Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 2

Citations must be verifiable
What is the source of this claim? This reference #5 is not verifiable:
 * Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research, has said, "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus." According to critic Ulric Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research. Neisser gave support for Richard Lynn's argument in a review of Lynn's history and defense of the fund, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (2004). Neisser stated that "Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: 'Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science.'" Neisser concludes, in agreement with Lynn and against William Tucker's critical 2002 book The Funding of Scientific Racism, that the world was ultimately better off having had the Pioneer Fund: "Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."

Skywriter 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the source should say, "Neisser, U. (2004). Serious scientists or disgusting racists? Contemporary Psychology, 49, 5-7."


 * But, I can't seem to find a copy of this online to see if these comments are taken out of context. I have found material in these articles in the past, were quotes were used in a selective manner that was a bit deceptive. So I do think it would make sense to go back to the source to see if this text is in it at all and to see if it is a fair quote in keeping with whatever else he wrote. futurebird 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the content in accordance with WP:RS. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While the original paper doesn't appear to be readily available, the quotations above are in "A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence ". However because that paper appears to be published on some sort of science blog I'm not sure if it would qualify as a sufficient source in its own right. It may be sufficient as a way of verifying the quotations though. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After 10 months, a response to futurebird's concerns seemed appropriate and are not adequately addressed by the web source cited. I agree that it doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source (no editorial standards or independent review). I'll verify the quotation when I have an opportunity. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neisser's article in Contemporary Psychology is a book review of [Richard Lynn; with a special preface by Harry F. Weyher]]: The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund University Press of America, Lanham, Md. c2001., ISBN 0-7618-2040-x and [William H. Tucker]]: The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c2002., ISBN 0-252-02762-0.


 * The third paragraph begins with, "Lynn's book begins with a self-serving 53-page Preface by Harry Weyher, President of the Pioneer Fund from the 1950s until his death in 2002." The fourth paragraph says, "Lynn reserves his highest praise for William Shockley, the Nobel physicist who became obsessed with race, crime, and reproductions in the 1960s. At the time many of us found Shockley a particularly odious racist, but to Lynn he was 'a courageous and tireless campaigner for research into the causes of human and race differences and for thoughtful consideration of eugenics' (p. 193)."


 * On page 6, Neisser says:


 * The quotation cited above appears in the last portion of the last paragraph. The concluding sentences of the review follows.


 * I would say that the overall tone of the Neisser review is broadly consistent with the other content of the lede. Neisser says that the Pioneer Fund funded organizations and individuals that he clearly considers racist either explicitly or by implication. I would agree with Furturebird, above, that Neisser was quoted in "a selective manner that was a bit deceptive". Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted pictures must meet the Fair Use Standard
The copyrighted picture used in the criticism section doesn't meet fair use. One of the standards was that the information conveyed is necessary and can not be produced by other means. The picture is a black and white of what looks like a researcher measuring two anonymous girls. The researcher is collecting data, I suspose, during twin studies. As far as II understand this, there's nothing about this photo that requires its use here despite its copyright protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the use of Image:Otmar von Verschuer.jpg in this article satisfies the criteria listed for fair use. Consequently, I asserted fair use for the image. The photograph is of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a Mankind Quarterly board member, making a measurement as part of an anthropometric study of heredity. It illustrates the work that the Pioneer Fund supported in the 1920s to 1940s and I know of no free equivalent that would convey that information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wsiegmund's assertions about the image. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Funding anti-immigration etc.
I removed a section pertaining to funding which the Fund has apparently given to fighting immigration, since it was sourced from somewhere called 'Antipas Ministries', which seems to be a website promoting the idea that Armageddon is upon us, and largely the self-published work of one S. Shearer.

A couple of minutes later, Ramdrake put the paragraph back, saying he had sourced it from something more reliable. There are a number of problems here:
 * Ramdrake credits Shearer with having written the article he cites, when in fact the author is a Paul Lombardo;
 * It is not at all the same article as was previously used; and so perhaps unsurprisingly
 * The new article Ramdrake links to does not support the paragraph it is being used to support: indeed, it makes no mention of anything in that paragraph, except for backing up the fact that the Pioneer Fund gave money to the FAIR.
 * Ramdrake restored the link, at the end of the article, to the strange, unreliable website.

Consequently, I have changed the paragraph so that it accurately reflects what the source says, and corrected Ramdrake's citation.

I have no doubt that this Fund has given money to causes such as this, but one does have to be careful about citing things in a proper manner, and that all statements are properly attributable to reliable sources: it's just good scholarly practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time at the moment, but there are numerous sources that describe the funding efforts ofthe Pioneer Fund. I'll add some later and restore deleted text as appropriate. For the future, it's more helpful to mark unsourced text with a tag so other editors can find and add sources. You also appear to have deleted sourced information. I'll restore that too unless you can give a clear reason for its deletion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sourced information I deleted was either not actually backed up by the article that Ramdrake found (in the case of the funding), or was sourced from unverifiable websites (see below).


 * While the primary source was not suitable, it was itself sourced. All of the assertions were easily verifiable. After consulting a newspaper archive I've rewritten and restored the amterial with fresh sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Center for New Community
The Center for New Community is an organisation -- and an extremely obscure organisation at that -- in whose political interests it is to portray the Pioneer Fund as a right-wing extremist group. Consequently, opinion pieces on their website do not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed, scholarly article. The fact is, their description of Rushton's work (I personally do not agree with Rushton, not that it should matter) in the excerpt is a caricature or straw man designed for political propaganda effect. In essence, any small group of people can register a .org domain, say that they are a 'human rights advocacy organisation', and self-publish hatchet jobs on (admittedly dubious) scientific opinions with which they do not agree. An opinion coming from a Steven Jay Gould or someone of that calibre would be far more credible for the article.

To put it another way: if the article is arguing that the Fund has x political orientation, then citing a small organisation whose website proclaims them to have not-x political orientation as a source regarding that Fund fails WP:RS, which states that preference should be given to peer-reviewed, scholarly sources, followed by mainstream, respected, but non-academic sources, and then only others -- and if there is disagreement, the specific views of each source should be spelt out. WP:RS further says that 'the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is'. In essence, there is precisely no evidence of editorial oversight in the material on the CNC's webpage: they can, in effect, say whatever they like and put it there...and they have not even earnt the notability which the likes of the Southern Povery Law Center enjoy. They promote an obscure form of 'faith-based social justice', which is not really a 'mainstream' viewpoint, and nor is it really relevant to the article. As I say, criticism from more recognised sources is a lot more credible.

