This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
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 |
"Gregor's marriage to University of Nevada Professor Maria Hsia Chang, however, should disprove many myths about his alleged "racist" views that have been leveled upon him by his critics, namely the embittered faculty and staff of the the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley. A number of leftist intellectuals in Berkeley harbor great distaste for Gregor's views. Most likely, these academics are very unhappy with the validity of Gregor's attacks on their beliefs. More specifically, Gregor predicted that the Marxism that many leftists espoused during the 1960's lack any validity whatsoever in the modern world of political and economic development." -> This entire paragraph needs to be removed. Wikipedia brands itself as an Encyclopedia where one can find out factual information, not opinion and bias, about subjects. The fact that the author of this paragraph says that Gregor's marriage deflates him from charges of racism is ludicrous. Also, why are you attacking the "Ethnic Studies Department" at Berkeley? That's a reflection of YOUR views, not NECESSARILY Gregor's. Even if they are Gregor's, they don't belong here. Write an op-ed piece.
"The book argues that fascism was actually a left wing philosophy." - is this really in the book (I don't have my copy on me, I'll follow up if still unanswered)? He lectures thoroughly on how little (if any) information is imparted by the left/right distinction. This statement has to be a mischaracterization: Gregor would argue that given the typology, it easily can be shown that attributes associated with Facism (purportedly right wing), can easily be applied to revolutionary regiemes of the left (Russia, China, Cuba, etc). His point is "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless distinctions, at least in the case of Facism vs. "Revolutionary Marxism" (quotes, due to his emphasis on the lack of any meaningful relationship, beyond rhetoric, between Marxist theory and these revolutionary movements) and rather share many fundamental characteristicss. This page needs A LOT added to it, he produeced many other interesting thoughts in the last 40 years that this page does not due justice to!
"[...] offensive comments Gregor has made concerning women and minorities [...]" My God.... it's an obsession! This is simply FALSE! Henry Cassini 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to go out of its way to convince the reader of the subject’s neutrality (or maybe more precisely, that he is “Neither Right nor Left”) — as in the first section where it mentions, apropos of nothing, that he published “articles in political journals on both the "Right" ...and the "Left"”, or when his active / material support for the anti-communist authoritarian governents is described as “what he understood to be U.S. interests”.
These apparent inoculations against charges of a right-wing worldview are confusing, since nothing in the present revision of the article suggests why such an inoculation would be warranted — it almost reads as if there was some hasty wholesale removal of any references to controversial statements, without making corresponding adjustments to the article as a whole.
Perhaps if some of his writings for e.g. Mankind Quarterly were sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion / discussion, these assertions of his belief in liberal democracy might make more sense.
23.115.162.60 ( talk) 03:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone here assert criticism of his ideas and works? GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 06:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, if there are any authorative person that legitimately criticises his ideas, please include their criticism here.
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 14:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In the article and a few of his works, it is made explicit that when he discusses “fascism”, he means “paradigmatic Fascism”, namely something specifically resembling Mussolini’s Italian Fascism. I don’t doubt his credentials / expertise in this area, but it seems that is not what everyone else means when discussing fascism.
Since the article presents Gregor as a foremost authority on (unqualified) fascism, it seems this peculiar definition, and its (lack of?) acceptance in the field, deserves more prominent placement. But, since I’m not anywhere near an expert in this area, I‘m not qualified to make such broad claims about academic consensus or to evaluate sources with such claims (e.g. how to weight these against the competing sources already in the article calling him a foremost scholar?).
