Jump to content

Talk:The Culture of Critique series/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"What exactly does this second sentence mean/imply?"

I just added the above title for obvious reasons. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jews have made important contributions in all divisions of science [17]. Their prominent role in sociology or marxism can be explained by this. Other Jews have been prominent as defenders of capitalism or in medical research.

What exactly does this second sentence mean/imply? That scientists are Marxists? That contributing to science makes you prominent in sociology? I'm fairly confused. --Fastfission 03:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • And how on earth could Judaism “[foster] in Jews a series of marked genetic traits”? Does he really argue this (in which the man is ignorant of basic genetic theory), or is it a mistake made by an editor of this article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This line seems to have been copied from an article by a critic, David Lieberman, "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques". [1] Apparently Lieberman is a history professor, so he may well have misstated MacDonald's thesis as it relates to "fostering" "marked genetic traits". [2] -Willmcw 23:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obvious Original Research

I've commented out some of the obvious Original Research, but much more needs to be removed. This article should be about MacDonald's theories, and published criticisms of them, not original research by Wikipedia editors wishing to defend or disprove MacDonalds theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 February 2005 (UTC)

Jewish enthnocentrism again

User:Mikkalai has created Jewish enthnocentrism again and has redirected it to this page [3]; additionally, s/he added a bolded sentence about Jewish enthnocentrism to this article. I've reverted the edit to this article and deleted the redirect, but I don't know whether that was the right thing to do, or whether there was an agreement to do this that I'm not aware of. I'm going to ask on WP:AN for clarification. SlimVirgin 05:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with the "Jewish enthn" article as it stood, the term itself is in circulation and hence deserves an explanation. Redirect to this guy's book does the job. We have articles about nasty things, misconceptions, snake oil, etc.; hey, even about blood libel. J.E. is of the ilk. Mikkalai 06:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted again. My confusion is simply about how a VfD that can be so clearly opposed to retaining or redirecting the article, then suddenly it appears as a redirect anyway. I'm still not sure why you did it, but no matter. SlimVirgin 18:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. You've created it again. You're being a vandal here in my estimation, Mikkalai. SlimVirgin 18:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Moving all the text to author page

I propose moving ALL this material to Kevin B. MacDonald, since it's about his theories and books. After doing so, I'll consider whether to move back just that portion about the single book Culture of Critique. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, this was just all moved out of Kevin B. MacDonald a couple of weeks ago. Why are you undoing all this work without gaining consensus. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the talk page and didn't see anything about that. Anyway, The Culture of Critique should be about that particular book. There is no such topic as Culture of Critique, is there? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
It was moved so that the MacDonald article could be a relatively non-controversial article about him, whereas this could be an article about his (in)famous theories. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reviewers, critics, and MacDonald himself generally treat his trilogy as a unit. Unfortunately, no overall name has ever arisen to refer to the body of work (which has swollen to four with a recently published monograph). While the title may not adequately reflect that, I'm sure the editors are open to a title-change. That would be much better than adding all the material back to the bio. Please read the long discussions of this on the bio talk page. -21:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Given the large amount of time and effort that has gone into editing this, I don't understand why Ed Poor is making this move unilaterally. It goes against the consensus of the other editors. I think that reverting it until a discussion occurs would be appropriate. -Willmcw 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon, guys: at least read the new version. I put hours of work into it. At least a 10-minute skim? Please? :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Do you know how many hours of work that went into the previous version? If you tell me you've read all the talk pages, and their archives, then I'd be more sympathetic. That said, your version may well be better. If so, let's move it back here. -Willmcw 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, please note the fate of your text move to Frankfurt School. There, too, the talk page has seen repeated disussions over MacDonald. There's nothing wrong with "being bold" and bringing a fresh sensibility, but also be aware that these are issues that have been extensively discussed. (Don't forget to add back the Frankfurt info to the MacD. bio). Cheers, -Willmcw 21:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right, Stirling deleted MacD's views as "non notable non specific information"; I saw that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The current version Kevin B. MacDonald presents in integrated description of author's views based on the three books. Tearing out a single book here could disrupt the integrated logic. If you have a reason to strongly assert that CofC book is an independent and standalone subject, then its discussion may be cut off into a separate article. Sometimes it is reasonable, sometimes not. But the argument about "time spent" is invalid.

