Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article neutrality

I see - with the Nazi additions it's sort of like the VW and it's origins with Hitler. Correct conclusion? Why the VW and it's company are tainted forever. Very logical. Very fair. No ad hominem. No politics. Right.

Uh, source notes for these additions? This article tilts unabashadly to the opinion that declares the Pioneer Fund to be knee deep in Nazis, without any of the refutations present on their official website. Please balance the article.

Do it yourself. StoptheBus18 15:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did.

All these accusations seem to be the standard guilt-by-association stuff.. do you have anything that really indicates the Fund is actively pursing racist policies?

Ummm the incorporation papers actively state that the goal of the fund is to promote the white race. Also guilt by association is still guilt. If youre not racist you dont hang out with racists. Sorry. StoptheBus18 19:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS Please get a user handle.

Promoting a race doesn't imply racism automatically, the NAACP actively promotes the black race, and the National Council of La Raza promotes the Hispanic 'race'. Guilt by association is not an automatic guilt indicator. Erwin Rommel associated with Adolf Hitler, but was not in favor of Hitler's policies and indeed supported efforts to kill him. Racism is the modern day McCarthyism, and works as Red Channels did in the 50s and 60s. I am extremely cautious of labeling any organization that states it does not support racism to be racist, as a similar argument could be made for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League being racist organizations.

Are you honestly making a comparison between the NAACP and say David Duke? You don't know any history do you? The NAACP was formed because back in the day Black people we're getting lynched and killed. No one is doing that to white people. So I'm sorry 99 out of 100 people would agree that anything caliming to further the white race would be racist. You're hesitancy to "label" something racist, sounds like a personal problem that I urge you to get help with. StoptheBus18 15:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS NO TOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE

No I am not making a comparison between the NAACP and David Duke. I think I know quite a bit of history. What about the whites that were attacked during the Rodney King riots, the Cincinnati riots, and the Michigan riots solely because they were white? Just because 99 out of 100 people may agree with you does not make something right or true. Most people in the South opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964/5, does that make it a bad bill that shouldn't apply there? I hesitate to label something racist if it repudiates racism and says it is being smeared. I don't hesitate to label the Klan or similar organizations racist. Your cheap attack that I have a 'personal problem' appears to exemplify your lack of knowledge on race issues. Also, this is getting away from the issue of the article's neutrality.

This is the last thing I'm going to say on this and then I'm done. The attacks on whites during the riots were horrible yes. But there were not part of a larger systemic movement by black people to disenfranchise white people. So I'm sorry but your comparisons are stupid. White people have always had the upper hand in this country, their interests don't need furthering by a special group because white peoples interests are this society's dominant interests. White people never have to worry about racial profiling or anything like that. So I'm sorry but to say that one is furthering the white race is a racist statement. StoptheBus18 23:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is also the last response I am giving. I'm glad you acknowledge the attacks on whites and others during these riots. There is a movement to disenfranchise white people, look at the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Hawaii (until recently only Native Hawaiians could vote and hold office in the OHA, an official government organ; such status was determined by blood content, if you can believe it) and the attempts to throw white farmers off their land in Zimbabwe and Zambia, causing chaos for the blacks who depend on the food they grow. Or what about racial preferences in college admissions, affirmative action and a forced commitment to ‘diversity’ in the business world? So it is ok for racial organizations like the NAACP and the NCLR to exist, simply because some whites previously subjugated other races? You imply that there is a white conspiracy to disenfranchise people of ‘color’ (I don’t consider any race to be without color, whites are just as ‘colored’ as blacks). Some whites may think so, but I doubt society as a whole is in this movement. Many white people favor racial quotas and reparations, so society is not an inherently pro-white construction. White people do have to worry about racial profiling. South America profiles white people quite a bit for immigration violations, stuff we can’t do in the U.S. To say that one is furthering the white race is no more racist than someone saying they are furthering the black race. If I had my way, racial organizations would not receive any money from the government and would be shunned by most everyone. Anyway, I’m moving on to other parts of the Wikipedia…

I incorporated the caveats placed in a comment by 204.152.47.133 about Shockley into the text, in a way that I hope captures the truth. Willmcw 23:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

Someone placed an NPOV plaque on this article, which calls for edits to be discussed here. Well? Where's the discussion? -Willmcw 03:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was already an NPOV warning at the top of the page when I first began editing this article, and there was nobody actively debating its neutrality on the talk page. Since there was no current debate, I began editing the article to make it conform to NPOV and replaced the NPOV heading at the top with more specific sectional NPOV plaques for the sections I've not yet had a chance to thoroughly research.

As for why the plaques are still there, many of the statements made look dubious. Most of the things that I've had specific objections to I've already corrected. The original article was very non-NPOV, in that it not only advocated unattributed controversial opinions (e.g., calling people White supremacists and Nazis) and misleading omissions (the HUAC dialog shocked me with the blatant racism -- until I read it in context), but also factual errors (e.g., that Draper was the sole founder of the Fund). Other factual errors remain: I'm positive that Jensen is not a co-author of The Bell Curve as this article claims. These errors, combined with the overall non-NPOV tone of the article, make me suspicious of some of its claims and I intend to do further fact-checking and research to see how much basis these criticisms have in reality.

That's not to say that disputed criticisms don't belong in an encyclopedia, just unattributed disputed criticisms. If anyone else would like to look for sources for these criticisms I would appreciate it.

