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:

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.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Bouchard not funded for racial hereditarianism but article implies that. edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 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)Reply

Does this organization still exist? edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Website 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)Reply

By whom? edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There'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)Reply

Replacing "has been classified as" with "is" seems like the obvious fix. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

External links / website edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just 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)Reply

Add topic