Therefore I suggest to confine the discussion to one simple question:

  • Is CofC book a standalone issue in Kevin's worldview, or its separate consideration will sever the logic in the description of Kevin's positions?

If the postion was already concluded in previous discussions, please say so. Of course, I know about RTFM, but a simple eys/no may spare time reading lenghty discussions for some of us. Mikkalai 22:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you'd read the discussion, you'd know that the article is not on one book, but on his set of books on the topic. And yes, the editors reached the conclusion that this scholarship (which is not MacDonald's scholastic field) is best handled in an article of its own. Otherwise it totally swamps his biography, which created problems in the past. As for the time it takes you to read the discussions, your concern about time spent is "invalid". ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see; and I did find the time to scroll thru the stuff. IMO the article did not match the title. AFAIK "CofC" is the tithe of a book. If this title gave rise to a term "CofC", then its meaning was not explained. I saw on google the usage, kind of "the phenomenon that Kevin Macdonald calls the “culture of critique", but some authors attribute different meanings to it, and some of them are even putting wrong words into McDon's mouth. neither old, nor Ed's version give an explanation to thic catch phrase (at least not prominently enough to my skimming eye) Mikkalai 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ed, what the @#$% are you doing? Now the Kevin B. MacDonald article becomes one of the Category:Controversial books brought to you by the letter K. Did you check what you have done? It's been more than 9 or 10 hours and you did not bother to fix it. -- Toytoy 01:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

A term I've seen used most is "MacDonald's trilogy", but that does not sound like a suitable article title. There is no doubt that they are a trilogy, the author often refers to them as such. "This book is the third and final volume developing an evolutionary perspective on Judaism. " (Preface, The Culture of Critique [4]). I propose "The Culture of Critique trilogy" as a better article title, to address recurring concerns that it sounds as if it refers to only one book. --Willmcw 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What if he writes another book? I propose "The Culture of Critique series". -- Toytoy 03:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
That's OK too. In fact, he has written a fourth book, really a collection of articles, arguably on the same thesis. "Series" still makes sense as an entry in a books category. Good suggestion. Before doing a move, let's wait a few hours in case anyone else wants to jump in. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Culture of Critique series sounds good. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Any of these titles for a sidebar article on MacD's views sound good:

Personally, I like Toytoy's proposal (The cc series) as much as my own. Let's just make sure the rejected alternatives all become redirects to the lucky winner. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would not favor "Views", because we aren't interested in his views on all topics. Since there seems to be some consensus on The Culture of Critique series, I'll move this article to that name. -Willmcw 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's all moved, just waiting for Ed Poor to finish his re-write and move it all back over. Thanks. -Willmcw 21:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Will, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Thanks for your organizational help and encouraging remarks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that articles are not supposed to have the word "The" as part of the title? Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Book titles

APTSDA and CofC are pretty catchy phrases. Any explanations of these titles? Mikkalai 00:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I saw something on a MacD page (or a pro-MacD book review?) explaining that "culture of critique" refers to Jewish intellectuals because they criticize or "critique" everything that gets in their way. I'm not sure though.
By the way, I'm starting to get a whiff of double standard in M's views: like, (1) how dare those Jews struggle so hard for survival and/or dominance (no fair!) vs. (2) everyone struggles for survival and dominance, and Judaism is merely one of several very successful examples of this struggle. I'm getting the impression that MacD says BOTH, even though the two ideas clearly contradict each other. Is there anything to this?
Oh, and thanks for moving down the references; now that my grand scheme nearly fulfilled, I appreciate you and others jumping in. It's really been nice of you all to let me take the lead in making such a radical change. I hope it ends up satisfying everyone all around. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why the page ?