Anyone can set up a website and put on it their views of the Pioneer Fund -- or anything else -- but that does not mean that the views are relevant. Particularly not if they stoop to the level of caricature instead of addressing the hard facts.

Does that answer your question, Ramdrake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: the quote from the CNC doesn't even add anything to the article anyway. It says that Rushton is currently the head, which is mentioned earlier in the article; it gives a brief summary of the history of the organisation -- in loaded terms -- which is also already covered in the article; and it then describes (in rather crude terms) Rushton's research, which is yet again already described elsewhere. So it gives no new information, but simply -- through its sloppy scholarship/deliberate caricature/progadandistic tone/call it what you will -- lowers the overall level of the section in which it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, and the CNC is entiled to its opinion. 39k on Google tells me the CNC is a notable, if not very well-known organization. Criticism of the Pioneer Fund will come mostly not from peer-reviewed journals (as it doesn't do science), but usually from other organizations, mostly one concerned with human rights.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The CNC are well entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that it is important or relevant, any more than my own (or yours). I have rewritten the paragraph, so that it doesn't continue lowering the tone of the article through childish strawmen, while still trying to capture the points they are making.  I also contextualised the nature of the source a bit better (I hope), as per WP:RS or however it's referred to.
 * I understand that criticism of the Pioneer Fund probably wouldn't appear in peer-reviewed journals, but nonetheless there are sources more notable and respectable than this CNC which could be referred to...the Fund has received a lot of bad publicity, so couldn't claims made in the mainstream media be used instead? I do think they'd carry more weight than the opinions of an obscure NGO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot about the source (and after all that waffle above about citations!). Glad we could come to a compromise: I certainly am not trying to whitewash anything here, but I do feel that if the criticism has a certain intellectual weight, it is more likely to be taken seriously, and not dismissed out of hand as simple smear tactics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdown (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Center for New Community has been cited on the Pioneer Fund in several newspaper accounts, giving credence to it it as a reputable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
This article has been NPOV tagged since December 2007. Are there still concerns that require this tag? If so, they should be listed here at the talkpage, so that the problematic sections can either be fixed, or removed. If no one has specific concerns, then let's just pull the tag. Thanks, Elonka 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can asecertain, it was added in February 2007. A month later, the editor who added it seems to express some satisfaction with the state of the article.Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1, and that was the last time he commented here. I think it's time to remove the tag, which appears to have remained only from inertia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Berlet" :
 * Southern Poverty Law Center Into the Mainstream; An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable. Retrieved April 15, 2008.
 * Berlet, Chip. Into the Mainstream: An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable. Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved July 16, 2006.

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) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of edits back and forth on this article. It would be particularly helpful if additions to this article were cited to sources. I've just verified one source (I have it in my office) previously cited in this article, and I will probably be gathering more. The sources mentioned in the Wickliffe Draper article don't seem to be in the hands of many Wikipedians, but they of course would be helpful for this article too. Sourcing is good. Let's look up sources and check statements in the article as edits continue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

High-quality sources for editing this article.
Getting to know the various articles in this category during the Arbitration Committee case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the  mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those Wikipedia articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject. I've had a chance now to obtain the book mentioned for a while in the article here, and the follow-up book by the same author is on its way to me from the friendly flagship university library.





The first listed book, of course, is directly related to this article, and is a wonderful source finder for facts about the Pioneer Fund and its activities, as well as for the life and work of Wickliffe Draper. I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for most of the articles in the related category here on Wikipedia. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic bans from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Found another source.
Blackmon, Douglas A. "Silent partner: How the South's fight to uphold segregation was funded up North." Wall Street Journal. 11 Jun. 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Change page title to Pioneer Fund, Inc. upon reviewing IRS990 and a similar org
I was checking out the IRS990 forms for Pioneer, since all our sources citing grant recipients seem to be pre-2000, and upon checking Economic Research Inst. and Foundation Center, it seems there are two Pioneer Funds. One is "Pioneer Fund" based out of Denver, whose grant recipients include children's museums, Colorado I Have A Dream, education programs for underprivileged youth, and a whole bunch of very non-eugenicist stuff. The other is "Pioneer Fund, Inc." based in New York City, which grants pretty much exclusively to the research we all know and love.

So the two really need to be distinguished, because Pioneer Fund does a lot of good for the community and doesn't have a main website - the best summary I found is at Pituitary Research, describing Helen M. McLoraine who founded it in the 1960s.

I therefore propose moving this article to Pioneer Fund, Inc.. I have already put up a "not to be confused with" notice, but let's get this done. I'll leave this notice up for 7 days before moving it myself, but I tend to forget things, so please do it without me if you agree.

P.S.: checking out IRS990 shows the full history of support for the New Century Foundation, which was at $40k for FY2008, and seems biannual. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move. Firstly, according to WP:TITLE, articles should be titled "using the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources", and "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name". I have never seen Pioneer referred to with the "Inc."


 * Secondly, there is no article about the other Pioneer Fund, and it seems unlikely that there ever will be, so there's no need for this article to have a title that distinguishes it from the other Pioneer Fund. From WP:TITLE, "If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification". The disclaimer you added to the start of the article is quite enough to make sure that the two Pioneers are not confused with each other, and I don't think adding the "Inc." would serve any purpose.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Other than to make a page about the other Pioneer Fund, which I will likely do. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you decide to create an article about the other Pioneer (I'm not sure if it's notable enough), this article should continue to be named just "Pioneer Fund", with a link to the other article at the start. This is because the Pioneer that has funded Jensen, Rushton, Eysenck etc. is a vastly better known entity -- among other things the subject of at least two book-length treatments and numerous academic and non-academic articles -- and thus clearly the "primary topic for the desired title". I don't quite see why you think the name of this article should be changed, as there's no risk of confusing the two Pioneers.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Victor's comments. This institution has received considerable attention and is rarely, if ever, referred to as "Pioneer Fund, Inc." If a lesser-known institution is also notable, it could be disambiguated. We don't usually add disambiguation notes for non-notable subjects.    Will Beback    talk    21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, I have established a page at Helen M. McLoraine, as it seems she is referenced more than The Pioneer Fund that she established for her donations. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

