Talk:Roger Pearson (anthropologist)/Archive 1

Further reading

I've removed the further reading section as the books are not obviously relevant for the topic (not explicitly about Pearson, although I am aware that they mention him). I don't think they are apt as further reading since they are obviously expressing a specific POV and makes the section look like a coatrack. The books could of course be used as sources - one of them already were for which reason I didn't include it below.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

• Anderson, Scott; Anderson, Jon Lee (1986). Inside the League. Dodd, Mead. ISBN 978-0-396-08517-1.

• Kühl, Stefan (2002). The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514978-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

• Richards, Graham (1997). Race, racism, and psychology: towards a reflexive history. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-10141-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

association with Carto

The reference to "working together with Wiliis Carto, he published the Anti-semite magazine The New Patriot under the pseudony Stephan Langton" has been removed, because it was falsely documented. The cited source did NOT describe the New Patriot as being "Anti-Semitic" but as "a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question." It made no suggestion that the published articles in the New Patriot were false, slanderous, or historically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyguyton (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The notion that there is "Jewish question" is of course itself anti-semitic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Need a disambig tag

I hate to even bring this up, but it look like we need a disambig tag for this article. We already have Roger Pearson (literary scholar). What should this article be renamed to? Two options include: "Roger Pearson (anthropologist)" and "Roger Pearson (eugenicist)". Thoughts? Zad68 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's start by ruling out "Roger Pearson (neo-nazi)" and "Roger Pearson (professor)" (because the other Pearson is also a professor). I think anthropologist is probably the best choice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with "Roger Pearson (anthropologist)". If no objections, I or somebody will or should go ahead and make the move and set up the disambig page. Zad68 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthropologist works for me as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Name calling

This article, particularly the introductory paragraph, is clearly not intended to inform but to attack and demonize. The contentious labels "anti-semite" and "extreme right" are mere name calling and are in violation of the Wikipedia rule against the use of contentious terminology. If editors would stick to the facts, no one would find fault with their articles. However,when they give in to the temptation of name calling--and of citing other such irresponsible name-calling as the so-called "evidence" for their bigotry--they are not engaging in serious scholarship. Such behavior has more in common with the middle-school playground than with the college lecture hall.Teddyguyton (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, reliable sources apply those characterizations to him, and a review of the sources available show that those characterizations apply to a significant and notable part of his career output. It would be against Wikipedia policy not to use them. If you have issues with the sources themselves, please raise them, or perhaps take them to WP:RSN for a review by uninvolved editors. Saying your fellow editors are engaging in "bigotry" and "middle-school playground" behavior isn't constructive. Zad68 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

But I suppose you believe that your insistence on demonizing and besmirching the reputation of a man you do not know and I am certain you have never met IS constructive. A "source" for an emotionally charged word such as "anti-semite" is not a source; it is simply more invective. If you will cease the bigotry and the juvenile name calling, I promise to cease pointing them out to you.Teddyguyton (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia that only those who have personally met the people who are the subjects of articles can write them. In fact, read WP:COI, you'll see that Wikipedia warns against editors personally and/or professionally involved with a subject from editing the articles. From your editing here, it looks like you probably do indeed have a conflict of interest issue and you should read and follow the advice at WP:COI. There is also WP:COIN where we can raise issues about editors who might have a conflict of interest interfering in a disruptive manner with the development of articles.

Wikipedia articles reflect what the reliable sources say about their subjects. Writings articles that accurately reflect what the reliable sources say is indeed constructive.

You write "A 'source' for an emotionally charged word such as 'anti-semite' is not a source"--actually we have many articles written about people who are anti-Semites with high-quality, reliable sourcing that describes their subjects as such, and so the articles describe them as such. Check out Henry Ford, Malcolm Ross (school teacher), Henry Hamilton Beamish, Oliver J. Flanagan and many others. If your objection is really to the quality of the sources, utilize WP:RSN. Your other rhetoric is unconstructive. Zad68 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the four cases you cite, three are not relevant in that they deal with deceased subjects. Wikipedia has different rules for the living, as I am sure you know. Of the one living subject, Mr. Malcom Ross, his case, as documented by Wikipedia is especially interesting. He sued a cartoonist who had compared him to Joseph Goebbels, and won, on the grounds that he was not a Nazi. The courts agreed and awarded him a judgment. This judgment was reversed on appeal, in which various outside interests involved themselves. However, it was not reversed on the basis that the charge was true, only that it didn't HAVE to be true. Since the slur against Mr. Ross was never affirmed and in fact failed twice to be legally affirmed, his is at best a dubious case to be offered on your behalf.Teddyguyton (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we're basing our discussion now in Wikipedia policy, which is good. Check out WP:BLP: regarding sourcing, the handling of well-sourced content in a BLP article is the same as in a non-BLP article: it stays. It is only the handling of non-well sourced BLP content that might be different. Again, if your issue is with the sources, utilize WP:RSN. Zad68 20:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Teddyguyton, are you suggesting that there are no anti-Semites, or that Pearson has never been an anti-Semite? And how do you define anti-Semite? Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have rewritten the lead, I have tried my best to use as many different sources available, to avoid "namecalling" and labelling and instead describing actual documented actions, and I have tried to describe also the events that may be considered Pearson's main achievements. The work is complicated by the fact that almost all of the sources that have biographical information about Pearson are highly critical of him, and have a clear bias against him and his ideas. If there are any published sources that provide biographical information from a more sympathetic point of view I would be happy to integrate those. It does not seem that Pearson has ever given many interviews or published memoirs or the like, at least not in sources I have been immediately able to find. If Teddy Guyton or other editors have access to such source I woudl very much like to add them as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the new lead contains numerous errors and untruths. I have deleted it in the hope that Maunus will read the following rebuttal, presented in good faith, and be encouraged to recast his lead and thereby improve the accuracy of the overall article.

It is sheer imagination that Pearson retired from the "University of Southern Mississippi where he is now retired." Pearson went from Mississippi to become Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs and Director of Research at Montana Tech, as already reported in Wikipedia. Also, it is nonsense to say that he "set up businesses in South Asia … before the partition of India and Pakistan." This contradicts the Wikipedia article itself, which correctly reports that at the time of Partition (1947) Pearson was in the army in Japan. It was years later that he returned to South Asia in the commercial world.

As said before, the Northern League for North European Friendship was neither anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi during the tWO years that Pearson was associated with it, whatever may be alleged against it AFTER Pearson resigned from it (1960). Anti-Semitism and Nazism were illegal in Germany in 1959 when the League held a well-attended international conference in Detmold. This would not have been possible if the organization had been anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi. The five-day Conference was well publicized in the German Press (e.g., Lippische Landeszeitung, 28 Juli 1959 /Der Lokale Teil. “Nordische Liga tagt in Detmold/Teilnehmer aus Zieben Nationen) Voelkerbund Treffen zur Erinnerung an das Jahr 9.") and a function at the Hermanns Denkmal was filmed and broadcast on German television.

None of Pearson's writings published by Willis Carto were "white supremacist and anti-Semitic literature" -- at most they might be described as "White-survivalist," since they lamented the decay of the white race and culture from its former high, creative achievements.

Pearson did NOT found or publish the New Patriot in association with Willis Carto. Pearson founded that journal in association with California Senator Jack Tenney, 16-year Chairman of the California Senate un-American Activities Committee, whose name was on the masthead and who authored well-researched articles for it. It was an objective journal, not "anti-Semitic," and any issue of it will show that it sought to identify individuals--including Jews and non-Jews--who had been active in spreading anti-national, international Marxist and revolutionary activities. As is well known, since the days of Marx, many Jews have been involved in Marxism while others have remained neutral or have opposed it.

It is not accurate to write that "Pearson's anthropological views have been widely rejected as unsupported by contemporary anthropology." Pearson's "Introduction to Anthropology: an Ecological and Evolutionary Approach" was published by the largest scholarly publisher of anthropology texts, Holt Rinehart and Winston (1964), and was widely used for many years as a freshman/sophomore textbook in US universities, including liberal colleges such as Occidental College. His 250,000-word Anthropological Glossary (Krieger Publishing, 1985) was also widely used in universities. His subsequent books and articles were his attempt to draw attention to the reality of heredity as a limiting factor in human behavior, a concept that has been attacked by Marxists and extreme egalitarian idealists raised in the Boasian tradition that still dominates contemporary American social sciences.

Anyone who asserts that Pearson has ever "advocated that the human species consists of biologically different races [which are] destined to compete against each other" is clearly unacquainted with his actual writings or with what is known of human evolution. Pearson condemns those whose minds are stuck in a kind of 19th-century time-warp, when it was believed that mankind could be neatly categorized into four or five distinct geographical races. Pearson points out that the racial reality is that races are clusters of diverse genetic continua, meeting and mixing as we move into contemporary times, and that eugenists are concerned that it should desirably be the fittest genes that should be replicated, both within each deme and between demes. Pearson does not write that "[races] are destined to compete with each other in a struggle to survive." He does not see race war as common in human history; more often, it is fratricidal war that is the reality. What he emphasizes is the competition between genes to survive: that the future of man will be shaped by competing demographics, by differential rates of fertility. He sees the highly varied population of Europe and "white race" as having suffered dysgenic trends since at least the beginning of the twentieth century, if not earlier.