I've added a link, but- why this page ? These books just don't deserve the entire page. How about a page about every single dialogue of Plato- a much more rational claim. As it is now, this can be put on MacDonald's page & nothing will be lost.Mir Harven 12:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole point at the time, as I recall it, was to keep the edit wars out of the biography article, and restrict them to this article instead. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Jay is right - we were in an unproductive editing situation in which MacDonald himself was playing a major part. "Deserve" is a tricky claim to establish, but a result of the edititing situation was that the material kept getting longer and longer. Note that this is one article on a series of three (or four) books. We have many articles on single books of even lesser importance. Maybe we should have an article about each of Plato's dialogues, but that is not our standard. We could merge them this article with the MacDonald bio, but I don't see the benefit. -Willmcw 18:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (PS - see Category:Dialogues of Plato for 18 articles)
Willmcw, I see the whole section about immigration in the Kevin B. MacDonald article as belonging here, since its all based on the third book in the series. Another argument in favour of bringing the section here is that that section is the only one in that article which has attracted edit wars. What do you think? Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
OK then. Conciliatory attitude. I can understand/appreciate that, but, let's be frank- these books could have been mentioned in the main article. don't see much point in creating a whole page and rehashing criticism voiced in a few articles that could have appeared as external linx. Mir Harven 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
FYI, prior to the split the MacDonald bio had grown to 4,000 words and was receiving dozens of edits a week. Yes, many of us thought that it was longer than its notability required. What you see now is the result of large amounts of wikitime and effort. Though not perfect, these two articles are "sleeping dogs" that have settled into stability. Let's not re-merge the articles unless there is a clear and compelling reason. -Willmcw 20:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Lesser evil. OK, I can live with that.Mir Harven 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism?

Why was the page added in the category of anti-Semitism? --82.79.53.16 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused as well by that. I think the page should also link to the category of Jewish Supremacism. Barkmoss 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The series takes a negative view of Jewish ethnic influence on the rest of civilization. Does anyone think it is pro-Semitic? -Will Beback 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That's very reductionist of you, must everything be either anti or pro semitic? Why can't the study be merely a study? Neutral. Realist. Unrealist. But irrelevante to anti-semitism, which it is? But perhaps even the guy that does the toast wrong does it because it's "anti-semitism"? Well... i detect some paranoia: a lucid study is merely a lucid studdy.
Just because something isn't a philo-Semitic work doesn't meant that it's automatically anti-Semitic. That's the problem/paradox when writing on Jewish issues -- if a person isn't unabashedly positive towards Jews he/she is immediately labeled as an anti-Semite, i.e. a person isn't allowed to write in a sharp and critical way without been labeled as a 'Jew hater,' even if this is untrue. So, in light of this, I'm removing the category again. --152.163.100.197 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "anti-Semite" is synonymous with "Jew-hater". And I don't think that anyone can argue that the series does not take a negative view of Jewish ethnic influence on the rest of civilization. It's that negative view which merits the category. Also, like it or not, the series is used by others to promote anti-Semitic views. -Will Beback 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The "negative" libel is merely yours, and POV.
Furthermore, one of the key topics of the books, especially CofC, is anti-Semetisim and its causes. For that reason alone the category is appropriate. -Will Beback 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it patently isn't. You seem seriously obssessed about this "Anti-Semitism". To the point you seem incapable of unbiased review of this article.

The name of the second book in the series is Separation and Its Discontents Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Please explain how it could not be relevant to the category "Anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is being lumped in with such books like Mein Kampf and The Protocols. This is a deliberate attempt to associate Dr. MacDonald's scholarly study of Jews and Jewish history with non-scholarly material that was written purely for propaganda. Analysis and even criticism of Jews and Jewish movements is not anti-Semitism. Wikipedia loses credibility when it does stuff like this. 71.158.166.120 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As was said before, a book with "anti-semitism" in the title and with anti-semitism discused throughout logically belongs in an "anti-semitism" category. If a scholar chooses to work in this field then it is natural that his work will appear besides other works about anti-semitism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, WorldCat, a library database, also categorizes the book under "antisemitism"[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned book?