True Pioneers
Science of the future = rediscovering the wisdom of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.27 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is so laughably pathetic, yet at the same time frightening in it's implications, that I can't imagine anyone that knows anything of science uttering it. Science is NOT "rediscovering the wisdom of the past." What you describe is called DOGMA, adhering to the "wisdom of the past," and it is, in fact, the antithesis of science. Science, on the other hand, is holding the "wisdom of the past" up to the light of evidence and logic and dismissing that which is false, and in this case, profoundly racist. Why am I not surprised that a person capable of such a statement feels it necessary to hide behind the double anonymity of posting on the Internet without identifying themselves in any way? This simple statement is a perfect example of the kind of people who support the Pioneer Fund, those who seek to prove that the "wisdom of the past" IE the past's many-and-varied forms of racism, is desirable. A much more accurate statement is "the racism of the past is the Pioneer Fund's science of the future." RyokoMocha (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

POV intro
Volunteer Marek removed a sourced and prominent view:. The views of both sides should be represented as per NPOV.Miradre (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

On one side we have multiple respectable and reliable sources to back up how the organization is frequently described. On the other you have cherry picked a single quotation. I'm fine with including that quote somewhere in the text but it doesn't belong in the lede as there's nothing to indicate it is representative. Additionally, you're quoting at length, giving this singular view undue weight, while I'm just citing a short and to the point description. Of course I could take each one of my sources and turn each one into a quote - and add several others as well - to balance your practice. But then the lede would be extremely long.

The quote is undue in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style (lead section) states that NPOV also applies to the lead. I must say that your some of your sources see somehow strange and does not seem to be about the Fund directly: "The Republican party and immigration politics: from Proposition 187 to George W. Bush" and " Anti-semitism: a history and psychoanalysis of contemporary hatred". Now Tucker who has written a book about Fund is obviously a very relevant view. But so is Ulric Neisser who headed the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence. He reviewed Lynn's book about fund and is obviously a notable view. As such it should be included as per NPOV. It can be shortened to a single sentence.Miradre (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course NPOV applies to the lede. But NPOV in the lede means representing what most sources say, not what cherry picked sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That applies to both sides.Miradre (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Neisser quote was intended to show that the subject has funded notable research, then that is already covered by the reference to the Twins study and the adoption project. My personal view is that we should avoid using quotations in intros. An appropriate summary of the Neisser material for the intro might be something like "The head of a professional task force reviewing The Bell Jar acknowledged that the PF has sometimes funded useful research".    Will Beback    talk    19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good.Miradre (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lopsided?
Please. I've only included a small fraction of the large number of sources which call this group racist and white supremacist.


 * Avner Falk, "Anti-semitism: a history and psychoanalysis of contemporary hatred", ABC-CLIO, 2008. Quotes:

"In 1937 Draper founded the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation indented to give scholarships to descendants of colonial-era white American families and to support research into "race betterment" through "scientific" eugenics".

It then goes on to describe several of the racists (the term used in the book) who've headed the organization over the years. Talks about publication and promotion of racist books, such as White America. Cheerleeding for Nazi eugenics programs. Support for racist research and "researchers" (again, book's terminology and quotation marks), with Rushton specifically mentioned as one of them.

"Since his death in 1972, Draper and the Pioneer Fund has been criticized for funding "race and intelligence research", which is a euphemism for "scientific" racism."

Here's another:


 * Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. Discussed in a chapter titled "The "New" Scientific Racism". Quotes:

"Pioneer Fund, a foundation whose early leadership had praised aspects of Nazi Germany's racial policies". Then more stuff on the Fund's support for Hitler's policies.

"Draper... the most influential figure in the Pioneer Fund...worked with US HUAAC to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be "repatriated" to Africa". Then more discussion of more racist research sponsored by the fund. Rushton is specifically discussed on pages 7 and 8, as is his "research"

"The list of other recipients of Pioneer Fund's grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland".

Another one:
 * Joe L. Kincheloe, Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined Quotes:

"The "scholarship" supported by the Pioneer Fund is uniformly racist, as it attempts to prove once and for all the inferiority of African Americans and Latinos"

"Besides the Pioneer Fund, another cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment is the Mankind Quarterly - a white supremacist journal financed by the Pioneer Fund".

"At the center of the racist establishment rests the Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937 by Wycliffe Draper to promote the procreation of the progeny of the white families living in America before the Revolutionary War'

"Closely tied to eugenics advocates in Nazi Germany during the years following its founding, the Pioneer Fund lost credibility after the revelation of the Nazi eugenicists' Final Solution. But not to worry, the organization is back in the 1990's" - and on Wikipedia as well, apparently.

"(The) Pioneer Fund (which) has been described by the London Sunday Telegraph as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far-right in American politics"

Another one:


 * Alexander Alland Race in mind: race, IQ, and other racisms. Quotes:

"Pioneer Fund, a private agency noted for its support of racist research"

Here is the story of the white supremacist foundation that finances the underpinnings of "scientific" racism and fuels the worst prejudices in American society.
 * Adam Miller The Pioneer Fund: Bankrolling the Professors of Hate. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 6 (Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 58-61 Quotes:

''A Nazi endowment specializing in production of justifications for eugenics since 1937, the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of right-wing foundations, think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and global anti-Communist coalitions. ''
 * Steven J. Rosenthal. The Pioneer Fund Financier of Fascist Research. American Behavioral Scientist September 1995 vol. 39 no. 1 44-61. Quotes:

''Media reports typically characterize the Fund as “a secretive white supremacist group advocating ‘race betterment.’”''
 * Lombardo, Paul A. “THE AMERICAN BREED”:NAZI EUGENICS AND THE ORIGINS OF  THE PIONEER FUND. Albany Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, Pp. 743-830.

