Talk:International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fact tag edit
I have found a source for the fact flag I inserted, Russ Bellant's 'Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party'. However, I am not sure if this source is legit. For one, he fails to mention that Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton divorced the Lord in 1952, 7 years before Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton supposedly was involved in founding the US chapter of the IAAEE. Bellant does not give a reference for his claim. Andrew S. Winston does not make mention of Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton in his article, while he does refer to the articles of incorporation of the IAAEE. --LC 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) LiberalConservative
- I added the reference (and one from Time), since we can verify that Bellant has published this. If there are conflicting reports, we can add them, too. Jokestress 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some points are of order though. I have no doubt that Douglas-Hamilton was someone who sought "appeasement" with Germany for some time in the 1930s. The problem I have is this conspiracist view Bellant takes on, so much so that he disqualifies himself for being used here as reputable source. The "Cliveden Set" is not what journalist Claud Cockburn in 1937 said it was (Norman Rose, The Cliveden Set:Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity, 2000). Bellant's invokement of the Cliveden Set disqualifies him here as reputable source, in my eyes. It is sensationalism pur sang. There is nowhere any qualification by Bellant of whatever Douglas-Hamilton's views or actions were, neither in the 1930s, nor in the 1960s. He is apparently so important, that Andrew S. Winston "fails" to mention him in his article on the IAAEE. In the end, I have no problem with making mention of Douglas-Hamilton in this article, but it should not be prominently feature the lead. Douglas-Hamilton might as well have been a board member of the American IAAEE (he lived in the US after the war), but Bellant fails to convince me of this "fact." So maybe something along "journalist Russ Bellant has claimed that Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton incorporated the American branch of IAAEEE." should do it, near the end of the article that is. I'll put something about the Cliveden Set in the Douglas-Hamilton article itself. --LC 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have a source that criticizes or refutes Bellant, we can include it. Our opinions about whether Bellant is reputable or not are original research. I do agree that the first sentence should describe the group and assert its notability. We can put the Cliveden info under a new section on history of the group. Jokestress 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with Bellant is that there was no Cliveden Set, that's why his work is not a reputable source, see WP:NPOV. If Lord Malcolm was indeed a founder of the American IAAEE, why does Andrew S. Minton not mention him at all when discussing the IAAEE? Bellant does not give any further evidence or sources for Lord Malcolm's involvement. So why do we construe this as fact in this article? --LC 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- What we are stating as fact is that Bellant says there was a Cliveden set (as did others). If there are refutations to Bellant, we can state as fact that others say Bellant is wrong, not reputable, or there was no Cliveden set, etc. Though we can note that Minton does not mention the connection, that omission does not negate the fact that Bellant made certain statements about the Cliveden Set. That's what the verifiability, not truth policy is about. We can only report on what others say in reliable published sources. Jokestress 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. I meant Andrew S. Winston above, not Minton (who is he?!). Winston is the author of "Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby." He does not mention Lord Malcolm. About the Cliveden Set, that is refuted in Cliveden Set: Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity by Norman Rose (2000). Hope that clears things up. --LC 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assumed you were talking about Bruce Minton, who wrote about the Cliveden set in Washington during WWII. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rose refutes the Cliveden Set. Do you mean Bellant's version of the history? We can't say here "there was no Cliveden Set," unless we are quoting someone saying just that. Jokestress 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. There was no self-conscious Cliveden Set that worked for appeasement, or tried to get England out of the war after 1939; especially not Lord Malcolm, who was then already flying for the RAF again! --LC 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are more problems with Bellant. For example, on p.60 he refers to a fundraising letter obtained by one Roger Pearson from Ronald Reagan. What he fails to mention there is that this fundraising letter was actually composed by one Robert Schuettinger (Racial Purist uses Reagan Plug, Washington Post, Sep 28, 1984), not by Reagan! I probably can find more examples of problematic writing by Bellant. I honestly don't Bellant's work would pass WP:RS. I am not even sure what his NY Times references on Douglas-Hamilton are trying to show. And I doubt In Fact would pass WP:RS. --LC 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous everyone with half a mind would realize that Reagan did not write his own tank you notes. It is not the authorship that is important, but the intention of the letter and the fact that Pearson parades it as a selfplug. Bellant is an entirely respectable and reliable source in spite of these ridiculous attempts to discredit him. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. There was no self-conscious Cliveden Set that worked for appeasement, or tried to get England out of the war after 1939; especially not Lord Malcolm, who was then already flying for the RAF again! --LC 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assumed you were talking about Bruce Minton, who wrote about the Cliveden set in Washington during WWII. