends are as well - and AFAIK, none of his "research" (mostly re-hashing data from previous studies, in some highly criticized ways) actually mapped his data to actual genetics. So that being said, even though he has rationalized his exclusions and glosses, I don't think that mitigates his POV regarding the "tri-level hierarchy" he is so (in)famous for. --JereKrischel 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All Rushton is saying is that two variables predict a populations place on the r and K scale. The first variable is splitting off date, and the second variable is climate. Now races outside the big 3 only challenge Rushton's theory if their splitting off dates and ancestral climates don't correlate with their place on the r/K scale. Now I agree that it's sort of convenient to focus on just 3, because the odds of finding exception to the pattern gets smaller when you only focus on 3 groups. But THAT should be the criticism. Don't dishonestly imply that Rushton's races are contradicted by genetics because I really don't think they are. Liketoread 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And if Rushton had done his work in the first half of the 20th century, when birth rates in Asia were among the highest on the planet, what possible conclusion could he have drawn about his r-K hypothesis? Rushton's specific interpretation of "races" is decried by most anthropologists and geneticists, even those on the "cluster" side of the cline-cluster debate. Just see the article Lieberman wrote on the subject, and the feedback to the article; it's quite enlightening [6]--Ramdrake 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, Rushton should be criticised for not being inclusive enough. Here Rushton describes a peer review of his cranial capacity data: The reviewer also re-examined the International Labour Office data presented by Rushton (1994). He/she added to the analyses samples from North and South India that had been explicitly excluded by Rushton (1994, pp. 288-289, along with Latin American, North African, and Southeast Asian samples, so as to produce the "clearest" test of the racial gradient) and thereby reduced the White/Black difference to non-significance[[7]].__Minorcorrections 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about Rushton categorizing people in ways that are not backed by Cavalli-Sforza. In fact Sforza recognizes the same categories that Rushton does, and has even used the oid termonology, and is equally uncertain about the classification of South East Asians. On page 120 of The Great Human Diasporas Cavalli-Sforza writes: In the tree the Southeast Asians tend to fall with those of Australia and New Guinea. This position is not absolutely certain, because slightly different approaches indicate that the Southeast Asians ought to be grouped with the Mongoloids who live farther north rather than with the inhabitants of Oceania. There are genetic variations among the peoples of South East Asia that the information gathered to date does not adequately explain. Certain groups, such as the Vietnamese and some Cambodians, are more Mongoloid in type and nearer to the Chinese or Japanese; others such as the Malaysians and the "negritos" in particular, look more like the people of Oceania.__Minorcorrections 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza's usage of terms to describe his data is a map of social categories to genetics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Cavalli-Sforza himself has written, "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise"; that his research is "expected to undermine the popular belief that there are clearly defined races, [and] to contribute to the elimination of racism"; and that "The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose." --JereKrischel 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What Cavalli-Sforza says publicly, and what his data actually shows, may be two different things. Yes Cavalli-Sforza publicly dismisses the concept of race but "Don't believe any of this" explains Steve Sailer. "This is merely a politically correct smoke screen that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out that keeps his life's work -- identifying the myriad races of mankind and compiling their genealogies -- from being defunded by the commissars of acceptable thinking at Stanford. What's striking is how the press falls for his squid ink, even though Cavalli-Sforza can't resist proudly putting his genetic map showing the main races of mankind right on the cover of his 1994 magnum opus, "The History and Geography of Human Genes."[[8]] Now Steve Sailer may not be the most reliabl;e source since he sounds like an extreme right winger, but the point is to think critically. Liketoread 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, we should dismiss what Cavalli-Sforza says publicly about his own work and instead believe the skewed interpretation from a right-wing blogger about it? That doesn't look like it follows the Reliable sources guideline.--Ramdrake 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Massive purge

As we started discussing Cavalli-Sforza, and getting deeper and deeper into arguing Rushton's theory, it dawned upon me that perhaps we had gone too far in delving into the argument. I've done a massive purge of much of the pro/anti Rushton theory information, since I think it does not belong here. Maybe in some sub-article, but it seems to be less about Rushton, and more about the validity or invalidity of his work, which we really shouldn't be getting into.

