Jump to content

Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Former leftist

Shouldn't he be placed in the category of former leftists, given his early anti-war involvement and his belonging to groups that he describes in his books as leftists and run by leftist Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesandalio (talk • contribs)

Opposition to war isn't a purely left/right issue. If the subject describes himself, or if others describe him, as a "former leftist" then the category would apply. Note that "leftist" isn't synonymous with "liberal". We may have to change the category name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary developmental psychology

I just skimmed this article, and I couldn't find any mention whatsoever of his contributions to the emerging field of evolutionary developmental psychology. I'll see if I can at least get something started. EPM (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More Serious Critiques

I include the following links to critiques by David Lieberman which make more of an effort to address MacDonald academically.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_01.html

http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_02.html

http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_03.html

There isn't enough on this page which critiques MacDonald from a pure academic standard. These should add something substantive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Per WP:PRIME, I've proposed that the comedian currently at Kevin McDonald is not clearly the most notable of the various Kevn McDonalds and that therefore it should be moved to make way for the page currently at Kevin McDonald (disambiguation).

Please chime in at Talk:Kevin_McDonald#Requested move. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Academic Criticism" offered:

The criticisms above need to be balanced by citing other reviewers. In the first place, Pinker's criticisms of MacDonald's work seem problematic since Pinker, himself, acknowledged that he had not read any of MacDonald's books at the time of issuing his attack against MacDonald. Criticizing a book without having read it is surely a questionable if not dishonest position for an academic to take.

Furthermore, the reviews cited above tend to reflect an attack on MacDonald's character more than objective attempt to evaluate the arguments presented in his works. Character assassination is, of course, a common method of trying to refute a theory. MacDonald anticipated such criticism and noted that such would be consistent with nature of his thesis and argument. Reviews and citations from other scholars are more positive and widely available for anyone to find, if so interested. These reviews concentrate on MacDonald's argument rather than his character. David Sloan Wilson, for instance, in his "Darwin's Cathedral," University of Chicago Press, cites MacDonald at some length without criticism. As a scientist seeking to understand a phenomenon, Wilson seeks to be descriptive and makes no moral judgments about Judaism or anti-semitism. Other positive reviews, among others, are given by John Hartung, Hans Eysenck, and Laurence Loeb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.162.85 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag: piling on, unbalanced esp. in reference to his academic work

I don't question the notability of MacDonald's connections to anti-semites and white supremacists, especially recently when this is not POV but well established. But we need more balance regarding the academic quality of his scholarly work. And, I think this entire entry needs to be shorter. Going into detail about membership of the political party he's now part of, for instance, that stuff should be on the political party's wikipedia page and not here. The 'piling on' phenomenon every time he says or does something lame isn't needed, just a representative incident or two. This guy is a notable but not earthshaking individual, and the size of this entry should reflect that. Finally, where possible we should try to avoid citing explicitly 'anti-MacDonald' sources such as the ADL and the SPLC in favor of more neutral sources such as SLATE [1], for instance, or even better peer-reviewed academic sources. IMHO.Haberstr (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's totally appropriate to have a paragraph about the political party that he's the director of. My understanding is that article length is just constrained by readability, not by the subject's importance. The article might be unbalanced but his antisemitic writings are mostly what he's notable for.Prezbo (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia meta-reference

MacDonald has noted that his biography on Wikipedia as well as an article on his books, the Culture of Critique series, contain "negative assertions".[48]

