Talk:Race, Evolution, and Behavior
copy edits lost
a lot of the copy editing i did seems to have been lost in the shuffling. --Rikurzhen 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was under the impression you just did some copy paste - and it looked like you picked up some older versions of what was on the Rushton article before the massive purge. I've added back in sections you seemed to have missed. --JereKrischel 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
editions
what's up with the various editions? need some accounting of that. --Rikurzhen 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- added in the edition information. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Professional opinions, etc
I think the opinions section is important, and shouldn't be removed. Insofar as criticism that is directed towards Rushton v. towards RE&B, I think we need to be very careful in removing anything without making a strong case that it is not related to RE&B. --JereKrischel 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Critiques such as Flynn and Race
These critiques are directly related to the claims made in Race, Evolution and Behavior. Removing them seems inappropriate. --JereKrischel 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Be careful that the material is not OR. The threshold for violating NOR is very low. Also, be careful about what you take to be mainstream opinion. For example, writing the the NY Review of Books, Biology Prof. H. Allen Orr writes:[1]
- We all know that much evil has been committed in the name of various crackpot theories of race. But it does not follow that racial differences do not exist or that science can say nothing sensible about them.
- conclusions that are broadly accepted by human geneticists ... human races are real and they correspond reasonably well to our folk distinctions between peoples from different continents.
- it would be miraculous if these [racial] differences did not exist
- [the existence of race differences] should come as no surprise
- The Flynn effect is important to R&I, but not obviously related to this book; etc... --Rikurzhen 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just found the material in question. Both sections have to go as they are right now. Gil White is not a mainstream voice and there's simply no citations to back up the inclusion of any discussion of the Flynn Effect. --Rikurzhen 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Gil-White may be as controversial a figure as Rushton, but you can't discount his relevance to the book and criticism of it. --JereKrischel 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I happen to like Gil-White, however he has never criticised Rushton, and probably hasn't even heard of Rushton, so what in the world is he doing in this article? Criticising the concept of race is not the same as criticising Rushton's theory. Minorcorrections 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Gil-White specifically mentions Rushton in his "Ressurecting Racism". See chapter 10 for the bulk of his discussion regarding Rushton and Race, Evolution and Behavior. --JereKrischel 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Flynn and Native American sections have no citations. They cannot be kept if they aren't verifiable. The race section does not present a balanced discussion of Rushton's view on race or of the mainstream view of scientists on race. A reference-based rewrite or simply a removal is needed. --Rikurzhen 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Added citations as requested. The race section represents a significant, mainstream critique to Rushton's book - with the understanding that there is great controversy on the subject. --JereKrischel 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- The citations do not appear to support the text they are footnoting. The race section appears to focus on Cavalli-Sforza and his opinions about race. Luca's work is great, but making him the focus of the section is anachronistic. --Rikurzhen 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let me see if I can introduce some direct quotes from the citations to make the link clearer - I agree that the connection isn't well demonstrated, but I think that's an artifact of the shortness of the text. I'll try and do a pass at a tighter integration later tonight. Thanks Rik! --JereKrischel 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Terminology
I think either we go with REB's terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid), or we go with the latest 2004 MeSH terminology. Since this is simply about Rushton's book, whatever terminology he favors in recent articles shouldn't enter into the equation. --JereKrischel 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- The MeSH terminology isn't used in papers that I've seen. the REB terminology is fine, so long as it's defined early on. REB 2nd pp. 42-43 gives Rushton's definitions which I think we echo here. alternatively, we can use the US English standard labels of White, Black and Asian, which would be easier on our readers. --Rikurzhen 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to the REB terminology - best not to assume that there are any standard "White", "Black" and "Asian" labels in US English, and use the terms in the book instead. --JereKrischel 07:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not much of an assumption for U.S. English speakers: Race (United States Census). --Rikurzhen 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think you can see from the standard Census definitions, that 1) it doesn't appropriately map to Rushton's -oids, and can't be used interchangeably, and b) it is simply self-identification. --JereKrischel 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
methodology of aggregation
Sorry, this discussion is very interesting, but probably more appropriate for another venue - we jumped ship on improving the article and just started talking about our own personal interpretations and theories. Archived. --JereKrischel 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed NPOV warning on Validity of Race section
After adding information on Lewontin's Fallacy, I feel that this section does a good job of presenting both sides of the issue as well as promoting further investigation. I removed the the NPOV warning. Let me know if you disagree. Terry 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Made some additional edits, I think you're moving in the right direction though. Hopefully they are to your satisfaction. --JereKrischel 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Saturdayseven edits
Saturdayseven, please try and help us understand your concerns with the existing article, and we can try to come to some compromises which may suit you. Simply erasing large blocks of referenced and relevant information, or adding unreferenced POV pushing text, is not improving the article.
