Talk:Race, Evolution and Behavior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 copy edits lost 2 editions 3 Professional opinions, etc 4 Critiques such as Flynn and Race 5 Terminology 6 methodology of aggregation 7 Removed NPOV warning on Validity of Race section 8 Saturdayseven edits 8.1 Favorable reviews 8.2 References 9 Self-published 10 Protected? 11 POV Fork 12 Keeping an article just for the book 13 Concrete next steps 14 Proposal 15 Rushton's theory 16 Quotes from Knudson's book

[edit] copy edits lost

a lot of the copy editing i did seems to have been lost in the shuffling. --Rikurzhen 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression you just did some copy paste - and it looked like you picked up some older versions of what was on the Rushton article before the massive purge. I've added back in sections you seemed to have missed. --JereKrischel 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editions

what's up with the various editions? need some accounting of that. --Rikurzhen 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

added in the edition information. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional opinions, etc

I think the opinions section is important, and shouldn't be removed. Insofar as criticism that is directed towards Rushton v. towards RE&B, I think we need to be very careful in removing anything without making a strong case that it is not related to RE&B. --JereKrischel 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques such as Flynn and Race

These critiques are directly related to the claims made in Race, Evolution and Behavior. Removing them seems inappropriate. --JereKrischel 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Be careful that the material is not OR. The threshold for violating NOR is very low. Also, be careful about what you take to be mainstream opinion. For example, writing the the NY Review of Books, Biology Prof. H. Allen Orr writes:[1]

We all know that much evil has been committed in the name of various crackpot theories of race. But it does not follow that racial differences do not exist or that science can say nothing sensible about them.

conclusions that are broadly accepted by human geneticists ... human races are real and they correspond reasonably well to our folk distinctions between peoples from different continents.

it would be miraculous if these [racial] differences did not exist

[the existence of race differences] should come as no surprise

The Flynn effect is important to R&I, but not obviously related to this book; etc... --Rikurzhen 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just found the material in question. Both sections have to go as they are right now. Gil White is not a mainstream voice and there's simply no citations to back up the inclusion of any discussion of the Flynn Effect. --Rikurzhen 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White may be as controversial a figure as Rushton, but you can't discount his relevance to the book and criticism of it. --JereKrischel 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I happen to like Gil-White, however he has never criticised Rushton, and probably hasn't even heard of Rushton, so what in the world is he doing in this article? Criticising the concept of race is not the same as criticising Rushton's theory. Minorcorrections 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gil-White specifically mentions Rushton in his "Ressurecting Racism". See chapter 10 for the bulk of his discussion regarding Rushton and Race, Evolution and Behavior. --JereKrischel 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Flynn and Native American sections have no citations. They cannot be kept if they aren't verifiable. The race section does not present a balanced discussion of Rushton's view on race or of the mainstream view of scientists on race. A reference-based rewrite or simply a removal is needed. --Rikurzhen 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added citations as requested. The race section represents a significant, mainstream critique to Rushton's book - with the understanding that there is great controversy on the subject. --JereKrischel 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The citations do not appear to support the text they are footnoting. The race section appears to focus on Cavalli-Sforza and his opinions about race. Luca's work is great, but making him the focus of the section is anachronistic. --Rikurzhen 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can introduce some direct quotes from the citations to make the link clearer - I agree that the connection isn't well demonstrated, but I think that's an artifact of the shortness of the text. I'll try and do a pass at a tighter integration later tonight. Thanks Rik! --JereKrischel 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I think either we go with REB's terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid), or we go with the latest 2004 MeSH terminology. Since this is simply about Rushton's book, whatever terminology he favors in recent articles shouldn't enter into the equation. --JereKrischel 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The MeSH terminology isn't used in papers that I've seen. the REB terminology is fine, so long as it's defined early on. REB 2nd pp. 42-43 gives Rushton's definitions which I think we echo here. alternatively, we can use the US English standard labels of White, Black and Asian, which would be easier on our readers. --Rikurzhen 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to the REB terminology - best not to assume that there are any standard "White", "Black" and "Asian" labels in US English, and use the terms in the book instead. --JereKrischel 07:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not much of an assumption for U.S. English speakers: Race (United States Census). --Rikurzhen 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you can see from the standard Census definitions, that 1) it doesn't appropriately map to Rushton's -oids, and can't be used interchangeably, and b) it is simply self-identification. --JereKrischel 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] methodology of aggregation

/2006-11-01 Archive

Sorry, this discussion is very interesting, but probably more appropriate for another venue - we jumped ship on improving the article and just started talking about our own personal interpretations and theories. Archived. --JereKrischel 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed NPOV warning on Validity of Race section

After adding information on Lewontin's Fallacy, I feel that this section does a good job of presenting both sides of the issue as well as promoting further investigation. I removed the the NPOV warning. Let me know if you disagree. Terry 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Made some additional edits, I think you're moving in the right direction though. Hopefully they are to your satisfaction. --JereKrischel 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturdayseven edits

Saturdayseven, please try and help us understand your concerns with the existing article, and we can try to come to some compromises which may suit you. Simply erasing large blocks of referenced and relevant information, or adding unreferenced POV pushing text, is not improving the article.

Let's start by agreeing what this article is - it is an article about the book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, including direct criticisms of the book, as well as direct favorable reviews of the book. Since the book also has a very controversial history of publication, it is also proper to include that information.

Let's also agree what this article is not - it is not a recreation of the book's thesis, nor is it an article to defend or attack Mr. Rushton's character or other works.

Can we start with those guidelines, and listen to your concerns before you edit further? Thanks! --JereKrischel 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The text I removed is not specifically relevant to Rushton's book but could be used to attack any racial theory. Let's agree that only cited material specific to Race, Evolution, and Behavior belongs in this article, and this is not the place to debate whether race is a valid concept, whether the Flynn Effect complicates the race IQ theory, and whether Native Americans are mongoloid, unless you can quote someone actually using those arguments to discuss Race, Evolution, and Behavior. If you start using this article to push the POV that race is a fraud the wikipedia community will be forced to balance the blatant bias by adding sources that defend the biological reality of race, and the article will just degenerate into a point by point debate about a complex issue that's beyond the scope of this article. As you made clear on my talk page, you want this article to be well cited, contain no original research, and be focused on the book itself. Please apply this standard consistently, and remove any comments from this article that are not specifically about the book. There are plenty of other articles that debate the validy of race. We don't need to duplicate them here. Saturdayseven

Please take a look at the text you are trying to remove. There are numerous references to Rushton, his work and this book in particular to warrant not deleting this section wholesale.--Ramdrake 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Saturdayseven, I think if you look closely as Ramdrake suggests, you'll see the comments are specifically about the book. For example:

• Douglas Wahlsten, a biologist, criticized Rushton's book in a review
• David P. Barash also harshly criticises the 'principle of aggregation' in his review
• In a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote
• Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote

I'll try to go through the other sections and trim out text which may address your concerns. --JereKrischel 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Saturdayseven, please look at the references you've recently attempted to delete - they clearly address Rushton's REB. If you'd like to pull more detail from the references, please feel free, but deleting them is inappropriate. --JereKrischel 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, Rushton cites The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza in his second abridged edition of REB. --JereKrischel 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wiezman (currently cited) for a discussion of the Flynn effect - Rushton defends these findings by arguing that they are based on the Ravens Progressive Matrices Test, a "culture-fair" test that provides a good measure of general intelligence or g. Apart from the difficulty of accepting this finding at face value, tests like the Ravens are particularly changeable and are much more subject to the "Flynn Effect" than broad spectrum tests like the wisc. --JereKrischel 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is specifically named by Gil-White in his book, even though not in Chapter 3. See [2]. --JereKrischel 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, Saturdayseven, discuss your issues here, instead of in the commit comments of your edits. If we can come to a compromise on the talk page, we'll be able to avoid a needless edit-war. Thanks! --JereKrischel 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We already did reach a compromise and wikipedia needs you to respect it: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Stop putting in quotes that are not DIRECTLY addressing Rushton's book and stop putting in original research POV claims about Native Americans not fitting in with Rushton's theory when no reliable source has made such criticism against his book. Wantednewlook

I'm sorry, what compromise are you referring to? --JereKrischel 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys not reach a compromise that the article is to contain no original research. Is the Native American section not original research? Where's your reliable source of someone criticising the book using this argument? Wantednewlook

The link is tenuous at this point, with some confusion drawn because of the "defenders of rushton" clause that links to a defense of the "native american exception" outside of any reference to Rushton's book or theories. Since that point is moot, the Loring Brace source, which although it cites Rushton, does not cite his book directly, was probably a response to that particular claim. I didn't understand what you meant by "compromise" - we agreed to some general principles, and I believe we're working on abiding by them throughout the article.

