Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

how. . .

does an author who writes exclusively in English gain an audience in the Arab world and Arabic media, when his works have not been translated into Arabic? (as far as I can tell -- pirate translations may exist.) The two statements to this effect seemed suspicious, so I did some digging. Here's what I found:

• One assertion was introduced to Neoconservatism in the United States, without citation, in March 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States&diff=11513255&oldid=11501692
• The other was introduced to this article somewhat later, in August 2005. Citation was similarly lacking. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_B._MacDonald&diff=21936907&oldid=21115175
• Searching http://english.aljazeera.net turned up nothing on MacDonald. The one piece on neoconservatives that I found did not mention or allude to any of his theories. Neither did it mention Jews or Judaism. See for yourself: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19FCA7E6-D488-4BBC-8C5D-B7C5E7F4C5F3.htm
• Googling failed to turn up any English sources from which these statements might have been drawn. There were numerous copies of, and quotations from, this article, but I found nothing independent.
• Searching for كيفن ماكدونالد, which I think is the correct Arabic transliteration of his name, turned up only a handful of results.
• Searches for "kevin macdonald" in a range of TLDs from .dz to .ye turned up very little; no more than two hits per domain.

I could only conclude that these statements were made out of ignorance or bigotry (probably the former), and so I removed them from the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_B._MacDonald&diff=34724219&oldid=34603622

--anon

If that's true, maybe someone was thinking about David Duke, who is popular in the Arab world.--Nectar 07:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism

User:Jacrosse has removed Category:Paleoconservatism from this article, commenting "Not a paleocon!!!! (you think traditionalists care for his Darwinism?)". As far as I know, there is no paleoconservative "party line" on Darwinism. I went and looked at our article Paleoconservatism; it doesn't mention anything of the sort. Given that he has published some of his neo-Darwinist speculation in the eminently paleoconservative Occidental Quarterly, that would seem a pretty dubious argument. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been just under 48 hours, no one has responded, I am reverting. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Eminently paleocon Occidental Quarterly" bull!! MacDonald's ideas, and from what I've read up about it here, the entire field of "evolutionary psychology", is premised fundamentally on social darwinism, a profoundly modernist and unconservative worldview. Social darwinism is the very crux of those aspects of fascism and modernism that paleoconservatives - alas, we unfortunately live in a time when something so fundamental to conservatism has to be qualified by a prefix - abhorr.

Also see the following denunciation of MacDonald in the truly eminently paleocon The American Conservative.

Don't forget MacDonald's response to this "denunciation" -- [1].

Jacrosse 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Without endorsing Jacrosse's interpretation of the matter, I will note (FWIW) that Occidental Quarterly does not consider itself to be paleoconservative:

• Since the fall of the Soviet Union major fissures have appeared in what is usually called "American conservatism." Chief among these is the conflict between "paleoconservatism" and "neoconservatism." Now a new, third school is emerging from the former. The Occidental Quarterly is an expression of that school and its exponents.[2]

If we are to categorize K. McD. as a Paleocon, we'd need to find another source. Does anybody know if the Occidental Quarterly's variety of conservatism has gotten a catchy name that we apply to this subject? -Will Beback 03:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, a while back someone added a section to the Paleoconservatism article on this "third school", I'm not sure wether or not they had a name for it, but I deleted it on the grounds that, as you seem to agree, they were discussing something clearly and consciously distinct from paleoconservatism.

Jacrosse 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, OQ says they are not paleoconservative, but when I read our own article about that ideology, and their own principles, they seem almost alike. -Will Beback 17:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First, there is nothing necessarily racist about paleoconservatism, and moreover, to repeat, social darwinism and all its other attendant assumptions are fundamentally modernist. Also significant in this respect is the overwhelmingly Catholic character of paleoconservatism, the ethics of which are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to social darwinism.

Jacrosse 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic about racism. There does not seem to be anything incompatible betwen racism and paleoconservativsm. Without calling K. McD a "racist," even if he were one it would not prohibit him from also being a paleocon. Nor do I see "anti-social Darwinism" as a core tenet of the paleocons. In any case, it is not for us to decide this matter on our own. If the subject had been notably called a paleocon then we might consider him to be one, however I can't find a source that does. -Will Beback 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't see paleo-conservatism as inherently racist, but I also don't see it as inherently anti-racist. I'm with Will on that matter and the social Darwinism matter. I'll reluctantly agree that if we cannot find a citation for calling him a paleocon we'll have to leave that out for now, but this is like having to seek a citation to show that a picture of a mallard is a picture of a duck. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Occidental Quarterly is not paleocon, it describes itself as 3rd way conservative with the 1st two being neoconservatism and paleoconservatism.

Southern Poverty Law Center...

I think this should be removed. The SPLC is just another political organization which doesnt deserve credibility. That is like the ACLU saying George Bush is anti constitution. The group obviously has an agenda and is very misleading.

JJstroker 11:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Even groups with agendas have notable opinions. Please do not remove sourced criticism. -Will Beback 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But to shield it as a legitimate group is where there is a problem. They do not deserve credibility. Why does the Southern Poverty Law Center deserve a caption like they have a opinion that is factual? That is putting them above all other groups. The section should be written as "Criticism" and have all the left wing groups under.

JJstroker 20:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem renaming the paragraph about the SPLC's comment to "Criticism". Criticism from any side should go there, right or left. -Will Beback 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about original research

Is the following o.r.?

He denies having any affiliation or contact with these groups, but ***this is contradicted by his support*** for David Irving's use of libel litigation to attempt to silence criticism of Irving's Holocaust denial.

This rationalization, however, ***would seem to contradict the fact*** that he was testifying against a defendant Jewish scholar in a libel trial over an academic issue.

• DallasMonkey.

Yes, it probably is. We can report the facts, which is not original research, but we should not draw fresh conclusions. If someone has a source for a notable critic saying drawing those conslusions then we may summarize their criticism. It wouldn't surprise me if there were such a source, but I am not aware of one. -Will Beback 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I and I can;'t see that the contributor was either. I'll cut.

• DallasMonkey.

white supremacists

Sorry kids. The current intro says, in effect:

'Macdonald claims Jews have higher than average verbal IQs, which is a popular idea among white "supremacists".'

This is self-contradiction. Someone who believes he is "supreme" will not be fond of an idea that says the opposite. I'm changing it to "White Nationalists".

Being "smarter" does not equal being "better". "Supremacy" in this context refers more to being in charge than to being superior. -Will Beback 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And that is insufficient justification to limit the description to "white supremacists" rather than the more NPOV "white nationalists". Jim Bowery 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the two terms cover the same group of people? That "white nationalist" is a nicer term for "white supremacist"? -Will Beback 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In WordNet.Princeton Nationalism is defined firstly as "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it." Supremacism is defined exclusively as, "the belief that some particular group or race is superior to all others." Therefore, to conflate the terms is erroneous. Furthermore, it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Separatism for example, is defined firstly as, "a social system that provides separate facilities for minority groups." However, it is defined thirdly as, "advocacy of a policy of strict separation of church and state." Thus, an unscrupulous contributor could make the ridiculous claim that Black Separatists are vehemently opposed to any form of religion in the public square. Barkmoss 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the uncivilized are making changes to this article with no consideration to the comments in the talk page/ bothering to make any. This I think is the last offense of the dishonest/moronic. Barkmoss 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

There is an NPOV tag on the article. Would someone states clearly what they see as the POV problems with the article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has stepped forward to explain the NPOV tag after three months, I am removing it. I have been following all the controversies about Kevin McD for years, although I've never had the stomach to read one of his books. I have read some of his shorter articles, like the NeoCon article he recently came out with. He has a summary of the thesis of his "Jewish trilogy" on his website, a summary which I have read. He claims on his website that this summary is representative of his views. What has been written here is balanced and factually accurate. It describes his views extremely well. It is also extremely well documented by links to sources that are freely available online, including Kevin's own writings. --Metzenberg 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Metzenberg: how do you have the authority (or chutzpah...) to comment on the work of Dr. MacDonald if you have never read any of his books? --152.163.100.136 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to eat a whole egg to know it's bad. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Race, culture, and intelligence

"and who have been leading proponents of the view that there is no biological basis for race, and that variance between races in mean IQ is caused by environmental rather than hereditary factors."

This statement is not an accurate reflection of the arguments of Gould, Lewontin, Kamin and Rose (I haven't read Diamond, and therefore can't speak to that). By no means do Gould, Lewontin, Kamin and Rose argue for supremacy or primacy of environmental factors over biological, and furthermore, they direct much effort to debunking the concept of IQ itself. This section will have to be changed. Pinkville 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Lewontin is one of the most prominent proponents of the argument that race doesn't exist biologically, and Kamin is known among intelligence researchers for arguing that the heritability of IQ could be "zero". These kinds of arguments seem to be the purpose of their book Not in Our Genes. They certainly argue "variance between races in mean IQ is caused by environmental factors." That can probably be made into a stronger statement that they also argue "variation between individuals" in IQ is predominately environmental.--Nectar 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an either/or issue. That's my point, and theirs. They argue against a facile nature vs. nurture paradigm and instead talk about multiple levels of causation: biological, environmental, political, chemical, quantum, etc. all of which affect human behaviour and abilities. Furthermore, they take pains to problematise the construct of intelligence as that faculty that IQ Tests measure but which may have very little to do with intelligence as we actually understand and experience it. If the trait being measured and used to compare races, sexes and economic classes is problematic, how worthwhile are the conclusions to be drawn from studies that depend on such terms. The first part of the passage I quoted is accurate in itself, but the conclusion drawn from it does not follow and is not an accurate reflection of these scientists' thought, which is primarily anti-determinist, whether biologically, culturally or otherwise. Pinkville 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association

• "makes occasional contributions to VDARE.com, an immigration reductionist weblog which acknowledges having white nationalist writers amongst its contributors.[[3]]" Should not be there, should it? Especially when the link provided (within the last 24 hours) as a citation is to a "page not found" hardly an acknowledgment of having white nationalist writers amongst its contributors. Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely an acknowlwdgeement. Google (vdare "white nationalist") and see its the first return, and its working. Written by Vdare editor Brimelow::

"Is VDARE.COM “White Nationalist”?