Let's start by agreeing what this article is - it is an article about the book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, including direct criticisms of the book, as well as direct favorable reviews of the book. Since the book also has a very controversial history of publication, it is also proper to include that information.
Let's also agree what this article is not - it is not a recreation of the book's thesis, nor is it an article to defend or attack Mr. Rushton's character or other works.
Can we start with those guidelines, and listen to your concerns before you edit further? Thanks! --JereKrischel 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The text I removed is not specifically relevant to Rushton's book but could be used to attack any racial theory. Let's agree that only cited material specific to Race, Evolution, and Behavior belongs in this article, and this is not the place to debate whether race is a valid concept, whether the Flynn Effect complicates the race IQ theory, and whether Native Americans are mongoloid, unless you can quote someone actually using those arguments to discuss Race, Evolution, and Behavior. If you start using this article to push the POV that race is a fraud the wikipedia community will be forced to balance the blatant bias by adding sources that defend the biological reality of race, and the article will just degenerate into a point by point debate about a complex issue that's beyond the scope of this article. As you made clear on my talk page, you want this article to be well cited, contain no original research, and be focused on the book itself. Please apply this standard consistently, and remove any comments from this article that are not specifically about the book. There are plenty of other articles that debate the validy of race. We don't need to duplicate them here. Saturdayseven
- Please take a look at the text you are trying to remove. There are numerous references to Rushton, his work and this book in particular to warrant not deleting this section wholesale.--Ramdrake 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Saturdayseven, I think if you look closely as Ramdrake suggests, you'll see the comments are specifically about the book. For example:
- Douglas Wahlsten, a biologist, criticized Rushton's book in a review
- David P. Barash also harshly criticises the 'principle of aggregation' in his review
- In a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote
- Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote
- I'll try to go through the other sections and trim out text which may address your concerns. --JereKrischel 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Saturdayseven, please look at the references you've recently attempted to delete - they clearly address Rushton's REB. If you'd like to pull more detail from the references, please feel free, but deleting them is inappropriate. --JereKrischel 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, Rushton cites The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza in his second abridged edition of REB. --JereKrischel 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- See Wiezman (currently cited) for a discussion of the Flynn effect - Rushton defends these findings by arguing that they are based on the Ravens Progressive Matrices Test, a "culture-fair" test that provides a good measure of general intelligence or g. Apart from the difficulty of accepting this finding at face value, tests like the Ravens are particularly changeable and are much more subject to the "Flynn Effect" than broad spectrum tests like the wisc. --JereKrischel 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rushton is specifically named by Gil-White in his book, even though not in Chapter 3. See [2]. --JereKrischel 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, Saturdayseven, discuss your issues here, instead of in the commit comments of your edits. If we can come to a compromise on the talk page, we'll be able to avoid a needless edit-war. Thanks! --JereKrischel 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- We already did reach a compromise and wikipedia needs you to respect it: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Stop putting in quotes that are not DIRECTLY addressing Rushton's book and stop putting in original research POV claims about Native Americans not fitting in with Rushton's theory when no reliable source has made such criticism against his book. Wantednewlook
- I'm sorry, what compromise are you referring to? --JereKrischel 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Did you guys not reach a compromise that the article is to contain no original research. Is the Native American section not original research? Where's your reliable source of someone criticising the book using this argument? Wantednewlook
- I'm sorry, what compromise are you referring to? --JereKrischel 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The link is tenuous at this point, with some confusion drawn because of the "defenders of rushton" clause that links to a defense of the "native american exception" outside of any reference to Rushton's book or theories. Since that point is moot, the Loring Brace source, which although it cites Rushton, does not cite his book directly, was probably a response to that particular claim. I didn't understand what you meant by "compromise" - we agreed to some general principles, and I believe we're working on abiding by them throughout the article.
