Talk:Roger Pearson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment moved from article

[Please add here which British controlled companies were directed by Pearson. Is British controlled "Vedanta Mining Company" one of them?] 

This was in the article and obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know the answer. There was some more detail of his South Asian interests in an earlier version. I will look and probably restore, depending on the quality of sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good source for further edits of this article.

I see it is already cited here,

• Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

and it well deserves to be cited some more during further edits. As the title makes clear, the book is about another person and some of his activities, but there are extensive discussions of Pearson throughout the book.

I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. This book is a helpful, reliable secondary source for most of the articles here on Wikipedia related to Pearson's life or publications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved party edits here?

It appears that someone who claims personal communication from Roger Pearson (who is a living person, a controversial living person who is mentioned in sources with widely differing points of view) has done some recent edits to this article. I have reverted those edits (with WP:COI and WP:BLP both in mind). Let's discuss what the verifiable and reliable sources say about the life and works of Roger Pearson, the better to improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by "involved party"

I am the "involved party." Here are my comments on the previous version, which I edited and have un-erased and will thank you not to wholesale remove again.

No relationship to Draper

Draper was a colonel in the US Army attached to the British Indian Army at some time during World War II. Pearson did not arrive in India until September 1945, by which time Draper would no longer have been in India. Pearson never met or knew Colonel Draper, although he would have been honored to have done so.Teddyguyton (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not control League membership

Pearson did not control the membership of the League and denies recruiting the persons mentioned. All records were kept by the secretary in Scotland. During his time he asserts that the League avoided politics except to warn against uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded Europe. He denies any knowledge of Ernest Sevier Cox until meeting that gentleman at a League gathering after the latter had become a member. He did not know Dr. Kesserow and believes that this gentleman may not have joined the League until after he himself had resigned.Teddyguyton (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are our sources for this information?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not "brought" by Willis Carto

Pearson was not “brought” to the USA by Willis Carto, but paid his own fare and came to the USA on his own initiative. He contributed articles to the Noontide Press for a few months between late 1965 and early 1966, but not until “the end of the 1960s Documentation: For evidence, see the relevant dated Western Destiny and Noontide Press; also Willis Carto and the American Far Right. George Michael, University Press of Florida, 2008.

Not "asked to leave" Montana Tech

It is NOT true (a) that Pearson was “asked to leave” his position at Montana Tech. Pearson had already become active in the World Anti-Communist League and resigned in order to move to Washington DC in 1975 to establish the Council on American Affairs; to become Chairman of the American Chapter of the World Anti-Communist League; and to edit the Journal on American Affairs (the forerunner of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies). No question about Pearson’s politics or his interest in heredity and eugenics ever arose while he was at Montana Tech, which was” unaware of his interest in these matters until contacted by a journalist some three years later after the 1978 Washington DC meeting of the World Anti-Communist League, which Pearson chaired. a) The statement that Pearson was asked to leave his position at Montana Tech is totally false. Nor is it supported by either of the alleged sources -- (3) Valentine or Lichtenstein (5) -- cited as documentation at the end of the paragraph. In fact, Lichtenstein’s statements actually contradict this. b) As far as the false allegation that he was ”asked to resign because of [his] continued relationship with Wickliffe Draper” is concerned, the FACT is that Colonel Draper died in 1972, two years before Pearson joined the faculty at Montana Tech. (see Wikipedia for date of Draper’s death.) Pearson never knew or communicated with Colonel Draper.

Never advocated involuntary sterlization; position on apartheid is clarified

Pearson NEVER advocated involuntary sterilization. This assertion is totally false. The end of the paragraph again refers to [3] and [5] as sources, but nothing in either of the cited documents supports this charge.

With regard to Pearson’s views on apartheid, an earlier edit by James P. Robuck’s dated 4/13/10 had correctly stated that Pearson “supported Apartheid in South Africa, in the sense of separate "homelands" as distinct from "petty Apartheid," which latter involved economic exploitation of black labor.” This is an important difference.

Never involved in any repatriation proposal

Pearson was never involved in any such proposal with Professor Scott or anyone else. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Draper ever established such a project, although he is known to have toyed with the idea in the 1930s, a time during which Pearson was still a pre-teen schoolboy in England.