Are these books banned anywhere in the world? {unsigned}

No: They're available: This year I received two of them from Amazon Books. 189.136.167.34 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed sourced material

I removed the criticism by David Lieberman "who has a PhD in musicology from Brandeis University..." because he is in no way an authority evolutionary psychology, and a PhD in musicology hardly qualifies him to forcefully comment on the subject of MacDonald's works. 71.76.134.116 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

MacDonald doesn't have a Ph.D. in this evolutionary psychology either. One doesn't have to be an expert to be a critic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
MacDonald holds a Ph.D. in a related field (biobehavioral sciences) and is a professor of psychology who has worked for years in evolutionary psychology, so he is qualified (even though that's irrelevant--it's not his work that's in question). Lieberman is by no means qualified to comment on these books on the basis of his musicology Ph.D., but rather because he works for Brandeis University and is a researcher in Holocaust studies and anti-Semitism. And you're right, one doesn't have to be an expert to be a critic, but if you aren't an expert then you don't belong in an encyclopedia entry. W.M. O'Quinlan 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism

Do these series belong on the template? --Ludvikus 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The topic of the series is anti-semitism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I'll add the series in a sec. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this series about semitism or antisemitism? Only Seperation and it's Discontents are about antisemitism. It should really go in evolutionary psychology. --IP address/Username of unsigned user is: 88.110.159.98

You seem to have missed the point: the whole series IS antisemitic — irrespective of what it's ABOUT. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously MacDonald and many others disagree. A scholarly consensus would have to be established with references that the work is antisemitic for such a listing to be NPOV. Algabal (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

@ “the whole series IS antisemitic” ---Ludvikus

Rubbish! Obviously you haven’t read the professor.

From the Preface of the first book of MacDonald’s trilogy — actually, the last sentence of the Preface:


(A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Writers Club Press, 2002, page ciii)

I’d recommend removing the “anti-Semitic” tag at the top of the article. It makes no sense. Thanks.

—189.136.167.34 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ridiculously long critisism

The article about the works of MacDonald take half the space than that of its critisism. Something is wrong here. I now know much more about Pinker and Tobby than for MacDonald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.237.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the bulk of criticism is rhetorical rather than objective. And even the "Rebuttal" section contains more criticism as opposed to, well, rebuttal. --69.121.51.151 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole article seems to be written by those who have not read the books, or who have merely cited the vicious criticisms directed at MacDonald and his trilogy. Why, if this (gentile) professor’s approach to "a scientific understanding of both Judaism and anti-Semitism" is analogous to (Jewish) academic Albert Lindemann’s treatise on the same subject, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews? Could it be possible that this article is so POV-ish only because MacDonald is a gentile? (Just curious…) —189.136.167.34 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to the first sentence calling these works "anti-semitic". It violates NPOV. See Wikipedia:NPOV. The article does say that some people have this opinion, but it is just an opinion. Roger (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling his works anti-semitic is a "POV" if saying a square has four sides is a "POV." It just needs to be cited with the SPLC source already present in the article, which is more reliable than what he or his supporters say. Or we can quote him verbatim, whichever path others would like to take. Nolan135 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC and ADL are political advocacy organizations. Their opinion about what is anti-semitic is just a POV. Without better support, the term is just name-calling. Roger (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to balance this article out by including some of the more favorable reviews MacDonald has gotten in the academic literature. I haven't engaged in an extensive literature search, but I know that Eysenck published a review of a "A People That Shall Dwell Alone" in the peer-reviewed journal Personality and Individual Differences that was generally positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bloggz (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Academic Criticism section is not only ridiculously long but also proving a point in MacDonald's work. Every scholar on the planet is guilty of ignoring data that doesn't support their thesis, from sociologists who assert the illusion that media has no influence on human behaviour to those who suggest that sexual labour is all good and dandy, in spite of the evidence stacked against their theses. Apparently, many of MacDonald's critics think leveling this criticism against him and his work amounts to a sufficient polemic victory, but all it does is show us that there are rules that apply to some but not to others when dealing with taboo subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.175.211 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Extreme exemplification of breaking the NPOV rule

