Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Do As I Say, Not As I Do?

Btw, AndyL: you said above: "I'm still wondering about the issue I brought up." Which seems to suggest it was unpublished original research unapproved by peer review. Shortly afterwards you said: "It could go into the article." So I'd like to know: was it original research? If it was, can you please reconcile your desire to put it into the article with these later comments by you about MacDonald's rebuttals?: "Have these personal rebuttals been published anywhere, in any journal or book? If not then they break the No original research rule and don't belong in the article." Jacquerie27 10:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The ethnic diversity of Jews is not my "original research" but a fact established by the Thomas data which MacDonald himself concedes. When I said "it could go into the article" I didn't mean literally cutting and pasting the exchange into the article but including the published research referred to in the exchange. In any case, as no edits have been made based on the exchange your charge is premature. Now, do you concede that if MacDonald's "rebuttal" is not derived from already published work it constitutes "original research" or are you only interested in impugning my motives and not in the actual facts of the situation?AndyL 14:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By your own reasoning it would be premature of you to make such a charge, since we don't have any reason to think MacDonald's "rebuttal" is not derived from already published work. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, do you concede...? Whatever breaks the rule can be cut, though I personally would accept whatever "original research" made valid factual points for or against. Some more questions: Which published, peer-reviewed source uses the Thomas data to argue against MacDonald's theory? Which published, peer-reviewed source uses the "vast racial diversity within Judaism" and the physical appearance of different Jewish groups to argue against MacDonald's theory? Which published, peer-reviewed source uses the following to argue against MacDonald's theory?

In fact, it is not just in the United States and "the West" that Ashkenazi intermarriage rates are high but in Eastern Europe, in particular Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union and Latin America and wherever Ashkenazis live including Israel (where only a minority of Ashkenazi are) where they are intermarrying with Jews of other ethnicities.

If it's you who's putting together these data to argue against MacDonald's theory I think you're doing original research. Do you agree? If you do, do you also agree that you were doing, and inserting, original research when you wrote of how "MacDonald also neglects..."? (See top of page.) After all, he hadn't neglected those things at all: you were simply assuming that he had, without acquainting yourself with his work beforehand. So if I'm impugning your motives, I'm doing so based on the actual and longstanding facts of the situation. Jacquerie27 15:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. There's a difference between citing existing research and information that contradicts MacDonald and MacDonald writing his own rebuttals especially for this article. AndyL 16:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But what are your insertions if not "rebuttals" of his work written especially for this article? And what is he doing but cite existing facts and research in response? And again, what about that paragraph you inserted a couple of weeks ago? You had read none of his books and, I suspect, none of his material on the web, but you still accused him of "neglecting" and "ignoring" data that told against him. You had no way of knowing whether that was true, and it wasn't: he hadn't neglected or ignored them. You concluded like this: "The tendency to dismiss or ignore evidence that contradicts his thesis and cherry-pick evidence that might support his thesis leads to accusations that MacDonald is guilty of tunnel vision." What would you think of another Wikipedia editor, or scholar of any kind, who identified a "tendency" in work he had never read? What would you think of another Wikipedia editor who levelled accusations like that on the basis of complete or near complete ignorance of his subject's work? Would you think he was competent to work on the article in question? I'll be interested to see if you answer that. Jacquerie27 13:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"By your own reasoning it would be premature of you to make such a charge, since we don't have any reason to think MacDonald's "rebuttal" is not derived from already published work."

The lack of citations gives us reason to think his rebuttal is not derived from already published work, hence my original question asking for citations. AndyL 16:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What bothers me about this process is that anyone can just go in an make a criticism, whether its based on some recent population genetic data or a quarrel with my use of sources--like the comment on Kaganovich which has just been inserted. (If you want to get a really good account of Jewish involvement in mass murder in the USSR, read Slezkine's recent book.) None of this stuff passes peer review, but I can't defend myself. So the tenor of the article just becomes more and more negative, pretty much as a function because people read something somewhere that they think might be a criticsm of me. In the end its a caricature. Adios. KM

It was me (the "pro"-MacDonald wing) who added the comment on Kaganovich. From what I've seen of Stuart Kahan's book it's not proper history and I didn't want to keep that or those other criticisms of it to myself. Jacquerie27 13:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I too have my doubts about the historicity of Kahan's book, but this section seems like an obvious violation of the No original research policy. As encyclopedists, it's not our job to check the validity of MacDonald's sources. If there are any published works criticising MacDonald for this, then they can be cited and the claim properly attributed. If not, then it should be removed. -- Schaefer 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then I will cut it. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gould, Lewontin, Rose and Neo-Marxism too

Gould himself was raised on academic Marxism. If only we could order the whole world on Marxist principles, we would have Heaven on Earth. Unfortunately, before we get the benefits of Marxism, the whole world must become Marxist. Right now, no country is purely anything. Some countries exhibit a mishmash of economic elements that are sort of capitalist (e.g., the United States), while others exhibit a more Marxist mishmash (Cuba). For some reason, we do not have to wait around for ideal capitalism to materialize before we get the benefits of capitalism. For Marxism, we do. Many of Gould's contemporaries objected to his introduction of politics into science. They think that politics has no place in science (except such sciences as political science) and that scientists have been and continue to be very good at keeping it out. Once again, what began as a difference in kind has now become a difference of degree. Gould, more than his opponents, thinks that such extrascientific considerations as politics play a more important role in science and are harder to uncover and uproot than we are willing to admit.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/hull_structure.html

Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin has written in New Political Science that Marxism, "can do nothing for the university; the real question is what can Marxists do to and in the university ... For the natural and social scientist the answer is very clear. The university is a factory that makes weapons - ideological weapons - for class struggle, for class warfare, and trains people in their use. It has no other leading and important function in the social organization."2

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0500_DeMar_-_Marxism.html (N.B. A Christian site)

He [Steven Rose] appears less Marxist to himself than to his friends: certainly less so than he appears to his enemies. Richard Dawkins once dismissed a book he wrote in collaboration with the American Marxist scientists Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamen as "Dave Spart trying to get into Pseud's Corner". Mary Midgley, the philosopher and a friend, attributes the breadth of Rose's interests to Marxism, because Marxists were forced to think in large terms about society as a complicated system of inter-reacting mechanisms. "He is a good thing", she says. "So few scientists are in a position to stand back and ask what science is doing, as he does: ignorance about the use of words in metaphor, and that they matter, is part of a scientist's training. What's admirable about him and Hilary is that they come from such different places and they keep educating each other." Midgley, a notably pugnacious writer herself, pays Rose a wholly characteristic compliment: "His choice of enemies is not too bad now."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts/story/0,1392,618984,00.html

How, odd, the Stephen Jay Gould article on Wikipedia clearly states "Gould was raised in a socialist home without becoming a socialist himself." In any event, these scientists are known as famous biologists or evolutionary biologists, and it is in this capacity that they have made their statements about intelligence.

