Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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.'"
 * Pioneer Fund critic William H. Tucker writes:


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


 * 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"

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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." 
 * 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".
 * 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." 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)

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. 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". 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" has among its top ten hits American Renaissance and Stormfront. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by Southern Poverty Law Center violates wikipedia policy
This article violates so many wikipedia policies that I don't even know where to begin. It is against wikipedia policy to make libelous claims about living people or to smear them by implying they are racists or members of hate groups using poorly sourced material. You especially can not use self-published sources to do this. Wikipedia policy is clear: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material  The references to Rushton by the SPLC are a self-published website & thus clearly violate this rule. The SPLC must be removed from the article immediately. Needpics (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past, the SPLC has not been considered a self-published source because they apparently have an editorial system to review materials before they're published. "Self-published" usually refers to material published directly by the author without any editorial system, such as a blog or a vanity press book.   Will Beback    talk    21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia does not want to repeat any libellous material. Libel is a matter for law courts and if the SPLC or other source has printed such material the first recourse would be to ask them to withdraw their material and then to sue them for libel if they don't. I'm not aware of anything like that here. If Rushton or his defenders have issues rebuttals to any of the assertions in the article then we should include those. But otherwise it's not clear that there's anything libellous in this article.   Will Beback    talk    21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is clearly self-published because they are the ones who are publishing their own views. Their views are not being published in an independent source or distributed by an independent source. Beyond that, the fact that our only source for the SPLC's criticism is the SPLC itself means that their views are not particularly notable.  Further, many of their views might be considered extreme minority views and to give them space in this article violates wikipedia's undue weight policy.  Keep in mind that this source must be held to a higher standard because what they are saying is so inflamatory.  Wikipedia's policy is clearly stated at the top of this page:  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. Implying someone is a racist or a member of hate groups is potentially libelous, thus we can not use unpublished sources, minority view sources, or sources that are not notable claims if we are going to include such material. Needpics (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times publishes its own views too, but that doesn't mean that an individual reporter's article is self-published. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for the standards on sources. What material do you believe is "potentially libellous"?   Will Beback    talk    22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the New York Times is published by the New York Times Company & individuals such as Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd & Frank Rich are published in the New York Times. There is no author listed for the claims published by the SPLC other than the SPLC itself & there is no publisher for the claims made by the SPLC other than the SPLC.  That's what self-published is.  But even if it were not self-published, the SPLC's views on Rushton are not notable as evidenced by the fact that no reliable source has reported on their views.  Our only source for their views is the SPLC itself. If no one else is reporting on their views on Rushton, then that means it is not a significant view point & deserves no representation in wikipedia. And I consider it potentially libelous when they describe Rushton as venemous.  In addition to being self-published, not notable, & potentially libelous, it's also an extreme minority view point.  Only the SPLC has used the term to "venomous" to describe Rushton.  Wikipedia articles must be written with NPOV.  Editors should not be searching the web for whatever dirt they can find about a living person & sticking it in their wikipedia articles. Needpics (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"In most ways, Michelle Ilse Weyher fit the cliché of an Upper East Sider. The blonde housewife was married to a big-deal lawyer. She had a pet Chihuahua named Mr. Peeper, whom she carried around in a Sherpabag. She occasionally wrote letters to the editor of The New York Times with advice to fellow dog owners. But Weyher stood outinone very bigway. Her charity work was notfor the Junior League or the Met, but for New York's oldest hate group: the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that has supported all manner of racist pseudoscience since 1937.

Virtually all the people who create white nationalist ideology are funded by them," says Heidi Beirich, a writer at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups around the country. The list of Pioneer Fund grantees includes a who's who of "race science" figures: Richard Lynn, an Irish professor who once said that certain groups of people need to be "phased out"; Michael Levin, an NYU professor who was lauded by white supremacists for his 1997 book Why Race Matters; Arthur Jensen, a Berkeley professor who spentmuch of his career writing about the black-white IQ gap.

Michelle Ilse Weyher was the Germany-born third wife of the Pioneer Fund's former president, Harry Weyher. The organization had grown up and grown old in New York City, sup ported by rich city boys like Weyher. It was originally founded by Nazi sympathizer Wickliffe Draper, a philanthropist who advocated segregation and sending blacks to Africa.

After 44 years as the fund's president, Harry Weyher died in 2002. The torch was passed to J. Philippe Rushton, a Canadian psychology professor and hero to white nationalists. Heis notorious for a 1985 book claiming that penis size is inversely proportional to intelligence, i.e., that black men with large penises are inherently stupider than white men with small penises. (Rushton refutes the idea that the fund is a hate group.) To keep the memory of her husband alive, Rushton invited Michelle Ilse Weyher to sit on the board. Like her board colleagues-professors around the U.S., Canada, and Europe-Michelle Ilse Weyher was also a published author-only her claim to fame was not exactly academic. Last year, Weyher self-published an 86-page book titled Barking for Biscuits under the pen name "Mr.Peeper." This tale of "a charming Chihuahua snob from NYC's East Side" was dedicated to her husband, who was also a dog lover.

When she wasn't writing fiction or cavorting with her four-legged friend, Weyher played a role in the Pioneer Fund's selection process. She helped to decide which applicants received the few grants the fund gave out each year. Some went to legitimate scientists studying genetics or intelligence, while others went directly into the pockets of big-league white supremacists."

- Warp and Woof Maria Luisa Tucker. The Village Voice. New York: May 30-Jun 5, 2007. Vol. 52, Iss. 22; pg. 12, 1 pgs

"An organization headed by a prominent University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor has invited four researchers with ties to hate groups to speak at a May conference in Turkey.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the renowned Austrian economist who made headlines in 2005 over remarks he made in the classroom about gays, has invited the researchers to express viewpoints that some civil rights organizations call "academic racism."

They're scheduled to speak at the second annual conference of the Property and Freedom Society, an organization that Hoppe founded in May 2006 to promote "Austro-Libertarianism," according to the organization's Web site.

The conference is scheduled at the Karia Princess Hotel in Bodrum, Turkey, between May 24 and 28. [..]

"This looks like a very serious academic racist event," said Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, a quarterly publication that monitors hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala., provides tolerance education programs and fights legal battles with hate groups. It has publicly denounced several of the individuals scheduled to speak at Hoppe's conference.

