Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

message: The opening provides a clear explanation on J. Philippe Rushton, his work, and his criticisms. However, the second paragraph derails and spends half its time discussing the Pioneer Fund, rather than the individual. While it's important to consider the individuals surroundings, the depth of the Pioneer Fund is slightly excessive. I wouldn't usually consider this noteworthy enough of creating a section in the Talk Page, however I am creating this pre-preemptively to avoid an edit war on the subject. User:Skllagyook pinging you for reverting the change, feel free to explain how removing one sentence is "whitewashing", or a "large amount" of sourced material, or how I am an IP editor, or alternatively, how this was not a minor edit. From my experience editing many pages and providing ample sources on various subjects, I would not consider any of those statements to be true.  Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Skllagyook was completely correct to revert your edit. Your edit was by no stretch of the imagination a minor edit; please read WP:ME. Rushton was intimately associated with the Pioneer Fund, and so it's important from the start to explain what the Pioneer Fund is. NightHeron (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected regarding WP:ME. Thanks Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Regarding describing you as an IP editor, I must have not been paying enough attention and been thinking of another page at the time. That was my mistake. My appologies. Otherwise I concur with User:NightHeron, whose reasoning is similar to mine on the issue. Skllagyook (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derailed opening paragraph(s) 

message: The section on "Race and intelligence" summarizes Rushton's views, and then adds:
"Rushton's view that a genetic connection exists between race and intelligence is rejected by a broad consensus of scientists today."
I'm not entirely sure why this needs to be mentioned at all (I think it might be part of the FRINGE policy?), but I don't like the current wording. It's not supported by the current sources (even after User:Generalrelative helpfully added one that specifically rejected Rushton's views), and I think it is misleading. Two of the three sources claim there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics. The last source rejects the concept of biological races (but claims no consensus). Summarizing this as there being a consensus against "a genetic connection between race and intelligence" seems misleading (and I don't think that consensus exists). If Rushton used IQ results to claim that some races were biologically predisposed to have a higher IQ than others, this view can be pointed out to be contrary to consensus. Can someone point me to where the current wording originates from? Ornilnas (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this or similar language is required by WP:FRINGE. And the scientific consensus on the matter is clear. See this RfC from last May: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That RfC does indeed support the current language. However, the sources provided in this article still don't. Perhaps the RfC you linked to contains better/more explicit sources? Or perhaps I'm misreading the claim? Ornilnas (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I understand the problem. You acknowledge that  It doesn't seem necessary to quibble about the third. Generalrelative (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think there is any meaningful difference between the current language and "there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics", will you let me change the wording in the article to the latter? Ornilnas (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no major reason to object but wanted to make sure that we connect the statement directly to Rushton, so I went ahead and made a WP:BOLD suggestion in the article. Happy to discuss if you still find it unclear. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I like your new wording much better! Specific and to the point; and clearly supported by the sources. (Except maybe the word "broad"? One of the sources describes the consensus as "emerging", which seems to emphasise almost the opposite of "broad".) Ornilnas (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In response to your point about describing the consensus as "broad", I've offered what I hope is an acceptable compromise. Generalrelative (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have no more complaints! Ornilnas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on race and intelligence