About more than intelligence: Rose has argued against evolutionary psychology in Alas, Poor Darwin, for example. And they've done so in the capacity of politically committed scientists clearly influenced by Marxism and similar ideologies. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For example, Google gets tens of thousands of hits for websites describing Gould as a "biologist" or "evolutionary biologist" or "evolutionary theorist", but under 100 referring to him as a "neo-Marxist", and none that I can find referring to him as a "Jewish scholar". Moreover, these scientists were atheists who followed no organized religion. Describing them as "neo-Marxist Jewish scholars" implies that their fame (and relevance to this page) lies in their Marxist writings and Rabbinic ordinations. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another example of how the "group"'s interventions have often been pointless. I described Gould et al as "neo-Marxist". Is it likely I need a careful explanation that "these scientists were atheists who followed no organized religion"? As was obvious from its use with "neo-Marxist", "Jewish" was an ethnic label: anyone who researches the "group" will find out that their ethnicity and experience of anti-Semitism have influenced their ideas profoundly (see e.g. [1]). I used the general term "scholars" because Gould often wrote on general topics such as the relation between science and religion. He was a polymath, in fact, and the others too are all very interested in politics and social affairs: I don't think "scientist" is adequate to describe them, because it suggests narrow specialization. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they were all primarily biologists of one sort of another, and it was in that capacity that they promoted the ideas in question. "Jewish scholar" typically implies a scholar of Judaism or Jewish topics, and they were all far from that. What is obvious about labels to you is not obvious about labels to others. If you want to call Gould a polymath, feel free, but again, in this context they were primarily biologists. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Jewish scholar" typically implies... What does "neo-Marxist Jewish scholar" typically imply? Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure, you appear to have invented the phrase. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we be labelling MacDonald a Christian scholar, a Scottish scholar?, or a Gentile scholar? I don't think so. If the ethnicity of Gould, et al., is important then it should be referred to differently, such as: Gould, an evolutionary biologist of Jewish extraction. -Willmcw 23:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Group" Exclusionary Strategy

I'm wondering: is there anywhere I can complain about the behaviour of the following "group" on Kevin B. MacDonald and Jewish ethnocentrism? In alphabetical order: User:AndyL, User:Jayjg, User:Jfdwolff, User:Olve, User:Slrubenstein... If you look at the history and talk pages for these articles, you can see what I claim is a persistent pattern of obstruction, deletion, and personal criticism related to MacDonald's theories, including the very serious charge that I am anti-Semitic. I am not an expert on MacDonald but I have tried to familiarize myself with the material by him freely available on the net. Before I make the possible complaint, I'd like all members of the "group" identified above to say precisely when and to what extent they familiarized themselves with the same material. If (as I believe is the case) some had not (and have still not) familiarized themselves with it at all, I'd also like them to explain what they felt qualified them to participate in the editing and discussion of material related to MacDonald. Jacquerie27 13:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anti-Semitism, nor have I criticised you. My edits and comments here have been mostly about Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research, as well as related Wikipedia policies (e.g. Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Your questions about my own knowledge of the subject are irrelevant, since one doesn't need to know anything about a topic to work towards those critical Wikipedia goals. My other comments on this page have been few, and mostly related to the point that getting revenge for wrongs done your family is not an example of "ethnocentrism". My comments on the Jewish ethnocentism page have mostly focussed on the No original research policy as well, with brief digressions into discussion of the topic of "mamzer" in Judaism, and an off-topic discussion with Alberuni's sockpuppet RomperRoomReject. I find it interesting, though, that you lump all those who disagree with you into a monolithic "group"; do you think they are practising a "group evolutionary strategy?" Jayjg | (Talk) 16:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your questions about my own knowledge of the subject are irrelevant, since one doesn't need to know anything about a topic to work towards those critical Wikipedia goals. So you've not familiarized yourself with the material at all. And one of the critical Wikipedia goals you've been monitoring is no violation of the rules "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and No original research. When you intervened to criticize me for violating them, I had to point out that the examples of Jewish ethnocentrism I was using were MacDonald's. IOW, you wasted your time and mine because you hadn't familiarized yourself with the material. ...you lump all those who disagree with you into a monolithic "group". No, I "lump" into a "group" (monolithic is your spin) all those who, among other things, waste my time and their own because they haven't familiarized themselves with the material. What do you expect? That I should include people from the talk pages for Spinifex Hopping Mouse and Logarithmic spiral? Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said that at all; please try to read what I have written, rather than what you imagine me to have written. You have raised an issue which is irrelevant and requires no response, and I pointed that out. As for your statements, you are indeed wasting your time if you cannot quote from or cite MacDonald, rather than promoting your own ideas, and if you cannot write material in a NPOV way. So far you have often failed at both, and it is this that I have pointed out on a number of occasions. One needs no special expertise to note either failing. Since you admit wasting time, in the future please avoid doing so by carefully reviewing the relevant Wikipedia policies. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see: you're presenting yourself as a neutral, impartial referee, operating on abstract general principle and concerned with preventing POV and the promotion of personal ideas. So far you have often failed at both... In your opinion. But how neutral is your opinion? AndyL has been egregiously POV, biased, and dishonest in his work on these articles, and his failure to answer the simple questions I asked above is proof that he accepts this himself. Please provide a few examples of you, the neutral, impartial referee who needs "no special expertise" to note such failings, intervening to criticize him or cut anything he has added over the past weeks. Your inevitable failure to do so will be proof that you have no interest at all in neutrality or in abstract general principle. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to have me say things that I haven't said; I have never claimed to be a "a neutral, impartial referee", or attempted to define my role here at all, except as another Wikipedia editor. Your use of [[Ad_

1. Ad_hominem_tu_quoque|tu quoque]] arguments does not distract from the fact that articles on Wikipedia should be properly sourced, NPOV, and not original research; your claim that others violate these rules does not exempt you from following them. In any event, the Talk: pages are not a venue for conducting inquisitions into the behaviour of other editors, but rather a venue for engaging in discussions of appropriate article content. Please try to restrict your Talk: to the latter. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not tu quoque (which I understand w/o the aid of a link, thanks). I don't think I have been violating those rules. If I have, there have been worse violators you have ignored. IOW, the criticism has always directed at me. Is creating a consistently hostile atmosphere for one editor a violation of any Wikipedia rule? It's certainly a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and a clear attempt to influence the editing in the direction you favour. pages are not a venue for conducting inquisitions into the behaviour of other editors... Another example of your bias: you appeal to an "abstract general principle" that only applies to one side, for obvious reasons. Why no protest from you when my motives were the subject of an inquisition? Why no protest when I was accused of anti-Semitism? If you ever get round to researching MacDonald, you might be struck by déjà vu when you read his discussion of moral particularism. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I did respond to your direct criticism of me, by username, I haven't attacked or criticized you. Nor have I attacked any of the other editors here. I have questioned edits and items in the article, on eminently reasonable grounds. Also, it is a grave misunderstanding of Wikiquette to state that asking for adherence to Wikipedia policies is in some way a violation of Wikiquette. And finally, I repeat, the Talk: page should preferably be used for discussing article content. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have continually criticized my editing and no-one else's, contributing to a consistently hostile atmosphere. AndyL seems to have retired from these pages for the time being, or he would still be adding to the chorus. And go to Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism and search for "broken record" for an example of one of your interventions "on eminently reasonable grounds". If you had researched MacDonald it would have been unnecessary, but you're not interested in MacDonald and researching him is irrelevant to your real aims and in fact would be detrimental to them. All the same, I really do recommend a look at his discussion of moral particularism. Jacquerie27 22:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I really do recommend focussing on the article content, rather than insinuations about the "real aims" of other editors. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Jewish Role in Facilitating Mass Immigration