One of the invited speakers is Richard Lynn, a professor at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland who is considered at the forefront of the eugenics movement.

Lynn is listed on the board of directors for the New York-based Pioneer Fund, an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a "hate group." [..]

..."The Mankind Quarterly," a journal that receives funding from the Pioneer Fund, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. [..]

"It sounds like a pretty high-level gathering of high-level academic racists," Beirich said of the event.

She said Lynn, Vanhanen and Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, and Jean Phillippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund, "are the movers and shakers ... in this world" of academic racism. [..]

"There are very, very few organizations that will accept money from the Pioneer Fund because of their racist history," Beirich said."

- Researchers tied to hate groups get invitations Lawrence Mower. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Mar 11, 2007. pg. 1.B

"On first glance, Jared Taylor, 55, looks perfectly credible. People who write about him tend to mention his clothing and how nice it is, how remarkable that he is not wearing boots, jeans and a dirty undershirt. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, for example, called him "impeccably dressed," and the Southern Poverty Law Centre has called him the "cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy." [..]

With the help of annual grants from the Pioneer Fund (a private American trust set up in 1937 to promote white racial purity, which is now less overtly racist, and headed since 2002 by J. Philippe Rushton, the notorious race researcher in the University of Western Ontario's psychology department, whom former Ontario premier David Peterson once said he would fire if he could for his views on racial IQ differences), Mr. Taylor conducts a continent- wide public relations campaign in which he is neither academic nor journalist, but a racial pundit who trades on the good names of Yale and Sciences Po, the Institute for Political Studies in Paris, to promote white pride and argue against racial integration. As such, he has spoken his mind everywhere from Fox News to the Queen Latifah Show."

- How not to handle a genteel racist; [National Edition] Joseph Brean. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jan 27, 2007. pg. A.1

"Controversial Canadian professor Philippe Rushton, best known for shocking the world in 1989 with a paper arguing some races were smarter than others, is back with another study saying blacks are not as genetically gifted as whites or East Asians. Sixteen years ago, his theory was incendiary. This time around, it was greeted with a shrug. What's changed? [..]

Then, three years ago, he became president of the Pioneer Fund, a foundation incorporated in 1937 with the goal of "race betterment, with special reference to the United States." Among other things, it funds scientific studies that examine the differences between human beings based on gender, race and class.

The Pioneer Fund has a checkered history. One of its first funding grants in 1937 paid for the U.S. distribution of a Nazi Party film on eugenics. The fund's primary benefactor, Wickliffe Draper, was interested in the idea of repatriating U.S. blacks to Africa and later offered significant financial support for legal battles to oppose the racial desegregation of schools in the U.S.

That activity has led critics to charge that the Pioneer Fund hides an ugly political agenda behind its veil of science. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit advocacy organization, bluntly calls it a hate group."

- Rushton Revisited; [Final Edition] Andrew Duffy. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Oct 1, 2005. pg. A.1.Fro

"A civil-rights organization famous for tracking hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan is now watching several university professors who have suggested that weak parts of the population should be eliminated through a modern version of eugenics.

Although anyone browsing the Internet can find dozens of sites espousing these beliefs, it is especially dangerous when those thoughts come from respected professionals, said Heidi Beirich, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks the academic movement.

"One thing these academics can do is they provide justification to people for their racist beliefs," she said. "If you have a Ph.D. after your name, you have a lot more clout than Joe Schmo who's talking about how evil the Jews are." [..]

As more research money became available in the last 10 years, the rekindled eugenics movement accelerated and attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Beirich said.

"It's definitely re-emerging. At the early part of the (20th) century, eugenics was a very big topic of research ... in the last 10 years it's become resurgent because you have the funding," Beirich said.

She said that most of the research money is coming from the Pioneer Fund, a nonprofit organization that pays for the study of heredity and race. The fund supported the eugenics movement when it began in the 1930s and now spends millions each year on research that looks at genetic differences between the races.

The movement is also growing because researchers interested in eugenics are getting better organized, Beirich said.

Much of their work is published in American Renaissance and Mankind Quarterly, journals that are written in scientific language but don't follow such scientific conventions as peer review - the process that gives other researchers a chance to verify research results.

These researchers also move in the same circles, attend the same conferences, review each other's books and exchange correspondence.

"They know each other very well," Beirich said. "They have gotten their act together. They shouldn't be taken lightly because I think we're going to be hearing more from them in the future."

J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, is one of the researchers at the top of the watch list at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Rushton has researched the differences between the races for years. He has compared IQ scores, brain size and fertility rates of blacks and whites. His studies have led him to conclude that blacks as a whole will never measure up to whites, he said.

"Give them the best opportunities. But I think we have to learn to live with the differences. On average, there are going to be fewer geniuses, fewer people in the top professions," Rushton said. [..]

"The ironic thing is, most of these people are not geneticists," Beirich said. "Rushton literally spends a lot of his time measuring penis size and head size.""

- STIRRING UP ACADEMIA ; RESEARCHERS HOP ON SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS TO PROMOTE THEIR CAUSES Series: Against Their Will North Carolina's Sterilization Program; Danielle Deaver JOURNAL REPORTER. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Dec 12, 2002. pg. 1

"J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, will speak March 11 as part of DarwinFest, a lecture series examining the work of Charles Darwin in recognition of his 200th birthday. WVU spokesman Dan Kim said Rushton's talk will explore altruism and human relationships.

Race won't be part of Rushton's discussion at WVU, but his research on race has led the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights activist group to pin the racist label on him. His controversial claims appear in his book "Race, Evolution and Behavior.""

- WVU speaker called racist: Rushton claims that intelligence a race factor. Cassie Shaner. The Dominion Post Washington: Feb 15, 2009.