This is yet another case of implying documentation that is non-existent. Neither of the articles cited as documentation (Valentine[3] nor Lichtenstein[5], which are cited as sources, make any such allegation.

Additional Reference

See Willis Carto and the American Far Right. George Michael, University Press of Florida, 2008 Also Paul W. Valentine (1978-05-28). "The Fascist Specter Behind The World Anti-Red League". The Washington Post.

Correction to Mankind Quarterly statements

Pearson did not “acquire” the Mankind Quarterly until June 1979. The journal was published by Professor Gayre from Edinburgh, Scotland, through Spring 1979. The erroneous date 1978 is a significant error because of the further erroneous claim that Professor Dr. Freiherr von Vershuer “was on the editorial board of the journal before his death in 1970.” As Wikipedia correctly reports, von Verschuer died in August 1969 not 1970. Pearson had no communication with him at any time. Also his name did not appear on the masthead of the Journal at any time when Pearson was publisher. It creates an unbalanced and unfair image of Pearson that attempt so connect him with Mengele by inaccurate statements while not mentioning any of the eminent scholars who have served on the editorial board during or before Pearson’s time.

Correction to JSPES and JIES statements

The Institute for the Study of Man has never owned the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies or the Scott-Townsend Publishers imprint. Both of these have always been the property of the Council for Social and Economic Studies. Pearson does not edit the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and Professor James P. Mallory has full editorial authority as General Editor of that journal. JIES is and always has been a peer-reviewed academic publication totally free from politics. Pearson founded the journal in 1972 and was for a number of years co-editor together with the renowned archaeologist Professor Marija Gimbutas (UCLA, now deceased) and linguist Professor Edgar C. Polomé (U.Texas, also now deceased); but he has had no editorial role whatsoever since the year 2000, at which time Professor Mallory became General Editor following the death of the previous General Editor, Edgar Polomé. For verification, see www.jies.org and the masthead of every issue of the journal since 1972, which clearly lists the editorial panel.Teddyguyton (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. At least a few of the concerns you bring up don't seem to warrant article edits of the kind you have made. (I didn't read the article as saying that Pearson and Draper had ever met, for example, but merely that they had an acknowledged common experience of having been in India during the same decade.) I would like to hear from you a rationale for deleting the books by Tucker, Kühl, Graham Richards, and other historians of racism in psychology. Those should not only be further readings for the article, but actual sources for the article, for the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Glad to have you here. I don't own the article. You don't own the article. Wikipedia policy, guided by what is verifiable through reliable sources, owns the article. Let's discuss what the sources say and how the article can best reflect those sources under Wikipedia policy. (P.S. As you will see, I put your kind reply as a full new section of this talk page at its own heading level, without any alteration of your text.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that several hundreds of millions of persons would share the "common experience of having been in India during the same decade." What is the point, unless an actual relationship is suggested? And it is clear that an actual relationship--which, I repeat, never existed--is being strongly suggested. What's more, the suggestion that Pearson was later involved with Draper in a repatriation scheme is a total prevarication. Such lies easily find their way into published works, such as the ones you cite. Do not be so naive as to assume that merely because a source is published that it is either "objective" or "reliable." Many, many books are written and published by persons with little regard for the truth. The mere fact that you refer to the authors as "historians of racism," racism being an unquestioned term of opprobium, would in itself call their objectivity into question. Recall that you are writing about a living person here, who it would seem--according to the Wikipedia policy you cite--to have certain guarantees and safeguards. It is my contention that this article heretofore has ignored those safeguards, and my aim is to restore them.Teddyguyton (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The sections above make a number of assertions that would seem to be unverifiable. What sources are Teddyguyton relying upon for these claims?   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifically which statements do you find unverifiable?Teddyguyton (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What published sources contain these assertions?

• Pearson never met or knew Colonel Draper, although he would have been honored to have done so.
• He denies any knowledge of Ernest Sevier Cox until meeting that gentleman at a League gathering after the latter had become a member.
• He did not know Dr. Kesserow and believes that this gentleman may not have joined the League until after he himself had resigned.
• Pearson was not “brought” to the USA by Willis Carto, but paid his own fare and came to the USA on his own initiative.
• No question about Pearson’s politics or his interest in heredity and eugenics ever arose while he was at Montana Tech, which was” unaware of his interest in these matters until contacted by a journalist some three years later after the 1978 Washington DC meeting of the World Anti-Communist League, which Pearson chaired.
• Pearson never knew or communicated with Colonel Draper.