This section is getting filled up with quotations and discussions of what others think. This is an article about MacDonald. Let's cut out the block quote from other Steinlight and add quotes from MacDonald. -Willmcw 21:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald refers specifically to Steinlight in his discussion of immigration and you were duplicating material when you added the block quote. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that MacDonald refers to many people in his writings, but I don't sit down to read an article about MacDonald to read quotes from his favorite authors. If the quote I added wasn't the best then let's find a better one, from him. I hate to remove material, but this article should stick to listing MacDonald's significant accomplishments and describing his works and their impact. This is not the place to prove or decide whether his theories are "True" by appealing to authorities. If we bring in quotes by others they should be about MacDonald. Jewish ethnocentrism, race and intelligence, immigration, etc, have well-developed articles of their own. All we need to say here is what MacDonald's views are on those topics and how others regard those views. Let's focus on keeping this a biography. No offense to the subject, but this article is perhaps too long already for MacDonald's notability. Let's NPOV this and move on to the next professor's bio. The more this drags on, the more likely it is that unfavorable material will be added. user:Jacquerie27, could you provide a description of each of MacDonald's books that you have read? A short paragraph on the thesis of each book in his main trilogy would be helpful. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points. This should be an article about MacDonald, his views, and reactions to his views, not a defence of his theses. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But "reactions to his views" have included those of Wikipedia contributors ignorant of his work, not MacDonald's academic peers. So you need to start cutting a lot of material. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see a great deal of reactions to his views from well cited sources; which reactions do you think need to be cut, and why? Jayjg | (Talk) 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to cut anything myself, but if this is a biography "reactions to his views" should be by other named academics, not anonymous contributors on Wikipedia. I don't know that any academic has used the Thomas data to argue against him. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to help solve that problem by directly quoting some criticism from an academic. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this contribution. John Tooby and Steven Pinker are among the most notable voices in evolutionary psychology, so I'm moving their criticisms ahead of those from non-scientist Judith Shulevitz and the SLPC mention. -- Schaefer 05:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added summaries. Please note that I haven't yet read any of MacDonald's books, but plenty of relevant material is available on his website. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They look like good summaries to me. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jacq! Those summaries are the kind of core information that should be in an article like this. I wouldn't have known you hadn't read them if you hadn't told me. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but... a lot of it was taken from the summaries available on his site. I can't see that he'll object. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chapter 9 of Separation and Its Discontents

Chapter 9 is now referenced in two paragraphs under MacDonald's rebuttals to support intermarriage theories. I believe that is excessive and perhaps unintentional. I also note that the second paragraph contains quotations from others. Can't we merge them into one paragraph that only quotes MacDonald? The length of this article is getting ridiculous. -Willmcw 23:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not the first time this kind of thing has been done. I support merging the information. I also am troubled by the "MacDonald's rebuttals" sections, which, where part of his works, should be included in the earlier sections describing his views, and where not part of his works, should be removed as original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, I'd like to see all or most of the quotations by other academics removed. If their opinions are noteworthy we can write articles about them. It's inappropriate to have a biography of someone and write, He believes the same as this other guy: and then quote four lines of text by an even more obscure academic. This is an article about MacDonald, and all quotes should either be by him or about him. Just cutting out the extraneous citations will cut down the size. I believe there is a footnote capability in Wiki, so we can move the info down into notes if editors want to keep it in some form. What is left perhaps looks like a discussion of intermarriage, and maybe another topic. It'd be best to integrate those rebuttals in with their respective topics. -Willmcw 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your points; the various other references were brought by MacDonald in defence of his thesis, and this is an encyclopedia article, not a thesis defence. Also, I think the rebuttals should, where they come from MacDonald's books (and not from his head) be restored to the relevant sections. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront

KBM seems to have some fans [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=164353&page=1&pp=10 here] AndyL 20:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CRD seems to have some fans [http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/DARWIN.htm there] too. Does that prove CRD is wrong? Jacquerie27 22:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darwin is dead so is not in a position to comment on "social Darwinists" who misapply his theories. KBM is very much alive and is very much aware of his following among the neo-Nazi crowd. Has he said or done anything to repudiate them? AndyL 23:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you'd ever visited his website, you would know what his reply is:

Scientists and intellectuals can never be certain of the effects of what they do; nor is it reasonable to hold them responsible. Einstein was recently named man of the century by Time magazine even though his ideas led to nuclear weapons. He is not held accountable for the deaths of the innocent in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl, nor would it be reasonable to hold him accountable. The Human Genome Project holds the promise of curing many diseases, but also leads to the possibility of ethnically targeted weapons. One could use my findings just as easily to attempt to find ways to defuse ethnic hostility as to find justifications for yet more bloodshed. The use that is made of scientific findings is a political decision (in my view underdetermined by evolutionary or psychological theory). There is always the possibility of misuse of findings but I am a scientist, not a politician, and my first duty is to the truth which I must report as best as I can. I have no policy recommendations to make. I neither condemn nor condone various politicians or policies that emanate from these findings.[2]

And are you going to answer those other questions above too? Jacquerie27 23:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have rather low standards if you accept that disclaimer as meaning anything." I neither condemn nor condone various politicians or policies that emanate from these findings." is nothing but a failure to take a responsibility. Why doesn't he condemn the neo-nazis who cleave to his theories? Why the weasal words?AndyL 02:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To use an analogy, it is appropriate to mention in an article that a diva has a gay following, even if she does nothing to encourage it. Likewise, if an author has an unusual fanbase it is worth mentioning that too, even if he or she has discouraged those supporters. But the mention should be NPOV and should indicate whether or not the subject has encouraged or interacted with the supporters. In this specific case, MacDonald has arguably provided intellectual justification for some conclusions that he might not agree with. However I have never seen the slightest evidence of MacDonald "courting" groups like Stormfront. The closest interactions that I am aware of are the Irving testimony, which is already in the article, and the articles for VDARE and Occidental Quarterly. -Willmcw 08:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have rather low standards.... Yes, but that doesn't seem any disqualification for editing on Wikipedia. Why doesn't he condemn the neo-nazis who cleave to his theories? Why the weasal words? I'm not MacDonald's spokesman: if you'd like to try something new today, go to his website and use the email address you find there to ask him yourself. Jacquerie27 13:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I'm not MacDonald's spokesman" Apologist, spokesman, six of one...

"However I have never seen the slightest evidence of MacDonald "courting" groups like Stormfront." True, but he certainly hasn't done anything to discourage these groups. I think its valid to point out his neo-Nazi following and his hand-washing disclaimer. AndyL 16:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the disclaimer is mentioned, it should be as is, not with any editorial comments describing it as "hand-washing" etc. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to add things like that you might as well also add that these neo-nazi's and KKK support Bush in the article on him and every conservative politician on wikipedia. Then you can flip the coins and on all liberal politician articles put that they are supported widly by NAMBLA, the Black Panthers, pornographers, and Satanists. It's easy to slander people, I learned it from the news.