Is this notable? No. How many public figures in the world support Wikipedia and like their biographical Wikipedia articles as is? See criticism of Wikipedia. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are correct. But see above for the absurd arguments made for its inclusion. Lotsa luck! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all "public figures" are controversial like Kevin MacDonald. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
i sm a completley unbiased party in this debate but looking at the state of th talk page it is clear the that the article itself must be appalling eventhough I will not bother reading it. the amount of anti-Dr MacDonald bias and pro-Dr McDonald defenses is confusing to any new reader and could serve the unfrotunate porpoise of alienating who ever comes to this talk page hoping for a rational and well-seasoend dicussion of the issues regarding content and verifiability at hand. Smith Jones (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There's not much pro-MacDonald content in the article. It's not like this is a flattering article of him. And a widely quoted source in this article is the SPLC, which is a political nemesis of MacDonald. I think the SPLC source should be cited more carefully. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
i am referring to the talkpage. I know the article tiself is probably heavily biased towards anti, but that tends to be the trend in any alternative medicine, dissident science, or anything remotely controveral regarding science around here. Smith Jones (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. One source that is widely quoted is the SPLC,[2] and we need to use more of the {{citequote}}, {{specify}}, and similar tags. SPLC is a political adversary of MacDonald, and we simply need a more neutral source than that. MacDonald himself has been complaining about misrepresentation from the SPLC, and it's just not nice to cite the SPLC as an authority in his biography. They oppose him and are very likely not going to give him a fair treatment. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very anti-MacDonald. As a former student who has taken many classes with him, I must say that he is a very intelligent man. This article cites the SPLC, who is a largely biased organization in and of itself. This article also solely focuses on controversial claims made by MacDonald. On the other hand, his other work is largely ignored. In fact, his work is cited and used several times in textbooks in evolutionary psychology, emotional development, and child psychology. These books have such famous authors as David Buss, a leader in the field of evolutionary psychology, and Peter LaFreniere, a leader in the field of emotional development and motivation. I;m saddened by the lack of research that has gone into this article. Psychgal (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could add more of that material then that'd be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"solely focuses on controversial claims"
His controversial claims are what make him a notable personage, unlike the thousands of other psychology professors who don't have a wiki page. As for the "anti" nature of the article, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. His claims are a hair's breadth short of simple Antisemitism. And, in fact, his scholarship, such as it is, is received with rapture in the White Power and white militia/liberty groups. To simply gloss over or ignore his controversial claims would give those claims respectability by the manner in which they are not scrutinized thoroughly: it could be taken to mean that they are accepted and acceptable. --Petzl (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"His claims are a hair's breadth short of simple Antisemitism."
For his claims to be "Antisemitism" (or a "hair's breadth" away from it) they have to be false. Is it your opinion that his claims are false? Is that an appropriate editorial attitude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.67.138 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-publishing his books

The article should mention that all of his books are currently self-published. According to MacDonald's CV:

  • MacDonald, K. B. (2002). The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Paperback edition of the 1998 Praeger edition, with a new preface. Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.
  • MacDonald, K. B. (2002). A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Reprint of the 1994 book with a section on other diaspora peoples.
  • MacDonald, K. B. (2004). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Paperback edition of the 1998 Praeger edition, with a new preface. Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Hence, the article should mention that all of his books are currently self-published. DR MACDONALD IS VERY INTELIGENT FURTHERMORE HE AN ONE VERY INTELIGENT DR GOEBLES SEEM TO MANAGE TO SEE THROUGH THE FOG ON JEWS EXACTLY THE SAME OFCOURSE WITH MACDONALD ITS ALL SO MUCH MORE SCIENTIFIC BUT BASICLY THE SAME PROTOCOL OF ZION IDEAS AMAZING THAT SUCH DOCTORS ARE STILL SUPPORTED BY UNIVERSITIES IN THE STATES ( WEHRE DOES HIS PENSION COME FROM) AN AMAZING DOCTOR GOING IN THE FOOTSTEP OF DOCTOR GOEBLES ALTHOUGH JUST A LITTLE LESS INTELIGENT AND HOPEFULLY NOT AS CRUEL AMAZING...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronzeserpent (talk • contribs) 08:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Jewish trolls have arrived pretending to be fanatical/illiterate supporters of Dr. MacDonald... Very clever. Ah, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.164.142 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not anti-semetic, BUT THAT "TROLL" IS OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE SECRET JEW CONSPIRACY 68.205.130.11 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Muslims

Not leading to anything constructive and seems POV --Jethro B 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It should be noted that MacDonald is very popular among the numerous Saudi Arabian Muslims that attend Cal State Long Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.236.31 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

POV

This article is demonizing MacDonald rather than talking about the work he's done.

