Talk:International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Jokestress in topic Fact tag
Fact tag
I have found a source for the fact flag I inserted, Russ Bellant's 'Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party'. However, I am not sure if this source is legit. For one, he fails to mention that Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton divorced the Lord in 1952, 7 years before Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton supposedly was involved in founding the US chapter of the IAAEE. Bellant does not give a reference for his claim. Andrew S. Winston does not make mention of Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton in his article, while he does refer to the articles of incorporation of the IAAEE. --LC 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) LiberalConservative
- I added the reference (and one from Time), since we can verify that Bellant has published this. If there are conflicting reports, we can add them, too. Jokestress 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some points are of order though. I have no doubt that Douglas-Hamilton was someone who sought "appeasement" with Germany for some time in the 1930s. The problem I have is this conspiracist view Bellant takes on, so much so that he disqualifies himself for being used here as reputable source. The "Cliveden Set" is not what journalist Claud Cockburn in 1937 said it was (Norman Rose, The Cliveden Set:Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity, 2000). Bellant's invokement of the Cliveden Set disqualifies him here as reputable source, in my eyes. It is sensationalism pur sang. There is nowhere any qualification by Bellant of whatever Douglas-Hamilton's views or actions were, neither in the 1930s, nor in the 1960s. He is apparently so important, that Andrew S. Winston "fails" to mention him in his article on the IAAEE. In the end, I have no problem with making mention of Douglas-Hamilton in this article, but it should not be prominently feature the lead. Douglas-Hamilton might as well have been a board member of the American IAAEE (he lived in the US after the war), but Bellant fails to convince me of this "fact." So maybe something along "journalist Russ Bellant has claimed that Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton incorporated the American branch of IAAEEE." should do it, near the end of the article that is. I'll put something about the Cliveden Set in the Douglas-Hamilton article itself. --LC 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have a source that criticizes or refutes Bellant, we can include it. Our opinions about whether Bellant is reputable or not are original research. I do agree that the first sentence should describe the group and assert its notability. We can put the Cliveden info under a new section on history of the group. Jokestress 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with Bellant is that there was no Cliveden Set, that's why his work is not a reputable source, see WP:NPOV. If Lord Malcolm was indeed a founder of the American IAAEE, why does Andrew S. Minton not mention him at all when discussing the IAAEE? Bellant does not give any further evidence or sources for Lord Malcolm's involvement. So why do we construe this as fact in this article? --LC 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- What we are stating as fact is that Bellant says there was a Cliveden set (as did others). If there are refutations to Bellant, we can state as fact that others say Bellant is wrong, not reputable, or there was no Cliveden set, etc. Though we can note that Minton does not mention the connection, that omission does not negate the fact that Bellant made certain statements about the Cliveden Set. That's what the verifiability, not truth policy is about. We can only report on what others say in reliable published sources. Jokestress 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. I meant Andrew S. Winston above, not Minton (who is he?!). Winston is the author of "Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby." He does not mention Lord Malcolm. About the Cliveden Set, that is refuted in Cliveden Set: Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity by Norman Rose (2000). Hope that clears things up. --LC 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assumed you were talking about Bruce Minton, who wrote about the Cliveden set in Washington during WWII. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rose refutes the Cliveden Set. Do you mean Bellant's version of the history? We can't say here "there was no Cliveden Set," unless we are quoting someone saying just that. Jokestress 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. There was no self-conscious Cliveden Set that worked for appeasement, or tried to get England out of the war after 1939; especially not Lord Malcolm, who was then already flying for the RAF again! --LC 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are more problems with Bellant. For example, on p.60 he refers to a fundraising letter obtained by one Roger Pearson from Ronald Reagan. What he fails to mention there is that this fundraising letter was actually composed by one Robert Schuettinger (Racial Purist uses Reagan Plug, Washington Post, Sep 28, 1984), not by Reagan! I probably can find more examples of problematic writing by Bellant. I honestly don't Bellant's work would pass WP:RS. I am not even sure what his NY Times references on Douglas-Hamilton are trying to show. And I doubt In Fact would pass WP:RS. --LC 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. There was no self-conscious Cliveden Set that worked for appeasement, or tried to get England out of the war after 1939; especially not Lord Malcolm, who was then already flying for the RAF again! --LC 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assumed you were talking about Bruce Minton, who wrote about the Cliveden set in Washington during WWII. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rose refutes the Cliveden Set. Do you mean Bellant's version of the history? We can't say here "there was no Cliveden Set," unless we are quoting someone saying just that. Jokestress 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. I meant Andrew S. Winston above, not Minton (who is he?!). Winston is the author of "Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby." He does not mention Lord Malcolm. About the Cliveden Set, that is refuted in Cliveden Set: Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity by Norman Rose (2000). Hope that clears things up. --LC 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- What we are stating as fact is that Bellant says there was a Cliveden set (as did others). If there are refutations to Bellant, we can state as fact that others say Bellant is wrong, not reputable, or there was no Cliveden set, etc. Though we can note that Minton does not mention the connection, that omission does not negate the fact that Bellant made certain statements about the Cliveden Set. That's what the verifiability, not truth policy is about. We can only report on what others say in reliable published sources. Jokestress 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with Bellant is that there was no Cliveden Set, that's why his work is not a reputable source, see WP:NPOV. If Lord Malcolm was indeed a founder of the American IAAEE, why does Andrew S. Minton not mention him at all when discussing the IAAEE? Bellant does not give any further evidence or sources for Lord Malcolm's involvement. So why do we construe this as fact in this article? --LC 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have a source that criticizes or refutes Bellant, we can include it. Our opinions about whether Bellant is reputable or not are original research. I do agree that the first sentence should describe the group and assert its notability. We can put the Cliveden info under a new section on history of the group. Jokestress 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some points are of order though. I have no doubt that Douglas-Hamilton was someone who sought "appeasement" with Germany for some time in the 1930s. The problem I have is this conspiracist view Bellant takes on, so much so that he disqualifies himself for being used here as reputable source. The "Cliveden Set" is not what journalist Claud Cockburn in 1937 said it was (Norman Rose, The Cliveden Set:Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity, 2000). Bellant's invokement of the Cliveden Set disqualifies him here as reputable source, in my eyes. It is sensationalism pur sang. There is nowhere any qualification by Bellant of whatever Douglas-Hamilton's views or actions were, neither in the 1930s, nor in the 1960s. He is apparently so important, that Andrew S. Winston "fails" to mention him in his article on the IAAEE. In the end, I have no problem with making mention of Douglas-Hamilton in this article, but it should not be prominently feature the lead. Douglas-Hamilton might as well have been a board member of the American IAAEE (he lived in the US after the war), but Bellant fails to convince me of this "fact." So maybe something along "journalist Russ Bellant has claimed that Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton incorporated the American branch of IAAEEE." should do it, near the end of the article that is. I'll put something about the Cliveden Set in the Douglas-Hamilton article itself. --LC 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)