Talk:Franz Boas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
More information about this article...
 This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

Contents

[edit]

"Libelling the dead": User:Jacquerie27 remarks "you can't libel the dead." Others might say, "It is only safe to libel the dead." --Wetman 21:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the ancient Romans, who said "De mortuis nil nisi bonum". Jacquerie27 21:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J27, I reverted your change to the article; I did keep a reference to MacDonald in the article, but it is a shorter passage in a more appropriate section. I also added your citation and link. I have done this because it is fair to included these sources. The fact remains that MacDonald is simply reviving earlier anti-Semitic arguments. A discussion of MacDonald most definitely does not belong in a section on "criticisms." This is for two reasons (aside from the anti-Semitism). First, I have never seen MacDonald cited in any of the reputable, scholarly (meaning, published in a peer-reviewed journal concerning intellectual history, German culture and history, or anthropology) literature on Boas. Second, there have in fact been many published critiques of Boas's work -- by real anthropologists, natural scientists, and so on. It is these critiques that should go in such a section. Slrubenstein 17:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current reference to MacDonald is highly POV, and it's ludicrous to say that only specialists in Boas's own fields can pronounce on Boas. Cross-fertilization is part of how serious science advances: it's only fundamentalists and ideologues who close their minds to new or opposing ideas. Jacquerie27 10:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic. But the real issue here is that he is such a minor, fringe character that I really don't think he should be mentioned at all. I never said that one has to be an American Anthropologist or even an anthropologist to evaluate Boas. But an evaluation of Boas has to be based on facts, not fantasy, and should be recognized by the the community of scholars. I do not close my mind to new or opposing ideas -- first, anthropologists have worked within a Darwinian framework ever since Boas steered the field in that direction a hundred years ago. Second, concerning MacDonald specifically,. I head his book and the chapter on Boas carefully, and it is not based on serious scholarship -- there is no mahor claim that he makes that is supported by facts. I am open to new ideas -- but they need to be well-argued and supported by facts. Elsewhere I went into specifics on what is wrong with MacDonals. Slrubenstein 16:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this on the anti-Semitism page:

I have read MacDonald and he is either stupid or malign, but it is one or the other. Although he is a psychologist by training, the book you cite is not based on any psychological research (experimental, or clinical) -- the research he is qualified to do. Instead, he is drawing on historical documents, and it is clear that he has no training in history because he makes major mistakes in his methods of research and analysis. It is contemptable that a man who himself is so sloppy in his methods is criticizing the scientific credentials of others. Let me give you just one example. In order to support his claim that Boas's approach reflected or served Jewish interests, MacDonald quotes Margaret Mead. Mead was explaining how she got Boas to change his mind and let her do the research in Samoa she wanted to do. She tole Boas that he "should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian aristocrat." MacDonald uses this quote to support the claim that Boas's demeaner or values were ultimately Jewish. This is either a willful misreading, or a reflection of how MacDonald is blinded by his own prejudice. It is clear from the quote that Mead felt Boas most often acted like a "Prussian aristocrat." This is not surprising, since he was trained in German universities. Indeed, other historical sources (comments by other students and rivals) identify Boas and his students (like Kroeber and Lowie) as Germans or Prussians -- explicitly not as Jews. It is also clear that Mead felt that Boas idealized or valued a "liberal, democratic, modern" character. This is also not surprising, given that Boas himself admits that his family celebrated the ideals of the revolutions of 1848 (which were not led by Jews, and did not involve Jewish values or interests). Moreover, it is clear that Boas's own work draws on a liberal tradition in German scholarship -- German, not Jewish -- dating back to Immanuel Kant and involving 18th century non-Jewish thinkers like Herder and von Humboldt, up to many of Boas's non-Jewish professors when he was in the university. Had MacDonald done any of the research that a trained historian would have done, he would have discovered all of this. There are a tremendous number of studies not only of Boas and his circles but of the German liberal tradition and what was going on in German scholarship (philosophy, linguistics, physical anthropology, geography, comparative anatomy, zoology, etc.) at the time. MacDonald is ignorant of -- or discounts, for political reasons -- all of it.

