Talk:Pioneer Fund
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 Pioneer Fund, 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:
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. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Bouchard not funded for racial hereditarianism but article implies that.
editThe list of funding recipients says that Pioneer gave money to promote racial hereditarianism research. That is true, but the largest recipient, Bouchard, who got several million dollars for the MISTRA twin studies, was fighting the battle of heritability and genetics for individual IQ, not race differences. I don't think Bouchard ever had anything to do with racial hereditarianism and the article should not group him with the others in that respect. Likewise a lot of Jensen's research was about IQ heritability (and the establishment and validation of a "g"-centered psychometric view of intelligence) in individuals. Until the early 80s it was debated whether genes have much influence on intelligence at all (i.e., in individuals, not as part of a question on race differences) and whether intelligence could be quantified using IQ tests, and Pioneer paid people like Jensen and Bouchard as soldiers to win that battle, which they did. Jensen of course also wrote papers, probably with Pioneer money, about racial IQ differences and their supposed origins, but Bouchard does not appear to have been involved in that type of work, or if he was it was not what Pioneer paid him for (MISTRA).Sesquivalent (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Does this organization still exist?
editWebsite is defunct. Internet archives of the website indicate the director died in 2012 and half of its assets were given to another organization. Google search reveals no current output from this organization, all mentions of it are refer to pre-2012 activity. Lots of other unrelated groups using "Pioneer Fund" in their name.
Is this organization defunct? It appears to be. SONORAMA (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
In addition, Richard Lynn died in 2023, so is no longer the director. I could find no evidence of the organization's activity or articles about it's activity or about Director Gerhard Meisenberg's activity in the past 2 years. However, that does not mean it is defunct. For example, according to SPLC it funded American Renaissance, and that is still active. Camipco (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
By whom?
editThere's been some edit warring over a "By whom?" tag that Socksage has sought to include in the sentence The organization has been classified as a hate group and has been described as racist and white supremacist in nature
, so I'm starting a discussion thread. In my view "By whom" is clear from the four cited sources. We do not need to list each of these four sources. Their views are not remotely controversial. See e.g. WP:YESPOV. Socksage, please present your reasoning and await a new consensus before re-adding this contested tag. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Replacing "has been classified as" with "is" seems like the obvious fix. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps Socksage has a point. Wouldn't this require attribution per MOS:LABEL? For example, when an organisation is called a hate group by SPLC, we practically always attribute it. It would be fine if multiple sources had described it as a hate group, but checking the sources it seems it comes from the SPLC, and is not mentioned in many of the reliable sources on that sentence specifically. It would be better to simply change the intro "classified a hate group by the SPLC". Zenomonoz (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
External links / website
editJust a note, it seems both website external links are defunct now. I don't think the Pioneer Fund exists at either address, so both are a 'historic website' or 'defunct website'. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation Page is Needed
editThere are already multiple Pioneer Funds in the hat notes, and I will be adding yet another for this one (https://pioneerfund.vc, see notability here: https://www.inc.com/sam-blum/silicon-valleys-biggest-investor-is-canadian.html). The one I am adding has the exact same name "Pioneer Fund" so the hat note will no longer be sufficient.
I tried to move this page over to a disambiguation a couple months ago, but was busy and someone reverted the change before I was able to create the new page - fair enough. Leaving this note as I'm beginning the process again!
BananaManCanDance (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems likely to be the primary topic either way, so it probably shouldn't be moved, definitely not without a WP:RM. You can create a disambiguation page without moving this one. MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)