The 53-year-old Mankind Quarterly was not founded by Pearson but by Professor Robert Gayre, with the aid of distinguished scholars such as Sir Charles Darwin, R. Ruggles Gates, Henry V. Vallois, and Corrado Geni, with the express purpose of combating the Marxist and Boasian political infiltration of the social sciences.

Neither the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies or the Mankind Quarterly are currently published by the Institute for the Study of Man nor are the Scott-Townsend publications. The Institute for the Study of Man is solely concerned with the Journal of Indo-European Studies and non-hereditarian issues.

Pearson did not incorporate "Reverent Moon and former Nazis" into the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Rev. Moon's organization was already a member years before Pearson joined the WACL and, moreover, admission to membership of WACL was not controlled by Pearson but by vote. (This kind of spurious "linkage" of Professor Pearson to Reverend Moon are an attempt at establishing guilt by association. Maunus and all editors of biographies of controversial persons should be alert to this temptation.) Furthermore, Pearson was not "President" of WACL, but Chairman of NARWACL (the North American region) for several years, and for one year held the rotating position of World Chairman of WACL.

If Maunus will correct his entry, bearing these facts in mind, the article will be greatly improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyguyton (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have reinstated the lead since it is obviously not all of it that is contested. I cannot do much to take your objections in account untill you support them with sources, I cannot take your word for it, when your word contradicts a considerable amount of expert published sources. Some of your own statements are themselves erroneous, for example the notion that the fact that Pearson's 1964 introduction to anthropology in any way contradicts the fact that his racial views are entirely discredited within anthropology, and was so already at the time it was published. The sources do not mention Tenney in relation to Pearson's involvement with the New Patriot, but describes it as a collaboration between Pearson and Carto. Sources unanimous;y describe the Northern League as Pangermanic and neo-nazi - it would take a very good source to change the description of that. I will change "president" to World Chairman. I will take your word for the fact that JSPES and MQ are no longer published by Institute for the Study of Man, although they clearly were in the past. The little of Pearson's writings I have read clearly belies your assertion that he does is not preoccupied with race war, and I am rather aware of current state of studies in human evolution. Thanks for your comments, although they would be much more useful if they were accompanied by some kind of source that could be verified. It is unclear what are the sources of your knowledge about Pearson - if they are personal acquaintance or experience then I am afraid we cannot use the information that contradicts published sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The context I had added to footnote 3 to help understand the quotation has been deleted. I have added it back because the context is clearly necessary. Please look at the original page in "Eugenics and Race" to see that this quotation has maliciously been quoted out of context Pearson. The quoted passage is a summary of Sir Arthur Keith's philosophy in a section discussing the views of that distinguished British scholar, author of "A New Theory of Human Evolution", which emphasized evolution by group selection, such as the replacement of Neanderthals by Cro-Magnons. It is NOT a statement by Pearson about what Pearson believes or advocates. Distortion by quoting out of context is one of the most common libel techniques and should not be copied by Wikipedia when the truth is apparent to anyone with access to the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyguyton (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote is repeated in many works about Pearson, always attributed to him directly. I have ordered the originl from the library to check for myself. I agree that if he is indeed summarizing Sir Arthur Keith's views and not giving his own then we should not quote it as his view. However your comment must be changed since the text is from 1966 and not the 1980s.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Where have I said it was from the 1980s? If you will look carefully, I said the 1960s.ATeddyguyton (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Also, the fact that "many works about Pearson" always make the same mistake is exactly the point I have been making. The "piling on" tendency on the part of Professor Pearson's enemies results in their simply repeating verbatim what they have read elsewhere. In effect, therefore, what appears to be many sources is in fact only one, with a lot of copycats.Teddyguyton (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to access an online copy of Race and Eugenics - and it appears you are right he is summarising the view of Sir Arthur Keith - there is little doubt that he agrees with his view, but still it is not proper as a quote intended to describe Pearson's own view. Instead I have found another place in the book in the essay "devolution in action" on page 33 where he quite clearly states that he believes that subspecies are naturally competitors and that interbreeding between superior and inferior groups is therefore harmful to the superior ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I have added back the detail regarding the REAL co-founder of The New Patriot, Senator Jack Tenney of California. You evidently believed the co-founder's identity was important when you mistakenly thought it was the controversial Willis Carto. Please allow Senator Tenney the credit now. His name was on the masthead of every issue of the The New Patriot, and he contributed a numerous articles to it.Teddyguyton (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was actually trying to protect the reputation of Tenney, but it appears he is well known for publishing anti-semitic literature so maybe it doesn't matter. We do need a reference for his status as co-founder though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pearson's key anthropology textbook was published in 1974, not 1964. He also defends the Gates (1948) and Coon (1962, 1965) subspecies (geographical race) divisions: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Capoid and Australoid. The claim "Pearson condemns those whose minds are stuck in a kind of 19th-century time-warp, when it was believed that mankind could be neatly categorized into four or five distinct geographical races. Pearson points out that the racial reality is that races are clusters of diverse genetic continua, meeting and mixing as we move into contemporary times" is completely bogus, though the rest of what Teddyguyton has written is very good. Pearson has no links to neo-nazism or anti-semitism, these are just added on the page to try and discredit Mr. Pearson by the same crackpot race denialists, the same sort of people have basically posted lies on both Hooton's and Coon's pages trying to discredit them by linking them to racist/political movements. Onion hotdog (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The racialist work of Hooton and Coon have been discredited since the mid sixties, and while they were both much, much less politically inclined than Pearson they did indeed both advocate to varying extents in the same pro-segregation, pro-African inferiority politics that Pearson does. This is well documented - just like Pearson's close ties to Neonazi and Antisemite organizations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Those works have not been discredited. Once again, its just you and doug abusing NPOV, and adding pseudoscientific race denialism to articles. See here: metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_race_denialist_trolls and metapedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Weller. Onion hotdog (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're Metapedia user;Atlantid then. How about we just differentialize into each our sectors and you stay over on metapedia where your outdated worldview is unlikely to be disturbed by contemporary forms of science or by reality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of this may be repetitive, if so, apologies

The terrorism industry:the experts and institutions that shape our view of terror[1]"Policy Review, and Roger Pearson, a well-known anti-Semite, neo-Nazi, and proponent of the racist pscudosciencc of eugenics,"

Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort[2] " Carto later founded the magazine Western Destiny, a merger of Right and the Nordicist Northern World.To edit Western Destiny Carto recruited Dr. Roger Pearson, the former editor of Right. Pearson went on to recruit former Nazis, fascists, and terrorists into the World Anti-Communist League, and promoted Aryan racial supremacy through the Institute for the Study of Man."

Old Nazis, the new right and the Reagan administration: the role of domestic fascist networks in the Republican Party and their effect on U.S. cold war politics[3] ""Roger Pearson, one of the foremost Nazi apologists in America"

Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States[4] "While Pearson was active with the conservative movement, he also used his position in WACL to recruit former German SS officers, Italian terrorists, and assorted European fascists into WACL. By 1978, when Pearson and the Liberty Lobby hosted WACL's annual conference in Washington, D.C., the organization was so thoroughly dominated by neo-Nazis and their admirers that the John Birch Society chose to make itself conspicuously absent." Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That new metapedia article on me is pathetics. It uses Garry Denke, who claims to own Stonehenge, as a way of attacking me, and claims that I am an academic fraud, "once pretending to have credentials in archaeology". Funny, I'm sure [1-25 this] is dated 1996 where I clearly identify myself as an amateur archaeologist. But what else would you expect there but lies? Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger's page will indeed be added to Metapedia without all the vandalism, lies and distortion that have been posted here. Onion hotdog (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my BA from Yale, my postgraduate diploma and MSc from LSE and my other postgraduate qualifications are all a myth. Love your WP:BLP violations. And I must have dreamed I spend 10 years teaching at a University. And of course my edits are worthless, you know so much about them. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

LSE? Nobody Ent 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

London School of Economics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is direct contact permitted?