I understand that I really should have more specific objections to warrant the NPOV notices and if you feel strongly about it feel free to remove them. -- Schaefer 04:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that your edits have been helpful in clearing away the POV detritus that has collected in this article. Thanks for taking the time to work on it. I raised the point simply to make sure that major edits are discussed. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article to separate out the Responses to criticisms from the criticisms and to pull out the grantees and directors, who are neither criticisms nor responses. I also removed some of the POV descriptions of the grantees, and the associated NPOV plaque. I think the article makes more sense now. I also added a couple of books written about the Fund and some other details. -Willmcw 11:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I pulled this line: Though the founder supported segregation, other board members opposed it. I checked the PF website and the original line was taken almost verbatim from there, but the so-called opposition to segregation is not to be found (instead it gives a non-sequitor argument that because some grantees have found higher IQs among Orientals that they are not White supremacists). [1] If someone can find a Draper-contemporary who spoke against segregation, then I'd be happy to see it go back. -Willmcw 11:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you about the Walter/Robeson episode. If the link has an accurate account, it appears that Walters, a fervent anti-communist, was referring to political leanings and not race. I think that the paragraph should go entirely, unless someone finds some supporting information. In fact, the McCarran-Walter Act removed all the racial bars to immigration for the first time in US history. -Willmcw 12:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing. Thanks for that factoid about the McCarran-Walter Act. I wasn't aware of that. -- Schaefer 20:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there anything else here that merits keeping the NPOV flag? If so let's clear it up. -Willmcw 08:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed NPOV flag. I was planning on removing it after I found proper attribution for the Nazi stuff but I never got around to researching it. Maybe someday I'll pick up on the books in the references section and try to attribute arguments to those works. The title of the Nazi film the Fund allegedly supported, "The Hereditary Detective", returns no hits on google other than this article, so this info is coming from print-only sources. -- Schaefer 09:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here it is: [*Tucker, William H., The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. (University of Illinois Press,) Electronic copy]. It's a typo - shoulda been "The Hereditary Defective", apparently. I just found the Tucker book myself - I'd heard of it, but the whole book is online. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. BTW, there is plenty of other documentary evidence for the films - many of Laughlin's papers are online. At some point the article should be reformed into a history rather than a list of controversies. Thanks for all of your contributions. -Willmcw 22:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pseudo Science

If you read Phillipe Rushton's (head of the Pioneer Fund) online book, it immediately becomes clear that he is partisan, and that his output is "pseudo-science". He has not referred to ANY of the large scientific body of evidence against the idea that IQ is genetically linked to race (or, indeed, that it does not make sense to classify people by their race), and he has done no research of his own.

The Pioneer Fund relies on donations - and unless they produce material which rationalises racism, that funding quickly dries up. Their motto should accurately be, "The customer is king", because whatever they SAY they do, what they REALLY do is pander to racists of financial means. New Thought 08:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your claims about race and intelligence are addressed at race and intelligence. It is, though, true that he overstates the position of the genetic hypothesis.--Nectarflowed ^T 09:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There exist any "large scientific body of evidence against the idea that IQ is genetically linked to race"? Cite something, please. And don't call anybody a pseudo-scientist, only because he dislikes your religion. You should be aware that your colleagues in the middle ages had to give up their holy fight, too. Burning at the stake didn't help. The truth eventually prevailed. 82.100.61.114 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want arguments against, you may want to start with[2] this review and work your way further. The link is very hotly disputed by a very large number of scientists, using sound scientific arguments.--Ramdrake 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very sound. Indeed, egalitarians can't seem to do much but obfuscate and conceal in response to the hereditarian hypotheses that now has mountains of data to support it. Lewontin's pet little phrase about between group variation still gets repeated by the political upper echelon of scientific editorial boards despite being repeatedly dismantled by actual research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.143.249 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you read the ref I provided before you pontificate.--Ramdrake 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Large copyedit

For anyone reviewing my large copyedit, it will be easiest to see the changes by viewing the edit diffs one at a time.--Nectarflowed ^T 11:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Prioritizing history over contemporary debate

The fund's contemporary function is the primary component of its definition, and is the only reason the topic is important. By prioritizing the historical concern over the contemporary function, the emphasis is shifted from the contemporary debate to the historical debate, which depicts obsolete goals, individuals, and societal attitudes. This is a straw man strategy: setting up the fund to be attacked for promoting eugenics, which is not actually part of its contemporary definition. The race and intelligence controversy context is a primary component of the fund's definition, and needs to be prioritized accordingly, rather than hidden as merely a concern for supporters.--Nectarflowed ^T 23:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should mention important history and facts. However, note that contemporary funding section is longer than the history section. Ultramarine 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The history is as important, if not more important, than it's present day activities. -Willmcw 23:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed ^T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher. Ultramarine 23:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no indication that they no longer hold those positions. Therefore history informs the present. -Willmcw 00:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, much of the racial IQ research still used as evidence was produced when they without doubt supported clear racists, like Pearson. Ultramarine 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics isn't one of the 4 main areas funded by the modern Pioner Fund. See their summarized grant profile. Prioritizing the history section over the contemporary debate incorrectly leaves the effect on reader interpretation that eugenics is representative of the areas they fund. The article organization shouldn't covertly imply that. The contemporary context, on the other hand, is why they're known and is an effective summary of the issues involved in their work. These are primary concerns for the article.--Nectarflowed ^T 05:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a more interesting estimate [3]. -User:Ultramarine