- If I can find a direct criticism of Rushton's theory based on a native american exception, I'll put it in with a direct reference. Until then, I believe that Saturdayseven is correct that it was not directly related, but tangential to REB. I'm sure that given a direct reference, Saturdayseven will agree that it should be included. --JereKrischel 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want anything in this article that isn't specific to Rushton's book including generic comments by Gil-White that don't address Rushton in particular and certainly not his book. Just because Gil-White mentions Rushton elsewhere in his book does not justify putting a completely separate criticism of race theories in general in section to devoted to criticism of his book. If you insist upon putting in generic critiques against race in general, I'll insist on putting in references that defend race in general. People come here not to read about the race debate in general, but about this specific book and the response it got. I have no problem with the Native American argument if it can be cited as a critique against this book, but for now it's an orginal argument composed by wikipedia editors. Saturdayseven
- You're misconstruing the Sforza quote, Saturdayseven. Rushton specifically cites Sforza in REB, and Gil-White specifically contradicts Rushton's interpretation of Sforza in REB in his book, which prominently holds Rushton up as a target for criticism. --JereKrischel 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the Sforza mention by Gil-White, relating to Entine's Taboo, you'll note the source of that mention is Entine's citation of Rushton, as per chapter 10 of his book: [J. Phillipe] Rushton and other ‘race realists’ do in fact draw upon substantial data in documenting a relationship between brain size and race, cranial capacity and intelligence, intelligence and career success or criminal behavior.. Understanding that Gil-White is talking about the claims re: Sforza sourced in REB is what makes this not original research, and relevant to the topic. --JereKrischel 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rushton mentions Cavali-Sforza only one in the abridged version of Race Evolution and Behavior on pg 40. He doesn’t mention him at all in the unabridged version because the unabrideged version predated the publication of Cavali-Sforza’s work. More importantly, Rushton does not cite Cavali-Sforza to prove the existence of race, he cites Sforza as among the latest bit evidence for the Out of Africa hypothesis that is accepted by mainstream biologists. His exact quote is: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place.[[3]] Your argument that Gil-White is responding to something that is somehow vaguely related to Rushton’s book is a strained argument. It’s not my responsibility to untangle the six degrees of separation. The connection should be clear to all. Saturdayseven
- This article is inclusive of all versions Rushton has published. The connection is quite clear. --JereKrischel 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that it is specifically Rushton's misappropriation of Cavalli-Sforza's work, claiming it to be "comparisons of the races", that is under attack. The Out of Africa theory is not a theory of racial splits, it is a theory of human migration. --JereKrischel 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rushton mentions Cavali-Sforza only one in the abridged version of Race Evolution and Behavior on pg 40. He doesn’t mention him at all in the unabridged version because the unabrideged version predated the publication of Cavali-Sforza’s work. More importantly, Rushton does not cite Cavali-Sforza to prove the existence of race, he cites Sforza as among the latest bit evidence for the Out of Africa hypothesis that is accepted by mainstream biologists. His exact quote is: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place.[[3]] Your argument that Gil-White is responding to something that is somehow vaguely related to Rushton’s book is a strained argument. It’s not my responsibility to untangle the six degrees of separation. The connection should be clear to all. Saturdayseven
- I don't want anything in this article that isn't specific to Rushton's book including generic comments by Gil-White that don't address Rushton in particular and certainly not his book. Just because Gil-White mentions Rushton elsewhere in his book does not justify putting a completely separate criticism of race theories in general in section to devoted to criticism of his book. If you insist upon putting in generic critiques against race in general, I'll insist on putting in references that defend race in general. People come here not to read about the race debate in general, but about this specific book and the response it got. I have no problem with the Native American argument if it can be cited as a critique against this book, but for now it's an orginal argument composed by wikipedia editors. Saturdayseven
- If I can find a direct criticism of Rushton's theory based on a native american exception, I'll put it in with a direct reference. Until then, I believe that Saturdayseven is correct that it was not directly related, but tangential to REB. I'm sure that given a direct reference, Saturdayseven will agree that it should be included. --JereKrischel 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Favorable reviews
Adding in favorable reviews of Rushton's character, or his general theories, is not acceptable. This article is specifically about his book. As such, reviews should be limited to specifically reviews about his book. --JereKrischel 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article is not called book reviews of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Saturdayseven