If I can find a direct criticism of Rushton's theory based on a native american exception, I'll put it in with a direct reference. Until then, I believe that Saturdayseven is correct that it was not directly related, but tangential to REB. I'm sure that given a direct reference, Saturdayseven will agree that it should be included. --JereKrischel 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anything in this article that isn't specific to Rushton's book including generic comments by Gil-White that don't address Rushton in particular and certainly not his book. Just because Gil-White mentions Rushton elsewhere in his book does not justify putting a completely separate criticism of race theories in general in section to devoted to criticism of his book. If you insist upon putting in generic critiques against race in general, I'll insist on putting in references that defend race in general. People come here not to read about the race debate in general, but about this specific book and the response it got. I have no problem with the Native American argument if it can be cited as a critique against this book, but for now it's an orginal argument composed by wikipedia editors. Saturdayseven

You're misconstruing the Sforza quote, Saturdayseven. Rushton specifically cites Sforza in REB, and Gil-White specifically contradicts Rushton's interpretation of Sforza in REB in his book, which prominently holds Rushton up as a target for criticism. --JereKrischel 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the Sforza mention by Gil-White, relating to Entine's Taboo, you'll note the source of that mention is Entine's citation of Rushton, as per chapter 10 of his book: [J. Phillipe] Rushton and other ‘race realists’ do in fact draw upon substantial data in documenting a relationship between brain size and race, cranial capacity and intelligence, intelligence and career success or criminal behavior.. Understanding that Gil-White is talking about the claims re: Sforza sourced in REB is what makes this not original research, and relevant to the topic. --JereKrischel 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton mentions Cavali-Sforza only one in the abridged version of Race Evolution and Behavior on pg 40. He doesn’t mention him at all in the unabridged version because the unabrideged version predated the publication of Cavali-Sforza’s work. More importantly, Rushton does not cite Cavali-Sforza to prove the existence of race, he cites Sforza as among the latest bit evidence for the Out of Africa hypothesis that is accepted by mainstream biologists. His exact quote is: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place.[[3]] Your argument that Gil-White is responding to something that is somehow vaguely related to Rushton’s book is a strained argument. It’s not my responsibility to untangle the six degrees of separation. The connection should be clear to all. Saturdayseven

This article is inclusive of all versions Rushton has published. The connection is quite clear. --JereKrischel 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also note that it is specifically Rushton's misappropriation of Cavalli-Sforza's work, claiming it to be "comparisons of the races", that is under attack. The Out of Africa theory is not a theory of racial splits, it is a theory of human migration. --JereKrischel 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favorable reviews

Adding in favorable reviews of Rushton's character, or his general theories, is not acceptable. This article is specifically about his book. As such, reviews should be limited to specifically reviews about his book. --JereKrischel 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is not called book reviews of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Saturdayseven

That is correct, but in an article regarding a book, book reviews are appropriate. Personal praise for the author is not. What is your fundamental concern here? Do you feel that there needs to be some positive press for Rushton? Could you just find positive book reviews on the book, and add them in instead? --JereKrischel 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you are trying to draw between the book and the ideas expressed in the book is too abstract to be useful here. Saturdayseven

It is not abstract at all - it is a clear line. If we open up the field to any positive or negative comments about Rushton, will you object to non-book related criticisms of the man? I'd like to understand your POV a little better. --JereKrischel 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if it's criticism about his personal life I'll object, but anything related to the theory expressed in the book is fair game. Saturdayseven

And how is an admonition that Rushton should receive a nobel prize at all related to the ideas expressed in the book? --JereKrischel 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the nobel prize is for the synthesis in his book. I really think the distinction you are trying to draw is pointless. Saturdayseven

Can you provide the quote in more context? Right now, the quote simply says he deserves a nobel prize, with no limitation on the reason...are you trying to assert that the person saying that meant that he deserved a nobel prize for writing his book? --JereKrischel 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What else would he deserve a Nobel prize for? The quote is listed on the back of the unabridged version of his book so obviously it's book related. Saturdayseven

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include dust-jacket snippets in this article, although I suppose if we were to specifically state that certain quotes came from the dust-jacket, that would be sufficient. PR quotes published by the author himself don't seem to be appropriate, but I'll let other editors weigh in. I'd be happy if a "Dust-jacket praise" section was created. Others may find such a thing objectionable. --JereKrischel 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if praise was quoted on Rushton's dust-jacket (where most authors quote praise) it needs to be relegated to a "dust jacket praise" section instead of a general praise section? Why? Just because you want to marginalize any positive feedback this book got. Or is it because you think Rushton fabricates quotes from other scholars in the field? Saturdayseven

Obviously, a dust-jacket selectively quotes to make the most favorable impression of the reader. It would be more credible to simply find the original source, and take the quote from there. Relying on the public relations media put out for a book as a neutral source of reference is probably poor form. We can do better than that, I'm sure. --JereKrischel 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as the section is devoted to "favourable opinions" selectively finding positive quotes is kind of the point. Saturdayseven

Of course putting positive quotes there is the point, but putting positive reviews as listed in the marketing materials for a book on the book's page in Wikipedia doesn't quite seem right, don't you think? Something tells me we avoid the issue of conflict of interest if we cite the sources from their source, not from the dust-jacket blurbs. --JereKrischel 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please provide citations before adding in your favorable quotes. Unreferenced text should not be included in the article. I'll wait until tomorrow before removing the text, if you can't find references. --JereKrischel 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find references for all of it. Saturdayseven

Please provide reliable references. Your current citation #18 is attributed to a different author than the quote. Neither is a reference to Rushton's own charlesdarwinresearch.org website a reliable reference - please cite the original, not Rushton's press release. --JereKrischel 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, please provide a reference to which issue of The Spectator Richard Lynn declared his Nobel Prize claim. A search of http://www.spectator.co.uk/ does not show any such quote by Lynn. Lynn's own list of publications doesn't include any such citation in the Spectator either. --JereKrischel 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I now have 2 sources claiming he made the comment. Asking me to report the exact issue of the Spectator which it was made is just an excuse to try to do anything in your power to remove any pro-Rushton commentary from the article. It doesn't have to be the original primary source to be a reliable source. Rushton qualifies as a reliable source. You can argue he has a bias (what source doesn't) but I've now cited American Renaissance also reporting the quote. Saturdayseven

Rushton's dust-jacket doesn't seem like a reliable source, but if you want to make a section for dust-jacket comments, I'm fine with that. It would probably behoove you to simply find the original references, and refer to them that way, avoiding the credibility gap created by reporting self-published good press.