It is very clear not only that MacDonald has not done any serious research on Boas; whatever material he has he willfully misinterprets to support his points. No wonder the only person who ever heard of him is J27. This is the perfect example of a fringe or crank theory. In short, MacDonald's views of Boas say little about Boas but much about MacDonald. If they belong anywhere, it is in an article on MacDonald. Not here. Slrubenstein 20:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I say elsewhere: "I'm not an expert on Boas and even if I was, people who look at User:Slrubenstein will see what getting into an argument with you is like. As another great German once said: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J, I have criticized you on the basis of your research and what you have written. For you to respond by calling me stupid is a personal attack and is not only inappropriate, it does not serve your cause well. Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it serves your cause well to say I'm afraid of the truth? I haven't called you "stupid": I've said (at most) that you (like all of us) are capable of stupidity. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If demanding accuracy and rigor is a 'point of view' then I suppose SLRubenstein is POV in this respect. The question here is whether wikipedia is a place where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything in the name of free speech and the progress of science, or whether we are trying to build an encyclopedia full of good, well-researched entries. MacDonald relies primarily on secondary sources, and there have been systematically documented examples of his misuse of those sources. While no one has taken the time to dissect the section on Boas, anyone with any familiarity with the works that MacDonald cites can immediately see their shortcomings. I don't care whether it's antisemitic or not -- it's simply poorly done, and you don't need a Ph.D. to see that. He has nonetheless produced an entry on Franz Boas that is better than -- and certainly longer than! -- Sol Tax's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and is on par with the entry in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Is that not what want?
Serious science is self-correcting and ruthlessly self-critical, but it is also progressive. Contemporary molecular biologists want to do molecular biology, not endlessly step through the arguments against Lamarkianism in the name of 'cross-fertilization' with people who have not bothered to carefully work through the argument so far and the progress we've made because of it. It's particularly strange to see SLRubenstein accussed of some sort of academic elitism given the fact that as far as I know SLRubenstein is not an academic and has never attempted to suggest that we should listen to him 'because I'm an expert and you're not'.
These endless debates about Macdonald on pages I frequent are exhausting, and dealing with them take away time from making serious contributions to the wikipedia. The bad feelings that often result make me not want to contribute to wikipedia. There's no doubt in my mind that the wikipedia would be a better place, and I would be contributing to it more, if there were more people doing work like the work that SLRubenstein has done on the Franz Boas page. Rex 22:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In 1982 the evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald resurrected the notion of a "Jewish science" in his book The Culture Of Critique; this book has been criticized for shoddy scholarship and anti-Semitism, and was described as "nauseating" by the writer Judith Shulevitz). So "resurrected the notion of a 'Jewish science'" is NPOV? And "criticized for shoddy scholarship" doesn't imply his scholarship is actually shoddy and is widely accepted as such? There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic. Just as there's no question that Slr is objective and has a firm grasp of logic and the English language. See User:Slrubenstein Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Resurrected the notion of Jewish science is certainly accurate. After the defeat of the Nazis, who else has talked about Jewish Science besides MacDonald? By the way, my discussion on China and socialist states reveals only that I do considerable research before making claims. Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi notion of "Jewish science" applied to figures like Einstein, who the Nazis thought was a charlatan and who MacDonald, in complete contrast, thinks was an outstanding objective scientist. Not only has MacDonald never used the term "Jewish science" or anything comparable to it, he doesn't accept that Freud, Marx and Boas were actually scientists. So your use of the term is an attempt to smear by association and is clearly POV. As for China and socialist states: I accept that you do considerable research, but considerable research was not necessary to understand the point that was being made to you. I think you're stubborn and authoritarian, which was why you wouldn't accept it. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh* On 6 January I removed the comment that Judith Shulevitz considered Macdonald 'naseating' because I considered it POV. I replaced it with a less heated claim that Macdonald had been criticized for 'shoddy scholarship'. Less than an hour later you, Jacquerie 27, added the comment about Shulevitz back into the entry. Thus 1) the term 'shoddy scholarship' in the Boas entry can't be used as proof of SLRubenstein's POV in the article because he did not write it. 2)To criticize SLRubenstein's NPOV because he approves of the statement about Shulevitz when you yourself have sought to keep it in the article after its deletion simply doesn't make sense. I am not interested in whatever long history SLRubenstein has with you and other people on other pages. Nor do I doubt that he has a POV that he expresses in real life, in talk pages, on #irc etc -- we all do. My point is that the entry on Franz Boas is a good one, and that it demonstrates an admirable concern with accuracy and rigor. Rex 21:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bigger sigh You obviously don't understand POV/NPOV. If I, as an Wikipedia editor, say MacDonald's theories are "nauseating" or "anti-Semitic", that is POV, because there is no consensus on those claims. However, if I report that Judith Shulevitz calls MacDonald's theories "nauseating", that is NPOV: no-one disputes that JS has said that. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) I am glad to see that in your latest entry you are no longer using the quotation regarding 'shoddy scholarship' as evidence of SLRubenstein's bias. I take it that we have reached agreement that this was inappropriate. 2)In your previous entry you use the quotation from SLRubeinstein "MacDonald's work was described as 'nauseating' by Judith Shulevitz" as proof that SLRubenstein is POV. However in your latest entry you explain to me that this is a perfectly appropriate usage for a wikipedia entry when no-one disputes that Judith Shulevitz has said that. I take it, then, that you now agree with me that SLRubenstein's inclusion of this statement in the wikipedia entry is not an indication of his POV in the article. Is this correct? 3) You have also claimed that SLRubenstein's inclusion of the phrase"Kevin MacDonald's works have been criticized as being anti-semitic" is POV. However presumably if he could demonstrate that someone has in fact articulated this claim then we could say (using the same principle you articulated above in the case of Judith Shulevitz) that it was not POV to include it since? Is that correct? If so perhaps SLRubenstein would be so good as to document who specifically has claimed MacDonald is anti-semitic -- would that satisfy you? Rex 18:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with a lot of that, but I'm not wasting more time arguing. Boas isn't worth it, as time will show, and the sort of people who take him seriously are hardly susceptible to rational argument in any case. Jacquerie27 09:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you don't want to continue this dicussion since it has certainly been nothing if not rational -- indeed, even nitpicky. However undoubtedly we both have better things to do. Take care and thanks for engaging with me. Rex 06:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewish science"