There are several examples of mainstream newspapers quoting the SPLC on Rushton, the Pioneer Fund, or related persons. It would be incorrect to say that the SPLC's view of Rushton is not significant. Other than perhaps the Pioneer Fund, and his university, I doubt any other institution has devoted as much attention to Rushton as the SPLC.  Will Beback   talk    01:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided links to any of your sources. Further you have not demonstrated that the SPLC's comment about Rushton being venemous is notable.  That is the criticism that is in the article and the only source the article gives is the SPLC itself Needpics (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to take your concerns about the article seriously if you can't be bothered to  look up citations.  Will Beback has done a lot of research on this matter and I find the sources that he has provided convincing. The SPLC has been quoted frequently by the mainstream media and in a manner similar to the way it has been quoted here.  Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * His sources may be convincing but they are not relevant to the way the SPLC is being referenced in the article. The aricle cites the SPLC calling Rushton "venemous" for a comment he made about black people in Toronto.  This is a very inflamatory criticism of Rushton but there's no evidence that it is notable & wikipedia policy demands that all controversial material(especially of an inflamatory & negative nature) in articles about living people be well sourced & notable. In order to show that it is notable, one would have to produce reliable credible published sources (independent of the SPLC itself) that mention the offense the SPLC took to Rushton's comment about Toronto.   Otherwise wikipedia is not reporting on a controversy, it is creating a controversy. Needpics (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that comments, pro or con, about a subject have to be notable in order to be included. We have a requirement that they have to appear in a reliable secondary source, but not they have to be noted in a second secondary source.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is a requirement that we don't give undue weight to minority view points. The view point that Rushton's comments about Toronto were venemous is a minority view point.  We also have a requirement that controversial material, especially of an inflamatory & negative nature not be poorly sourced.  The SPLC meets wikipedia's definition of a poor source because it's A)self-published and B)extremist (far left politically) both of which violate wikipedia's rules for sources. Needpics (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of available sources that discuss the subject, I'd say that the majority view is expressed by the SPLC. It certainly does not represent a fringe view on this matter. That said, we don't need to quote that exact word, "venomous". I've entirely re-written it.
 * Rushton wrote an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen which blamed the destruction of "Toronto the Good" on its black inhabitants. The Southern Poverty Law Center called the piece "yet another attack" by Rushton and it criticized those who published his work and that of other "race scientists". 
 * That's neutral and does a better job of summarizing the SPLC article.   Will Beback    talk    02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The SPLC are the only ones who had a publicly expressed problem with Rushton's comment about Toronto so that by definition makes it a minority view. In addition, the SPLC are self-published political extremists which makes them a poor source as per wikipedia's definitions.  To include poorly sourced material of a negative inflamatory nature violates wikipedia's policy when it comes to articles about living persons & no amount of rewording can change that. Needpics (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution." Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and praise
An editor added this assertion: Do we have a source that says so directly, or are we deciding that on our own? If the latter, then that might be considered original research and should be left out. If the former, then we should attribute that view.  Will Beback   talk    16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * His work in this area is highly controversial, recieving as much criticism as praise.

Removed criticism from intro. There are three whole sections for criticism in the article already. I appreciate the emotion that this mans claims can bring, however, intros are for basic info and not for immediate condemnation by hostile opposition. I am not atempting to condone his work or refute the criticism, it is simply massively POV to have such hostile criticism in the introduction for a living person of repute who has as many supporters as opponents.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After trawling the records, the aforementioned part that was previously in the intro, can be seen to have been first added on the 19 March 2009 by anonymous editor 99.255.5.248 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.255.5.248 - This editor then reverted an admins wise decision to remove his POV addition. Several other anonymous edits kept it there, despite rv's from admins. This should not be re-added to the intro.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * However, the intro is there to recap the material of the article. If there is a large section of the article on criticism, it is normal that it will be reflected in the intro. Also, the material in the intro is sourced so there are no BLP violations that I see there.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete ongoing discussions, as you did with your last talk edit. It is not normal to have an article take a massively POV position on a living persons work in the intro. Criticism is included in 3 whole sections and should of course be included. However, as can be seen, even just from this article, Rushton has just as much supporters as detractors. In light of this, including damning criticism of him and his work in the intro is as POV as including fawing praise. Please also see the above paragraph for infoGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that Rushton has as many supporters as detractors. Ramdrake is correct that the intro should summarize the body of the article. Since the controversy is significant it should be mentioned in the intro in some way. Could you, Gaius, suggest some text which would reflect that content and that you'd find acceptable?   Will Beback    talk    05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If Rushton's work is regarded as incorrect, racist, or poorly researched by a large number of notable scientists, then it is imperative to mention that in the introduction. GSMR (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rushtons work is regarded as sound by a large number of notable scientists, and derided mostly by non-scientists. Shall we put that in the intro?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's right - David Suzuki, and my anthro textbook disagree. However, if this can be supported, then sure, go ahead. GSMR (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To G.O.P. - If we have sources which make the same conclusikon as you then we can include that. But it would be original research for us to draw our own conclusions about the careers of critics.   Will Beback    talk    17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rushtons work is regarded as sound by a large number of notable scientists, and derided mostly by non-scientists. GOP, can you provide a source for that? So far, I have seen many editors ask you for references for your changes, but you just keep edit-warring and reverting. With all due respect, please provide sources or please leave this bio alone.--Ramdrake (talk)

Why was reference removed twice?
Users with computer IDs of 68.4.56.48 and 130.242.58.37 have both removed the reference that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified VDARE as a hate group. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=VA&m=.3

Do you care to explain why?

Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the other editor(s), but I removed it again because this article is about Rushton, not VDARE.   Will Beback    talk    22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because the SPLC are a well-known far left wing activist group, and as such their opinions are no more authoritative than the opinions of Stormfront. They routinely "identify" groups as hate groups, by their own definition. They are entitled to do that of course, but their activist position by defintion makes them biased and thus unreliable.82.71.30.178 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now is a good time to review this article in light of the best sources; you are welcome to  suggest new sources to ensure that this article and other articles on Wikipedia are well sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some new sources, they do be much more good if incorporated into the article main text than in a further readings sections:

·Maunus· ƛ · 20:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres another one which is in favour of his academic freedom and against political correctness, it also detailedly explains how his academic peers at his own institution rejected his work.

