Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. Philippe Rushton article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, J. Philippe Rushton, has edited Wikipedia as Rushton2012 (talk · contribs)

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 /Talk Archive 2006-06-20 2 /Talk Archive 2006-09-18 3 Brain Size Gene 4 New study 5 Edits and reverts 5.1 Massive purge 6 This article is biased and libelous 7 Recent edit warring 8 Race, Evolution And Behavior 9 JereKrischel, please... 10 Deleting the Gil-White reference 11 Penthouse Forum 12 An outside view 13 Deleting material and re-arranging this bio. 14 Deletions of criticisms (and deletion of one of few pro-Rushton comments) 14.1 References 15 WP:AUTO 16 lack of neutrality 17 Support quotes from Knudson P. 18 Ramdrake said ... 19 Penthouse forum? 20 Reverting credible journalism

[edit] /Talk Archive 2006-06-20

[edit] /Talk Archive 2006-09-18

[edit] Brain Size Gene

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

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

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

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

[edit] New study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Scans===

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

Rushtonscan1.jpg

Rushtonscan2.jpg

Rushtonscan3.jpg

Dowew 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you take a look at this [1], you will find that Rushton indeed uses the "oids" terms, although he has also used the words you mentioned as well. And unfortunately, this overinclusion criticism has indeed been leveled at him. (I'm trying to find a suitable quote). I may not be an expert on Rushton, but I am familiar enough with his writings to edit this article, contrary to your implications.--Ramdrake 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JereKrischel, I believe your assertion about Rushton putting all the data he finds into one of his 3 buckets is incorrect. In fact, he excludes a lot of data that can't be classified as either Oriental, White or Black. Here's a quote from his review on brain size: Among the problems we encountered in conducting our review were the following; (1) What groups should be included in a racial category?...We decided to (1) focus primarily on East Asians, Europeans, and Africans, so we excluded Amerindians, Australian Aboriginees, and East Indians[[2]]. __Minorcorrections 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

And if Rushton had done his work in the first half of the 20th century, when birth rates in Asia were among the highest on the planet, what possible conclusion could he have drawn about his r-K hypothesis? Rushton's specific interpretation of "races" is decried by most anthropologists and geneticists, even those on the "cluster" side of the cline-cluster debate. Just see the article Lieberman wrote on the subject, and the feedback to the article; it's quite enlightening [3]--Ramdrake 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, Rushton should be criticised for not being inclusive enough. Here Rushton describes a peer review of his cranial capacity data: The reviewer also re-examined the International Labour Office data presented by Rushton (1994). He/she added to the analyses samples from North and South India that had been explicitly excluded by Rushton (1994, pp. 288-289, along with Latin American, North African, and Southeast Asian samples, so as to produce the "clearest" test of the racial gradient) and thereby reduced the White/Black difference to non-significance[[4]].__Minorcorrections 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What Cavalli-Sforza says publicly, and what his data actually shows, may be two different things. Yes Cavalli-Sforza publicly dismisses the concept of race but "Don't believe any of this" explains Steve Sailer. "This is merely a politically correct smoke screen that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out that keeps his life's work -- identifying the myriad races of mankind and compiling their genealogies -- from being defunded by the commissars of acceptable thinking at Stanford. What's striking is how the press falls for his squid ink, even though Cavalli-Sforza can't resist proudly putting his genetic map showing the main races of mankind right on the cover of his 1994 magnum opus, "The History and Geography of Human Genes."[[5]] Now Steve Sailer may not be the most reliabl;e source since he sounds like an extreme right winger, but the point is to think critically. Liketoread 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Massive purge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] This article is biased and libelous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Recent edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Race, Evolution And Behavior

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

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

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

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

[edit] JereKrischel, please...