anyway, there's way way way way more where that came from. I could go on but I think it's pretty obvious. And against that we have a single quote that hasn't been verified. If there is lopsidededness here, it's only in that the full extent of the literature on the fund and how it is perceived hasn't been fully articulated. I guess we could put in all those quotes in the lede and then tack on Prof. Neisser for the "opposing view" but somehow I doubt he would appreciate that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously one can find many criticisms of the Pioneer Fund. Does this mean that one should not include notable opposing views? No. If you wish, we can state something like "Numerous sources have accused the... Some sources have..." in order to show that most statements are criticisms.Miradre (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Will Beback's suggestion above is fine.Miradre (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is that you have one quote - can we have it verified btw? - vs. a whole lot of sources. Like you said, it's lopsided, though the lopsidedness goes the other way and there's good reason for it. So giving "equal prominence" to a single cherry picked quote and to a whole bunch of sources is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Like I said above, you can put that quote (after it's been verified) somewhere in the text, but there's no reason to put it into lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neisser if of course commenting on Lynn's book about the Fund so there is another source. No one has said that they need to be given equal prominence in the lead. I have already stated that we can state that most comments are critical.Miradre (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By this "another source" you mean a book by Lynn? Seriously? The same Richard Lynn who is on the board of the fund? So you're saying that there is a positive view of the fund, written by one of its members and this is important or significant because.......?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because even the accused are allowed to defend themselves? Miradre (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court of law but an encyclopedia. Neither is it a forum for propagating fringe racist views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not their view of themselves. They are certainly allowed to present their view of themselves in an article about them.Miradre (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. WP:SELFPUB places restrictions on this, if the sources are self-published or otherwise questionable. It particularly disallows claims that are either (i) about a third party & (ii) "unduly self-serving". And WP:WEIGHT is likely to place further restrictions on the amount of space allowed for their self-descriptions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lynn's book was not self-published.Miradre (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it could easily be considered a questionable source -- as either "promotional" (of the Pioneer Fund) or "extremist". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact both of the reviews see the book more as praise than as neutral evaluation of the fund. Being a grantee himself he is clearly not a neutral or reliable source regarding the fund. This should be obvious as a textbook example of COI.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to? Wikipedia does not exclude views from both side.Miradre (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neisser's statement is interesting because he is clearly responding to a mainstream view which describes the fund as racist and as funding pseudoscience. He basically states that while this is true for most of the funds work it has fomented a scientific debate that he finds important. He does not say that the fund is not racist and he makes it quite clear that his opinion is in contrast to the general consensus. His statement gives us a very clear picture of how to weight the coverage here.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what he stated which was "All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research – research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."Miradre (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider that far too equivocal an endorsement to be given any particular WP:WEIGHT, and certainly to much so to be worth a lengthy direct quote. Any organisation, no matter how extreme, has some probability of occasionally "sponsor[ing] useful research", coming up with an occasional useful idea, etc, etc. Neisser's opinion appears to be (implicitly) that as long as they are marginalised and ignored they are (in Douglas Adams' immortal words) "mostly harmless". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been suggesting shortening the quote.Miradre (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point is, it doesn't belong in the lede at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We could quote the views of Rushton: . Or the prior head: I think an organization accused should be allowed to express its view on the page about it.Miradre (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting using primary sources over secondary sources. When available secondary sources are preferred.  See WP:PST. aprock (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first is of a review of Lynn's book. The second a chapter in the book which is not a primary source.Miradre (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:PST, heads of an organization are not secondary sources with respect to that organization. Until you can come up with actual secondary sources which can be used as a basis of the view you would like to insert, there is little to discuss. aprock (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an review in a scholarly journal. If not qualified, then this would apply to all critical such also. You did not reply regarding the second source.Miradre (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm not representing WP:PST correctly, I suggest you bring the issue up at the appropriate notice board. aprock (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But I am curious regarding your reasoning. As far as I can see reviews must be secondary sources. That would include the first source given here. The book itself is a review of a topic so it would also be a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is based on reading WP:PST. By all means review that policy.  If you're having trouble reading that section, we can discuss your understanding on the talk page for that policy. aprock (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I may eventually. In order to avoid any double standard, do you support removing all critical book reviews of Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior? Miradre (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you understand that heads of organizations are primary sources with respect to those organizations, I'll be happy move on to another issue. aprock (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A review in a scholarly journal is a secondary source. Is there a double standard so that only supportive reviews are excluded while critical should be included?Miradre (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you're still having problems understanding policy. Until you do, there's not much to discuss on this page.  If you would like help understanding the policy, I suggest you take the conversation to WP:RSN, or the talk page of WP:NOR.  aprock (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I may in good time. I am still asking if there is a double standad regarding scholarly book reviews? You have still not replied regarding the second source, Lynn's book. Why should it be excluded when we include a critical book like Tucker's book? Is there a double standard here? Miradre (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. Aprock has already explained why not. And as s/he says, if you're having trouble understanding the explanation you should probably ask somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has not replied regarding the book. Maybe you can explain why including a critical book about the fund but not a supportive is not a double standard? Miradre (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he has. You're either not understanding the reply or pretending not to understand the reply. I have no intention of getting drawn into your silly game. If you don't understand what the problem is, go ask somewhere else because it has already been explained here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets assume that second source is a primary source. But primary sources are allowed in articles about themselves.Miradre (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the first source it is clear that it was written when Rushton was not the head of the Pioneer fund. He refers to another person as being the head. As such the above objection is irrelevant. Is anyone still arguing against including it? Miradre (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the current president it is not obvious to me why his favourable opinion about his own organizatoin is even relevant.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec, response to Miradre's latest)Yes. Whether he was head of the Fund or just a fellow traveler is what is irrelevant. Are you saying you didn't actually bother to look at the source until now?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No evidence has been presented that the claim that the statement that "The organization is frequently described as racist and "white supremacist" in nature" is either "lopsided" or unbalanced. The only purportedly-opposing opinion that has been offered is a single source (Neisser) offering the very equivocal defence that they've "sometimes sponsored useful research". Not only does this source appear to fail to contradict the view that the Fund is racist, such faint praise does not belong in a lead (as it would be a bit like including the fact that a serial killer was kind to animals in the lead of an article about them). I therefore consider that the lopsided is inappropriate and should be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section and WP:WEIGHT
The 'Controversy' section appears to give approximately equal WP:WEIGHT to the often unsourced, self-published and/or WP:FRINGE sourced 'responses' as to the often prominent and well-qualified criticisms. How does this amount to weighting "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add sources.Miradre (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That will not rectify the WP:WEIGHT problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lykken quote
Is City Pages, "an alternative weekly newspaper serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area" featuring "news, film, theatre and restaurant reviews, and music criticism" an adequate source for the Lykken quote? It does not strike me as a particularly reliable source, and I can find no evidence for this quote elsewhere. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of opposing views
See. Self-published statements are allowed in an article about the subject. I find it strange that opposing views regarding serious accusations are deleted.Miradre (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar deletion: Miradre (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB
Editors attention is drawn to WP:SELFPUB, which states:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources."

