Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 6

Biological support for a biological explanation?
Given that Rushton is offering an explicitly biological explanation for his (disputed) data, with an explicitly ecological and evolutionary biological/anthropological foundation, I find it odd that he appears to have so little support among biologists, anthropologists and ecologists. I'm sure that there are more on both sides than documented here, but would be surprised if I'm found to be mischaracterising the overall balance of opinion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and the like criticising Rushton's claims
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (I would note that I can find no evidence that even his critics on Lewontin's fallacy appear to support Rushton's work, or claim that "'Oriental,' 'Black,' and 'White'" is a useful schema.)
 * Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
 * Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
 * Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
 * Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
 * Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior

Biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and the like supporting Rushton's claims
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Harpending, Henry. Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.
 * I noticed that every critic of Rushton you listed save for Lewontin are being cited in the article, yet the article doesn't include Harpending. Does Harpending need to be left out? We shouldn't exaggerate how much the scientific community disapproves of Rushton by excluding the few researchers who support him. Unless someone provides a good reason for Harpending to be excluded, I'll add his perspective to the article.Boothello (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement made was that "his work has been heavily criticised by the scientific community", which appears to accurately reflect the balance of opinion, and WP:DUE. A citation to Harpending neither substantiates, nor refutes, that statement, so I did not see it as relevant. I would certainly object to what is currently a 'lone dissent' being given any more weight than any of the individual critical opinions, lacking a demonstration that it is more prominent than them. It might however be worth documenting this dissent in the footnote. Addendum: I was unable to get the linked pdf to download to review it (I can't remember if I reviewed it before copying it here, or just copied it from a related article that claimed it was supportive). The first page of this multi-book review can be found here. It states "The result is not very satisfying to me, but Rushton's provocative attempt to bring the methods of science to the data deserves serious attention and respect." That strikes me as fairly ambiguous praise -- but it's possible that there's more 'meat' in the review body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean I'd add Harpending to the lead section, but just add a paragraph on his viewpoint in the "favorable opinions" section. I wouldn't give Harpending any more weight than is given to Brace or Tucker in the "unfavorable" section. I have Harpending's review on my computer so I can quote parts of it here if there's anything you want to verify.Boothello (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the proportions of the favorable & unfavorable 'Academic opinion' subsections roughly reflect the relative number and prominence of opinions, I don't have any problem with that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the POV tag still needed on this article?   Will Beback    talk    18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it on the grounds that the discussion appears to be dormant. William Avery (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton page edit
I made the addition to the page about J. Philippe Rushton describing David Suzuki as a "media personality," because for over the last decade that best describes his activities. Originally, the page described Suzuki as a "geneticist," but Suzuki has done no recent science in the field nor has he published any papers on the subject. Instead, he has published a series of general science books, many of which are children's books.

Suzuki is best known for hosting the CBC television show "The Nature of Things" (which I often watch and enjoy), in which he reads from a script and does voiceovers for wildlife footage. Prior to that, he hosted the CBC-AM programme, "Quirks and Quarks," in which he interviewed scientists in the news. As the host of television and radio shows, I think that the description "media personality" is quite appropriate, since it covers more than one medium.

To describe him as a "geneticist" is, I believe, highly misleading (as if he were Craig Venter), because he does no work in genetics, but I did not wish to contradict the opinion of whoever wrote the original article, so I added "media personality." If you object to that term, how else would you describe the host of television and radio shows and someone who is frequently interviewed on television? What term would you prefer? "Popular recognizable figure"? "Voiceover artist"? "Canada's answer to Bill Nye"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybravura (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to our article, Suzuki "was a professor in the genetics department at the University of British Columbia from 1963 until his retirement in 2001", so it seems extremely accurate to describe him as a geneticist for a comment he made in 1989. Using some other label would be an attempt to downplay the significance of his comments—the views of a "media personality" on genetics can be ignored. Please review WP:TP to learn about signatures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, someone not locked out please do notice that good Mr. Rushton is still in the land of the "Living People", according to the tag!71.192.35.64 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012
Sad news. Phil Rushton died on October 2.

YuryD (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

HIS NEIM WAS JOHN NOT JEAN WTF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þjóvar (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove the smear
"He is frequently described as a white supremacist, a white nationalist, an anti-semite, a neo Nazi, a Ku Klux Klan member, a Holocaust denier, a hater, promoting hate speech, a terrorist, a fascist, and a racist."