[Peter Brimelow writes:

.....

Now I will boldly go etc. We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews." BabyDweezil 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! You placed an extra period at the end of the link, which is why it didn't lead anywhere. I didn't notice (I just followed the link, the copy-pasted the text to report the problem, without actually examining the syntax); I'll fix that. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation fixed. This still leaves the "guilt by association" issue, in that MacDonald is not one of the VDARE contributors whom Brimelow characterizes as "white nationalist", and describes it as a "mischaracterization" to call the site itself "white nationalist". So, inasmuch as this is an article about MacDonald, it's still a stretch: to follow analogous logic, Wikipedia has white nationalist contributors; you and I write for Wikipedia; but that certainly does not make us white nationalists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you write for Vdare? BabyDweezil 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

God no! I don't think there is a single thing on which I agree with them! But I have helped organize actions where the Freedom Socialist Party were among the sponsors, although I am certainly not a Trotskyist. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Overstatement

• "He serves on the Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly, a journal that has been described by The American Prospect magazine as “the premier voice of the white-nationalist movement” [[4]]": A much better citation than the VDARE one, but still does not quite bear out what it says. Max Blumenthal, writing in The American Prospect, called it that. This was not an editorial, so it is not accurate to say The American Prospect called it that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From the OQ's "Statement of Principles" 2003, since removed from its website:

1. The West is a cultural compound of our Classical, Christian, and Germanic past.

2. Race informs culture; it is the necessary precondition for cultural identity and integrity. In 1950 whites represented 30 percent of the world's population. If current trends persist, this number will plummet to 8 percent by 2050. In the United States, whites are projected to become a minority of the national population in less than fifty years. The result will impoverish not only their descendants but the world in general and will jeopardize the civilization and free governments that whites have created.

3. America is part of the West, and as both a political and cultural order, is not "based on a creed" or "derived from a proposition." America is neither a "universal nation" nor an "experiment" concocted by ideologues. America is the unique and irreplaceable product of centuries of specific racial, historical, and cultural identities. America and its cultural and political identity will endure only so long as the identities that created it and sustain it endure, and when they die, America will die. We do not wish this to happen and will work to ensure it does not.

4. The European identity of the United States and its people should be maintained. Immigration into the United States should be restricted to selected people of European ancestry.

The Editors and Publisher, November 11, 2003

Here's Regnery's response to Blumenthal's article, totally sidestepping the white nationalist issue with the usual mumbo jumbo:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15385.html

BabyDweezil 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that, but it should still say "Max Blumenthal, writing in The American Prospect". - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Derbyshire/anti-Semitism

I don't see how the reference supplied supports the statement that Derbyshire has been accused of anti-Semitism. And even MacDonald's own anti-Semitic rant in response to Derbyshire's review accused Derbyshire of being a "Judaized intellectual." BabyDweezil 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this statement since the reference doesnt indicate any public accusations against Derbyshire of anti-Semitism; he does anecdotally reference reader responses to him, but this doesnt seem to be adequate for this claim. BabyDweezil 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish sociology"

"Jewish sociology" linked in lead: I doubt this has article potential. I also think it is seriously ambiguous. Are we talking about sociology as it pertains to Jews (in which case it should be reworded, and I do not believe has article potential), or is this a phrase intended to parallel the Nazis' "Jewish physics", etc. (in which case it needs attribution as to whose phrase it is). - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree; tinkered with that wording a bit. BabyDweezil 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Opening Quotations Which Are Clearly Biased

I've removed the two opening quotes from the Slate article -- there are several reasons why, but first and foremost is a clear bias toward viewing MacDonald as an anti-Semite (see article's title; Slate is obviously NOT a NPOV source), and the fact that people are trying to immediately discredit his entire body of work only three sentences in to the article. The quotes state: "Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting 'basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology' and failing 'basic tests of scientific credibility' [5], though it has found an audience among some conservatives." The only verifiable information in the quote is the fact that MacDonald's work "has found an audience among some conservatives," but even this is misleading (and not sourced to boot): he has found an audience amongst his fellow evolutionary psychologists, (some) anti-Semites, (some) White supremacists, certain Paleocoservatives, and some Neo-Nazis, not simply "conservatives."

Nowhere in the Slate article does it talk about MacDonald's work failing "basic tests of scientific credibility"...NOWHERE. The phrase "'basic tests of scientific credibility" isn't found in the Slate article, so I'm not sure where this quote was taken from. Also, the quote "Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting 'basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology' " is also incredibly misleading; these leading scholars are NEVER named, as they wish to remain anonymous it seems (and the Slate article hardly qualifies as academic and/or objective, as it deals primarily in pop culture). Also, the people that did comment on MacDonald's work in the Slate article had never read his trilogy -- the people at Slate (Culturebox) "described the contents of MacDonald's book," and THEN these people stated (wothout reading his books, remember) that his books "contradicted the basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology"; this means that they (the unnamed experts, remember) never read them, only had the 'basic principles' described to them, probably in a highly POV fashion) and then 'discredited' them.

Finally, it's ridiculous to use Slate as a source in this situation -- is Slate a scientific journal known for their neutral, well-sourced articles on evolutionary psychology? Is Judith Shulevitz an expert on evolutionary psychology (nope), or does she have her own POV agenda regarding MacDonald's work (yes, because she's Jewish...)? These are questions that weren't aksed when someone put in these blantantly POV quotation; thus, I am taking them out. --Pseudothyrum 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This Slate piece is a work of investigative reporting by a professional journalist writing in the most popular Internet news magazine. It is common in journalism to quote unnamed sources, and to accept the word of the journalist about their credibility. I agree that the second quotation is incorrect (I only spot-checked the first one). Also, it isn't necessary to have detailed criticisms in the intro and the Slate magazone material is covered in more detail again in the "Criticism" section. So I think we can leave this out. We do need to summarize the criticisms. Something like "Critics have called his work anti-Semitic and unscientific". Could you briefly summarize the criticisms? -Will Beback · † · 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's further discussion I think we should restore the quote from Slate, though move it down to a later place inthe article. -Will Beback · † · 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SPLC investigation

• Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom Kevin MacDonald, November 14, 2006
• Civil rights group investigates professor MaryJane O'Brien, Posted: 11/13/06
• The Thirteen Scariest People in America Scariest Academic: Kevin MacDonald by Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, Posted October 30, 2006.

We might add a line or two about this, though it probably be better to wait until the report is published. -Will Beback · † · 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing of this page

Would somebody who is an admin please make this page editable only by those with logins. --Metzenberg 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can also make such requests at WP:RPP. -Will Beback · † · 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoteworthy?

Is MacDonald a quoteworthy commentator on the topic of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965#Controversy Over Jewish Involvement ([6])? -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• In general, I would consider MacDonald (at least on matters related to Jews) to be the sort of extremist source we do not quote in any way that suggests he is an authority. He can be quoted to show the thinking of contemporary pseudo-scientific anti-semitic thought, where that is relevant, but other than that I'd be very hesitant to quote him. - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Separatist?

“the ethnic interests of white Americans to develop an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society.” - is there a White Separatists category for people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.241.219.194 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

my reversion of Holocaust denier to historian

Hit the wrong button when I was changing back so there's no edit summary--first, the text already describes him as a Holocaust denier, so I felt that that change was redundant. Secondly, it's sort of POV. Canadian courts are not the arbiters of NPOV truth, so just because they "discredited" Irving does not mean he's not a historian.

It looks like the David Irving article calls him a writer (no doubt after much acrimonious debate), which I think would work here as well.--Media anthro 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a Canadian court, it was a British court, where he went to sue someone specifically for calling him a Holocaust denier, and where he not only lost, but was found by the judge to be a Holocaust denier. He subsequently also pleaded guilty in court in Austria to denying the Holocaust. Given his own confession, it's hard to imagine why he shouldn't be described that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, he's apparently visited courtrooms in many different jurisdictions.

While I certainly think it's possible to be a Holocaust denier and a historian, I would prefer to use writer. I think that it is more in keeping with NPOV to describe him as a writer who has been described by others as a Holocaust denier. And after all, he does write (horrible things). --Media anthro 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irving lost an extremely well documented, well publicized court case in Britain. The judge lambasted him from the bench as a liar and holocaust denier. Under English libel law, Deborah Lipstadt had the burden of proof and she won a huge judgment against him, which left him broke. It was really Lipstadt's book that was on trial. Irving had previously claimed to be a professional historian. Everything is extremely well documented, including in the appropriate linked articles on Wikipedia. Don't we have some duty to be an honest encyclopedia here? --Metzenberg 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted potentially libelous categories

I've just deleted Category:Anti-Semitic people along with Category:Anti-Zionists. MacDonald (or anyone else, for that matter) has NEVER verified these claims and he has never personally admitted to being an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. Thus, the categories were wrongfully inserted (how long did they sit in this article?). Will someone that watches this page closely please ensure that these categories are not re-added unless these claims are eventually (and FULLY) verified by a valid source or MacDonald himself. There can be no 'inferring' when it comes to charges such as these. --172.165.244.59 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"claiming to use evolutionary psychology"

The second part of the introductory sentence -

best known for claiming to use evolutionary psychology to inform his study of Judaism as being what he claims is a "group evolutionary strategy".