But, that doesn't surprise me at all on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason that Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source in academia is because it is little more than a playground for ideologues, left and right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.158.131.100 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you suggest that Wikipedians use to update this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
They probably want to use sources like Stormfront, Haaretz, and Electronic Intifada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.143.192 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The last added link [3] seems like a worthwhile essay, but I don't see that it was published anywhere. It looks like someone posting OR to me. Roger (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This entire article is Antigentile smears, defamation and slanders against Kevin B. MacDonald from activist groups and individuals that make a living off the anti-Semitism canard. I removed some of the most obvious BLP violations. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And you are running roughshod over our WP:NPOV policy. Doug Weller (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No BLP violations that could be legally construed as defamation of character, that is a crime in this country, and against Wikipedia rules. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Defamation is not a crime, regardless please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
And probably WP:NLT as well. Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The POV pushing here, removing sourced content is just that, POV pushing. There are no crimes here, that is patently ridiculous Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the removed content is not sourced. It says "MacDonald has been accused of academic fraud.". The sources do not accuse him of academic fraud. This is a WP:BLP violation as it is just a sneaky and dishonest way of accusing him of academic fraud. One of the sources is just an email raising an obscure quibble about how someone else's work was described. The WP accusation of academic fraud should be removed immediately, and not restored without Talk discussion and better sources. Roger (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You may have a point there, but that doesn't excuse your removing the sourced ADL and SPLC section, changing the name of the university back to its slang form, and removing the quote from the Academic Senate. Those look like pov deletions. Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the academic senate quote is that it sounds as if it is a fact that MacD expressed anti-Semitic views, and that the senate chose not to condemn those views. Maybe that is right, but it is more neutral to describe the academic senate's decision, and refer to its statement for details. The SPLC and ADL comments are debatable. Roger (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone reinserted the BLP violations without addressing the concerns here. Please do not do that, as it is just edit warring. Roger (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold on, it hasn't been agreed that they are BLP violations. It's being discussed at BLPN. What you seem to be saying is that the senate thing need rewriting, so put a draft here. I don't see how the rest is debatable, but feel free to argue that at BLPN. You do realise this was all started by an editor who seems to think these is an "anti-gentile" bias on Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kevin B. MacDonald

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kevin B. MacDonald's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Michael":

  • From Ben Klassen: Michael, George (2009), Theology of Hate: a History of the World Church of the Creator, Gainesville: University of Florida.
  • From Liberty Lobby: Michael, George (2005) [2003]. Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA. Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 978-0415628440. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • From Hans Schmidt (Waffen-SS):Michael, George (2003). Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA. Taylor & Francis. p. 168. ISBN 0-203-56321-2.
  • From Willis Carto: Michael, George (2012). Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA. Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 978-0415628440.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

VDARE.com

So, @WeijiBaikeBianji: let's discuss ([4], [5]) these edits. Quis separabit? 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My addition - all ten words plus citation of it - does not seem to me to be disproportionate or off-topic, and is sourced. AnnaLiver (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it belongs here. If it is a place he writes it makes sense that we would have it here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I thought AnnaLiver's edit was appropriate for the article. I am meanwhile looking up other sources about the person who is the subject of this biographical article here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin B. MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed Sociobiology sentence

I have removed the line: "In graduate school, he became a supporter of E.O. Wilson's theory of sociobiology."