Like resistance, reasoning is futile, but here's another attempt. Slr — is there a consensus that MacDonald has resurrected "Jewish science"? No, there is not, therefore it is POV to say that he has done so, as someone with your length of service on the Wiki should know by now. If you can produce specific critics who have said this, cite them: that will be NPOV. The small restored section on MacDonald is a tiny part of the article, but it will no doubt be too threatening to remain (as MacDonald's theory predicts). Finally, I'm more convinced than ever that you should convert to Catholicism: this article is a fine example of hagiography. Jacquerie27 18:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That he is talking about Jewish Science is from his own book, chapter two. Slrubenstein 20:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can you quote from it then? If you've read the book I apologize for assuming recently that you hadn't. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As far as hagiography, what statement about Boas in this article is inaccurate? What important activity by Boas has been left out? Slrubenstein 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's the tone that is hagiographic: you obviously admire him and regard him as very important. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An example: Finally, anthropologists continue to honor his critique of racial ideologies. In his 1963 book, Race: The History of an Idea in America, Thomas Gossett wrote that "It is possible that Boas did more to combat race prejudice than any other person in history." Should scientists "honor" a colleague's ideas? That sounds more like religion or ideology than science.

Look at articles mentioning Boas in anthropology journals and you will see that they honor him. This is a factual claim and I think it is accurate.