This is vicious smear and it also lacks a citation. Do descriptions like this belong on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.162.107 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this article is immensely biased. Saying that "His work was heavily criticised by the scientific community,[2] and it has been widely described as racist" is only part of the truth: it ignores the large number of scientists that recognize the high quality of is research. As any scientist reaching conclusions that go against mainstream theories, Rushton is criticised by some and praised by others. Mentioning only the criticisms is a political statement that does not belong to an encyclopaedic article. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Although important to note the "large" number of scientists that "recognize" the high quality of his research (this language hints at the bias of the editor above in my view) is indeed worthy of inclusion, this page, in it's current manifestation, is far too even handed and represents a "show the other side" mentality of credit to opposing positions despite their widespread invalidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.12.19 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles
I see several editors are commenting on this article about the late Professor J. Philippe Rushton. The best way to improve this article, which surely needs improvement just as most Wikipedia articles do, is to refer to reliable secondary sources that examine his life and work and that set the context of the research issues he wrote about. 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, how I edit) 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi sympathies
I'm not sure how to cite this, but Rushton had clear sympathies with Neo-Nazis, and not just through the Pioneer Fund:

WARNING: Neo-Nazi site: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/remembering-r-philippe-rushton/#more-32157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.212.191 (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the author Greg Johnson or the website are connected with Neo-Nazis? I didn't find anything typically Nazi on the first few pages I opened there. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
A part of this article was worded "His theory was that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason." I changed "Muslim" to Arab, because "Muslims" are obviously represented by peoples of varying ethnicity. Orasis (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for what the late Professor Rushton thought, which is what is really at issue here? Maybe he used one term (or the other) intentionally; the source citation appears to point to "Muslim" as the group of people being spoken about. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Melanocortin theory
Should this article mention his papers on melanocortin theory? One of his last published works was an argument that dark pigment caused black people to behave in a violent and sexually aggressive manner(alongside dropping IQ). From what I've seen of melanocortin studies it doesn't seem like it's valid but I think this should mention what appears to be his final work. Turtire (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with it. And regarding the topic, I am pretty sure animal studies have shown that is correct. Ohh well.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation?
The comment added by an IP here contains what appears to be a violation of WP:BLP and arguably should be removed. Perhaps the IP editor should be asked to revise his comment so that it does not violate BLP? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Category "Scientific Racism"
This RfC asks if this article should or should not be within category "Scientific Racism"?

Survey

 * Support
 * Support. Rushton's research is described as falling within "Scientific Racism" in dozens of reliable sources. It would be hard to imagine a source on the topic of "scientific racism" that does not include prominent mention of Rushton. There is no valid reason to exclude his biography article from the category.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. There are numerous reliable sources from various authors and publishers (and more than one country) that describe Rushton as a participant in a movement of scientific racism. This is not seriously in dispute in any of the reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as per Maunus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