This specifically forbids the use of "self-published and questionable sources" (which clearly includes www.pioneerfund.org) for information that is either (a) "unduly self-serving" (such as accusing those criticising it of misrepresentation, or claiming Lincoln and Garvey as presidence for Draper), or (b) about third parties (e.g. aforementioned critics, Lincoln, or Garvey). Such claims must be cited to reliable third party sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The statements are not presented as facts but as statements by the Pioneer Fund. "Unduly self-seving" would be claims regarding greatness and such. This is simply replies to criticisms.Miradre (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV gives no indication that it purports to negate WP:SELFPUB, so the fact that they are presented "as statements by the Pioneer Fund" is irrelevant. Just about any claim that is "unduly self-serving" or "about third parties" can be rejigged as somebody's view -- that does not mean that Wikipedia gives open access to the admission of such unvetted views into the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would further point out that www.pioneerfund.org is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a prominent source, and so its viewpoint should be given only negligible WP:WEIGHT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
Given the numerous threads on WP:RSN that appear to have considered this organisation as a sufficiently prominent and reliable source for whether an organisation is a hate group, especially when explicitly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and the fact that Wikipedia actually has a List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, I see no reason for removing it -- particularly when a number of other sources provide concurring opinions. Is there anything especially problematical about including its opinion of this organisation? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we including this self-published opinion while excluding scholarly books and reviews in academic journals? Miradre (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because (i) the SPLC has been scrutinised, and passed the scrutiny of, WP:RSN (on multiple occasions), (ii) it is very prominent (so it is not unreasonable to give it due WP:WEIGHT), & (iii) it is not generally considered an extremist or self-promotional source, so is unlikely to come under WP:QS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Books published by non-profit organizations are not covered by SELFPUB. If they were all of the research paid for by Pioneer money would fall into that category. Secondly If it were covered by WP:selfpub we could still include it since it is clearly stated that it is the organizations own opinion of the group. Thirdly SLPC is well enough respected to be working with law enforcement in relation to hate groups and hate crimes - this clearly shows that they are neither "opinionated" or "fringe". I don't know what kind of bug has bitten Off2RioRob an otherwise competent editor to make him editwar over this.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Self published attacking source in the lede
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights advocacy organization, has characterized the Pioneer Fund as a hate group due to its history and association and funding of organisations and persons perceived to be racist.