When writing an article on a person who is still living (and particularly when the material is controversial), does Wikipedia permit its editors to write directly to the person concerned? Sometimes that could be useful when trying to clarify certain issues - [but not always, admittedly!] Would Roger Pearson himself be permitted to edit the page devoted to him? - or would that be disallowed, perhaps because of "Conflict of Interest"? Presumably, though, he would be able to insert comments on this Talk Page? - (assuming of course that he might wish to do so). --DLMcN (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:COI and WP:AUTO. I'll distill them for you here: All material needs to be sourced to verifiable, reliable, published sources. Personal communication or experience is not a verifiable source of information. Subjects are very strongly dicouraged from writing on their own biographies - and if they do their writing is subject to the same restrictions regarding verifiability. That means that one cannot insert personal memories or critiques or rebuttals of published sources unless those are supported by material that has alreayd been published elsewhere. Subjects can of course use the talkpage to state what they perceive as problems, or to present new sources like anyone else. It is allowed to write directly to the subject to ask, but such communication is not considered a reliable source either. And in any case it seems clear that TeddyGuyton already has had personal communication with Pearson.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clair Press

If someone feels like going to the library, you could create a stub on Clair Press from [5] OCLC 249420, p. 99: "Robertson, a young, non-paid assistant with a rather suspicious disposition whose duties are obscure; and a printer who runs the Society's Clair Press. ... (The favourite book of the neo-Nazis, Mein Kampf, however, is not sold by Britons.)" Tijfo098 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thunderbolt

I wonder though if the Thunderbolt, Inc. is the same as the Thunderbolt newspaper. For example TI published [6]. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically 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. It will be extremely helpful for this article and other articles on living persons to get the facts as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Labels applied to Northern League

The description of the Northern League has been changed to ensure objectivity. Possibly the two most egregious slanders is to describe a person, publication or organization as "fascist", "neo-Nazi" or anti-Semitic. The first two terms imply totalitarian, despotic, centrally-controlled political systems and jackboot militarism. The third implies hatred and ignorance. Although Pearson shared with many pre-War German patriots a common pride in his own (English) Germano-Celtic background, and was saddened by the enormous genetic and cultural destruction of World Wars I and II, he has NEVER belonged to or advocated any form of totalitarianism, Nazi or Fascist, or Communist. Quite the OPPOSITE -- he has been an active opponent of totalitarian systems. The Northern League most certainly did NOT advocate national socialism, fascism or any other political system during his period of membership, whatever may or may not be the case after he had resigned from it. As to the charges of anti-Semitism, Pearson has always sought to be factual in his accounts of history, and is conscious that he may have made errors on some occasions, but insists that he was never abusive or knowingly published anything false. During his time with the League, he does not believe it could in any be called anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi. As for his initial brief association with Willis Carto and Western Destiny, he did NOT write the first editorial that appeared under his name immediately after he arrived in the U.S., and nothing he wrote could be described as anything more than White survivalist, and certainly not White supremacist. He chose not to remain with Western Destiny for more than a few months

Also, the suggestion that Pearson’s “earliest work has constantly advocated that the human species consists of biologically distinct races that ought to compete against each other is a false libel. Firstly, Pearson has always maintained that even in prehistoric times Homo sapiens and pre-Homo sapiens have or most likely would have exchanged genes when in geographical contact with each other. Secondly, the authors of such slanders confuse “have” with “ought”.As a trained anthropologist, Pearson describes what was rather than what should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxchekr (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• The labels applied to the NOrthern league are supported by dozens of reliable sources. As are the descriptions of Pearson's work. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Description of Guenther

This incorrectly describes Professor Hans F. K. Guenther as a Nazi. It is true that Guenther received two awards from the Nazi authorities for anthropological research, but Guenther was NEVER a member of the Nazi party (NDSP), and after the war was cleared of all such allegations by the official de-Nazification program (entnazifizierungsverfahren) conducted by the allies. In fact Guenther fell foul of the SS during World War II, when Germany was losing so many men in battle that the SS devised a program to raise children in state homes, Guenther publicly criticized the program, arguing that children needed to be brought up in a family environment, and was nearly arrested by the SS for so doing. Indeed, he went so far as to return the award he had received from the Nazis for his research into European history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxchekr (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please supply sources for these claims if they are to be considered.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Gunther joined the NSDAP in 1932, one of the first scientists to join the party before it came to power.[7]. Incidentally that same year Hitler attended his inaugural lecture as Professor at the university of Jena.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pearson and Mankind Quarterly

Pearson at this time began to find that he himself had less time to research and write and became more interested in helping other scholars to publicize their findings which is why he took over Mankind Quarterly. The Journal of Indo-European Studies was already launched and had nothing to do with "Pearson's views on race" as also was the already existing Journal of American Affairs (now known as the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. The statement is therefore completely wrong, purely imaginative, and should be deleted.

• The statement is supported by sources, so please provide reliable sources contradicting those sources. We are not going to simply take your work against academically published statements and interpretations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pearson and USM

It is true that two faculty members from the formerly separate Religion department, which had recently been merged with Pearson’s department to create a larger,combined department of Anthropology, Philosophy and Religion, were terminated, but this act was ordered by the Administration, not by Pearson. When ordering their termination the Dean of Liberal arts, Dean Fyke, told Pearson that they were being terminated because the university Finance Department reported that they had claimed travel expenses for attending an academic conference in Texas which they had NOT attended.

After the 1979 WACL meeting phone calls were made by a journalist to every University where Pearson had worked. This was five years after Pearson had left USM. By then there was a new Academic Dean of the university named Lucas, who had no personal knowledge of Pearson's earlier tenure at the University. The allegation is HEARSAY and slanderous, and being unprovable should not be included in the biography of a living person. Pearson had in fact been so well-liked by the Administration at USM that after resigning to take up a better position elsewhere he was invited to return to USM with a higher academic rank and higher salary, which he did.

Faxchekr (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Your statements seem to be based on intimate knowledge of Pearson and his past, the "allegations" in turn are based on published accounts. Per Wikipedia policy only the latter is an admissible source of information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes on August 6, 2014

The following text has been deleted:

In the late 1950s he founded the Northern League, an organization promoting pan-germanism, anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi ideologies. In the 1960s he established himself in the United States for a while working together with Willis Carto publishing white supremacist and anti-Semitic literature.

It has been replaced by: "In the late 1950s he founded the Northern League, an organization promoting North European friendship, described by some as pan-Germanism and accusd by its critics of sharing Nazi raceial ideology. In the 1960s he established himself in the United States and for a few months assumed the editorship of Willis Carto's Western Destiny."

The Justification for this change:

Possibly the two most egregious slanders is to decribe a person, publication or organization as "fascist", "neo-Nazi" or anti-Semitic. The first two terms imply totalitarian, despotic, centrally-controlled political systems and jackboot militarism. The third implies hatred and ignorance. Although Pearson shared with many pre-War German patriots a common pride in his own (English) Germano-Celtic background, and was saddened by the enormous genetic and cultural destruction of World Wars I and II, he has NEVER belonged to or advocated any form of totalitarianism, Nazi or Fascist, or Communist. Quite the OPPOSITE -- he has been an active opponent of totalitarian systems. The Northern League most certainly did NOT advocate national socialism, fascism or any other political system during his period of membership, whatever may or may not be the case after he had resigned from it. As to the charges of anti-Semitism, Pearson has always sought to be factual in his accounts of history, and is conscious that he may have made errors on some occasions, but insists that he was never abusive or knowingly publshed anything false. During his time with the League, he does not believe it could in any be called anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi. As for his initial brief association with Willis Carto and Western Destiny, he did NOT write the first editorial that appeared under his name immediately after he arrived in the U.S., and nothing he wrote could be described as anything more than White survivalist, and certainly not White supremacist. He chose not to remain with Western Destiny for more than a few months

It is a false libel to say Pearson’s “earliest work has constantly advocated that the human species consists of biologically distinct races that ought to compete against each other “. Firstly, Pearson has always maintained that even in prehistoric times Homo sapiens and pre-Homo sapiens have or most likely would have exchanged genes when in geographical contact with each other. Secondly, the authors of such slanders confuse “have” with “ought”.As a trained anthropoloigt, Pearson describes what was rather than what should be.

---

The following text has been deleted:

and its tendency to attract prominent persons such as scholar Hans F. K. Günther, who received awards under the National Socialist regime for his work on race, and Heinrich Himmler's former assistant Franz Altheim, both of whom became members of the league in its early years.

It has been replaced by:

and its tendency to attract race-minded Germans such as scholar Franz Altheim, who had been appointed by Heinrich Himmler to head a Gdfman expedition to India and Tibet to research claims by Indian scholars that the Aryans had origiinated in South Asia -- a claim still advanced by many contemproary Indian scholars.

Justification: This incorrectly describes Professor Hans F. K. Guenther as a Nazi. It is true that Guenther received two awards from the Nazi authorities for anthropological research, but Guenther was NEVER a member of the Nazi party (NDSP), and after the war was cleared of all such allegations by the official de-Nazification program (entnazifizierungsverfahren) conducted by the allies. In fact Guenther fell foul of the SS during World War II, when Germany was losing so many men in battle that the SS devised a program to raise children in state homes, Guenther publically criticized the program, arguing that children needed to be brought up in a family environment, and was nearly arrested by the SS for so doing. Indeed, he went so far as to return the award he had received from the Nazis for his research into European history.