And this one: Andrew S. Winston. The Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol 5, No. 2, 1996, 231-250 Copyright Human Sciences Press, 1996. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Barry R. Gross "The case of Philippe Rushton" Academic Questions Volume 3, Number 4, 35-46, DOI: 10.1007/BF02682900
 * HEre's an MA thesis {pdf}·Maunus· ƛ · 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a book with a long chapter on Rushton's academic case arguing in favour of his academic freedom. (it does leave out the nasty details of the 1988 Ethics board incidents) Hunt, M, 1999. The new know-nothings: The political foes of the scientific

study of human nature. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Maunus. There are plenty of edits ahead. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone verify the Knudtson book?
I'm checking references here, and I'm wondering if anyone has the Knudson book, which appears in few libraries, at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sitting in one of America's biggest research libraries and its not in their catalogue...·Maunus· ƛ · 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Knudtson with 't'. An Amazon.com search confirms "Despite the occasional media stereotype of Rushton" appearing on p 176 of their particular vol. RashersTierney (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing the spelling error that I copied-and-pasted from the article references (which I have now fixed in that regard). I'm having trouble confirming the nature (that is, the reliability per Wikipedia policy) of this source. I'm particularly interested in verifying the E. O. Wilson quotation. (P.S. What is the first published source for the Eysenck quotation later in the same paragraph? That shouldn't be cited to a partisan website, but rather to one of Eysenck's published writings, which I may have at hand in my office.) Thanks for the help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow-up to self: once I ran the Amazon searches, I found that one "quotation" was just flat wrong (it wasn't in proper scholarly quotation form showing what words were omitted) and both were misleading. I have deleted those (and the accompanying section heading) in the interest of WP:V and WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that nothing from that book belongs in the article--the book appears to be a good source about Rushton. But the overall context and tone of the book should be better represented in statements cited to that book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * its not in the catalogue not with the ISBN either, I also can't get it with interlibrary loan it seems.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of this book and I can confirm both quotes are in it. Here are pages 175 and 176 showing the whole first quote:  And here's page 190, with the E.O. Wilson quote. This quote in the article is slightly off (the book actually says "a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk"), though it doesn't change its meaning - I'll change that one in the article to make it accurate, but I don't think there's anything wrong with including these quotes. They were in the source, they weren't being misrepresented in a way that changes their meaning, and there's nothing that violates NPOV about including support for Rushton in sources where it exists, especially next to the quantity of criticism in this article.

Being unable to verify a source is not a good reason to remove something from an article. In fact it's one of the examples of article ownership behavior listed at WP:OWN: "I don't own the book, so I can't confirm your source." You should assume good faith about whoever added the quote to the article rather than assuming they misrepresented the source. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The quotes aren't inaccurate, but they're cherry-picked, and the Wilson is synth if it implies something about Rushton's work with r/K selection theory. EO Wilson's remark was made to Knudsen verbally-and wasn't given in the context of Rushton's work with r/K selection theory, nor did Wilson commit to any opinion about the Rushton's research.  Wilson was conceding that studying genetic variation by geography isn't generally considered controversial except when studying human populations, and the author's context were suggestions that Rushton may have support by other (anonymous) scientists but they're not coming forward.  The "Oh, no!" quote by Rushton about "racial superiority" elsewhere in this article is also cherry-picked, from the same book.  Rushton is quoted elsewhere on page 163 saying the opposite, "One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others".  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotes canonly meaningfully be said to be cherry picked if there are other quotes that could have been chosen that give a different picture - we haven't seen any quotes by Wilson or Knudtson to the opposite effect. In this case cherry picking doesn't really apply because if we include quotes we will have to include both quotes that support and criticize Rushton - tey would of course still have to be picked out from the large array of possible quotes.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Knudtson's chapter on Rushton is somewhat critical overall, but not in a way that goes against what's stated in these quotes. Knudtson doesn't think Rushton lacks credentials as a scientist, or isn't taken seriously as a scientist - his criticism is mostly over whether it's a good idea for scientists to research such socially-sensitive topics.


 * Also the whole chapter is about Rushton's r/K selection theory so the Wilson quote is presented in the same context there that it is in the article, so I don't see a synth issue here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We dont need Knudtson to put Rushton's credentials in doubt there are plenty of other quotes to that effect to choose from. I think perhaps a good idea is to remove the quotes altogether - it is the kind of thing that is immensely difficult to handle in controversial articles because it makes the articles turn ut being quote farms of counterarguments when trying to balance the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have discovered now that lots of block quotes in an article is a pretty reliable sign of POV-pushing in the article. I have to agree with Professor marginalia here that the quotations as they appear in the article misrepresent their source. I would be delighted to see more of what Wilson has said about the whole hypothesis that Rushton defends. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As to cherry-picking: the chapter in Knudtson gives much more space to critical views than "supportive" views, and Wilson's perhaps more accurately described as "neutral" than "supportive". The criticism is not narrowly focused on whether or not the area should be studied at all--the criticisms are about his methods, data, and findings.  There is nothing in Wilson's quote to suggest he was making any claims about Rushton's data, conclusions, or methods related to r/K selection theory--it was a blander statement about geographic variation being a valid area of study in biology and that such studies for human populations are often controversial.  This is no small distinction - Rushton's work in with r/K selection theory is the focus in only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter, and Wilson is not quoted giving any opinion about it.  Instead, the couple of pages describe only the strongly critical opinions about how Rushton applied it.  The way the book is used in #19 is more bothersome imo than #13 because of the many eyebrow-raising quotes in the book about other things Rushton has said that would seem to confirm what critics charge him with.  What it boils down to is that somebody decided that the article needed more "balance" so they flipped through the pages of this book to find found a handful of seemingly "supportive" quotes.  That's not an especially adept way to achieve NPOV-more of a "make do".  The real NPOV concern suggested in Knudtson (#13) might be whether or not Rushton's work in "altruism" should be given more weight here.  I have no opinion-I don't know enough-but if Rushton is more notable for his work in altruism than race differences, it probably warrants more coverage here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the quotes have been cherry picked so that they don't represent the whole of the book. That is a valid concern. But again it can be circumvented by simply not including quotes, but summarising the criticisms and supportive arguments in anaarrative prose style.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Professor marginalia for further discussion of the context of the Knudtson book. On that basis, I have begun bold edits of the section. Consider this reply to the talk page my notice to all editors that I will boldly edit any aspect of article text on the basis of sources, as I find the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Boldness is encouraged. Moving forward is the pressing issue.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I think you should read the chapter if you're able to. I have the book right in front of me, and it's simply false to state that Rushton's r/K selection theory is the focus of "only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter." The entire chapter is titled "Rushton on Race" and there's very little of it that does not discuss this theory. I don't know how to prove this without scanning every page, which I don't think is reasonable.