Hmmm. Well, it's moot now as the reference was deleted a long time ago. Thanks for your input anyway. -Willmcw 17:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

ad hominem

MacDonald dismisses (quite summarily) the arguments of a good deal of evolutionary biologists and other scholars simply due to the fact that they are Jewish. Whatever one thinks of this, this is a specific logical fallacy called ad hominem, where one dismisses the argument not through rebuttal, but by critiquing the individual or individuals who put it forward. It is not POV for this article to observe this -- and the "critics" part can be reworded. One cannot, however, argue that calling a spade a spade (even if many of our readers will not have heard of the ad hominem fallacy) constitutes original research. We certainly know what ad hominem arguements are, but I believe that many readers will not know this. Thus, pointing out what MacDonand's argument here is -- and it is objectively an ad hominem argument (or ad homines to be technical) is useful.Zantastik 23:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this case maybe you can simply say what you are getting at: "MacDonald dismisses the criticism of these individuals because he believes that their Jewish heritage influences their judgement," or something like that. It is the purpose of this article to describe what MacDonald says, not to apply labels or pass judgement. Is he right or wrong? As an editor, I don't know. We're not here to find the "Truth". We're here to provide NPOV information and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. -Willmcw 03:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald dismisses (quite summarily) the arguments of a good deal of evolutionary biologists and other scholars simply due to the fact that they are Jewish. Where does he do this? Pinker says "MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?" but MacDonald has never said anything of the kind about Pinker. Jacquerie27 11:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Steven Pinker does specifically claim that this is an ad hominem: "By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage." But I strongly feel criticisms should stay in the criticism section. This paragraph should be summarising MacDonald's views, not giving critiques of them. That's adequately handled later in the article. -- Schaefer 21:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But Pinker, like a lot of MacDonald's critics, has never read MacDonald. If he had, he'd know he is completely wrong to say that:

Similarly, 20th-century theoretical physics does not qualify as a Jewish intellectual movement precisely because it was good science and there are no signs of ethnic involvement in its creation: Jewish identification and pursuit of Jewish interests were not important to the content of the theories or to the conduct of the intellectual movement. Yet Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists.[3]

MacDonald does not say, as the Nazis did: "Aha! X is Jewish, therefore X's theories are ethnocentric!" He says: "X's theories are ethnocentric and here is the evidence for it." To the Nazis, Freud and Einstein were bad scientists simply because they were Jewish; to MacDonald, Einstein is a good scientist because he did good science, and Freud is a bad scientist because he did bad science. His explanation: Freud was ethnocentric in his "science", Einstein wasn't. Jacquerie27 11:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way was Freud ethnocentric in his "science"? SlimVirgin 12:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent, literate people are capable of reading MacDonald's discussion of Freud for themselves. You are an intelligent, literate person. Therefore... Jacquerie27 10:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original work in the "Other criticisms" section

The criticisms under the heading "other criticisms" do not appear to cite any specific critics of MacDonald. The the "Genetic evidence" paragraph begins "MacDonald's theory may be militated against by evidence that women in Jewish communities from [...]". Who, exactly, has criticized MacDonald on these grounds? The next section begins "Another criticism of MacDonald is that he underestimates the [...]", without specifying who has made this criticism. These refutations of MacDonald's ideas are neither obvious nor undisputed (MacDonald himself, at least, doesn't seem to think the evidence cited is terribly damaging to his work) so if they can't be attributed to anyone I feel they should be taken out as per the original research policy. (Which is not to say I don't think these are valid criticisms. For the record I don't much care for MacDonald's work, but original research, no matter how valid, doesn't belong in Wikipedia.) -- Schaefer 19:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point. If no sources for these arguments can be found, then they should be removed, along with MacDonald's rebuttals. That should help get the article down to a more reasonable length, and turn it back into a biography. Jayjg | (Talk)

Reverts in Culture of Critique summary

J, do not delete useful content. What I added is not called "spin" it is called "paraphrasing." You can't summarize the book and leave out the parts you either don't like, or are afraid others might not like. MacDonald wrote the book, and the summary should be of what he wrote. Slrubenstein 01:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're "paraphrasing", you must have read his book. Have you? (Is the Pope Buddhist?) I used what MacDonald has on his site to write those summaries, and I didn't see "Jewish by nature" or "Jewish-controlled" anywhere. MacDonald himself is so afraid of the truth that you had to go to his site to find lengthy criticisms of him. Jacquerie27 09:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jacquerie, could you do me a favor, please, and explain how Freud's ideas furthered his ethnocentric interests? SlimVirgin 06:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

SV, which part of "No" do you not understand? It's all on MacDonald's site and there's some already in the article. Jacquerie27 10:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous "critics"

(For those who are looking for the context - here is the passage that user:Jabowery is writing about:

===Anecdotal evidence

MacDonald has been criticized for using anecdotal evidence [4]. There is little or no quantitative or experimental data. There exists a large literature on the use of statistics and and surveys to determine ingroup bias and ethnocentrism. But there is no attempt to justify his theories with the use of such methods and peer-reviewed studies.

Linking to a site (gnxp) whose editors are anonymous and particularly to a "critic" of MacDonald at that site who is among those anonymous editors is rather typical of Wikipedia.

Moreover, its really obvious these people haven't read his books. But hey, since they're anonymous they don't have to worry about their reputations!

With "sources" like this for your "encyclopedia" I'm sure it will acquire the reputation it so richly deserves.

So says an anonymous critic of this article. :-) Jayjg | (Talk) 06:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stopped clocks and anonymous editors are both right, occasionally. In this case, it is a very weak authority, compared to the dozens of good links elsewhere in the article. In addition, I couldn't find the word anecdotal anywhere on the referenced page. -Willmcw 07:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The irony was amusing regardless. :-) Jayjg | (Talk) 08:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For further amusement, see: Talk:Fusion_power#Censorship_of_Critical_Fusion_History_in_Wikipedia (not to be mean - we all have a crazy idea or two.) -Willmcw 08:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And for even further amusement note that legislation I wrote to reform the US fusion program was not only endorsed by one of the founders of the that program but was submitted by him to all crucial members of congress as well as all plasma physics lab along with a major confession of his own participation in subterfuge. We all have crazy ideas alright -- but not all of them end up with that kind of backing AND being rejected by wikipedeons in relevant articles because the author's political views are nearly as unfashionable as Kevin MacDonald's. Jim Bowery 08:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, even Internet encyclopedias, are at the trailing edge of knowledge on purpose. Fantastic new ideas have little place here - this is chiefly a repository of old ideas. I wish you and the fusion community the best wishes for success. You should include your information in the article on the founder to whom you are referring as it sounds like it would be relevent there. And also - thanks for pointing out the poor edit in this article. I do agree it was out of place. -Willmcw 08:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(added later: The physicist in question is Robert W. Bussard. Is that a Jewish name? -W)

