Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

• Pioneer Fund critic William H. Tucker writes:

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

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

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

References

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

Mstabba 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mstabba 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI,

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

Since when would thinking that his work is disputable science be a conflict of interest rather than just an opinion? To be

WP:COI, you'd need to demonstrate that these editors have affiliations whereby they have something to gain by criticizing Dr. Rushton.--Ramdrake

19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Mstabba 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Mstabba 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From

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

00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mstabba 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, please re-read

WP:NPOV to reacquaint yourself with the Wikipedia meaning of NPOV. You are consistently demonstrating that your understanding of NPOV is not the same as Wikipedia's definition and/or have failed to present citations to substantiate your claims of a POV slant. NPOV does not mean positive and negative views need to have equal representation.--Ramdrake

14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mstabba 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I restored the material you deleted.

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

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

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

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

See:

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

Rushton's reply:

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

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

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

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

Here's an LTE on the topic:

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

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

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

MoritzB 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

MoritzB 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

See:

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

MoritzB 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

MoritzB 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some press clippings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it rather interesting that the Google search for "Rushton Revisited" [3] has among its top ten hits American Renaissance and Stormfront. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article violates so many wikipedia policies that I don't even know where to begin. It is against wikipedia policy to make libelous claims about living people or to smear them by implying they are racists or members of hate groups using poorly sourced material. You especially can not use self-published sources to do this. Wikipedia policy is clear: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material [4] The references to Rushton by the SPLC are a self-published website & thus clearly violate this rule. The SPLC must be removed from the article immediately. Needpics (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the past, the SPLC has not been considered a self-published source because they apparently have an editorial system to review materials before they're published. "Self-published" usually refers to material published directly by the author without any editorial system, such as a blog or a vanity press book.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia does not want to repeat any libellous material. Libel is a matter for law courts and if the SPLC or other source has printed such material the first recourse would be to ask them to withdraw their material and then to sue them for libel if they don't. I'm not aware of anything like that here. If Rushton or his defenders have issues rebuttals to any of the assertions in the article then we should include those. But otherwise it's not clear that there's anything libellous in this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC is clearly self-published because they are the ones who are publishing their own views. Their views are not being published in an independent source or distributed by an independent source. Beyond that, the fact that our only source for the SPLC's criticism is the SPLC itself means that their views are not particularly notable. Further, many of their views might be considered extreme minority views and to give them space in this article violates wikipedia's undue weight policy. Keep in mind that this source must be held to a higher standard because what they are saying is so inflamatory. Wikipedia's policy is clearly stated at the top of this page: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Implying someone is a racist or a member of hate groups is potentially libelous, thus we can not use unpublished sources, minority view sources, or sources that are not notable claims if we are going to include such material. Needpics (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times publishes its own views too, but that doesn't mean that an individual reporter's article is self-published. Please see

WP:RS for the standards on sources. What material do you believe is "potentially libellous"?   Will Beback  talk

  22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the New York Times is published by the

New York Times Company & individuals such as Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd & Frank Rich are published in the New York Times. There is no author listed for the claims published by the SPLC other than the SPLC itself & there is no publisher for the claims made by the SPLC other than the SPLC. That's what self-published is. But even if it were not self-published, the SPLC's views on Rushton are not notable as evidenced by the fact that no reliable source has reported on their views. Our only source for their views is the SPLC itself. If no one else is reporting on their views on Rushton, then that means it is not a significant view point & deserves no representation in wikipedia. And I consider it potentially libelous when they describe Rushton as venemous. In addition to being self-published, not notable, & potentially libelous, it's also an extreme minority view point. Only the SPLC has used the term to "venomous" to describe Rushton. Wikipedia articles must be written with NPOV. Editors should not be searching the web for whatever dirt they can find about a living person & sticking it in their wikipedia articles. Needpics (talk

) 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several examples of mainstream newspapers quoting the SPLC on Rushton, the Pioneer Fund, or related persons. It would be incorrect to say that the SPLC's view of Rushton is not significant. Other than perhaps the Pioneer Fund, and his university, I doubt any other institution has devoted as much attention to Rushton as the SPLC.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided links to any of your sources. Further you have not demonstrated that the SPLC's comment about Rushton being venemous is notable. That is the criticism that is in the article and the only source the article gives is the SPLC itself Needpics (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to take your concerns about the article seriously if you can't be bothered to look up citations. Will Beback has done a lot of research on this matter and I find the sources that he has provided convincing. The SPLC has been quoted frequently by the mainstream media and in a manner similar to the way it has been quoted here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