Yes, that is an account of the controverial elements of their history. Heredity and physiology of intelligence aren't eugenics. Neither is race and intelligence research. Notice the Institute for Academic Racism doesn't mention work they don't consider to be racist, for example the landmark Minnesota Twins Project, which was a very big deal. The contemporary context is why they're known and is an effective summary of the issues involved in their work. As such, it should be prioritized over an account of what they did 70 years ago. --Nectarflowed ^T 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the data on their recent funding. See above in this section. Ultramarine 01:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument has been that their early history of eugenics work (the early history section) is more important than their contemporary work (contemporary controversy section). Since you won't read the summary of the work of their grantees, please read the summary I compiled under the Brain image section below. It is a summary of the notable grantees in their behavioral genetics work and their cognitive ability work, not the grantees from the other two main areas they work in (social demography and group differences).

The listing of their controversial work that you directed me to a second time is not meant to be a complete listing, or even a listing of their most notable work. For example, they don't mention the famous twin studies. That list, put out by an anti-racist organization, is only meant to list their controversial work.--Nectarflowed ^T 05:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Where have I argued "that their early history of eugenics work (the early history section) is more important than their contemporary work"? I have used arguments like "giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue". And you have not shown any numbers regarding where they spend most of their money. Ultramarine 05:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I thought that was your position. I've put back the summary of the contemporary controversy regarding their most famous work (behavioral genetics and race and intelligence). This controversy is the only reason the fund is notable in the public eye, and should be summarized before the article discusses other points. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 21:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of their grantees from 1971 to 1996. In a quick estimate, somewhere around 5/6ths appears to have gone to research organizations and universities, and 1/6 to others, mostly to immigration reform or reduction organizations. I'll give a more detailed breakdown later.--Nectarflowed ^T 23:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, that would be an incorrect interpretation. Foundations cannot give money to professors directly. Rather they give it to the university with an earmark designating it for use to support a particular researcher. So 5/6ths go to researchers, by way of universities. If you can match the professors that receive the funds, fine, but just listing the universities tells us nothing. -Willmcw 23:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, foundations give grants to researchers through their universities. What the list of funded organizations tells us is that the Pioneer Fund is primarily a funder of research, with most of the research organizations being universities (there are 33 universities are on this list, and 38 on this list).

We have enough information to easily characterize the main areas they're active in. The largest recipients of funding in order of amount are Bouchard at the U of Minnesota (by far the largest), Rushton at the U of Western Ontario, Jensen at the Institute for the Study of Educational Differences, Pearson at the Institute for the Study of Man, Lynn at Ulster Institute for Social Research, and Gottfredson at the U of Deleware. This is verified here: most recent data for leading grant recipients). The other large area of funding has been for immigration reform/reduction organizations, accounting for somewhere around 1/6th of funding. I'll give a more detailed breakdown later. --Nectarflowed ^T 00:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

SPLC

Ultramarine, you normally make balanced edits, but I'm not sure what to make of this addition to the article:

The SPLC also notes that: "Last year, Rushton became the fourth president of the fund. He disavows the terms "inferior" and "superior" but, as psychologist Andrew S. Winston points out, Rushton has produced a chart in which blacks "are said to have, on average, smaller brains, lower intelligence, lower cultural achievements, higher aggressiveness, lower law-abidingness, lower marital stability and less sexual restraint than whites, and the differences are attributed partially to heredity."

The SPLC author dishonestly frames the discussion in terms of racial inferiority and superiority before actually addressing Rushton's work. Do you see how doing such biases reader interpretation? Avoiding this kind of partisanship is sometimes one of the areas Wikipedia is able to outperform other sources.

With the latter half of the quote, the SPLC author appears to be arguing not with Rushton's data or his interpretation, but with that Rushton put the data into a chart. The author is not presenting an argument composed of logical points, but rather is relying on the shock value of the data to generate reader interpretation. The article covers a foundation that for the most part only funds scientific research, and is consequently going to need to primarily be from a scientific point of view, though it can have sections that within themselves describe unscientific views.--Nectarflowed ^T 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please differentiate between Rushton's crackpot R/K theories, which is supported by no independent researchers and has failed every prediction when tested by those independent, and IQ research which have much more evidence and following. There is little problem in dismissing his universally rejected R/K theory and laughable collection of data as SPLC has done. Note also that this is only one paragraph among many describing why the Pioneer fund is racist. Ultramarine 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are one-sided points that we can discuss later. The SPLC quote is inappropriate because the argument it presents is that Rushton's act of compiling a chart makes him and the fund racist. You may have opinions about him that allow you to value his research at zero, but he is nonetheless a professor who is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American (APA), British (BPS), and Canadian Psychological Associations.--Nectarflowed ^T 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

We can remove it, but you should remove your false statement that the SLPC has listed the Pioneer fund as racist because of supporting IQ research. They have listed it because of its support of racists and racist organization and because of the head's R/K theory, not because of supporting general IQ research. Ultramarine 01:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a "controversial" group.