Any better-placed editors out there? Am I mistaken, and the academic consensus really is that the term “fascist” does not properly describe any of the modern movements claiming that title? 23.115.162.60 ( talk) 12:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the improvement templates, since these issues have not been resolved, as far as I can see. The article is still relies too heavily on Gregor's own works, and is still to sparsely sourced to obscure commentary without proper context or attribution. As a BLP, every claim needs to be sourced, and every "evaluation" needs to be attributed and contextualized. Grayfell ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As discussed in the talk sections, this article is a bit of a hagiography of a sacred cow of conservative academia. As his association with fascist politics and his founding of an important eugenicist organization is not only commonly known but also cited in the text of the article itself, it should logically follow that the introduction describes him accurately as what he was. The Wikipedia page for the organization he founded is described in the first sentence as being eugenicist. The magazine they published is not only described on Wikipedia as eugenicist but also as “white supremacist”. The European was not only a paper published by English fascists but is also once again described by Wikipedia as fascist. Mr. Gregor’s long career in academia does not exempt him from factual descriptions of his politics and biases. Indeed, many eugenicists had academic backgrounds and yet are still described as eugenicists on Wikipedia. Considering the amount of discussion about the apologia and lack of intellectual rigor in this article, I think it is completely appropriate to call a spade a spade, as it were. If one wants to list his academic credentials first I have no problem with that, but I will defend the inclusion of factual descriptors in the opening paragraph. Considering the level of discussion about the poor state of this article, I will be returning to ensure that those descriptive words are not deleted without additional discussion. You may post your arguments against their inclusion in this talk page. Puma6374 ( talk) 15:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems like you don't understand what the word eugenicist means. Gregor here didn't deny being a eugenicist. Most eugenicist or race realists disagree with being called racists, eugenics seeks "to improve the genetic quality of a human population" which Gregor was in favor of. You don't have to be a vulgar racist in order to be a eugenicist. "Idus A. Newby's book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 published in 1967 contains an extensive discussion of Gregor's work on race and argues that his organization, the IAAEE and Mankind Quarterly magazine to which Gregor was a frequent contributor were among the main institutional centers of scientific racism in the 1960s." Saying that the founding director of the a eugenics institution wasn't a eugenicist is like saying the founder of the National Fascist Party wasn't a fascist. I know your personal sympathy for the man is blinding you but it is what it is. Rahammz ( talk) 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
[12 December 1958. James Gregor delivers a lecture on the topic "Some Race Theories" as part of the Racist Forum's 1958-59 monthly lecture series, held at Steinway Hall, 113 West 57th Street, New York. The previous month's speaker was James Madole, head of a small neo-Nazi sect called the National Renaissance Party, who spoke on "The Role of the Jew in Modern Politics." On Madole and the NRP, see Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Boston: Little, Brown, 1997). Madole's speech elicited negative commentary in the New York press, to which Gregor's friend Robert E. Kuttner responded in an anti-Semitic article in The Truth Seeker. Kuttner was also a speaker in the series; he delivered a lecture on "Race and the Future of Civilization" on March 13, 1959.] This is one among dozens of his works regarding race realism and eugenics. So I advise you to stop being in a state of meaningless denial when it comes to Gregor's eugenics, which I repeat, was part of his main interests. Don't know how much else evidence and sources you need? Eventually this page will get protected and you won't be able to edit it.
Rahammz ( talk) 17:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Was surprised that, now that this is no longer a BLP, there are editors who still insist on scrubbing Gregor's history. I'm not interested in "prov[ing] Gregor was a eugenicist on the talk page," or an edit war -- it just strikes me as odd that this is at all controversial. If having his own extensive bibliography on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism [1] isn't sufficient, and their meticulously-annotated list of his own racist writings advocating for racist policies in racist publications is not sufficient, and his name on the masthead of the IAAEE is not enough, I'm wondering what would be enough?
At what point does public, open, strident advocacy for eugenics make one a eugenicist? Would it be more acceptable to call him a "strong advocate for race science"? Is the hyper-specific " eugenicist" the problem? Something more general might be better, but insofar as he was publicly worked for "the Advancement of Eugenics" I thought that might at least be indisputable.
Any guidance, User:Humanist poet?
Thanks, 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:208B:4469:53:56CC ( talk) 23:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources need to be cited and summarized in the article itself, not merely mentioned on talk pages. Original research is not usable here. Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary source. With such sources, some editors will take the harshest possible interpretation, and some will chose the most charitable, and neither will be factually incorrect, leading to an impasse.