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

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

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

[edit] Deleting the Gil-White reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More neutrality :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Penthouse Forum

My edit which corrected "Penthouse Magazine" to "Penthouse Forum" was changed by Phediou back to its original. If you go to the citation http://web.archive.org/web/20041213121817/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html you will see that it is the Penthouse Forum, not the Penthouse Magazine; these are different things. I'm going to change it to "Penthouse Forum" again. It would be best to check that page's cite for this information, "Weizmann, F, Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32, 43-50.", to get more detailed information. I don't have access to this journal, well, I can go to to library and check JSTOR... --72.38.225.72 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An outside view

1. I have replaced "controversial" and the reference to Current Anthropology since they seem appropriately and reliably sourced. And the fact that you guys are squabbling about this suggests that it is controversial (though I guess that is original research!!!)
2. The spelling of Birkberk college is as written here
3. The sentences about the eugenics movement are supported by a dead link and a very general website that would require searching to find verification of the claim made about Rushton. I have therefore deleted the sentences for now. If attribution can be made then this may be an appropriate addition, but reliable sources are needed first. --Slp1 15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting material and re-arranging this bio.

Someone has come in and added negative comment about the authors views right near the top intruding into the background material. This should be deleted and moved to the bottom under criticisms or commentaries. Also some of the bio material seems repeated in the head and in bio so rationalization seemed appropriate.Rushton2012 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of criticisms (and deletion of one of few pro-Rushton comments)

User:Mstabba has removed these criticisms. Please explain why.Ultramarine 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pioneer Fund critic William H. Tucker writes:

Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett's claim that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing," finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence." Quite apart from the questionable logic in defending a blatant call to deprive citizens of their rights by citing Garrett's less offensive writing—as if it were evidence of Ted Bundy's innocence that there were some women he had met and not killed—there was no sense on Rushton's part that all of Garrett's claims, whether or not "objective," were utterly irrelevant to constitutional guarantees, which are not predicated on scientific demonstrations of intellectual equality."^[1]

• Tax records from 2000 show that his Charles Darwin Institute received $473,835 — 73% of that year's grants.^[2]

• Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, have made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum"^[3]

[edit] References

The William Tucker reference which you added today was ACCIDENTALLY deleted after I tried to repair the Rushton entry when you DELETED one of 3 (i.e., the E. O. Wilson comment) comments supporting Rushton; after you added NUMEROUS negative criticisms; and after you even inadvertently I assume put one of the criticisms in the opening paragraph describing Rushton's credentials. I fixed what I could ... and yes, I deleted the Zack Cernovsky criticism intentionally ... so as to follow the Wikipedia guideline that PART of achieving NPOV is having balance between any sides of the story presented (i.e., in this case between negative and positive). I did not intend to remove the Willliam Tucker criticism you added today but things were so messed up by your many reverts of my work that it accidentally got cut too. It would be nice though (and help add neutrality ... if the list of negative criticisms didn't just keep growing and growing ... and if the the small section of items in support of Rushton would not be removed while lengthening the negative section. I am sorry about the Tucker thing ... feel free to replace it

Mstabba 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no excuse for deleting sourced views. If something is missing, add it. NPOV is not an excuse for deleting views someone dislikes, it is stating that all views should be presented on a subject. Do you have any concrete objections against any of these criticisms? Ultramarine 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly MY point. You deleted a sourced item (the E. O. Wilson comment). You may dislike Wilson's comment ... but you're not supposed to delete it just because you don't "like" it ... you chose to delete it anyway (and it is one of a shortlist of positive comments). Why does the list of negative ones have to keep growing (as in being 4 times as long as the pro-side) ... that's NOT neutral Mstabba 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the Wilson comment. Again, do you have any concrete objections to the other criticisms? Otherwise they should be included. Again, NPOV is not a policy stating that there must always be equal criticisms and praise on every subject, it is policy stating that all views should be included.Ultramarine 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This entry is supposed to contain encyclopedic content (accurately portraying the various sides of the story ... without weighting it in one or the other direction). The list of criticisms of Rushton and his work is at least 4 times as long as the short and to the point list of positive comments. You want to add to the list of negative comments (weighting it towards the negative) and you also chose to DELETE a very sensible positive comment made by E. O. Wilson. In the interest of keeping the article objective, encyclopedic and neutral it makes sense to NOT add more and more selective quotes that "bash" a qualified and objective academic. This seems libelous & goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Those who come to Wikipedia to research Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a great big list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. Let's NOT add back in your newest quotes from others who choose to trash Rushton as that side of the story (i.e., the negative one) is already over-represented in the article. I have no problem with the entry presenting all sides of the story ... but deliberating weighting it towards the negative side is unencyclopedic, unfair, against the rules of "biographies for living people" and perhaps libelous. The negative comments you added yesterday were biased and added disproportionate (as in "undue") weight to the anti-Rushton views. Wikipedia entries are not the place for lengthy lists of personal attacks on people (even if the information is one obtained from a published source) ...