http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/index.html

This has recently in a couple of discussions I have been involved in been removed from the lede. Its clearly self published and attacking in nature and has no place in the lede of any article apart from its own. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We were already discussing this above. Could you link to some of those discussions please you are talking about. I do not believe that publications by non-profit organizations are covered by WP:SELFPUB and in any case it doesn't matter since it is only being used to support their own viewpoint.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its cleanly in violation of self pub and is from an opinionated website, attacking in nature against the subject of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is clear about it, SLPC is not just a group of dudes with a website, paying to have their stuff published. can you specify which of the categories specified in WP:SELFPUB SLPC falls into: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets,". Anyway the policy also says that: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." SLPC is clearly among the main authorities on hate groups and hate crime in the US. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the SPLC's publications fit WP:SPS is a matter best discussed elsewhere. But if the issue is just about the immediate source then many newspapers have carried the assertion and we could use one of those for the citation instead.   Will Beback    talk    21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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."
 * Researchers tied to hate groups get invitations Lawrence Mower. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Mar 11, 2007. pg. 1.B
 * ...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. 
 * Warp and Woof Maria Luisa Tucker. The Village Voice. New York: May 30-Jun 5, 2007. Vol. 52, Iss. 22; pg. 12, 1 pgs
 * For example.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you got anything accessible ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are from the Proquest newspaper archive. I can post longer excerpts if there's a question of context.   Will Beback    talk    21:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have a single assessable on-line external to support or replace the WP:SPS please present it for evaluation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Proquest archive is accessible, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to access it. In any case, the VV article is also on their website. Warp and Woof   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the LVRJ article is cited in this piece: "The racist American Eugenics Program: a crime against humanity" (footnote 8).   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well its low quality but at least its secondary, we might be able to use it with correct WP:ATTRIBUTION to add something to the body of the article - from the external -for discussion only - In 2007 Maria Luisa Tucker in an article in The Village Voice referred to the Pioneer Fund as being, "New York's oldest hate group." Heidi Beirich, a writer at the Southern Poverty Law Center was quoted as saying, "Virtually all the people who create white nationalist ideology are funded by them," Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that the VV article is an op-ed piece. Proquest labels it a "Feature" article, not an editorial. And the LVRJ is a respectable, mainstream newspaper.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I appreciate you corrections, but we are still only left with - In 2007 Maria Luisa Tucker in an article in The Village Voice referred to the Pioneer Fund as being, "New York's oldest hate group." Heidi Beirich, a writer at the Southern Poverty Law Center was quoted as saying, "Virtually all the people who create white nationalist ideology are funded by them," Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better. Don't forget the LVRJ. Here's a longer excerpt:
 * ''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. [..] 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." He has published several papers and books on how different races of people are more intelligent than others. On his Web site, Lynn states that the average IQ of black Americans is 85, 15 points higher than blacks in sub-Saharan Africa because "American blacks ... have about 25 per cent (sic) of Caucasian genes and a better environment." In 2002, Lynn wrote in the American Renaissance newsletter, a white separatist publication, that black Americans commit more crimes because they're "more psychopathic than whites." [..] "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. [..] Cynthia Luria, Nevada regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said inviting Lynn and the others to speak was "unacceptable." "It is troubling to ADL that a UNLV professor would host a conference with featured speakers who have confirmed racist viewpoints," Luria said. "While ADL believes in freedom of speech, one only has to research Richard Lynn or Tatu Vanhanen to discover their philosophy is rooted in racism." "These are folks who are on the extreme end of the scientific community," said William Turner, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University and author of the 2002 book "The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund." Turner said Lynn and others use small amounts of scientific evidence to draw large conclusions about a particular race of people, and the Pioneer Fund has been at the forefront of funding such research. According to Turner, the Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 by people with Nazi sympathies, has funded scientists over the years who have come to the conclusion that whites are inherently smarter than blacks. Those conclusions have been used to campaign for rolling back school integration and other successes of the civil rights movement, he said. "There are very, very few organizations that will accept money from the Pioneer Fund because of their racist history," Beirich said.''
 * We can delete this excerpt once this thread goes dormant.   Will Beback    talk    23:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was looking for this to consider and didn't see it, reviewing it now I would be happy to accept it as a WP:RS secondary asserting notability, I am logging off now but would be happy to support a comment added using these externals. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SLPC's publication are fully able to be cited as sources for the opinoions of the SLPC. You appear to not beunderstanding the WP:SELFPUB policy at all. According to your interpretation political party websites could be used as sources of the opinions of the politicans. I don't know what you guys are up to but there really is no need to fudge quotes about this fund it is completely and verifiably mainstream to consider the Pioneer fund a racist organization. This is not about being opinionated this is about presenting the prevailing viewpoint about the organization and not hijacking wikipedia to whitewash this latter day Nazi organization.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There ya go - ya mentioned nazi - issue over. Get the self pub out of the lede via Godwin's law - As far as selfpub goes and your claims that the all poverty law peoples opinion is able to be cited from their own website about anything they opine about is completely in violation also of wikipedia notability - if their opines are notable then secondary publications will report on them - otherwise - get them out of the lede. Off2riorob (talk)
 * Dude you are being really weird about this. We have +10 peer reviewed sources by professors calling this organization Nazi, White Supremacist, Racist and a dedicated to promoting ideologies of hate. This is not a Godwin issue. We do still get to call Nazi organizations Nazi. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to me as being weird, thanks. My interest here is in regard to opinionated self published sources in the lede only, I am open to discussion of that only, as is the topic of the RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for a starters as I have already mentioned it doesn't seem to me that you are applying WP:SELFPUB correctly. This is an NGO that is a respected authority on the topic of hate groups which is being used as a source about its own opinion. It really does not fall under WP:SELFPUB at all. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the lede perhaps elsewhere ... but its still self published and opinionated. Is their opinion as an opinionated website notable in relation to this group? - as the opinion is self published has anyone else reported secondary on the law poverty's opinion of this group? - your position that we should add any attacking comment this opinionated activist website self published about any person or group in the lede of their article is in violation of NPOV and weight and notability and self pub, just to name a few. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The rest of the article is highly critical of the Pioner Fund because that is what a majority of mainstram sources are. The SPLC was included because its opinion summarises these mainstream view better than by writing a long clause about all the indivdidual scholars that have described the fund's racist history and present, and because SPLC is a mainstream authoirity about hate groups in the US. Its publications are political and published by the organization, but this does not mean that they are opinionated or selfpublished. Especially the policy WP:SELFPUB does not cover NGO's. You have still not provided any links to the "recent discussions" regarding SLPC publications as sources. I don't know why you are all of a sudden on a crusade against SPLC but frankly I am not interested in being a part of that. We can put other sources into the lead since there are plenty of them. But I need to make tio clear here that you are in facrt misrepresenting policy and that if you were to take this to its logical consequence no NGO or political organization can be used as sources for their own opinions on wikipedia. I am not going to discuss this more with you at this point. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)i
 * You start.."The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article" - that is irrelevant to this discussion completely. Your claims that the southern law poverty website is allowed to be cited attacking opinionated comments in the lede of anyone they comment about on their website is in violation of almost all of wikipedia en policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't and you are not actually providing any policy quotes that support your assertions. I have showed you throughout this exchange that WP:SELFPUB does not support your assertions. You have provided empty claims and contradictions. Have a nice one.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such policy and guideline positions are well known. The idea that you want to be able to post any attacking comment the poverty law website self publishes on its own website attacking groups and organizations in the lede of those groups and websites is totally unsupportable within policy and guidelines, if you are correct, imagine what the poverty website would start doing if they found out, anything we self publish attacking anyone can be posted to the lede of any wikipedia article of any group or organization we like. Its a tangent but its also pretty much true that the poverty laws hate group opinionated self published claims are not independently notable and are rarely repeated by independent reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated in above (which Off2riorob completely failed to address, in either reverting me, leaving this rather pointless comment on my user talk, or creating this RfC), SPLC has withstood multiple threads querying its reliability on WP:RSN, and so should be considered a WP:RS, unless and until a contrary consensus is established there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a wikipedia reliable source for its self published opinionated claims about other people. I think you ask Will, he has been involved in similar discussions and as you see he is working towards finding and citing secondary reports that assert the designation from the SPL is actually independently notable at all. That is the question you should be asking, is it actually notable that this group has called this group a hate group, and you should then be showing independent reports that support the identification is notable. Hrafn, here on an associated article, J. Philippe Rushton, which is the only reason I find myself looking as this article from a thread related at the BLPN here, (worth a read for the same users making the opposite argument) ..you appear to take the direct opposite position when the boot is on the other foot, here in this edit you remove content "Undid revision 424197713 by Miradre (talk)statement about third parties (and "unduly self-serving" besides) by WP:QSs in violation of WP:SELFPUB, as already stated on talk" - the revert removed the organisations comments defending itself against such as this hate group label. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) It was precisely for opinions on whether groups are hate groups that it was evaluated on WP:RSN, and allowed as reliable. (ii) I have already distinguished SPLC from Miradre's Pioneer Fund-affilaited sources in above. (iii) And of course pretty much any group so accused will self servingly say 'no we're not -- they're bad people who say that we are/we've been misrepresented/other people have said/done similar things/etc/etc' -- that's in part why we have WP:SELFPUB. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources I gave were not self-published. They were published in a scholarly journal and in a book not by a vanity publisher.Miradre (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed that point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You made an incorrect claim on basis of Hans Eysenck having some kind of collaboration with Rushton in order to get the article published. But Eysenck was dead at this time! Furthermore, you have not explained why the book should be excluded.Miradre (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Please cease and desist violating WP:TALK by misrepresenting my statements. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is is a misrepresentation? What is your argument then? Miradre (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you again repeat the claim regarding Eysenck and Rushton having a cozy relationship. Eysenck was still dead when Rushton wrote that review. Then there are some ad hominem attacks against these widely cited researchers that are not relevant for if the research they have proudced in articles and books are reliable sources. An article in an scholarly journals and book not published by vanity publisher about the fund qualified as reliable sources as per WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And its current editors-in-chief are Sybil B. G. Eysenck (Eysenck's widow) and Philip A. Vernon, another Pioneer Fund grantee. Small world, ain't it? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this was the case nine years ago when the article was published? That there was misconduct? Do you have a source or is this just your own accusations against living persons? As another point, here is another source in Albany Law Review .Miradre (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am "saying" is that there is evidence of somewhat incestuous relationships involving this journal (and the Fund), that supports Knudson's original contention, and suggests that the problem is ongoing -- rather than having died with Eysenck, as you suggested. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (And I'd appreciate if you would avoid insering your replies in the middle of my signature -- it screws up the formatting of every post thereafter. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC) )
 * Lots of synth and OR. Do you have a source accusing either the review, the book, or the Albany Law Review article, none of which are self-published, as unreliable? Miradre (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No -- a third party source -- Knudson made the accusation. The rest is simply a response to your own "Lots of synth and OR" attempting to undermine that source (making your latest response ludicrously WP:POT). And no, I did not read that article. I have no particular interest in reading yet another article by somebody who is either a member of the Fund, has received (often large amounts of) funding from it -- or more frequently both. But this seems to be just about the only type of source you cite -- why is that? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One critical view almost a decade before the publication of the review does not make a whole journal unreliable or this a proven view. You have still not replied regarding the Albany Law Review article. Or why a not self-published book by a widely cited researcher should be excluded. Ad hominem attacks against them as persons are not logically valid.Miradre (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go with the WP:OR again. Why is it acceptable for you to do it, but not me? And pointing out a screamingly obvious bias in favour of the Fund by pretty much every source you cite is hardly an "ad hominem attack". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What OR? The only OR I see if your own by using one critical view nine years earlier as evidence for making a whole scholarly journal unreliable. Furthermore, please read WP:NPOV. That a source may represent a particular position is not a reason for excluding it.Miradre (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hafrn, your opinions of the groups is getting in the way of your judgment. Your position appears to be, one group are bad so we can use this self pub but we can't use the bad groups self pub rebuttal. Where is the link to the previous discussion that supports your claim that this groups self published opinion is a reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm simply calling a spade a WP:SPADE. One group is generally regarded as extremist, the other is generally regarded as a reliable opinion on whether a group is a hate group or not. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hrafn about SLPC, but I do think the pioneer's own rebuttal can be included as well if it is done properly. I think Off2RioRob's opinion of something is getting in the way of his beter judgment. Here are the links to some of the RS noticeboard discussion: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22-Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9- Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26 - Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If one reads these discussions, especially the last one, there are lots of disagreements and also criticisms of SPLC. There is certainly no clear consensus that SPLC is a reliable source.Miradre (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew you would say that. But it is noentheless false, there is a quite clear consensus that they are notable and reliable, as long as their opinions are attributed to them directly.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The very long discussion in the third link says otherwise.Miradre (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the SPLC was unique in this regard, some kind of voice in the wilderness assessing this group in such a way, then maybe there'd be room for argument here. But the same thing is said by a dozen other sources - which can't be described as self published. So this isn't exactly controversial and this is really beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this argument the Pioneer Fund's self-published defense against accusations also become a RS since there are other, not self-published sources reaching similar conclusions.Miradre (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