- seems awash with POV. The bit about "claiming to use" ev. psych. is derogatory - the guy's a scholar, he uses ev. psych., one might argue that he uses it poorly, but he certainly uses it. The final phrases of the sentences are a stylistic train wreck. How about re-writing it to something like:

best known for using evolutionary psychology to analyse Judaism and Jewish culture as a "group evolutionary strategy".

The quotes on "group evolutionary strategy" provide enough editorial distance: it's clearly his phrasing; we're not saying WP endorses it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.165.57 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Citation silliness

Some of the "citation needed" tags that have been stuck into this article border on silliness. For example, the facts of this guy's life are available in half a dozen places online and are not in the least bit controversial. Would one citation of one of the major reviews of his "trilogy" suffice. He is, after all, completely honest about his past life. He doesn't claim a glorious past, or some kind of persecution. Nobody has claimed that he invents himself. He doesn't claim that Jews have ever hurt him personally. (Indeed, he seems to have studied and worked with Jews all his life.)

Now, as to putting "citation needed" for whether this guy is an anti-semite, or whether somebody else has said so .... All you have to do is quote him in any number of his very public articles, which he believes are academic research. So why not just quote him, because all you have to do is read what he says, and it is obvious that he publicly embraces the label of anti-semite. The truth is, he is honestly and openly anti-semitic (as well as anti lots of other things) and furthermore, he is proud of it. A large number of commentators from the far left to the almost as far right have said that he is antisemitic. Most will have nothing to do with him. So let's stop playing with "citation needed" and give Kevin credit for being honest about what he says and what he wants others to think. Kevin MacDonald is antisemitic.

Now as to people thinking that there are issues of libel. This is a public forum, where we have a right to establish the facts about him as they stand. If we maliciously claimed that he killed his mother, and he didn't, that would be slander. And even if we claimed here that he lied or is a liar, and he didn't or wasn't, he might have cause for action. But the fact that Kevin MacDonald is a public person, an author of books who has claimed expertise on the subject of Judaism protects Wikipedia and anyone who wants to comment on Kevin MacDonald's views from any possibility of libel. Since MacDonald is a public figure and a self-professed expert on Judaism and evolution, we have a right and even an obligation as a good encyclopedia to analyze his works honestly. We're not analyzing his character here, just his writings. --Metzenberg 01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some...

A source (August 2006 Uncommon Denominator, The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute) says:

• The dead give-away to the fundamentally disreputable nature of the new racist scholarship is the fact that its practitioners form a kind of closed loop, a tight-knit cadre, praising and publishing each other’s work, and not responsive to the professional standards of the broader academic community (which they disingenuously dismiss as ideological standards)...The same names come up over and over again: ...Kevin B. MacDonald...
• Combined with his testimony on behalf of holocaust denier David Irving, in Irving’s unsuccessful libel trial against author Deborah Lipstadt, MacDonald’s work has been enthusiastically embraced by neo-Nazi groups. No one is suggesting that MacDonald himself espouses such extremism, and he has been at pains to distance himself from the disreputables in his intellectual corner, but at the very minimum his work keeps some very shady company, routinely cropping up next to the more blatant material. [7]

We had summarized that, and other uncited sources, as:

• There are some white supremacists who support the views of MacDonald because of his opinions about Jews, but MacDonald denies having any affiliation or contact with any of these extremist groups.

Is this an accurate and NPOV summary? How can we improve this text?-Will Beback · † · 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor isn't trying to summarize the source. He wants a cite for the statement that KM denies WS affiliation. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more material, from the campus newspaper "Civil rights group condemns work of CSULB professor":

• "His work is bandied about by just about every neo-Nazi group in America," [the SPLC's] Potok said of MacDonald
• It is like nuclear energy, you can use it for good or you can use it for evil,” MacDonald said of the white supremacist’s interest in his articles and books.

I don't know what to make of that last statement. I'll see if I can find a source for him denying affiliation. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is the source for the denial, and a possible explanation for his reference to nuclear energy [above], in "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques" January 29, 2001 David Lieberman, H-Antisemitism: Occasional Papers.

• Predictably, MacDonald's work on Jews has established a significant following among white supremacists and other right-wing extremists ready to embrace any argument promising a rationale for antisemitism. MacDonald himself disavows any responsibility for this phenomenon, arguing that he should no more be held accountable for the political applications of the truths uncovered by his scientific inquiries than Albert Einstein should be held accountable for political decisions taken to deploy nuclear weapons.

So with this source in mind I think the previous summary is correct. Any changes needed? -Will Beback · † · 08:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC

Where do you see proof from the SPLC and the Commonwealth Institute. The SPLC is notorious for not even having correct sources. Second, again nobody seems to put around the fact that address the white supremacism question. Who again are these White supremacists? Do they identify as such? If they don't why should we take politically inclined groups with axes like the SPLC and Kevin MacDonald's colleagues at this university at hear. And also what is an extremist? MacDonald disavows any responsibility because he doesn't see groups like the Occidental Quarterly as White supremacists. And where does he say I am anti-semitic or anything along these lines. The campus newspaper cites the SPLC as well so how is that a good source if the SPLC is a pov organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs).

The last source, "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy", is sufficient to support the material. -Will Beback · † · 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My attention's been drawn to this page - by the sock of a banned user, at that - and while the accusations and denial of right-wing connections seem to be marginally notable in this case, I cannot think that it in any way deserves to be in the lead paragraph. Can someone give me a decent reason why, in the absence of a single noteworthy accusation of direct connections to rightwing groups, and the presence of a clear denial, this should be in the summary of a living person's bio? Note also that an accusation of antisemitism that is cited only, according, to this article, to a single advocacy group, doesnt deserve to be in the lead either. Hornplease 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because only one source is cited it doesn't mean that there's only one source available. This is one of those "tip of the iceberg" situations. The subject is chiefly notable for his writings on Jews, and those writings are prominently cited by extremist groups. Therefore a significant measure of the subject's notability is his adoption by extremists. Personally, I think intros should just summarize the article with details in the later sections. We could find more sources and add a fuller version of the issue in the body of the article. On the other hand, we don't want to make it too obvious. Actually, it looks pretty good the way it is. -Will Beback · † · 10:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'd have to demonstrate that a preponderance of his notability is due to the popularity of his work with extremists; and you'd need several reliable sources discussing his work in order to do that, not just articles based specifically on the SPLC's press releases. And the intro would have to be reworked, to put his denial first. Hornplease 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We can put his denial first, but I see no reason to require that we prove the "preponderance of his notability" is due to any particular factor. That's virtually unprovable and if that were the standard all Wikipedia biographies would be blank. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The Los Angeles Times has never written an article about MacDonald's professional work on child development, but they have reported on his theories of Jewish "evolutionary strategy" and noted by the popularity among extremists.[8] Others have also reported on that aspect of his notability.[9] -Will Beback · † · 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; "preponderance of notability" indeed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, once again, great drive-by.

Will, I'd like to point out that you said 'significant measure of the subjects notability'. I'd just like to point out that unless this article is reworked, it needs to demonstrate that it's something more than significant, or it becomes guilt by association. In particular, the 'appropriation' of his work by white supremacists seems to be more sensible wording, in the presence of his denials, whether I personally believe him or not. (I don't.) Remember, guilt by association is specifically ruled out in WP:BLP. If nothing else, the fact that its in the 'criticism' section seems to indicate that he is responsible for the appropriation. Claims like that need a lot of substantiation. Hornplease 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Occidental Quarterly

RG415WBFA,

Kevin MacDonald's role is to provide research that appears to be respectable and appears to be valid academic research. Much of MacDonald's "publishing" is in the Occidental Quarterly, which is designed to look like a real academic journal. You can see this so-called journal online. Read the current issue (Fall 2006)! Look at the Table of Contents. Is this white supremacist literature? You be the judge! Here is how the lead editorial in Occidental Quarterly on its own editorial page describes the four main articles in the current (Fall 2006) issue:

• Daniel Vining explores what’s in a name: how the definition of the word "racism" has shifted in recent decades, and what that semantic wrenching may portend.
• Brent Nelson takes a look at how the white working class was forced to bear the burden of integration in the South, and later the North, by wealthy Caucasian "conservatives"
• Michael O’Meara provides a brilliant appreciation and explication of the dense philosophy of Martin Heidegger*, as well as suggestions for its reception by partisans of the West.
• Then there’s Edmund Connelly’s lively essay on the undisputed Jewish preeminence in television, in particular how Jewish aims and values have increasingly conditioned programming in this arguably most influential medium.

(I have wikified Martin Heidegger so that you could easily read about his record as a member of the Nazi Party in Germany during the Third Reich.)

Look at the advertisement on the page facing the Table of Contents. It is for a book called The Dispossessed Majority. One of the so-called "reviewers" quoted in this advertisement writes that this book, "represents a landmark assessment of of the racial, cultural, and political plight of America's white majority." Later on, the advertisement proclaims, "Available again, The classic that influenced a generation of racially conscience (sic.) Americans."

I think this article won't be accurate about Kevin MacDonald unless it tells of the opinions that he proudly presents, and the associations he proudly makes. Whatever you think of Kevin MacDonald, he is an honest man who does not hide his associations and opinions. And one more thing about MacDonald. He does not suffer us by writing a personal memoir. If he has ever been persecuted, he doesn't claim it. He wants his ideas to be taken seriously for what they are. I thought Wikipedia's job was to tell the truth, to provide accurate and well-source information. So my question to you, RG415WBFA, is, since MacDonald is completely open about what he believes and with whom he associates, why won't you give him credit for having the honesty and integrity to do so? --Metzenberg 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a judge of it. I actually have met Kevin MacDonald and have read the Occidental Quarterly. And I don't see how this can be classified as so called white supremacist when it just talks about Europeans and their plight. Blacks do this many times more often in America and much more openly and nobody says they are Black supremacists. There are Tibetans who are being demographically displaced and nobody says they are Tibetan supremacists. As for MacDonald not being persecuted, I never particularly emphasized that. But, you can look at this vdare article http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/061114_splc.htm and tell me if he isn't persecuted. It is not a big deal if you don't say that he is but he certainly is unfairly targeted. Dr. MacDonald never cowered away for his affiliation with the Occidental Quarterly and I never said that he did so I don't know what you're talking about and you keep saying it like I didn't. So you seem to have things wildly wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs).

