:Talk:Pioneer Fund

Website is defunct. Internet archives of the website indicate the director died in 2012 and half of its assets were given to another organization. Google search reveals no current output from this organization, all mentions of it are refer to pre-2012 activity. Lots of other unrelated groups using "Pioneer Fund" in their name.

Is this organization defunct? It appears to be. SONORAMA (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Richard Lynn died in 2023, so is no longer the director. I could find no evidence of the organization's activity or articles about it's activity or about Director Gerhard Meisenberg's activity in the past 2 years. However, that does not mean it is defunct. For example, according to SPLC it funded American Renaissance, and that is still active. Camipco (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, it seems both website external links are defunct now. I don't think the Pioneer Fund exists at either address, so both are a 'historic website' or 'defunct website'. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There are already multiple Pioneer Funds in the hat notes, and I will be adding yet another for this one (https://pioneerfund.vc, see notability here: https://www.inc.com/sam-blum/silicon-valleys-biggest-investor-is-canadian.html). The one I am adding has the exact same name "Pioneer Fund" so the hat note will no longer be sufficient.

I tried to move this page over to a disambiguation a couple months ago, but was busy and someone reverted the change before I was able to create the new page - fair enough. Leaving this note as I'm beginning the process again!

BananaManCanDance (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:This seems likely to be the primary topic either way, so it probably shouldn't be moved, definitely not without a WP:RM. You can create a disambiguation page without moving this one. MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:: Fair point - finally created the disambiguation page and directed the traffic as suggested BananaManCanDance (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Could I get others' thoughts on why this page feels like it should stay the primary? From my perspective, while it does have the longest history, it seems to be defunct and it's not clear to me that wikipedia users are best serve by having it as a primary. Would be cool if others can chime in here so we can avoid going to WP:RM BananaManCanDance (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:This topic is far more historically significant and covered as such in sources than the other options. I think it is clearly the primary topic for this title. I doubt recentism would carry the day in any potential RM. MrOllie (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not in opposition, but it would be nice if you provided some additional things to consider from WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Any reason for it to feature so prominently in the lead paragraph? Is this institution an authority on who hates what? I'm not from the US and the idea that there might an institution (with several lawsuits for defamation) that tells me who is hateful sounds somewhat bizarre. For it to be part of encyclopedic content is even more bizarre.

And in what ways is the pioner fund a hate group. The opinion of the SPLC is simply stated and never explained in the article. Pointing out that It distributed an eugenics propaganda film in 1937 is not, in my view, enough to freely label it a hate group.

this reads like propaganda at worst and laziness at best. I wouldn't dare to edit the article myself, since I'm pretty sure it would be reverted instantly. 37.228.243.63 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Tq|Is this institution an authority on who hates what?}} Yes, it is. {{Tq|And in what ways is the pioner fund a hate group}} This is explained in the article. They fund racist pseudoscience and distributed Nazi propaganda, for starters. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't believe "yes it is" is a valid answer to a question related to an encyclopedic article. But I strive for accuracy not activism.

::As for "funding racist pseudoscience" that seems to be your opinion and the SPLC's rather than a proven fact. many leftist organizations distributed soviet propaganda and that doesn;t label them a "hate group". Focusing on their current actions and their most recent recipients of grants (Aurelio Figueiredo and Seymour Itzkoff) there appears to be nothing that indicate hateful actions. If funding research that rivals mainstream research is hateful then Wikipedia is a hate group. 37.228.243.63 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We're now into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Wikipedia will follow the cited sources on this and not individual's opinions on what indicates 'hateful actions'. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)