 * I'm concerned that the content of this article is now being dictated by a consensus of editors who either haven't read the book, or who have read it but are willing to misrepresent its contents here, since they know most other people haven't read it. I don't think this is an appropriate way to determine the content of an article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can scan it and send me a copy I'd be glad to read it. As I said I don't have access to the book through my university library.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm going to email it to you since I'm not sure if posting the whole thing publicly would be a copyright issue. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, please email me.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now had a chance to read the chapter and I must say that I agree with Weiji and Professor that the quotes chosen misrepresented their contexts. Knudtson's statement that Rushton is respected for his work in altrusim and published in wellrespected journals is given as a contrast to his work on race which is published largely in non-peer reviewed, journals such as Personality and individual differences and mankind quarterly - kndutson very clearly shows that Rushtons work on race is not well respected and not endorsed (the only one's presented as uncritically supporting him are his friends ) even by other sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson. The Wilson quote is even more problematic because it leaves out the second half of the quote in which Wilson very clearly states that his reasoning would be completely logical if speaking about non-human animals, implying that this does not necessarrily mean that it is logical for humans, and that he is in basic disagreement about the ethical aspect of drawing up racial hierarchies. I think the chapter by Kndutson is excellent and I actually think it should form the basis for most of the biographical discussion on Rushton - I think Knudtson is extremely fair and sensitive in his treatment of the topic.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everything Knudtson writes about Rushton is more nuanced than blanket support or criticism. He says that some of Rushton's research about race has been published in controversial journals like Mankind Quarterly, but he also mentions that some of it has been published in reputable academic journals too. I do agree that this info from the chapter shouldn't be presented just as support for Rushton, but it shouldn't be presented just as criticism either.


 * I think it's the same with the Wilson quote - it's not pure support or criticism. He mentions the need for "special safeguards" in race research, but also says that "the basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning" in the context of Rushton's r/K theory. Knudtson himself refers to Wilson as an example of "scientific sympathy-for the most part publicly silent-for Rushton's evolutionary thinking on race." I read this to mean that Wilson thinks there's nothing inherently unscientific about Rushton's race theories, but that it's also inevitable that the public will be more sensitive to theories like this when they involve human groups rather than nonhuman animal groups, and because of that he thinks special safeguards are necessary.


 * Being as Wilson is one of the founders of r/K theory, I think his opinion about Rushton is worth including here as long as we can do that in a way that accurately presents the nuances of it. Is it okay if I suggest a way to include Wilson's opinion in the article that accurately summarizes it in the Knudtson book? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilson says its solid evolutionary reasoning in the context of non-human animals. Wilson's statement is I think deliberately ambiguous - it could mean that deep in his heart of hearts he feels blacks are really inferior and that Rushton is right but is being victimized because of his political incorrectness - but it could also mean that he thinks Rushton is committing a basic scientific mistake by applying a theory designed for describing animal social behaviour to humans, a mistake that might have grave political and ethical consequences.

I agree that Knudtson is very nuanced as well, but he also makes it very clear that he doesn't find the theory scientifically convincing or ethical and that he sees it as being rejected by a majority of scholars in the field. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ferahgo-Frankly, I came to the opposite conclusion--that Wilson's "cautiously worded" comment to this one author is being misapplied to convey some authority to Rushton's work with r/K selection theory--and to do so is original research. The statement "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher" is pretty tepid "support", if that was Wilson's intention. All that Wilson defended was Rushton's "basic reasoning"; he was talking about the notion of geographic variation.  If Wilson stands behind Rushton's work we'll need to source it somewhere that actually says this.  "Honest and capable" is the bare minimum demanded of all scientists--but it's not the same as giving a stamp of approval to their research.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I think the best solution is probably just to summarize everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including all of the same ambiguity present in the source. Unless there's an objection I'll make a proposal sometime soon about how the article should handle this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Ferahgo. We should include everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including the fact that the book states that Wilson is one of Rushton's reluctant supporters.  I propose the following be added to the article:

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two co-founders of the r/K selection theory Rushton's cites)is one of Rushton's reluctant supporters and stated the following:

''' "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye". '''

'''Wilson added that even though society should be able to "handle" most areas of sociobiological debate, "when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed." '''