-actually, if you read the article on the SPLC itself you will find that it is highly controversial, a number of national and local journalists and former employees have exposed its somewhat dubious aims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.222.55 (talk • contribs)

Brain image

Willmcw, the brain image is used to represent the research of the fund. Accordingly, it can be left at the top of the page. I'm not sure what the advantage would be in reducing the size to 100 pixels, as this just makes it difficult to see.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot of symbols could be used to represent the Pioneer Fund. They distributed a Nazi movie - should we add a swastika? They pay for studies that correlate race, penis sizes, and intelligence; so how about a variety of dicks? I'm not aware of any researcher that the Pioneer Fund supports who uses MRI work. If there is, then it might be appropriate for their article. But an MRI image of a head has nothing to do with intelligence research. Wikipedia does not need pictures for the sake of pictures. It adds nothing to the article and implies that they do a type of research that they don't. -Willmcw 17:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The brain image is used to represent the research they fund (read that link). Research involving penises, on the other hand, is only a miniscule area in their research. The Pioneer Fund funds research on the basis and correlates of human ability and diversity. Notable topics in this research are the heredity and neuroscience of intelligence. An image of the brain is relevant to the biological basis (hereditary and physiological) of intelligence. Read up on Jensen and Vernon's work, for example, if you think the fund's research doesn't involve this area. Critics have stated that most of the research cited in the Bell Curve on putative biological differences between races as pertains to intelligence was funded by the Pioneer Fund.

The only reason you oppose this is it presents them as funding real research, which they do at dozens of prominent universities. You would rather emphasize their actions 70 years ago.--Nectarflowed ^T 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of neuroscience in the list of grantees that you cited. If you can find an illustration of the twin study then that'd be approriate. An MRI image has nothing to do with the Pioneer Fund. -Willmcw 03:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the grantee's work regarding the biological basis of intelligence and other mental features. 'Biological basis' includes the neuroscience of intelligence and the heredity of intelligence. What is centrally relevant about the image is that it is a scan showing the brain within the human i.e. the biological basis of behavior.

Hans Eysenck, professor of Psychology at the University of London and Director of the Psychology Department at the Institute of Psychiatry (Maudsley and Bethlem Royal Hospitals) is one of the world's leading taxonomists of human personality and its biological basis. Eysenck proposed that faster neural transmission was the basis of higher IQ scores (neuroscience of intelligence). Eysenck studied the reaction time and EEG (electroencephalogram or brain waves) correlates of intelligence (neuroscience of intelligence).

Professor Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. and his team at the University of Minnesota : The results of this research showed that heredity plays a major role in almost every type of human behavior (heredity of behavior and intelligence), accounting for 40 to 80% of individual differences.

Professor Joseph M. Horn at the University of Texas at Austin: The study concluded that about fifty percent of the individual differences in IQ and personality were due to heredity and the remainder to environmental influences (heredity of behavior and intelligence).

Professor Emeritus R. Travis Osborne of the University of Georgia: Osborne’s large twin study showed that the weight of genes and culture in intelligence and personality are equally as important among Blacks as among Whites (heredity of behavior and intelligence).

Professor J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, used the University of London Twin Register and found that individual differences in altruism, nurturance, and empathy were between 50 and 60% heritable, as were individual differences in aggression and crime (heredity of behavior). Rushton also studies racial differences in brain size and intelligence.

Professor Emeritus Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley has established that the extent to which a test measures g is directly related to how much it is a product of nature, rather than nurture, and is correlated with anatomical and physiological measures such as brain waves (heredity and neuroscience of intelligence).

Professor Philip A. Vernon and his collaborators at the University of Western Ontario used state-of-the-art Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) techniques and found that IQ scores are related to brain size (heredity of intelligence).

I stopped here. These first 7 on the page all do work related to the biological basis of intelligence, behavior and other characteristics.

--Nectarflowed ^T 05:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Good - the Vernon study used MRI to measure brain size. Thanks for finding it. Let's include it with a caption abuot the study that it was used for. If we can find a an image of twins that would also be good (the only one I saw were babies). Cheers, -Willmcw 05:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is centrally relevant about the image is that it is a scan showing the brain within a human i.e. the biological basis of behavior. The above summary of these notable grantees' work demonstrates that all of their work falls under this category. The image is representative of this 'biological basis' work, which is the main area the fund operates in. What is important about the twins studies is what they say about the biological basis of behaviour (heredity of intelligence and behavior). --Nectarflowed ^T 05:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please give the title of the MRI study they have sponsored that studied race and brain size. Ultramarine 05:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rushton's Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences:Evidence from musculoskeletal traits (Intelligence, 2003) references several studies from Vernon and Rushton that use MRI to measure brain size. What's important about this image is that it's representative of the fund's main area of funded research, the biological basis of mental characteristics, especially intelligence.--Nectarflowed ^T 08:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So may the study that used the MRI was:

Vernon, P. A., Wickett, J. A., Bazana, G., & Stelmack, R. M. (2000). The neuropsychology and psychophysiology of human intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence ( pp. 245–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

The correlation of brain size and intelligence is part of an old debate. -Willmcw 17:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though we should be clear that the correlation is firmly established and accepted. See neuroscience and intelligence for more info.--Nectarflowed ^T 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Acordint to Google, that paper has been cited about 14 times, including several by Rushton. [4] -Willmcw 17:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is digressional, but the paper was published in the prestigious journal Intelligence and is within the range of respectability in terms of citations.--Nectarflowed ^T 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But has the fund ever funded any study on race and brain size using MRI? The only study I have found remotely on the sujbect was the one cited by Rushton in his 2005 review that studied brain size in people with serious mental disease. Did they fund this study? Ultramarine 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to know if they funded a racial brain size study? It might be difficult to verify which studies by these grantees were actually funded by the fund. What we know is that most of the grantees received many grants over the years totalling a large amount (some, for example Gottfredson, explicitly saying their work couldn't have been done without it), and that the Pioneer Fund has thus been central in supporting this area of research.--Nectarflowed ^T 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw wrote:"An MRI image of a head has nothing to do with intelligence research [...] and implies that they do a type of research that they don't."

