Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 1

message: The Yahoo group referenced as a resource  is set to invited members-only. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll delete it as inaccessible.  -Willmcw 20:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete after all, but added 'invitation only' since it is inaccessible. While I was editing I made some organizational changes - some of the sentences and clauses had gotten out of logical order - and added some objective facts. -Willmcw 06:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccessible resource 

message: :MacDonald also neglects the fact that intermarriage rates between Jews and non-Jews in Europe and North America are significantly higher than that of numerous other religious and ethnic groups (see Silent Holocaust). He also ignores the 19th century Haskalah movement that sought to integrate Jews into European society and the move by many in the Jewish community before World War II in favour of assimilation, including the widespread conversion to Christianity of upper-class and middle-class Jews in Britain, France, and Germany in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His alleged tendency to dismiss or ignore evidence that contradicts his thesis and cherry-pick evidence that might support his thesis leads to accusations that MacDonald is guilty of tunnel vision.
::Where are references for these criticisms? Links to people who have made them would be good, as would proof that he has actually ignored those points -- has anyone who contributes to this page actually read his books? Jacquerie27
That has become a moot point because Professor MacDonald has apparently swamped the criticism by several hundred words of rebuttal. This article is growing into an autobiography by the professor. Maybe we ought to create a MacDonald responds to his critics section for his additions. I notice that he has not deigned to discuss his changes.  -Willmcw 19:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism references

message: What is the basis for the section starting:
MacDonald's views are compatible with the views of many evolutionary scientists, including:
which goes on to lists three books? On who's authority do we know that they are compatible with MacDonald's theory, and is being compatible the same as supporting? -Willmcw 18:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, have you read the references? I spent a couple hours researching this guy, and I found tons of support from others in his field, and precious little criticism, mainly coming from non-psychologists, and w/o a technical focus "nothing but gussied-up anti-Semitism" is typical. The support section will be expanded, when I, or others get around to it. Until then, do some research, its not hard. Even that anti-MacDonald MSN article has alot of useful info. Cheers,  18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So you vouch for these three authors agreeing with MacDonald by name? What does compatible with mean in this context? I think that is a poor choice of words. Agree, have similar ideas, or somthing like that would be more useful. I suppose the works of Isaac Newton are compatible with MacDonald too. ;)  (PS, I've done more than a couple of hours of research. Thanks for the suggestion though). Cheers,  -Willmcw 19:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support?

message: Alot of this section should be merged into Jewish ethnocentrism. I'll probably do that once things settle down.  21:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Per 'Talk' discussions here and on Jewish ethnocentrism, several editors agree that the material should be merged, either here or there. Do you really think it'll settle down? -Willmcw 21:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, please don't add back in MacDonald's edits unless you are willing to vouch for the research yourself, or discuss it as we have asked MacDonald to do. This is not a vanity page for MacDonald to express his 'feelings'. -Willmcw 21:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a merger has to take place, I think this page is best, because this is the one MacDonald knows about and visits. Jacquerie27 22:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Whoever the anon is, they provided citations. Anyways, you did a good job w the rebuttels section. Things usually settle down BTW, and if nothing else people move on. I have to admit some pages seem almost perpetually chaotic however, and sometimes I am the one to move on. When good editers move off, and partisans, trolls and etc... take over... its certainly not good for the article. Thats a meta question, and not something I think we can expect to solve here. I'm always willing to talk about stuff, BTW, so long as the conversation is civil and productive. Cheers,  21:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon claims to be Kevin MacDonald, as you can see from his edit record. This is the only article he has edited. Certainly, he provides citations, including copying material verbatim from his papers. But his theories are original research, and posting his theories here as such violates a basic rule of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone objects to MacDonald adding factual info, like his birthdate, or correcting factual errors. But adding, repeatedly, lengthy paragraphs of information supporting his theories, without any attmept to discuss despite numerous requests, is bad editing. MacDonald is a partisan of the most direct kind, which is why it's better for biography subjects to avoid editing their own articles. Thanks for the kind words about the rebuttal section. I don't like deleting material, but the other criticisms had turned into a Why I'm right section. Since we can't get MacDonald to "play with others", at least we can give him a sandbox of his own. -Willmcw 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't agree, especially since I don't assume the anon is Kevin B. MacDonald. Sure, he might be, but he could be anybody, even one of us.  23:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is not MacDonald then he is a liar pretending to be that person, which is a whole other problem, perhaps even more serious. Rather than get into that, we should assume that he is who he says he is, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. -Willmcw 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the accepted technique for authenticating a Wiki identity as a wider-world identity? Jim Bowery 23:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes up occasionally when people use celebrity names for their usernames, which is the opposite problem. In any case, the first step is simply to ask, "are you the person you claim to be?" If this were Britney Spears, or some such, the next step would be to ask for an email to be sent from the celebrity's official website, giving validation. That probably wouldn't be necessary here, unless somebody is very skeptical. We can post a note on the IP's talk page, but so far there is no indication that he reads it. If he got a username, that would help too. -Willmcw 23:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely no reason to doubt this is Kevin MacDonald, and many reasons to believe it is. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kevin_B._MacDonald#Other_criticisms|Other criticisms]] 

message: Have these personal rebuttals been published anywhere, in any journal or book? If not then they break the  No original research rule and don't belong in the article. AndyL 21:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if we cite Kevin B. MacDonald, rather than him citing himself.  22:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who actually writes the content doesn't matter. If I were a friend of MacDonald's, and I know from talking to him that he believes X, Y, and Z, writing that is still original research if I can't cite the views in some other published source. Wikipedia should not present new facts, opinions, or information that are not already available elsewhere. -- Schaefer 23:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Have these personal rebuttals been published anywhere, in any journal or book? If not then they break the No original research rule and don't belong in the article. More importantly, they break the Nothing User:AndyL wishes to drop down the memory hole rule. The only person who can answer that question is KM himself. At least some of them have very likely been published. Jacquerie27 22:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MacDonald's personal rebuttals or original research?