Other opinions are welcome regarding the massive change, and if anyone feels strongly about bringing it all back, and trying to work over it again for NPOV, I'm more than willing to participate in that direction as well. --JereKrischel 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There was recently a seperate article for the theory, which was merged/deleted as a POV fork, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushton's ordering of the human races. A seperate article could be written without these problems, but the present debates would just move to a new page (which might be a good thing for a BLP). Whatever, Pete.Hurd 07:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article reads much more like a biography article this way. Excellent job, JK!--Ramdrake 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake. I still think it is important to showcase the criticism and support he has had, so I left those sections in (since he is a controversial figure, we cannot avoid controversy completely), but we can avoid the tit-for-tat debate regarding his work. It seems to be enough to say that he is controversial, without trying to either support his theories with specific arguments, nor try to undercut that support with specific arguments, etc, etc, etc. Liketoread, I'm interested in your opinion on the matter - how do you feel the article reads after the purge? --JereKrischel 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right: criticism and praise directed at the person and/or what he represents to people is fine. I just agree that scientific debates about his various theories does not belong in the article, but the fact that his theories are being strongly debated (without entering said debates) is something which belongs.--Ramdrake 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're just trying to censor his ideas, while at the same time discredit the man. Your attitude is the greatest example of bias I have ever seen in wikipedia. Liketoread 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are misinterpreting our intentions Liketoread. First of all, wikipedia is not a platform to showcase ideas, but secondly turning someone's biography into a academic debate about his work just doesn't seem reasonable or worthwhile. That being said, he is a subject of praise and criticism, and we should be able to mention that without engaging in a debate on whether or not that praise or criticism is deserved. You seem to want to turn this article into a detailed defense and showcase of Rushton's theories, and I simply don't think it's appropriate. His work is given a neutral mention, and links are made to his more detailed papers - shouldn't that be sufficient evidence we're not censoring? --JereKrischel 19:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, wikipedia is not a platform to describe scientific theories, but it is a platform to trash living people in graphic detail? Liketoread 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a biography article, so should not dwell over the merits of the biographee's theories. The controversy surrounding the character, though, is on topic. If you want to discuss Rushton's theories, a separate article may be needed, or maybe a new section under Scientific racism.--Ramdrake 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased and libelous