- That is correct, but in an article regarding a book, book reviews are appropriate. Personal praise for the author is not. What is your fundamental concern here? Do you feel that there needs to be some positive press for Rushton? Could you just find positive book reviews on the book, and add them in instead? --JereKrischel 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The distinction you are trying to draw between the book and the ideas expressed in the book is too abstract to be useful here. Saturdayseven
- It is not abstract at all - it is a clear line. If we open up the field to any positive or negative comments about Rushton, will you object to non-book related criticisms of the man? I'd like to understand your POV a little better. --JereKrischel 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well if it's criticism about his personal life I'll object, but anything related to the theory expressed in the book is fair game. Saturdayseven
- It is not abstract at all - it is a clear line. If we open up the field to any positive or negative comments about Rushton, will you object to non-book related criticisms of the man? I'd like to understand your POV a little better. --JereKrischel 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The distinction you are trying to draw between the book and the ideas expressed in the book is too abstract to be useful here. Saturdayseven
- That is correct, but in an article regarding a book, book reviews are appropriate. Personal praise for the author is not. What is your fundamental concern here? Do you feel that there needs to be some positive press for Rushton? Could you just find positive book reviews on the book, and add them in instead? --JereKrischel 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- And how is an admonition that Rushton should receive a nobel prize at all related to the ideas expressed in the book? --JereKrischel 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because the nobel prize is for the synthesis in his book. I really think the distinction you are trying to draw is pointless. Saturdayseven
- Can you provide the quote in more context? Right now, the quote simply says he deserves a nobel prize, with no limitation on the reason...are you trying to assert that the person saying that meant that he deserved a nobel prize for writing his book? --JereKrischel 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- What else would he deserve a Nobel prize for? The quote is listed on the back of the unabridged version of his book so obviously it's book related. Saturdayseven
- I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include dust-jacket snippets in this article, although I suppose if we were to specifically state that certain quotes came from the dust-jacket, that would be sufficient. PR quotes published by the author himself don't seem to be appropriate, but I'll let other editors weigh in. I'd be happy if a "Dust-jacket praise" section was created. Others may find such a thing objectionable. --JereKrischel 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying that if praise was quoted on Rushton's dust-jacket (where most authors quote praise) it needs to be relegated to a "dust jacket praise" section instead of a general praise section? Why? Just because you want to marginalize any positive feedback this book got. Or is it because you think Rushton fabricates quotes from other scholars in the field? Saturdayseven
- I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include dust-jacket snippets in this article, although I suppose if we were to specifically state that certain quotes came from the dust-jacket, that would be sufficient. PR quotes published by the author himself don't seem to be appropriate, but I'll let other editors weigh in. I'd be happy if a "Dust-jacket praise" section was created. Others may find such a thing objectionable. --JereKrischel 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- What else would he deserve a Nobel prize for? The quote is listed on the back of the unabridged version of his book so obviously it's book related. Saturdayseven
- Can you provide the quote in more context? Right now, the quote simply says he deserves a nobel prize, with no limitation on the reason...are you trying to assert that the person saying that meant that he deserved a nobel prize for writing his book? --JereKrischel 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because the nobel prize is for the synthesis in his book. I really think the distinction you are trying to draw is pointless. Saturdayseven
- And how is an admonition that Rushton should receive a nobel prize at all related to the ideas expressed in the book? --JereKrischel 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, a dust-jacket selectively quotes to make the most favorable impression of the reader. It would be more credible to simply find the original source, and take the quote from there. Relying on the public relations media put out for a book as a neutral source of reference is probably poor form. We can do better than that, I'm sure. --JereKrischel 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well seeing as the section is devoted to "favourable opinions" selectively finding positive quotes is kind of the point. Saturdayseven