What is centrally relevant about the image is that it is a scan showing the brain within a human i.e. the biological basis of behavior. This is representative of the fund's main area of funded research. See the list above of the biological basis of behavior work done by those 7 notable grantees. That is just a brief list.

If you want to remove the image, please provide an argument for doing so.--Nectarflowed ^T 22:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Willmcw, the brain image gets to be at the top of the article because it represents the area funded (see the above summary of 7 grantees). The cover of Tucker's critical book was likewise an image of a brain. Eugenics was primary in the fund's historical focus, and as such, the image -from the same period (1921)- needs to go in the historical section.--Nectarflowed ^T 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither image "needs" to be in the article, but if either is included then put them together so readers can evaluate the images. We can put them down lower if you prefer, neither is more prominent. -Willmcw 08:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

In all the studies you mention can you point to a single one where the researcher actually gathered original MRI research? This one, Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences:Evidence from musculoskeletal traits (Intelligence, 2003), Rushton merely reviews existing literature. A better illustration would be a guy sitting at his desk reading, since that seems to represent a larger part of the research output than MRI studies. -Willmcw 08:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Remember to explain edits

Ultramarine, to avoid your edits seeming random, can you remember to summarize them? What is the advantage in unwikifying the intro, such as 'science journal'? Why did you change the wikilink of foundation from a philanthropic organization to a disambig page? --Nectarflowed ^T 01:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That was unintentional. I have corrected it. Ultramarine 01:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Souther Poverty Law Center

A hate group is defined by the Wikipedia article as a group that "advocates hate, hostility or violence..." The Pioneer Fund has never even been accused of doing these things. I'm removing the reference from the header, leaving it in the criticism section. Please let me know if you disagree. --Nectarflowed ^T 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Organizations listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are indicated by an asterisk. [5] Ultramarine 19:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think advocating racism behind the so-called excuses of racialism, could be interprated as advocating hate, hostility and violence. One has to take a look at those people that associate themselve with the Pioneer Fund, and the nature of their research. Fadix 01:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

They are realists though, not racists. They base their opinions on facts, and how the world actually is instead of how they wish it was. This is the adult approach to life. Frank

Based on the SPLC's constant actions in favour of one ethnic group and vitriolic attacks on "evil white men" could be interpreted as advocating hate, do i get to put that in the article on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.222.55 (talk • contribs)

Whitewash reversion

Ultramarine wrote: rv white-wash The edited version read Harry Laughlin, who received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 in recognition of his contribution to Nazi eugenics. You reverted that to Harry Laughlin, who received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 in honor of his contribution to Nazi eugenics. Is the version you reverted to really better, Ultramarine? --hitssquad 06:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is the diff [6]. Ultramarine 13:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. One version says honor, and one version says recognition. --hitssquad 14:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Verifying list of grantees

Raymond Cattell is listed in the article as a grantee. I can find nothing in or on Tucker 1994, Tucker 2002, SPLC, or ISAR claiming that Cattell was ever a Pioneer Fund grantee. Tucker 1994 p251-252 did say:

Old Money through New Channels

Anxious not to squander the opportunity created by Jensenism but unable to exploit it through their own research, the segregationist academics turned to facilitating the work of the of the new, more well-known scientific authorities as a more productive tactic. They helped to provide Jensen, Shockley, Eysenck, and Cattell with needed financial support for their research and assistance in disseminating their conclusions beyond the scientific community. In return for this financial and logistic assistance, the segregationists obtained the researchers' prestige for their causes in general and the frequent participation of these prominent scholars in their specific projects. The involvement of mainstream scientists meant that to some extent the racist academics had to moderate their opposition to integration, but this was a small price to pay, especially since the racial battlefield was beginning to shift to such issues as affirmative action, which all of these new authorities did not hesitate to oppose.

The Pioneer Fund, that longtime supporter of efforts to prove the superiority of the original white "stock," provided the resources for these goals in many different ways. It made substantial grants to some scientists; Shockley alone received $179,000 over a period of ten years.286 It also subsidized a number of nonprofit corporations-all "organized exclusively for educational and scientific purposes" and represented by George Leonard, a lawyer who had told the Supreme Court, on behalf of 375 southern private schools that excluded blacks, that discrimination was "not necessarily a horrible thing"287-which seemed to be nothing more than conduits for channeling money to particular researchers. One recipient, for example, the Institute for the Study of Educational Differences, which listed Arthur Jensen as its president, was acknowledged as the source of support for Jensen's later research on race and speed of information processing.288 Two other nonprofit corporations supported by the Pioneer Fund, the Foundation for Human Understanding (FHU) and the Testing Research Fund (TRF), acted as publicity agents for works on heredity, intelligence, and race.

