Talk:Robert Lee Moore

Trying to Restore NPOV

I was quite surprised when I saw the blatant POV in this article regarding the "racism" aspect. First, some of this is sourced to a personal web page, which is completely unacceptable. I have removed this "source" and the content for which it was the only reference. Second, all the inline sources only referenced the racism aspect, with none for his lifetime mathematical work or widely-known teaching method! Third, an anon SPA promoted this aspect to the lede: He is known for...his poor treatment of African-American mathematics students and this appears to have been redacted/restored a few times. Moore is not known for this and the leading statements that have been made here (below) supporting it are nonsense, e.g. There don't seem to be any reliable sources that claim Moore was not a racist. Neither the definitive 4-volume Scribner's Biographical Dictionary of Mathematicians, which has a comprehensive article on Moore, nor his article in Dictionary of Scientific Biography have any material on Moore's politics, race-related or otherwise. The Lewis paper and the book by Hersh and John-Steiner discuss some aspects, for example Moore's segregation stance, but this was certainly not unusual when considered in the context of the times and place. NPOV would be to mention it in the body in the proper way. The example of Jefferson and slaves given below is a good analogy. However, somewhat better is our article on Ludwig Bieberbach, who was known for his racial views. Even his article does not mention this in the lede. I have duly removed it from Moore's article and made some further edits, which, hopefully, put this article back into some semblance of a NPOV. Agricola44 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

He certainly is known for this, to people who pay attention to such things. Please undo your blatant whitewash of this article. Yes, he is also known as a great mathematics teacher, but the solution to poor sourcing of that material (and adequate sourcing of his racism) is not to remove the racism, but to add better sourcing for his teaching. As for Bieberbach, maybe our article *should* mention his nazism in the lead; it is hard to think of him nowadays without thinking about that aspect. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Even MacTutor, who seem pretty anodyne on the whole, take the time to mention it. Students wanting the Moore building renamed is an ongoing thing [1][2][3]. The Chronicle of Higher Education up and says "Moore's legacy has been tarnished by racist attitudes he held toward black students" [4]. The AMS has hosted discussion about Moore's "racist, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic views" [5]. It's not exactly an obscure topic. Quoting a report found via the previous link:

Moore's troubling sexist and racial biases are well known in the [Inquiry-Based Learning] Math community, and references to them are common in our interview data. Significantly, also common are stories about how the association of this teaching approach with Moore's social biases has led some instructors to choose not to participate in IBL events, even though they may otherwise be interested in this teaching-centered community. Thus it is clear that, in today's society, the symbolic connection between Moore and IBL is a problem for the spread of IBL. Our data suggest that failure to explicitly address the community's history with Moore will allow this negative association to linger and may limit the growth of IBL in the future. [6]

XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The accusation of "blatant whitewash" sounds awfully close to questioning my motivation here and, as a long-time editor, I'll not have that. And I'll note further that I did not "remove" the racism, thank you! I explained myself above. In reply, you bring-up MacTutor, a whitepaper, a blog, etc. to support a recentist position that Moore's racial views, in the context of his times, are sufficiently important so as to constitute a main section of the article and even to mention in the lede. I maintain that, at least as late as the 1991 printing, the Biographical Dictionary of Mathematicians did not consider this aspect important enough to mention even a single word on. So, do we go with recentist blogs, whitepapers, and personal homepages on this? Or, do we go with a definitive work written by expert mathematical historians? And if you doubt that what you are feeling about this is recentism, all you have to do is check your own wording Re Bieberbach: it is hard to think of him nowadays without thinking about that aspect (emphasis added). Agricola44 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think his attitudes didn't make people in even that time and place uncomfortable, you are incorrect. And here is a book source saying explicitly "he was racist". And another one. And a journal source mentioning "anti-semitism and racism", with a context that suggests that it's something everyone knew about Moore and that the book under review shouldn't have downplayed it as much as it did. You wouldn't insist on writing about a mathematical topic that was discovered some years ago (say Galois theory) only in terms of the knowledge and notation of the time of its discovery, would you? So why insist on such a retrogressive viewpoint when it comes to people? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein said pretty much what I was going to say. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, so let me see whether I understand your argument. You're conceding to the fact that sources like Scribner's Dictionary only discuss his mathematics. Let me also divine that you would concede that, in the context of his times, segregationist views, racism, et al. were not at all unusual (one might say not notable). However, you're also saying that because his racism was written about, he is in essence "known" for these aspects. It doesn't matter that these sources are all recent. It also doesn't matter whether there's a larger recentism context to these sources (for example, whether they're part of the atonement trend of removing slaveholder names from academic buildings, etc.) All that matters is that "there are sources". The other part of your argument is that it's not enough that these aspects are mentioned in the body of the article (they are; I did not remove that). It is sufficiently important that it must be in the lede. Do I have this all about right? Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Our articles are supposed to reflect the current consensus on whatever topic they are about. The current consensus is that Moore was a racist, even for his time and place. So our article should say so. Our lead sections are supposed to summarize all the main points in the article, not just the ones we find palatable. So the lead should also include his racism, more briefly. The same goes for Bieberbach — when I added that he was a Nazi to the lead (which you again objected to), the reason was that his Nazism was covered in detail in the body of the article, and needed to be summarized in the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