- Of course putting positive quotes there is the point, but putting positive reviews as listed in the marketing materials for a book on the book's page in Wikipedia doesn't quite seem right, don't you think? Something tells me we avoid the issue of conflict of interest if we cite the sources from their source, not from the dust-jacket blurbs. --JereKrischel 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well seeing as the section is devoted to "favourable opinions" selectively finding positive quotes is kind of the point. Saturdayseven
- Obviously, a dust-jacket selectively quotes to make the most favorable impression of the reader. It would be more credible to simply find the original source, and take the quote from there. Relying on the public relations media put out for a book as a neutral source of reference is probably poor form. We can do better than that, I'm sure. --JereKrischel 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, please provide citations before adding in your favorable quotes. Unreferenced text should not be included in the article. I'll wait until tomorrow before removing the text, if you can't find references. --JereKrischel 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can find references for all of it. Saturdayseven
- Please provide reliable references. Your current citation #18 is attributed to a different author than the quote. Neither is a reference to Rushton's own charlesdarwinresearch.org website a reliable reference - please cite the original, not Rushton's press release. --JereKrischel 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- For example, please provide a reference to which issue of The Spectator Richard Lynn declared his Nobel Prize claim. A search of http://www.spectator.co.uk/ does not show any such quote by Lynn. Lynn's own list of publications doesn't include any such citation in the Spectator either. --JereKrischel 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
References
I now have 2 sources claiming he made the comment. Asking me to report the exact issue of the Spectator which it was made is just an excuse to try to do anything in your power to remove any pro-Rushton commentary from the article. It doesn't have to be the original primary source to be a reliable source. Rushton qualifies as a reliable source. You can argue he has a bias (what source doesn't) but I've now cited American Renaissance also reporting the quote. Saturdayseven
- Rushton's dust-jacket doesn't seem like a reliable source, but if you want to make a section for dust-jacket comments, I'm fine with that. It would probably behoove you to simply find the original references, and refer to them that way, avoiding the credibility gap created by reporting self-published good press.
- Also, American Renaissance, a white nationalist magazine, does not seem to be a reliable source here either. If you'd like to make a clearer note that these reviews are in fact listed on a white nationalist website, I suppose you could, but I think finding the original sources, and citing them, would be preferable. --JereKrischel 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- A white nationalist magazine? Please keep your strong political opinions about reliable sources out of this discussion. Just because a source has a slight political slant you don't happen to agree with doesn't give you a right to marginalize it. Extremists on the far right could label The New York Times a left-wing rag and thus ban it as a reference. Again, keep your politics out of it Saturdayseven 01:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't make any judgements about whether or not a white nationalist magazine is good or bad, but it is definitely a white nationalist magazine, and does not hide that fact. [4] - Even though the CC is virtually gone, there are still millions of white Christian Americans who are waiting to hear the good news about white nationalism and why it is morally compatible with their faith. Whites do not have to jettison religion to accommodate racialism. All we lack is a kind of “American Renaissance” of the faith to lead us out of the spiritual quagmire. I'm not trying to marginalize it at all, but I think you'll agree that a more neutral reference, by going to the original sources, could be found. --JereKrischel 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think its far fetched to accuse Rushton and the American Renaissance of fabricating quotes. No source is neutral. Every human on Earth has some kind of an agenda. So if a "left-wing" source like the NY Times quotes someone criticising Rushton we should conclude the papers politics makes them biased and thus assume they could be fabricating. If an East Asian source quotes praise of Rushton are we to assume they have a pro-Rushton bias because Rushton's theory favours East Asians and thus that source can't be trusted? If a black jounalist quotes criticism of Rushton are we to assume they fabricated it and can't be neutral on this subject because of their race? Oh please! Saturdayseven
- I'm not accusing anyone of fabricating quotes. I'm simply suggesting that the best way to reference the quotes you'd like to include from the dust-jacket is to reference them directly to the source, instead of simply referencing the dust-jacket, or a white nationalist magazine. I'm trying to help you here - obviously the dust-jacket is going to give us a guide to where favorable reviews of the book exist. Citing those sources directly, instead of simply pointing to either Rushton's own website, or a white nationalist magazine, is going to give them the credibility they deserve. I think I'm not communicating well with you, and apologize for any misunderstanding you seem to have. Please assume good faith on my part, and it may help you react better to my suggestions. --JereKrischel 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)