Ramdrake and JereKrischel have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage some of the Rushton supporters on this talk page to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.52.10 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not encourage others to do your edit warring for you. And please, I must remind you to Assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.--Ramdrake 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to silence constructive criticism of your edit pattern by accusing me of making personal attacks. Please Assume good faith that my criticism of you and JereKrischel is constructive and in the best interest of creating a less libelous, more interesting, and more encyclopedic article. Please do not characterize people who call for change as "starting edit wars". 205.211.50.10 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to criticize, criticize the contents, not the editors. Bring specific points that you feel are wrong to the talk page and we can discuss them. Ecnouraging other users to revert wholesale the work of other editors is not constructive by any definition.--Ramdrake 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been reported to WP:BLPN, since then me and Derex have removed some material. It still remains to have a very heavy slant towards criticism and needs more work.--Konst.able^Talk 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This person is, in most scientific circles heavily criticized for his opinions and theories, so technically the slant is representative of general opinion. Can you suggest a way to make this article compliant while still retaining the representativity of the opinions?--Ramdrake 11:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is much more text here on criticism than on his actual work, and the "Controversy and criticism" seems rather POVishly presented. For instence it starts off with a quote attacking him more on a personal level than just criticizing his work. I have seen a couple more quotes like that which are just general negative statements, that do not actually dispute any evidence that Rushton presents but just say things like: "drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book". Perhaps you should try to provide some more of the arguments that Rushton presents himself, or some of his rebutals to the criticism - rather than just pure sections of people disagreeing with him. If they are calling it unscientific, you should probably be mentioning why it's not scientific. Also be careful not to give wrong ideas, for example it seems that: "Rushton's sources, such as semi-pornographic books and the Penthouse magazine," implies that he doesn't have any other sources, which I am guessing is not true. While he might not be a nice guy, you should still present his arguments rather than just those who argue against him.--Konst.able^Talk 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying. And just because Rushton has a controversial theory does not mean he's not a nice guy. The theory of evolution was also very controversial at one point. Rushton has repeatedly denied that he or his views are in any way racist because he says racists treat everyone in a group as if they're the same and Rushton admits that there's huge variation and individual differences within his racial groups. Liketoread 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While he may well be a nice guy personnally, his research and his theories have attracted a large number of detractors. And while most theories have been contrversial when they were new, Rushton's theories, after nearly 20 years, are still as strongly (if not more) contested than ever. And I don't think anybody here denies biodiversity, it's just that the way Rushton parcels it out is very controversial.--Ramdrake 17:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial is a very POV term with no clearly defined standard. The theory of evolution is still so controversial it can't be taught in many class rooms. If there is criticism from reputable sources then simply summarize the main points. But don't remove all the encyclopedic content about his theory and turn the article into a long list of personal attacks and guilty by association statements. That's not what people come to encyclopedias to read Liketoread 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to bring up evolution, it seems the Charles Darwin article is informative - it does not spend any time doing a tit-for-tat defense and attack of evolution. Please follow the example you cited, Liketoread. --JereKrischel 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What "tit-for-tat"? The version we're trying to insert simply summarizes the views for which Rushton is famous/controversial depending on your POV. That's what people expect when they come to an encyclopedia article on Rushton or anyone else known for their scientific views. Liketoread 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "summary" is a frenzied defense of his theories, which invites, once again, the frenzied attack that existed before. We should avoid that completely. --JereKrischel 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it defense of his theory? It simply states what his theory is and what he believes. You obviously feel that a neutral comprehensive description of Rushton's theory gives him credibility which you feel he doesn't deserve, but that's your POV bias disrupting the article. Liketoread 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a neutral description. It tries to defend his theories by putting forward what he sees as evidence. It reads poorly, and invites a tit-for-tat attack/defense of every point he brings up. We'll never agree on what "fact" is, so it seems reasonable to give a very brief overview of his work, cite opinions (not "factual" evidence) regarding him and his work, and of course, cite his work directly instead of trying to paraphrase it. --JereKrischel 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For example: Citing recent genetic research in the African Eve hypothesis, and Out of Africa theory, Rushton concludes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago), Caucasoids second (110,000 years ago) and Mongoloids last (41,000 years ago), arguing that throughout all of evolution, more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) tend to be more genetically primitive and less evolved than newer forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans)and the much smaller racial variation within the human species is consistent with this trend. "One theoretical possibility," said Ruston, "is that evolution is progressive, and that some populations are more advanced than others". This is obviously a defense of Rushton's theory, citing evidence, trying to rationalize his conclusions. We are clearly able to find citations that contradict his conclusion, from Cavalli-Sforza, and then you can find a critique of Sforza, then we can find a defense of Sforza, etc, etc, etc...The cycle doesn't end if we start doing what is arguably original research in supporting and attacking theories. --JereKrischel 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All of that is factual. It's a fact that Rushton cites Sforza. It's a fact that Rushton concludes from Sforza's work that the races diverged at certain dates. Of course we can't agree on the scientific facts, but the article is not here to report absolute truth. The job of the article is to accurately report what Rushton believes. Just because you feel very strongly that Rushton is misrepresenting genetic research (and maybe he is) does not change what Rushton's views are, and those views are what people come to this article to read. They also want to read about the flaws in Rushton's theories, and any good article should include a criticism section (but only cited criticism made directly against Rushton or his theory), but a series of quotes saying his work is laughable ect or personal attacks suggesting he's a racist based on very