Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Kevin B. MacDonald, has edited Wikipedia as User:68.5.18.103.
  • (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Note: 2005 discussion topics are available in Archive 2 and pre-2005 discussion topics in Archive 1.

Contents

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] SPLC investigation

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/v/Talk%7EKevin_B._MacDonald_442b.html"