Talk:Race and intelligence (Public controversy)

message: i'm fixing text divergence and as I get the two versions put together I'm deleting the second version. see the last few comments at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Summary_style_-_Race_and_intelligence_controversy for more details. --Rikurzhen 08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
we still need to reconcile the "Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund" text, which seems to have been rearranged a lot after the split. --Rikurzhen 08:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I was the one who cleaned up that section (when it was at race and intelligence).  The largest difference between the two versions is that the second (the older version) discusses the Pioneer Fund before discussing the broader issue, accusations of systematic representation.  I also cleaned up the presentation of the criticism of the fund.  For example, critics often present the distributed film as a nazi film, when it was more accurately a film promoting eugenics (popular at the time in most developed nations), produced by the early (pre-war) Nazi party.  I'm deleting the old version, as the revisions weren't contested when they were made.  (Please revert if there are still concerns) --Nectarflowed T 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is fine. The first (and newer) version is clearly superior and has a much broader perspective. In this form, parts of the argument might warrant inclusion on the Race and intelligence page itself, which might be concordant with the wishes expressed by Ultramarine on the talk page of R&I. I would prefer it to appear in the 3-paragraph summary of this page, but Ultramarine seems to be strongly opposed to that for reasons I still fail to comprehend. I am confident we can work it out sooner or later. For now, thank you for getting this editing problem out of the world. Arbor 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  divergence of text 

message: Now we can focus on the sources for that.
* The footnote called "Rusthon" points to Joseph L Graves, "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory," Anthropological Theory 2, no. 2 (2002): 131–54; Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton.," Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (February 2001): 69–95; Zack Cernovsky, "On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton," Journal of Black Studies 25 (1995): 672.
:All all three necessary? Which one includes the porn and Penthouse references? Is this really a good summary of the scholarly malfeasance that Rushton is criticised for? I would prefer just a single references, instead of 3 that say the same.
* Ditto for Gould. I would like a single reference that criticises Gould. Should be easy enough. The Gasper (2002) reference I already discounted (see above), and the "Goosed-up graphics" is also not so good, since it attacks an argument that doesn't really have anything to do with Gould's position qua race and intelligence research. 
* The "Pioneer Film" footnote has not reference at all and is just dangling in the air. Arbor 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic misrepresentations

message: I am not very fond of our habit to turn these articles into long lists of quotes. (I think it's lazy and I would rather we write original, well-attributed prose. Quotation are for Wikiquote.) However, while following one of Nectar's links, I came across this, which seems to be to be a fairly concise reflection of an important point in the public debate.
In an Oct. 30, 1994 article in the Sunday Telegraph called “Race and IQ: Never Has a Knife Been Put in More Smoothly,” he writes of intelligence studies: 
“That these are important questions, and scientifically worthy subjects for research, I cannot deny. Nevertheless, they are so distasteful, so certain to give such deep offense to so many, that people who choose to pursue them–among all the equally important subjects demanding attention–can only be disturbingly insensitive. . . .”
“. . . I still feel that the people involved in this research are pretty nasty pieces of work whom I would not wish to know. And the timing is so particularly cruel, smothering black pride forever, just as it is beginning to breathe freely.”
“In the old days, theorists of racial superiority or inferiority positively glorified in their insensitivity; made no attempt to cushion the cruelties of their conclusions–sterlization for the inferior. Their American successors are much more concerned and sophisticated, more gentle, caring, and squeamish. ‘It hurts us more than it hurts you’ is the new motif. Never has a knife been put in more smoothly, leaving so little blood on the blade. Crude they are most certainly not: only creepy.”
Maybe we want to use part of this. (As I said, I would prefer us to write prose to describe viewpoints, rather than quote people. It's not encyclopaedic. However, on a page describing public controversy, maybe some soundbites are OK.) Arbor 08:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term I see most often for the sentiment this author describes is "calculated compassion." The quote is a bit long, but the issue it raises will need to be addressed. Way down my laundry list, though. Jokestress 08:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to categorize, this appears to be an instance of the position that looking for genetic causes of these differences is socially unethical.--Nectarflowed T 09:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More quotes