circumstancial evidence is not encyclopedic. Liketoread 17:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The job of the article is not to report what Rushton believes. He covers that in his papers, and we provide citations to them. It is not the job of the article to provide a defense to those papers, or to paraphrase them in detail. Neither is it the job of the article to provide detailed support or attack to his papers. I think you misunderstand the point of a biographical article - please, read the Charles Darwin article you cited to get a clear understanding of what should and shouldn't be in this article. --JereKrischel 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well on this point we disagree. If I'm someone who is interested in learning about Rushton but do not feel like like going through his enormous book and all his academic papers, I come to an encyclopedia to get a summary of all his main points so I have a general understanding of what he believes and why he believes it. As a student there are many times when I need to know about a certain academic but may not have time to read all his/her work, and I've found wikipedia quite useful in giving me a quick but comprehensive overview. The version of the article you created does not provide that service. Liketoread 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the citation of Race, Evolution and Behavior in the article is actually to an abridged version of his full book - as far as I know, his full book isn't available online. I would suggest that if you wanted to, you could create an article on his book, Race Evolution and Behavior, and open the full scale debate and summary there. As a student, though, I strongly suggest that you always go to the source material directly where possible. Cliff notes may get you through the test, but if you're interested in understanding, you have to read the book. --JereKrischel 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest that if you do find articles online that effectively summarize Rushton's points and views, you add them to this article's references section. As it stands, Rushton wrote the book Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective,[6] in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of human nature and the course of world history, placing Blacks, Whites and Orientals on a "tri-level hierarchy" where Blacks are always on one end of the scale, Orientals are on the other, and Whites are in the middle., seems like a fairly succinct overview of his work. If you could add one more sentence to that overview, what would it be? --JereKrischel 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point. I wouldn't add just one more sentence to the overview. I would make the bulk of the article an overview of his theory and include the chart summarizing his main points. You seem to have an agenda of trying to get views you don't agree with censored from wikipedia. If you feel strongly that certain views need to be censored than just be up front about it and tell us why. Liketoread 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel anything needs to be censored - I'm concerned that opening the article up to defense and attack of his theories is counter productive to doing a neutral biographical article. I ask you the one sentence question to try to get you to distill what you think the bare minimum additional overview you'd like to add. Perhaps somewhere between no additional sentences, and a complete change of focus of the article, we'll find compromise. Can you try and think of a single sentence you'd add to the overview? Or even a single paragraph? His abridged version already summarizes his main points (have you read it?), shouldn't we be providing a more succinct overview here? --JereKrischel 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And how do you think the previously existing chart (with data elements in it), is a "main point"? Isn't that simply data he is using to back up his main point, that a "tri-level hierarchy" exists? Why should we be repeating his data tables here if we're doing an overview? --JereKrischel 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The version of the article you and Ramdrake keep reverting does provide a succinct yet comprehensive overview. The abridged version of his book is a hundred times longer, and his full book several hundred times longer. The chart summarizes his main points because it takes all the specific data he has (i.e. penis size, vagina size, testical size, breast size, etc) and reduces it to broad categories like "size of sexual characteristics". That's an overview. You keep saying that the version you revert provides a defense of his theory. All it does is report and summarize Rushton's POV. Of course that will come across as defensive because it is DESCRIBING the ideas and data Rushton uses to DEFEND his model. But that's what people come to encyclopedia's to read. Liketoread 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The version you keep trying to revert to is not succinct and comprehensive - the abridged version of the book isn't 100 times longer (it's only 50 pages, and the version you keep trying to revert to is 2 or 3 pages at least). Taking all the specific data he has is NOT an overview of his theory, it is a presentation of the data he uses to support his theory. Again, we should not be using this article as a place to DEFEND his model - the problem with that is that in order to remain neutral, we must then put in appropriate ATTACKS to his model, and then defenses against those, and so on and so forth. Have you read his abridged version at all? And have you thought of any single sentence or paragraph you would add to give a succinct overview of his theory? --JereKrischel 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review, as an example, a quote I took directly from Rushton's abridged version and put in the overview section. Do you think his own words are appropriate overview? --JereKrischel 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel I think your overthinking this. The article simply gives a complete summary of what Rushton believes and the arguments he gives, and than have a criticism section which cites the criticism that's been made against him and his ideas. We don't need to than defend the theory from the criticism we just have to have 2 separate sections. The first describing Rushton's views, the second describing the views of his critics. Perfectly neutral and balanced. Wikipedia never solves controversies, it just reports on them Minorcorrections 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you don't quite understand my concern, Minorcorrections. This biographical article is not meant to be a showcase detailing every argument Rushton has to support his belief of a tri-level hierarchy. Detailing his point by point defense of his tri-level theory is a defense of his theory. We can report on the controversy without diving into excessive detail supporting and attacking his evidence, methods and conclusions. --JereKrischel 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For example, Minorcorrections, you added: Rushton's best known work is his controversial book Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective, in which he draws attention to the existence of many racial differences,. This is clearly POV pushing, asserting that the existence of the racial differences Rushton asserts is factual, and all he is doing is "drawing attention" to it. The existence of racial differences, and the very idea of race as a useful tool for distinguishing between humans, is highly debatable. By inserting these seemingly small points, we drag the article into a quagmire of tit-for-tat attack and defense of the theory itself, which leads to both an NPOV article, and is arguably OR (original research). It is better for us to simply state a succinct overview of his theory (a tri-level hierarchy of races), and leave the vigorous defense of that to his own abridged works. --JereKrischel 