RG415WBFA, The 10th icon from the left on your editing form gives you an easy way to sign your comments on Talk pages. Would you please use it? --Metzenberg 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

white supremacists and neo-nazis section

I cleared the ties to white supremacists and neo-nazis section and the sentence in the introdcutory paragraph without signing in. I apologize for not signing. It was not intention. RG415WBFA

Please don't removed sourced content without a reason. What's the reason for clearing that materil? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did remove it with a reason. I wrote it when I changed. It has factually incorrect information such as calling the Council of Conservative Citizens a White Supreamcists when according to the Wikipedia entry it is objectively not one. One more example is calling David Duke when again he isn't that according to Wikipedia nor doesn't call himself that. It is riddled with points of view intertwined with correct information.

The best thing to do when you find text with problesm is to fix the problesm, not remove all of the text. I'm going to restore it so we can fix what needs fixing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholar of Antisemitism?

For some reason Mr. MacDonald has been classified in the article as a "scholar of antisemitism". Actually, "Antisemitic Scholar" would be more accurate but I guess it would be too POV to write that. I suggest erasing the misleading classification - at the very least.

Yabti 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He writes scholarly books about anti-semitism. There's nothing misleading about categorizing him as a "scholar of antisemitism". That he is considered anti-semitic by many is a separate matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolute Horrible Bias

This is possibly the most biased, ethnically-pandering article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Judaism should be subject to cold scientific analysis just like any other phenomenon. MacDonald, a quite gentle-mannered, intelligent, rational and moral scholar, is made out be some sort of neo-Nazi guru and instigator of neo-Nazi terrorism. Only negative slanders by MacDonald's personal enemies and far-left fringe groups are permitted as critical quotes, while the great wealth of people and quotes in his general support by actually honest analysts (Frank K. Salter, Kevin Hannan, David Sloan Wilson, Paul Gottfried, Henry Makow (son of Holocaust survivors, etc.) are systematically silenced and repressed. These voices of support should be included for justice's sake. No wonder the whole educated world considers Wikipedia a grotesque joke, dominated as it is by hyperaggressive ethnic cliques (Jewish tribalism) and vice-activists (pedophilia- and sodomy-apologists). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs).

That's an intersting perspective. If you have sources for these favorable quotations regarding the subject please add them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources for the favorable quotations are found here:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Reviews.htm

Now the question is, will there be enough courage and impartiality to display them on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 06:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

An older link to the same material was already included, I updated it to the new link. Wikipedia has nothing to do with questions of impartiality, only of accuracy. In my opinion, and as far as I can tell, the article is not biased. Maybe you forgot to offset your own bias? —AldeBaer 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

This commentary was moved from the article to the talkpage. --Slp1 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has apparently been compiled by lefties and should not be considered an objective or balanced description of Prof. MacDonald and his scholarly work and accomplishments. I happened to know him personally for years, and can attest that he is not a monster that this article attempts to portray him as. On the contrary, he is a gentle and ethical academician who relentlessly searches for truth, no matter how unpopular or hated such truth might appear. The reader can judge the emotionally loaded contents of this page for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.63.174 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2007

Would you care to give us examples in the article where MacDonald is portrayed as a monster? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IS THIS A JOKE?

This article is so biased against Dr MacDonald that no one will believe in the criticsm directed at him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have citable material that you think is missing, or if you believe that there is material currrently in the article that cannot be properly cited to generally reliable sources, please bring it forward. Otherwise, the fact that you believe the article is biased doesn't count for much. - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Responses to MacDonald's critics

I moved two sections concerning the The Culture of Critique series to that article. We should try to keep this article focused on the person, while the other article is devoted to the books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion or just edit warring? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

sneaky vandalism by 'Will Beback' - blanking, twice, of key contribution[a modest response to MacDonald's critics]. I have correctly labeled this section's discussion heading, as it was labeled when 'Will Beback' deleted it and its contents the second time.Bill0756 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blanked anything. I moved the two section concerning the "Culture of Critique" series to the article on that topic. Why do you think they belong here instead of there? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

MacDonald summary response to Pinker's Slate article added, due to the decision to articulate Pinker Slate points on wiki. If either is eliminated, then the other could be also, resulting in something like, "MIT prof Pinker objects to MacDonald's theories and process in a letter to Slate magazine<link reference>. MacDonald strongly objects to Pinker's attacks, and responded by line on his website to Pinker's Slate letter<link reference> Bill0756 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Crticisms of MacDonald (and his rebuttals) belong on this page. Criticisms and rebuttals of the CoC belong in that article. Most of the criticisms appear to concern the books, not the person, so that's why I moved them. Why did you move them back? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, vandalism by Will Beback. Blanking a modest quote and link to MacDonald's observations on Wikipedia entries regarding his name.72.193.200.77 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, in this latest vandalism, continuously blanked a modest quote and link to MacDonald's view on Wikipedia entries regarding him. After more than one attempt at blanking MacDonald's link to MacDonald's response to these Wiki identified critics, and blanking a MacDonald quote viewing several Wiki critics as offering "negative assertions", Will Beback removed both link and quote, and placed it in a lesser relevant "miscellaneous" section, from the"response" section . Will Beback each time asserted false information that a link did not come from MacDonald's website, when it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. I moved the material on Wikipedia down to a "miscellaneous" section, per the example provided by Elias. That's appropriate considering the minor nature of the "complaint". The other changes are just housekeeping. For example, WP:MOS tells us not to use academic titles like "Dr.". Please assume good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mischaracterization to offer a partial list of MacDonald's objections [per Bloodsthecat]. MacDonald has a long list of objections to Bierich, either none or all objections is appropriate. Please read info in links before editing; both Bloodsthecat and Will Beback have offered either mischaracterizations of MacDonald(Bloodsthecat suggesting MacDonald only had the two objections to Bierich he points to), or outright false information(Will Beback's assertions, each time before he blanked info, that MacDonald's quote was not from his website when it was).Bill0756 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other works

This entire article deals with his work on Jews. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this article should put some focus on his other work? Like for instance that he began studying wolves? I mean let's face it, he has done other projects than Jews. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While he has done other projects, and those should be mentioned, he isn't notable for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

-EliasAlucard, Maybe no one yet is familiar enough with his other works to comment. They are cited[in Professional Background] but as you suggest, not articulated at all. Of course anyone wanting to articulate them would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, this article puts a loooooot of emphasis on his work on Jews. That's fine, but I'd like to be able to read more on what he's written on other topics. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to add anything notable to this article, and you are welcome to read more of what he has written on other topics to see if they are notable and add them. I see nothing in the literature indicating such notability, and I don't see anything i.m.o. that is notable in his writings not related to Jews. Macdonald's only notability appears to be due to his Judeophobic and white supremacist writings, and the response he has gotten to them, and his own rebutalls to the criticisms, which are largely only featured on his own website or in fringe publications. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

• Wikipedia
• MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories.

Are we just adding everything that's barely mentioned on the subject's website? I think we're going beyond normal biography here if we're mentioning every pet peeve. The link in question doesn't say anything about having "taken exception". Let's avoid adding so much stuff sourced only to the subject's website. Reliable sources should be used, meaning material published in newspapers, books, journals, and the like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, the topic MacDonald is engaged in is a very controversial topic regardless of if what he's saying is true or not. When publishing the stuff he has published, he will get attacked negatively from right to left in a sort of character assasination (basically ad hominem), all this done because Jews and others don't want to give him a shred of credibility, and the word of shame label "anti-Semite" is constantly applied on MacDonald. If he thinks we've misrepresented him on Wikipedia, it most definitely should be mentioned here. Of course, it would be nice if Kevin himself could give a bit more details on what he thinks is inaccurate, but it is our duty to cite and report the content. Another example is Robert Spencer, after a lame ad hominem attack on his publisher, Regnery, from Carl Ernst, it has as you can see, been cited and reported on his Wikipedia entry. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The source you list doesn't say that he think Wikipedia misrepresents him. Read it. Until we can find a source that supports the material it should be deleted. Please don't misrepresent what MacDonald has actually said. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny now or what's the deal? The Wikipedia section as it is right now, cites him directly, and the source points to his site. No one is misrepresenting him, we are actually citing his own statement. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement on the linked page is:

• Wikipedia has two articles on me, the main one listed under my name, Kevin B. MacDonald, and another listed under The Culture of Critique series. Both contain negative assertions about my work by John Tooby, Steven Pinker, Jaff Schatz, and David Lieberman. My replies to these comments can be accessed via the above links (1.Tooby and Pinker; 2. Schatz and Lieberman).

I don't see how you can summarize that by writing:

• MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories.