David, please. First you question my motivation, now you answer a specific question with lawyerly generalizations. Be that as it may, we still seem to have not resolved the issue. As I see it, this issue boils down to whether "racism" is mentioned in the lede. I certainly don't object to it being properly explained/sourced in the article, as it is now. But I do contend it doesn't belong in the lede because of historical context and the false trend of recentism. You contend (I believe) it does belong in the lede because it must reflect the context of today (your "current consensus") and ledes are supposed to summarize the main article points. While you have already "put your money where your mouth is" by adding Nazi to the lede in the Bieberbach article, neither of these articles is very high-traffic (Moore's averages about 30 views/day), so the few panelists here (currently us and XOR'easter) might just endlessly bicker about this. We might ultimately get an answer, but it would be one obtained by the sampling effect of the few who happen to be here (one of the biggest problems in WP). But, I have a proposition for you that I believe will settle the question in larger, more general terms. Since you've already done it once with the Bieberbach article, I propose you run the same experiment on a much more visible page: Martin Luther King Jr. If the community accepts it, I will gladly help you add "racism" to the lede for this article and all other relevant articles. If not, we remove from here, from Bieberbach, and any other affected articles. King's case fits our dilemma perfectly. He plagiarized his dissertation and this has been widely discussed in the media. Hence, he "is known for this" in your parlance. It is also covered with a large paragraph in our WP article. So, if the lede is supposed to summarize the article, this should be part of the lede. Conversely, I would contend otherwise. Specifically, although the plagiarism is an established fact, it is not a defining characteristic of his career, nor something the average person knows. So, taken within context, it should not be in the lede in my opinion. The experiment, should you choose to accept the invitation, would be to add something like "King was also known for plagiarizing his doctoral thesis" in a prominent place in the lede, say at the end of the first paragraph. King's page averages around 20K views a day, so people are bound to comment on a well-respected ed/admin's addition of this information. If people are OK with it, you win. What think ye? Agricola44 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that whataboutism is not a good way to persuade me of your good faith on this topic, nor is telling me to go off and pick a fight with people I am not interested in fighting with over an issue that our article says is still the subject of significant debate and about which I personally know very little. Frankly, it comes off as dismissive, and not a little racist itself, to pick that as the example to hang your argument on. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think so and it's unfortunate that you've now introduced a veiled accusation of racism to our own interactions here. That cop-out is a sadly commonplace deflection nowadays, but I'd rather stay on topic. My proposition is a test of your willingness to treat different types of articles consistently. Your principle, stated very clearly several times, is that The lead is supposed to summarize all the content of the article, not just the parts we would like to hear. Well, now you've been made aware of perhaps one of the most important WP articles that blatantly violates your stated principle. Indeed, you've shown no reticence in applying it to bios of Moore, Bieberbach, and perhaps others. Yet, now you balk for King. This is a telling development. Your excuse of personally knowing very little about King rings hollow. It's all right there in the WP article, including the plagiarism. Indeed, we even have a dedicated article for that. Our WP article treats this issue gingerly (unlike what you've done for Bieberbach), but the facts of the matter are not a subject of significant debate, as the sources plainly indicate. It now seems clear that you're only willing to apply your principle selectively. This seems singularly "un-encyclopedic". I would also say that your own words reveal the weakness in your argument when you say such an edit would be tantamount to "picking a fight". So, you clearly anticipate (and I would concur) that a whole bunch of people will not agree with your claim that The lead is supposed to summarize all the content of the article, not just the parts we would like to hear. After what we now know, I hope you'll pardon me if I remain unconvinced that we should call Moore a racist in the lede. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The "racist mathematician unveiled" page is an absolute joke.