Also, American Renaissance, a white nationalist magazine, does not seem to be a reliable source here either. If you'd like to make a clearer note that these reviews are in fact listed on a white nationalist website, I suppose you could, but I think finding the original sources, and citing them, would be preferable. --JereKrischel 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A white nationalist magazine? Please keep your strong political opinions about reliable sources out of this discussion. Just because a source has a slight political slant you don't happen to agree with doesn't give you a right to marginalize it. Extremists on the far right could label The New York Times a left-wing rag and thus ban it as a reference. Again, keep your politics out of it Saturdayseven 01:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't make any judgements about whether or not a white nationalist magazine is good or bad, but it is definitely a white nationalist magazine, and does not hide that fact. [4] - Even though the CC is virtually gone, there are still millions of white Christian Americans who are waiting to hear the good news about white nationalism and why it is morally compatible with their faith. Whites do not have to jettison religion to accommodate racialism. All we lack is a kind of “American Renaissance” of the faith to lead us out of the spiritual quagmire. I'm not trying to marginalize it at all, but I think you'll agree that a more neutral reference, by going to the original sources, could be found. --JereKrischel 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its far fetched to accuse Rushton and the American Renaissance of fabricating quotes. No source is neutral. Every human on Earth has some kind of an agenda. So if a "left-wing" source like the NY Times quotes someone criticising Rushton we should conclude the papers politics makes them biased and thus assume they could be fabricating. If an East Asian source quotes praise of Rushton are we to assume they have a pro-Rushton bias because Rushton's theory favours East Asians and thus that source can't be trusted? If a black jounalist quotes criticism of Rushton are we to assume they fabricated it and can't be neutral on this subject because of their race? Oh please! Saturdayseven

I'm not accusing anyone of fabricating quotes. I'm simply suggesting that the best way to reference the quotes you'd like to include from the dust-jacket is to reference them directly to the source, instead of simply referencing the dust-jacket, or a white nationalist magazine. I'm trying to help you here - obviously the dust-jacket is going to give us a guide to where favorable reviews of the book exist. Citing those sources directly, instead of simply pointing to either Rushton's own website, or a white nationalist magazine, is going to give them the credibility they deserve. I think I'm not communicating well with you, and apologize for any misunderstanding you seem to have. Please assume good faith on my part, and it may help you react better to my suggestions. --JereKrischel 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the original sources directly then that would be ideal, but until then, I think the dust-jacket's a reasonable substitute. Wantednewlook

So long as we make it explicit that the blurbs are taken from the dust-jacket, that seems fine. --JereKrischel 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No I think that would be extremely inappropriate. The quotes don't come from the dust-jacket, they come from the people who said them. The dust-jacket is simply our evidence that these quotes exist and should be limited to the reference section. Are you trying to be difficult in an attempt to keep the article locked? This is the most ridiculous kind of argument I have ever heard Wantednewlook

I don't think it is appropriate to use promotional materials used for a book without citing that fact. Please try to look at other book articles as a reference. If the quotes can be found in direct context of their sources, then we can simply cite that source, but otherwise you're relying on the specific abridgment and selectivity of people trying to promote sales. There seems to be a significant conflict of interest there. --JereKrischel 09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Verifiability states that sources must be given. If the dust-jacket is the source, then this must be included.Ultramarine 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the section is devoted to positive quotes for Rushton's book. It's not a neutral section and thus does not require a neutral source. What better source for positive quotes than the dust-jacket used to sell his book? Wantednewlook

Again, if the dust-jacket is the source, then this must be included as per Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 10:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be included in the reference section but not in the main text. Or are you suggesting all our references be integrated into the mains text? Wantednewlook

If the dust jacket is the only source, then this should be mentioned, because this makes it extermely difficult to verify that this person has actually said this.Ultramarine 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton's book is a published source. That qualifies as a reliable source in wikipedia. Wantednewlook

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Self-published literature deserves a bit more scrutiny, and I challenge you to show me an example of any other book on Wikipedia that includes the positive blurbs from the dust-jacket. Perhaps if you find an example, we can use their treatment as a model. --JereKrischel 10:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

His book is not self-published. The abridged version might be but not the scholarly version. As for finding a model, most articles on wikipedia are not a list of quotes like this one is. Most use summary style which is the direction I'd like to move this one. Wantednewlook

Actually, I believe his unabridged version was asserted to have been paid for through the Pioneer Fund, which he now heads [5]. In any case, if you can't find an example of any book on Wikipedia that uses the dust-jacket blurbs as positive reviews, it may be a sign that we shouldn't be using them. Please spend some time looking. --JereKrischel 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding, Wantednewlook - although positive reviews need to be put in the "favorable" section, the assumption generally is that the positive reviews were found in sources independent to the marketing department of the book-seller. Frankly, it would be better if positive reviews were found in the scholarly literature, rather than in news articles - it would balance out the negative criticisms found in the scholarly literature. Although truth be told, I think it would be hard to find many positive reviews outside of Pioneer fund grantees. Rushton, like it or not, is a terribly controversial figure, and his views are not well accepted by the mainstream. I'll look for some positive reviews in JSTOR and MUSE, but I'm not sure if I'll find any. --JereKrischel 10:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that some of those pioneer fund grantees are among the 10 most frequently cited psychologists of all time. They are funded by the pioneer fund because it's virtually the only fund that will finance a subject as controversial as IQ especially as it relates to race. Wantednewlook

Do you have a citation for that claim about "most frequently cited" Wantednewlook? Certainly Pioneer Fund grantees liberally cite each other, and there's a lot of negative citation about much of their work...but does that make them non-controversial? I guess I'm suggesting that positive scholarly reviews for Rushton's work are hard to come by without having them paid for by the Pioneer Fund. Whether or not that is because Rushton's work is laughable, or because there is a silent minority afraid to speak out in his defense, neither of us can really say. However, if you could possibly find a positive non-Pioneer Fund grantee scholarly review of REB, it would greatly help give some balance. As it is, it looks like the only people who agree with him are those funded by the organization he leads. --JereKrischel 10:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wantednewlook - check out Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews, December 1996, Vol. 41, No. 12, 1189-1191. Glayde Whitney does a fairly sympathetic review of REB there - perhaps you can find a particularly good quote for inclusion. Although you may want to know ahead of time that Glayde has some image issues - Whitney, a University of Miami racist psychologist also financed by the Pioneer Fund, wrote the introduction to Klansman David Duke's autobiography "My Awakening,"[6]. As I said, I haven't seen any scientist, outside of those financed by the Pioneer Fund, speak in positive terms about any of Rushton's work. --JereKrischel 10:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What about E.O. Wilson? By far the most qualified expert in the whole article. A cofounder of r/K theory and a Harvard scientist to boot. Wantednewlook

The E.O. Wilson quote shows as a citation "Knudtson P". Not to mention that he isn't talking about the book. --JereKrischel 10:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The given source is from a date before the book was published, so it must apply to some earlier variant of the theory, for example a theory only about differences in intelligence. I would like to see the full statement by Wilson. It hardly seems like an endorsement of the theory, only that some form of reasoning is logically sound, and may well be a selective quote excluding what was stated later and before.Ultramarine 10:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because E.O. Wilson's a science journalist very critical of Rushton who asked E.O. Wilson for a statement on Rushton's theory. Wilson quotes the statement in his article on Rushton, along with a lot of criticism that he also quotes. You guys are right, it's not directly related to the book but it's in response to the paper (which formed the basis for the book) that generated a media firestorm in 1989. If you guys are going to get hung up on this book/not book distinction which is really beside the point, I suggest we rename this article Differential K theory (Rushton's title for his race theory)since it's the theory itself that's of interest, not the book per se Wantednewlook