Oh come now. The KMac article is so full of holes and biased POV the only reason it might not be laughable is that so many people are indoctrinated to believe the POV. A letter sent to virtually the entire plasma physics community and relevant lawmakers from the founder of the Tokamak fusion program sayign the Tokamak program was a sham from day 1 is "fantastic" alright -- but it is hardly excludable from an intellectually honest article on fusion power since it is a primary document. No, all that is going on here is adherence to a state religion wherein Jews are supplanting "Christ" as the God's sacrificial lamb for our sins -- and anyone who is a declared heretic of that religion must be discredited no matter how much damage is done to human knowledge and welfare. Jim Bowery 08:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards; MacDonald's theories aren't rejected because they are "unfashionable", but rather because they are unscientific. Have fun with the fusion thing. Jayjg | (Talk) 08:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, "unscientific" or no -- whatever you do, don't forget to say your Hail Anne Franks on the upcoming 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Of course, you _did_ remember to do similar penance for the 60th anniversary of the Ukranian famine. Oops... missed that? Didn't have saturation coverage on NPR and other pseudo-intellectual bastions of the state religion did they? Must not have been _fashionable_ for some MYSTERIOUS reason. Probably the same reason there is a litany of "criticism" of KMac, some of it transparently POV of the writer himself, and nary a countervailing word of "support" not provided by KMac himself at his own expense of time and energy here. Jim Bowery 09:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good rant; you've made your position quite clear. Thanks. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And by having an article loaded with "critics" as an vehicle for POV bias, so has this group of wikipedeons. Jim Bowery 23:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yea Jay, Bowery is right! why don't you do penance on the Ukrainian Famine? or for that matter The Russian Revolution, the World War II, and all the world evil... Don't you know that us Jews caused all of that?!:) Thank god we have an editor like Bowery (and a million others) to remind us how diabolical we are- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?

No peer-review of the theories. There is no attempt to justity them through surveys or genetic research. There exists a large literature on the use of statistics and and surveys to determine ingroup bias and ethnocentrism. All which were ignored. His theories are most closely related to conspiracy theories in using only anecdotal evidence. Ultramarine 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The existence of Kevin MacDonald has been established with a variety of references and does not rely on any original research, or even genetic research. ;) The recurring question is how to handle the coverage of his theories, which spill across this article and into Jewish ethnocentrism. While editors here are of different opinions about the contents of those theories and of these articles, I think that we all agree that the articles should be shorter. As you can see from this archive, there was some talk of moving all (or an edited-down summary) of the theory discussion over to the Ethnocentrism article (or a 3rd article) but no editor has volunteered for the task. Would you like to? Cheers, -Willmcw 12:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious you didn't bother to read MacDonald's work. Quoting:

Recently Greenwald and Schuh (1994) demonstrated a pattern of ethnic discrimination in scientific citations whereby Jewish authors were 40 percent more likely to cite Jewish authors than were non-Jewish authors. Jewish first authors of scientific papers were also approximately three times more likely to have Jewish coauthors than were non-Jewish first authors. Although the methods used in the study did not allow determination of the direction of discrimination, the findings reported throughout this volume strongly suggest that a large proportion of the discrimination originates with Jewish scientists. This is also suggested by the disproportionate representation of Jewish coauthors, presumably the result of Jewish ingroup associational patterns both as mentors and colleagues. . . . Providing further evidence in this regard, the studies by Kadushin (1974) and Shapiro (1989, 1992) of twentieth-century American intellectuals indicate not only a strong overlap among Jewish background, Jewish ethnic identification, Jewish associational patterns, radical political beliefs, and psychoanalytic influence but also a pattern of mutual citation and admiration. In Kadushin’s study, almost half of the complete sample of elite American intellectuals were Jewish (Kadushin 1974, 23).

From Chapter 1 of SAID:

Using an instrument designed to measure ingroup bias—an indicator of ethnocentrism, Silverman and Case (1995) found that Jews had the highest bias toward their own ethnic group among groups classified as White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), Asians, Italians, Other Europeans, and Blacks, with the only significant difference between Jews and WASPs.

Greenwald, A. G., & Schuh, E. S. (1994). An ethnic bias in scientific citations. European Journal of Social Psychology 24:623–639.

Kadushin, C. (1974). The American Intellectual Elite. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Jewishness and the New York intellectuals. Judaism 38:282–292.(1992).

A Time for Healing: American Jewry since World War II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Silverman, I., & Case, D. (1995). Ethnocentrism vs. pragmatism in the conduct of human affairs. York University Research Report #231, November.

Hence the unattributed proposition that the reason Jews are disproportionately represented among the movements cited by MacDonald is merely because Jews are disproportionately represented among movements period doesn't do justice to the fact that there is most likely a high degree of resource acquisition going on within academia via Jewish nepotism combined with Charles Murray's accounting fallacy in "Human Accomplishment" where he merely uses citations as a measure of "accomplishment" never bothering to ask whether a particular citation was a result of 1) Ethnic nepotism or 2) Of an "accomplishment" that has been widely recognized as being profoundly negative, as arguably Freud's psychoanalysis was due to setting back the field of evolutionary psychology by at least 60 years and arguably as much as a century from Darwin's publication of "The Descent of Man". Contrary to your unsupported assertions I have just cited MacDonald's actual work where he argued cogently that both 1 and 2 apply more to Jews than other ethnic groups and that Murray's accounting is so far off the mark as to make any unattributed proposition that Jews are highly "accomplished" let alone accomplished in a way that is no more destructive than any other ethnic group, highly suspect POV. Jim Bowery 17:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Groups with higher status have a higher ingroup bias, Jews or not. In situations where Jews have lower status they have shown smaller ingroup bias than those of higher status. [5] [6] [7][8]

Regarding "An ethnic bias in scientific citations", non-Jews were just as likely to discriminate as Jews.Ultramarine 18:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I already stated, Jews were measured as having exceptional ingroup bias as compared to other ethnic groups. Silverman, I., & Case, D. (1995). Ethnocentrism vs. pragmatism in the conduct of human affairs. York University Research Report #231, November. Moreover its rather silly to say that group status is not caused by nepotism but that nepotism is caused by group status when the mechanisms by which nepotism contributes to status are obvious and the inverse mechanisms are not. Jim Bowery 19:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, all groups with high status have a high ingroup bias, including whites. And Jews have lower than other groups when their status are lower. If claiming that Jews have higher bias due to genetics, then as a first thep the study must control for SES.

