Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 2

message: Paragraphs like this seem to lower the articles credibility:
Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups (see Arithmetic mean). For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:
First of all it appears to be original research. You cite no well known expert of any kind making that claim. It reduces the complex field of genetics to a simple formula, and it's presented in a way that implies it contradicts Jensen. Could you please leave your own arguments out and stick to citing experts? Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not making original arguments.
:Yeah, the citation really isn't about anything expert, it's about definitions (see Arithmetic mean).  I'm not sure that citing a standard mathematical practices is OR - if you'd like I'll try to find a better cite for that...might not be as clear, but I'm sure we can find one. --JereKrischel 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I thought Wikipedia does not allow original research

message: The Flynn Effect is mentioned as a devestating challenge to Rushton, but when a cogent reply complete with an actual quotes to frequently cited experts was added, you edited the whole thing out. Why are you trying to show only one side of debate, and the side of the debate you show is not attributed to any experts. Why was all this edited out?
However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:
1. We do not know what causes the test score changes over time.
2. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence.
3. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same.
4. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.
5. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin.
Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic. Critics claim that the genetic difference between males and females is an order of magnitude greater than any observed difference between "races".
Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkely writes:
If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs) 
:That was directly copied from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/jen.htm.  We're not allowed to copy websites and present them as original here.  If you want to quote, or paraphrase, that's fine, but outright copying, AFAIK, is not allowed. --JereKrischel 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the quote should be *quoted*, and referenced, not presented as written by Wikipedia editors. --JereKrischel 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was reply to the Flynn Effect edited out?

message: To all the unsigned users: It would be nice of you to create yourselves an ID in Wikipedia and start signing your comments. Otherwise, this will get to be a mess very soon. No weasel words here, just stating the obvious.
:Then, for the record: I am not against putting in this article more of Rushton's theories, as long as they are accompanied by cited criticisms (if there are any). To 205.188.117.69 (and possibly 64.12.116.69, who seem to be the same person, judging from their interventions - but I may be wrong!) your gist seemed to be pushing for having Rushton's hypotheses showcased here while toning down the rebuttal of his theories and the amount of controversy they generate. As Pete.Hurd pointed out, this sounds like whitewashing and I don't think the majority of the editors here want that. 
:As for the alleged weasel words used in the text, while I concur that several points in the article are badly cited, I don't think many of them are really weasel words, just poorly cited points (sorry for repeating myself).
:As for my opinion, like everybody else, I'm entitled to one. I'm not trying to impart it on the article (please do see that I haven't touched the article yet), but I think I am within my rights to say that if we should include this or that point about Rushton's opinions, properly cited criticisms (if there are any) should also be included to appropriately represent the controversy around this character's opinions. Commendations about his work, also if properly cited, should also be included. The fact of the matter is, criticisms of his works and his opinions are plenty, and IMHO praise is somewhat rarer. I'm of the opinion that Wikpedia should also present this in order to offer a balanced reflexion of the subject. If anyone has problems with this, please let me know. If I go counter to a WP policy, please also let me know. Insofar as I know, I haven't done that yet. --Ramdrake 22:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "you are being too nit-picking of everything I say".  Maybe you should be more careful in your choice of rhetoric.  You contend that "in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of" and "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" are weasel words, and in your all-caps bold font accompanied by a sing-song "WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS...... REPEAT IT UNTIL IT SINKS IN." ... well, I think you ought to stand by what you say, if you are going to state things so vehemently.  Since you use the phrase "Ask yourself, would you see this kind of wording in the encyclopedia britanica. The answer is no." more than once, I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that, yes, in fact, it's not uncommon in the Encyclopedia Britannica.  I still don't understand how you can hold that "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" amounts to weasel words if it's properly documented.  Pete.Hurd 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Personnally, I'd go for "most serious challenge". I personnally think "devastating" is a bit melodramatical. --Ramdrake 23:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head." are you accusing me of fabricating the Encyclopedia Brittanica quote? Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Laugh* Ok ... EB is on-line  and has a "search" function. (BTW, "you're" not "your") Pete.Hurd 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if we take those points one by one and take the time to discuss them honestly, I believe we can achieve something together. It's just that you first came across as complaining that there was too much undeserved criticism of Rushton's theories. That's why I launched in those long explanations trying to demonstrate how and why that criticism was deserved. Now, if you say the wording of some comments and criticism needs to be revised to be more factual, I agree. I won't go around boilerplating everything "weasel words", but I did get your gist. I'm not a good editor for long spots: I get too passionate about the things I write about to be good at it. But I think I can do a decent job rephrasing stuff that's poorly worded for whatever the reason may be. --Ramdrake 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, edit conflict