"Tone" is a slippery and vague thing to hang any comment on. It doesn't matter at all what I think of Boas. But virtually every account of american anthropology regards him as very important. A good article on Boas will give an account of him that allows a reader to evaluate his importance. That is why I included detailed descriptions of his work in various fields.

I don't dispute that it's factually accurate to say anthropologists honor him, I just think "honor" is inappropriate in science, at least in the sense you seem to be using. Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Btw, what do anthropologists currently think of Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man? From what I can gather, some psychometricians regard the book as verging on fraudulent. Jacquerie27 15:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking physical anthropologists. I have never heard anyone claim the book is fraudulent. I know that it is still widely read, assigned and cited in physical anthropology, although it was written for a popular audience. As with any scientist, people continue to debate various ideas of his (spandrels, punctuated equilibrium), and I do not think that many people are engaging his ideas in his last book. But my sense is that everyone still considers him an important, credible scientist. I dsitinguish between attacks on his credibility versus debate about specific propositions. The latter kind of debate defines science. But the former kind of attack, I think most people belive, is politically motivated and has nothing to do with his creds as a scientist. Slrubenstein 16:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think evolutionists take him as seriously as outsiders do, but time will show. About "Jewish science": can you quote the passage from chapter two that justifies the term? Do you mean he refers to it as used by the Nazis? I'd say he does so in order to dismiss it. Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by evolutionists -- all of the evolutionary scientists I know, or know of, have a very high opinion of Gould and his research. As for the chapter 2 quotes, it will have to wait until I can go back to the library and check the book out again, but I will do it, Slrubenstein 16:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is from Stephen Jay Gould: Jacquerie27 18:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gould was considered by many outsiders to be one of the pre-eminent theoreticians in his field. However, most evolutionary biologists disagreed with the way that Gould presented his views; they feel that Gould gave the public, as well as scientists in other fields, a very distorted picture of evolutionary theory. Few evolutionary biologists question his motives, insight, or his new ideas. However, many hold that his claims to have overthrown standard views of neo-Darwinism were exaggerated to the point of falsehood, and that his claims of replacing adaptation as a key component of natural selection were erroneous. Biologist John Maynard Smith wrote that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"; another biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote of Gould, and those who agree with him, that they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of evolutionary biology's leading spokesmen."

Dude, I have seen far worse said at professional meetings. This is just typical of the kind of debates among scientists. The problem with this paragraph is that it fails to distinguish between much of his work. Just as every physicist accepts Einstein's theory of specific relativity but think he was wasting his time working on a unified field theory, evolutionary scientists accept a good deal of what Gould wrote as good science, and criticze other things. This paragraph doesn't give a citation but I bet that it is refering to his last book which even he knew was very speculative and creative. I bet over time most scientists will reject his most radical claims in that book -- but it doesn't change the fact that his research was and continues to be well-regarded. I would delete the whole paragraph or move it to talk until whoever wrote provided sources and the context for those quotes. I am absolutely certain that they are not rejecting all or even most of his work. Slrubenstein 19:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Einstein has been falsified  : see g.o.müller's 4000 titles anti-relativist bibliography and the 130 fault catalogue on "www.ekkehard-friebe.de"

Alexander Friedmann's big bang theory has been falsified by the falsification of Einstein, too


Boas has been falsified : see John Randal Baker's "Race"(15-points-IQ gap, character differences)

the Jewish God doesn't exist: see Feuerbach

The Jews are not Armenid, they are an own race with characteristic qualities not to be found in normal Armenids

95% of the "Western" doctrine is Jewish destroying the West and Western thought

I'm not surprised you support Jacquerie. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiography

Reads like it was written by a member of a cult - XED.talk 01:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Things missing

Though I'm loathe to suggest things that need to be added to this already too long page, I will say that the description of the NRC battle could use a little more detail; Boas and the cultural anthropologists on one side, with people like Robert Yerkes, Madison Grant, and other eugenicists on the other. Also, if I was to recommend a section to trim up, it would be the early life section. In general, I think the early lives of scientists is the part that you can leave to the people who are really, really interested in that scientist (in which case they'll go read a book rather than look at an encyclopedia). --Fastfission 06:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that this page is too long and have thought of editing it. However, I think that the blockquotes ought to be the first to go. I think we could also add other critics of Boas, such as Leslie White. I don't think the article is POV now, but in general it could be toned down a bit. My concern, however, is that this article was largely written by slrubenstein, who is known to enter protracted edit wars over even minor changes in articles, and I have no desire to tangle with him. It may be under the GFDL, but it is also his baby and he may object. Slrubenstein, would you care to weigh in on this issue?