Again, the numerous Jewish contributions to all divisions of science [9] show that the Jewish contribustions to marxism or sociology were not exceptional. Similar contributions in economics, medicine and so on. If you wish to claim otherwise, you must use statistics to prove your case. Or if you claim that all scientific rewards are due to discrimination, you must likewise prove that. The study you quoted is in fact evidence against that. Jews and non-Jews discriminate equally. Ultramarine 20:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait... Are you saying Silverman, I., & Case, D. (1995) is evidence that "Jews and non-Jews discriminate equally."? Just trying to be crystal clear here. Jim Bowery 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. "An ethnic bias in scientific citations".Ultramarine 21:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move of theory and critique to Jewish ethnocentrism

To avoid duplication. Needs major editing since no material was deleted. Ultramarine 15:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think this makes sense, and will help confine all the edit wars to one article, not two. :-) Jayjg | (Talk) 18:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was ridiculous to move so much (including the summaries of MacDonald's books) to JE. For one thing, JE is only part of his theory, though it obviously suits his opponents to pretend otherwise. Jacquerie27 10:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the article had pretty much degenerated into a platform for his critics via the conceit of a section labeled "criticsms", it indeed was a postive move to refactor it to a less personal article where defamation isn't so much an issue -- particularly given the fact that his critics were virtually all motivated by views about ethnocentrism. It is too bad his actual theory isn't being presented but then you can't expect much from folks who can't be bothered to read his work while zealously demonstrating the predictive power of his theory. Jim Bowery 16:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The predictive power of his theory is almost as good as that of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wouldn't you say? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Better. Aside from the fact that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion posits a conspiracy as precondition, which KMac doesn't, the Protocols merely predicted Bolshevism and related movements. KMac's theory predicts genetic relatedness patterns that have been born out by subsequent published data. There are some specific predictions that I disagree with because I think his theory is incorrect in an important way: It relies on indoctrinability of Jewish populations. I don't think you need to posit such a precondition to account for the observations and indeed there are some phenomena that are better explained by immunity to indoctrinability among Jews. Some subpopulations are going to be highly indoctrinable but that's a consequence of the evolutionary dynamics of the Jewish nation. Not that any of this matters to you since you already know what you are supposed to believe. Jim Bowery 01:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I reject what you say because of my immunity to indoctrinability. Or perhaps I'm one of the highly indoctrinable sub-population, and that's what the other conspiracists have taught me to say. Damn, if only I weren't such a slave to my genes and my ethnic group's evolutionary strategy! Well, I'd love to chat more, but subverting Western societal values is a big job, so I've got no time to rest. Resistance is futile. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I expected much better of you than that, Jayg. But perhaps you aren't a native speaker of English either? Jacquerie27 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my poor grasp of the English language, combined with my unfortunate genetics and insidious group evolutionary strategy, made it impossible for me to assimilate your comments. However, your unique cultural and scientific accomplishments, as well as your wealth and property, will be indeed be assimilated and subverted. Resistance is futile! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverting page

The editor whose signature appears below as Sam Spade (talk · contribs) is user:Sam Spade.

I've reverted the page because a) it is ludicrous to have summaries and critiques of MacDonald's books and theories on a page devoted to only one part of those theories; b) as is obvious from a), the people responsible for the move have not familiarized themselves with MacDonald's work, despite the length of time they've spent obstructing and arguing with people who have. Jacquerie27 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted because a) it is ludicous to devote this entire article to MacDonald's theories when they are covered in other articles, and b) as is obvious from the Talk: page, the people fighting the move have confused writing encylopedia articles with advocacy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So your saying you did it because you felt this article should not be devoted to its namesakes theories, and because of your overriding POV? I advise you to go find another article to edit. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 16:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No Sam, where on earth did you get that notion from? Please only attribute statements to me which I have actually made. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Letting you know what I think your saying is useful, even if I'm wrong. I was a bit annoyed with what I thought you said, but since it seems like I was wrong, I appologize for my ignorance in having been so. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Critique

"Culture of Critique" now holds all the MacDonald scholarly material on Jews. Go foward, this biography can stay short and biographical, the Jewish ethnocentrism article can avoid being overwhelmed by one person's theory, and a single article can serve as the logical location to cover the interlinked theories of Professor MacDonald. As I've said before, I can't think of a good name. Maybe it should have been "The Culture of Critique." Gee, maybe a fresh "Talk" page can inspire us all to come to this effort with a new approach. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus? Back in December Sam agreed that most of this material should be moved over to another article. [10] I agreed, and other have agreed, that this material needs to be consolidated. Ultramarine came along and did so. Just as there were complaints that this material went beyond biography, so too there have been complaints that one man's theory was swamping the Jewish Ethnocentrism article. I believe that we all agree there should not be duplication between articles, and since there is not consensus over whether the material should be handled in Kevin B. MacDonald or Jewish ethnocentrism, then logically an article to cover the professor's theories, Culture of Critique, should be created. What, exactly, is the problem? -Willmcw 10:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your culture of critique article, or at least the concept. The problem is how much material ought to be removed from here. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, so which parts belong here and which should be moved - which are biographical, which are purely MacDonald theory (and reactions to them), and which are general Jewish Ethnocentrism? -Willmcw 11:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO the summaries of his books should stay, altho it would be ok if they were condensed. Outside of that, I'm ok w the move, so long as no content is lost in transfer. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What would be left of the Jewish ethnocentrism article, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Ethnocentrism lists numerous ethnocentrisms, Judeocentrism being just one among them. Look to them for guidance/precedent. Clearly there have been many authors who have written about Judeocentrism throughout history -- not the least of which are the authors of the Old Testament and Talmud. Jim Bowery 19:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between providing evidence of what you believe to be Jewish ethnocentrism, and providing information about various authors discussing the topic of Jewish ethnocentrism. The former is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia, the latter is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. It is clear from your comments about the Old Testament and Talmud that you are still not clear on this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism is valid but a nit. The point remains: Judecentrism is among the oldest, most documented, most discussed and most influential ethnocentrisms. To have an article on it only makes sense and to have that article limited to Kevin MacDonald doesn't make sense.Jim Bowery 10:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:No original research are not a "nit", at least not on Wikipedia. And if it is one of the "most discussed" ethnocentrisms, it should be easy to find sources discussing it, rather than having to do our own original research to make a case for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Attacking a fundamentally valid point on the basis of a poor presentation is nit picking regardless. It's clear my point was not reliant on using Moses or some Talmudic rabbi as sources -- but that these primary documents are so ancient as to demonstrate the voluminous potential sources across history. At least it should have been clear to anyone who seeks communication as opposed to seeking a rhetorical advantage. Again, you support MacDonald's theory. Jim Bowery 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have mistaken this Talk: page for a forum to debate the MacDonald's theory. Putting content into Wikipedia which violates Wikipedia's fundamental policies is the issue here, not your faith. Adherence to Wikipedia's rules is not a demonstation of Jewish ethnocentrism, but a demonstration of respect for those rules. And material on Wikipedia will conform to its rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The list of books that MacDonald wrote should stay here, but the summaries of them should go to Culture of Critique. That article is intended to hold the discussion of MacDonald's Jewish scholarship and his books are that scholarship. If they are in the bio, then they'd need to be duplicated in the Culture of Critique. The "examples of Jewish ethnocentrism" should stay in the Jewish ethnocentrism article. Those are my views. -Willmcw 19:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The summaries should be here first of all, because Culture of Critique is the title of only one of his books. Jacquerie27 14:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but the topic of the article is his overall work on the Jews, chiefly the trilogy and the new monograph. As has been stated before, if you can think of a better title to indicate his scholarship, please suggest it. -Willmcw 16:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why have two articles that are almost identical? Ultramarine 22:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that MacDonald is the person who most discusses this theory; as yet, we have few other sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are few other sources: because people are afraid to discuss this topic openly. MacDonald thanks someone for expert advice on Leo Strauss in a paper about Jewish influence on neo-conservatism:

I am also grateful to an expert on Leo Strauss for his comments—many of which were incorporated in the section on Leo Strauss. Unfortunately, at his request, he must remain anonymous.[11]

If you've got a comfortable, well-rewarded career in many fields, one of the surest ways to end it quickly is to say things that can be construed as "anti-Semitic". People like MacDonald are vilified at least partly pour encourager les autres. Jacquerie27 14:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that all evidence, positive, negative, and non-existent, support the theories. If evidence exists, it is obviously proof of the conspiracy. If counter-evidence exists, it obviously has been faked by the conspiracists, or comes from biased (conspiracy influenced) sources. And if evidence doesn't exist at all, it is obviously proof that the conspiracy suppressed it in some way. Your claim falls into the latter class. Regardless, Wikipedia does not allow original research.