I think you're right that a discussion of his theory should go somewhere else, although I'm not sure what the name should be. Rushton has applied r/K theory in a fairly novel way, and it isn't quite proper to name it that. Perhaps Tri-level Racial Hierarchy Theory? Or maybe a section in Scientific racism? In any case, I think you agree that things not related to the book shouldn't be in this article. --JereKrischel 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed Differential K theory and forget about having an article devoted to just his book since the content will overlap so much. Differential K theory is the name Rushton gave to his specific application of r/K theory. He so called it to emphasize that all human races are extremely K compared to other animals, but some races are more K than others in his opinion. Wantednewlook

I think you're misconstruing Rushton - he talked about his application of differential K theory (a mathematical theory), in regards to a specific topic of race and his vision of a tri-level heirarchy. Could you provide a direct quote from Rushton regarding his particular label of his theory? Perhaps a page reference in REB? (I couldn't find the word "differential" in his entire abridged version). --JereKrischel 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think a rename is appropriate. The article for the book should remain, and a new article for his theory should be built. --JereKrischel 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published

From Amazon.com:

1. Paperback: 388 pages
2. Publisher: Charles Darwin Research Inst Pr; 3RD edition (May 2000)

Charles Darwin Research is Rushton's own organization. Note, this refers to the unabridged edition. --JereKrischel 10:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the 2000 version of the unabridged which only includes a new afterword. The original I believe was published by transaction press. Wantednewlook

Yes, it was, but according to Horowitz of Transaction Press, they only printed and distributed it - Pioneer Fund paid for it. See the article I cited above regarding the disassociation made with Rushton's book. --JereKrischel 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the financial deal, Transaction still technically published it. They're name is on the book and they're responsible for the authenticity of the quotes. Do you honestly believe that those quotes have been falsified? If not can we please move on? I think it's noteworthy to report that Jensen called the book the most brilliant he had ever encountered on the subject and that Lynn felt it deserved a Nobel prize, but I'd like to move away from the huge block quotes and rewrite the article in a more coherent summary style. Wantednewlook

Transaction Press specifically made themselves unresponsible for any authenticity of the book, and as you've seen, there name is not only not on the book anymore, but the removal of it was a matter of some controversy. I don't think it is necessarily noteworthy to include dust-jacket reviews. Furthermore, I think you're idea of "summary style" is a bit vague. Can you give a specific example? --JereKrischel 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the original version of his book was published under their name, hence it's not self-published and hence it's a reliable source. I don't think it's productive for you to desperately grasp at any excuse to exclude positive quotes from the article that you yourself have admitted that you don't doubt the authenticity of. It puts you in the position of making insincere arguments when we have so many more sincere disputes to worry about. As for summary style, I mean I think all the quotes should be kept brief and whenever possible, integrated into actual paragaphs. For example: Rushton's ideas have been especially popular among fellow pioneer fund garantees. Psychologist Arthur Jensen described them as "excellent" and the most "brilliant theory based analysis" he has ever seen in the worldwide literature. Richard Lynn claimed that with any justice, the work should win a Nobel prize. Hans Eyseneck claimed... In other words I think the reader will find it more useful to read a flowing coherent text, rather than just a long list of quotes as the article currently is. Wantednewlook

I think it is pretty clear that this is a self-published work. You have a right to your opinion, but I think the citations make it pretty clear that Transaction Press disavowed any connection to REB, and firmly stated that it was a self-published work. Your desire to declare it "technically" other-published seems puzzling, especially since you surely admit that the current incarnation, and every other version after the very first imprint paid for by the Pioneer Fund, has been specifically self-published. Perhaps we can agree that this is both a self-published and an other-published book, and because of that, it deserves some scrutiny as a "reliable source".

As for the quotes, it seems you're just objecting to the blockquote style. I'm not sure if that would make it more readable, or if it is as informative as reading Lynn's and Jensen's actual words. It also seems that putting our own words around Lynn and Jensen make it likely that there could be some POV characterization, that would be avoided if we simply quote them. --JereKrischel 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Example of a different characterization: Rushton's ideas have only received scholarly acclaim from pioneer fund grantees, a controversial organization accused of scientific racism over the 20th century which Rushton currently heads. Psychologist Arthur Jensen described Rushton's work as "brilliant theory based analysis", despite nearly universal disparagement of his work by other scientists. Richard Lynn claimed that Rushton should win a Nobel prize for his racialist theories. Hans Eyseneck claimed... I'm not sure how easy it would be to find consensus on any characterization other than a direct quote for such a controversial subject. --JereKrischel 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some versions are self-published. Others are not. All versions contain the quotes including the published version and publsihed sources are reliable sources and seeing as you admit that the quotes are not fabricated, I don't understand why you're still pursuing this point unless you're desperate to exclude pro-Rushton commentary for POV pushing reasons. As for the context in which you say the quotes could be put, saying his ideas only recieved pioneer fund acclaim is not a verifiable fact and one contradicted by E.O. Wilson to boot. Similarly for saying "nearly universal disparagemnt" unless you can cite a poll of scientists on the subject. Wantednewlook

I'm not trying to exclude pro-Rushton commentary - I'm trying to provide appropriate credibility to pro-Rushton commentary. Finding the quotes directly from their sources, instead of a dust-jacket from a self-published book, will provide additional credibility. Citing simply the dust-jacket summarization, or the marketing materials from a white nationalist magazine website trying to sell the book, reduces credibility. I'm trying to help you.

Regarding pioneer fund acclaim, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. All you need is one example. I can give you a results list from JSTOR, MUSE, and even PsychARTICLES showing nearly universal disparagement by non-Pioneer fund grantees if you'd like. --JereKrischel 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond without repeating points I've already made. Not all versions are self-published, E.O. Wilson to my knowledge is not a pioneer fund grantee, and if you really want to help me you would find a better source, but until then, the dust jacket for the published version of his book qualifies as a reliable source. Wantednewlook

Please acknowledge that the dust-jacket quotes would be more credible if referenced directly to their source, instead of from marketing materials. Do you agree to that single statement? --JereKrischel 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No because your implying that the Transaction publishing is guilty of mass fraud and you have no evidence of that. A published source is a reliabel source. Stop inventing wikipedia rules just to exclude inconvenient content Wantednewlook

I'm afraid you just don't understand what credibility means in this context. Let me try to rephrase the statement - A movie review by Ebert and Roper is more credible than a poster advertising the movie. Do you agree with that statement? --JereKrischel 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

Why is this protected? futurebird 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wantednewlook requested it [7] here.--Ramdrake 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay... I hope this page won't go the way of R & I (it's been protected FOREVER.) I'm starting to think that this happens to prevent change, in hopes that people will just give up...futurebird 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging people to give up their edit wars is not a bad thing. The only thing that prevents change are established editors who scare away newbies with wholesale reverts. Protecting the page will force them into a dialogue Wantednewlook

I certainly hope that the newbies involved in POV pushing edits engage in a dialog, Wantednewlook, you included. Frankly, if Saturdayseven had bothered to engage in some dialog, the article would have been better off - as it is, the compromise edits I made to remove inappropriate material critical of Rushton have been reverted, and the few favorable reviews added into the article are more of a poison pill than anything else, linking praise for the book to white nationalism.