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Minorcorrections, I put to you the same question I put to Liketoread - what one sentence or paragraph would you add to the overview of Rushton's theory in the current version? --JereKrischel 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't separate a man like Rushton from his work because his work is what everyone is interested in. If you remove his work from the article, the article would be pointless. And the version you keep reverting to has detailed criticism of his work. It seems very strange to have an article that extensively documents criticism of Rushton's work but gives only the vaguest idea of what the work actually is. If you feel a comprehensive discussion of Rushton's views is pushing the POV that race exists than that can very easily be dealt with by adding minor points in brackets such as (the American Association of anthropology denies the existence of race). wikipedia deals with lots of controversial subjects and this is no different. Minorcorrections 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll suggest you look at the Charles Darwin article that Liketoread cited. Although Darwin can hardly be separated from his theory of evolution, his biographical article does not do a tit-for-tat, point by point, defense and attack of his theory. Insofar as documenting criticism, and praise, both are included in the current version - neither delves into a terrible amount of detail. --JereKrischel 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, since his abridged work is cited by the article, it seems pointless to repeat his arguments in detail - his abridged Race, Evolution and Behavior is online, and directly linked to by this article. Have you read it? --JereKrischel 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But you can't expect people to read his entire book if they just want to understand his theory. The criticism is also on-line yet you still want it extensively documented. And there are separate articles dealing with Darwin's theory. Your not suggesting we turn Rushton into a large family of articles are you? Minorcorrections 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticism and praise is greatly abridged, just as detailed discussion of his defense of his theory is abridged. I think Ramdrake already suggested adding a section to Scientific racism to discuss his theory in detail. --JereKrischel 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't expect anyone to read his entire book (it is not online, as far as I've seen), but the 50 page abridged version is not too much to ask, I think. It certainly isn't our job in his biographical article to further abridge his work, point by point, defense by defense. Why is simply describing his theory as a "tri-level hierarchy" insufficient as an overview? What one paragraph or sentence would you add to the current article to expand on the overview without going into point by point detail? --JereKrischel 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific racism? But then you're implying he's a racist which is not only libel but very POV. It sounds like you're just trying to censor his views or have them marginalized to small sections of fringe articles or force people to read a 50 page book. I dislike Rushton's theory but I dislike censorship even more Minorcorrections 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything - I'm merely reporting. Regardless of whether or not Rushton is a racist at heart, his theories have drawn such accusations, and are considered Scientific racism by many. And again, no censorship is going on here at all - his theory is succinctly summarized, and his abridged work is directly linked to. Detailing the specific data he uses to support his theory seems like an invitation to detail specific refutations of that data, and so on and so forth. I think it is better for us to simply state his theory and conclusions (tri-level hierarchy, race is more than skin deep), and leave the defense of his theory to his own words and his own work, rather than going down the road of original research, and trying to find tit-for-tat defense and attack of each minor point. --JereKrischel 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at all the extensive detail in this article on evolution. It doesn't just tell people to read Darwin's Origins of Species or isn't just confined to a small section of another article. It explains the theory in graphic detail. And the issue of tit for tat between creationists and evolutionists has not been a problem for that article. Look at all the detail given to Stephen Jay Gould's work in The Mismeasure of Man article. It doesn't just tell people to read his book or confine his views to a section in article on scientific antiracism. But it sounds to me like you are trying to do everything you can to minimize Rushton's views from wikipedia by providing external links that you know very few people will read. Rushton is a very notable figure and when I look at all the massive detail given to less notable theories on wikipedia, I really begin to suspect an ideological agenda in people who are trying to minimize the details of Rushton's theory. I just don't like it when people decide what information the public is allowed to have easy access to. If you feel the concept of race is a fraud than create an article describing that view if there are not already such articles. But suggesting that Rushton's views should not be expressed in detail is against the democratic spirit of wikipedia Minorcorrections 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The evolution article is not the biography article of Charles Darwin. I think you're making my point. If you'd like to create an article called Tri-level racial heirarchy theory, perhaps that would be an appropriate place for a tit-for-tat detailed discussion. A biography article is not the place for that though. We've already provided easy access to Rushton's abridged defense of his racialist theory - why do you feel like his biography article should be pushing his POV in detail? --JereKrischel 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, take a look at the Stephen Jay Gould article - it doesn't do a blow-by-blow recount of every point he's ever made in a book or article. Can you see, with these examples, how inappropriate it is to rehash Rushton's theories in his biography article? --JereKrischel 20:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But the Stephen Jay Gould article also doesn't do a blow by blow account of every criticism ever made against Gould. The Gould article has only 5 paragrahs devoted to criticism. This article has 12. If as you say this article is his biography and shouldn't be focused on his work, then why 12 paragraphs all devoted to critcising his theory. The ratio of criticism of his theory to actual coverage of his theory is really skewed. Also, unlike Gould, Rushton is only well known for one theory, so if there's going to be an article on Rushton, it doesn't make sense to do a general biography, but rather focus on the one theory for which he's famous. Yes, his theory could be turned into a separate article, but it would just be a more informative version of this article since this article is mostly about the opinions people have of his race theory, and says very little about the theory itself. Minorcorrections 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a biograohy article already about Rushton, so it's there whether you like it or not. As JK and myself said, the best thing to do is to start another article about his theories. His theories should not be the subject of his bio, although a very summarized (one paragraph) version of them is appropriate, especially if it's his claim to fame. This is what we have here. In order to lanuch into a full-blown explanation complete with refultations, we'd need a separate article. This is clearly a situation where branching the article is warranted.--Ramdrake 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