But Cattell was not named therein as a grant-recipient. --hitssquad 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You might find this interesting [7]. Ultramarine 13:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I cited it in the message you were responding to as giving no information on whether or not Raymond Cattell was a Pioneer Fund grantee. You can search the entire ISAR site for <cattell pioneer> by using this google link. I can find nothing in or on Tucker 1994, Tucker 2002, SPLC, or ISAR claiming that Cattell was ever a Pioneer Fund grantee. Do you have a cite for the article's claim that Cattell was a grantee? --hitssquad 15:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Let remove Cattell as grantee. I will return with his other connections.Ultramarine 20:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Osborn quote taken from Mehler

Mehler is the source of the paraphrase of Osborn saying the Nazi sterilization law was "the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried. [8] According to Mehler, the original quote is from an obscure source (Frederick Osborn, 'Summary of the proceedings' of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing, 24 February 1937, American Eugenics Society Archives.). Can we please see the original quote out of context? Can we please have a more-reliable source than Mehler? --hitssquad 10:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Source given. It is up to you to prove that it is false. Ultramarine 13:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Burden of Proof fallacy. We need to see the original text, since it was delivered to us by Mehler in an interpreted form. The original text is hard to access, making the information not publicly verifiable. If the information is not publicly verifiable, it should not be in the article. Perhaps we could NPOV it by citing Mehler as the person who claims the quote actually exists in some original source somewhere and that his interpretation is true to the meaning within the original context. --hitssquad 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

May I ask, is this the same standard that you require for all articles and all sources? It seems extremely stringent to require to see the source material when a perfectly-good secondary source has ben provided. If you can prove it false, then please show us the evidence. Otherwise, we can assume that it is true. -Willmcw 17:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am not Wikipedia. I can't speak for it. --hitssquad 18:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The claim that Wickcliffe Draper was a white supremacist

The article takes the editorial position that Wickcliffe Draper was a white supremacist. Is there a source for that? Did Draper state that he was a white supremacist? --hitssquad 10:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

See for example this [9]. Ultramarine 13:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

He also secretly financed the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission in the 1960s in order to support racial segregation.[10] -Willmcw 18:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The sources cited in this article

Here are all of the sources cited so far in this article:

16 of the 26 cited sources are either Mehler or Tucker. And for much of the information in the article, no reference is provided. It appears that most everything in the article is taken from Mehler and Tucker (the latter of whom, in his book on the Pioneer Fund, thanked Mehler for generously open[ing] both his files and his home to me.[14]). --hitssquad 11:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a point? They are respected scholars. And they give numerous sources, like in Tucker's book. Ultramarine 13:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

We do need to remember this is a political topic; drawing from both sides of the debate may benefit the article. We already have defences from the Pioneer Fund listed among the external links, but I don't think anyone has gone over them. Lynn's book on the history of the Pioneer Fund should probably also be taken into account. --Nectar ^T 23:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sentence wording

and funding of leading ecologist Garrett Hardin, author of the essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons".

If the sentence was to mean the essay was funded by Pioneer, it would need to be changed to: funding of Garett Hardin, including his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons". As the sentence stands, it's not English to interpret it as "including his essay".--Nectar 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading, implies that they have funded the research.Ultramarine 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to anyone who speaks English.--Nectar 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the personal attacks.Ultramarine 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, let me clarify what that means. It won't be a problem for readers of the English Wikipedia unless they have trouble with the language in general.--Nectar 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no problem, why are you objecting to adding that this reserach was not funded.Ultramarine 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence: "Other notable contributions include funding of three leading psychologists in intelligence" absolutely does not imply Pioneer funded more than "some of their research," or "their most important contributions." The clarification is unnecessary and pushes the POV in one direction.--Nectar 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no problem, why are you objecting to adding that this reserach was not funded? How can it push POV if it is the same statement? Ultramarine 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The above "It won't be a problem for readers of the English Wikipedia" referred to the subject of that sentence (the wording of the sentence at the top of this section).

Re: POV. Extraneous commentary should be used with caution in reference works, and this particular instance is intended to downplay the association. --00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)--Nectar 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, do you have an opinion about the commentary in the header?--Nectar 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which header you're talking about. -Will Beback 04:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the intro: "(Note that the fund has only funded some..."--Nectar 08:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"... author of the essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons" makes sense and is true. "author of the phrase "tragedy of the commons" implies that he only wrote a catchphrase. The essay directly relates to topics of interest to the Pioneer Fund (reproduction), so it is appropriate to mention. -Will Beback 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro clarification

Other notable contributions include funding of three leading psychologists in intelligence, Hans Eysenck, the most-cited living psychologist at the time of his death (1997), the similarly much-cited and controversial Arthur Jensen, much-cited Lloyd Humphreys, and funding of leading ecologist Garrett Hardin, author of the essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons". (Note that the fund has only funded some of their research, not necessarily their most important contributions, although it could also in some cases be their most important contributions.)