If the article remains protected, in its current state, so be it. I'm not particularly happy with the article's meandering beyond Rushton's actual book, but the meandering does make it fairly clear the general low esteem his racialist theories are held in by the scientific community. All in all, if one were trying to make sure that people aren't getting some false-image of Rushton, the article does a fairly good job - but I think that it would be a better article if it focused solely on the book itself, and didn't get into the thorough debunking or supporting of Rushton's entire POV. --JereKrischel 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have no one to blame for all this but yourself. The second anyone tries to add anything to the article that in anyway elevates the credibility of Rushton's work you go ballistic and immediately do a wholesale revert and accuse the person of "POV pushing". If the person is assertive enough to revert your wholesale revert, you plead with them to "please discuss on talk page before reverting". Of course this wise advise seems to never apply to you as you never discuss on talk page before reverting but always order others to. In short no one who disagrees with your POV can make a move on this article without being forced to argue with you for a week and as a result the article remains in it crappy state for months on end, because the only time you come here to edit is to stop any attempts to improve it. In short you are VERY VERY hard to work with. This is not how we make progress in wikipedia. May I suggest that when this article is unlocked, that you open your mind to the possibility that editors others than those who hate Rushton might have something useful to add to this article, and that instead of immediately wholesale reverting everything, you instead look for a way to improve their edits and make an honest effort to integrate the perspective of others into the article. Wantednewlook

I'm sorry you're still looking for someone to blame. WP:AGF, please. It is perfectly reasonable to revert additions to the article that do not address the book directly, but simply try to "elevate" Rushton's personal credibility. It is not ballistic at all.

I'm also sorry you find me hard to work with, and hope that you can let go of some of your very emotional feelings about the topic, and perhaps realize we have more common ground than you think. If we can agree that this article is about a book by Rushton, not about Rushton himself, or Rushton's other works, I think we can remove both extraneous attacks, as well as extraneous defenses. This can be a neutral article if you're willing to assume that everyone here has the same goal - a better article. If you can't assume good faith, then I think you'll find everyone working in wikipedia with views contrary to your own VERY VERY hard to work with. --JereKrischel 10:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was added to elevate Rushton's personal credibility, but things were added to elevate the credibility of the theory proposed in his book. Wantednewlook

If anything, more criticisms should be added since the theory is completely rejected except by those who receive money from Rushton's fund.Ultramarine 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the slippery slope I worry about, Wantednewlook - if we add things to elevate the credibility of Rushton's theories, we open the door to adding things that debunk the credibility of Rushton's theories. And between Ultramarine and I, I'm sure we could find hundreds of specific references. This probably isn't appropriate for a simple page on a book, I think you'd agree. You and I may disagree on the quality of Rushton's theories, but this article isn't the place to have that debate. --JereKrischel 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. My experience is that most experts in the relevant fields accept his theory, they're just afraid to say so publicly because they'll be unfairly maligned as "racist"or "right-wing". I've also been told that a lot of the people attacking his theory don't actually believe what they're saying. Wantednewlook

Unfortunately, your personal anecdote is not a reliable source. We cannot go by what people don't say, or guess as to what people don't actually believe. --JereKrischel 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. I was just responding to Ultramarine's guess that his work is completely rejected. Wantednewlook

We should all probably keep our guesses to ourselves. The real question I'd like to hear your opinion on is the one regarding the slippery slope of point and counter-point. Given that you believe that most people won't speak up publicly for Rushton, it would seem that in any point/counter-point battle, the anti-Rushton side would be able to find much more evidence than the pro-Rushton side. Given that, do you think it might be a good idea to avoid any debate of Rushton's theories in this article? --JereKrischel 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well what I think we should avoid is the quote and counter-quote. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of Rushton's theory and they should be sumarized instead of redundantly quoted. There's also a lot of up to date evidence that supports Rushton's theory and that should be summarized too. The article should present both in a neutral way though we should make clear that most biologists reject the idea of race so the reader is aware that Rushton's ideas are outside the mainstream (at least in biology, he's in the mainstream in psychometrics). We don't need to quote every opinion. Much better to cite a poll showing most biologists claim to not believe in race Wantednewlook

Wantednewlook, you're now going outside the boundary of what this article is. This is not about Rushton's theories. This is about his book. Maybe we should simply talk about what the proper article name is for Rushton's theory, and whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think some may argue that his theories are fringe, and only deserve mention in the context of Scientific racism, although I'd personally be open to suggestions as to naming convention. As a start, I suggest you look for third party references, both for and against Rushton's theory, and see how they describe it. That may be a good guide on how to proceed, if we do. --JereKrischel 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:NOR. Unless someone specifically makes the statement "this new study supports Rushton's Tri-level Race Hierarchy Theory", we cannot engage in Original Research to connect what we may see as supportive evidence, to Rushton's hypotheses. --JereKrischel 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the theory's more notable than the book is so if the book is notable than the theory most certainly is. There's no question it's notable. Look at all the people who've commented on it. He appeared on the Phil Donahue show, Geraldo, CNN, Connie Chung. And we're not saying a study supports Differential K theory but we should have a section that gives an overview on race in general, and on specifically whether Rushton's races exist and there are credible studies saying they do. Doesn't prove one is more intelligent than the other, but it does support that he's got the basics right Wantednewlook

There is a lot of controversy surround the race concept, but even those scientists who accept some form of it, reject Rushton's claims. For example, blacks are not more psychopathic than whites.[8] I do not oppose an article called Differential K theory where the criticims could be further expanded, Wikipeida has several articles on crank theories, but obviously we should mention the controversy surrounding his book advocating the theory, like his mass mailing paid by the Fund.Ultramarine 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think Rushton ever explicitly claims blacks are more psychopathic, though I agree his theory certainly implies it, so the study you cite is excellent counter-evidence to Rushton. Of course technically the study does not find no racial difference but an exceedingly small one. I wonder how scientific the psychopathy checklist is since it is just a checklist, though it's probably no less scientific than a lot of the data Rushton cites. One could argue that the PCL-R suffers from a serious Floor effect making it less than ideal for comparisons in the general population but I'll have to find a cite. Its also important to note that Richard Lynn claims the opposite of the study you cite[[9]] however he doesn't seem to provide any direct evidence. Wantednewlook

Differential K-theory would be inappropriate. That is simply a mathematical theory, not Rushton's theory of a tri-level hierarchy of races. See http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000637.html for an example of the theory being discussed. If in fact proponents and opponents of Rushton's theories call them Differential K-Theory, we may need to disambiguate and call it Differential K-Theory (Tri-level racial hierarchy). Please find us references to that effect, Wantednewlook.

As for your idea about overviews of race in general, if Rushton's races exist, and so on, in this article, can you agree that unless the source is specifically citing the book, it shouldn't be here? Regardless of whether or not you believe he "got the basics right", I believe that we need references, preferably scholarly ones, that say that before we can even begin to think of including that kind of text. --JereKrischel 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's please avoid trying to support or debunk Rushton in the talk page as well. Concentrate on specific edits, or specific changes in the text. At this point, I think we're well agreed that this article should be pruned of non-book references, and that we should look more closely for favorable reviews from scholarly sources and not just marketing materials for the book. Can we agree to that, and then talk about what to call a new article regarding Rushton's theory? --JereKrischel 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too hung up on what we called the article as long as the topic is focused on Rushton's views on race. Differential K theory is the appropriate name because that's what Rushton actually calls it as cited in the Peter Knudson reference and so an encyclopedia should go by the formal name even if that requires a disambiguation page. I think your rule that everything must explicitly cite Rushton's book is too limiting. For example what happens if a DNA study comes out tommorow that proves once and for all that all races are equal in intelligence, but they don't feel Rushton's important enough to mention when reviewing their conclusions. Are you saying that wouldn't be something relevant to add to the article? I think it would be ridiculous not to. The ideas in the book transcend the book itself and part of our job as editors is to put them in broader context. Wantednewlook