There was a minor controversy when E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" was first published, but everything within the book is currently widely accepted scientific consensus. The line is a sneaky method of trying to associate E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" with Kevin MacDonald's philosophy... when in reality, there is no connection whatsoever. The sentence is equally as pointless as including a line such as: "In graduate school, he became a supporter of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." Bzzzing (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

MacDonald is a very frequent guest on David Duke's radio program, http://www.renseradioarchives.com/dduke/, http://davidduke.com/dr-david-duke-dr-kevin-macdonald-expose-latest-jewish-scheme-destroy-trumps-candidacy-wins-gop-nod/, http://davidduke.com/dr-david-duke-dr-kevin-macdonald-jewish-oligarchs-run/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUDU1X29SJU. Unfortunately I have not been able to find sources for this fact other than Duke's websites, but it would be good to add to the article because its connected with MacDonald's Anti-Jewish, European Nationalist politics which have gone to the point that he openly associates with Nazis such as Duke. The article already mentions that Duke attended an award ceremony for MacDonald, so perhaps the fact that MacDonald is a frequent guest on Duke's radio show could be added to that part of the article. Is David Duke's website a good enough source for the fact that MacDonald is a frequent guest on his radio show or does a secondary source need to be used?RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

SPLC in lede

I have restored a reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center in the lede that had been deleted by a WP:SPA IP. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The article already contains a mention to Macdonald's right-wing, white nationalist ties in the lead, and also contains several mentions to the Southern Poverty Law Center's comment mentioned here. It's redundant and, I believe, gives the lead undue weight.179.55.32.51 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this - putting the SPLC in the opening paragraph is problematic, they are not a politically neutral organisation and references to their judgement of MacDonald would be better left to the main body of the entry where more detail and balance can be given. I also think using the term "controversial" is problematic - it could be applied, with references, to almost everybody in politics and for this reason is generally avoided where possible. I wonder if someone can improve that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:2385:9400:38a2:2c2:d65c:53dc (talk) 12 October 2017‎
Sources are not required to be politically neutral, and opposing extremist fringe hate movements is not particularly problematic by most reasonable standards. The lede is intended to summarize the body, and the quote about MacDonald is commonly repeated by other, reliable sources when discussing him, making it a fair and useful summary of how he is perceived and discussed by those sources. The article is not saying that he is controversial, although he surely is, it is saying that his claims are controversial, and specifically his application of evolutionary psychology. Other terms that could be used instead include "pseudo-scientific", "debunked", "discredited", or "extremist". The most important part is to underscore that his views have not been accepted by scientists and historians. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kevin B. MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of citation deletion

The cited source said the Psychology Department was "considering publishing a statement to confirm its disassociation from MacDonald" but not that it had done so. If anyone has a source explaining how that consideration came out, it may be useful here. Dayirmiter (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mehler quote

"except when they represent the opinion of the self-publisher"??? Mehler talked smack about MacDonald (misrepresenting sources) in this informal email disucussion group http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg Compare WP:BLPSPS & WP:BLPSELFPUB. We could use this if Mehler was just talking about himself but he disparages MacDonald. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you are correct, and I am wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and hatred

I don't see this featured prominently in the article. Criticism of Jews is pure hatred and antiness. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

Regarding this edit: The reviews of the first book were not universally positive or negative, but most of the specific reviews cited were redundant (verbatim) with content already mentioned at The Culture of Critique series#Academic response. Hence the link to that subsection, where this information seems appropriate. A reliable source which summarizes these reviews for us would be the ideal solution to this redundancy, since we could cite that as an overview and allow the books' article to go into detail. Lacking such a source, this redundancy is overemphasizing his critical significance, instead of commenting on his documented lack of academic significance, as "Academic reception" would imply. Judging by the bloat added using interviews in neo-Nazi sites and similar, I suspect might not be an accident. Grayfell (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that an IP whose range has never edited this article shows up, then when I ask for protection another new IP shows up at RPP to argue against. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Both turned out to be colocationwebhosts. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Scientific racism cat