Needless to say, the way I see it is I enter into protracted edit wars only when the edit is simply inaccurate. As for the specifics -- I certainly agree about what needs to be added. I am loathe to cut anything for two reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- there is no need to delete content if it is accurate. Second, Boas's legacy is a matter of contention in some circles. One reason I put in so much information about his background and education, and so many extended quotes, was to provide factual information and actual texts that provide a more or less objective portrait of Boas's biases and agenda (as I said before, I do agree that more information about his interlocutors or opponents would be a good thing). As I see it, the problem is not that the article is "too long" in some objective sense -- but I imagine it is getting too long for servers and thus slow to download. The usual solution to this kind of problem is to split off sections and turn them into linked articles (or if you prefer, subpages). Would this satisfy Fastfission and Alex? I really think the reason I do not want to delete material is not because I am personally invested in what I wrote, but because Wikipedia should be a great source for people doing research and the more content -- as long as it is accurate and NPOV -- the better. Not to harp on my own ego, but given your concern for my feelings you might feel reticent about changing the wording of the text. All I can say is that there are lots of times people have changed the wording of something I wrote, and I didn't object because I saw how the change was an improvement. I know that this article like any other at Wikipedia, being a work in progress, can always be improved upon and I would be grateful to anyone who makes changes to this article to improve it. I just hope my reasons for not deleting content are clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the wikipedia is not paper, there are genre and stylistic issues associated with article size. I also appreciate the need to provide information about Boas, but I feel wikipedia should be synoptic, rather than reproducing blockquotes of primary material for readers. At any rate, I myself was going to suggest that we created linked pages for longer subsections. So, happily, I think we have reached agreement -- let's do that.

Okay, we are agreed on linked articles. I think that Wikipedia often is synoptic, but only because of the uneven quality of research. I think — and I am not talking to defensively, or even specifically concerning this article, but just as one wikipedian to another – that the great promise of Wikipedia is in the ways it can diverge from other encyclopedias. Most online encyclopedias are based on paper encyclopedias, so their articles are synoptic. Most are written by specific people contracted, which makes revising costly. And this is a shame because more and more people do research online, and as you surely know in many areas what is available online is inadequate. If a wikipedian is willing to do the work, why not put lengthy quotes here? It means that someone who does not have access to scholarly books or journals can nevertheless find the material. I see only good in this, and no harm, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article is too long to be useful for the average reader. I think it focuses too much on things which are less central to what "Franz Boas" has come to symbolize. As it is, I open it up and just gloss over the text. It's too much, even for this academic historian. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper. But let's distinguish that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its scope and depth on individual articles is a level below that of a full biographical website. The problem here is in its usability and its usefulness for a reader, and considering that the entire entry is about a single individual it becomes a bit much. The lack of photographs and illustrations makes the amount of text especially daunting. I think the average reader, myself included, woudl appreciate less detail on the "less critical" aspects of his life -- those aspects which aren't really essential to understanding what "Franz Boas" was about in a general, non-specialist sense. As it is, it requires a lot of close reading to get the "main points" -- Boas was a anthropologist who used the tools of physical anthropology to undermine it, he was central in an early 20th century struggle in the science of race and gender. Here's my approach: I'm going to try creating an edited, shorter version of the article on my own userspace. After I'm done with it, we can discuss it a bit in comparison with this one, hold a little informal vote if need be, etc. I'm not interested in large edit conflicts. At the moment though I don't think this is a useful entry, and I really think that Boas deserves a good encyclopedia entry on him. He's a major figure in 20th century science and to have such an inaccessible description of him does nobody any good. The only people who would really profit from an entry this long and in depth are people who would have already checked a book on Boas out from the library. Wikipedia should not attempt to be the last-stop resource for research -- it can't possibly guarantee that level of reliability and accountability. It should point int he right direction, suggest interesting possibilities, etc. In my view. --Fastfission 06:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