---

The following text has been deleted:

Pearson's co-founder of The New Patriot was Senator Jack Tenney, who for sixteen years was Chairman of the California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities and who wrote frequently for that journal[citation needed]. Pearson joined the Eugenics Society in 1963 and became a fellow in 1977.

It has been replaced by:

Pearson's co-founder of The New Patriot was Califonrnia Senator Jack Tenney, who for sixteen years was Chairman of the California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities and who wrote frequently for that journal on subject such as Jews and the Russian Revolution

Justification:

This provides the information that was missing.

---

The following text has been deleted:

Pearson also published two popular textbooks in anthropology, but his anthropological views on the race question have been widely rejected as unsupported by contemporary anthropology. Consequently Pearson faced difficulties in publishing his work. For this reason he founded several journals dedicated to publicizing research that was otherwise excluded from publication in mainstream journals, which Pearson considers to be dominated by egalitarian political correctness

It has been replaced by:

Pearson also published two popular textbooks in anthropology, but believing that political correctness caused most publishers to avoid touching non-PC subjects, in 1979 he agreed to take over the publication of Mankind Quarterly when Professor Robert Gayre decided to retire from that task.

Justification:

Pearson at this time began to find that he himself had less time to research and write and became more interested in helping other scholars to publiciize their findings which is why he took over Mankind Quarterly. The Journal of Indo-Europesan Studies was already launched and had nothing to do with "Pearson's views on race" as also was the already existing Journal of American Affairs (now known as the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. The statement is therefore completely wrong, purely imaginative, and should be deleted.

---

The following text has been deleted:

As chair of Anthropology of the University of Southern Mississippi fired most of the non-tenured faculty, hiring instead scholars such as Robert E. Kuttner and Donald A. Swan both with similar political backgrounds to Pearson.

Justification:

It is true that two faculty members from the formerly separate Religion department, which had recently been merged with Pearson’s department to create a larger,combined department of Anthropology, Philosophy and Religion, were terminated, but this act was ordered by the Administration, not by Pearson. When ordering their termination the Dean of Liberal arts, Dean Fyke, told that they were being terminated because the University Finance Department reported that they had claimed travel expenses for attending an academic conference in Texas which they had NOT attended.

---

The following text has been deleted:

The dean at USM later stated that Pearson had "used his post as an academic façade to bring in equal-minded fanatics."[20]

Justification:

After the 1979 WACL meeting phone calls were made by a journalist to every University where Pearson had worked. This was five years after Pearson had left USM. By then there was a new Academic Dean of the university named Lucas, who had no personal knowledge ot Pearson's earlier tenure at the University. The allegation is HEARSAY and slanderous, and being unproveable should not be included in the biogrsaphy of a living person. Pearson had in fact been so well-liked by the Administration at USM that after resigning to take up a better position elsewhere he was invited to return to USM with a higher academic rank and higher salary, which he did.

---

General remark: The fallback justification for the person or persons on Wikipedia who automatically removes most of these changes is that they are not documented in published works. However, when a living person is the subject of an entry that defames him, a person who knows from first hand experience the facts, to insist that he document from published sources is absurd. A well known and controversial individual will always have plenty of published sources criticizing and defaming him. The fact that they are published does not make them true. To deny the individual the right to contest defamatory charges from his own knowledge is grossly unfair. Teddyguyton (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because they do not conform to our policy of verifiability. If Dr. Pearson is interested in changing how he is perceived in the public he should do so by contesting the claims made by all of the authors who have written about his life in writing. It would be fairly easy for him to get his own account of his life published. He might also have taken legal action against all of the presses who have published this information about him and his life, and maybe get them to retract it. Untill he does this wikipedia has to reflect the published literature about him. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write about living people. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also curious about whether the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on conflict-of-interest editing may apply here, in light of the contribution history of the Wikipedian who deleted that sourced content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He is clearly a WP:SPA but I don't see how COI can be proven. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

recent out of hand deletion of Roger Pearson's own addition "Response to Criticism"

The quotation from Roger Pearson's own website could not possibly be more relevant to this Wikipedia entry. Many attempts have been made in the past to achieve a just edited version of this entry but it becomes only increasingly unfair with time. It should also be pointed out that no non-quoted content within the paragraph in question advocates any position in any way. It would be self-evidently unjust to prevent mention in the Wikipedia entry on Roger Pearson the fact that his own website responds to material placed by individuals on Wikipedia, including a statement that many efforts have been made in the past to correct erroneous, damaging and in many cases profoundly repellent statements placed on Wikipedia about Roger Pearson. As it currently stands it can not be denied that the allegations made about Roger Pearson on Wikipedia must be profoundly damaging and therefore, as all efforts to remove damaging and erroneous material to date, made by various parties and over a period of many years, have failed, some other form of permanently maintainable response must be permitted in the interest of fairness and justice. The presence of the caveats under "Response to Criticism" are patently deserved and should not be removed out of hand again. Anyone truly wishing to discuss its CONTENT of the section "Response to Criticism" would first raise such issues here rather than out of hand deleting that section first. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

About the broader issue here, which is how Wikipedia should treat a biographical article about any living person, the content guideline strongly emphasizes reliable sources. So it occurs to me that Roger Pearson or any other person in the similar position of having lived a long life with deep involvement in a lot of public activities, some of them controversial, could fix the problem of what a Wikipedia article says by finding one or several mainstream research scholars or journalists who would dig into his life deeply, pursuing all available sources, including interviewing living associates of the biography subject and looking into archival records of now-deceased associates, and of course interviewing the article subject himself. A published article in a mainstream news source or scholarly journal based on a research process like that would just have to be considered in further editing of a BLP article on Wikipedia. That's what I would say if there were a Wikipedia article about me (there is not): come on down; research my life and my activities and get to know me and get to know other people who know me, and write down the results.

If I read a carefully prepared life-and-work-retrospective article by a thorough researcher who had access to all the sources, pro and con, about some controversial person, I would give that article a lot of weight in editing a Wikipedia article about the person. Anyone who is notable enough to complain about how he is covered in Wikipedia ought to be notable enough to be an intriguing story for a journalist or scholar who wants to sift through all the sources and sum up that person's life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

second 'out of hand' deletion of new section

I should like to protest against the second out of hand deletion as well. Once more, if a Wikipedian wishes to discuss a concern. then that Wikipedian need only raise the topic for discussion here. I am sorry to say this is merely another example of the mass deletion of almost any material not pejorative of Roger Pearson that has prevented, for many years, the arriving at a just discussion of Roger Pearson's like and work. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that section hadn't been edited by a person with an account called Roger Pearson 1927 it would look a bit less like self-promotion. Kev ^(talk) 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - would you kindly explain why that is so? Isn't it the content that should be judged and not the identity of the author?--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear policy on Conflicts of interest and I feel that your edits are in violation of that policy. Other editors feel the same way (see comments above). The section you added has only Pearson's website as a source which could be in violation of WP:SELFSOURCE. I have requested page protection for this article. Kev ^(talk) 15:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kev you state your opinion but you give no REASON for your opinion. You might feel that the edits are in violation of conflict of edit policy but you state no reason why they ARE in violation of conflict of edit. Clearly it would not be proper to block mention on Wikipedia that Roger Pearson's website disputes its content. WHY please do you feel that to mention on Wikipedia that Roger Pearson's website disputes its content is evidence of a conflict of interests? Wikipedia's advice on conflict of interests are very clear. It does not matter if the person is closely connected with the topic -- what matters is if that is influencing what they are doing in an improper direction.

You have not said WHY quoting the fact of Roger Pearson's protestation (that attempts to correct Wikipedia are near always improperly blocked) is likely to be evidence of a conflict of interest.

You are saying that it is alright to claim, on Wikipedia, that Roger Pearson is 'guilty' but it is not alright to quote Roger Pearson himself, on Wikipedia, saying 'no I'm not guilty'.

Let us be clear - the entry at the moment is steeped in enormous quantities or error and many deeply defamatory individual statements. To deny a right of reply is profoundly unjust.

If you do not suggest a way in which the paragraph can be edited to become acceptable or at least explain precisely why no part of that paragraph could be acceptable then it would have to be concluded that you are not making this block in good faith.