JK is absolutely right: no matter how famous, the biography article of a person is not the place to discuss his theories at length. This article, as it was, already mentioned the two theories for which he is most known and had a link to a 50-page abridged version of perhaps the most famous one. Any discussion beyond that should take place in an article about his theories, not about him. You made the point yourself, Minorcorrections: Darwin's theories are discussed at length in the Evolution article, and some of Gould's theories are discussed at length in The Mismeasure of Man. You don't see that happening in their respective bio articles. What I would suggest is to move the appropriate material to an article called say, Rushton's tri-level hierarchy of races and have it linked back into this article. And what you're raising as a criticism of this article is in good part true: too much of the criticism is devoted to the man, and too little to why his theories are discounted. But that's a problem we're working on since it was raised a few days ago, and is quite independant of a detailed description of his theories in this bio article, which is inappropriate, as has been explained at length here.--Ramdrake 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the fame of Darwin and Gould trancends any one theory (Gould had several well known theories, and Darwin is an icon) so it makes sense for there to be a biography article independent of their theories. However Rushton is primarily known only for his views on race and so these are what should be discussed in his biography article. Take a look at the article on Carleton S. Coon who is also primarily known for his views on race. It portrays him fairly and simply explains what he believed and is not just a long list of criticism. This article is not a biography at all and is better called Controversy over Rushton's views on race. So my point is that this article is ALREADY about his theory, however it fails to adequately explain it Minorcorrections 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)So, you've found a counter-example of what a biography shouldn't be. I say it is far better to spin off his theories in a separate article (or to integrate them into say Scientific Racism) than to lanuch into a wide-open defense and rebuttal of his theories. Thew article used to be that way, and it attracted far more criticism than now because of that. The article as it stands now still needs work (nobody denies it) but if we all work in the same direction (getting the criticism centered on what is objectively criticizable rather than criticism about his character), we can make this a good article indeed. Otherwise, we're turning what should be a non-controversial bio article into a very controversial article, which isn't good for a WP:BLP.--Ramdrake 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No you're missing the point. All the objective criticism is about his theory which is what you're saying the article should NOT be about. At least the criticism of his character is relevant to a general biography, however it violates wikipedia's biography rules. So either this article is about Rushton's theory or it's about Rushton the man. If you want it just be about Rushton the man than it should only be the first few sentences in the intro and the biography section(a basic who's who in academia type entry), and everything else should be removed, especially all the scientific attacks on his theory, his sources, his application of r and K. Right now the article makes no sense at all. It details all kinds of controversy and the reader has no idea why his theory is controversial because you don't explain what his theory is. You cite criticism of his application of r and K to human races without first telling the reader that he has applied r and K and what it means. Saying the article isn't perfect is a collosal understatement. Minorcorrections 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think published criticism of his character and conclusions are verboten in a biographical article? And if we included a short mention of r/K-theory, would that satisfy your concerns about lack of context for the praise/criticisms? --JereKrischel 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Blanket reverting to older versions with tit-for-tat point-by-point original research debates over his theories is simply unacceptable. Please, let's address one small thing at a time, rather than blowing everything out of the water because published criticism of Rushton by others is included. Remember, we are not making the assertions criticizing Rushton, but simply reporting their existence. --JereKrischel 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't change one small thing at a time when you rewrote this article? You inserted a huge number of selective quotes in a rapid period of time and many of your edit summaries include statements like "massive purge". But when those editors who wish to fairly represent Rushton's theory in Rushton's article make changes you complain. That kind of thing's not right. Liketoread 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you remember, I asked for and received consensus on both the general direction, and the specifics. The massive purge turned out particularly well, it seems, and your single-handed attempt to undo it without justification seems unreasonable. Please, share specific concerns, and we can move forward. Simply undoing what has been generally accepted as reasonable isn't helpful. --JereKrischel 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please look at the Charles Darwin article for how other scientists are treated in biography form. This article is NOT about the detailed defense and attack of Rushton's theories, and neither is the Charles Darwin article. You brought up the reference, please abide by your own citations. --JereKrischel 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the changes you made had consensus. I see that they caused the article being protected for a very long time. Liketoread 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They certainly didn't have your consensus, although since the only article you seem to be interested in on Wikipedia is the Rushton article, I'm not sure how neutral you really are. You've cited evolution and Charles Darwin, why won't you follow that example and avoid detailed defense and attack of Rushton's theories? --JereKrischel 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I pride myself in my objectivity. While I believe that Rushton's hypothesis is brilliant in that it applies a well established reproductive theory to explain so many different racial stereotypes in a very elegant way (and maps on to the out of Africa genetic model to boot), I do not believe he is anywhere close to proving it. The races he wishes to sample are so large, there's not been enough repeated genetic PC analysis to prove their existence, and getting large representative world wide samples would be virtually impossible, especially considering how many variables he's looking at. Independent researchers need to replicate Rushton's stats with modern techniques before I would consider his theory true. But the same criticism can be made of many scientific theories. People are just especially harsh on Rushton because they are threatened by his ideas, but I believe knowing the truth, whatever it may be, is always better than clinging to ideals. Liketoread 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry your pride has gotten in the way of understanding the point of this biographical article. I agree with you that real research needs to be conducted, rather than simply relying on suspect data of the past as Rushton does. However, please be clear that in order to be harsh on Rushton, one doesn't have to feel threatened. There are many, completely secure people, who are not threatened at all by Rushton's conclusions, who harshly criticize him on his poor methodology, not his conclusions. I think that if you truly pride yourself on objectivity, you'll have to avoid characterizing things as "brilliant", and understand that valid criticism can be had without any feelings of threat. --JereKrischel 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's dishonest for any of us to claim to be 100% neutral and so we might as well just admit that we're all human and be up-front about whatever bias we may have. My bias is that I think Rushton's hypothesis is brilliant, but I also know his theory is far from proven. And of course I know that there are valid criticisms of Rushton's work (I just made some myself) but similar critcism can be applied to many respected theories but because those don't deal with sensetive issues, they don't become controversial. For example most research done in psychology is done on very unrepresentative samples and data collected from university students is often generalized to society at large. Liketoread 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Race, Evolution And Behavior

