Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Rushton2012 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article J. Philippe Rushton, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Derailed opening paragraph(s)[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I stand corrected regarding WP:ME. Thanks Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr-Bracket: 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)[reply]

what position is closest to his views[edit]

I am a little confused by some of the recent changes in wording. Did Rushton generally hold that a/ genetics completely explain racial differences in intelligence, or b/(less strongly) that genetics was the major factor in intelligence", or just c/ that genetics was merely a significant factor in intelligence or d/ even only that genetics was a factor in intelligence? I realize he worded it different ways at different times, but what was his predominant or general view, or did perhaps his views change in a recognizable direction over time? If there was a change, what was his more recent position?

It seems that statements deploring or supporting his views might choose one or another of these positions as a summary, but that does not mean they were accurate in doing so . I would imagine that someone who wanted to minimize his difference from the consensus might want to say d/, and someone who thought his views totally unacceptable might choose to word it a/ --- but which of these very different ideas represented his general view? DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure precisely what recent changes in wording you're referring to, but the statement by his former department on the matter is perfectly clear: Rushton’s works linking race and intelligence are based on an incorrect assumption that fuels systemic racism, the notion that racialized groups are concordant with patterns of human ancestry and genetic population structure. This idea is rejected by analysis of the human genome .... Moreover, Rushton’s work is characterized by a complete misunderstanding of population genetic measures, including fundamental misconceptions about the nature of heritability and gene-environment interactions during development. [1] Generalrelative (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The departmental damnatio doesn't address the question.

Rushton (d. 2012) published polemical papers with Jensen in 2005 and 2010 promoting the hereditarian account of group IQ differences. The abstract of one of the papers says that they argue for 50 to 80 percent genetic contribution, so at least toward the end he held the mostly genetic position, (b). However this kind of specific estimation of heritabilities and genetic influences seems more to come from Jensen, who wrote about it in other places and was always specialized in intelligence. Rushton's prior views may not have been expressed in quantitative terms as he was as seeking a grand pattern involving "all" trait differences and he switched his research interests several times. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be rather idle chatter to be discussing precisely what percentage of the racial IQ gap Rushton attributed to genetics. Just as much as it would be idle to discuss what percentage of missing hikers some "Bigfoot expert" attributed to Bigfoot predation. Absent reliable independent sources, this has no bearing on what belongs in the article, per WP:FRIND of course: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Generalrelative (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idle question of Rushton and percentages is already implicit in the article ("partial genetic" re IQ). Whether or not that section is what prompted DGG to ask, we both exercised the same freedom to post replies, even if only one of those actually answered the question.

Bigfoot is a familiar trope from the R&I Talk where there was a short thread on it that I opened shortly before your arrival. It is easy to locate as the only section in the archives with Bigfoot in the title. There was no serious reply at the time, but if you know of any reason (other than social disapproval, speculation on motives and other such "human factors") why Bigfoot, alien abductions and the like are pseudoscience, that also applies to R&I hereditarianism, please feel free to be the first to reveal what it could be. Of course it's possible for a hypothesis to be intelligible, testable, adequately empirically motivated and still fail or be a crank magnet, but the Bigfoot trope is the bald assertion that none of those prerequisites apply to R&I and it is pseudoscience on its face. Maybe it's more like dingoes abducting hikers' children, than Bigfoot abducting hikers, and there is no a priori answer through confident sneering. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this discussion: could you explain what changes you are concerned about? This broad diff seems generally to be an improvement. In general in the context of a scientific biography, reliably sourced documentation of the subject's opinions of what gives rise to oberved heritability claims seem reasonable even if those opinions are held for unscientific reasons. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about recent changes, but the article says "proponent of the idea that racial differences in IQ are partially related to genetic inheritance" which understates Rushton's position, i.e., 50 to 80 percent of average group differences, plus a package of related differences on several clusters of other traits, are genetic. I don't know if other sources about Rushton or Jensen quoted their estimate, but there should be enough in reviews of Rushton's earlier work to make clear that he argued for large and meaningful genetic differences on "everything", including intelligence, and not the mere existence of some nonzero genetic difference for IQ. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on race and intelligence[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the problem. You acknowledge that Two of the three sources claim there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics. It doesn't seem necessary to quibble about the third. Generalrelative (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, I have no more complaints! Ornilnas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]