I am trying to use this talk page in a proper manner but so far you have declined to engage in discussion. Please engage with me in discussion or else I will simply have to move to request a formal mediation. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Pearson's website is a reliable source for his own statements about himself. They cannot be used to replace statements in reliably published source, but counter claims can and should appear juxtaposed. I have added Pearson's statements from his website to the article where there is a conflict between what reliable published sources state and what Pearson himself states. ON the Website Pearson refutes a lot of claims that are not made in this article. For example it doesnt state he ever met Draper, that he ever argued for totalitatian nazism, or that he worked with James Angleton of the CIA, and it doesnt call him a fascist or Nazi. Also Pearsons website make it looks as if these are statements invented by wikipedians when in reality all the statement are found in books published by academic presses and in peer reviewed articles. I would suggest that Pearson try to refute or correct those instead of making it look as if wikipedia is particularly interested in providing negative information about him. The fact is that most of the information that exists about Pearson in published literature is highly critical.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, This Wikipedian has made no attempt to replace any statements! Further the statement that has been repeatedly deleted clearly makes a complaint about "strongly politicized texts being uncritically used and false data about Pearson being placed on Wikipedia". Your claim that Pearson "make it looks as if these are statements invented by wikipedians" is therefore unjustified. Even were that claim true (which it is not) it would not anyway be a reason not to quote Pearson's website as this Wikipedian did. Nor is it relevant that the website refutes 'a lot' of stuff not claimed by this the Roger Pearson (Anthropologist) article. For one thing that has no bearing on the question of whether the words that were deleted should have been deleted. And for another a great many other refutations made by Pearson's website ARE of things wrongly cited in his Wikipedia entry. You say that Pearson is making it look as if Wikipedia is particularly interested in providing negative information about him. In fact the paragraph from his website clearly states that the problem is "through no fault of" Wikipedia's. Furthermore the whole point of the paragraph quoted is that many attempts have been made over many years to correct the website. The (mostly hurtful) inaccuracies have only grown. Nevertheless, let us say that it was still your opinion that he and other should never give up trying: that would still be no reason for the deletion of the words in question. You have still given no reason for the deletion in question that is relevant to Wikipedia policy and which is based in fact. I'm not saying your opinion are not interesting but what you have written here is not relevant. If you would like to help find a way forward that does not involve seeking formal mediation (a route which might well bring about the deletion of the entire entry since Wikipedia is quite clear about potential defamation and living persons) then perhaps you would meet me half way by suggesting how the deleted entry could be reworded in a manner that you find acceptable? --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have already included the most relevant rebuttals by Pearson, not in a separate section but juxtaposed with the claims that they contradict. I dont think it is a good idea to dedicate an entire section to Pearson's website - that would be a case of undue weight. It also seems counterproductive to include Pearson's rebuttals of claims that are not in fact made in the article. I also don't think it is appropriate to quote the diatribe against wikipedia and its editors, not just because that would make the biography weirdly self-referential, but also because it doesnt really provide any additional information for the reader. It is better to provide corrections and rebuttals where they are due. So what I would consider the way forward would be for you to identify places in the text where you believe that Pearson's own statements from his website are necessary in order to correct a statement found in the literature. I think the article ending up deleted is extremely improbably given the vast amount of published literature about Pearson. Wikipedias BLP standard requires biographies to be accurate summaries of the published literature about the subject, not to be approved by the subject. You are most welcome to seek formal mediation, you can also argue your case at the biography of living persons noticeboard. All in all I think it will be easier to advance if you point out specific statements in the article that you find problematic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

response to a message just received

This wikipedian just received a message wrongly claiming "I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the Roger Pearson (anthropologist) article."

It would not be possible to quote any sentence or clause in the new "Response to Criticism" that this Wikipedian added to the Roger Pearson (anthropologist) article that in any way praises or promotes Roger Pearson or his work or points of view because there is no such content. Instead that section very properly quotes published work that merely protests the fairness of the entry.

Many attempts have been made by many people over many year to correct erroneous and improperly damaging material placed by individuals on Wikipedia but these attempts have always been just reversed. Attempts to engage in the normal Wikipedia process whereby a fair discussion is achieved has thus and - so far today -always been blocked. The only remaining avenue to include the fact that a response to criticism does exist and to quote it. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional mass deletion of my Entry

I wish to log my protest that Wikipedian 'KevM' has again mass deleted the entry "Response to Criticism". This is another example of unfair total prevention of material about Roger Pearson (anthropologist) and is not pejorative of that person. Once more, if a Wikipedian has a concern then that specific concern can be described -- specifically -- and discussed here.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way. (I don't think that holiday is observed in all countries where editors active on this page live, but I hope everyone reading this is enjoying a good day.) Wikipedia has very strict policies about biographical statements about living persons, but those policies don't mandate that the living person gets the last word about every statement in a Wikipedia article about the person. Roger Pearson has led a life engaged in a number of controversial public activities, and in my reading of his books (the first one I read I read back in the 1990s, before Wikipedia was founded) and in books about him and about his professional colleagues and about critics of his point of view it is clear that there are some points of undisputed fact about his career, and several points of characterization of those facts that are in dispute. Most of my reading in those books has yet to be reflected in edits appearing in the text of this article. I think other editors here have been reading for years in Mankind Quarterly and other sources on Pearson's life and work. We must all be careful to source this article carefully, but if we are citing verifiable, reliable sources, the sources will show us what to put in article text here. (By the way, in general, how does one authenticate an external personal website as having actually been prepared by the person who purports to maintain it?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not suggested Roger Pearson should "have the last word" nor anything remotely like that. You have given no reason whatsoever to explain why the website in general nor, to the point, those words precisely should not be quoted on Wikipedia. Once again I ask that you to explain "specifically" why those words precisely should not be quoted on Wikipedia. I'm further sorry but stating the question "how does one authenticate an external personal website" is not relevant to any Wikipedia policy and is not a question that can be taken into consideration however you have no reason to doubt that Roger Pearson's website has been published by Roger Pearson anyway. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have included Pearsons counter claims to specific claims in the sources where I found it necessary. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the website. I think the biographical section could also be cited for additional information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

deletion of official website

I need further to protest against the deletion of Roger Pearson's official website from his entry. This repeated deletion was particularly contrary to Wikipedia official policy. The deletion was patently unfair to Roger Pearson.

Unless this website is restored by tomorrow I will ask Wikipedia to mediate.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

reversion by Bbb23

Bbb23 please explain why you:

A/ denied increasing the prominence of the record of fact that Roger Pearson denies claims against him? That fact is of most powerful relevance and without it being prominent the article remains wildly unbalanced. The most casual glance through the Talk section and the History of Edits shows that certain Wikipedians will allow almost no corrections of fact or of tone of voice that diminish the damning allegations that make up this Wikipedia entry. Without very prominently warning readers that Pearson has published denials the impression of reading the first paragraph alone will be that no other view exists than the view that certain Wikipedians are bent on preserving with hardly a scratch. In short by burying a statement of such powerful significance you are misleading readers and defaming Pearson.

B/ and also why you removed the large majority of the list of things that he has denied. All the those item are most easily found on the page indicated and, again, by denying a reasonably comprehensive list the sentence as it stands seem more to say that 'Pearson has ONLY denied these things and not other things' which again is tantamount to defamation and an act of misrepresentation to Wikipedia readers.

You certainly need to say whether you have any just reason for refusing two allow these things and if so what your reasons are.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pearson posted an identical message on my talk page. I responded there. Please don't leave messages in more than one place. And don't make this personal. Just restrict yourself to this talk page and explain why you think the article needs to be changed. Also, accusations of defamation are skirting the line of a legal threat. I'd avoid them if you don't want to risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 can point to no line above that is 'personal'. The matter is serious and it must be said WHY it is serious. That is not the same as personal. Furthermore Wikipedia has strict policies about material that could possibly be defamatory and there can be no reason why therefore why that issue should be taboo. Saying so observes the inherent and profound injustice of the situation. Further it would be just as absurd to suggest that such a statement would be making a threat as it would be absurd to suggest that your statement "I'd avoid them if you don't want to risk being blocked" might be making a threat. As to asking that this Wikipedian should not 'leave messages in more than one place' my apologies but I wanted to be clear that I was not seeking to send any message or hold any conversations in relation to this matter 'behind' and 'closed doors'.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This article will be (and as best I can tell has been) edited according to normal Wikipedia practice. In particular, it relies primarily on published secondary sources. To give any significant weight to a self-published website that presents claims contradicting what is found it secondary sources would be inappropriate, in particular a violation of WP:NPOV. I see no problem with including a link and perhaps a brief mention to this new website, but the edits we've seen over the last few days are wholly undesirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor Roger Pearson 1927 doesn't seem willing to state that he is the subject of this article, so I've posted to his talk page citing WP:REALNAME and suggested that he identify himself properly. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding to what Nomosk said, and as I explained to the user on my Talk page, it's also a violation of WP:SELFPUB.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME says "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name." Although this Wikipedian has given no reason whatsoever for someone to doubt that he is or "(or [is] related to)" Roger Pearson (Anthropologist), neither has this Wikipedian stated anything whatsoever that depended on his being Roger Pearson (Anthropologist) "(or [someone] related to)" Roger Pearson (Anthropologist), nor has he said anything that would carry a different colour or significance were he or were he not Roger Pearson (Anthropologist) "(or [someone] related to)" Roger Pearson (Anthropologist) anyway, so this is all a great red herring I'm afraid to say. Nevertheless this Wikipedian has no desire for anyone to be made to feel uncomfortable and if editing under the name "Roger Pearson 1927" makes someone feel uncomfortable then it is better not to do so. I have therefore changed my 'editing name' (apologies if that is not quite the right terminology) to something meaningless, namely 'gh38999'. LET ME BE CLEAR, I am being just as open and transparent about this change now (in order to relieve concerns put to me earlier today) as I was trying to be in my original selection of 'Roger Pearson 1927'. Regarding Dougweller's concern that this Wikipedian "doesn't seem willing to state that he is the subject of this article", this relates to two private requests made a little earlier today for specific personal information about this Wikipedian. Please be understanding of the nature of the real world when I point out that ANY PRUDENT PERSON WOULD BE CAREFUL TO AVOID ENCOURAGING PERSONAL INFORMATION TO BE SOUGHT in a situation like this. Regarding Bbb23's stated concern as to some violation of WP:SELFPUB, if Bbb23 would care to SPECIFY what it is that has been written that is in violation of WP:SELFPUB I will gladly discuss it here as is proper. However, no matter how carefully I read the WP:SELFPUB regulations I can find no violation of that code that has been made by this Wikipedian.--gh38999 00:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearson 1927 (talk • contribs)