On the article for Rushton's book, everything should be explicitly citing the book. For a different article, different rules would apply. Can you agree to that? Also, I'm not sure that the Knudson reference is appropriate since it predates the book. Could you please find other references, both pro- and anti-rushton, that use the same terminology to describe Rushton's "theory"? --JereKrischel 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JereKrischel, "Differential K-theory" is a concept in mathematics. Perhaps Rushton's differential K-theory or as suggested Differential K-Theory (Tri-level racial hierarchy). If we create a new article much the current material in this article should be moved and this article limited to the book only. Thus excluding for example Knudson. We should certainly not repeat the Intelligence and Race discussion in a new article since it is well covered in others, a brief reference to those articles is enough. I think material about other of Rushton's claim would be appropriate, like psychopathy as noted above.Ultramarine 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As we see in this talk page, deciding whether someone is explicitly citing the book or not is problematic. You had to go to extreme measures to make the link in one case. In any event, we don't need to have this argument if we agree that the book should not be its own separate article. What is the point of having an article about Rushton's book about race while also having a separate article on Rushton's theory in general since so much of the content will just be duplicated. This is a classic case where 2 articles should be merged. Perhaps Race, Evolution, and Behavior could be a section in an aticle called Rushton's Differential K theory or just something that could be alluded to, but there's not enough independent content to justify separate articles. Should we also have a separate article just devoted to Rushton's 1989 AAAS paper? No. Much better to merge it all into one coherent article. Wantednewlook

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understand - it seems that it is quite unambiguous when someone is explicitly citing the book. Could you provide me the specific example that you think is problematic?

I'm talking about the debate you had about whether Gil-White was explicitly discrediting Rushton's book, Rushton's ideas in general, or race in general, seeing as you had to provide a link between 2 separate articles for you to make your case. There are many examples where people simply criticise Rushton's theory without mentioning his book by name so it's best that the article not be limited explicitly to his book. Informative content will be lost Wantednewlook

Gil-White specifically cited REB, he didn't just mention Rushton by name, he cited his book - [24] Rushton, J. P. 1995. Race, evolution, and behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. There is no ambiguity there. --JereKrischel 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in that quote he doesn't mention Rushton or his book. In fact it's my understanding that Rushton or his book are not even mentioned in the entire chapter in which the quote appears. Now I know you argue that the chapter's in response to someone who Gil-White criticises for citing Rushton elsewhere in his book, but this is an example of how problematic it is to define explicit limits on what can be included in the article. Wantednewlook

Are you saying that you would only include quotes that specifically said, "In the book REB..."? I think it is perfectly reasonable to take a quote from a work that specifically cites REB, and specifically addresses a point from REB. This seems like a fairly reasonable guideline. --JereKrischel 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If an article specifically about REB should exist, and not the theory in general, then every quote should say REB in the quote itself. You do realize that would eliminate every single quote from the article and we'd be forced to find new ones. But at least there would be fewer quotes and thus more room to detail the specific chapters of REB. Wantednewlook

I disagree on both counts - I'm sure we can agree when a quote is discussing the book specifically even if it doesn't call it out by name (e.g., "In Rushton's book..." is as good as "In Race, Evolution and Behavior..."). Furthermore, I don't think this is an appropriate place to detail specific chapters of the book. This is an article about the book, not an article to abridge the book, or to specifically promote its contents. --JereKrischel 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

People will not be able to make sense of the criticism or commentary unless the contents of the book are summarized in great detail. Right now the article is about 15% about whats in the book and 85% about reaction (mostly criticism of the book). It should be the other way around. In most articles criticism is a very small part of the article. In this article criticism IS the article. That needs to be corrected Wantednewlook

I disagree with you on both counts. The criticism already includes necessary context, and makes clear what is being criticized. Furthermore, the notability of this book is primarily around the reaction it has received. To assert that we should build an article that abridges the book chapter by chapter, and eliminate the vast amount of criticism that it has received, doesn't seem appropriate. --JereKrischel 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To have an article that is 85% book reviews (mostly criticm) and only 15% describing the actual ideas that generated the controversy in the first place is not only wholly inappropriate but a blatant attempt at censorship. If you want an article that's all criticism I suggest you create Criticism of Race, Evolution, and Behavior Wantednewlook

Actually no, it is reflective of the reception it got in the world of science (I'm not talking only about psychometricians here, of course - including biologists, anthropologists, etc.)--Ramdrake 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Fork

Then create a separate article called Scientific reception to Race, Evolution, and Behavior that we can link to from this article. The ideas in REB are so complex that we need a whole article devoted just to them with only a small criticism section direction to your article. Because the amount of criticism you guys want to include really warrants a separate article. Wikipedia has lots of articles devoted just to the criticism of something, including wikipedia itself. Saturdayseven

Actually, what you're proposing is called a POV fork in Wikipedia, and that's expressly forbidden.--Ramdrake 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All I'm proposing is that when a sub-section of an article such as criticism gets so long that it starts to dominate the article itself, it's time to trim it down and branch it off to its own separate article. A perfect example is the wikipedia article. The criticism section got so long that they had to create Criticism of Wikipedia. Who knows more about how to write wikipedia articles than the people who wrote the article on wikipedia itself. I suggest we follow their lead Saturdayseven

I don't think we have enough material to create an entirely separate article for criticism of REB, but if it gets over 100K, perhaps we should consider it. % of page space is not the measure for requiring a sub-article, actual page length is. --JereKrischel 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But if we include a chapter by chapter summary of REB, in addition to all the criticism, it could easily go over 100K Saturdayseven

When an article is written about kittens, leprechauns, or mandaeism it tends to be written by contributors who have some affection for the subject. An article about criticism of Rushton and his work could be very well crafted by the camp that lustfully discredits him and his book. Likewise, an article on a book should probably be contributed to by those who have an interest in the book itself. I could just as easilly mess up kittens if I thought they were wicked little creatures. Contributing to a page about something you revile goes against the spirit of cooperation and the open source concept. Doooook

[edit] Keeping an article just for the book

I think that a separate article about Rushton's book, and Rushton's theory are important, since the publishing controversy, for example, has nothing to do with Rushton's theories. I think there is plenty of discussion, especially regarding the high degree of controversy Rushton's book generated, to give space for it in a separate article. --JereKrischel 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The publishing controversy could be integrated into the Rushton's Differential K theory as an example of how taboo his ideas are and the massive opposition his theory generated when he published it in his book. Or it could be mentioned in his personal article. Take your pick. Wantednewlook

How about we just move this all to a sub-section of Scientific racism? I think if we're to follow your impulse to its logical conclusion, we'd just wrap everything up in a short paragraph in Scientific racism. As it stands, I think its quite clear that there is enough information for both an article on the book, and an article on the theory. How long do you think the article has to be for it to deserve its own article? If we can get some idea of what your guideline is, I'm sure we can build an article just about the book that will meet your size requirements. --JereKrischel 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There's too much content to wrap up in a sub-section of Scientific racism and it's POV to include this in that article anyway. There is a lot of information on his book but 95% of it is also relevant to his theory so duplicating the content in 2 almost identical articles makes no sense. In order to justify a separate article just for his book, you need content about his book that is independent of his theory itself and said content does not appear to exist Wantednewlook

I think you're mistaken about the 95% figure. If we can build an article specifically about the book that does not have 95% duplicate content, would that satisfy you? 50%? 25%? There is plenty of content about the book that is independent of the theory itself, and plenty about the theory that is not in the book - the two do not seem to be completely congruent. --JereKrischel 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of content about the book independent of the theory. The mailing controversy? That was simply Rushton's attempt to DISTRIBUTE his theory. I don't think we need a whole separate article just so you can talk about that. There's room for that in the theory article, since it was the theory described in the book, and not the book itself that generated the backlash Wantednewlook

I think you're a bit confused here. You'd like to see the book as completely congruent with his theory, and therefore unworthy of a separate article. Please see The_Origin_of_Species and Evolution for an example of how a book merits a separate article, even if the theory is largely covered by the book. --JereKrischel 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory that's been around for over a century. It's been studied and improved upon by thousands of scholars. It's goes way beyond the scope of Darwin's seminal book. There's really no comparison between Darwin and Rushton in terms of their impact on science. Rushton's theory is limited to his 1989 paper and various versions of his race book. It's not an entire branch of science like evolution. Wantednewlook

Sounds like you're making an argument that puts Rushton's theories into the category of pseudo-science, which I'm not sure if you really want to do. Although Rushton may not be as accepted as Darwin, certainly there deserves to be a separation between his book, and his theory. They are not the same thing.