The lead is a summary of the body of the article, and the body of the article clearly discusses Gregor's work in support of eugenics. Nuance is welcome, but it must be directly supported by reliable sources, and specifically, these should be mostly independent sources. Combining obscure primary sources to imply something or other about Gregor's views is inappropriate, as it is a form of editorializing. Grayfell ( talk) 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Looking through sources it does seem that Gregor's connection to these topics is established, but reading the talk page there seems some debate as the extent of his involvement specifically after the 1960s. Removing was premature on my part although I am on the fence about putting it in the lede and infobox. What do others think? 3Kingdoms ( talk) 14:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A list of 14 of Gregor's articles was recently added, but it is unclear what criteria were used to select them. Do independent RS note them? If not, then WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply and they should be removed. Llll5032 ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
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 |
"Gregor's marriage to University of Nevada Professor Maria Hsia Chang, however, should disprove many myths about his alleged "racist" views that have been leveled upon him by his critics, namely the embittered faculty and staff of the the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley. A number of leftist intellectuals in Berkeley harbor great distaste for Gregor's views. Most likely, these academics are very unhappy with the validity of Gregor's attacks on their beliefs. More specifically, Gregor predicted that the Marxism that many leftists espoused during the 1960's lack any validity whatsoever in the modern world of political and economic development." -> This entire paragraph needs to be removed. Wikipedia brands itself as an Encyclopedia where one can find out factual information, not opinion and bias, about subjects. The fact that the author of this paragraph says that Gregor's marriage deflates him from charges of racism is ludicrous. Also, why are you attacking the "Ethnic Studies Department" at Berkeley? That's a reflection of YOUR views, not NECESSARILY Gregor's. Even if they are Gregor's, they don't belong here. Write an op-ed piece.
"The book argues that fascism was actually a left wing philosophy." - is this really in the book (I don't have my copy on me, I'll follow up if still unanswered)? He lectures thoroughly on how little (if any) information is imparted by the left/right distinction. This statement has to be a mischaracterization: Gregor would argue that given the typology, it easily can be shown that attributes associated with Facism (purportedly right wing), can easily be applied to revolutionary regiemes of the left (Russia, China, Cuba, etc). His point is "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless distinctions, at least in the case of Facism vs. "Revolutionary Marxism" (quotes, due to his emphasis on the lack of any meaningful relationship, beyond rhetoric, between Marxist theory and these revolutionary movements) and rather share many fundamental characteristicss. This page needs A LOT added to it, he produeced many other interesting thoughts in the last 40 years that this page does not due justice to!
"[...] offensive comments Gregor has made concerning women and minorities [...]" My God.... it's an obsession! This is simply FALSE! Henry Cassini 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to go out of its way to convince the reader of the subject’s neutrality (or maybe more precisely, that he is “Neither Right nor Left”) — as in the first section where it mentions, apropos of nothing, that he published “articles in political journals on both the "Right" ...and the "Left"”, or when his active / material support for the anti-communist authoritarian governents is described as “what he understood to be U.S. interests”.
These apparent inoculations against charges of a right-wing worldview are confusing, since nothing in the present revision of the article suggests why such an inoculation would be warranted — it almost reads as if there was some hasty wholesale removal of any references to controversial statements, without making corresponding adjustments to the article as a whole.
Perhaps if some of his writings for e.g. Mankind Quarterly were sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion / discussion, these assertions of his belief in liberal democracy might make more sense.
23.115.162.60 ( talk) 03:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone here assert criticism of his ideas and works? GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 06:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, if there are any authorative person that legitimately criticises his ideas, please include their criticism here.
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 14:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In the article and a few of his works, it is made explicit that when he discusses “fascism”, he means “paradigmatic Fascism”, namely something specifically resembling Mussolini’s Italian Fascism. I don’t doubt his credentials / expertise in this area, but it seems that is not what everyone else means when discussing fascism.
Since the article presents Gregor as a foremost authority on (unqualified) fascism, it seems this peculiar definition, and its (lack of?) acceptance in the field, deserves more prominent placement. But, since I’m not anywhere near an expert in this area, I‘m not qualified to make such broad claims about academic consensus or to evaluate sources with such claims (e.g. how to weight these against the competing sources already in the article calling him a foremost scholar?).