Wow, that's an amazing amount of double talk. That said, just writing a different name next to your posts isn't good enough. You have to officially change your user name. See WP:CHUS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevant. ::@Bbb23: you may want to provide diffs and explanations as to their other behavior, since you're more familiar with that aspect of our new acquaintance than I am. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dec. 27

Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· you restored the sentence:

"He argues that the future of the human species depends on political and scientific steps to replace the "genetic formulae" and populations that he consider to be inferior with better ones, through "humane and benevolent eugenics policies""

and also you restored the citation Timson, John. "Try to Publish and be Damned", Galton Institute Newsletter, March 1997, p 8. However this source has no relevance whatsoever to damaging accusation made by the sentence at all. Also you just added Kohn, M. (1995). The race gallery: The return of racial science. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 52-54 despite pages 52-54 of that book -- which I jut checked -- not supporting the statement. If I have misread those pages please do show me here how they actually support that statement. And even if you can find a source for the contents of this sentence, this is an allegation of something pejorative and so the sentence would need to be reworked to take a neutral tone and be cleared that these are allegations some particular sources in question.

Please would you either correct this sentence or else meet me here in the talk page to explain your position?

--gh38999 00:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyu93 (talk • contribs)

You removed information willy nilly all of which is sourced or sourceable, I threw citations into the lead willy nilly because your fervor for removing potentially damaging information from the article left me no time to find the specific citations with page numbers. However all of the information currently in the lead is sourced to articles and books already in the article. The lead does not generally need citations, because it is supposed to be a summary of the article and the citations should be in the body. However I realized now that some of the information in the lead is not present in the body of the article - this needs to be remedied so we will have to make subsections about Mankind Quarterly, and about Pearsons racial views, the two things that are the only things for which he is in fact notable. The attempt to remove his Nazi connections form the lead are honestly pathetic since they are so well documented in the literature. If Pearson is embarassed by having maintained this kind of company in the 1950s he should have thought about it then. I will spend sometime tomorrow writing up sections on Pearsons racial views based on sources - they will then motivate a reformulation of the way that aspect of his work is summarized in the lead. Given your obviously close relation to Pearson and the fact that you seem not to understand most of our editing policies, I think you should limit yourself to making suggestions here on the talkpage and not engage in this kind of blitz-removal of information from the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· - I have further read what explanations you gave for deleting my corrections. I must protest against the personal remarks you make (for example telling me that I am being 'ridiculous') and must also protest that you no specific reason relevant to the individual reversions that you made, aside from a general assertion that the accusations can, you claim, be found in lots of books (loosely referred to in your explanation by surname only) so surely you implicitly argue it is not necessary to cite your claims in the article. The worst aspect of the way you have made these reversions without explanation is what I fear may be your belief that because someone has been accused of extreme politics several times it becomes not necessary to use a neutral tone in the matter. The wikipedia entry as a whole is clearly used by a handful of very committed editors as public trial and one wherein only one opinion may have a fair chance to be heard. Roger Pearson has been denounced and therefore any voice contrary to his denunciation no longer has a right to heard. Again, I invite you to give you response here on the talk page as it proper.--gh38999 00:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyu93 (talk • contribs)

Gyu, you have been instructed repeatedly in the fact that wikipedia represents the literature. And it represents views proportionately to their presence in the reliable sources about the topic. There are literally multiple dozens of sources about Pearson, none of which describe him in a flattering way, but rather strongly criticizes his views and his affiliations. In the literature Pearson is routinely and frequently described as a racist, a neo-nazi, a fascist, a white supremacist, an extreme right wing political activist etc. The article currently does not make any such descriptions but it describes factually and detachedly his participation in extreme right wing politics, his affiliations with confirmed nazis (neo and paleo), antisemites and racists (From Gunther, Gayre, Carto, Verschuer, Cox, etc.). It describes (although with insufficient detail) his Racial views which consistently (e.g. both in Race and Eugenics 1958, Blood Groups and Race 1966, Heredity and Humanity 1996) have argued that racial groups are human subspecies and that they are differentially endowed with cognitive faculties and that the most creative, beautiful, strong, and civilized are the "nordics", and that eugenics is a valid way for humans to control their genetic future by weeding out the disfavored genetic strains. There are virtually no changes visible in Pearson's published racial thinking from 1958 to the early 21st century. It is correct that Pearson avoids the most extreme and egregious formulations of this racist worldview, but to be honest it is a mystery to me how he can not own up to the clear and unequivocal racist and eugenicist implications that are present throughout his oeuvre. Clearly noone who reads him is fooled and both die hard white supremacists recognize this clearly (currently the only way to access Pearsons books online are through their websites) as his mainstream critics realize that his writings are deeply racist, even if couched in plush. The article must and will represent the actuality of Pearsons views as they are present in his writings and as they have been interpreted by his readers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are thorough, reliable independent sources for this article. For editors new to this article and thus new to this article talk page, I'll note for the record that there have been efforts for years by a series of sockpuppets with similar user names to whitewash this article so that the Wikipedia article will present Roger Pearson solely as he sees himself, and not as authors published through independent mainstream commercial publishers and academic publishers have written about his life and work based on thorough research. I have many of the books that are used for sources in this article at hand in my office, and I can attest that Maunus fairly represents what the sources say and fairly describes what the general tenor of Pearson's scholarly reception is. For years, this article has been kind to a fault to Pearson, who has never extended the same kindness to the many whole groups of scholars and people in general whom he has criticized in his own writings. Allow me to repeat myself: Roger Pearson or any other person in the similar position of having lived a long life with deep involvement in a lot of public activities, some of them controversial, could fix the problem of what a Wikipedia article says by finding one or several mainstream research scholars or journalists who would dig into his life deeply, pursuing all available sources, including interviewing living associates of the biography subject and looking into archival records of now-deceased associates, and of course interviewing the article subject himself. A published article in a mainstream news source or scholarly journal based on a research process like that would just have to be considered in further editing of a BLP article on Wikipedia. That's what I would say if there were a Wikipedia article about me (there is not): come on down; research my life and my activities and get to know me and get to know other people who know me, and write down the results.

If I read a carefully prepared life-and-work-retrospective article by a thorough researcher who had access to all the sources, pro and con, about some controversial person, I would give that article a lot of weight in editing a Wikipedia article about the person. Anyone who is notable enough to complain about how he is covered in Wikipedia ought to be notable enough to be an intriguing story for a journalist or scholar who wants to sift through all the sources and sum up that person's life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• To avoid further obfuscation I have introduced additional information including quotes from Pearson's own hand, both published as well as unpublished personal correspondence quoted by John Jackson jr. in his book Science for Segregation. They make make Pearson's early views very clear I think, foreclosing the necessity for further discussion about his past views and statements. If Pearson no longer holds these views he ought to publish something to that effect. But as I have stated that would be surprising given the high degree of consistency in his published views from 1957 to 2002. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have added links to scans of the Northlander, one of the Northern League's two publications. Anyone who can read will see that the claims on Pearsons website that the league was "essentially non-political" is baseless, and the notion that the organization moved to the right in 1961 after Pearson's resignation might make one ponder what could possibly be to the right of the political views advocated by Pearson in the Northlander. Unfortunately I cannot find an online scan of the issue which Jackson jr. quotes to the effect that Pearson argues for a Totalitarian government to carry out negative eugenics policies, so we will have to take Jackson's word at present. I also cannot find a scan of the issue of The European where he praises Keith while recognizing his "Hitlerite" views as such. Apparently, according to Bruce Lincoln Pearson also translated two works of Gunther under the Langford pseudonym. But I am unsure whether to include this also. Lincoln can also be quoted to the effect that "Pearson's racist views and his connections to both the old and new right have been discussed in many sources"[8]. Clearly Pearson's website should be used as a source only with the utmost skepticism, as many of its claims are clearly hagiographically counterfactual. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I will now step back from this article and let others edit it, removing or adding information as they see fit. Most of the sources I have used, including Pearson's own writings are available online, and many are linked directly for ease of access. Jackson jr.'s book is particularly useful as he has had access to Pearson's correspondence with Cox and others, as well as issues of the Northlander and Northern World and The European that are not available online.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for agreeing to discuss this with me here on the agree page.