@Johnpacklambert: can you give some explanation for why you removed the scientific racism category? MacDonald seems to fit pretty neatly here. Nblund talk 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund and Johnpacklambert: you can't fix a ping. Have you seen Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:Scientific racism and his comments there? This isn't the only article where he's removed either this category or the white supremacy one, or indeed text sourced to the SPLC. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, several of those removals seem unjustified. I can see how someone might get the (mistaken) impression that Richard Lynn is halfway serious, but people like John Baker and Joseph Peterson are primarily discussed in relation to their contributions to scientific racism. If they don't fit in to the category then "scientific racism" doesn't exist. Maybe it would be best to have a centralized discussion about those removals at the talk page for the category itself. Nblund talk 16:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced review is terrible, but the source is F. Roger Devlin

And we use him as a source elsewhere. In any case, this isn't reslly disputed. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-MacDonald bias

This article shows clear bias in the very first heading.

It says he's a white supremacist. This is a matter of opinion, and frankly it's an antiwhite canard. Those are unfortunately common on wikipedia, as you're happy for non-whites to appropriate my nationality and those of other white peoples. 82.46.107.154 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) CuChulainn 00:24 GMT 26/11/19

Issues with neutrality

The article says Macdonald is 'associated with... antisemitism and racism', using the ADL as the only source. The ADL is an activist organization with a sketchy record whek it comes to labels of anti-Semitism. As MacDonald is a psychologist who studies Jewish evolutionary strategies, I understand how Jewish people would feel uncomfortable with some of his writing, but considering he has published these writings in peer-reviewed publications, and his writings do not make objective value statements on the subject matter, I think that putting inflammatory labels like 'racist' or 'antisemitic' in the article are a direct attack on Wikipedia's neutrality policy. As a result, I will remove them, pending forther discussion, in line with the above-cited policy. Clinton (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note I do believe the adoption of his work by white suprenacist groups is very noteworthy and I left that in the introduction.

Science and neutrality require that we do not suppress views that we find challenging; until they are objectively disproved, an activist source is not enough to shut them down. If your gut reaction believes otherwise, consider the eventuality that scientific consensus turns against your oersonal biases. Do you want to be responsible for contributing to an environment where unpopularity can be used as a counterargument for scientific fact? Clinton (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

...we do not suppress views that we find challenging... Ah, the irony.
Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Your opinion that the ADL is "sketchy" is not consistent with past discussions of this source on Wikipedia. Additionally, it is far from the only source for this point, it is merely the one in the lead. Further, previous discussion of this issue has established a consensus, and the burden is on you to change that consensus with better sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

White "supremacist" is severe POV; MacDonald is the canonical example of non-supremacist white nationalist

The entire point of MacDonald's schtick is the idea that whites are (among other differences) intellectually inferior to Ashkenazi Jews, and therefore prone to Jewish subversion of their white group (i.e., white nationalist) interests. So a non-supremacist. He does argue that whites have group interests and should pursue them, therefore also a white nationalist. He does not seem interested in nonwhite groups such as Africans and Asians other than thinking it is not in white (group) interests to admit large numbers of them into historically white countries. I think he readily admits higher East Asian IQ but is not concerned about it except where it starts to become (in his theorizing) another "hostile elite" similar to Jews that undermines white interests. He capitalizes "White" (again WN).

This is all specifically white nationalist ideology, not supremacist in any apparent way. There is a considerable overlap between WN and WS, leading to some justifiable conflation of the two in many cases (e.g., of WS who call themselves WN as a ploy) but none of that seems to apply to MacDonald. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems in the intro