 * All three sources are page 190 of Knudtson's book. Btw there's nothing in the slightest bit ambiguous about what Wilson said.  I'm not going to be denial about Wilson being a supporter and say he's being ambiguous, because what he's saying is very clear.  He's saying the controversy over Rushton's work is emotional and political, not sicentific, and that's why the same theory applied to any other animal but humans would have been accepted. No different from the fact that a lot of people can accept the theory of evolution when it comes to other animals, but can't accept the idea that humans evolved.  But like Ferahgo says, we should just put the totality of Wilson's comments in and let the reader interpret it. Mixaphone (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked up p175-176 of Knudtson, which is cited for "through most of his career as a psychologist, he has been seen as a highly competent researcher" in the lead. While he does make this statement, it is in the midst of impugning the scholarly integrity of one of the journals he most frequently publishes in, and impugning Rushton's own integrity in failing to mention his racialist work in his Guggenheim application (and a number of other topics). It therefore appears to be cherry-picking Knudtson. 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on Rushton and his work section needs reorganization.
I'm still learning what is standard practice for biographical articles on Wikipedia. (It would probably be a good idea for us who are editing this article to look at featured articles about living persons, especially if we can find those about persons who write on some of the same subjects Rushton writes about.) I have no doubt that some kind of section something the current "Opinions on Rushton and his work" section is fairly standard for a biography article. (The title may not be quite the usual title, but we can check and see what is usual.) Surely the current organization of the section, however, is not encyclopedic and not reader-friendly. Rather than long direct quotations from other books, we should be giving a narrative account, perhaps in chronological order, of the various reactions evoked by Rushton's life and career, taking care to fairly represent the weight of opinion in the broader community of scholars. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree competely.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to integrate the critiques with the descriptions of his two main theories: genetic similarity theory and r/k selection theory.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynn and Rushton?
Have any of you read anything commenting on Rushton's work by Michael Lynn? The article at 10.1016/0092-6566(89)90029-9 (Journal of Research in Personality Volume 23, Issue 1, March 1989, Pages 1-6 ) and the follow-up at 10.1016/0092-6566(89)90031-7 (Journal of Research in Personality Volume 23, Issue 1, March 1989, Pages 21-34) look quite interesting. I only just found those articles while searching for the writings of a different author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Altruism work
It should probably be noted that his genetic similarity theory of altruism has also been criticized and is not generally accepted either. see for example the critiques following this article .·Maunus· ƛ · 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also this volume: J. R. Royce & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 73-81). New York: Plenum Press.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * and this: L. Mealy, Comment on the genetic similarity theory. Behavioral Genetics 15 (1985), pp. 571–574. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vague criticism
I removed some criticism which seems to be the standard copy paste disparagement levelled at an unpopular theory: "based on statistically flawed evidence", "failing to understand and misapplying theory". I think some detail is needed about precisely what is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.41.214 (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The section "Application of r/K selection theory to race"
Now it contains only criticisms. We could add supporting research. But the better would be to just have a short description and note that there is criticism and support and refer to the main article.Miradre (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As such I propose summarizing this to "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported as discussed in the article about the book."Miradre (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't support that proposal.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Otherwise I will add supporting sources instead.Miradre (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be WP:GEVAL, for one thing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously only mentioning criticisms is not neutral.Miradre (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not obvious -- and in any case that is a false dichotomy. The article must give WP:WEIGHT "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", not give them equal weight, a priori (as simply stating "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported" would). If it were to turn out that one viewpoint were a "tiny minority" view then "only mentioning criticisms" would be WP:NPOV. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article about the book it is the critics who are the minority view. Not the proponents.Miradre (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a within-article count-up is however not what WP:WEIGHT is asking for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be applied to the criticisms.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It is not an argument for or against either viewpoint -- it is a statement that WP:WEIGHT does not ask for "counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article" in determining how much weight viewpoints should be given, nor does such a counting give an accurate approximation of what that policy is asking for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The point being that there is no evidence for that the criticisms are more important than the support.Miradre (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that the section does not make any mention of the fact that evolutionary biology is moving away from r/K selection as a useful heuristic (a point made in r/K selection theory). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A 1992 article is hardly evidence for current status.Miradre (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to any literature suggesting a reversal of this long term trend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The many studies supporting Rushton's rK theory in the last few years is one example.Miradre (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that they'd be sufficiently numerous to reverse the trend Stearns reported (which had citations decreasing from 42/year in 1977-82). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks fine to me as it is. It contains Rushton's viewpoint and criticisms. Rushton's view is actually fringe considering the fact that r/K selection theory has been almost completely abandoned by Life History Evolutionists. I don't know of any actual experts in that field who support Rushton. E.O. Wilson, one of the founders of r/K selection theory, gave Rushton an endorsement for his book however that isn't even worth mentioning considering the fact that it's an endorsement and not a proper critique. All of the other supporters for the theory appear to be hereditarian researchers who are not experts on evolution and appear to be endorsing it as a compliment to their own work. Graves on the other hand is an expert on Life History Evolution and has provided a detailed critique. The addition of his criticism meets WP:WEIGHT. I recently replaced Kittles and Long (2003) with Sternberg et al. (2005) although the last sentence may need revising in order to more accurately describe the content in that reference. EgalitarianJay (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of researchers and articles supporting the theory as stated in article about the book. NPOV requires the views of both sides also here when describing the theory.Miradre (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to at least 3 reliable sources written by prominent evolutionary scientists the theory was dropped in the early nineties. If you want to contest that get a source that contradicts that statement directly - not through synthesis from minor studies that still apply the model. I have checked two recent textbooks in evolutionary ecology neither mention the model.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some books from the early nineties are hardly evidence for current statues. It is like citing papers from the 90s in order to refute current physics papers.Miradre (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is "evidence" unless and until you can provide contrary evidence that mainstream evolutionary biology (not just a few researchers in evolutionary psychology and related fields) has since rehabilitated it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just a few researchers. Close to 40 has written many peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Pointing to critical 1992 books does not invalidate current research.Miradre (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Joseph L. Graves the theory has been falsified by empirical experiments and virtually abandoned by life history evolutionists. He supported this claim by citing the lack of references to the theory in the BIOSIS database in 2001. Unless evidence can be provided that the theory is now currently in wide use and that other experts have given critiques of Rushton supporting his research I see no reason to alter that section. EgalitarianJay (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples: Miradre (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre: (i) given the idiosyncratic way you calculate such statistics, your "close to 40" is worthless from an evidentiary viewpoint. (ii) Unless the "current research" has been able to overturn the prior findings in evolutionary biology (and as far as I can see, they don't even address them), they remain invalidated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * what do they say about the theory? Mentioning it is not enough - otherwise Graves and stearns mentions would count to its credit.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Various statements. Mostly they just describe the theory. Certainly does not describe it as falsified or incorrect.Miradre (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't evidence either way - using that observation to contradict Stearns and Graves would be synth. Just like trying to use a handful of studies that happen to agree with Rushton to suggest that he has scientific credibility is synth.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is better evidence for the current situation than your 1992 books. Graves is obviously incorrect regarding the current situation as per these textbooks.Miradre (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How? A mere description of the theory does not validate its usage or confirm that the theory has currency among modern Life History Evolutionists. Also at this point we are looking for detailed support for Rushton's application of r/K by evolutionary biologists. Where is it? EgalitarianJay (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was "falsified" or not used then this would obviously be mentioned in the textbooks. Would be inappropriate to learn out incorrect theories. Why would evolutionary biologists who usually deal with non humans comment on Rushton's application to humans? There are a lot of comments on the theory, both supporting and negative, by other branches. Which should be mentioned as per NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No such thing as "obviously incorrect" about a reliable source - and you also can't contradict a positive statement with negative evidence. Graves btw also repeats the claim in two later articles about Rushton. It is less than a week ago that you chastised me for not backing my rejections of "expert testimonies" up with sources (then I did) - now you are rejecting two expert biologists based on your own original research. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not rejecting. I am noting there are opposing views. As per NPOV opposing views should be included.Miradre (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding supporting views but where are they? If you can find some evolutionary biologists who provide a supportive critique of Rushton's application of r/k selection to human races then I would not object to that. EgalitarianJay (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted lots of textbooks do not reject rk theory in general. There are lots of for example psychology researchers supporting the Rushton's theory. There is no reason for that only evolutionary biologists, who seldom do research human psychology, should be allowed to comment on Rushton's theory.Miradre (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are switching topic: You have not provided any actual contradiction of Graves and Stearns conclusions. Circumstantial SYNTH evidence is not valid. Regarding your new topic RK selection is not a psychologic but an evolutionary biology theory and psychologists can talk about rushton's application but have no expertise regarding the theory itself.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your original complaint, Miradre, was that the article only contained criticisms and that we should provide support to bring balance or simply note that there are criticisms and support. If we're going to mention supporting views I think it would be appropriate to cite authorities. If there are no authorities supporting Rushton then the logical thing to do is simply present Rushton's perspective and the authoritative criticisms that address his work. That is what has been done. A handful of Rushton's colleagues who are associated with the Pioneer Fund have given Rushton positive endorsements and attempted to compliment their own theories with his but none of them are authorities on evolutionary biology. Graves is an authority. Kenneth Kay  Kidd, one of the co-authors of Sternberg et al. (2005) is an authority. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect description. I have cited close to 40 reserachers and around 25 peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Most are not associated with the Pioneer Fund.Miradre (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide one or two by scholars who are qualified to give an expert opinion on Life History Evolution? If so they should be added to the article. Simple endorsements of Rushton's views don't lend any credibility to his position. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not simply endorsements. The papers are actual empirical evaluations of the predictions of the theory.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true - the Crovovic paper for example doesn't even use the terms in the evolutionary sense Rushton does but about culturally determined reproductive strategies. I haven't had a time to look at the other papers, but then again I doubt you have either.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the case I see no reason not to add them. Can you present the studies you want to add here? EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior. Now, I am not asking that they all be here. My preferred alternative is simply saying that there are support and criticisms which are discussed in the main article.Miradre (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

