Talk:Glayde Whitney

Comment
It is correct that what makes the forward notable for an article on Whitney is that it was highly controversial. However, only covering those controversial elements takes them out of context and makes them appear to be representative, which they aren't.

As an example of what happens sometimes, Whitney's comment praising the scientific achievements of Jews was selectively quoted by the newspaper article that was the source, changing it to a condemnation.


 * What he wrote: "As individuals, scientists of Jewish ancestry cover the entire spectrum of interpretations and approaches to race and heredity. ... From personal experience in academia, it is sometimes hard to believe that Jews constitute only 2% or 3% of the general population Individuals of Jewish ancestry are vastly overrepresented in the ranks of highly successful scientists. They are among my best students and closest friends." (Following this he continued that Jewish organizations, as a reaction to racism directed toward them, contribute to the suppression of legitimate racial behavioral genetics --part of the larger argument his forward advances.)
 * What was in the article, including the narrative it was within: "he believed Duke relied on "good science" in concluding Blacks should attend separate schools and perhaps even live in separate countries ... He also wrote that Jews were "vastly overrepresented in the ranks of highly successful scientist.""

I've done my best to concisely summarize Whitney's actual argument. --Nectarflowed T 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Whitewashing
This has whitewashed his statements and replaced his actual quotations with euphemistic paraphrase. When I have time, I will go back in and put some of this back in, especially his comments about his big three (Freud, Marx, Boas). Jokestress 01:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * His views sounds pretty white-nationalist to me and they definitely shouldn't be whitewashed; I tried to be pretty careful with his statements. He wrote the forward for a lay audience, so if there are statements that don't add anything as quotes, we may be able to use more concise encylopedic style to summarize them.  Here are some of the quotes I changed:


 * 1. “Organized Jewry,” which he feels “dogmatically attempts to keep the general population from awareness of the findings of modern science.”
 * His argument appears to only be that they supress race behavioral genetics, not "the findings of modern science."


 * 2. He didn't refer to the Jewishness of the big three, and regarding established ideas as dogma is a pretty common sentiment.  The argument he's making, that his and Duke's 'scientific inquiry' is being suppressed and that he blames PC scientists and "organized Jewry" for this seems to already cover the point.


 * 3. “Blatant racial discrimination”
 * This is a pretty everyday statement that doesn't seem to imply anything inappropriate or warrant special attention by quoting.


 * 4. Makes a hereditarian argument for “the large intellectual gap between blacks and whites”
 * We can phrase it with more precision, and the existence of the gap in tests of cognitive ability is considered established in the mainstream intelligence research statements.


 * --Nectarflowed T 07:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree we should allow the critical light--V7ndotcom elursrebmem 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Crime data
It has been claimed that the crime data used by Whitney were presented in a misleading way, which was denied by Whitney. --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article could be much improved with more sources.
I have some Source Lists to Share with Other Wikipedians on my user subpages that would be helpful for updating this article. The subpages on IQ and human intelligence are reasonably complete now, always to be updated more, and the subpages on race and human genetics will be updated a lot more over the next few months. Feel free to refer to those to edit this article and articles on related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)