His sources may be convincing but they are not relevant to the way the SPLC is being referenced in the article. The aricle cites the SPLC calling Rushton "venemous" for a comment he made about black people in Toronto. This is a very inflamatory criticism of Rushton but there's no evidence that it is notable & wikipedia policy demands that all controversial material(especially of an inflamatory & negative nature) in articles about living people be well sourced & notable. In order to show that it is notable, one would have to produce reliable credible published sources (independent of the SPLC itself) that mention the offense the SPLC took to Rushton's comment about Toronto. Otherwise wikipedia is not reporting on a controversy, it is creating a controversy. Needpics (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that comments, pro or con, about a subject have to be notable in order to be included. We have a requirement that they have to appear in a reliable secondary source, but not they have to be noted in a second secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a requirement that we don't give undue weight to minority view points. The view point that Rushton's comments about Toronto were venemous is a minority view point. We also have a requirement that controversial material, especially of an inflamatory & negative nature not be poorly sourced. The SPLC meets wikipedia's definition of a poor source because it's A)self-published and B)extremist (far left politically) both of which violate wikipedia's rules for sources. Needpics (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my reading of available sources that discuss the subject, I'd say that the majority view is expressed by the SPLC. It certainly does not represent a fringe view on this matter. That said, we don't need to quote that exact word, "venomous". I've entirely re-written it.

• Rushton wrote an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen which blamed the destruction of "Toronto the Good" on its black inhabitants.^[6] The Southern Poverty Law Center called the piece "yet another attack" by Rushton and it criticized those who published his work and that of other "race scientists".^[7]

That's neutral and does a better job of summarizing the SPLC article.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC are the only ones who had a publicly expressed problem with Rushton's comment about Toronto so that by definition makes it a minority view. In addition, the SPLC are self-published political extremists which makes them a poor source as per wikipedia's definitions. To include poorly sourced material of a negative inflamatory nature violates wikipedia's policy when it comes to articles about living persons & no amount of rewording can change that. Needpics (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution."[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor added this assertion:

• His work in this area is highly controversial, recieving as much criticism as praise.

Do we have a source that says so directly, or are we deciding that on our own? If the latter, then that might be considered original research and should be left out. If the former, then we should attribute that view.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you care to explain why?

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

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

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

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of

Now is a good time to review this article in light of the best sources; you are welcome to suggest new sources to ensure that this article and other articles on Wikipedia are well sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some new sources, they do be much more good if incorporated into the article main text than in a further readings sections:

• Buist, Steve (17 Apr. 2000). "The Race-Research Funder". Hamilton Spectator (Ontario). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995), "The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions"
  (PDF), Society, 32: 7–17
• ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )
• Winston, Andrew S. (1996). "The Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton". Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless. 5 (2): 213–229. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

·Maunus·ƛ· 20:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Heres another one which is in favour of his academic freedom and against political correctness, it also detailedly explains how his academic peers at his own institution rejected his work.

• Barry R. Gross "The case of Philippe Rushton" Academic Questions Volume 3, Number 4, 35-46, DOI: 10.1007/BF02682900

And this one: Andrew S. Winston. The Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol 5, No. 2, 1996, 231-250 Copyright Human Sciences Press, 1996. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HEre's an MA thesis[6] {pdf}·Maunus·ƛ· 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a book with a long chapter on Rushton's academic case arguing in favour of his academic freedom. (it does leave out the nasty details of the 1988 Ethics board incidents) Hunt, M, 1999. The new know-nothings: The political foes of the scientific

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

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

I'm checking references here, and I'm wondering if anyone has the Knudson book, which appears in few libraries, at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sitting in one of America's biggest research libraries and its not in their catalogue...·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Try Knudtson with 't'. An Amazon.com search confirms "Despite the occasional media stereotype of Rushton" appearing on p 176 of their particular vol. RashersTierney (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Follow-up to self: once I ran the Amazon searches, I found that one "quotation" was just flat wrong (it wasn't in proper scholarly quotation form showing what words were omitted) and both were misleading. I have deleted those (and the accompanying section heading) in the interest of

WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that nothing from that book belongs in the article--the book appears to be a good source about Rushton. But the overall context and tone of the book should be better represented in statements cited to that book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk

) 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I have a copy of this book and I can confirm both quotes are in it. Here are pages 175 and 176 showing the whole first quote: [7] [8] And here's page 190, with the E.O. Wilson quote. [9] This quote in the article is slightly off (the book actually says "a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk"), though it doesn't change its meaning - I'll change that one in the article to make it accurate, but I don't think there's anything wrong with including these quotes. They were in the source, they weren't being misrepresented in a way that changes their meaning, and there's nothing that violates NPOV about including support for Rushton in sources where it exists, especially next to the quantity of criticism in this article.