New idea: Let's keep all the detailed content, let's just shuttle it off to specific subpages, and redo the main article in Wikipedia:Summary style. That way, everybody is happy. The casual reader doesn't have to go into every little thing Boas worked on, they can see a brief description and get the main points. The person who wants more is free to click further and get all the wonderful extra bits. No information loss at all, just a lower price to get in. Anyway, again, I will create a separate version of this first, and we can discuss it. --Fastfission 12:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your "new idea." It is important to me — not for personal reasons but as a longstanding Wikipedian – that content not be deleted. Shuttling content off to linked pages of course can be a very good thing, so basically I am fine with this. I do think it would be wise to run the idea (or, your specific plan for sub-pages) by other people just to make sure, but I think it is a good idea, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Brand article

I am wondering what place the article by Chris Brand has in the Franz Boas page in the external links section. The journal that it comes from, "The Occidental Quarterly", is a quite controversial magazine with a partisan political agenda and its academic value is dubious. The magazine is a dogmatic front for propaganda from a group that label themselves racist-nationalist historical revisionists. As the group notes in the guiding principles listed on The Occidental Quarterly's homepage [[1]], it is dedicated to the preservation of what it calls the "Classical, Christian and Germanic past" and saving the group's notion of "white culture" in the U.S. and Europe from racial integration. So I am not quite sure how the article presents a legitimate critique of Boas's work. If the link is not removed completely, the origin of the article should at least be noted on the page as the link only brings one to an article with no links to its source. And no this is not an attempt to stifle debate, it is an attempt to preserve balanced, thoughtful debate based on serious scholarship.

So, I just read the "Jewish Science" section and I am beginning to see that this article fits into a pattern that began with someone putting the citation for the Kevin MacDonald book in the prior section. There are many links between Kevin MacDonald and "The Occidental Quarterly", I believe that he won some sort of award from them for one of his books and I think that he publishes articles with them from time to time. The contested, politically-oriented nature of the scholarship of both Brand and MacDonald should be acknowledged on the page, if it is presented as equal to other scholars on the page. Also, I would like to know what the motive was of the person who included these related critiques of Boas. I am all for critiques of major figures in every field. However, these critiques should be part of a move towards more thorough, self-reflective debate, not part of a plan by ideologues to publicly tarnish the reputation of a legitimate scholar in order to pursue a political agenda. People should read the articles by Brand and MacDonald, but I hope that they will be aware of the background of the authors and the community from which these types of academics come.

