Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:05, 14 June 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist), along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Start‑class

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history B‑class High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

University of Connecticut B‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Connecticut, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject University of ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject University of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Religion: Interfaith B‑class Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:Vital article

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist

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

Indeed, and given that this is placed in the beginning it is poisoning the well. None of those terms are descriptive of a person, which e.g. would be the work he does or the field that he studied. The "White Supremacist" gets ridiculous in the light of who Kevin MacDonald is in real life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCxSRjw-qMo --105.0.6.41 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there are citations from "reputable" sources that call Kevin MacDonald a very bad icky man, so apparently Wikipedia is entirely justified in damaging someone's reputation. I don't even know how one can rightly declare a person's main public quality as a "conspiracy theorist" or a supremacist. Is that truly the most fair and accurate way to represent him? I look at other controversial scholars just as unfavorable to a group of people as Kevin MacDonald could ever be described to be, such as Ibrim X. Kendi, and I see "is an American author, professor, anti-racist activist, and historian of race and discriminatory policy in America." Note how his anti-white sentiments are never mentioned even though that is a prime direction of his writing, and that the racial component of his work comes after the fundamental descriptor of "author, professor". So not only is biased, the order is reversed and actively poisons the well, as mentioned. It seems Wikipedia is clearly biased on this issue. Anyone who has been around the block will not find this bias against any non-Jewish white with possibly unfavorable views on any nonwhite/Jew surprising, but it is quite sad to see such a stark contrast in presentation with so little effort on my part. If the mere possibility that someone has views that could be construed as negative towards a group of people is so noteworthy that it is considered the principle characteristic of a person, despite what they say their views are, imagine what descriptors could be given to a website and its individual editors that purport to be educational and unbiased yet so negatively characterize one individual (MacDonald) with such flagrant bias. One apparently is hate speech and other is "unbiased educational reporting". With mainstream educational content like this, I really can't imagine why Kevin MacDonald started doing the work he did!

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

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

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

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

then it should stay the way it is, if not, then it should be changed. Right now I see the Russian as well as the German Wikipedia leads are very different from the lede here and I'd note that in general, the entry in the Russian Wikipedia has a much more objectine tone than the one here has, which you can easily check by using Google Translate.

Activist groups' like the SPLC and ADF opinions in the lede are clearly not sufficient. --Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experts in antisemitism are the right groups to provide views on antisemitism. What the German or Russian Wikipedia articles say is absolutely irrelevant to what is in our article, and "much more objective tone" seems like a personal opinion. Additional sources could include:

Anti-semitism: A History and Psychoanalysis of Contemporary Hatred, Avner Falk, ABC-CLIO, 2008, pp 103-104
David Isador Lieberman "Evolutionary Psychology" in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1 (Richard S. Levy, Dean Phillip Bell eds.), 2008, pp 215-216
Antisemitism: Exploring the Issue, Steven Leonard Jacobs, ABC-CLIO, 2020 p 113
"American Racist", David Samuels, Tablet Magazine, June 11, 2020

This appears to be the academic consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here

IP 2001:569:5177:2900:9153:45DB:921A:48A3 is of course welcome to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. As should be clear from the fact that they've been reverted by three other editors (not to mention the discussions above which hinge on similar issues), consensus appears to be strongly against the changes they wish to make. While it's true that statements by the ADL and SPLC usually need to be attributed, in this case they are far from the only sources making the same claims. In cases such as this one, where there are abundant reliable sources stating the same thing, the reader is not served by equivocation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 This is a label of judgment and can no way be considered neutral. Non-neutrality hurts the wikipedia project regardless of how much you detest someone's views.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.249.100.137|63.249.100.137]] ([[User talk:63.249.100.137#top|talk]]) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ::: Indeed, and given that this is placed in the beginning it is poisoning the well. None of those terms are descriptive of a person, which e.g. would be the work he does or the field that he studied. The "White Supremacist" gets ridiculous in the light of who Kevin MacDonald is in real life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCxSRjw-qMo --[[Special:Contributions/105.0.6.41|105.0.6.41]] ([[User talk:105.0.6.41|talk]]) 09:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
+::::::Yes but there are citations from "reputable" sources that call Kevin MacDonald a very bad icky man, so apparently Wikipedia is entirely justified in damaging someone's reputation. I don't even know how one can rightly declare a person's main public quality as a "conspiracy theorist" or a supremacist. Is that truly the most fair and accurate way to represent him? I look at other controversial scholars just as unfavorable to a group of people as Kevin MacDonald could ever be described to be, such as Ibrim X. Kendi, and I see "is an American author, professor, anti-racist activist, and historian of race and discriminatory policy in America." Note how his anti-white sentiments are never mentioned even though that is a prime direction of his writing, and that the racial component of his work comes after the fundamental descriptor of "author, professor". So not only is biased, the order is reversed and actively poisons the well, as mentioned. It seems Wikipedia is clearly biased on this issue. Anyone who has been around the block will not find this bias against any non-Jewish white with possibly unfavorable views on any nonwhite/Jew surprising, but it is quite sad to see such a stark contrast in presentation with so little effort on my part. If the mere possibility that someone has views that could be construed as negative towards a group of people is so noteworthy that it is considered the principle characteristic of a person, despite what they say their views are, imagine what descriptors could be given to a website and its individual editors that purport to be educational and unbiased yet so negatively characterize one individual (MacDonald) with such flagrant bias. One apparently is hate speech and other is "unbiased educational reporting". With mainstream educational content like this, I really can't imagine why Kevin MacDonald started doing the work he did!
 == "A New Protocols: Kevin MacDonald's Reconceptualization of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory" ==