I think the clarification is unnecessary given the structure of the preceding sentence, but also that it's hard to break down a scientist's career in this way. We're speculating that some work could have not played a valuable role in the direction of their research, the formation of their ideas, or the acceptance by the scientific community of their ideas, and we actually have no idea in the first place which work was funded.--Nectar 08:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Necessary to avoid misunderstanding.Ultramarine 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the "clarification" does not clarify the matters at all, but rather makes them murkier. I suggest we drop it from the intro, and explain exactly what we mean in the body of the article. -Will Beback 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Political and legal funding

I felt like deleting the whole area on political and legal funding. As stated in its operating policies on the website, "the Pioneer Fund is neutral on political and social issues and avoids grantees with social agendas to push." The articles listed as evidence of political dealings are full of name calling and hardly trusting of unbiased reference. As many times these guys have been taken to court I don't recall any judgement against Pioneer Fund for deception of its operating policy. Due to this groups controversial nature I don't think this wiki entry should be filled with tons of biased hate pioneer fund articles. We should leave it in the controversies.

Everything is sourced, usually using academic sources. Have they been taken to court? Could you give a source?Ultramarine 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they haven't been taken to court. It was implied on their website somewhere and now I can't find it. In researching the Pioneer's grants to FAIR, there seems to be lots of evidence in support. Kind of bums me out. I like the Fund! Controversial science hell yea! Politics NO! This seems to contradict their operating policy.

FBI

Unless the FBI has discussed Pioneer, it's an original conclusion to tie their opinion of Hate groups into the SPLC's accusation. Predicting that Pioneer will soon progress to hate crimes isn't worth responding to.--Nectar 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but some people may be influenced and use their arguments when committing hate crimes.Ultramarine 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of speculation. What source are you referring to that made that argument about Pioneer?--Nectar 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See here. Their "science" is influencing many other hate groups.[15] "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred."Ultramarine 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC's argument that hate groups are using race and intelligence research to legitimize racism sounds good for the criticism section. A summary there can probably be more concise than a direct quote.--Nectar 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC's criticisms are noteworhty. They are well known for designating certain groups as "hate groups". I don't see where Steve ~~Sailer~~ [Pinker] has anything to do with the Pioneer Fund or is directly criticizing or defending them. -Will Beback 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the SPLC's criticisms are noteworthy, but the FBI's criticisms of other groups - not the Pioneer Fund - are not relevant. --Nectar 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And Pinker? How does he fit in? -Will Beback 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That was added to balance a claim that has since been removed. Only a limited part of the SPLC paragraph deals with the fund directly, most of it arguing that race and intelligence research itself is racist and hateful. I think a brief statement of the counter-position from prominent scientists like Pinker should probably be included. Pinker has prominently defended the legitimacy of race and intelligence research and written on it's relationship with racism. How about this:

Steven Pinker and other scientists defend the study of group differences as part of the science of human nature,[16] and argue opposition to racism is based on moral, not scientific assumptions, and is not vulnerable to being disproved by bioscientific advances.^[1] --Nectar 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless Pinker talks about the Pioneer Fund directly then I don't think his comment is relevant. The place for it would be Race and intelligence, or a similar general article. Including that reference is no different than including the generic criticism by the FBI. -Will Beback 04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the SPLC's argument (race and intelligence equals racism and hatred) is controversial and only one half of a debate. Actually, if we judge from what data we have, their side of the argument is the minority view among scientists in related fields.[17] Pinker's argument that race and intelligence doesn't equal racism and hatred is prominent in this area and seems pretty on topic.--Nectar 09:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That "debate" belongs at Race and intelligence. The criticism that we're dealing with is solely that of the Pioneer Fund, not of the cause of research into race and intelligence. All we should be doing is summarizing what people say about the topic, the Pioneer Fund. -Will Beback 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the SPLC isn't solely criticizing the Pioneer Fund (such as it's history) it's basing much of it's criticism on its arguments about the field in which Pioneer operates (race and intelligence research is racist). The SPLC report devotes 1/3 of it's space to Pioneer's funding of "race scientists", including Eysenck and Jensen, in order to build it's case that Pioneer is a hate group. Also, it seems to state that Rushton's work qualifies him as a racial supremacist ("He disavows the terms "inferior" and "superior" but, ... has produced a chart ... and the differences are attributed partially to heredity.")[18] These are arguments about the field Pioneer funds, not about Pioneer itself, and are controversial ones that are actively disputed.--Nectar 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Pinker quote doesn't even directly defend the work of the people the Pioneer funds. Ratherm he is just making a general case. If you want to add some offsetting material it'd be more appropriate to find quotes from the scientists that are funded making positive statements about how the PF has supported their important work, or even from commentators describing the importance of Rushton, et al. However I think that all of that is already covered, and that the Pinker paragraph adds nothing to the article about the PF. -Will Beback 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, FBI has kept files on Pioneer for a long time, but they have not been completely declassified.

FBI Records associated with the Pioneer Fund, a eugenics research foundation begun by General Frederick Osborn, Dr. Harry Laughlin, Wickliffe P. Draper and others in 1937 and which still exists today. The Pioneer Fund allegedly had close connections and early links with Nazi Germany and their scientists who conducted medical experimentation (including the infamous research on twins) and furthered Nazi War Crimes.