Furthermore, I think you do yourself a disservice, as a pro-Rushton person, by trying to conflate the two. The attacks on Rushton's ideas in general are so numerous, I believe any article on his "theories" would be dominated by negative scholarly reaction, and would belittle the profound effect the publishing of his book has had on the questions of racialist science. It would probably be better for a pro-Rushton person to concentrate on keeping the REB article limited to direct comments about the book, and some note as to its historicity. Opening up the flood gates to criticism of Rushton, his links to the Pioneer Fund, and the entire history of race and intelligence seems counter productive if you're trying to give a positive presentation of Rushton. Let's try to narrowly tailor articles, instead of letting them get too broad - we'll be able to concentrate more properly on balance then. --JereKrischel 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give a positive impression of Rushton. I'm trying to give a complete NPOV discussion of his race theory regardless of the specific medium it was published in. There's no need to quote every single person who has ever criticised Rushton's theory nor in there a need to quote every single person who has ever praised it. What is helpful to readers is a description of the primary ARGUMENTS that have been used to criticise Rushton and a description of the primary ARGUMENTS that have been used to defend his theory. We have lots of other articles like race and intelligence and the pioneer fund that can expand on specific concerns more broadly. Wantednewlook

Let me suggest to you that having an NPOV discussion of Rushton's theory is the topic of another, as of yet unnamed, article, and that having that NPOV discussion of Rushton's theory, regardless of medium, does not require this article to be removed.

Furthermore, let me suggest that there are many specific arguments against Rushton's theory that are best illustrated by specific quotes. As for specific arguments in favor of Rushton's theory, again, solely from Pioneer Fund grantees, they are also best illustrated by specific quotes. As it stands, the vast majority of the literature is against Rushton's theory (whether due to rational consideration, or irrational fear of association is an open question), and I hope you understand that any such article is going to be, even in an NPOV state, filled with more criticism of Rushton's theories than support - NPOV means we give attention proportional to representation in the literature to different POVs, so it is quite possible for an NPOV article to contain more information from one POV if it is more common. --JereKrischel 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia style guide lines prefer summaries of key points to lengthy quotes. The quotes are simply too numerous to list verbatim and most are just making the same points over and over again. Much better to say "many scholars have accused Rushton of X" and then provide a footnote to the nuerous sources making claim X or Gil-White accuses Rushton of A. The occasional block quote from an important authority who sums up the view of many might be appropriate, but wikipedia style guide lines don't allow a list of quotes to substitute for the article itself, and I think to a large degree that's the case right now. Wantednewlook

I'm afraid I disagree with you - the current quotes are not particularly lengthy, and given the contentious nature of the topic, it is easier for us to find NPOV if we report exactly what was said, rather than filtering it through our own POV. There is significant danger in misconstruing quotes if we simply redact them, and try to summarize what we believe the quotes were trying to say - best to leave the quotes verbatim, and let the reader decide what to think. --JereKrischel 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're noty disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with wikipedia style guide lines. Wantednewlook

I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. Can you understand that we both may have differing opinions on how best to follow wikipedia guidelines, or do you assert that only you properly understand them? --JereKrischel 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete next steps

Wantednewlook, I'd like to come to some agreement as how we can proceed, so we can jointly pursue unlocking the article. Can you agree to the following?:

• The current book article will be redacted of information, pro or con, that does not specifically relate to the book.
• You will find at least four references, two pro-Rushton, two anti-Rushton, that use identical terminology to label his tri-level hierarchy theory so that we can begin the creation of a new article solely about Rushton's theory.
• We will move the relevant redacted information into the new article once we agree for an appropriate name for it.
• Dust-jacket quotes will be indicated clearly as such, until such time as you can find direct references showing the full context of the marketing materials.

Is this acceptable to you, or do you still have disagreements with those four basic points? --JereKrischel 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No I simply think its redundant to have an article about Rushton's book about his race theory and a separate article about his race theory itself. Please read wikipedia's merge policy Wantednewlook

I agree its redundant but I agree with JereKrischel that REB should be its own article. But I feel the REB article should be expanded to include discussion of Rushton's original paper that inspired REB because it was actually that paper that got the most controversy, controversy had already died down by the time REB was published. In fact if you look at The Origin of Species article, there's extensive coverage of the earlier writings that lead to the book. The same should apply here Saturdayseven

Do you have a source for that assertion, Saturdayseven? I think I've got several references showing a considerable controversy continuing, even till this day, regarding REB. --JereKrischel 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source claiming that Rushton's ideas were controversial in 1989 but today people just shrug it off [[10]] Don't be turned off that it appears in American Renaissance. That's not the original source. It was reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen and this is made clear Saturdayseven

It seems we're at am impasse, Wantednewlook. Do you have any suggestions for how we could come to some middle ground? I don't see it as appropriate to merge this article to include an in depth discussion of Rushton's theories, and you think it is appropriate to simply put both topics together. Would you abide by the results of a straw-poll on the issue, or would you be willing to listen to other editor's opinions? --JereKrischel 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

JereKrischel suggested that we model this article after The Origin of Species. I couldn't agree more. Look at the indepth level of analysis that book gets chapter by chapter. I want to see the same for REB. And look how small the PUBLIC REACTION section is compared to the criticism section in our article even though Darwin in his day was a hundred times more controversial than Rushton could ever hope to be. I agree that criticism of Rushton's theory is very notable and also deserves extensive coverage, but not at the expense of documenting the content of his book. In fact the hostility against Rushton is so notable it deserves its own article. Saturdayseven

As mentioned above, Rushton's theory is hardly as notable as Darwin's. Similarly, if this article had been written in Darwin's time, it may have contained much more criticism - you cannot escape the context of the present poor reception Rushton's ideas have had in the scientific community. If you'd like to agree to the above ground rules regarding the direction the article should go, I'd be more than willing to entertain the joint summary of individual chapters of Rushton's book, with special attention paid to avoiding sounding like a propaganda piece in favor of his theory. --JereKrischel 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well my concern with your ground rules is that they would force us to exclude commentary by EO Wilson and I think its notable that not everyone who endorses Rushton's theory is from the pioneer fund and an endorsement from a man as emminent as EO Wilson is especially notable. I'm also concerned that your ground rules would force us to exclude the 2 predictions Rushton made in his original paper and as I explained to you before, this is paramount to assessing Rushton's ideas from a historical perspective. Is it possible for you to make your ground rules a little more flexible so we're not forced to exclude important commentary about Rushton's theory even if we can't tell if the person read his book, or just read the paper that inspired the book, or is just aware of the controversy through the media. Saturdayseven

I think the E.O. Wilson quote would be perfectly appropriate for an article on Rushton's theory. It isn't appropriate for the article on Rushton's book.