Being unable to verify a source is not a good reason to remove something from an article. In fact it's one of the examples of article ownership behavior listed at

The quotes aren't inaccurate, but they're cherry-picked , and the Wilson is synth if it implies something about Rushton's work with r/K selection theory. EO Wilson's remark was made to Knudsen verbally-and wasn't given in the context of Rushton's work with r/K selection theory, nor did Wilson commit to any opinion about the Rushton's research. Wilson was conceding that studying genetic variation by geography isn't generally considered controversial except when studying human populations, and the author's context were suggestions that Rushton may have support by other (anonymous) scientists but they're not coming forward. The "Oh, no!" quote by Rushton about "racial superiority" elsewhere in this article is also cherry-picked, from the same book. Rushton is quoted elsewhere on page 163 saying the opposite, "One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes canonly meaningfully be said to be cherry picked if there are other quotes that could have been chosen that give a different picture - we haven't seen any quotes by Wilson or Knudtson to the opposite effect. In this case cherry picking doesn't really apply because if we include quotes we will have to include both quotes that support and criticize Rushton - tey would of course still have to be picked out from the large array of possible quotes.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Knudtson's chapter on Rushton is somewhat critical overall, but not in a way that goes against what's stated in these quotes. Knudtson doesn't think Rushton lacks credentials as a scientist, or isn't taken seriously as a scientist - his criticism is mostly over whether it's a good idea for scientists to research such socially-sensitive topics.

Also the whole chapter is about Rushton's r/K selection theory so the Wilson quote is presented in the same context there that it is in the article, so I don't see a synth issue here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We dont need Knudtson to put Rushton's credentials in doubt there are plenty of other quotes to that effect to choose from. I think perhaps a good idea is to remove the quotes altogether - it is the kind of thing that is immensely difficult to handle in controversial articles because it makes the articles turn ut being quote farms of counterarguments when trying to balance the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

As to cherry-picking: the chapter in Knudtson gives much more space to critical views than "supportive" views, and Wilson's perhaps more accurately described as "neutral" than "supportive". The criticism is not narrowly focused on whether or not the area should be studied at all--the criticisms are about his methods, data, and findings. There is nothing in Wilson's quote to suggest he was making any claims about Rushton's data, conclusions, or methods related to r/K selection theory--it was a blander statement about geographic variation being a valid area of study in biology and that such studies for human populations are often controversial. This is no small distinction - Rushton's work in with r/K selection theory is the focus in only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter, and Wilson is not quoted giving any opinion about it. Instead, the couple of pages describe only the strongly critical opinions about how Rushton applied it. The way the book is used in #19 is more bothersome imo than #13 because of the many eyebrow-raising quotes in the book about other things Rushton has said that would seem to confirm what critics charge him with. What it boils down to is that somebody decided that the article needed more "balance" so they flipped through the pages of this book to find found a handful of seemingly "supportive" quotes. That's not an especially adept way to achieve NPOV-more of a "make do". The real NPOV concern suggested in Knudtson (#13) might be whether or not Rushton's work in "altruism" should be given more weight here. I have no opinion-I don't know enough-but if Rushton is more notable for his work in altruism than race differences, it probably warrants more coverage here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the quotes have been cherry picked so that they don't represent the whole of the book. That is a valid concern. But again it can be circumvented by simply not including quotes, but summarising the criticisms and supportive arguments in anaarrative prose style.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Professor marginalia for further discussion of the context of the Knudtson book. On that basis, I have begun bold edits of the section. Consider this reply to the talk page my notice to all editors that I will boldly edit any aspect of article text on the basis of sources, as I find the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Boldness is encouraged. Moving forward is the pressing issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I think you should read the chapter if you're able to. I have the book right in front of me, and it's simply false to state that Rushton's r/K selection theory is the focus of "only two or three pages of the 30ish page chapter." The entire chapter is titled "Rushton on Race" and there's very little of it that does not discuss this theory. I don't know how to prove this without scanning every page, which I don't think is reasonable.