Statement of Michael J. Ravnitzky Before the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group Jokestress 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Summary of Edits

There seems to be a lot of POV being interjected by the use of inflamatory words such as nazi and racist in frequent repetition in the opening paragraphs. Once is enough, per term in the introdcution -- give the reader some credit. The critisism by SPLC seems important to bring out in the introduction, but it shouldn't dominate. I think that it should be introduced and then discussed in detail later in the article. I don't think that a detailed description of the SPLC is needed here since there is a link to the article on the Center; simple stating that it is a civil rights group should be enough to convey the point. --Kevin Murray 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ulric Neisser

The mention of Ulric Neisser in the opening section is problematic, since using this quote can be manipulated by either side. The turning stomach remark is over the top. The entire paragraph about the SPLC seems inappropriate in the introductory section about the Pioneer Fund. My preference would be to move it down into the text, unless the Pioneer Fund is mentioned in the intro to the SPLC article, which is ludicrous. --Kevin Murray 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If removed, then the intro is mostly praise. Both sides should be presented.Ultramarine 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to know the name of the review where Neisser said this. I have tried searching but cannot find it. Otherwise, it should be removed as unverifiable.Ultramarine 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

UM, I would agree with removing the sentence on Neisser. As written it adds more praise than critisism. I think that the SPLC paragraph will be adequate without this sentence.

I would be agreeable to removing any "praise" from the intro, without adding in inflamatory language. I would like to se neutrality in the intro without turning it inot a debate. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? Ultramarine 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Prototype introductory paragraphs

Here is a copy of the first few paragraphs. Maybe we can work together to clean up the POV issues:

(1) I'll try to strikeout what I see as praise (I only found one phrase which I would change).

The Pioneer Fund is a American non-profit foundation that was "established in 1937 to ~~advance the scientific of~~ study the heredity and human differences." The emphasis for funding is placed on projects not likely to be financed by other institutions partly due to subject matters which are considered controversial. The fund publishes the journal Mankind Quarterly, and is currently headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton.

Two of the Pioneer Fund's most notable contributions and its largest funding recipients are the Minnesota Twin Family Study and Texas Adoption Project, which studied the similarities and differences of identical twins adopted by different families. The Pioneer Fund has been one of the main sources of funding for the partly-genetic hypothesis of IQ variation among races. This has generated significant controversy ever since the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve, which drew heavily from Pioneer-funded research. The fund has also received criticism for its stance on eugenics. [1]

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights advocacy organization, has characterized the Pioneer Fund as a "hate group. [2] The SPLC cites the Pioneer Fund's funding of some organizations and individuals the SPLC considers racist. [3] It has also been criticized by scientists and journalists, and in numerous peer-reviewed academic articles. [4] . Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus." [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the first paragraph, that is how the Fund describes itself. We could change it to "The Pioneer Fund is a American non-profit foundation that describes itself as "established in 1937 to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." The fund states that the emphasis for funding is placed on projects not likely to be financed by other institutions partly due to subject matters which are considered controversial. The fund publishes the journal Mankind Quarterly, and is currently headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton."Ultramarine 23:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT THIS?

The Pioneer Fund is a American non-profit foundation that was established in 1937 and is currently headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton. The fund publishes the journal Mankind Quarterly. Its stated purpose is, "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." The fund focuses it support to projects which it perceives will not be otherwise funded due to controversial subject matter. --Kevin Murray 23:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. We could att a link to their website as a source.Ultramarine 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine, as long as we mention they are a hate group later on..futurebird 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, it is mentioned that SPLC considers it a hate group. Do you have other sources which should be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Article lead

First off, I feel it is important for the introduction to explain the controversy. The lead needs to be an abstract of the article, and the controversy is a major part of Pioneer Fund's notability.

Second, I agree with the removal of Berlet's paraphrase of Rushton regarding Toronto. It's not an accurate representation of what Rushton said:

"If it really was a colour blind society, and nobody even noticed race, maybe there would be some more justification for it (the criticism)," he told the Citizen. "But people are pulling their hair out and are saying, 'What about Toronto the Good? Where did it go to?' What about Ottawa? I'm sure it is the same? What about Montreal? I'll bet you it's the same. I'll bet it's the same in every bloody city in Canada where you have black people. It's inevitable that it won't be. So there you go."

Duffy, Andrew (October 1, 2005). Rushton Revisited. The Ottawa Citizen. You can find a copy of Stormfront, American Renaissance and other white supremacist sites. Jokestress 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with first. The quote is actually more derogatory than the paraphrase. How about changing to a direct quote of this? Ultramarine 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about putting this in the lead? If so that is an inappropriate level of detail. However, I see no reason why the actual quote shouldn't be used elsewhere in the article if it can be made clear by including the context in which it was said. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The two points are separate, and I do not believe the Rushton quotation should be in the lead. I do feel we need to mention the controversy in the lead. A standardized lead has three paragraphs. I suggest 1. a descriptive historical overview asserting notability, 2. an overview of funded people and projects, and 3. an overview of the controversies. Jokestress 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the quote should be in the lead. How about mentioning it later instead of the paraphrase? Jokestress, do you have a suggestion for improving the lead? Ultramarine 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did a little reorganizing of the existing info in the lead. The second paragraph should mention their work in immigration reduction and any other involvement in policy and academia. I wonder about how to balance the third paragraph so the condemnation and praise reflect the proportions and intensity of each? As it stands, I feel the SPLC and Neisser are given undue weight. Jokestress 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see major problems in the recent edits of the lead by Jokestress. I do think that it is atypical for such specific and detailed mention of an opposition group to be so prominent in a lead section; however, there is valid reasoning for this, and to not give some detail may tend to misrepresent. --Kevin Murray 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

^ "The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups..." (The Blank Slate, p. 142)

[1] "The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups..." (The Blank Slate, p. 142)

[1]