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