The reputable sources in its list don't say anything about RLM being racist. The only ones that even allude to it are two personal webpages. Whoever put the page together just tossed a bunch of AMS articles that mentioned Moore into the list to make their claims look legitimate at first glance. It's just an error-filled rant by one guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.14.180 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

How to handle the issue of RLM's racism

The issue of RLM's racism does not belong in the first sentence. It is an important issue that should be handled carefully and honestly, with full consideration of RLM's historical context. It isn't the first thing someone needs to know about RLM. His historical significance is as a mathematician and a teacher. Later in the article, the issue of his racism is acknowledged and discussed. --Singularitarian (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Johntex\^talk 05:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any reliable sources that claim Moore was not a racist, so I see two issues here:

• Is his racism a large enough part of his life and work to rate a mention in the lead, and if so how should it be phrased? The current lead says "He is also known for his openly racist attitudes..." which I think is an exaggeration: his racism is not well known, even among mathematicians.
• If racism is in the lead, it needs to be backed up by the body, which I think it currently is not. His racism is covered in the section Political aspects. This section is flimsy and needs more detail and (since it is a controversial subject) more detailed citations. Also it claims that his standard biography (by Parker) completely glosses over his racism, which is not true; there's a lengthy discussion on pp. 286–291, both of Moore's attitudes and of conditions at the University of Texas and Texas in general at the time.

So my recommendation would be first to beef up the racism coverage in the body, and then place a synopsis in the lead if the body warrants it. --Uncia (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any reliable sources that claim that he was a racist, which should settle the issue by itself. The source for the "racism" section is a political diatribe. The links in its reference list are a mix of self-references (MAD pages), AMS articles about Moore that say nothing about his supposed racism, and a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.14.180 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In the Thomas Jefferson article, his ownership of slaves is not mentioned in the lead. It is discussed later, in a section of the article. Isn't this similar? Lots of historical figures were racists or engaged in some other kind of scoundrel behavior. But that is not their historical significance, and I don't think we should litter up all of the Wikipedia lead sections with mentions of these issues.--Singularitarian (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research on racism; sexism

This article cites two recent articles on R.L. Moore, citing both in support of the statement that recent articles on Moore don't discuss his racism. Unless both articles both criticize other articles for ignoring his racism, this seems like original research.

It would be useful to discuss Moore's sexism. Moore's student, Mary Ellen Rudin, states that Moore treated her as one of the boys and as exempt from his often repeated statements about (in Moore's view) the weak mathematical ability of women (in her interview in (More?) Mathematical People).

I also came across a lot of stuff about Robert Lee Moore recently. One relevant anecdote reported that he once accepted a black student, but at their first meeting, he told the student something like "You are starting with a C and working down." My recollection said that he was not against women mathematicians and may even have been relatively tolerant of Jewish students, again considering the mood of his times. (When I was at UT there was a period I shared an office in the building they named for him, but only after he was safely dead.) (As usual, my feeling towards Wikipedia is too low to do the work of adding such information to the article. Heck, I don't even feel motivated to include the links to the relevant books. Pretty unlikely anyone else will have as good an opportunity to improve the article, but I hate the spam and Wikipedia does not, IMNSHO, care enough about suppressing spammers.) Shanen (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, had to come back and this time noticed that the quote I mentioned was included in full detail in the quotations part of the article. Pretty sure the version in the book I read didn't include the word "welcome" however. Shanen (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Shanen the quote I just read, that prompted me to visit this Wikipedia entry was in reference to RH Bing. "This did not endear him to Moore, who did not like older students, especially those who had spent the previous years teaching high school. But Bing was in good company: Moore did not like black students either, nor Jewish students, nor female students, nor Yankees. A black student who wanted to join his class recounted that Moore told him, 'Okay, but you start with a grade C and can only go down from there,'" George G. Szpiro, Poincare's Prize, The Hundred-Year Quest to Solve One of Math's Greatest Puzzles, page 126. Randyg271 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

link suggestion

Archives of American Mathematics, Center for American History,The University of Texas at Austin http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00310/00310-P.htmlHalconen (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

W.E. Hunt

I have taken the liberty of clarifying the quote about W.E. Hunt, which did not say if Hunt was black or not. The context of the quote was not clear to me - if Hunt was white then it meant that Moore was tough on people he considered to have no mathematical ability, irrespective of skin colour. If Hunt was black then it it meant he was dismissive of W.E Hunt on racist principles, which is a more serious charge.