Someone rejected my edit removing the claims about "most" Ashkenazi Jews identifying as "white", and about them intermarrying. I've read the cited study, and neither of these things are claimed in it anywhere. Until someone can show where it says either of these things, my edit should stand. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically intermediate between Levantine Middle Eastern and Southern European. They cluster closest to Druze, Lebanese, Cypriots and Maltese people in PCA, Fst and admixture studies. 76.64.74.54 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the cited source: "It is difficult to square this claim with the fact that Reform and unaffiliated Jews—the ones who participated in these liberal/multicultural movements—have an intermarriage rate of 50% and 69%, respectively (Pew Research Center 2013:37). (This may be an underestimate of intermarriage rates since Reform converts were counted as Jewish in Pew’s survey.)"
As for "admixture studies", this is WP:FRINGE. Applying your individual understanding of these studies is WP:OR based on a pseudoscientific understanding of race and genetics. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That is only about current Reform and unaffiliated Jews, from a 2013 Pew Research center polling. These claims are of current trends in the US only. They are not a broad historical statement of Ashkenazi Jews, which were for centuries highly endogamous. If you read further, it goes on to mention how Orthodox Jews have high endogamy ("In fact, it is only those Jews who, as a group, were much less involved in national politics—the orthodox—who have low intermarriage rates and high fertility.")
You also did not provide any evidence from the study about the other claim, that "most" Jews identify as "white". I've checked the study. It's nowhere in there.
As for admixture, PCA and Fst, those are widely accepted statistical methods of scientists in this area. ADMIXTURE and K-means are valid statistical measures in almost every population genetics study, on humans and non-humans. It is not "fringe". And honestly, that whole argument is bogus. Your biased ideological bent that might see something as "fringe" means nothing compared to the fact that it is accepted science. No one considered it "fringe". Your ad hominems are also meaningless and not helpful. What I stated is accepted fact from all of the most reliable studies. It is science (population genetics), not pseudoscience. Human subgroups have biological differences. What exactly did I state anywhere that is "pseudoscientific"? Be specific. 76.64.74.54 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The exact results of genetic studies is not fringe, and not original research either. It is research. Leading expert geneticists are not fringe. Do you have any sources about where Ashkenazi Jews cluster in genetics studies? Every single one has them clustering where I mentioned. 76.64.74.54 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is absolutely WP:FRINGE to misrepresent statistics to justify biological racialism. "Admixture" is not a special word that requires no support. The scientific consensus, and the consensus on Wikipedia, is that race is a social construct. Racial categories may, sometimes correlate with biological traits, but usually they don't, or the correlation is weak, or it has a more plausible environmental explanation, or any of a dozen other problems. Ignoring the complexity and stating that "human subgroups have biological differences" is facile at best. Blunt, simplistic statements like this are consistent with pseudoscience.
It doesn't matter that Cofnas's source is a Pew Research study, because it is still a valid critique of MacDonald's claims.
Your comments about admixture are pure WP:OR. You would need a reliable source support them, and they would need to specifically discuss MacDonald's claims to be usable here. Reliable sources for this do not exist, because it is WP:SYNTH and pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Bold edit to lead

I actually don't have much to say beyond my large change to the lead just now.

My position is BLP first, SPLC second.

As Wikipedia BLP, MacDonald should not be characterized as a white supremacist in the lead sentence. As written by the SPLC, they can choose otherwise. And they do, on their own web property.

I visit thousands of Wikipedia pages in my own intellectual travel, usually making the smallest possible edit and then flitting onward.

Rarely do I make a change as substantive as this one. I'm going to stick around to defend it. My personal policy is to embrace reversion of my contributions at the least friction.