Mstabba 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide third-party, independant evidence that it is undue weight, otherwise, it's just your POV that the views are slanted against Rushton beyond their representation in actuality.

Stll, NPOV demands that each side of a controversy be treated fairly, but also in accordance to the weight of each side. It turns out that J Philippe Rushton has far more detractors than supporters (that was previously debated at length), so artificially restricting comments on one side or another to appear to be "balancing" positive and negative comments is not NPOV. Presenting a predominance of criticism if the subject is highly criticized is more representative of the general opinion on this researcher's work, and thus NPOV.--Ramdrake 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rushton entry already has at least 4 times as much negative criticism as it has positive. It is pure "opinion" that he "actually" has many more detractors than supporters ... he does seem to have more VOCAL/OUTSPOKEN detractors (on Wikipedia) than supporters. An encyclopedia is not the place to bash him (doing so goes against the biographies on living people rules). Articles are supposed to be balanced (and balance even in the case of someone/something controversial does NOT give anyone OPEN and UNLIMITED entitlement to trashing/bashing them). This is not a forum for attacking Rushton (which is arguably what is happening here when people keep "growing" the list of negative comments)... this is "supposed" to be an encyclopedia entry. To just keep growing the negative comments list is ridiculous. Isn't it already long enough ... at least 4 times as long as the positive section. Asking that the list of negatives not CONTINUE to grow endlessly is not at all an attempt to "restrict comments" on that point of view ... it is simply a desire to remain remotely sensible, fair and abiding by the rules (re neutrality) especially with respect to a biography on a living person. Also, even when a source is given for a comment ... the comment should make some sense (i.e., not be poorly sourced) and be relevant to the article and contribute something sensible (other than just POV; i.e., wanting to add a criticism suggesting Rushton's research and/or conclusions has some kind of pornographic link is not sensible, doesn't add anything other than lack of neutrality -- it is a highly questionable comment even if sourced). Presenting all sides of the story is fine & good ... but to turn it into something with an INCREASINGLY negative OVERALL tone is NOT neutral and therefore not in compliance with Wikipedias rules. Mstabba 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bashing" him (as you call it) would indeed be happening if unsourced views were presented here, or if they were presented as the views of the editors. In actuality, all the views presented are sourced and attributed to their authors, with at least a word as to who the author is, so the reader can assess the relative importance of this view. As such, it cannot conceivably be bashing, as the views are presented neutrally, and correctly attributed. That the views are anything but neutral, well, that's just life. Our job is to report on the views on this researcher in a neutral manner, and in a manner that's representative of what's being said out there. If you contest that these views are representative, please bring in a third-party source saying so. Your opinion or mine as to what is a just opinion doesn't matter; we don't have the right to pick and choose, and if we try to do so for the sake of "balance", then we are imparting our own POV on the matter. I tried to find a reference in the article linking, as you said, his research with pornography, and could find none. The only link I'm aware of is that he is sometimes reported as using for one of his sources on his most controversial theory a piece of data which was originally published in a somewhat pornographic magazine. That doesn't go to establish a link between his research and pornography; it only goes to support the opinion that some of the "research data" he quotes is indeed quite badly sourced. If you feel the opinion is slanted, I suggest you add some properly sourced citations to show otherwise (someone in the past put in the marketing opinion blurbs from one of his better-known books; these wouldn't be acceptable as they are promotional material meant to promote the sale of his books, and not genuine praise or criticism for the man's work itself), rather than removing properly sourced material, even if the views strike you as less than neutral.--Ramdrake 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can a winter 2005 report by the SPLC comment on remarks Rushton made in a october 2005 interview with the Ottawa Citizen? Did the SPLC retroactively insert this remark to sex-up their story on Rushton? --LC 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which report are you referring to? Can yuo give the link? I don't knw about the SPLC, but many periodicals treat their publication date as a suggestion rather than an actual time of release to the public. -Will Beback · † · 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[6] Anyways, I checked the Nations and Nationalism reference from the text, and that was published in October 2005, so the SPLC online text must be from autumn 2005, also. Do we need a full quote of Rushton though? He does not use the word "wrecked," but his remark is certainly not pretty. --LC 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Ah, thanks. What's the problem? "Winter" follows October, so it wouldn't be hard to report on an October publication in a Winter issue. I don't see a mention of theOttawa Citizen, only of Nations and Nationalism,. And despite the October cover date that journal may have been released in September. Unless there's more concrete reason to suspect a problem I don't see this as being a relevant issue to this article. -Will Beback · † · 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ottawa Citizen is the newspaper which had the interview with Rushton in October of 2005, and where Rushton made his remark about black people, which the SPLC quoted in part. We can just as well quote Rushton in full. --LC 01:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Checking around the article appears to be reprinted here. The full quote is:

• But people are pulling their hair out and are saying, 'What about Toronto the Good? Where did it go to?' What about Ottawa? I'm sure it is the same? What about Montreal? I'll bet you it's the same. I'll bet it's the same in every bloody city in Canada where you have black people. It's inevitable that it won't be. So there you go.

I'm not sure what the full quote would add to the article. -Will Beback · † · 02:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but somehow someone wants the SPLC criticism in, we could just as well quote Rushton himself. I don't need the SPLC to see that this is a despicable utterance. --LC 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be more profound criticiques from the SPLC which would be better to include than simply saying they have criticized him for that one remark. The gist of "Into the Mainstream: Academic Racists' Work Inching Toward Legitimacy", for example, isn't that Rushton makes racist statements it's that he is still accepted by some in the scientific community despite his racist statements. The SPLC has written repeatedly about Rushton, so I think we can find a more cogent item. -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably, although I think if you want to find stronger rebutalls to Rushton, you'll have to find them in the academic community ultimately, because he is as of yet not outlawed. --LC 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUTO

FYI, user:Rushton2012 apparently claims to be the subject of this article.[7] I have advised him of WP:AUTO and WP:COI on his talk page. -Will Beback · † · 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lack of neutrality

That's comical that you've written to HIM about WP:COI ... the recent edits to this page (regardless of "sources") are ANYTHING but neutral ... they clearly come from people with an agenda to present Rushton in a negative way. The people who have been so involved in maintaining the negative tone of this article clearly have a great big "conflict of interest" and, perhaps, should not be contributing. Mstabba 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when would thinking that his work is disputable science be a conflict of interest rather than just an opinion? To be WP:COI, you'd need to demonstrate that these editors have affiliations whereby they have something to gain by criticizing Dr. Rushton.--Ramdrake 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it is bizarre that 1/3 of the article depicts Rushton's work and 2/3 are devoted to his criticism. I would like to remark, dear gentlemen, that you are fighting a lost battle and you will be for laugh to future generations, just like defenders of flat-earth. Centrum99 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're an "anonymous" editor ... how can one possibly show any affiliations you might have (that, btw, applies to all Wikipedia editors). But when you choose to SLANT the article so that it has a negative tone (rather than just describe all sides on the story)you clearly are not being "neutral." The way the article stood before the great big list of negative edits was made ... was already not neutral ... but certainly with less overall negative attitude than now.