Furthermore, this isn't MacDonld's website. We don't need to copy everything he writes, particularly those that comment on other people. WP:BLP forbids using self-published sites to source commentary about 3rd-aprties, and there appears to be alot of material sourced only to MacDonald's website. We should rely on published sources, not blogs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what was written in the Wikipedia section in an earlier revision of the article. It has now been changed to a more NPOV version.[10] Question is, why do you keep pretending like the section, as of right now, states something else? It's true that this isn't his website and neither are we plagiarizing what he's written, we are simply reporting short excerpts from some of his debates/discussions/arguments (that we are allowed to do, last I checked). WP:BLP doesn't apply here, we are not writing a biography about the guy, just writing (or trying to write) short NPOV summaries of his most notable debates, and controversies he's been involved with. I don't see the correlation with WP:BLP you're trying to make. We should rely on published sources, not blogs. — His website is not exactly a blog... And even if it were, this article is about Kevin MacDonald, and that would make his blog, a primary source for citation. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I personally think that if he feels mirepresented on Wikipedia, being that this is Wikipedia, such an opinion of his would make it notable for inclusion. Don't you agree? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics: where does he "take exception" or say that he's been "misrepresented"? Are you basing those assertions on the text I posted above, copied from his website used as a citation? I don't see it it. He says that there are "negatice assertions" but he doesn't disagree or complain about those unspecified assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps he was referring to an earlier revision of this article when he wrote that which contained a lot more POV. But this is what he has written and that is what we have reported, nothing more, nothing less. I honestly don't see the problem and what the fuss is about. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you behind or something? We have removed that MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories. version. Why do you keep bringing it up? Get over it, it's not in the article any longer, but now it features a direct quote instead so there won't be any misunderstanding. This is the second time I point this out to you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So now you're just quoting him verbatim? We already provide a link to his website, why do we need to quote so much of it here? The quotation you put is doesn't add anything to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is a typical Wikipedia thing. For instance, John Podhoretz has been accused of being gay in his Wikipedia entry. This was false, and has been removed. Now his article reports it here. This is what we do at Wikipedia. If the guy feels we've misrepresented him, we usually report it in the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Unindenting

A) MacDonald doens't say that he's been misrepresented.

B) The Podhoretz comments were published in reliable sources, not posted on his personal website.

C) Podhoretz's comments are included in a "Miscellaneous" section. In this article MacDonald's comment is given a subheading, making it much more prominent.

D) If we simply want to say that MacDonald feels he's been misrepresented I don't object to a sourced sentence somewhere in the article. I do object to devoting a whole section to it, to misrepresenting what he's written, and also to the enormous amount of space devoted to quoting MacDonald attacking his critics and the critics of his books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, THE ARTICLE DOES NO LONGER SAY HE FEELS MISREPRESENTED, IT JUST CITES HIM VERBATIM. CAN YOU PLEASE DROP IT? YOU NO LONGER HAVE A CASE SINCE USER:Bill0756 CHANGED IT HERE.[11] I hope I've made myself clear now. If you continue to bring up the Kevin MacDonald feels he's been misrepresented statement again I will disregard your opinion entirely. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill out. You wrote, "If the guy feels we've misrepresented him, we usually report it in the article." If he doesn't feel misrepresented then why are we devoting a whole section to his commentary? You haven't responded to my other points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresented = obviously, "negative characterization". The current revision of the article, just quotes his comment on his wikipedia entries. I think that's notable enough for inclusion in the article. Don't bring up the "misrepresentation" thing again. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Negative characterization" is not synonymous with "misrepresentation". Anyway, you haven't replied to my other objections. If you think that the Podhoretz example is a good one then let's treat this the same way: as a miscellaneous item. A couple of obscure sentences on his personal website don't merit a whole section in a biography. That's undue weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we just remove this absurd section? Wikipedia mentioning that the obscure author mentions on his obscure website that wikipedia mentions him...sheesh! Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't just run around and delete sections from articles. If you dislike the author, that's fine. But if you want the section removed, you'll need a valid reason for doing so. Disliking the section, is not a good reason. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is abject absurdity a valid reason? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "abject absurdity" can be applied on a section where Kevin MacDonald describes his wikipedia entry. If you could perhaps, elaborate and somehow further enlighten me on that, perhaps it can be applied. But something tells me your personal POV (i.e., your contempt of the author) has something to do with it. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<-----It would be the pinnacle of absurdity to attempt to explain why the abjectly absurd is absurd. If Wikipedia mentioning that the obscure author mentions on his obscure website that Wikipedia mentions him isn't understood as being by definition absurd, then I cannot enlighten you further. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to completely ignore your opinion. The fact that you think he's an obscure author seems very obvious to me that you want to put him in a negative light. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A good reason is "undue weight". WP:WEIGHT. It isn't an important issue and so it shouldn't be made to appear important. If MacDonald had written and published an article about his disputes with Wikipedia over this biography then it would be significant. Instead, he simply points to the article and very briefly says that it includes "negative assertions". Our section on it is longer then his own comment. It is Elias, who keeps retoring the info, who needs to justify its inclusion. I'm going to remove it again - please don't restore it until there's a consensus to do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the section. I am not the only one restoring it (see for example Bill's edit here). Kevin MacDonald is an academic scholar who has faced a lot of character assassination because of the controversy in his books. I think that makes his point of view on his Wikipedia entry (which I believe contains some unjustified POV) notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the person adding the material to justify it. Which material in this article contains unjustifed POV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

This section is to document and discuss vandalism, which has been significant against MacDonald here. I suggest my or others' accusations/observations be checked in the "history" section. Other people here in 'discussion' have mentioned the terrible bias against MacDonald this Wiki entry has, but now specifically maybe it's time to have a vandalism documentary. Ironically, MacDonald's own response to major critics featured here, was blanked more than once, then moved from the "Response to Critics" section, and edited with the effect of dilution. Anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put a link and quote from MacDonald giving his perspective on the Wiki entries regarding his name; they were first erased twice then moved to a less relevant section, then they were edited to dilute his response. The violator, Will Beback, has denied each time, offering obfuscating excuses, and when not outrightly blanking pro-MacDonald info and links, usually he rephrases and/or moves content to obscure Wiki entries or sections, but constantly there is pro-MacDonald info missing from each of his vandalisms. Will Beback and others have vandalized this Wiki entry several times, usually using clever techniques. Many times Will Beback has offered false assertions[each time he blanked the MacDonald's Wiki quote, Will Beback said it wasn't from his website but it clearly was, then Will Beback asserted he only moved the content to a new section but omits the fact he first blanked, twice, the MacDonald quote]. MacDonald has said that he's generally given up on editing Wikipedia himself due to such vandalism and bias.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback initially blanked the entire section regarding "Responding to Critics" as it first appeared, giving as an excuse that it had to do with his "books" rather than himself. Of course Will Beback at the same time was editing and adding criticisms of MacDonald's book theses in the entry, so the effort was offering criticism while denying response to it. This was massive vandalism and is documented in the "response to Critics" section here in discussion. Finally Will Beback allowed the "response to critics" info to stay after twice blanking it from the "Kevin B. MacDonald" entry.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that there is a shortage of pro-Macdonald info; in fact there's a whole section about the praise Macdonald has received; just so happens that most of it is from from Nazis. But you are right, anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website, since encyclopedias generally do not exist to be a repository for every mundane utterance that appears on those websites. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Good faith edits aren't vandalism. "Assume good faith" is a policy.

2. We have a separate article on the Culture of Critique series, and that is where criticism of those books (and rebuttals) belong best. Once we've finished editing the material here it should be moved there.

3. MacDonald's reference to Wikipedia was being misrepresented, with assertions that weren't included in the source.

4. As Boodlesthecat says, we don't need to include every comment from the subject. It's our job to summarize, not to quote.

This article has been through a lot over the years, including considerable participation by the subject. I'm not interested in re-arguing every point all over again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Bill is raising some valid concerns. Look, we know MacDonald is a controversial figure and that he has political opponents against him because of what he writes in his books. I think it would be foolish to assume that every editor (I'm not going to mention any names) working on this article is doing it out of the best intentions. Political agendas are not uncommon on Wiki, and I don't doubt for a second that some Wikipedians are going to try and misrepresent MacDonald. On a side note, Bill is right when he says that anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. If you see an instance of misrepresentation, please point it out. As for political agendas, I most certainly have my opinions on this subject--in my house, in fact in my whole neighborhood and every neighborhood I have lived in, the Nazis are the bad guys. But again, if you see any misrepresentation, please point it out. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I mention Nazis? Are you insinuating that MacDonald is a neo-Nazi because he writes books that are critical of Jews? Nice guilt by association fallacy and a reductio ad Hitlerum. I think the misrepresentation is vague in this article, but it exists. For instance, a widely quoted source in this article is the SPCL,[12] and MacDonald himself has been critical of the SPCL. How is this a neutral source and how do we know that the content cited from that source doesn't misrepresent MacDonald, seeing how he has been complaining about misrepresentation from the SPCL? And how is a source like the SPCL, which is clearly against MacDonald's work, neutral and objective on the matter? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use antisemitic claptrap as a source