I do, however, hope that the next editor who comes along will see the point of what I have done, and will work to repair my failings (of which I am sure there are many) while retaining my essential contribution in dealing with the slippery fish of his not-actually-stated white supremacy. — MaxEnt 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already reverted the edit, as I believe it whitewashes the realityof MacDonald's views. I'm sure that wasn;t your intention, but that was the result, in my estimation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You clearly have a lot to say, because your change to the lead was unsupported by sources and was non-neutral. This edit, including the edit summary, was inappropriate for many reasons. Your actions speak louder than words, and we are not interested in your "travel", intellectual or otherwise.
Do not add WP:OR. Do not claim that your opinions are more neutral than reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@MaxEnt:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Grayfell: Can the ADL or the SPLC really be considered unbiased sources here? Is it their (or our) prerogative to label someone an "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi"? I haven't read much of MacDonalds work, but this article is full of ad hominem attacks. It's unprofessional and in poor taste. Even if he is all of those things, the article needs work. I don't know if I'm the one to do it, and I don't want to make any unilateral changes, but I think it warrants some discussion at least. AP295 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And I won't make any changes without consensus or insist that any changes be made. I'm not here to fight an uphill battle or defend any particular viewpoint, but to respectfully ask if/how the article could be improved. I know it's a touchy subject and I don't want to offend anyone. AP295 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, the SPLC and ADL are categorized as reliable sources and can be cited. It is frankly unlikely MacDonald's arguments are given any credibility in any mainstream source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for an indication of which outlets can be cited. Philip Cross (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The ADL have specific interests. I've met people who would argue they have a long history of silencing criticism using accusations of "anti-semitism" and other forms of coercion. If MacDonald's work is bunk, then it should not be hard to write a measured and concise critical analysis for this article without using ad hominem attacks. They do not lend any credibility to the article. If MacDonald's work is bunk, it's especially important to have an article that doesn't give the reader the impression that its editors are foaming at the mouth. That is all I want to say. AP295 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And everything else aside, I'm sure you can understand the conflict of interest that arises if the ADL has the prerogative of designating who or what is "anti-semitic". They have every reason to misrepresent MacDonald's work. I'm not saying they do, or that MacDonald is right, or that he's not anti-semitic. But it's ridiculous on its face to consider the ADL an objective/unbiased source on the subject of this article. AP295 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Could we remove "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi" from the lead? If not, we really ought to prepend something like "according to the ADL,..." or "the ADL considers..." to make it clear who's doing the name-calling. AP295 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you actually demanding someone who openly says Jews are just gonna destroy white power completely, and destroy America as a white country should not be described as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you source that statement? The only work of his I've read is "The Culture of Critique". I'm no historian but it seemed like a legitimate scholarly work (if a bit out-there) and did not give me the impression that he's necessarily anti-semitic. If I'm honest, I appreciated his overview of Boasian anthropology and its impact on western culture, which would otherwise be quite obscure. Conversely, this article is a mess and does not even come close to the standards in WP:BLP. If he is an anti-semite and his work is pseudoscience, then that's all the more reason this article needs to shape up. It's unconvincing and reads like a slam-piece. The only thing I'm demanding is an objective article. AP295 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I suspect you haven't actually read the article. It's literally quoted and cited in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see it. The source seems to be a comment he made in a 2020 interview with "tabletmag", whoever they are. He clearly has misgivings, but that does not make one an anti-semite. I don't remember thinking his work in The Culture of Critique was unfair, ignorant, hateful, or unsubstantiated. If his other work is anti-semitic or hateful, then please point me to those examples. This article goes far beyond the bounds of decency and I really hate to think it's just because he's critical of Jewish diaspora. That would practically validate his argument. AP295 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
He clearly has misgivings, but that does not make one an anti-semite. I believe you are not here to constructively build an encyclopedia. Good day, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why his whole body of work should be written off because the ADL doesn't like him or because of an offhanded comment. You can leave if you want, I'm not here to argue, but you've hardly addressed my points or questions. I haven't even touched the article itself and already you've got an attitude. AP295 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And I'm also trying very hard to be sensitive here, I'm sure it's a sore subject. While it might be tempting to write off his work and call him an anti-semite, this is not a fair treatment. The ADL is not an objective source in this case. If his work is illegitimate then that can be explained case-by-case. As the editor in the section above put it, " 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist' is a label of judgment". This article is full of ad-hominem attacks and frankly I'm mortified by it. This is blatant character assassination in a WP:BLP. If that's how the ADL wins their battles, it's pretty horrible. AP295 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: AP295 has been indefinitely blocked. --JBL (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist

This is a label of judgment and can no way be considered neutral. Non-neutrality hurts the wikipedia project regardless of how much you detest someone's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.100.137 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and given that this is placed in the beginning it is poisoning the well. None of those terms are descriptive of a person, which e.g. would be the work he does or the field that he studied. The "White Supremacist" gets ridiculous in the light of who Kevin MacDonald is in real life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCxSRjw-qMo --105.0.6.41 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes but there are citations from "reputable" sources that call Kevin MacDonald a very bad icky man, so apparently Wikipedia is entirely justified in damaging someone's reputation. I don't even know how one can rightly declare a person's main public quality as a "conspiracy theorist" or a supremacist. Is that truly the most fair and accurate way to represent him? I look at other controversial scholars just as unfavorable to a group of people as Kevin MacDonald could ever be described to be, such as Ibrim X. Kendi, and I see "is an American author, professor, anti-racist activist, and historian of race and discriminatory policy in America." Note how his anti-white sentiments are never mentioned even though that is a prime direction of his writing, and that the racial component of his work comes after the fundamental descriptor of "author, professor". So not only is biased, the order is reversed and actively poisons the well, as mentioned. It seems Wikipedia is clearly biased on this issue. Anyone who has been around the block will not find this bias against any non-Jewish white with possibly unfavorable views on any nonwhite/Jew surprising, but it is quite sad to see such a stark contrast in presentation with so little effort on my part. If the mere possibility that someone has views that could be construed as negative towards a group of people is so noteworthy that it is considered the principle characteristic of a person, despite what they say their views are, imagine what descriptors could be given to a website and its individual editors that purport to be educational and unbiased yet so negatively characterize one individual (MacDonald) with such flagrant bias. One apparently is hate speech and other is "unbiased educational reporting". With mainstream educational content like this, I really can't imagine why Kevin MacDonald started doing the work he did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.166.149.176 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"Reputable", or reputable without brackets, sources is what matters on Wikipedia. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
How about the sources in Nazi Germany? Would you take those seriously? Does Hitler referring to communist mass murders as stemming from Jewish power and thinkers warrant that being cited as true in a Wikipedia article? Or what about sources from Israel when you are an enemy nation of Israel (aka literally all of their neighbors because of how Israelis treat them)? 141.164.115.33 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"A New Protocols: Kevin MacDonald's Reconceptualization of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory"

A JSTOR article.Antisemitism Studies Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring 2021), pp. 4-43 (40 pages). If anyone wants it, just ask me. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is a consensus among scholarly sources/reliable sources, that support the current lead

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3]

then it should stay the way it is, if not, then it should be changed. Right now I see the Russian as well as the German Wikipedia leads are very different from the lede here and I'd note that in general, the entry in the Russian Wikipedia has a much more objectine tone than the one here has, which you can easily check by using Google Translate.
Activist groups' like the SPLC and ADF opinions in the lede are clearly not sufficient. --Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Experts in antisemitism are the right groups to provide views on antisemitism. What the German or Russian Wikipedia articles say is absolutely irrelevant to what is in our article, and "much more objective tone" seems like a personal opinion. Additional sources could include:
  • Anti-semitism: A History and Psychoanalysis of Contemporary Hatred, Avner Falk, ABC-CLIO, 2008, pp 103-104
  • David Isador Lieberman "Evolutionary Psychology" in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1 (Richard S. Levy, Dean Phillip Bell eds.), 2008, pp 215-216
  • Antisemitism: Exploring the Issue, Steven Leonard Jacobs, ABC-CLIO, 2020 p 113
  • "American Racist", David Samuels, Tablet Magazine, June 11, 2020
This appears to be the academic consensus. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You might realise that there can be no such thing as an academic consensus on what is anti-semitic or racist, anymore than there is an academic consensus on what being a good person entails. It is quite literally unfalsifiable. Unless you think somehow you can falsify whether someone is racist or a moral person, I urge you to publish your data that is sure to send ripples throughout nearly every scientific field. 126.166.149.176 (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, if a random person on the internet says there can be no such thing, then that is how it is. Case closed, huh?
We follow the reliable sources. If you have reliable sources backing your claims, bring them. If not, there is no point in discussing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist)/Archive_4&oldid=1239626497"