Race, Evolution and Behavior was merged here in a merge vote. I didn't like that decision, but it was made. Ramdrake's reversion suggests a reversal of that merge. If so, Ramdrake, you should recreate the article and defend the decision if it is challenged. should be created. --Rikurzhen 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully support any move you make to creating an article, "Race, Evolution and Behavior", Rikurzhen, but I suggest that you write it as a balanced piece including the strong critiques of folk such as Lieberman. I believe according to the merger vote it was done so because someone forked it away from this article to avoid criticism. An in depth, point-by-point, blow-by-blow original research debate of bits of evidence is simply not appropriate in Wikipedia, and hopefully we can avoid that in any article you create. --JereKrischel 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

seems like a good idea to me too. Pete.Hurd 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I copied and pasted, moving stuff around. That's about the extent of my interesting in this article for the moment. --Rikurzhen 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, please...

Could you please provide us with a rationale for your deletions of (apparently) perfectly good links.

To write "spam" in the edit description is not good enough. Thank you. Randroide 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like sales pitch link, essentially providing a pamphlet for why you should buy the book. I've removed it again, if you have a rationale for why you think it isn't a fairly blatant commercial plug, I'm more than happy to entertain including it again. We should probably make significant mention though of the nature of American Renaissance, and it's white nationalist POV. --JereKrischel 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the Gil-White reference

Would the anon who keeps deleting the Gil-White reference please explain himself here? I think it's been well demonstrated that Gil-White has made strong criticism of Rushton's work, so the reference is germane. If you think it isn't please let's discuss this rather than play revert-tag.--Ramdrake 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right that deletions should be discussed. However Gil-White's links have been remoevd from other articles because self-published material is not considered reliable. WP:RS. Among other disucssions, there's one here: Talk:Battle Of Deir Yassin#Request for Sanity. -Will Beback 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that also follow for Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior, considering the controversy regarding the "special abridged" versions initially published under the "Transaction Press" label, but then condemned "as a 'pamphlet' that he [Transaction Press's director] had never seen or approved prior to its publication"? --JereKrischel 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one should be treated as a special case, as REB (as JK pointed out) was in good part also a self-published book. Besides, I'm taking the "self-published" bit as meaning mostly blogs and stuff. Gil-White'S "Resurrecting Racism" is clearly above that: it's cited, literate and many of his points have also been made by varous other researchers, so I don't think there's a significant risk of having it called OR. Besides, it's definitely notable and the info in it verifiable. I'd "suggest to keep it, bottom line.--Ramdrake 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the anon, third year doctoral student in psychology and have directly questioned Gil-White regarding his views on that source. He doesn't understand much at all about psychometric theory and expressly told me that Spearman's g wasn't "real." You can argue as to what it means, it's source, et cetera, but to argue that it isn't real is to essentially expose novice status. The common factor among mental tests is factual, not based in opinion. As further evidence that intellectual tests are meaningless, he cites such facts as tests lose predictive power once controlling for college completion. The fact that he doesn't understand the impact of restriction of range effects on correlation coefficients reinforces my previous point. This is a bad source and if you are going to include anthropology majors that don't understand psychometric theory, Gould more than suffices. Gibson

I'm sorry but your argument towards exclusion is absolutely original reasearch and therefore doesn't qualify. I'm not judging the correctness of it, just that the way it was arrived at is original research, and therefore not suitable fo Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying it should be deleted because it's not factually correct and Giul-White doesn't udnerstand the metrics he discusses. More importantly, there's nothing he discusses that isn't already covered in the Gould article. It's redundant. BenGibson 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, consensus has been to keep the reference. Gil-White brings elements to the discussion that Gould doesn't. You can't unilagterally remove this reference. Please revert youself or I will have to report you for breaking WP:3RR.--Ramdrake 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

define consensus in this instance. I have stated the case clearly, it's a POV issue, it's redundant, and the author doesn't understand the theory he criticizes. If you have a rebuttal based on "Gil-White brings elements" then define those. I have read both his source and Gould's work. Have you? BenGibson 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is the current consensus of the editors on this page. The POV issue is your POV, and your impression of the man after talking to him. Unfortunately, none of that is relevant when editing Wikipedia. In short, so far, you don't have a case.--Ramdrake 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV issue is that there's not an ounce of neutrality in the article. He doesn't understand intelligenc etheory and his cite is included on a wiki page devoted to an intelligence researcher. That is problematic. The fact that you would argue with this is troubling to say the least. More imprtantly, Gil-White has had no problem finding sources for publiscation for his other works, why the issue finding a home for this one? It's a poorsource.BenGibson 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Find me a reliable and verifiable source that makes this criticism and we can talk. Until then, I suggest you acquaint yourself on the no original research Wikipedia guildeline.--Ramdrake 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Authority of authors Prefer authors with an established reputation in the field where Wikipedia uses them for reference. He has no authority related to this field and is not considered to be an expert or a legitimate authority by anyone in the field. His work is appealing to laymen with a horse in the race but that is all. I note that you had no response to my very direct question. BenGibson 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As an anthropologist, Gil-White speaks more closely to the significance (or absence thereof) of the concept of "race" than Gould could, and he does. You seem to be forgetting that Race and Intelligence is about two things: 1)Race and 2)Intelligence. While Gil-White is not an expert on the latter, he is definitely qualified to speak on the former. This should answer your question. Now, please consider that all you said above is your opinion, and therefore does not count to motivate change in a Wikipedia article. As I said before, please find, verifiable, reliable sources for this or build a consensus on this talk page towards having it removed.--Ramdrake 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I have to actually do some academic work and have no more time to "build consensus", as I have stated before, Gould's work captures the entirety of the attacks Gil_White makes. Merely making the case that because he is an anthropologist and understands race makes no case that he understands intelligence theory, which he clearly does not. See above references to Spearman's g, which he believes doesn't exist. This is exactly what I'm discussing. Keep it as you wish, but it's misinformation. BenGibson 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, irritated as I am: Evidence the article suffers from a lack of neutrality.