- I am returning to this discussion, but a bit busy today, I am also going over those previous discussions provided by user:Maunus. Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Article protection
Maunus ƛ has opined on my talkpage that this article does not currently need to be locked from editing. Do other editors here agree that this can be resolved through the above discussions without more edit warring? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, the protection did some a bit, well, after the event so to speak. But saying that, I do support preemptive protection in preference to user editing privilege restrictions. So, yes unprotect, I have no intention of editing the article again unless a consensus is formed here or elsewhere, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection. I have not and will not edit war.Miradre (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me - good luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Twin Study Conclusions
I think this statement is misleading if not false.


 * "The studies, along with similar studies, have demonstrated that the heritabilities of intelligence and personality measures are 50 percent or more."

My understanding is that the various studies of the heritability of IQ (or similar measures) have revealed a range of values of from something like 20% to 70%. The number is often reported as 50% as a sort of compromise. But "50% or more" is as misleading as it would be to say 20%.

I recommend a more nuanced statement of the "conclusions" of these various studies, avoiding the word "demonstrate," which suggests something more definitive than we have.

Eperotao (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good observations. Go for it.   Will Beback    talk    01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposing view sources
To summarize:

Self-published by the Pioneer Fund:
 * 

Not self-published:
 * Lynn, R. (2001). The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
 * Weyher, H. F. (2001). Preface to R. Lynn, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. (pp. ix-lxii). Lanham, MD: University Press of America
 * Rushton, J. P. Book review. Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1431-1433
 * Rushton, J. P. (2002). The Pioneer Fund and the scientific study of human differences. Albany Law Review, 65, 207-261