Mstabba 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How come Wikipedia rules on NPOV clearly state that "all articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and WITHOUT bias" ... and yet the way the article is written now shows a very strong (as in very disproportionate) bias against Rushton's work. This (i.e., the negative general tone of the article) is very unfortunate ... and, regardless of anyone rationalizations, wrong. Mstabba 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake asked: "Since when would thinking that his work is disputable science be a conflict of interest rather than just an opinion? To be WP:COI, you'd need to demonstrate that these editors have affiliations whereby they have something to gain by criticizing Dr. Rushton" -- ANSWER: it ceases to be "just an opinion" and becomes a "conflict of interest" when someone continually and consistently makes changes to an article in Wikipedia in a way as to "twist" the overall TONE of the article so that it becomes anything but neutral. And that's what seems to be happening here ... positive comments have been removed several times, negative ones rapidly increasing in number, negative comments worded "as if" they are more reputable than the positive comments (which are periodically being reworded in a way as to cast doubt on their validity). Any other questions?

Mstabba 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NPOV: None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.Ultramarine 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I've read the NPOV policy enough times to know what it says. It does say what ultramarine quoted above. However, it ALSO says that the points of view included be PROPORTIONATE to how well-held they are in the real world. The Rushton article has a 100% negative tone to it (another thing that is a no no according to Wikipedia) ... and of the very few good things written in it, people who claim to be neutral have actually removed some of these good things and added to the disproportionately large list of negative comments. Yes, include the different points of view but do so in a way that is PROPORTIONATE & reflective of their existence in the real world. This article does NOT do that ... it is an out and out put down of Rushton's work. I'm not recommending eliminating points of view ... but I would like to see a some honesty in the presentation of negative vs positive comments. Mstabba 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The general introduction and biography, the first thing people will read, contains mostly positive things. If there is widespread support for his works in the real world, then this should be easy to find and add to the article.Ultramarine 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the point. The point is that the article is NOT neutral in its overall tone ... and that violates wikipedia policy ... plain and simple. You can again, rationalize the negative tone any way you want ... that doesn't make it right. The article should represent balance and honesty in its representation of the facts. The increasingly long list of negatives in the article is unfair, beyond a shadow of a doubt it is disproportionate to its representation in the world, and in a number of cases ridiculous, trivial and definitely NOT "significant" points of view (once again a no no in wikipedia).

Mstabba 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if the views are "disproportionate to their representation in the world", then add the opposing ones from "the world". Until you cite them, there is no way of knowing if they actually exist.Ultramarine 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying the same thing over and over. Why? The article is NOT neutral ... is SHOULD be neutral. It could become neutral if editors would refrain from growing the negative list ... and if same people would refrain from editing out positive comments and would refrain from wording anti-Rushton comments in a "matter of fact" (as if it's the gospel truth) way rather than what it actually is ... someone's personal opinion (i.e., an opinion of someone belonging to a special interest group and/or someone who simply opposes the hereditarian point of view). Mstabba 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The supporting statements are also have opinions. The statements and actions by Rushton that are criticzed are however not opinions.Ultramarine 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, for User Mstabba: Neutrality is not giving equal representation to positive and negative views. Neutrality is giving each side of the argument a weight proportional to its representation in the real world. If you think there are sourced, significant viewpoints missing in this article, please feel free to add them, along with proper sources. If you feel that some viewpoints voiced in this article aren't significant enough to be included and should be dropped, please bring this in discussion. Whatever you do, please do not remove sourced material without first discussing it here and getting the agreement of the other editors involved.--Ramdrake 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support quotes from Knudson P.

Two of the "Support" quotes are taken from Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society. The text is available through Amazon. Neither quotation, in my opinion, fully captures the viewpoints of the quoted speakers. Either we should add more material to give a fuller context or summarize their viewpoints without quoting them. -Will Beback · † · 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support either option.Ultramarine 07:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramdrake said ...