Please don't insult Wikipedia readers and editors by sourcing opinionated statements with antisemitic claptrap found on Rense.com. Are you really expecting editors to find Goebbelesque garbage like "The multi-faceted assault on MacDonald's position as a tenured professor is a chilling reminder of the level of Jewish excess and Jewish tenacity Americans are now facing" acceptable as a WP:RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, where did you get the "insult Wikipedia readers and editors" from? Are you some kind of automatically self-offended dude? You seem to think everything is offensive. How is a source, offensive? How does a website, having opinions critical of Jewish behaviour, fail WP:RS? Are you suggesting that WP:RS can only be applied on sources which cannot have critical opinions about Jews? What if the website is actually telling the truth (though opinionated). Don't you think it's ignorant to disregard it on the basis that it has opinions you disagree with? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"You seem to think everything is offensive." Actually no, not everything, just ill-informed blanket generalizations about other people's state of mind. What if the antisemitic claptrap you used as a source is true, you ask? Hey could be....oh, look, a pig just flew by my window.....Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was really funny. Anyway, MacDonald has been attacked several times by American Jews for allegedly being "antisemite" (you know, that awesome word which has any actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews). This, for instance, in FrontPageMag by Jacob Laksin.[13] He has come under a lot of heat from the SPLC, which I'm sure you're already aware of. Now, recently, the SPLC has been pushing to get him dissociated from his university.[14] All this, has that rense source (which you, eloquently, call "antisemitic claptrap") covered. I don't see the problem here. It seems to me, you dismiss this rense source as a WP:RS, not because of any false writings, but because, there are opinions you dislike and deem, "insulting". — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the term "antisemite" has no actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews? Do me a favor, please don't discuss anything with me regarding your views on theis subject and stick SOLELY to discussion of editing and improving this artcile, because your views are simply too offensive and abhorrent to have to volunarily subject myself to. By the way, I edited the entry to reflect what the College newspaper actually reports, which is that the moves against Macdonald are a result of opposition from school faculty. Despite the fact that bigots like rense like to whine about how evil Jews are persecuting antisemites like Macdonald, I'm afraid the professor has only himself to blame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not here to appease your "getting offended" radar. If you feel offended every single time someone is critical of Jews, such as Kevin MacDonald, you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish. MacDonald has himself to blame? Wrong. MacDonald has written three scholarly books on Jews, Judaism, and Jewish political movements. That's his right to do so if he wants to and he should not get into trouble because of it, since, last I checked, the 1st Amendment was still valid in America (or so they say). What next? You want to criminalise political criticism of Jews too? Anyway, this is what the source states:

• MacDonald's three-part series in evolutionary psychology, "A People That Shall Dwell Alone," "Separation and Its Discontents" and "The Culture of Critique," was labelled as anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi propaganda in late 2006. The labels came from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks hate groups. The organization sent a representative to CSULB to interview students and faculty members about MacDonald's work in November of 2006. The recent developments within the psychology department to distance itself from MacDonald's work came after the department's advisory committee met to discuss his December forum presentation.[15]

Why are you removing it from the article? The source clearly, mentions that the dissociation came after the SPLC had sent representatives to MacDonald's university. Clearly, the SPLC is involved SOMEWHAT in his dissociation. Do you seriously believe that CSULB would have proceeded with a dissociation if the SPLC had not sent their boys over to his campus? The article should definitely reflect the SPLC's involvement in his dissociation, because that's what the college source does. Despite the fact that bigots like rense like to whine about how evil Jews are persecuting antisemites like Macdonald, I'm afraid the professor has only himself to blame. — Guess what, Joe Levin, co-founder of the SPLC, is Jewish. Has the thought ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, "bigots like rense" aren't that far off from the truth? I hope you didn't get offended or anything by me pointing this out. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, the next instance of anti-Semitic claptrap that you spew on this page is going to be taken to an admin; it's enough. Regarding the question at hand, pay attention and read the article--it DOESNT say "that the dissociation came after the SPLC had sent representatives to MacDonald's university"--it is you who is making the causal connection (no doubt, becuase your twisted little mind must find a way to blame Jews). It simply mentions the SPLC, which is covered AT LENGTH earlier in the article and does not need to be mentioned just because it was in the source--the relevant part is the faculty moving to dissociate, inferences about why are just original (and Jew baiting) research. Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely interesting. You accuse me of having a "twisted mind," which is needless to say a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. This, simply because, in our content dispute, I've included information (cited information, might I add), mentioning, that his dissociation came after the SPLC had visited his campus; I believe this is important regarding the context of his dissociation, whereas you rant on about "antisemitic claptraps" and similar nonsense. You also accuse me of "Jew baiting." Well guess what? This entire article happens to not have anything to do with Jews. You accuse me of original research, despite the fact that it is sourced, which is really bad faith from your part because you are misusing the policy of WP:OR in order to censor information you for some unexplained reason find "offensive". I believe it has an importance to mention that the dissociation occurred after MacDonald's work had been labelled "antisemitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" by the SPLC, just as the source states. And I think that your censorship of this information (because you regard it as "antisemitic") goes against WP:CENSOR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we alreay discuss the SPLC visit to the campus it's redundant to mention it again. We might move the sections next to each other so that the context is more apparent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This short line: This came after the SPLC labelled his work "anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" in late 2006 (see above). Should not be removed since it's important for the article's cohesion and why he has been dissociated. It's in no way WP:OR no matter how much User:Boodlesthecat claims so, since it's first of all cited, and second of all, already covered in previous sections of the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way: Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. — I have my own POV as to why he's been dissociated. I believe, that the SPLC, might very well, have an influence on his dissociation. The fact that one of the founders of the SPLC, happens to be Jewish, makes it even more likely to be, that politically influential Jews are trying to attack him because of his criticism of Jewish political influence in his book trilogy. However, despite my personal POV, that is not included in the article. So pretty please, with sugar on top, refrain from your ridiculous and silly personal attacks on my character ("twisted mind"), false accusation of WP:OR, and similar nonsense, simply because you cannot refrain from your own POV that every academic who is critical of Jewish behaviour is an "antisemite" and "has himself to blame". What next? Are you going to accuse Norman Finkelstein of being a Holocaust denier too because he is critical of how the Holocaust has been handled? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yet anothe ranti-semitic rant is not a reason to include the sentence. Unless you can provide a reference stating that he was dissociated from as a result of the SPLC visit (the source clearly states it was done by the faculty, do not revert this. Stick to the article--next time you use a talk page to go on a Jew hating rant its going on a noticeboard. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy has written three books that are critical of Judaism/Jews. It's not a "Jew hating rant" to suspect that Jews may very well have an involvement in his dissociation (they surely wouldn't oppose his dissociation, that's for sure). It's in fact, a reasonable point of view to believe that they have been pushing for him to get dissociated. The inclusion of the sentence has nothing to do with what I discuss on the talk pages. Fact of the matter is, the daily49er source specifically mentioned, in the same context, about his dissociation, the SPLC's visit to his campus. That's the only source needed to include the statement. If the SPLC's campaign against him had no relevance to his dissociation, they would not have mentioned it in the article. By the way, you should stop equating criticism of politically influential Jews, with hatred. Hatred is a very strong word and you are disingenuously misusing it to here to describe opinions you don't like. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats your point. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? no one is really interested in listening to your vile Jew bashing claptrap. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I want to improve the article. But it would be easier to collaborate if you didn't accuse me of hatred for voicing opinions you find objectionable. Whether you like it or not, MacDonald has challenged the politically influential Jewish power in America. That means, it might backfire on him, from politically influential Jews. To seriously believe that his dissociation had nothing whatsoever to do with Jews, is naïve. He has been teaching on CSULB, for how long? And all of a sudden, he became dissociated very recently, after the SPLC visited his campus. And one of the co-founders of the SPLC happens to be Jewish. If you think it's all a coincidence, that's your opinion, but I disagree. You have no justification to call that hatred and it's just a cheap shot. I also think there's a lot of bias from your side to misrepresent MacDonald, because you dislike his opinions. Attaching the antisemite category on him is libellous and it doesn't conform very well with the {{WPBiography}} policy we have to misrepresent him like that. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Macdonald is free to pursue any action he wants if he feels this is libelous. But tell me, EliasAlucard, why are you so hostile towards Jews? Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, MacDonald shouldn't have to go that far, to the point where he needs to take legal action against Wikipedia, because it's our responsibility, per {{WPBiography}}, to not misrepresent him. MacDonald writes: I have at times been accused of being an anti-Semite. But the reality is that I greatly admire Jews as a group that has pursued its interests over thousands of years, while retaining its ethnic coherence and intensity of group commitment.[16] Clearly, anyone who admires Jews (and is open about it), is not antisemitic and he shouldn't be listed under en:Category:Antisemitism either. But tell me, EliasAlucard, why are you so hostile towards Jews? — This is your point of view, not mine. Truth is, I'm really not at all, hostile against them. Heck, I even think they have the right to live in Israel and that Israel should be a Jewish state (which is more benign than what Jews feel about us Assyrians; see Kevin MacDonald discussing it here). I do, however, agree with the very valid criticism Kevin MacDonald has brought up against Jewish political influence. I think he argues his case very well, and to equate his interesting and well researched critique with "hatred" is intellectually dishonest. Jews have a lot of political power, and they, just like other ethnic groups, misuse their power. They should be criticised for their misuse of political influence, just like everyone else with a lot of influence, should be, if they screw up. I don't buy their hypocritical victim mentality because they are "victims" with nuclear bombs and they kill Palestinians on a daily basis. And I (unlike you) don't feel offended when someone criticises Israel, Jews, or Jewish political dominance, because it's not my obligation to feel offended over such a thing. If they had no political influence whatsoever and people accused them of all sorts of things about their non-existent political power, that would of course, be "irrational hatred". But that's not the case. I also don't buy their incessant Holocaust dogma, because Abraham Foxman clearly showed his position on the Armenian Genocide. I think I've answered your question. Back to MacDonald. MacDonald has been defamed a lot simply because he dares to speak about Jewish political power. If you think Kevin MacDonald is an antisemite, that's your opinion, not Wikipedia's. He should only be listed under category antisemitism if he exclaims something like "all jews should be killed" or anything along those lines. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You've again shared your vile anti-Semitic views, EliasAlucard, but havent explained what made you such a Jew hater. skip it. If you see anything libelous in this article about Macdonald, take it to an appropriate forum, like BLP. Otherwise, you should probably stop wasting talk page space venting your hatreds. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, but that slanderous lie about "hate" doesn't wash any more. I firmly stand by my words that they should be criticised for their political actions, regardless of if it's the Palestinians or whatever else they're involved in, politically. To call it "hatred" is ridiculous, and if you keep twisting it into hatred – when it's not hatred – there might come a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour, because people like you misuse these words of shame to silence (valid) criticism of Jews every single time. I think you're insulting your own intelligence here by accusing me of hatred. You're simply not willing to discuss this issue in a reasonable manner, but rather, resort to personal attacks simply because you cannot debate this issue. Also, is there any reason why you labelled Kevin MacDonald with ethnic supremacy? He's arguably ethnocentric, but how is he a supremacist? You're seriously trying to misrepresent him here. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like that in your hate-poisoned little world, EliasAlucard, "a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour" has already arrived. Ethnosupremacism category is justified by among other things the following quote: "We should never forget and should be immensely proud of the fact that Western societies act as magnets precisely because of the spectacular success of the peoples of European descent in creating the science and technology that is the basis for the incredible explosion of wealth and the breakthroughs in medicine and public health." Stop reverting blindly without discussion. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you, Boodlesthecat, would cease putting words in my mouth and voice my alleged opinions – opinions I don't share. I can speak for myself and I don't need you telling me what I believe. No, I don't want Jews to be hated. I think, however, that calling valid criticism of Jewish political movements "hatred," will only lead to more hatred of Jews, in the long haul. Why? Because you're making them immune of criticism that way. And what happens when people become impervious to criticism? The answer is that they become more hated because of their actions, since they can do no wrong because they never get criticised. Is it at all possible, to criticise Jews in your world, or do you see "hatred" everywhere? About the category. Your rationale is simply not acceptable. MacDonald is stating the obvious. Most of the technological inventions today (and wealth that comes as a result of it) were created and developed by Europeans or people of European descent. Of course not entirely by Europeans. But, people of European ethnic descent, were largely responsible for a lot of the science and other technical inventions created during the 19th and 20th century. There's no supremacy in stating a fact. You think he's an ethnic supremacist because he is critical of Jews, that's your opinion. Don't interpret a fact MacDonald discusses into ethnic supremacy. If this is the rationale used to categorise people as white supremacist, ethnic supremacist, etc., then we really need to check the other articles and why they're labelled that way. To categorise MacDonald as an ethnic supremacist because he discussed Europeans' contribution to science and medicine, is WP:OR. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting blindly without discussion. — From WP:BLP: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. Sorry man, but categorising him as an ethnic supremacist over a POV just doesn't cut it. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, EliasAlucard, stop spewing anti-Semitic crap on the talk page