Regarding two predictions from his original paper, could you please provide a specific quote from his paper? I'm afraid that we're not capturing context by asserting that we believe they are important - do you have a link? --JereKrischel 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? We include a brief background section about the 1989 paper that generated huge controversy and was the inspiration for REB, just as the article on Darwin's book includes sections on the background writing. In that brief background section we include the 2 predictions (cited by Peter Knudson) and also the quote by EO Wilson. Now just so you so don't think I'm trying to create a pro-Rushton section, we can also include in this background section that the paper caused Rushton to be investigated for hate literature by the police, ther was a call for him to be fired by the premier of Ontario, and the AAAS held a press conference publicly disassociating the prestigous assembly from his paper (all cited by Knudson). I think all of this would the scene nicely for the bulk of the article which is his book. Now once this brief background section is done at the start of the article, the rest of the article can follow your ground rules. Saturdayseven

Including a section specifically on the 1989 paper seems reasonable, but you'll have to provide a direct quotes of Kundson. I think making sure we cover the controversy that the book caused is also important, and maybe we can organize it historically, by date, rather than simply by topic...but we need to be clear ahead of time that the goal here isn't to aggrandize any particular POV, but include historical context. We may even want to divide up responses by "Pioneer Fund grantees", "General media", "Scientific community", and so on...I'm open to suggestions, since as it stands it's pretty unorganized. Do you have direct quotes from Knudson you can link to? --JereKrischel 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The books not available on-line but I have it around here somewhere so I can provide direct quotes when I find it. And my goal is not to aggrandize, but I do wish to quote EO Wilson's carefully worded statement to Knudson just because its notable that at least one extremely emminent scientist (not associated with the pioneer fund) endorsed the theory. I agree with subdividing, but pioneer fund grantees should be a subsection of the scientific community (assuming you consider psychologists scientists) Saturdayseven

Direct quotes with page references are perfectly acceptable from hard copy books. I would appreciate the full context of the E.O. Wilson quote, however. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say E.O. wilson endorsed anything, but reporting on his theory should include that note. I still don't think it should be in the book article though...but let's try and hash out if there is going to be a separate article and see if that argument is moot. --JereKrischel 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton's theory

It seems Rushton himself calls it his "life-history theory" (REB abridged, p12), so Rushton's life-history theory seems like a reasonable article title for his theory work. Comments? --JereKrischel 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "life-history theory" is a general term in biology that applies to how r/K evolves. But now that we reached a compromise that we include a background section about his paper, I don't think we need to go to the trouble to create an extra article about his theory. Saturdayseven

I think Wantednewlook wants to have a separate article about the theory, so that specific support of his theory (and specific critique of his theory), not directly related to his book, can be showcased. Is that still true, Wantednewlook? --JereKrischel 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if we're going to include an introduction section on the paper his book grew out of, I think that should cover almost everything since anything anyone's said about Rushton's theory is either related to his book or the paper that inspired it. Now if the paper section gets too long that could split off into its own article and the book article could just include the highlights like E.O. Wilson's commentary, the huge backlash, etc Wantednewlook

I think that's stretching it much too far. Let's keep it to the historical context of the paper, and not spread it to the entire theory. E.O. Wilson's commentary wouldn't be appropriate for any book article, since it isn't related to the book at all. --JereKrischel 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had reached a compromise inwhich the paper and its predictions could be mentioned for historical context, along with a brief summary of notable reaction to the paper including EO Wilson's comment. Keep in mind that Rushton's ideas were never more controversial than when he presented this paper, so in order to present the historical context of the paper that gave rise to REB we need to mention its almost universal condemnation, along with the one notable exception: EO Wilson Saturdayseven

Regarding "predictions", I asked for verbatim quotes so that we had more context. If the E.O. Wilson quote shows in context a direct link to a paper of his (rather than just his theory in general), I could be convinced it is appropriate to include. Again, we need more information, and if you have those verbatim quotes to provide, it would help clear things up. --JereKrischel 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide a verbatim quote regarding Rushton's predictions as soon as I find the book (I may need to get a copy from the library) but the quote will make it very clear. As for the relevance of E.O. Wilson's quote to the paper, the entire chapter in Knudson's book is about the explosive controversy that took place in 1989 set off by Rushton's paper. Wilson is simply giving his opinion on the controversy, saying that had Rushton's ideas been about geographic variation in a non-human species, no one would have batted an eye. This is made clear from the context of the chapter which is a detail description of the firestorm his 1989 paper generated including an interview with Rushton where Rushton claims that he was surprised that the controversy hadn't happened sooner (he had written even earlier versions of his racial hypothesis) but was especially surprised that it had happened at AAAS of all places. You argued that Gil-White's comment was directly related to Rushton's book because it occured in the same book where he discusses Rushton's book, even though the specific chapter where Gil-White is quoted neither mentions Rushton or his book, but nonetheless you feel the quote is relevant to the book. Now in the case of linking E.O. Wilson's comment to Rushton's paper I'd argue the justification is even stronger because he mentions Rushton by name and was quoted in a chapter that extensively describes Rushton's paper and is specifically about the controversy the paper set off in 1989 and the comment about how "no one would have batted an eye" alludes to said controversy. EO Wilson's quotes is especially notable because of his qualifications. Saturdayseven

Thank you, I look forward to your verbatim quote. We should make clear though, when we cite E.O. Wilson, that it was Knudson who is actually reporting the quote, and we should include enough direct context from Knudson to back up your narrative. In the context you've described (E.O. responding to the controversy, rather than E.O. endorsing any particular theory), is important, and a more thorough quote will help provide that context. I look forward to your information. --JereKrischel 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from Knudson's book

On page 163, Knudson describes Rushton’s ideas as expressed in his 1989 presentation of his paper before the AAA:

The origin of the stratified racial differences he claimed to have tallied, said Rushton, lay in part in the similarly ordered time that each of the three groupings branched off of the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree. “One theoretical possibility,” ventured Rushton, “is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others.” This view is, unfortunately, in open defiance of one of the basic tenets of modern evolutionary theory, which views all living species as well as their constituent subgroupings as, in essence, equivalent cases of time-tested evolutionary success.

In Rushton’s mind, his hypothesis had global implications. If his evolutionary-model-for-racial-differences hierarchy turned out to be scientifically correct, he said, “then two important predictions can be made about the course of world history.” First, so-called evolutionarily favored Oriental populations__the top-ranked race in Rushton’s neat hierarchy__could be expected to “outdistance the predominantly Caucasian populations of North America and Western Europe.” Here, as elsewhere in his arguments, he made no mention of the fact that one might with equal confidence make the same “prediction” on the basis of a variety of social, economic, or historical factors, ones far removed from natural selections endless siftings of human genes. Second, peoples of African ancestry__relegated to a dismal third place on account of reports he cited for their supposed statistical bent toward sexual promiscuity, social disorder, and criminality, among other things,__appeared he said, to be “especially at risk” for infection by the deadly blood-borne HIV virus responsible for AIDS. Why? “Most obviously” stated Rushton boldly, “because they will be drawn to have sexual intercourse with more numerous partners, even when they are married.”

Then after a few dozen pages of describing the volumes of controversy and criticism Rushton’s paper received throughout the early months of 1989, Knudson says the following on page 190:

It would also be naïve to ignore the fact that there exists a measure of scientific sympathy __for the most part publicly silent__for Rushton’s evolutionary thinking on race. Charles Lumsden sweepingly referred to this group as an “invisible collection of Rushton’s reluctant supporters.” Although it may come as a painful surprise to some in the scientific community, one of them happens to be none other than E.O. Wilson (although, to my knowledge, this significant fact has, at this writing, yet to be reported in the Canadian media). “I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher,” Wilson told me in a cautiously worded statement. “The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species__a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk for, example__no one would have batted an eye.” But, Wilson added empathetically, even though society should be able to “handle” most areas of sociobiological debate, “when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed.”

Saturdayseven