Talk:Glayde Whitney

	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.

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 Glayde Whitney, 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.

Comment

It is correct that what makes the forward notable for an article on Whitney is that it was highly controversial. However, only covering those controversial elements takes them out of context and makes them appear to be representative, which they aren't.

As an example of what happens sometimes, Whitney's comment praising the scientific achievements of Jews was selectively quoted by the newspaper article that was the source, changing it to a condemnation.

What he wrote: "As individuals, scientists of Jewish ancestry cover the entire spectrum of interpretations and approaches to race and heredity. ... From personal experience in academia, it is sometimes hard to believe that Jews constitute only 2% or 3% of the general population Individuals of Jewish ancestry are vastly overrepresented in the ranks of highly successful scientists. They are among my best students and closest friends." (Following this he continued that Jewish organizations, as a reaction to racism directed toward them, contribute to the suppression of legitimate racial behavioral genetics --part of the larger argument his forward advances.)
What was in the article, including the narrative it was within: "he believed Duke relied on "good science" in concluding Blacks should attend separate schools and perhaps even live in separate countries ... He also wrote that Jews were "vastly overrepresented in the ranks of highly successful scientist.""

I've done my best to concisely summarize Whitney's actual argument. --Nectarflowed ^T 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing

This has whitewashed his statements and replaced his actual quotations with euphemistic paraphrase. When I have time, I will go back in and put some of this back in, especially his comments about his big three (Freud, Marx, Boas). Jokestress 01:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His views sounds pretty white-nationalist to me and they definitely shouldn't be whitewashed; I tried to be pretty careful with his statements. He wrote the forward for a lay audience, so if there are statements that don't add anything as quotes, we may be able to use more concise encylopedic style to summarize them. Here are some of the quotes I changed:

1. “Organized Jewry,” which he feels “dogmatically attempts to keep the general population from awareness of the findings of modern science.”

His argument appears to only be that they supress race behavioral genetics, not "the findings of modern science."

2. He didn't refer to the Jewishness of the big three, and regarding established ideas as dogma is a pretty common sentiment. The argument he's making, that his and Duke's 'scientific inquiry' is being suppressed and that he blames PC scientists and "organized Jewry" for this seems to already cover the point.

3. “Blatant racial discrimination”

This is a pretty everyday statement that doesn't seem to imply anything inappropriate or warrant special attention by quoting.

4. Makes a hereditarian argument for “the large intellectual gap between blacks and whites”

We can phrase it with more precision, and the existence of the gap in tests of cognitive ability is considered established in the mainstream intelligence research statements.

--Nectarflowed ^T 07:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should allow the critical light--V7ndotcom elursrebmem 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime data

It has been claimed that the crime data used by Whitney were presented in a misleading way (Winston AS, Peters M (2000). "On the presentation and interpretation of international homicide data". Psychological Reports. 86 (3 Pt 1): 865–71. PMID 10876336. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)), which was denied by Whitney (Whitney G (2000). "Reply to Winston and Peters' "On the presentation and interpretation of international homicide data..."". Psychological Reports. 86 (3 Pt 2): 1234–6. PMID 10932587. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)). --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be much improved with more sources.

I have some Source Lists to Share with Other Wikipedians on my user subpages that would be helpful for updating this article. The subpages on IQ and human intelligence are reasonably complete now, always to be updated more, and the subpages on race and human genetics will be updated a lot more over the next few months. Feel free to refer to those to edit this article and articles on related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]