"Adding and removing POV-section tags is a bit childish. Let's agree that the overall neutrality of the article is still in dispute for now" -- I agree with you totally, which raises the question "why are YOU engaging in that behaviour?"

As for the neutrality of this article ... that will remain in question until it becomes neutral :))))) Mstabba 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I didn't start removing POV tags based on whether or not I liked a certain secton. However, I saw several editors engaging in reciprocal reverts of POV-section tags. It seemed the best way to cut short to this revert war was to remove all section tags and put an overall NPOV tag back on top of the article.

And again, please re-read WP:NPOV to reacquaint yourself with the Wikipedia meaning of NPOV. You are consistently demonstrating that your understanding of NPOV is not the same as Wikipedia's definition and/or have failed to present citations to substantiate your claims of a POV slant. NPOV does not mean positive and negative views need to have equal representation.--Ramdrake 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read anything I've written. I never claimed positive and negative comments have to be equal ... they do, according the Wikipedia neutrality policy have to be proportionate to their representation in the real world (which they are not at the moment). May I recommend you read the policy once again? And the policy on Biographies of living people!

Mstabba 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, provide citations from the "real world" to support your claims.Ultramarine 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine is correct. You can argue all you want that the representation is disproportionate, but that doesn't prove anything. Adding properly sourced, notable opinions in support of Rushton and/or his work will help a lot more. As it stands, there are currently nine opinions critical of Rushton and/or his work, and three in favor, for a 75%/25% spread. IMHO, that's a fair representation of the "real world". You're welcome to prove otherwise.--Ramdrake 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine ... I do not need to provide citations from the "real world" to defend wanting this article to have an overall neutral tone (such tone, btw, is required by Wikipedia). The overall tone of Wikipedia articles must be neutral ... even after presenting the "facts." Biographies of living people cannot be slanted (in an overall way) the way you wish. Mstabba 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But you *DO* need to provide citations from the "real world" to prove that the sampling in this article is biased rather than representative of the real world. Without those, it's just your opinion, and has no right to cite in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's stop beating around the bush: please provide the proportionality which you feel would indicate the article is "neutral" according to your definition. Then, we can talk.--Ramdrake 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Look there's simply no point communicating with you. The "overall tone" of the article is NOT neutral (and it is "should" be). Mstabba 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From what you've said so far, I gather that:

• You don't expect the praise and criticism to be split 50/50
• You feel that a 75/25 criticism/praise split is "not neutral"
• You won't state or discuss what you feel should be a fair and representative criticism/praise split (one that is commensurate with the situation in the "real world")

Given all these, even with the best will of the other editors, how can we reach consensus on a representation all feel is fair? You seem to me like you're painting yourself into a corner.--Ramdrake 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needed to have a less hostile tone to it overall. You've now achieved that by changing a main heading to "Opinions of Rushton and his Work" ... very good (i.e., the tone is now more neutral & leaves the reader to decide for him/herself) Mstabba 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad we could come to an agreement, if that's all it took. For the sake of sparing yourself and others some grief, may I suggest next time you object to something in Wikipedia, to maybe give more effort to better define why you object? Just a suggestion, with all due respect. Cheers!--Ramdrake 18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penthouse forum?

Actually, Weizmann et al., (1991) accused that that Rushton and Bogaert (1987) cite Noble (1982) who cited a journal on penis length which turned out to be the Penthouse Forum which is not a pornographic magazine. Rushton never cited Penthouse forum.MoritzB 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the material you deleted.

• There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum."^[1]

It doesn't mention Weizmann at all. Can we say that Cernovsky did not make the above criticism? It was 12 years ago. Has Rushton ever responded to it? If so we can include the response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cernovsky did make that criticism which was erroneous and mentioned Weizmann. Cernovsky writes: "In a similar vein, some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum (see a review in Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991)."

