Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin B. MacDonald article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia meta-reference

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

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

Yes, of course you are correct. But see above for the absurd arguments made for its inclusion. Lotsa luck! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all "public figures" are controversial like Kevin MacDonald. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
i sm a completley unbiased party in this debate but looking at the state of th talk page it is clear the that the article itself must be appalling eventhough I will not bother reading it. the amount of anti-Dr MacDonald bias and pro-Dr McDonald defenses is confusing to any new reader and could serve the unfrotunate porpoise of alienating who ever comes to this talk page hoping for a rational and well-seasoend dicussion of the issues regarding content and verifiability at hand. Smith Jones (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There's not much pro-MacDonald content in the article. It's not like this is a flattering article of him. And a widely quoted source in this article is the SPLC, which is a political nemesis of MacDonald. I think the SPLC source should be cited more carefully. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
i am referring to the talkpage. I know the article tiself is probably heavily biased towards anti, but that tends to be the trend in any alternative medicine, dissident science, or anything remotely controveral regarding science around here. Smith Jones (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. One source that is widely quoted is the SPLC,[1] and we need to use more of the {{citequote}}, {{specify}}, and similar tags. SPLC is a political adversary of MacDonald, and we simply need a more neutral source than that. MacDonald himself has been complaining about misrepresentation from the SPLC, and it's just not nice to cite the SPLC as an authority in his biography. They oppose him and are very likely not going to give him a fair treatment. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

If you could add more of that material then that'd be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[2] 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)

[edit] 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,[3] and according to his résumé.[4] 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.”[5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Former leftist

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

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