]] User talk:Comatmebro 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Oppose. Being described like that in a number of cherry-picked sources means nothing. It is a very contentious issue where there is no consensus to include him in this category. Rushton was a great scientist, and racism has nothing to do with science. Instead, all forms of racism are pseudoscience. --Dorpater (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Haven't looked at this too closely, but at first glance strikes me as possibly having some WP:BLP & WP:LABEL issues. It's OK to attribute accusations of racism, but unless a subject has described his/herself as a racist or there is really overwhelming consensus the label is apt, it's probably best that we avoid the label "racist" in narrative voice. As always, I'm will to hear and listen to opposing viewpoints. NickCT (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Scientific racism is more of a smear word/label to put on people one disagrees with rather than a useful descriptive term. It is similar to how e.g. reductionist is used by many people. For this reason I think only clear cut cases should be added to such a category, such as Alfred Rosenberg (prominent Nazi race theorist). Rushton is not such a person because his works are published in prominent scientific journals and widely cited (not as criticism!) by active scientists in the field such as Michael Woodley, A. J. Figueredo, Richard Lynn (himself surely a prime target for this category), Gerhard Meisenberg, Linda Gottfredson (herself also a target of the label), Curtis S Dunkel, Joseph L. Nedelec, Dimitri van der Linden and so on. Any prominent scientific researcher doing behavioral research on race who does not accept antirealism attracts this label. The use of the label on prominent scientific researchers violates NPOV and should be kept off Wikipedia. Disclaimer: I'm an active researcher in this area. Deleet (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Racist is certainly what the Marxist student groups who tried him to prevent teaching at the the university already called him the 1970s. Eventhough Rushton is dead and BLP does not apply, it's still a contentious label and POV issue - claiming the discourse around Rushton was simply about scientific racism is biased. The only reason he could fit into that article is because we'd not label him a racist but because others did, but on the other hand this article is already listed at Category:Race and intelligence controversy which covers the controversy (about possible racism) anyway. --Pudeo' 00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose According to WP:Categorization, categories should embody uncontroversial defining characteristics of the article's subject. This is clearly not the case as can be seen from this discussion. Rushton was a bête noire for writers of a certain genre of literature (Tucker, Brace, Alland, etc.) but such things don't define him.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Scientific racism" is a smear term that would categorize Rushton with individuals, movements, and ideas that would only obscure the true nature of his work and his positions on matters of race and politics. MartinAlexander1 (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this would be a violation of WP:BLP. The subject himself has not described himself as racist, therefore it would seem weird to me to include it in the article.  Like an above  user has already said, this matter being referenced in a number of "Cherry-picked" references doesn't mean anything.  Also, racism has nothing to do with science.  I oppose inclusion.  Cheers, [[User:Comatmebro| Comatmebro
 * Oppose Egalitarian fanatism is very powerfull in the West. It's very sad to see people who deserve to go to jail for scientific fraud (like Gould or Diamond) give negative opinion when facts do not agree with their egalitarian delirium.--91.177.56.250 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per all above. Scientific racism is oxymoron. I came here based on invitation of RfC bot. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * claims that the sources for the claim are cherry picked. Rushton is mentioned prominently in all recent books about Scientific Racism - Including C. Loring Brace's "Race is a four letter word", Graves' "The Emperor's new clothes", Alland's "Race in Mind", Tucker's "the Funding of scientific racism", Jackson and Weidman's "Race, racism and science", Sussman's "the myth of race". I challenge Dorpater to find one book on the topic of scientific racism in the 20th century that does not include mention of Rushton. Rushton was by no means a great scientist, many would question whether he was a scientist at all. And in all cases, the sources support including him as one of the most prominent proponents of scientific racism in the second half of the 20th century.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , Rushton is not a living person. And we are discussing the addition of a category, not a label in narrative voice. The label in narrative voice would also be justified though, since literally dozens of reliable source use that label. The category is necessary because as Rushton is probably the single most prominent proponent of scientific racism in the second half of the 20th century - the category itself is meaningless if he is not in it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - He's probably covered by the "recently deceased" clause of WP:BLP. Putting people in categories is de facto labeling them in narrative voice. Might be helpful if you point to the sources. Frankly, I think we might want to consider deleting that category, or removing all the biographies from it. In general, we're pretty cautious about inferring people are racist. I hate to bring up a "Hitler" analogy, but notice that Adolf Hitler isn't in any categories for racism or antisemitism. There are lots of other folks who most of us would agree were famous racists (e.g. George Wallace), and yet they're not in racism categories. Why do you think that is? NickCT (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Hitler analogy is a valid point - though one that I disagree with.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 's claim that "scientific racism" is not well defined is incorrect - the only one's who question its clear cut definition are those who don't like the fact that their own research falls under the definition. Scientific racism is the use of pseudo-scientific argumentation to legitimate claims about racial hierarchies. Rushton's research falls squarely within that definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Scientific racism is the use of pseudo-scientific argumentation to legitimate claims about racial hierarchies." - if that is the case, then why do numerous scientists cite Rushton, as pointed out by Deleet? Are they all also 'pseudoscientists', like Rushton?Dorpater (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of them do so to point out that he is a pseudo scientist and a scientific racist. Except for those who share his belief that there is a biological hierarchy of races, and dont care about the fact that is methods are pseudoscientific. Then a bunch of them cite him because their research was funded by Rushton's pioneer fund. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Much of the anti-Rushton&co. argumentation is also based around William H. Tucker and his Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. Those circles aren't necessarily much larger than Pioneer Fund. --Pudeo' 00:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true, as any serious survey of the "anti-rushton" argumentation will demonstrate. And even if it were the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism has a very different history and academic standing than the pioneer fund had.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Comatmebro's comment above: the category cannot possibly violate WP:BLP as the subject of the article is deceased. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

White and Protected
This man is a racist, but he is White. Had this been Frances Cress Welsing, or Farrakhan racism would be everywhere in the lead (ADL and SPL) and they would be tagged as Black Supremacist. But this racist is a respected White scholar and despite all the evidence is giving the pass.

The Canadian press reported that in interviews
The references go nowhere and the statement is therefore just hearsay?Yonk (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. Philippe Rushton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722020238/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Suzuki-Aronson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on J. Philippe Rushton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050518083518/http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm to http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817172506/http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf to http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515022349/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. Philippe Rushton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420083407/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htm to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106095039/http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/PWC_Conference-update.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/PWC_Conference-update.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias?
As a reader it worries me that this article tries too hard and not very successfully to discredit the author. Wikipedia should have higher standards for objectivity.

For example by starting the bio with: “Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research”

I’m afraid that genetic differences in races is far from “controversial” but rather the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:41:9606:C1BB:3D82:B7F4:A68D (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Biased article
A hugely biased article which gives credit only to Rushton's critics, almost all of whom appear to be Jewish, without also giving his answers and his supporters in the scientific world, of which there were many, equal status. You may not like his research and conclusions but in an encyclopedia absolute neutrality in issues like this must prevail. Eugenics, for instance, is a British theory, adopted across the world notably in California and Sweden, before the "Nazis" even mentioned it. This kind of obvious smear denigrates your article. 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:29F9:6A5:3A66:160A (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, guess what? You deep-sixed any credibility you might have had with this comment - "all of whom appear to be Jewish", hmmm?  Geddoutta here, you anti-Semitic bigot, Wikipedia has no use for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * John Philippe Rushton.jpg
 * Deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)