Googling W.E. Hunt reveals nothing. However I found a personal statement by Hunt at http://math.rice.edu/People/Homepages/rlj/info/whunt.html which reveals that yes, Hunt was indeed black and had a rather remarkable journey to become a Professor of Mathematics.

I have duly added some information and the cite to the Moore article. Go easy on me please - I rarely edit Wiki. RedTomato (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Moore Stories

As a new graduate student at The University of Texas, I was told by my supervisor that he had early in his career attended a Faculty Senate meeting. An old man got up to speak, causing an audible groan to pass through the room. Several people walked out. It was Moore. Further inquiry revealed that Moore had polarized the math department into two warring camps, the algebraic topologists and their adherents, vs. the geometric topologists and theirs. That was the first and last Faculty Senate meeting he ever attended. --Tex (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

On racism, misogyny, etc.

I'll just copy-and past my comment from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Eyes_needed_on_Robert_Lee_Moore:

The issue of course isn't "should we or shouldn't we mention verifiable racism/misogyny?" but "how much of the article should be devoted to it?" The Racism section currently makes up about 20% of the biography. Is this appropriate weight per WP:PROPORTION? Of course it's an important issue, and likely received additional attention due to recent nationwide reflections on American racist namesakes. I'm unfamiliar with the subject but, Peter Ross's review of Parker's biography of Moore seems to indicate that Moore's racist/sexist social views were discussed only in chapter 15 (in which Parker "makes it clear that Moore was not a misogynist"). Ross also mentions Moore had prominent feuds with several other mathematicians, and Corry 2007 is a 13 page article about an clash between Moore and Harry Vandiver, yet none of these feuds, nor Vandiver, are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, although Corry 2007 has been used selectively to augment the racism section. As Keith Devlin notes in his cited blog post "Moore's racial attitude was nothing unusual for a white person who was born and lived most of his life in Texas in the late Nineteenth Century and the first three quarters of the Twentieth." Looks like there's plenty of room to expand other aspects of Moore's career so that negative and positive aspects alike are treated more proportionally to their prominence in reliable sources, without cherry-picking, coatracking, whitewashing, or recentism.

And an addendum, at the risk of sounding redundant, his racist and misogynistic aspects should be presented fairly and accurately, but shouldn't be granted undue emphasis merely because it is currently a hot-button item in the news, or on the minds of some people, nor be erased or sugarcoated. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

His racism is an aspect of his life that every recent mathematical publication mentioning him has found necessary to mention, very few of them bothering to connect it to his namesake. In that sense, it is clearly defining. It is not "currently a hot-button issue", only in the news very recently; our sources on this issue are dated 2004, 2007, 2010, 2015, 2019, and 2020. There are many other sources on this that we could use: Haberler et al 2018 (doi:10.1007/s40753-018-0079-4, whose main topic is the struggle of the inquiry-based-learning community to separate out the positive aspects of Moore's teaching methods from his history of racism) cite more going back to Albers et al More Mathematical People: Contemporary Conversations 1990 (which has Rudin calling him a bigot on p. 293). Also, your claim that this topic should be treated less prominently because of it being in only one chapter of a book is based on false premises. The review makes clear that this material is spread throughout the book ("I'll try to separate the Moore Method from Moore's life, although the book doesn't do this") and the mention of chapter 15 is only in regards to a secondary point, his alleged misogyny.

Incidentally, there is one colorful incident that we don't mention at all in our article: the one in which he pointed a gun at the child of a colleague with whom he had a dispute (near the start of the Corry reference). It's unclear to me how it fits into the bigger picture or how it should be mentioned, but maybe it illuminates some aspect of his personality.

You can certainly find plenty of people who will minimize Moore's racism as being nothing special, maybe because they want to avoid tarnishing other aspects of his career that they find more admirable. To me Devlin's quote seems of that nature. The anecdotes that we have of him standing far beyond the faculty in the same institution at the same time in his unwillingness to teach Black students seem more telling to me than some white man saying it was nothing much.

Whether we should include Moore in Category:American white supremacists is a different question, of course. I tend to lean against it: we do have sources stating that he was opposed to desegregation, but he does not seem to have been in any way prominent as a political activist or organizer of white supremacy. We only have evidence of his own personal racist actions, and I don't think that's really what that category should be for. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The Racism section currently makes up about 20% of the biography. This seems to be a smaller percentage than the links about him that turn up on google mentioning it. The article seems pretty balanced to me. If the coverage over the past 15 years has mentioned this I don't think it is WP:RECENTISM as described in that essay, at least not in a negative or imbalanced way. If other relevant things about him are omitted from the article by all means include them. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)