<--- Wow, thanks for pointing out another article that is in need of a total overhaul thanks to your editing. How you think that the fact that you snuck in Rushton's racist research as a reliable source into that article supports your contention here is beyond me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual argument in reply to what I stated?Miradre (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, not sure what kind of an "argument" you're looking for here. That a racist author's own racist works shouldn't be used to support the racist views found in those racist works? I think that just goes by "common sense".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Several of the points in that article are based on Rushton's research itself and I notice that quite a few are marked as dubious. I'm in favor of leaving the criticism portion as is (though the last sentence probably needs revision) and simply adding some comments about work that supports Rushton with appropriate references. Graves criticisms are not discussed in great detail. His argument is simply mentioned and referenced. That's keeping it simple and if the supporting views of Rushton can be kept that simple it would benefit the article. EgalitarianJay (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you count the researchers there are close to 40 so it is not just Rushton. But I will add some supporting views if simply referring to the article is not acceptable.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No Miradre we DO NOT simply "count" the number of names attached to supportive articles, most of whom are likely to be grad students working under the direction of others, and all of whom are unlikely to have a sufficient background in evolutionary biology to express an expert opinion on the validity of r/K theory. This has been pointed out to you before, but you continue to WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT this point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are around 10 different lead researchers. Do you really insist that the section should only have criticisms when there are numerous peer-reviewed articles and many researchers supporting the theory? I will be taking this to WP:BLPN if this continues.Miradre (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) I "really insist" that you cease and desist talking about your "close to 40 so" as though it means anything. (ii) I "really insist" that we take a look at the prominence (and relevance of expertise) of your "10 different lead researchers", per WP:WEIGHT, before including them in the article. (iii) I "really insist" that the section give due WP:WEIGHT to the expert opinions of evolutionary biologists on the validity of r/K selection, and that the opinions as to its validity of those outside that field should be given far less weight, even if more recent (I'd be far more likely to take the opinion of a plumber, even if given last week, as to the state of my plumbing, than that of an electrician, even if given today). You are welcome to take it to WP:BLPN, but I would point out that issues as to scientific acceptance of theories are more relevant to WP:FTN, where this article has already been posted. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no evidence presented for that the critics are more important than the proponents. You comparison to plumber is flawed. A better comparison would be between a plumber and municipal water supply employee. Obviously the plumber is better person to ask. Regarding for example if there are psychological empirical evidence in favor of the theory for humans, ask psychologists, not biologists who usually study animals and plants and not humans.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Joseph L. Graves is a prominent evolutionary biologist, the proponents are not (at least AFAIK). In fact as you have not presented any evidence that they have any expertise in that field -- making my "electrician" analogy perfectly on-point. From what I have read, one of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology (and its purported "psychological empirical evidence") is that it inadequately deals with the issue of heritability. This is an issue where biology (and specifically genetics) has primacy, not psychology. There is also the question of whether any of the studies you are promoting actually verify the validity of r/K theory, or simply assume. it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you have read but these supporting studies certainly also look at heritability. Furthermore, the origin of differences are irrelevant for if there are differences. The studies show that there are group differences that vary as they would according to Rushton's theory. Maybe Rushton's evolutionary explanation for these differences are wrong. This does not change that these empirical findings are still there.Miradre (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be unintentionally misusing primary sources here. Do you have any secondary sources? aprock (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have for example the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. Maybe those critical of Rushton's theory are misusing primary sources? Miradre (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the encyclopedia say? aprock (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite neutral and states that the empirical evidence is mixed.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Could you provide the relevant quotes and page numbers please? aprock (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 713-716. There is a lot to quote but regarding mixed evidence: "Empirical evidence for this theory is mixed." Miradre (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could post some of the relevant text. aprock (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And do the authors have expertise relevant to evaluating the validity of r/K theory (my impression is that they're criminologists, not evolutionary biologists)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using evolutionary theories.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using" phrenology either. But where a hypothesis has been discredited in its primary field, continued usage in secondary fields does not substantiate its legitimacy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Psychology or criminology are not discredited. rK-theory is not discredited in biology. I again point to the many biology textbooks mentioning the theory neutrally.Miradre (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first assertion is a non sequitor. Your second is unsubstantiated. None of the texts you point to appear to be in the field of evolutionary biology, so may not have caught up with current thinking from that field. Their existence does not refute expert opinion from that field that it has in fact been discredited. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the textbooks again. Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false. Many of them are certainly dealing with evolution. They are certainly much more recent than the 1992 books.Miradre (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of them contradict the statements of the 1992 studies and only work as SYNTH. And the claim has been repeated in studies from 2001 and 2002. You will need an explicit contradiction for your claims to be any thing other than OR. We have three evolutionary biologists saying that R/K theory is discredited and is not current in biology. You need more than examples of exceptions to that rule to counter those very strong claims.