I'm concerned that the content of this article is now being dictated by a consensus of editors who either haven't read the book, or who have read it but are willing to misrepresent its contents here, since they know most other people haven't read it. I don't think this is an appropriate way to determine the content of an article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can scan it and send me a copy I'd be glad to read it. As I said I don't have access to the book through my university library.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to email it to you since I'm not sure if posting the whole thing publicly would be a copyright issue. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, please email me.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have now had a chance to read the chapter and I must say that I agree with Weiji and Professor that the quotes chosen misrepresented their contexts. Knudtson's statement that Rushton is respected for his work in altrusim and published in wellrespected journals is given as a contrast to his work on race which is published largely in non-peer reviewed, journals such as Personality and individual differences and mankind quarterly - kndutson very clearly shows that Rushtons work on race is not well respected and not endorsed (the only one's presented as uncritically supporting him are his friends ) even by other sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson. The Wilson quote is even more problematic because it leaves out the second half of the quote in which Wilson very clearly states that his reasoning would be completely logical if speaking about non-human animals, implying that this does not necessarrily mean that it is logical for humans, and that he is in basic disagreement about the ethical aspect of drawing up racial hierarchies. I think the chapter by Kndutson is excellent and I actually think it should form the basis for most of the biographical discussion on Rushton - I think Knudtson is extremely fair and sensitive in his treatment of the topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think everything Knudtson writes about Rushton is more nuanced than blanket support or criticism. He says that some of Rushton's research about race has been published in controversial journals like Mankind Quarterly, but he also mentions that some of it has been published in reputable academic journals too. I do agree that this info from the chapter shouldn't be presented just as support for Rushton, but it shouldn't be presented just as criticism either.

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

Being as Wilson is one of the founders of r/K theory, I think his opinion about Rushton is worth including here as long as we can do that in a way that accurately presents the nuances of it. Is it okay if I suggest a way to include Wilson's opinion in the article that accurately summarizes it in the Knudtson book? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilson says its solid evolutionary reasoning in the context of non-human animals. Wilson's statement is I think deliberately ambiguous - it could mean that deep in his heart of hearts he feels blacks are really inferior and that Rushton is right but is being victimized because of his political incorrectness - but it could also mean that he thinks Rushton is committing a basic scientific mistake by applying a theory designed for describing animal social behaviour to humans, a mistake that might have grave political and ethical consequences.

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

@Ferahgo-Frankly, I came to the opposite conclusion--that Wilson's "cautiously worded" comment to this one author is being misapplied to convey some authority to Rushton's work with r/K selection theory--and to do so is original research. The statement "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher" is pretty tepid "support", if that was Wilson's intention. All that Wilson defended was Rushton's "basic reasoning"; he was talking about the notion of geographic variation. If Wilson stands behind Rushton's work we'll need to source it somewhere that actually says this. "Honest and capable" is the bare minimum demanded of all scientists--but it's not the same as giving a stamp of approval to their research. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think the best solution is probably just to summarize everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including all of the same ambiguity present in the source. Unless there's an objection I'll make a proposal sometime soon about how the article should handle this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree Ferahgo. We should include everything the book says about Wilson's opinion, including the fact that the book states that Wilson is one of Rushton's reluctant supporters. I propose the following be added to the article:

Harvard biologist

Wilson added that even though society should be able to "handle" most areas of sociobiological debate, "when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed."^[10]

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

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

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

I agree competely.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to integrate the critiques with the descriptions of his two main theories: genetic similarity theory and r/k selection theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

It should probably be noted that his genetic similarity theory of altruism has also been criticized and is not generally accepted either. see for example the critiques following this article [10].·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also this volume: J. R. Royce & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 73-81). New York: Plenum Press.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

and this: L. Mealy , Comment on the genetic similarity theory. Behavioral Genetics 15 (1985), pp. 571–574. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Now it contains only criticisms. We could add supporting research. But the better would be to just have a short description and note that there is criticism and support and refer to the main article.Miradre (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As such I propose summarizing this to "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported as discussed in the article about the book."Miradre (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't support that proposal.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Otherwise I will add supporting sources instead.Miradre (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be

WP:GEVAL, for one thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously only mentioning criticisms is not neutral.Miradre (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not obvious -- and in any case that is a false dichotomy. The article must give