Maunus cites no reason whatsoever for (above) claiming of Roger Pearson's website that "many of its claims are clearly hagiographically counterfactual." and certainly no reason for why the accused should be considered guilty in such a special way that mention of his defense should not be allowed to stand together with the body of accusation. This illustrates a determination that exists amongst (sadly so many) activists to forbid mention of the facts that don't fit. I am also sorry that Maunus has ignored the clear fact that I only deleted citations that were incredibly clearly of no relevance to the argument which they were supposed to be in support of. The article has an amazingly large number of citation links that bear no relevance to what has been said in the sentence to which they are attached! This article is primarily made up of opinions built on other opinions and yet that fact is very rarely self-evident in the article. Just because an opinion gets published many times does not prevent that opinion from still being just an opinion.

WeijiBaikeBianji's remark "I'll note for the record that there have been efforts for years by a series of sockpuppets with similar user names to whitewash this article" merely draws attention firstly to how many people there have indeed been over the years who have attempted to protest against and correct the patently wrongful treatment meted out to Pearson by the article's contents throughout that period and secondly to the fact that the activists who oppose the views of those just insulted by being referred to as 'sock puppets' have been constantly successful at deleting views they don't happen to share. WeijiBaikeBianji's suggestion that the usernames of his 'sock puppets' are suspiciously similar is self evidently baseless. There is no reason not to think that these objections and attempted corrections have indeed been by several different people.

The truth is that Pearson obviously holds a lot of views that contrast very strongly with views commonly found among the political left but that beyond that innocent fact Pearson has indeed been the victim of considerable persecution for many decades.

In my own opinion, given the realpolitik of the situation between us, all this article needs is a simple statement, somewhere prominent -- NOT (deliberately or otherwise) buried -- making clear the breadth of Pearson's own published denials and this should make the remaining and coexisting injustice of the article tolerable in terms of fairness and justice. If his refutations are really so self-evidently preposterous then why are you (my conversation partners and counter-editors) so afraid of letting people see them? I tried to add the statement "Pearson’s website contradicts some of the claims in the literature about him, rejecting specific accusations of race-hate, of anti-semitism, of arguing in favor of genocide, involuntary eugenics, forced repatriation of legal immigrants, subjugation or exploitation by one group of another, extreme or fascist politics including National Socialism or any totalitarian system, as well as denying accusations of impropriety." but it has been mostly deleted away down to a couple remaining denials only redeployed where they will not too often be read. Importantly, this is even less just than when there was no record of Pearson's refutations since now it appears that Pearson has ONLY made a couple of denials, so implying that he has confirmed with his silence the other things. This is totally unjust. I INVITE YOU TO HELP ME DRAFT THIS SENTENCE. In other words, PLEASE SUGGEST WHAT CHANGES TO THE SENTENCE THAT I QUOTE ABOVE IN THIS PARAGRAPH and let us agree upon it. Let us also agree on a PROMINENT position within the article for it to remain.

The whole point of Wikipedia is that people really believe that what is up there has resulted from discussion, compromise and, above all, evidence that is based on more than opinion. The fact that the editors I am discussing this with right now are forbidding me from adding to the article, in a clear and prominent manner, that there IS evidence of denials by Pearson, plus the fact that these denials relate NOT just to a couple of things but rather to a great many things, is very wrongful. This intolerant and crushing response is totalitarian in nature, gives an untruthful impression of the facts and is strongly contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia.--gh38999 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Since what I am asking for is cooperation I don't want now to be overly critical but I do feel duty bound to note that Maunus's observation that "There are literally multiple dozens of sources about Pearson, none of which describe him in a flattering way, but rather strongly criticizes his views and his affiliations." really only draws attention to the lack of neutrality among the sources in question. It should also be noted that the more respectable among these sources (those, for example, leaving out such ludicrous inventions as to suggest that Pearson, who, despite exemption from the draft on academic grounds, volunteered to join the army as a 17 year old in 1944, was somehow at the same time in collaborative contact with the enemy, even miraculously having somehow had a hand in Mengeles's escape!!!) suffer from being strikingly repetitious. These are people, either who well-meaningly, though naively, imagine that just because they find something in print more than once that it must have resulted from properly researched and verified research (such well-meant persons then going on to re-iterate what they have read, a great deal of additional inaccuracy accruing as the claims gets whispered again and again) and, regrettably others who believe more as a premise that even in the latter days of the twentieth century, as in so many movies, there must still be hidden Nazi thinkers holding positions of real might and influence: finding such people resistant to identification, they find it necessary to illustrate this 'truth' by the manufacture of bogeymen. Roger Pearson, like Tolkein (who argued, inter alia, for cultural reconciliation between the cultures of Northern Europe), Winston Churchill (ardent eugenicist and, behind closed diplomatic doors, aggressive opponent of Marxist Russia in later discussions with America) or Levi Strauss (famous sociologist, and supporter both of worldwide eugenics and zionism, who complained about the post war tendency to demonize even innocent nazi-period German policies and customs as Reducto ad Hitlerum), has clearly spent his life refusing to throw what he believes to be the baby out with the Nazi bathwater, surely a perfectly moral concern in itself, but also one laughably easy to misinterpret. Since unlike Tolkein, Churchill and Strauss, Pearson was little known, he has remained both safe and easy to slur, and an easy target to build really quite an extensive mythology around. If a claim is negative about Pearson, it is generally assumed to be true, and a matter of duty to the egalitarian activist to disseminate. Once repeated enough times, the fact of its repetition alone is claimed as somehow demonstrating its truth. This however is not how history is written. This is how legends evolve.--gh38999 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyu93 (talk • contribs)

Do you realize that Claude Levi-Strauss whom you claim was a defender of eugenics and the Nazis was a French Jew and socialist who fled the Nazi invasion of France and spent the next decade in exile in the US where he became a cosigner of UNESCO's first statement of the Race Question? He was also not a sociologist but an anthropologist. I would be very interested in seeing where he ever defended eugenics or "innocent ex-Nazis" or talked about "reductio ad Hitlerum".Talk about starting legends here. Meanwhile it is clear from Pearson's own writings that what he considers the "baby" is what the rest of the world consider the actual dirt inside the Nazi bathwater. I have inserted your sentence verbatim into the lead, since that does seem a reasonable summary of what Pearson claims on his website. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, when you say "I have inserted your sentence verbatim into the lead, since that does seem a reasonable summary of what Pearson claims on his website.", I believe that what you mean is that you are referring to the sentence that I asked you (and the others) about agreeing to and further that you have inserted it into the lead (opening) section of the article on Pearson? If I have understood you correctly then I am indeed grateful. I only ask because when I looked at the article again I could not see the sentence? Nor could I see in the history if someone else has since removed it? It would be kind if you could clarify this matter? thank you--gh38999 19:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyu93 (talk • contribs)