message: I copied the article to a sub-page in the talk space: Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Draft 1. Why not take a shot at working on a compromise text on that page? You might make more progress that way. --Rikurzhen 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but they make two separate points. One challenges the very tenability of race as a biological concept, and a case can be made for the existence of races as a biological construct. The other challenges that based on what can be construed as the biological concept of race, people can recognize one another based on genetic similarities (this is one of the central arguments of Rushton's work). This one is much harder to defend, as if race is to exist as a biological construct, it is not based on genetic differences (which are much larger within races than between races), but based on biogeographically differential distribution (frequency in the population) of an unknown number of alleles. It would be important that both points are preserved if the sections are to be merged. --Ramdrake 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: First, regarding Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Rushton seems fairly clear that this "outdistancing" is genetic first, and intellectual and behavioral second. From his readings, I get the impression he thinks Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids are soon to go their separate ways, evolution-wise. That is why I think it's unwarranted to restrict the difference to the sole field of psychometrics (intelligence). 
Second, Rushton is very careful not to use the word promiscuous anywhere in his description of Negroids, so I wouldn't put that word in his mouth. What he does say is that their behavioral strategy is geared towards reproduction based on numbers rather than intensive rearing.
And lastly, if you were going to use "promiscuous", I can't see how you would balk at using "alleged". Rushton says Negroids are this way and that, and to prove it, he has only statistical circumstantial evidence that his detractors have long since torn to pieces. So, yes he is asserting something without solid evidence, and in English, that's an allegation.
--Ramdrake 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the rearranging took out the part about the critical basis for Rushton's theory. Without it, the discussion about race as it pertains to this article is close to pure vacuity. Rushton uses his "Genetic Similarity Theory" to validate why historically speaking, people have tended to associate with like characters. From a purely social aspect of life (who are your friends), he makes it a genetically-based impulse, and then uses it to sustain his r-K hypothesis. The two sentences you took out are necessary (contrary to what you were saying), and possibly not neutral (I agree on this point), but it is one of the bases to critically refute Rushton's arguments. These sentences are needed. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, then how about changing "alleged behavior..." to "behavior Rushton argues they exhibit"?  That would also work for me. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, I just explained a bit further up there why I reverted your edits. I would have tried to salvage something, but this was too intricate for my poor mind. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also moved back part of the statement of a lack of relationship of penis size to reproductive frequency. I think it is important to articulate how much of Rushton's theories are NOT supported by evidence. --Ramdrake 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: This article's language can probably be improved to avoid pov-pushing.  That would generally look like: 
*"X argues" instead of "X [alleges/claims/asserts]." (The current wording of "Suzuki thundered" should be changed to "Suzuki argued...")
*"The [argued/attributed/putative] phenomenon" instead of "the [alleged/claimed/asserted] phenomenon."
--Nectar 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: neutral language

message: :::::Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims.  If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Snyderman and Rothman

message: Do you think we should unprotect this article?  I think it's time to let other people contribute.64.12.116.69 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good to semi-protect it, it seems that we're getting somewhere with non-anon editors. --JereKrischel 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection request

message: We should incorporate information from sources like this one:  Ultramarine 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushton and the extreme right