P.S. The conspiracy always wins; resistance is futile. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two apologies first: you're not aggressive and I've been misspelling your user-name (a good example of haplography). The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories... That isn't relevant: I wasn't talking about a conspiracy theory. A lot of good evidence exists but people don't use it because, as I said, they're frightened to: certain topics are placed off-limits by the thought-police. Look at Joe Sobran, who violated the "no differences between the races (except that whites are innately evil)" taboo and Lawrence Summers, who violated the "no differences between the sexes (except that men are innately evil)" taboo.

P.S. It's only a matter of time before the truth comes out. But resistance is remunerative. Jacquerie27 11:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the conspiracy theorist, it's never a conspiracy theory, but rather, "the Truth". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the person who has the truth, it's never a conspiracy theory either, but rather "the Truth". See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. The truth is already obvious but for various reasons people continue to deny it. In time, they will no longer be able to do so. Jacquerie27 18:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No doubt when the Thousand Year Reich is finally re-established. How's that going, anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slow but sure. We haven't managed to clone our glorious Führer yet, but His Spirit leads us ever onward. Jacquerie27 19:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of this page

This page considerably overlaps the Culture of Critique page. It needs to be cleaned up to include only material on MacDonald himself, and not duplicte critiques of his work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's the plan, Stan?

Ed Poor, can you share with us what your plan is for this article? I see work in progress. It looks like you're envisioning a huge merger. Can you give us an outline? I mean, you don't have to, but this article has had a number of involved editors, maybe we can help. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no outline, I'm winging it. But I'm fairly good at cut and paste, so I think I'll get it done by the end of the week.

I took the entire contents of Culture of Critique and stuck it at the bottom of kbm, under a horizontal rule. Then I picked and chose text from "below the line" and stuck it up where it seemed to make most sense. I think I've improved the intro by finding and highlighting his most important idea or two. I also re-formatted his "trilogy" of annoying books with the titles as sub-heads.

What remains is to integrate a bit more of the criticism. It's messy, because some is about his ideas but that starts to bleed over into his actions or just general hostility he's managed to arouse toward himself.

I'm really not sure about the context, i.e., the extent to which his work, er, "inspires" neo-Nazis.

Also, I'm starting to get the impression that he just views EVERYONE in terms of mere survival, i.e., ethics, morality and religion do not matter. Has MacD every made this explicit in any of his works? Is there a contradiction between saying (1) all groups compete for what is "best for them" and saying (2) Jews take unfair advantage of others? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I think you may be beginning to encounter the problems that led the other editors to move the CofC material to another article. I encourage you to keep the CofC material separate from the biographical, non-CofC material, so we can move it back when you're done. Thanks for the editing. The collected material became very long and pruning will improve it, I'm sure. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We ought to finish up the article. It's a bit of a mess with the material at the end. If necessary, we can create a temp page and finish the editing from there. Ed, if you're not keen on finishing this I'll see what I can do, or some of the other editors might step in. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ed told me on my Talk: page today that he doesn't have any time to finish the job. I suspect you can make any improvements you like; as it is, it's a mess. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me?! What about you? You could too. Or Jackie. Where's Jacquerie when we need her? ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 18:23, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

You should do it because you're a much better writer than I am. :-) My impulse is to just revert to the pre-Ed version. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no - you're the better writer. Anyway, it'd be a shame to lose the work that Ed put in, but it is such a tangle that I'm not sure I see the alternative. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on and try to straighten it out. That make take a couple of days. We can keep a major reversion as the fallback plan. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't so bad. Ed's work was good and I just built on it. That still leaves the huge chunk of text which had been here and is now hidden at the bottom of The Culture of Critique series. Much of it is tedious and tendentious, but the article is clearly too light right now. (Maybe it should go into a sand box for editing.) The summary of MacDonald's main thesis is incomplete in this article, but I hope we can keep it short. Both of those can cannibalize text from the chunk. Some of the criticism here might better belong in the CofC article. Anyway, the bio is at least reasonable and so is the CofC. They'll do for now. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:33, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

psychopathological "Jewish ethnocentricism"

Is the 'psycho' word used correctly in the article? (I'd expect "psychoanalytical" here.) Mikkalai 02:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think "pathological" is a better word, meaning Jews are crazy. But I'm not really sure what MacD is saying here. (I'd have to *shudder* actually read one of his books; a fate worse than chewing hot asphalt or sand soaked with industrial waste. ;-)

Is MacD accusing Jews of being TOO self-centered? (See my last paragraph in the section above.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the word of MacD, then it must be given as quotation. It looks too egregiuos for an encyclopedia article. Mikkalai 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pinker

Pinker is a prominent science writer who has expressed an opinion that MacDonald's scholarship is such a bad idea that it does not merit serious consideration. That seems to me like a valid criticism, even though Pinker admits that he has not read the entire opus. If he were making point-by-point refuations, then it would be important for him to have read all of it. But to say that it's insignificant does not require detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the theory. OTOH, the original text quoted him rather too liberally. One paragraph should be sufficient for someone who says MacDonald isn't worth considering. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, the SPLC quote is directly about MacDonald. I'm not sure what NPOV principle is violated by giving that quote. I have restored both. -Willmcw 19:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting them seems the exact opposite of the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, this guy is a "prominent science writer" (not a evolutionary psychologist) who admits to not having read MacDonald thoroughly... Has anyone read expert witness? This guy isn't one, and his opinions arn't woth noting here. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) He's a prominent science writer and scientist, and MacDonald himself isn't an evolutionary psychologist. His opinions are notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, MacDonald is not an evolutionary psychologist either, according to some. Have you followed the link to the Pinker source? It's a discussion titled "Slate Magazine Dialogue On: How To Deal With Fringe Academics". (Hey, maybe we should have a wiki project page on that topic.) Pinker's point is that fringe academics, specifically MacDonald, can be ignored, while Shulevitz was arguing that they need to be refuted. If he dealt directly with the theory, than the citation would belong in the article on the books. Instead, he is basically saying that MacDonald is so far on the fringe as to be not worth studying even to refute. That is a worthwhile opinion to include. -Willmcw 20:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure you can find lots of people who criticize MacDonald who haven't read him. But why on earth would you include their opinions in an encyclopedia? Why not be positive about it, and include quotes from those who have read and understood his work? Pinker's comment is something like "This is beneath me--I pay no attention to it; but here is what I don't like about it..." I am a great admirer of Pinker's, but this is ridiculous. The paragraph should go. User:DonSiano