Actually, Rushton cited Noble (1982), not the Penthouse magazine according to Weizmann. Because Weizmann is the source of Cernovsky's claim we can conclude that Cernovsky was wrong.

See:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LdRO8CMZDVEJ:faculty.buffalostate.edu/hennesda/example%2520review%2520paper.doc+%22who+cited+a+journal+on+penis+length+which+turned+out+to+be+the%22&hl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=eng

Rushton's reply:

"Another error that critics make is to focus on highly salient minor points and so obscure the larger picture. Thus, concerning reproductive behavior, Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, and Ziegler, (1990, p. 8; 1991) ridiculed references to the ethnographic record (e.g., French Army Surgeon, 1898/1972)... and thereby sidestepped my global review of sexual behavior and AIDS." MoritzB 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So how shall we summarize this? "Rushton has replied that he did not cite Penthouse Forum but rather had cited a paper which cited it." Is that correct and fair? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge Rushton never replied to Cernovsky. It would be more appropriate to say that there is no reference to the Penthouse article in Rushton's paper. Cernovsky's source (Weizmann et. al.) says that Rushton cited Noble's paper which had a reference to the Penthouse forum. However, this criticism is far-fetched and a very minor point so I doubt that it should be included to the article at all.MoritzB 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is hardly "far-fetched" and has been repeated often. It's better to address these kinds of issues rather than ignore them. Can you propose any language to describe the situation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an LTE on the topic:

• A case in point is the 1987 article he co-authored with Anthony F. Bogaert entitled, "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis", which appeared in the Journal of Research in Personality (volume 21:529-551). This is the work upon which much of his now infamous address to the AAAS was based...In a similar veln, but more contemporary context, Rushton & Bogaert rely heavily on information about penis anatomy among "Blacks" and "Whites" from a 1982 article whrch appeared in "Forum: International Journal of Human Relations". Much to our amusement, we discovered that this "journal" is published by Penthouse Magazine and was described In Magazines for Llbrarles (4th edrtion, 1982:454) as "a pocket-slzed Penthouse without the nudes"! -L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herrlng Newsletter of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology

So apparently Cernovsky is not the only one to make this criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, according to Weizmann et. al. Rushton's data about racial differences in sexual characteristics lacked quality".^[2]

MoritzB 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's too vague. We can't just say he's been criticized without mentioning what the criticisms were. "Lacked quality" isn't sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism itself is vague because it targets a minor aspect of Rushton's r-k selection theory about racial differences which doesn't rely on the data criticised. The reader is not even introduced to the theory so he has no idea what the criticism is all about.

I propose: For example, according to Weizmann et. al. Rushton's data about racial differences in sexual characteristics was very old or unreliable."

MoritzB 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's totally off-topic. The criticism we're discussing here is the use of the Penthouse Forum as a source. You claim that he never used it, while three researchers in the field say he did. Does anyone have access to "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis", and if so can we confirm that "Forum: International Journal of Human Relations" is not cited in it? If not then we need to go with the previously cited criticisms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LdRO8CMZDVEJ:faculty.buffalostate.edu/hennesda/example%2520review%2520paper.doc+%22who+cited+a+journal+on+penis+length+which+turned+out+to+be+the%22&hl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=eng

MoritzB 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So at best we have Rushton citing a paper which cites the Penthouse Forum (per Hennessy's interpretation of Weizmann). On the other hand we have L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herring who say they personally found the Forum citation in "Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis". A better summary would be:

• There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum."^[3] L.K.W. Chan and D.A. Herring have also criticized Rushton's use of the Penthouse Forum as a source. Defenders of Rushton say that he did not cite the magainze directly, but instead cited a paper that in turn cited it.

Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Hennessy is one of the critics of "scientific racism" and is definitely not a "defender of Rushton". If he has any biases they are against Rushton. Thus, I strongly suspect that Hennessy is right.