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rose refutes the Cliveden Set. Do you mean Bellant's version of the history? We can't say here "there was no Cliveden Set," unless we are quoting someone saying just that. Jokestress 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. I meant Andrew S. Winston above, not Minton (who is he?!). Winston is the author of "Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby." He does not mention Lord Malcolm. About the Cliveden Set, that is refuted in Cliveden Set: Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity by Norman Rose (2000). Hope that clears things up. --LC 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- What we are stating as fact is that Bellant says there was a Cliveden set (as did others). If there are refutations to Bellant, we can state as fact that others say Bellant is wrong, not reputable, or there was no Cliveden set, etc. Though we can note that Minton does not mention the connection, that omission does not negate the fact that Bellant made certain statements about the Cliveden Set. That's what the verifiability, not truth policy is about. We can only report on what others say in reliable published sources. Jokestress 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with Bellant is that there was no Cliveden Set, that's why his work is not a reputable source, see WP:NPOV. If Lord Malcolm was indeed a founder of the American IAAEE, why does Andrew S. Minton not mention him at all when discussing the IAAEE? Bellant does not give any further evidence or sources for Lord Malcolm's involvement. So why do we construe this as fact in this article? --LC 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have a source that criticizes or refutes Bellant, we can include it. Our opinions about whether Bellant is reputable or not are original research. I do agree that the first sentence should describe the group and assert its notability. We can put the Cliveden info under a new section on history of the group. Jokestress 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some points are of order though. I have no doubt that Douglas-Hamilton was someone who sought "appeasement" with Germany for some time in the 1930s. The problem I have is this conspiracist view Bellant takes on, so much so that he disqualifies himself for being used here as reputable source. The "Cliveden Set" is not what journalist Claud Cockburn in 1937 said it was (Norman Rose, The Cliveden Set:Portrait of an Exclusive Fraternity, 2000). Bellant's invokement of the Cliveden Set disqualifies him here as reputable source, in my eyes. It is sensationalism pur sang. There is nowhere any qualification by Bellant of whatever Douglas-Hamilton's views or actions were, neither in the 1930s, nor in the 1960s. He is apparently so important, that Andrew S. Winston "fails" to mention him in his article on the IAAEE. In the end, I have no problem with making mention of Douglas-Hamilton in this article, but it should not be prominently feature the lead. Douglas-Hamilton might as well have been a board member of the American IAAEE (he lived in the US after the war), but Bellant fails to convince me of this "fact." So maybe something along "journalist Russ Bellant has claimed that Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton incorporated the American branch of IAAEEE." should do it, near the end of the article that is. I'll put something about the Cliveden Set in the Douglas-Hamilton article itself. --LC 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing edit
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
POV section edit
The History section has a major WP:POV and WP:SYNTH problem, as it attempts to construct a case against the organization by assembling various unsourced "facts". A good example is this entry:
- Professor Robert Kuttner, Creighton University on the Liberty Lobby Board of Policy and an Editor for The American Mercury. His son, Robert B. Kuttner is a nationally syndicated columnist whose right wing predilections are foisted on the unsuspecting public without any knowledge of his father's background.
Or:
- Professor Armando Vivante, Bueno Aires, Argentina Not much is currently known about Vivante, but he was reported to have been involved with contacting and harboring escaped Nazi War Criminals in South America
If pretty much any of the people mentioned in the section are alive (unlikely, given the time frame), it is also potentially a major WP:BLP violation. GregorB (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting it and removing. It sounds egregrious. Zezen (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Reversion edit
Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, the article has been reverted back to a previous version that was well-cited. -Location (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503082757/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/tucker/ch3.html to http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/tucker/ch3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"Prominent"? edit
This seems a bit strong for a group started after the heyday of eugenics. Promiment within the niche of scientific racism, maybe, but an unqualified "prominent" seems a bit strong.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"recommend"? edit
"Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein recommend in their book The Bell Curve two books on race and intelligence by Audrey Shuey and Frank C. J. McGurk, who were leading members of the IAAEE,[6] in support for the argument that IQ tests are not racially biased.[third-party source needed]"
Looking at the actual book, those two titles are referenced (along with many others - both pro and con on the topic) in a presentation of contrasting perspectives of data. While the links in the sentence do encourage further examination of the issue by readers, that one word choice by the Wikipedian that contributed the sentence seems prejudicial. Is any one interested in changing that one word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6850:4750:3D3C:41D8:6709:FC3C (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)