Other than Pearson himself, who would know these details? If only Pearson knows these things, and they haven't been published, then they cannot be a factor in writing this biography.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as the point about Montana Tech is concerned, Lichtenstein (1977-12-11)in "Fund Backs Controversial Study of 'Racial Betterment.'" New York Times", who was quoted initially by an editor of this article as one of the sources of that story, actually asserted that she was told by Montana Tech officials that they had no idea about Pearson's interests or politics. So Lichtenstein in fact corroborates what I am saying. As for Valentine, he made NO such charge at all. As for the other points, certainly, Wikipedia does not wish to print wild allegations about real persons as though they were true just because the allegation have been made in a book. The authors of the books referenced have not proved these statements. In fact, they cannot do so, because the statements are untrue.Teddyguyton (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your partial reply. That's one of the listed items. I don't see a response concerning the others. But as to the basic point, yes, Wikipedia does report what reliable sources like published books, say. It does not rely upon the assertions of anonymous contributors, which would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Safeguards of accuracy are a wonderful thing, and I applaud your eagerness, Teddyguyton, to apply those to a biography of a living person here on Wikipedia. Because I had little to do with writing this article in its early days (I have been a Wikipedian but a few months) and because I agree with you that Wikipedia policy and reliable sources must take first place in deciding what text belongs here, I'm happy to discuss what article edits might improve this article.

Yesterday I looked at various back issues of Mankind Quarterly on the shelves of a large academic library in my town, where I have circulating privileges. Soon I will circulate from that library some monographs by Roger Pearson. As I read more of Pearson's acknowledged writings, I'd like to ask you about a matter that is reported in the secondary sources (for which I think I have already found confirmation in the pages of Mankind Quarterly)—Pearson from time to time would write both in his own name and in unacknowledged pseudonyms in the same issue of Mankind Quarterly. According to the source I have at hand, Pearson admitted in a deposition that he used various pseudonyms over the years, and indeed couldn't remember all the different pseudonyms he had used. According to a third-party source that appears to be reliable on this point, Pearson at least once wrote a book under a pseudonym, and then reviewed it under a different pseudonym, not acknowledging at the time that author and reviewer were the same person, Roger Pearson. Do you have any sources that relate to this issue? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also heard that Pearson has used pseudonyms. There's really nothing suspicious about that. I suspect that you yourself go by something other than WeijiBaikeBianji.Teddyguyton (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Source to check

Rich Jaroslovsky (1984, September 28). Politics '84 -- Controversial Publisher: Racial Purist Uses Reagan Plug. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. 1. ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 27121258) should be available in any library with a good set of back issues of the Wall Street Journal. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed (again) last paragraph, about Coors

I deleted: "The Coors Connection notes in a caption under an illustration of Pearson's Eugenics And Race: "Dr. Roger Pearson's racialist theories are circulated worldwide by neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations." (Bellant 1989"

1. the word Notes implies that the statement is correct, whereas it is only an undocumented allegation. 2. It is not supported by any factual statement of organizations that "circulate Dr. Roger Pearson's racialist theories". 3. It provides no definition of what is a "neo-Nazi and white supremacist organization. 4. Roger Pearson's "racialist theories" take the form of scholarly articles which circulate to university libraries world wide in the form of books and a refereed journal (now in its fifty-first year) that is supported by paid subscriptions from primarily university libraries in North and South American, Europe, Asia and Australasia. His Introduction to Anthropology was a major Freshman/Sophomore textbook published by the then largest publisher of anthropology textbooks (Holt, Rinehart and Winston) and was widely used in US universities.Teddyguyton (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

neutrality

I got doubts about the neutrality of this article!

Wow, what a smear piece. No mention of his important contributions to DNA and anthropology, nor the excellent books he has written. No wonder people call this Wik-Jew-Pedia

Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.31.153 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)