IMHO, it would be ridiculous to include two different factual accounts of Rushton's paper to the article. I think I will e-mail Rushton and ask him to scan the paper.

MoritzB 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that both references are to the same paper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann et al., (1991) and Rushton and Bogaert (1987) are the papers in question.MoritzB 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know what paper or book Weizmann is referring to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting credible journalism

Charles Lane journalist covers the Supreme Court of the United States for the Washington Post and has for at least six years. Had his writing on this topic not been credible, he would not hold his job. moritzb has provided no factual evidence that Rushton was not reprimanded for ethical lapses, or that the University reversed itself. Hence, mortizb accusation of POV pushing is more aptly directed at himself.Skywriter 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you intentionally deleted factual information of Rushton's accomplishments and gave undue weight to Lane's accusations. MoritzB 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Identify precisely what you allege was deleted.Skywriter 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

" Rushton has published more than 250 articles and six books, including two on altruism, one on scientific excellence, and co-authored an introductory psychology textbook.^[4] Over ten of his papers have appeared in Intelligence a journal for which Rushton sits on the editorial board along with seven other signatories of an opinion piece "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". ^[5] Co-signer Douglas K. Detterman is founder and editor of the journal that republished the opinion piece."MoritzB 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Look again, moritzb. The above is a false statement. You are mistaken. That material has not changed and is in tact in the current and previous versions.Skywriter 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, these are not Lane's accusations. He is a reporter. These facts appeared in Canadian newspapers and in the student newspaper at his university. That he was reprimanded twice in one year is fact.Skywriter 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever they are they don't portray Rushton fairly like the 2005 article "Rushton Revisited" in Ottawa Post, for example. MoritzB 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some press clippings:

• Professor Philippe Rushton has been reprimanded by university officials for not getting authorization to take his controversial research from the University of Western Ontario to a mall in downtown Toronto....Last week, Prof. Rushton was barred for two years from using a pool of first-year students for his research after conducting a survey without the approval of a university ethics committee. The students were asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about sexual performance. "University reprimands Rushton" The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: May 3, 1989. pg. A.16
• Professor Philippe Rushton has been barred from conducting research on students after a university committee found he'd done an unauthorized study which included asking volunteers to describe their genitalia....In a detailed questionnaire, student research subjects were asked to reveal several aspects of their sexual performance, including penis size, how far they could ejaculate and information about sexual partners, Cummins said... There are also questions about whether Rushton had approval of the university's main ethics committee for a survey he conducted at the Eaton Centre in Toronto last December. He paid 50 Orientals, 50 whites and 50 blacks $5 each to answer a questionnaire on their sexual habits. "Rushton barred for conducting unapproved study", Leslie Papp, Toronto Star. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 29, 1989. pg. A.4

These confirm the Lane account and can be added as additional references. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The addition of that information would imbalance the article. The events which happened in 1989 are no longer notable or relevant and are not even mentioned in recent newspaper articles about Rushton. See: "Rushton Revisited" in Ottawa Post. MoritzB 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reprimands of university professors are not common and are worth reporting. The fact that the incidents occured in 1989 doesn't make them less relevant - this article covers the subject's entire life, not just the last ten years. The fact that the reprimands directly concern his research makes them relevant to the subject's scholarship (unlike, say, sleeping with a student). If you think "Rushton Revisited" is a stellar article we can include it as "further reading". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just read "Rushton Revisited". It isn't a general profile of Rushton, but rather a review of the current (as of 2005) viewpoints on his work on race and intelligence. It may be usable as a source for those newer views. But the article's omission of some biographical details doesn't mean we shouldn't include the reprimand in this biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter added four paragraphs about 1989. One paragraph would be entirely sufficient.MoritzB 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've consolidated it down to three paragraphs. Surely you don't propose that the subject's activities and publications prior to 1990 are no longer material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that the Google search for "Rushton Revisited" [8] has among its top ten hits American Renaissance and Stormfront. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)