I inserted it in this edit[9]. It is the last paragraph of the lead and it is still there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I made three changes to this article on 6/12, which were promptly removed by one Maunus. They had to do with use of the term "neo-Nazi," which regardless of whether it has been used by others in a similar libelous way is unfounded, unfair, and unsupportable. The allegation that The Northern League and the New Patriot were neo-Nazi is NOT supported by Footnote 7 or any other citation on this page. The term neo-Nazi is used by Maunus and others who seek to denigrate Professor Pearson as a smear word contrary to the Meriam Webster and Wikipedia definitions of neo-Nazi. Pearson has never criticized democracy or advocated totalitarianism of any kind (quite the contrary). Maunus uses the header to stress the neo-Nazi smear in connection with minor achievements more than half a century ago, while playing down Pearson's unquestionably solid academic achievements over the past FIFTY years. Maunus' changes are inaccurate and leave the page a far from a balanced summary of Pearson's life and work. To stress the importance of environment, culture and genetic qualities has nothing to do with Nazism -- except in the eyes of those who do not favor those goals and who are too often prone to label those who oppose them as fascists and neo-Nazis.Teddyguyton (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me a reliable source that suggests that "Neo-Nazi" is not an accurate description of the Northern League and its views? The fact that it is pejorative does not in itself mean that we cannot include it if that is the way most sources refer to it. I think that the way to address the perceived imbalance is to add the material you see missing, not to remove the material you don't like. It is reasonable to include more about his 50 years of scholarship, but I have never seen that described as solid outside of a small ideological circle publishing mostly in journals established by himself. Could you perhaps provide some sources (preferably not affiliated with him or his journals) to show how you propose to include mention of his scholarhship?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Northern League certainly looks like a neo-Nazi organization -- but it would help if we had a good source that says it is. I've restored the passage about the anti-Semitic journal -- there's no question about that one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This source quite unequivocally describhes it as a neonazi organization "Bellant, Russ. 1991. Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party. Boston: South End Press."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the Wiki article on the Northern League (United Kingdom) says the organization was neo-nazi and was founded by him. IMO if the information is based on reliable secondary sources, and was not an isolated incident in his life (which it does not seem to be), then it is appropriate in the article. The other editor can focus on providing information on his academic work.Coaster92 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bellant, Russ. "the Coors connection" - "The Northern League, peppered with veterans of the Third Reich, was a bizarre pagan Nazi group"
• Marcus, George E. "Cultural producers in perilous states" - ""the Northern League, an international neo-Nazi organization."
• Seidel, Gill. "The holocaust Denial" - "The Northern League A key figure in WACL, former President of the American chapter, with unmistakable neo-Nazi connections in Western Europe is Roger Pearson."
• Jackson, John P. "Science For Segregation": "Hans FK Guenther and had extensive ties to the neo- Nazi movement throughout Europe, including the Northern League."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Sklar, Holly. "Washington's War on Nicaragua" - "The chairman of WACL and head of the US chapter during the late 1970s was Roger Pearson, a well-connected white supremacist, eugenicist and neo-Nazi, "·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Tom Barry & Deb Preusch. "The new right humanitarians" - "Roger Pearson, former president of the World Anti-Communist League with a neo-Nazi past, was a founding member of the foundation's journal Policy Review. "
• Bohdan Szuchewycz, Jeannette Sloniowski, Bohdan Szuchewycz. Canadian communications: issues in contemporary media and culture" - "It is edited by Roger Pearson, a psychologist who wrote the book Eugenics and Race, founded the neo-Nazi Northern League in 1958, and is a past president of the World Anti-Communist League."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

More than sufficient. I've restored the relevant material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1991, anthropologist Roger Pearson jumped into the fray with what was probably the most comprehensive defense of scientific racism in the United States since 1945". S Kühl. The Nazi connection: eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism. 2002·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Roger Pearson, the Quarterly's editor has been described as being well- connected to influential fascist forces in the US and worldwide and a key player in promoting various racist agendas" RG Newby. The Bell Curve… - American Behavioral Scientist, 1995·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• "... the work of anthropologist Roger Pearson, who, as the work of many scholars and journalists has established, was a leading neo-Nazi organizer and distributor of extreme racist and antisemitic publications" AS Winston.Review: The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund

- Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied, 2003·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• ...Roger Pearson made two unsuccessful post-war attempts to establish a Nazi international society...The Racist Past of the American Psychology Establishment

WH Tucker - The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2005·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• ...Willis Carto and Roger Pearson continued after Cox's death to champion Nordic white supremacy in publications such as Truth Seeker and in organizations such as the Northern League....Review of: John P. Jackson Jr., Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case Against Brown v. Board of Education, New York: New York University Press, 2005. Pp. 291. … D Freeman - Law and History Review, 2007 - Cambridge Univ Press·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• "..."If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide."(p. 26)....Pearson, R. (1966). Eugenics and race. London: Clair Press.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been said that when a species is reduced to a single subspecies (e.g.. panmixia), it is nearing extinction. Long term evolutionary survival is by way of speciation and this necessarily involves subspeciation. Evolution cannot occur unless "favorable" genes are segregated out from amongst "unfavorable" genetic formulae".....any population that adopts a perverted or dysgenic form of altruism - one which encourages a breeding community to breed disproportionately those of its members who are genetically handicapped rather than from those who are genetically favored, or which aids rival breeding populations to expand while restricting its own birthrate - is unlikely to survive into the definite future (p. 96) . . .The belief that humankind could benefit from being leveled into a single subspecies also flouts the laws of evolution, since evolution is rooted in differentiation (Pearson, R. (1995b). The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part three, the revival of interest in genetics. Mankind Quarterly, 36, 73-103. p. 97)."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• "With the exception of Pearson, however, none of the above-named who could be classified as anti-black racist eugenicists, could, also, be classified

as antisemites.SL Jacobs "Revisiting Hateful Science: The Nazi “Contribution” to the Journey of Antisemitism. Journal of Hate Studies, 7(1), 47-75·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He has been described as "one of the most persistent Neo-Nazis in the world" and "one of the foremost Nazi apolgists of America" and "one of the best connected racialists in the world". Bruce Lincoln. 1999. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. University of Chicago Press. p. 122 ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. Comments such a s "Can you show me a reliable source that suggests that "Neo-Nazi" is not an accurate description" are not valid to keep as OR/Synthesis. Sources need to claim it as such in a reliable oublication. At any rate, an easy accomodation is to leave the link to the organisation so readers can go there and determine for thmselves. Its pure pov-pushing with the caveats.

"he has been decribed" is the view of one individual. If we were to take that, then we should take pearson's view as fact the same way (which we wont)Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, I have presented more than 20 reliable sources describing him as involved with Neo-nazism - many of them referring to him as a neonazi. It does require sources that contradict that to remove the description. The onus is on whoever wants to contradict 20 reliable academically published sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's naive to think that the way an organisation describes itself reflects reality. Which is why we use sources, not just the subject. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Maunus 1. All of your sources are from Left leaning websites. It's not neutral if you only accept sources that advances your theory. Either we accept sources from left and right or none of them. Otherwise just stop pretending to be objective and declare yourself as a lefties, communist administrator. You should be reported for bias. 2. Eugenism wasnt invented by Hitler. So according to your logic every Eugenist who came before Hitler was a Neo-Nazi. That's clearly a fallacy. So I'm removing the Neo-Nazi references.KevinFrom (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't evaluate sources in terms of "left" and "right". What matters is WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that there are multiple reliable sources that describe Pearson as a neo-Nazi, published not just in English but also in German and other languages. The list of sources here is not yet exhaustive. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roger Pearson (anthropologist). 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/20150818165724/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/HPPB/visions.htm to http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/HPPB/visions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818165724/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/HPPB/visions.htm to http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/HPPB/visions.htm

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) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pearson and the WACL

"As World Chairman of the WACL he worked with the U.S. government during the cold war, and he collaborated with many anti-communist groups in the organisation, including the Unification Church and former German Nazis.". The book The Nazi connection doesn't mention Moon' Unification church and there are only some very shorts sentences about the WACL, on the page 4 (see books.google.fr). He was the chairman of the NARWACL in the 1970s, not in the 1980s, and the WACL chairman in 1978-1979. So how one could believe he's worked with the Jimmy Carter administration ? Really ? Carter was the target of some WACL chapters (from Mexico or Taiwan for instance) because he was perceived as too weak. General Singlaub criticized Carter's decisions before becoming the new NARWACL leader in april 1982. Sorry for my english, it's not my language. --Depechetoi (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Roger Pearson apparently never had a PhD in anthropology, you may also want to remove anthropologist from title

I remember reading from a source on Google Books he never had a PhD in anthropology. I've tried finding the source but can't see it now though.195.213.159.63 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Masters and PhD

When information about Pearson's education was originally added in 2007 it said simply that he studied anthropology at the University of London. Since then a large quantity of unsourced and highly personalized information was added and removed and readded by various editors. I cannot track down an online copy of the original source, which was a newspaper article from 1978. It may or may not have supported more specific information, but with the article's history and lacking any other sources, I have restored the earlier, more vague wording. If anyone wants to expand this with more details, please verify the original source, or better yet, add another one. In this case, I dispute that a primary source is sufficient. This info had been in the article without a source long enough that WP:CIRC may also be a concern. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

On google books [snippets], there do seem to be genealogy listings consistent with Roger Pearson—his place of birth (St John's Wood), parents (Edwin and Beatrice [Woodbine] Pearson), etc. For an M.Sc. in Economics and Sociology, I would expect the precise college to be named (Royal Holloway, Queen Mary's & Westfield, University, Imperial, Birkbeck, Queen Elizabeth, etc). Even if he spent time in the Indian subcontinent, I would expect some mention of where he was educated. Similarly for the Ph.D. in anthropology; a D.Sc. can be applied for from the University of London in a formal way, and its award might not necessarily be carefully scrutinized, since only selected listings of research beyond the award of a Ph.D. are required. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The genealogy listing, ed. Paul Gratiot, and other sources are consistent with a B.Sc. in 1951, an M.Sc. in 1954 (automatic) and a Ph.D. in 1969. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)