This article is one of the most biased wiki articles I have ever read. It focuses mainly on presenting the "critics" of individuals supposedly having authority (even though one editor before me proved it to be flat out wrong, i.e. PhD in musicology case) which is then portrayed as sufficent enough to be called 'academic criticism'. Nothing could be further from the truth, for there is virtually hardly any (or none whatsoever) meritorical argument shown that would support this alleged 'academic criticism', more importantly though, there is NO prof. MacDonald's response presented, as to balance the article. I don't know about the US standars of scientific method, but here on the Old Continent we always try to apply to the ancient Roman rule of credible scholarship which goes: "Audiatur et altera pars" - let's hear what the other party has got to tell. Interestingly enough, all of those "critics" of prof. MacDonald miraculously happen to be of jewish descent. You can't be a judge in your own case now, can you? How otherwise would that suppose to be credible? Also, the hateful allegations of professor's alleged antisemitism find no support in evidence/references, hence the removal from the "antisemitism" category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.171.197.14 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

David Lieberman

David Lieberman, a Holocaust researcher at Brandeis University, has published a paper alleging that MacDonald has distorted evidence and chosen evidence selectively for rhetorical purposes.[19] There isnt any proof of that in the referenced article. So this line should be removed.--KevinFrom (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kevin B. MacDonald

Not merged it's been about a month and there seems to be no consensus for my proposed merge. Thanks to the participants. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 22:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unclear how Kevin B. MacDonald is notable independent of The Culture of Critique series since most of this article is about those books and the receptions and controversies surrounding them. Most of the remaining information doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMICS (maybe 7?), and could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs on the Culture of Critique page. Because the person doesn't seem to be notable independent of the books, I think the pages should be merged. Wugapodes (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My tags

The lead shouldn't contain a list of books.

The discussion of the content of his books appears to be original research and needs sourcing from independent reliable source. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Pinker and "attention-worthiness"

In the 'Academic Response' section, it is stated that "In a letter to Slate Magazine, Harvard University psychology professor Steven Pinker maintained that he has not read MacDonald's books because his theses were unable to pass the threshold of attention-worthiness."

This was followed by this extensive quote from Pinker:

MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

2. MacDonald's main axioms – group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups – are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientific debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fails two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

Because this quote amounts to nothing beyond vague generalizations and attacks -- not to mention Pinker's open admission to never having read any of MacDonald's works ("academic response"?!?)-- it has been removed. To borrow a phrase from Mr. Pinker, it falls below the "threshold of attention-worthiness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepperpicker (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Steven Pinker is a noteworthy expert who's opinion summarizes the academic consensus. MacDonald's later works are not worthy of serious attention according to most experts, but Wikipedia still needs a way to explain this reception. Pinker quote is sufficient for this. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. No need for Pinker -- or any other 'noteworthy expert' -- to read material he disses because, well, Pinker is the voice of 'academic consensus.' The quote can stay after all. In light of MacDonald's critique of American academe, it is deliciously apt.Pepperpicker (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The article also includes multiple experts, include several cited by MacDonald in the books themselves, who condemn the works after having read them. Among a broad sample of those who are familiar with his views, MacDonald's critique of academia is as fringe as his antisemitism. Pinker is explaining why nobody is obligated to waste their time on his works, but that doesn't mean that those who read them didn't also find fault with them. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Culture of Critique series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Cofnas

I have removed the following from the Academic response subsection:

Nathan Cofnas published the first systematic critique of MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" in 2018. He followed it up with a co-authored article at Quillette, offering an alternative explanation to MacDonald's conspiratorial account of Jews in politics. MacDonald and Cofnas then debated their alternative accounts at the Genetic Literacy Project.