WP:WEIGHT "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", not give them equal weight, a priori (as simply stating "Rushton's theory has been both criticised and supported" would). If it were to turn out that one viewpoint were a "tiny minority" view then "only mentioning criticisms" would be WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 17:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article about the book it is the critics who are the minority view. Not the proponents.Miradre (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Such a within-article count-up is however not what

WP:WEIGHT is asking for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The same argument can be applied to the criticisms.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not an argument for or against either viewpoint -- it is a statement that

WP:WEIGHT does not ask for "counting by the number of researchers and articles cited in the article" in determining how much weight viewpoints should be given, nor does such a counting give an accurate approximation of what that policy is asking for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The point being that there is no evidence for that the criticisms are more important than the support.Miradre (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that the section does not make any mention of the fact that evolutionary biology is moving away from r/K selection as a useful heuristic (a point made in r/K selection theory). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A 1992 article is hardly evidence for current status.Miradre (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to any literature suggesting a reversal of this long term trend? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The many studies supporting Rushton's rK theory in the last few years is one example.Miradre (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that they'd be sufficiently numerous to reverse the trend Stearns reported (which had citations decreasing from 42/year in 1977-82). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me as it is. It contains Rushton's viewpoint and criticisms. Rushton's view is actually fringe considering the fact that r/K selection theory has been almost completely abandoned by Life History Evolutionists. I don't know of any actual experts in that field who support Rushton.

WP:WEIGHT. I recently replaced Kittles and Long (2003) with Sternberg et al. (2005) although the last sentence may need revising in order to more accurately describe the content in that reference. EgalitarianJay (talk

) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of researchers and articles supporting the theory as stated in article about the book. NPOV requires the views of both sides also here when describing the theory.Miradre (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to at least 3 reliable sources written by prominent evolutionary scientists the theory was dropped in the early nineties. If you want to contest that get a source that contradicts that statement directly - not through synthesis from minor studies that still apply the model. I have checked two recent textbooks in evolutionary ecology neither mention the model.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some books from the early nineties are hardly evidence for current statues. It is like citing papers from the 90s in order to refute current physics papers.Miradre (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is "evidence" unless and until you can provide contrary evidence that mainstream evolutionary biology (not just a few researchers in evolutionary psychology and related fields) has since rehabilitated it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just a few researchers. Close to 40 has written many peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Pointing to critical 1992 books does not invalidate current research.Miradre (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to

Joseph L. Graves the theory has been falsified by empirical experiments and virtually abandoned by life history evolutionists. He supported this claim by citing the lack of references to the theory in the BIOSIS database in 2001. Unless evidence can be provided that the theory is now currently in wide use and that other experts have given critiques of Rushton supporting his research I see no reason to alter that section. EgalitarianJay (talk

) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples: [11][12]Miradre (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Miradre: (i) given the idiosyncratic way you calculate such statistics, your "close to 40" is worthless from an evidentiary viewpoint. (ii) Unless the "current research" has been able to overturn the prior findings in evolutionary biology (and as far as I can see, they don't even address them), they remain invalidated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

