Talk:New Century Foundation

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article New Century Foundation, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Gnu license of source[edit]

All "Sourcewatch" material is already under GNU license, so it is quotable here.

[1]

On the page

[2] you will see

"Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2"

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers.

If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.
The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

Carrionluggage 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADL and Dinesh D'Souza comments about New Century should be listed as external source, not part of article. ADL has particular bias (which bias you may or may not agree with). Taking a quote from Color of Crime that is out of context is in this case a form of POV.JeffLB (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Word Change[edit]

Article described the New Century Foundation as a "racist" organization which is little more than slander without justification. Changed the word "racist" to "race realist." The NCF describes itself as a "Race Realist" organization devoted to talking realistically about race issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.206.176 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist label[edit]

Please show me a New Century Foundation publication arguing for the superiority of Whites. President Jared Taylor has said he considers Asians and Ashkenazi Jews superior at pretty much everything:

I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. (Carol Miller Swain & Russell Nieli, Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 102.)

Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS call it White supremacist. We don't categorise simply by self-identification of groups. How many hate groups call themselves hate groups? Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also non-sensical that one cannnot be a white supremacist and think Asians are better at aq lot of stuff. White Supremacist also means someone who believes whites should have political supremacy within a specific political territory. In anycase we go by WP:V here and multiple sources describe the foundation as such.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does White supremacist have the political supremacy meaning? Using this argument as the basis for editing would also qualify as original research. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article on White Supremacy.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't categorise simply by self-identification of groups.". Where is the Wikipedia policy that states this? Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources[edit]

Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction By Euan Hague, Edward H. Sebesta, Heidi Beirich [3] page 164 footnote 1.

Still a House Divided: Race and Politics in Obama's America By Desmond S. King, Rogers M. Smith [4] (just a brief mention of it as a fringe white supremacist organisation). Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack?[edit]

Does New Century Foundation have any notability other than for Taylor's viewpoints? Seems like this article is a coatrack for Taylor's viewpoints and some criticism. The entire second paragraph of the lede seems questionable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

It could be better to replace the simple affirmation of white supremacist by "supposed to be white supremacist" or "considered as white supremacist" for a more level of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.157.123 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a group is widely described as white supremacist in reliable sources, we state it plainly. Unless you have any sources that contradict this, it should remain. Also see the discussion above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The groups and sources at what you refer is generally oriented to left. Many of others group and sources that have a right-pov is not accepted on wikipedia. Use supposition is the best way to preserve neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.157.123 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of right-leaning or centrist sources that are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis mine). We do not "balance" statements by incorporating viewpoints published in unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that you consider those groups to be "left" is irrelevant. They have been vetted by Wikipedia's editors as reliable sources and therefore can be used in our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GorillaWarfare and Beyond My Ken. No references are being offered to support any changes, and reliable sources are being rejected based upon personal bias. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP's edits[edit]

User:68.42.245.120 is invited to start a conversation here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]