I have several concerns with this paragraph. We should be able to explain who Nathan Cofnas is, and why his assessment is significant enough to deserve an entire paragraph. We should also explain his conclusions. To put it another way, instead of simply mentioning the existence of these links, we should explain what they actually say. We should have an independent sources supporting all of this, but especially the claim that this is the "first systematic critique". Further, presenting the Genetic Literacy Project column as a "debate" without independent sources gives legitimacy to both of their positions. If possible, we should summarize what reliable sources say about this back and forth. If that is not possible, we should be very cautious not to get bogged-down with every single thing MacDonald chooses to respond to. For one thing, he writes responses to a lot of things, but he seldom actually forms a coherent response to the points his critics are making. You don't have to agree with me on that, but this emphasizes why we need reliable sources to summarize this kind of thing. We cannot summarize everything he's ever written, for many reasons. If sources aren't paying attention, neither should we. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, this needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources. The "viral" status of the paper should be established by reliable sources, not WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Cofnas is a notable academic in Oxford University. As WP:BIASED says, reliability depends on context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. There is nothing really controversial or disputed here, since Cofnas is reliable for what Cofnas says, as long as it's properly attributed to him, which in this case it is. His debate with MacDonald is widely reported on social media so I don't see a reason why Wikipedia should skip it. If you have MacDonald's response, feel free to add it as well.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@יניב הורון: Lots of things are widely debated on social media. If this paper was widely debated on social media, where are the reliable sources? Where does the claim that it is "the first peer-reviewed" critique come from? What reliable source supports "The paper went viral, within a week receiving more downloads and social media attention than any paper in the journal's history"? These kinds of details seem more about flattering Cofnas than about MacDonald's books. The section is already extremely long, and this length gives the impression that these books are more influential and significant than they are. I'm not disputing that Nathan Cofnas is an academic, I am saying that many of the details about his opinions are not supported by any source, and even those which are supported are undue without a third-party source. We do not include people's opinions without a specific reason, and we especially don't include background tedium about their opinions without a reason. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with maintaining the paragraph without all the puffery, like you did here. Problem is resolved, I hope.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, then. I would sincerely like to see any sources about this going viral, though. Also, MacDonald is unusually willing to respond to people who point out he is wrong, so if there is commentary about this behavior, instead of just examples, it would be worth considering. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition

"the Iberian inquisitions from the fourteenth century”

I have no idea what is meant by this, what inquisitions the writer is talking about. If you look at the Spanish Inquisition article, you'll find it was established in 1478. deisenbe (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Fictitious Reference in the Summary

The summary section has a sentence:

"The overwhelming majority of academic and journalistic reviews of MacDonald's work have dismissed it as pseudoscience grounded in conspiracy theories, and replete with misrepresentations and cherry-picking of sources." and cites Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, 19(1-2), 36-38, 1997.

The problem is that this article is actually complementary of MacDonald's work. The sentence which cites this journal a second time in this article portrays the content of the journal more accurately:

"On the other hand, Laurence Loeb of the University of Utah, (writing for the Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review in 1997), gave A People That Shall Dwell Alone a positive review, calling it a "tour-de-force" and a "watershed contribution to the understanding of Judaism and Jewish life" based on a "cautious, careful assembling of evidence".

Having looked up and read the journal, it's clear that the first usage of the source is incorrect and the second usage is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:1260:4a4b:5416:8d7a:8b24:6c1b (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body, and there are many sources in the body explaining the trilogy's abysmal reputation. The first book had a mixed to negative reception, but as a whole they are not treated as serious for many reasons. Wikipedia isn't a platform to right great wrongs, so this isn't the place to defend these pseudo-academic works. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Culture_of_Critique_series/Archive_1&oldid=1083942859"