Any better-placed editors out there? Am I mistaken, and the academic consensus really is that the term “fascist” does not properly describe any of the modern movements claiming that title? 23.115.162.60 ( talk) 12:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the improvement templates, since these issues have not been resolved, as far as I can see. The article is still relies too heavily on Gregor's own works, and is still to sparsely sourced to obscure commentary without proper context or attribution. As a BLP, every claim needs to be sourced, and every "evaluation" needs to be attributed and contextualized. Grayfell ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As discussed in the talk sections, this article is a bit of a hagiography of a sacred cow of conservative academia. As his association with fascist politics and his founding of an important eugenicist organization is not only commonly known but also cited in the text of the article itself, it should logically follow that the introduction describes him accurately as what he was. The Wikipedia page for the organization he founded is described in the first sentence as being eugenicist. The magazine they published is not only described on Wikipedia as eugenicist but also as “white supremacist”. The European was not only a paper published by English fascists but is also once again described by Wikipedia as fascist. Mr. Gregor’s long career in academia does not exempt him from factual descriptions of his politics and biases. Indeed, many eugenicists had academic backgrounds and yet are still described as eugenicists on Wikipedia. Considering the amount of discussion about the apologia and lack of intellectual rigor in this article, I think it is completely appropriate to call a spade a spade, as it were. If one wants to list his academic credentials first I have no problem with that, but I will defend the inclusion of factual descriptors in the opening paragraph. Considering the level of discussion about the poor state of this article, I will be returning to ensure that those descriptive words are not deleted without additional discussion. You may post your arguments against their inclusion in this talk page. Puma6374 ( talk) 15:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems like you don't understand what the word eugenicist means. Gregor here didn't deny being a eugenicist. Most eugenicist or race realists disagree with being called racists, eugenics seeks "to improve the genetic quality of a human population" which Gregor was in favor of. You don't have to be a vulgar racist in order to be a eugenicist. "Idus A. Newby's book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 published in 1967 contains an extensive discussion of Gregor's work on race and argues that his organization, the IAAEE and Mankind Quarterly magazine to which Gregor was a frequent contributor were among the main institutional centers of scientific racism in the 1960s." Saying that the founding director of the a eugenics institution wasn't a eugenicist is like saying the founder of the National Fascist Party wasn't a fascist. I know your personal sympathy for the man is blinding you but it is what it is. Rahammz ( talk) 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
[12 December 1958. James Gregor delivers a lecture on the topic "Some Race Theories" as part of the Racist Forum's 1958-59 monthly lecture series, held at Steinway Hall, 113 West 57th Street, New York. The previous month's speaker was James Madole, head of a small neo-Nazi sect called the National Renaissance Party, who spoke on "The Role of the Jew in Modern Politics." On Madole and the NRP, see Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Boston: Little, Brown, 1997). Madole's speech elicited negative commentary in the New York press, to which Gregor's friend Robert E. Kuttner responded in an anti-Semitic article in The Truth Seeker. Kuttner was also a speaker in the series; he delivered a lecture on "Race and the Future of Civilization" on March 13, 1959.] This is one among dozens of his works regarding race realism and eugenics. So I advise you to stop being in a state of meaningless denial when it comes to Gregor's eugenics, which I repeat, was part of his main interests. Don't know how much else evidence and sources you need? Eventually this page will get protected and you won't be able to edit it.
Rahammz ( talk) 17:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Was surprised that, now that this is no longer a BLP, there are editors who still insist on scrubbing Gregor's history. I'm not interested in "prov[ing] Gregor was a eugenicist on the talk page," or an edit war -- it just strikes me as odd that this is at all controversial. If having his own extensive bibliography on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism [1] isn't sufficient, and their meticulously-annotated list of his own racist writings advocating for racist policies in racist publications is not sufficient, and his name on the masthead of the IAAEE is not enough, I'm wondering what would be enough?
At what point does public, open, strident advocacy for eugenics make one a eugenicist? Would it be more acceptable to call him a "strong advocate for race science"? Is the hyper-specific " eugenicist" the problem? Something more general might be better, but insofar as he was publicly worked for "the Advancement of Eugenics" I thought that might at least be indisputable.
Any guidance, User:Humanist poet?
Thanks, 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:208B:4469:53:56CC ( talk) 23:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources need to be cited and summarized in the article itself, not merely mentioned on talk pages. Original research is not usable here. Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary source. With such sources, some editors will take the harshest possible interpretation, and some will chose the most charitable, and neither will be factually incorrect, leading to an impasse.
The lead is a summary of the body of the article, and the body of the article clearly discusses Gregor's work in support of eugenics. Nuance is welcome, but it must be directly supported by reliable sources, and specifically, these should be mostly independent sources. Combining obscure primary sources to imply something or other about Gregor's views is inappropriate, as it is a form of editorializing. Grayfell ( talk) 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Looking through sources it does seem that Gregor's connection to these topics is established, but reading the talk page there seems some debate as the extent of his involvement specifically after the 1960s. Removing was premature on my part although I am on the fence about putting it in the lede and infobox. What do others think? 3Kingdoms ( talk) 14:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A list of 14 of Gregor's articles was recently added, but it is unclear what criteria were used to select them. Do independent RS note them? If not, then WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply and they should be removed. Llll5032 ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)