As Willmcw points out, the quote goes to the heart of MacDonald's fringeness. As well, the detail indicates why MacDonald's premise if fundamentally flawed, regardless of the content, and why Pinker's criticism's would be a priori ignored by MacDonald. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But this is a biography page on MacDonald: Bios don't include statements like this, generally--at least decent ones. User:DonSiano All of the criticism paras belong over on the cuture of critique page. The pinker statement should go. User:DonSiano

How is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach "fringe"? User:DonSiano is right, this content has no place in a bio. Sadly, this page is yet another of a long list of pages suffering from systematic editorial bias on the wiki. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who claims MacDonald is "fringe" or "not an evolutionary psychologist" has not read his curriculum vitae at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/vitae.html which is quite an impressive one. His record of publications is quite worthy of a full professor. User:DonSiano

There are tens of thousands of full professors in the United States; inevitably some of them promote "fringe" ideas. As for him being an "evolutionary psychologyist", the father of the movement says MacDonald is not one, and apparently MacDonald himself does not claim to be one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a hint to the opposition, your case is better made letting the facts speak for themselves. When there is an appearance of impropriety, smear job or whatnot, it tends to encourage sympathy in the reader where it might not have been otherwise. One of the many upsides of NPOV :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The facts do speak for themselves; one of the great things about NPOV is that it means relevant opinions from important sources are heard. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pinker is neither in regards to MacDonald's bio. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slate discussion

I modified the headers for pinker and tooby into one item, under slate magazine, because that is where all the material used came from, and it cuts down on the too-frequent use of headers for single paragraphs. I also removed the reference to Macdonald's not claiming to be an evolutionary psychologist. He has a section of his curriculum vitae entitled "Evolutionary Psychology" which to my eyes, constitutes a claim to the contrary. I have not been able to find any statement attributed to Tooby to the effect that MacDonald is not an evolutionary psychologist. It should also be deleted unless a reference can be found. Reference 14 is also incorrect. It appears to back up Tooby's remarks, but does no such thing. This section still needs work. DonSiano 15:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct to move the slate discussion out of the biography and into the trilogy article. But it still needs work--the citations given are a mess. Most of them are incorrect, I think. Actually, the account of the debate in Slate should be entirely rewritten to more accurately reflect what was really said there.DonSiano 15:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedian

IMO, Category:Notable Wikipedians should be people with user accounts (any number of people with article might edit anonymously). For some reason, User:Willmcw seems attached to listing an anonymous account with an IP address. Seems wrong to me (maybe trying to push some POV, not sure). Anyone else want to opine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it desireable to announce the IP address of a controversial figure? I don't remember offhand what information can be obtained from a person's IP address, but I think it may include, for example, the physical address of the owner of the account.--Nectar ^T 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean like the fact that the IP address, which hasn't been used to edit Wikipedia for nearly a year, is located Aliso Viejo, CA at longitude -117.7130, lattitude 33.5767; or that it is provided by the ISP ns.west.cox.net. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Unregisterred users are Wikipedians too. Wht should we restrict that list to only registered users? The reasons why MacDonald should be listed is that he is notable, and is a Wikipedian. Isn't that enough? -Willmcw 01:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, unregistered editors are not Wikipedians in the sense relevant to being in the "notable Wikipedian" category. Notice that no other notable Wikipedian is listed by IP address! Quite likely, the particular IP address now belongs to someone else, who may wish to edit WP without being falsely identified as being the subject of this article. Depending on ISP, the lease of IP addresses vary, and MacDonald could well have changed ISPs in the last year (I have no knowledge of whether he did or did not, but it's hardly unusual.. nor notable).

I'm quite confident that some other people who have articles on them have edited WP anonymously, but it's simply not notable if they haven't registered an account. For that matter, it's probably not notable even if they have a user name, but edit only a single autobiographical article (the IP addess listed edited only the Kevin MacDonald article; and not for the last year). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald did not edit anonymously. He was quite upfront about his identity. It is quite important for future editors of this article that the subject has been an editor of the article. -Willmcw 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And do you know for a fact that MacDonald currently has that IP address, and will continue to have it for the indefinite future?! If the answer is not an absolute yes, there is no way it is appropriate to potentially identify some different editor as being the same person as MacDonald. However, even if you can answer "yes" (you can't), it's still not a "Wikipedian" in the right sense... a WPian is someone with a username, not simply someone who edits anonymously. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What matters, and what is not debated, is that he edited this article under that IP. When and if someone else start using the IP we can address the problem. Your definition of wikipedia:Wikipedian is not generally used. Official definition: "Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia." -Willmcw 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is is supposed that this IP addrss is "probably" not MacDonald's anymore? -Willmcw 02:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Should this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians with articles? I've placed a note there about this discussion, but maybe we should just move it. As I understand it, none of this has to do with MacDonald in particular. -Willmcw 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick poll on anonymous "notability"

Should include IP address as Notable Wikipedian

1. It is not anonymous. He openly acknowledged that it was him. -Willmcw 02:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Should include IPs as Notable Wikipedian

1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I am extremely strongly opposed to listing an IP address that may once have belonged to MacDonald in connection with his article. Someone once claimed to be MacDonald using that IP address (quite likely truthfully), but not since a long time back.

Comments

• My initial thought would be that an IP editor might be listable but the verifiability bar would be higher, especially if the IP is dynamic. I would prefer more discussion of this before rushing into a vote, however. Jonathunder 02:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The real agenda

Reading it over, I think I can guess what Willmcw is really hoping for here. I.e.:

MacDonald did not edit anonymously. He was quite upfront about his identity. It is quite important for future editors of this article that the subject has been an editor of the article. -Willmcw 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is, Willmcw wants a sign-post for later editors who come to this page. I actually think such is much less relevant that Willmcw probably does... yeah, MacDonald probably edited the article, but that was a year ago, and the text is much different now. Aside from some sort of jab at MacDonald (I think the article stating MacDonald's actual writing is jab enough), having edited his own biography isn't all that notable.

Nonetheless, I really don't care whether this talk page says that MacDonald edited his WP biography. My concern is wholly with Category:Notable Wikipedians. I don't want stuff in there that doesn't belong there. I like to look through the category, and want it to contain real, named, and probably active (or at least previously active) editors (i.e. not single-page fanatics). Not a list of sockpuppets included out of political opinions about the article subjects.

If Willmcw wants to make some kind of decorative box at the top of this talk page telling editors about MacDonald's (probable) past edits, please do so. Just don't clutter the category with cruft. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't question the motives of your fellow editors. I'm not aware of any general restriction on "Wikipedians" category limiting them to active editors. -Willmcw 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not impugning your motives, just trying to understand what they are. Maybe I got it wrong; but what I was suggesting wasn't any ill will on your part (even if it also didn't match your actual intentions). Btw. I think it best to move this discussion, if it is to be general to Category talk:Notable Wikipedians; that's what's really at issue (assuming it's not just about MacDonald specifically). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Notable Wikipedians is not as good a place as Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians with articles because few editors watch categories. -Willmcw 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is about the category, not about the list. We might as well say that the Talk:George W Bush article is more widely read than the category talk page, so we should put the discussion there (he is notable, though not AFIAK a Wikipeidan :-)). The discussion should go on the talk page of the relevant content page. However, putting a prominent notice on the list is a good idea to draw editors to the relevant discussion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)