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They certainly show the the concept is not dead after these dates. They do not declare the concept to incorrect or falsified. Your studies does not define some kind of definitive truth which you seem to be thinking.Miradre (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH. Get some quotes to supprt your cause. Like these ones:·Maunus· ƛ · 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "The theory of r- and K-selection was one of the first predictive models for life-history evolution. It helped to galvanize the empirical field of comparative life-history and dominated thinking on the subject from the late 1960s through the 1970s. Large quantities of field data were collected that claimed to test predictions of the theory. By the early 1980s, sentiment about the theory had changed so completely that a proposal to test it or the use of it to interpret empirical results would likely be viewed as archaic and naïve. The theory was displaced by demographic models that concentrated on mortality patterns as the cause of life-history evolution. Although demographic models are known for their density-independent approach and focus on extrinsic mortality, these models can incorporate many ecological features captured by r- and K-selection, such as density-dependent population regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations. We highlight the incorporation of these factors in recent theory, then show how they are manifest in our research on life-history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Explanations of the repeatable suites of life-history differences across populations of guppies originate from demographic models of predator-driven age-specific mortality. Recently, careful examination of guppy demography and habitat has revealed that density-dependent regulation and resource availability may have influenced the evolution of guppy life histories. In the field, these factors covary with predation risk; however, they can be uncoupled experimentally, providing insight into how they may have synergistically driven guppy life-history evolution. Although life-history theory has shifted away from a focus on r- and K-selection, the themes of density-dependent regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations are integral to current demographic theory and are potentially important in any natural system." (r- AND K-SELECTION REVISITED: THE ROLE OF POPULATION REGULATION IN LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION David Reznick, Michael J. Bryant, and Farrah Bashey 2002)·Maunus· ƛ · 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comparative Primate Ecology by P . C Lee (2001) p. 78 "R/K theory was widely used in early studies of life history .... The model has now been replaced... because a large number of studies have shown that the r/K model does not explain" ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Directionality theory: an empirical study of an entropic principle in life‐history evolution. Martin Ziehe Lloyd Demetrius. Proc. R. Soc. B 7 June 2005 vol. 272 no. 1568 1185-1194 "In the 1970s, the model of r–K selection emerged as an influential response to this challenge (Pianka 1970, after MacArthur & Wilson 1967). Although this model provided some qualitative insight into the relationship between ecological constraints and life-history characteristics, its weakness as a predictive model is now recognized (Stearns 1992; Reznick et al. 2002). These shortcomings derive largely from the fact that the r–K selection model (in its analytic expression as distinct from its more qualitative claims) is essentially concerned with populations in which fertility and mortality variables are independent of age. Accordingly, the model is unable to explain in quantitative terms the correlation between ecological conditions, such as density-dependent constraints, and age-dependent life-history characteristics, such as age of sexual maturity, reproductive span and longevity. "·Maunus· ƛ · 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The K-factor, covitality, and personality. from washington.eduAJ Figueredo, G Vásquez, BH Brumbach… Human Nature, 2007. Springer"When the empirical evidence failed to completely support the original r/K theory, however, other theorists suggested that the model was incomplete and that variation in predation needed to included in the model (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey 2002). Once this parameter was incorporated, demographic theory became the predominant view for understanding mechanisms underlying life history strategies (Stearns 1992). This theory focuses on age-structured populations, specifically attending todifferential mortality rates across age groups (Charlesworth 1980). Current life history theories tend to incorporate features from both r/K and demographic theories. A universal feature of all these models [r/K and demographic models] is that environmental effects operate through age- or stage-specific effects. Thus, density-dependent regulation or stochastic effects interact with demographic selection, so that the predicted optimal life history is a function of both demographic selection and the way these additional environmental effects are manifested" (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey 2002:1515)."·Maunus· ƛ · 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discounted reproductive number for epidemiology. TC Reluga, J Medlock… - Mathematical Biosciences and …, 2009 "The r{K selection theory was originally envisioned as a continuum between r selected species in resource-rich environments that evolve to maximize productivity and K selected species in resource-scarce environments that evolve to maximize efficiency. The nomenclature derives from the simple logistic-growth model [mathematical formula] where r represents the per-capita growth rate and K denotes the carrying capacity. In application, however, r{K selection has most often been treated as a polar dichotomy because there is no natural continuum between the carrying capacity K, measured in the same units as the population's size, and the growth rate r, measured in units of inverse time. Although it is a convenient caricature, r{K selection theory has been largely abandoned."·Maunus· ƛ · 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your own sources does not state that theory has been falsified. Only that it was incomplete. "Although demographic models are known for their density-independent approach and focus on extrinsic mortality, these models can incorporate many ecological features captured by r- and K-selection, such as density-dependent population regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations." r/K theory lives on in a modified version.Miradre (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try. This is not how people write about a theory that is still considered viable. Notice how they all write about it in the past tense? R/K theory lives on in a modified version much like polygenism does. That is how sciences progresses it builds on the errors of the past. r/K theory was one of them. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you reread Figueredo et al you quoted above: "Current LHT tends to incorporate features from both r-K and demographic theories. Integrating age-specific mortality parameters provided better predictions and mechanistic explanations for the relationship between the environment and life history strategy (Wilbur, Tinkle, and Collins, 1974). As a model of ecological causation, Pianka's (1970) version of r-K theory has thus been extensively elaborated and revised since the 1980s (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey, 2002; Stearns,1992). Nevertheless, as an organizing principle for empirical description, the general patterning of life history traits has gained continued support (e.g., Rushton, 2004)."Miradre (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or from the conclusions of your first paper: "This new life-history paradigm has matured into one that uses age-structured models as a framework to incorporate many of the themes important to the r–K paradigm."Miradre (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)