What part of the rule that the Talk Page is not a place to spew your vile opinions don't you understand, EliasAlucard? And am I putting words in your mouth when you post anti-Semitic crap on [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4968410&postcount=10 Nazi websites?]. Stop playing the same games Macdonald does and just admit youre a Nazi supporter. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no Nazi supporter. Posting on stormfront does not mean you're a Nazi supporter. I reject Nazism on the same basis as Zionism: same shit, different name. Both Zionism and Nazism reject Christianity, and both are supremacist ideologies of the same nature, and there's no real difference between them. Kevin MacDonald, describes Nazism as a group evolutionary strategy against Judaism, which is a quite accurate description as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, forums like Stormfront are the only forums where you can openly discuss Zionist influence, which means that forums like those are the only places where you can be critical of Jewish power. Other than that though, I oppose Islam, Communism, Nazism and Zionism, due to the extreme and potential danger of these ideologies, as well as their anti-Christianity nature (all mentioned ideologies are in one way or the other, hostile to Christianity). And may I remind you, I'm an Assyrian and I live in Sweden. Supporting Nazis isn't exactly beneficial to my situation. Also, all my posts on that forum are related to Jews; I couldn't really give a shit about Nazism as an ideology, other than my personal interest in various nationalist ideologies (of which both Nazism and Zionism are included). If anything, you could say I'm an Assyrian nationalist (and I believe in ethnopluralism for all human races, as opposed to the typical Nazi concept of Social Darwinism; which is extremely dangerous if implemented in reality). I'm also, of Semitic descent, and that's very, very incompatible with Nazism. Kevin MacDonald, on the other hand, is no Nazi supporter. He has a large following among neo-Nazis, obviously, because he has written three irrefutable books on Jewish political power. He also has sympathy from Hisham Tillawi,[17] and just about anyone else who is critical of Jewish political influence. You, Boodlesthecat, live in a childlike world where it's inconceivable to be critical of Jewish political influence, and any criticism of Jewish power – valid and rational as it may be – is equalled with the magic word, "hatred", in lack of real arguments. You don't have to believe me, but I honestly don't hate Jews. I greatly admire Jews like Jim Steinman, Stan Lee, and many others. I am simply critical of their political double standards and their blatant hypocrisy. I think that criticism is a good thing, as long as it's valid and honest criticism, and the one being criticised is mature enough to handle it and won't shriek "antisemitism" every five seconds in reflex. MacDonald has so far sampled mature and honest criticism of Jewish power. He doesn't make stuff up and he doesn't adhere to bizarre theories like Ashkenazi Jews being the "Khazar" converts to Judaism, and other similar false theories often used by neo-Nazis. I understand, however, that you, finding opinions like those of MacDonald's, "offensive" and "objectionable", take every cheap shot chance you can get to mislabel him and dirty up his name by adding the supremacist categories and similar dirty tricks, in order to ruin his credibility because you don't like his message. For some reason you think you're doing a good thing by trying to sully his name like this. It's no coincidence that MacDonald's research has resulted in the Culture of Critique series. Anyone seriously and honestly, without bias, investigating Jews and Judaism over its long history, will get the same results as those of MacDonald. Bottom line is, don't accuse me of being a Nazi supporter when you don't know me and don't know what you're talking about. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, EliasAlucard, for an extremely humorous post that irrefutably confirms my suspicions. So youre not a Nazi, you just post attacks on Jews on Nazi websites because the evil Jews have made it impossible to critique Jews anywhere else. OK! I can see why you so vhemently defend Macdonald--like you, he feels the Nazis had no choice but to do what they did because of Jewish behavior. In any case, you might want to learn a lesson from Macdonald's fate. no duobt he, like you, will continue to blame Jews for the response to his "ideas," rather than take responsibility for promulgating discrediting Nazi crap. And your rather rather thin obfuscations above are pretty transparent, EliasAlucard; the Nazi debasement of language is pretty well understood and fools no one except the fools. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

More nonsense. MacDonald reads Jewish ethnocentrism like an open book. He knows Jews better than they know themselves. For your information, I got banned from Jihad Watch recently for daring to be critical of Jews (you know, "Jihad Watch", that impartial and extremely objective website which promotes criticism of Islam – some even say "hatred" – yet bans everyone who even dares to suggest that Halal and Kosher slaughter is the same thing). And guess what?!?! David Horowitz happens to be involved in Jihad Watch. Yeah right, Jews really allow people to speak their minds on everything. This thought control nonsense has got to stop. If Jews like Alon Ziv wouldn't be promoting miscegenation for gentiles (and they never promote miscegenation for Jews, of course) like it was the next best thing, people like Kevin MacDonald would have no case against them, and people wouldn't have a problem with Jews, and people like me wouldn't be posting on Stormfront complaining about it. As it is right now, Kevin MacDonald has accused them in his trilogy of promoting miscegenation, and guess what? He's right about it. Thanks for the LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii by the way, interesting reading. Not that it matters anyway. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the only time I hear the word "miscegenation" is when it comes out of the mouths of Nazis and KKKers. Which one are you? Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither one of them (although both have at times, valid criticism of Jews). Miscegenation is a valid word, right? In any case, this is not a forum, and we should end the discussion here. You know my views on this subject, and from now on, stick to discussing MacDonald and how to improve the article. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look back on how this started, EliasAlucard, it was from my request that you keep your anti-Semitic crap off the talk page. And of course miscegenation is a "valid" word, used currently almost solely by racists, Nazis, white supremacists and the like. So I'm not surprised that it was the word you chose. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist maniac, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence. By the way, as far as the "miscegenation" thing is concerned, Jews are 100 times more ethnocentric and more racially conscious than Hitler and his henchmen ever were. Let's not forget Israel's racialist laws.[18] I don't know what the heck you're complaining about. Your Jewish idols aren't any better, and you should follow through with your logic and accuse them of the same thing you seem to think the Nazis are the "bad buys in your neighbourhood". But hey, you being impartial and everything just can't be honest enough to do that, because you get "offended". — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain something to your diseased Nazi brain, EliasAlucard--"pro-Jewish" is not the opposite of "anti-semitic." Your Nazi ass will rot in hell before you will tell me what to keep out of an article that you are soiling with your Nazi crap. Dig? Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, mr. Hypocrite. You know what I'm saying is the truth. You just can't handle the truth, that Zionists are the ultimate Nazis. I don't really care what you want to believe in that naïve world view of yours. Just don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of "Holocaust instigator" "white supremacist" or anything like that, and we got a deal. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Noope. Longstanding policy is no deals with Nazis, because they lie and cannot be trusted. Sorry. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding policy is no deals with Nazis, because they lie and cannot be trusted — I think that's a reasonable and sound policy. Make sure you live up to it by including your beloved Zionists in that same policy, or else you're not a man of your word. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Personal attacks are simply not tolerated. Discuss regarding content, not of other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about anti-Semitic claptrap? Is that tolerated? Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, jsut stop it. I know your trying to lighten the mood here but its not working. EliasAlucard is obviously not an antisemite; maybe hes and anti-zionist but he just said he was an antinazi. and even if he was an antisemite it has no relvent on his work here as long as his additions are valid. if you have such a huge problem with eliasalucards' presence here you should take it to WP:COIN. Smith Jones (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I'm not an antisemite. I even, as an Assyrian, consider Jews to be very closely related to my ancestry. However, I subscribe to the same school of thought as Kevin MacDonald (i.e., some "antisemitism" can be rational). I am very happy for the sake of the Jewish people that they have managed to reacquire their ancient homeland, and I wish some day, the Assyrian independence becomes a reality too. However, I also, realise that there are serious issues with many nationalist Jews (often, so called Zionists), who preach double standards and let's face it, many Jews dislike – yes even hate – us goyim. But that doesn't mean I want all Jews to be killed or anything. All I'm saying, is that they should be criticised so that they can improve themselves. I also think it's a shame, in a way. Because Jews are talented, intelligent, and can contribute with a lot of good to the world (they certainly have the potential to do so). They simply need to knock it off with all this warmongering and start realising that criticism can be valuable. People should stop shielding them from criticising with the use of ad hominem attacks like "Nazi" or "ANTISEMITE"; they're never going to better themselves as long as they can attack anyone with these personal attacks. In other words, all Jews, "get your shit together" and we can live in a better world. I think the golden rule is something they should follow: do to others what you would have them do to you. On a side note, Muslims and Islam need a lot of criticism too. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Work with wolves