"But the ultimate demonstration that Binet and Simon’s tests, and other tests built on the same principle, do not measure an innate and unalterable faculty comes from something that psychologists who use IQ tests call the Flynn Effect: for the last 50 years, the raw IQ scores in Western countries have been going steadily up, and dramatically so"

There is no elaboration on this point, largely because no intelligenc reesearcher suppose the measured IQ is entirely fixed and Flynn himself doesn't believe the effect measures any true rise in intelligence as explained in his article tethering the Elephant (2006).

Gil-white follows this with " but the point that matters here is that black peo:ple in the US did relatively poorly in IQ tests because they had little access to educational opportunities" yet this is refuted by NLSY data that shows African Americans in the upper quintile of income perform more poorly on the SAt than whites in the lowest quintile.

Gil-white continues with "The claim that they were innately stupid because they had done poorly on IQ tests was therefore obviously nonsense, but this was Arthur Jensen's claim." is perhaps the most insulting as Jensen has NEVER stated this and it is essentially libel. I have read the majority of jensen's work and to state this is patently absurd and evidence of lack of neutrality again.

More "Now, since Jensen is a direct intellectual descendant of a eugenicist and fraud, Cyril Burt, it does not look good that Jensen should be the one to have broken the taboo against ‘intelligence testing’ in 1969, reviving eugenic arguments. But the problem is not one of mere appearances: Jensen has gone out of his way to say that he approves of Burt."

He refers to Burt as a fraud, a claim that is in contention, with both sides offering up convincing arguments. More importantly, Burt's twin data was .77 and modern estimated are within two hundredths of a point. A remarkable guess, but this is not an article that even attempts a reasoned position on the issue.

More neutrality :

"No honest scientist can possibly replicate Spearman’s purported result."

If you really need to see a list of articles to believe g exists, then you have a horse in this race yourself. This article is biased, makes no attempt at neutrality, and is misinformed. Is that enough for the moment?

...[deleted some extraneous detail] This article is biased, makes no attempt at neutrality, and is misinformed. Is that enough for the moment?

Although we strive for a neutral point of view in Wikipedia, the sources we cite, by their very nature, are not required to be neutral. Whether or not Gil-White is misinformed, or Rushton is misinformed is a matter of debate, which does not truly belong here. Gil-White is notable, is not simply some anonymous blogger, and should count as a reliable and verifiable source. Whether or not he is passionate, opinionated, and disparaging of other people's views is not our purview - we don't eliminate sources of information here based on our opinion of whether or not they treat a subject neutrally (certainly by that criteria, anything based on Pioneer Fund research would be eliminated). --JereKrischel 08:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I added back my "extraneous detail" Ramdrake asked for a cite as well as evidence and you deleted both. This is a bography and thus merits a higher degree of care. It's not about passion--he's lying. More importantly, the fact that you equate neutrality in opinion with research results is troubling.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the encyclopedia. Our job is 'not to judge sources on neutrality; very few sources ever are totally neutral, especially in a debate like this. Our job is to make sure the sources are verifiable and reliable (in the sense that they are themselves built on a proper base of fact). As far as your disparaging Gil-White for his comments on "g", please take note he's not the only one to make similar comments, and although such opinion is in the minority, he's allowed one. Again, there is no good basis according to Wikipedia's guidelines to remove Gil-White from the list of references, no matter how dim your view of him and/or his work may be.--Ramdrake 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Gil-White reference, which adds nothing to Rushton's biography that is salient or new. According to the above by ramdrake "No. This is a biography article, so should not dwell over the merits of the biographee's theories. .--Ramdrake 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" Therefore, this doesn't fit.

Your efforts to remove this link wherever you see it have been noted. This link is germane here too. If you want to contend it's libelous, please prove that it's misquoting Rushton. The link contains a criticism of the researcher in addition to the research.--Ramdrake 19:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)