Your comments are very thoughtful and articulate. I urge you to register and sign your contributions. To answer your questions: This used to be a short article and was dominated by the Chris Brand/Kevin MacDonald stuff. Wikipedia has a stringent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which means that we must provide multiple points of view, and leave it to the reader to judge the validity of any one view. That said, if you think you can add contextual information about MacDonald and Brand that won't violate our NPOV policy (read over it carefully), feel free to edit away. When I first came to this article I was appalled by the Brand/MacDonald stuff. My response was not to delete the views that I thought were offensive and ignorant, but rather to add much more content to the article to provide readers with enough information about Boas's background, the intellectual context in which he lived and worked, and specifics concernig his work so that readers could judge MacDonald's and Brand's claims for themselves. I do not want to discourage you from working on this article, but I do want to make sure you are aware of both the policy and the politics. As far as policy, NPOV is inviolate. As far as politics, there are some editors here with very strong points of view and they often do whatever they can to insert it into articles, and to add so many qualifiers to any other point of view that no one can sort things out clearly. I wrote the paragraph mentioning "Jewish science" and wrote that Macdonald "resurrected the notion of a 'Jewish science'" (implying a similarity between his claims and those of the Nazia) — and some people freaked out. It was a small battle to keep the phrasing as I wrote it. Needless to say, those people also insisted on including the citation of MacDonald's book. According to our policies, that cannot be deleted, but I added the citations for the Glick and Frank articles which are sound scholarship by any standard. So, the end result was an article that kept the Brand and MacDonald references but increasing the size of the article more than ten-fold, to compensate. MacDonald fans seemed to have accepted this. I hope it is clear that I share your views and do not personally object to your ideas about contextualizing Brand and MacDonald. But be prepared for someone else to redo whatever you write, claiming that what you wrote was not "neutral." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not completely familiar with the policies and procedures, this is very helpful. Also, thanks for helping me to understand the current situation on this page. I think I will make it a new project to research the work of Brand and MacDonald and add balanced and neutral contextual information. Thanks again. Asedzie 11:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You should also consult two other policies, equally important as NPOV: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These three policies are the basic rules for writing an article. I suggest you write an article on The Occidental Quarterly — carefully following these three policies — and then you can just provide a link here (after the link to the Chris Brand article) to the Occidental Quarterly article, and them readers will be able to see the full context for the Brand essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology article

Could someone knowledgeable check out the reference to Boas in the anthropology article? Third paragraph. I refer to this: "... Boas was a well-known social reformer with a strong Jewish self-identification ..." Which seemingly conflicts with the statement "... he did not identify himself as a Jew" from this article. One of these statements needs to be changed or, at least, clarified. --131.123.86.200 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence from the anthropology article. Not only was it inaccurate, it really did not make sense in that paragraph - except, I suspect, to those who criticize anthropology not on its scientific merits but rather as part of some attack against "Jewish science." Such people would want to emphasize Boas's Jewish origins; Boas himself did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you , Jaquerie27, for insisitng on the truth

Boas was a Jew with a strong self-identification (see MacDonald) being vey malign to the West. Einstein was a charlatan concerning his relativity (see g.o..mueller 2004 work , biggest critique ever, on "special relativity" article); as MacDonald is not fit in physics he has overlooked this fact.Rubenstein is not able to enough acknowledge that as then he had to lose his self-respect being himself an Ashkenazi Jew.Could you help me on Asian fetish, Jaquerie, to multiply our efforts , please? And there is a coverage of this anthro war and the Ruby gang on skadi.net in a restricted area. You want to have an access code ?80.138.177.147 16:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You may want to try to be less blatant about your racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baker citations

An anonymous editor just added two citations for articles by Baker. Important work. Would the anonymous editor car to incorporate summaries or elemenst of these articles into the article, in their proper context? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA jobs

I reverted a recent addition about the AAA running ads for the CIA because I haven´t seen them. If someone can provide a verifiable source of course we will put the information back in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to the Anthropology News journal.. Look in the December 2005 issue... Page 44. I don't have a scanner on me but the ad is well known and has been a source of controversy. There was also an online job posting on the AAA website that was pulled after people began objecting.

I apreciate your response, and I believe you. However, I still think your edit was inapropriate for this article. The paragraph in wuestion concerns the AAA´s rescinding Boas´s censure. Whether the AN runs CIA ads or not is just not relevant. Indeed, whether the AN rus ads for th CIA today or not has no real bearing on Franz Boas. May I suggest that you consider the article on anthropology or cultural anthropology or (if we have one) an article on the AAA? Within one of these articles ought to be a section on anthropology and politics (or, anthropology and the state) and there can be subsections (e.g. one on colonialism, one on the CIA) - then, in the appropriate subsection, this information would be appropriate. I would add that you should be as precise as possible (i.e. running one ad is not the same thing as "running ads") an provide a citation for th source. Then, you will have no fear of a reversion. I suspect you may even have more to add. PS consider registring. Also, properlñy indent your comments. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Talk%7EFranz_Boas_f0fe.html"