what do they say about the theory? Mentioning it is not enough - otherwise Graves and stearns mentions would count to its credit.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Various statements. Mostly they just describe the theory. Certainly does not describe it as falsified or incorrect.Miradre (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That isn't evidence either way - using that observation to contradict Stearns and Graves would be synth. Just like trying to use a handful of studies that happen to agree with Rushton to suggest that he has scientific credibility is synth.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is better evidence for the current situation than your 1992 books. Graves is obviously incorrect regarding the current situation as per these textbooks.Miradre (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How? A mere description of the theory does not validate its usage or confirm that the theory has currency among modern Life History Evolutionists. Also at this point we are looking for detailed support for Rushton's application of r/K by evolutionary biologists. Where is it? EgalitarianJay (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was "falsified" or not used then this would obviously be mentioned in the textbooks. Would be inappropriate to learn out incorrect theories. Why would evolutionary biologists who usually deal with non humans comment on Rushton's application to humans? There are a lot of comments on the theory, both supporting and negative, by other branches. Which should be mentioned as per NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No such thing as "obviously incorrect" about a reliable source - and you also can't contradict a positive statement with negative evidence. Graves btw also repeats the claim in two later articles about Rushton. It is less than a week ago that you chastised me for not backing my rejections of "expert testimonies" up with sources (then I did) - now you are rejecting two expert biologists based on your own original research. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not rejecting. I am noting there are opposing views. As per NPOV opposing views should be included.Miradre (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding supporting views but where are they? If you can find some evolutionary biologists who provide a supportive critique of Rushton's application of r/k selection to human races then I would not object to that. EgalitarianJay (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted lots of textbooks do not reject rk theory in general. There are lots of for example psychology researchers supporting the Rushton's theory. There is no reason for that only evolutionary biologists, who seldom do research human psychology, should be allowed to comment on Rushton's theory.Miradre (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are switching topic: You have not provided any actual contradiction of Graves and Stearns conclusions. Circumstantial SYNTH evidence is not valid. Regarding your new topic RK selection is not a psychologic but an evolutionary biology theory and psychologists can talk about rushton's application but have no expertise regarding the theory itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your original complaint, Miradre, was that the article only contained criticisms and that we should provide support to bring balance or simply note that there are criticisms and support. If we're going to mention supporting views I think it would be appropriate to cite authorities. If there are no authorities supporting Rushton then the logical thing to do is simply present Rushton's perspective and the authoritative criticisms that address his work. That is what has been done. A handful of Rushton's colleagues who are associated with the Pioneer Fund have given Rushton positive endorsements and attempted to compliment their own theories with his but none of them are authorities on evolutionary biology. Graves is an authority. Kenneth Kay Kidd, one of the co-authors of Sternberg et al. (2005) is an authority. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect description. I have cited close to 40 reserachers and around 25 peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory. Most are not associated with the Pioneer Fund.Miradre (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide one or two by scholars who are qualified to give an expert opinion on Life History Evolution? If so they should be added to the article. Simple endorsements of Rushton's views don't lend any credibility to his position. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not simply endorsements. The papers are actual empirical evaluations of the predictions of the theory.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true - the Crovovic paper for example doesn't even use the terms in the evolutionary sense Rushton does but about culturally determined reproductive strategies. I haven't had a time to look at the other papers, but then again I doubt you have either.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I see no reason not to add them. Can you present the studies you want to add here? EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

<--- Wow, thanks for pointing out another article that is in need of a total overhaul thanks to your editing. How you think that the fact that you snuck in Rushton's racist research as a reliable source into that article supports your contention here is beyond me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any actual argument in reply to what I stated?Miradre (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, not sure what kind of an "argument" you're looking for here. That a racist author's own racist works shouldn't be used to support the racist views found in those racist works? I think that just goes by "common sense".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Several of the points in that article are based on Rushton's research itself and I notice that quite a few are marked as dubious. I'm in favor of leaving the criticism portion as is (though the last sentence probably needs revision) and simply adding some comments about work that supports Rushton with appropriate references. Graves criticisms are not discussed in great detail. His argument is simply mentioned and referenced. That's keeping it simple and if the supporting views of Rushton can be kept that simple it would benefit the article. EgalitarianJay (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you count the researchers there are close to 40 so it is not just Rushton. But I will add some supporting views if simply referring to the article is not acceptable.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No Miradre we DO NOT simply "count" the number of names attached to supportive articles, most of whom are likely to be grad students working under the direction of others, and all of whom are unlikely to have a sufficient background in evolutionary biology to express an expert opinion on the validity of r/K theory. This has been pointed out to you before, but you continue to

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are around 10 different lead researchers. Do you really insist that the section should only have criticisms when there are numerous peer-reviewed articles and many researchers supporting the theory? I will be taking this to WP:BLPN if this continues.Miradre (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) I "really insist" that you cease and desist talking about your "close to 40 so" as though it means anything. (ii) I "really insist" that we take a look at the prominence (and relevance of expertise) of your "10 different lead researchers", per

WP:WEIGHT, before including them in the article. (iii) I "really insist" that the section give due WP:WEIGHT to the expert opinions of evolutionary biologists on the validity of r/K selection, and that the opinions as to its validity of those outside that field should be given far less weight, even if more recent (I'd be far more likely to take the opinion of a plumber, even if given last week, as to the state of my plumbing, than that of an electrician, even if given today). You are welcome to take it to WP:BLPN, but I would point out that issues as to scientific acceptance of theories are more relevant to WP:FTN, where this article has already been posted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented for that the critics are more important than the proponents. You comparison to plumber is flawed. A better comparison would be between a plumber and municipal water supply employee. Obviously the plumber is better person to ask. Regarding for example if there are psychological empirical evidence in favor of the theory for humans, ask psychologists, not biologists who usually study animals and plants and not humans.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is.