I removed the material about how he started his career studing wolves since the cite does not support that. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what the source states verbatim: The man’s a professor of psychology at Cal State Long Beach who used to study wolves, and then one day switched to Jews. For reasons inexplicable to me, his work on wolves attracted rather less attention than his work on Jews.[19] I've corrected the statement to reflect this in the article. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this even relevant? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that sentence was removed as redundant. Can that whole miscellaneous section be incorporated into the article?--70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i think so, although we chsould wait until they have been incorporate dbefore doing anything hasty or drastic. Smith Jones (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians

I think this article puts a lot of focus on his work on Jews. He has apparently been doing some study on Assyrians, according to this site,[20] and according to his résumé.[21] I don't have access to this paper but if anyone can search on jstor.com or anywhere else and find this paper, it would be great if we can devote a section to his work on Assyrians (in contrast to his work on Jews). It would also be cool if we could find some more sources regarding his work on overseas Chinese and devote a section to that as well. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i'll take a look. one thing that we cant to know make sure we dont do is try to overinflate random section sof the article purely for balance purposes. the key part of writing any article is proportion;w e should look at how much work he went studying Jews, how much work he spent on wolves, how much work he spent on Assyrians, and try to see how much time he spent proportionally with each and allocate space as neede.d i'll go and look for his work on Assyria and hopefully there should be enough about it to create a good section. Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not about balance to me. I just want to know what he has to say about Assyrians (since I'm Assyrian). I bought his book trilogy recently and I'm going to read through it all soon, and perhaps after that, I can work more seriously on this article and become sort of a MacDonald expert, hehe. But it would be of great value to me if his work on Assyrians could be dug up because I'm interested in what he has to say. Of course, however, his work on Assyrians isn't nearly as much as on Jews. He has, however, in his article mentioned Assyrians and Jewish relations: Indeed, a recent article on Assyrians in the U.S. shows that many Jews have not forgiven or forgotten events of 2,700 years ago, when the Northern Israelite kingdom was forcibly relocated to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: “Some Assyrians say Jews are one group of people who seem to be more familiar with them. But because the Hebrew Bible describes Assyrians as cruel and ruthless conquerors, people such as the Rev. William Nissan say he is invariably challenged by Jewish rabbis and scholars about the misdeeds of his ancestors.”[22] Is this something we can use in the article? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that quote is entirely non-notable. We don't need to put every Jew baiting quote Macdonald has ever written into this article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is quite notable considering the context MacDonald is discussing (i.e., Jews having nukes and still haven't forgotten Assyrians, in over two thousand years, and will probably nuke Rome and other European nations over the Holohoax). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Edits

Someone has removed him from the category Scholars of antisemitism. This is clearly not neutral, as he has written numerous books and magazine articles on the subject of antisemitism, whether you agree with his analysis or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesandalio (talk • contribs)

Section on neo-Nazis et al is irrelevant

Neonazis, no doubt, also support the view that the world is round. Some probably support Darwin, some support creationism, some support the Constitution, some don't. This isn't an article about them. It's an article about Macdonald and HIS work. Veritasailor (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Macdonald's following among neo-nazis, white supremacists, KKKers, etc is notable; it's probably one of the most notable things about him. It's the only venue where HIS work is accepted. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an absurd contention. The man is a full professor, he's written three extremely long, detailed scholarly books, and a multitude of scholarly articles. Perhaps we don't like his findings or his subject matter. Nevertheless, his work is accepted widely among his academic peers and will quite likely be viewed as important by future academics. Your statement that white supremacist views of his work is the most notable thing about him betrays your own significant bias and disqualifies you as competent to edit an article about him. Wikipedia doesn't need people with an axe to grind manipulating its articles, it needs people with a devotion to information.

Wikipedia guidelines state:

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

Boodlesthecat is in serious violation of this important philosophy and practice. He has shown that he is opposed to Macdonald philosophically and personally.

In addition, Wikipedia guidelines state:

"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics"

Boodles the cat insists on inserting damaging, irrelevant material. In addition, he emphasizes the statements of critics of Macdonald who have not even read his books! How valuable is their criticism?

The point is to tell about Macdonald and his work. It will either stand the test of public scrutiny or it will not. The job of Wikipedia is to accurately give this information. His work will defeat itself or not. It's not up to boodlesthecat to do it, much as he would like to.

Again, Wikipedia emphasizes:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Veritasailor (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than attacking me, and calling me incompetent, and dousing the talk page with bold faced cut and pasted policies with which I am quite familiar, can you back up statements such as "his work is accepted widely among his academic peers and will quite likely be viewed as important by future academics."? As a new editor to Wikipedia, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with some rules, and also supply some well sourced research that you feel can improve an artcile, rather than jump in on your first edits attacking other editors. I'd suggest you take a look at the no personal attacks guidelines as well. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a giant section on "neo-nazi praise of MacDonald" but nothing on Jimmy Carter, who received praise, from white supremacists and neo-nazis according to the ADL (a cite which was provided)? Carter, as an ex-president, certainly has more visibility and influence on the general public. Yet, even a single sentence devoted to the issue for Carter is immediately removed, while the Wikipedia people (fans? editors? not sure) insist on a huge section for MacDonald. The claim that Carter is antisemitic is widespread, although probably not well founded. However mentioning it is acceptable, since that charge has been made. In the same vein, a small mention of the neo-nazi praise is perhaps fair (as long as it is consistent with the treatment of other bios). It would seem that if Wikipedia devotes this much space to MacDonald being praised by Neo-Nazis, the same space should be devoted to an ex-President who also received their praise. Or ... both should be small mentions ... or not at all .. but it should be consistent across the board. --Jeffmaylortx (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would we add something about Carter to this article? If you want to discuss the Jimmy Carter article, then use talk:Jimmy Carter. There is an obvious difference between a relatively obscure professor and a US president. Whatever praise Carter may have received from neo-Nazis is only a small fraction of the views of him. OTOH, MacDonald's relations with racialist and Holocaust denial groups and individuals count for a relatively large proportion of his notability.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The ADL doesn't think it's a minor issue with regard to Carter. They have commented on it extensively. As has the State of Israel. It would seem the worldwide reaction to Carter's views on Israel and Jews in general was very significant. So yes, it is appropriate to talk about it on the Carter page, which I have, which of course the citation has already been removed by a person or an editor or whoever. So absolutely no mention allowed on Carter page, yet MacDonald has a small treatise on it? Seems a wee bit unbalanced. Interesting that the heading was changed to accommodate the additional inflammatory material. Is it of interest to the reader what every last stormfront person did at some meeting? Seems like that material could be part of a citation if someone want to look it up, with a simple summary that some extremists like his work. Is Wikipedia interested in balanced and responsible bios for living persons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmaylortx (talk • --Jeffmaylortx (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)contribs) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The material you removed concerned David Irving. MacDonald's appearance at that trial on behalf of Irving has been noted repeatedly. Deleting it outright, despite the excellent sources, is inappropriate. This biography should certainly be balanced, and if we omit the noted events in the subject's life then it would be unbalanced.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality

Should articles that are on the monitored by notorious Zionist agitators be automatically considered for revision with respect to neutrality? It seems articles about individuals or works that question the tribe are typically suppressed and sanitized through crude procedural tricks and arm twisting. Why does Wikipedia do such a poor job of restricting the activities of interest groups? Please note that this is an attempt to remove the stains of bias from this article in an effort to improve it. Thanks 173.34.108.86 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I notice that you are contributing from an IP address. Several editors tend to ignore or heavily discount discussion from IP addresses due to the fact that they tend to be focused on single purposes and tend to go away. Please consider registering for an account so you can be afforded the same protections that other editors have. I have also noticed that your complaint contains several prejudicial words and phrases. Please consider refactoring your complaint as you seem to have a strong opinion about this article. Please also review the wikipedia policies on

• Neutral Point of View
• Original Research
• Civility
• No Personal Attacks
• Race & Intelligence Article Sanctions

Once you have reviewed these please reconsider your actions as they are bordering on the line of being actionable through multiple discretionary sanctions issues. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find words like "agitator" prejudicial. It does not seem rational. I am still debating whether it is worth my time to open an account, as I pointed out above, Wikipedia does a poor job of regulating coordinated subversive political groups like the pro-Israel group. And since I am not part of any such group, it would be difficult combating this bias alone through Wikipedia's procedures. I also noticed that you are focusing on my form, rather than the content of the message. If you have nothing relevant to contribute, please withhold from the discussion. 173.34.108.86 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This talkpage is for discussing how to improve the article about Kevin B MacDonald - not for general discussion of wikipedia policies or for casting aspersions on other editors. In short your message is not relevant here, and unless you are able to turn it into a constructive proposal rather than a simple accusation of bad faith against an undefined group of editors, I don't think there is any place on wikipedia that it is.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My proposal, if shown any interest, would help to make this particular article much less biased to a particular set of beliefs and thus provide an overall higher quality of reading. It is very much relevant. 173.34.108.86 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)