All of the not self-published sources fullfill the criteria for WP:RS. That those who wrote them have a particular POV is not relevant. WP:NPOV allows sources representing a POV as long as all significant views are present. That some dislike these researchers is just ad hominem. The criticism against the journal Personality and Individual Differences can possibly only apply to Rushton' s review of the book since only his review appeared in this journal. Not the other sources. Furthermore, the article critical of the journal was written nine years before Rushton's review and referred to ties between Rushton and Eysenck who was the editor of the journal. At the time of the review Eysenck was dead. As such I see no reason to exclude any of the not self-published sources. Regarding the self-published material by the Fund I see no justification for excluding it if keeping self-published material by the SLPC.Miradre (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rushton is a primary source. Primary sources can be used for content, but secondary sources need to be used to establish proper weight. aprock (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The book review is not a primary source. If it is then all critical book reviews of Race, Evolution, and Behavior should be removed. Regarding the Albany Law Review article so is it mainly a review.Miradre (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pioneer grantees are of course primary sources when writing about the Pioneer fund. We can include it of course, with due care.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Where is that supposed policy? A review is always a review, regardless of who writes it. Its reliability is judged by where it is published.Miradre (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From the first sentence of the description for primary sources at WP:PST: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved. aprock (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is like arguing that a researcher writing a review article on his general area of research is a primary source when in fact most review articles are written by such researchers. Thus, Wikipedia should prohibit most scientific review articles which is of course false. You selectively quoted only part of the policy. A review article is always a review article and a secondary source. Regardless of who writes it. Its reliability is judged by where it is published.Miradre (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the policy, then I suggest you take up your issue on the talk page of the policy. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the policy, I suggest you seek further community input, either through an RfC or on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you do so yourself if you disagree to me adding material fulfilling all criteria for acceptable sources.Miradre (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except Miradre, you do not appear to have a WP:CONSENSUS for adding them. I am also opposed to these sources, at least in part because they are too closely associated with the topic -- which aprock points out makes them WP:PRIMARY sources. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are also arguing that Wikipedia should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved"? Miradre (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that. Here is what I wrote in the first response to you: "Primary sources can be used for content, but secondary sources need to be used to establish proper weight". aprock (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the book review is a secondary source. Unless you want to start removing critical book reviews regarding Rushton's book. The Albany Law Review article is a review which is also secondary source.Miradre (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Pioneer Fund grantees are primary sources when writing about the Pioneer Fund. Their views can certainly be used, but secondary sources are needed to establish weight. aprock (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no such policy. Persons involved in an area are allowed to write an review regarding this area. Your claim means that Wikipedia should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved".Miradre (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your denial of its existence doesn't make the policy disappear. And there is a world of difference between "most scientific review articles [by] researchers doing research in that area" and the review by the president of the Pioneer Fund of a book by a member and beneficiary of the Pioneer Fund on the topic of the Pioneer Fund -- a relationship so thoroughly incestuous that you'd expect everybody involved to have severe birth defects (metaphorically speaking). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He was not head at the time of the review. What are your objections to the other sources?Miradre (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether he was head or not is irrelevant. Those are biased, primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources with a view is not in itself a criteria for exclusion. You are also arguing that Wikipedia should disallow most scientific review articles since they are usually written by researchers doing research in that area and thus "close" and "directly involved"? Miradre (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad nauseum of a point already rebutted. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He became the head the same damn year he wrote both those reviews -- so you're simply splitting hairs. The other sources are parties to the exact same piece of academic incest. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear that he was not head when he wrote the Journal article because he refers to another person as head. Regarding the other sources, you are arguing that Rushton has an undue relationship with the Albany Law review? That Lynn had such a relationship with publisher of his book on the fund? Miradre (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the primary source be excluded. Four the fourth time (previous three:, , ), what is needed is a secondary source to establish the appropriate weight to be given to the views of Pioneer Fund grantees. aprock (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I have previously argued for the exclusion of these sources, I would be prepared to entertain them if a WP:SECONDARY source gave them notice. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These are secondary sources, see below.Miradre (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is like arguing that a researcher writing a review article on his general area of research is a primary source when in fact most review articles are written by such researchers. Thus, Wikipedia should prohibit most scientific review articles which is of course false. You selectively quoted only part of the policy. A review article is always a review article and a secondary source. Regardless of who writes it. Its reliability is judged by where it is published.Miradre (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is a false analogy and a total misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. If a prominent member of the Brookings Institute is writing about the Brookings Institute that's a primary source. If a Brookings Institute member is writing about butterflies, and they are a specialist in butterflies, that is not a primary source. This is simple. Don't pretend otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not it is not a false analogy. The policy page makes no such exclusion.Miradre (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that a if a member of an organization writes about that organization that is equivalent to somebody writing about a topic they are an expert in? The policy page makes no such exclusion because it doesn't cover insanely bad faithed interpretations of itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[3] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[4] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." So when Lynn and Rushton writes about the part of the history of the Fund they were not involved in, then these sources are secondary.Miradre (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again (previously ), if you have a problem with the policy itself, I suggest you take up your issues on the policy talk page. aprock (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest the same to you.Miradre (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also again -- argumentum ad nauseum of a point already rebutted. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would appear, from the above, long-winded and circular, discussion that we still do not have a WP:CONSENSUS for the inclusion of these four Pioneer Fund-affiliated sources, lacking a secondary source demonstrating what WP:WEIGHT they are due. As such, the status quo continues until either a consensus is gained for their inclusion here, or through an RfD, or until the facts underlying the current (lack of) consensus changes. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not preference in WP:BRD for that a particular version, such as the status quo, is automatically better or prefered.Miradre (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) WP:BRD is only an essay -- WP:CONSENSUS is the policy. (ii) Unless you can get a consensus for any change, the status quo holds. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing there stating that the status quo is the preferred version.Miradre (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do think we have WP:CONSENSUS here and it doesn't agree with you. A single editor cannot hold consensus hostage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a logical consequence of that policy. If anybody could unilaterally seek to impose their own preferred version, the consensus would be impotent. STOP WP:WIKILAWYERING! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, I have introduced a new point. See below.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[3] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[4] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." So when Lynn and Rushton writes about the part of the history of the Fund they were not involved in, then these sources are secondary.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As such, I propose we cite them only for arguments regarding that part of the Fund's history they were not involved in. Thoughts? Miradre (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are still primary sources -- their later/current involvement with the Fund makes them an interested party in relation to the earlier history as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See the comparison with the military historian above. Your argument would apply to him as well but does not according to policy.Miradre (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre would have us believe that Rushton became the president of the Fund in 2002, but was "not involved in" the Fund when he wrote two reviews that same year. I say WP:Complete bollocks! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He was not head when he wrote book review. He was certainly involved in the sense of receiving money. But I propose we do not cite him regarding the Fund's history from the time he started receiving money but only for the time period before. On analogy with the military historian above.Miradre (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that (i) he hhistorian in question did not rise, immediately after writing his book, to the head of the German (or Allied) High Command, and that the source in question wasn't a history of said High Command, the analogy does not seem to be appropriate (Rushton's relationship with his subject matter is a lo closer than the historian's). A further differentiating feature is that a historian is a recognised expert on history -- Rushton is not. Therefore the former is a WP:RS on history, the latter is not. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think a soldier's personal relationship with a war is much more intense and closer than Rushton's is with the fund. I do think both Lynn and Rushton qualifies as experts on much the research sponsored by the Fund.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Equine sado-necrophilia
As Miradre appears wholly unwilling to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I'm withdrawing from this conversation until either (i) there looks to be at least some chance of the WP:CONSENSUS shifting, or (ii) a new and compelling argument is introduced to freshen up the corpse. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But I did introduce a new argument above by proposing to limit citing these sources to the time before the authors received funding in accordance with the policy on secondary sources.Miradre (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it hasn't convinced anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A possible way forward
Something about this dispute doesn't make sense to me. I understand that Miradre thinks this article is excessively critical of the Pioneer Fund, and wants it to be less so. But a few months Miradre himself was making this article more critical of the Pioneer Fund.


 * In these two edits Miradre added additional criticism of the fund from the Southern Poverty Law Center.


 * In this edit, Miradre removed a viewpoint defending the fund from the lead, causing the lead to have an entirely anti-fund perspective. The lead contained both pro-fund and anti-fund views before Miradre removed the viewpoint defending the fund.

A few months ago Miradre also made the article about Race, Evolution, and Behavior more critical of the book. More recently he's complained that both of these articles are too critical. I think that if Miradre now thinks these articles should be less critical, he should self-revert some of his own earlier changes that made them more critical. Would anyone object to that idea?Boothello (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst self-reversion of immediately recent changes should always be acceptable (both to allow one to correct one's own errors, and because no consensus can have developed around the new version), according the 'right' to self-revert older changes would appear to be an implicit acceptance of WP:OWNERship, which I think sets a bad precedent. I also don't think it would solve the underlying problem. What we need is greater breadth of (reliable, prominent, third-party) opinion, not less. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Miradre has specifically held up his insertion of criticism into Race, Evolution, and Behavior as evidence for his claim that he does not edit in a POV manner. . aprock (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)