Joseph L. Graves is a prominent evolutionary biologist, the proponents are not (at least AFAIK). In fact as you have not presented any evidence that they have any expertise in that field -- making my "electrician" analogy perfectly on-point. From what I have read, one of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology (and its purported "psychological empirical evidence") is that it inadequately deals with the issue of heritability. This is an issue where biology (and specifically genetics) has primacy, not psychology. There is also the question of whether any of the studies you are promoting actually verify the validity of r/K theory, or simply assume. it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 07:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you have read but these supporting studies certainly also look at heritability. Furthermore, the origin of differences are irrelevant for if there are differences. The studies show that there are group differences that vary as they would according to Rushton's theory. Maybe Rushton's evolutionary explanation for these differences are wrong. This does not change that these empirical findings are still there.Miradre (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be unintentionally misusing primary sources here. Do you have any secondary sources? aprock (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have for example the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. Maybe those critical of Rushton's theory are misusing primary sources? Miradre (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What does the encyclopedia say? aprock (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite neutral and states that the empirical evidence is mixed.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Could you provide the relevant quotes and page numbers please? aprock (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 713-716. There is a lot to quote but regarding mixed evidence: "Empirical evidence for this theory is mixed." Miradre (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you could post some of the relevant text. aprock (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And do the authors have expertise relevant to evaluating the validity of r/K theory (my impression is that they're criminologists, not evolutionary biologists)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using evolutionary theories.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"There is no prohibition against criminologists or psychologists using" phrenology either. But where a hypothesis has been discredited in its primary field, continued usage in secondary fields does not substantiate its legitimacy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychology or criminology are not discredited. rK-theory is not discredited in biology. I again point to the many biology textbooks mentioning the theory neutrally.Miradre (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first assertion is a non sequitor. Your second is unsubstantiated. None of the texts you point to appear to be in the field of evolutionary biology, so may not have caught up with current thinking from that field. Their existence does not refute expert opinion from that field that it has in fact been discredited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the textbooks again. Here are some recent books mentioning the theory: Ecology from ecosystem to biosphere, C. Lévêque, 2003. Textbook of Environmental Microbiology, Mohapatra, 2008. Biology of fishes, Q. Bone, Richard H. Moore, 2008. Ecology Basics, Salem Press, 2003. Ant ecology, Lori Lach, Catherine L. Parr, Kirsti L. Abbott, 2010. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach, Timothy Duane Schowalter, 2006. So the claim that is does not appear in biology books is simply false. Many of them are certainly dealing with evolution. They are certainly much more recent than the 1992 books.Miradre (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

None of them contradict the statements of the 1992 studies and only work as SYNTH. And the claim has been repeated in studies from 2001 and 2002. You will need an explicit contradiction for your claims to be any thing other than OR. We have three evolutionary biologists saying that R/K theory is discredited and is not current in biology. You need more than examples of exceptions to that rule to counter those very strong claims.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comparative Primate Ecology by P . C Lee (2001) p. 78 "R/K theory was widely used in early studies of life history .... The model has now been replaced... because a large number of studies have shown that the r/K model does not explain" [13]·Maunus·ƛ· 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your own sources does not state that theory has been falsified. Only that it was incomplete. "Although demographic models are known for their density-independent approach and focus on extrinsic mortality, these models can incorporate many ecological features captured by r- and K-selection, such as density-dependent population regulation, resource availability, and environmental fluctuations." r/K theory lives on in a modified version.Miradre (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. This is not how people write about a theory that is still considered viable. Notice how they all write about it in the past tense? R/K theory lives on in a modified version much like polygenism does. That is how sciences progresses it builds on the errors of the past. r/K theory was one of them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread Figueredo et al you quoted above: "Current LHT tends to incorporate features from both r-K and demographic theories. Integrating age-specific mortality parameters provided better predictions and mechanistic explanations for the relationship between the environment and life history strategy (Wilbur, Tinkle, and Collins, 1974). As a model of ecological causation, Pianka's (1970) version of r-K theory has thus been extensively elaborated and revised since the 1980s (Reznick, Bryant, and Bashey, 2002; Stearns,1992). Nevertheless, as an organizing principle for empirical description, the general patterning of life history traits has gained continued support (e.g., Rushton, 2004)."Miradre (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Or from the conclusions of your first paper: "This new life-history paradigm has matured into one that uses age-structured models as a framework to incorporate many of the themes important to the r–K paradigm."Miradre (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)