| Revision as of 02:18, 26 February 2008 editBoodlesthecat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,411 editsm →Assyrians← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:45, 26 February 2008 edit undoEliasAlucard (talk | contribs)13,227 edits →Assyrians: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
| ::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.”''' Is this something we can use in the article? — <small><small>] / ] 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)</small></small> | ::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.”''' Is this something we can use in the article? — <small><small>] / ] 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)</small></small> | ||
| :::No, that quote is entirely non-notable. We don't need to put every Jew baiting quote Macdonald has ever written into this article. ] (]) 02:18, 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. ] (]) 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 ]). — <small><small>] / ] 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)</small></small> | |||
Revision as of 02:45, 26 February 2008
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|---|---|
Please don't use antisemitic claptrap as a source
Please don't insult Misplaced Pages readers and editors by sourcing opinionated statements with antisemitic claptrap found on Rense.com. Are you really expecting editors to find Goebbelesque garbage like "The multi-faceted assault on MacDonald's position as a tenured professor is a chilling reminder of the level of Jewish excess and Jewish tenacity Americans are now facing" acceptable as a WP:RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the source? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and, where did you get the "insult Misplaced Pages readers and editors" from? Are you some kind of automatically self-offended dude? You seem to think everything is offensive. How is a source, offensive? How does a website, having opinions critical of Jewish behaviour, fail WP:RS? Are you suggesting that WP:RS can only be applied on sources which cannot have critical opinions about Jews? What if the website is actually telling the truth (though opinionated). Don't you think it's ignorant to disregard it on the basis that it has opinions you disagree with? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- "You seem to think everything is offensive." Actually no, not everything, just ill-informed blanket generalizations about other people's state of mind. What if the antisemitic claptrap you used as a source is true, you ask? Hey could be....oh, look, a pig just flew by my window.....Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was really funny. Anyway, MacDonald has been attacked several times by American Jews for allegedly being "antisemite" (you know, that awesome word which has any actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews). This, for instance, in FrontPageMag by Jacob Laksin. He has come under a lot of heat from the SPLC, which I'm sure you're already aware of. Now, recently, the SPLC has been pushing to get him dissociated from his university. All this, has that rense source (which you, eloquently, call "antisemitic claptrap") covered. I don't see the problem here. It seems to me, you dismiss this rense source as a WP:RS, not because of any false writings, but because, there are opinions you dislike and deem, "insulting". — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, the term "antisemite" has no actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews? Do me a favor, please don't discuss anything with me regarding your views on theis subject and stick SOLELY to discussion of editing and improving this artcile, because your views are simply too offensive and abhorrent to have to volunarily subject myself to. By the way, I edited the entry to reflect what the College newspaper actually reports, which is that the moves against Macdonald are a result of opposition from school faculty. Despite the fact that bigots like rense like to whine about how evil Jews are persecuting antisemites like Macdonald, I'm afraid the professor has only himself to blame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not here to appease your "getting offended" radar. If you feel offended every single time someone is critical of Jews, such as Kevin MacDonald, you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish. MacDonald has himself to blame? Wrong. MacDonald has written three scholarly books on Jews, Judaism, and Jewish political movements. That's his right to do so if he wants to and he should not get into trouble because of it, since, last I checked, the 1st amendment was still valid in America (or so they say). What next? You want to criminalise political criticism of Jews too? Anyway, this is what the source states:
- Dude, the term "antisemite" has no actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews? Do me a favor, please don't discuss anything with me regarding your views on theis subject and stick SOLELY to discussion of editing and improving this artcile, because your views are simply too offensive and abhorrent to have to volunarily subject myself to. By the way, I edited the entry to reflect what the College newspaper actually reports, which is that the moves against Macdonald are a result of opposition from school faculty. Despite the fact that bigots like rense like to whine about how evil Jews are persecuting antisemites like Macdonald, I'm afraid the professor has only himself to blame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was really funny. Anyway, MacDonald has been attacked several times by American Jews for allegedly being "antisemite" (you know, that awesome word which has any actual academic value beside shutting down legitimate criticism of Jews). This, for instance, in FrontPageMag by Jacob Laksin. He has come under a lot of heat from the SPLC, which I'm sure you're already aware of. Now, recently, the SPLC has been pushing to get him dissociated from his university. All this, has that rense source (which you, eloquently, call "antisemitic claptrap") covered. I don't see the problem here. It seems to me, you dismiss this rense source as a WP:RS, not because of any false writings, but because, there are opinions you dislike and deem, "insulting". — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- "You seem to think everything is offensive." Actually no, not everything, just ill-informed blanket generalizations about other people's state of mind. What if the antisemitic claptrap you used as a source is true, you ask? Hey could be....oh, look, a pig just flew by my window.....Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and, where did you get the "insult Misplaced Pages readers and editors" from? Are you some kind of automatically self-offended dude? You seem to think everything is offensive. How is a source, offensive? How does a website, having opinions critical of Jewish behaviour, fail WP:RS? Are you suggesting that WP:RS can only be applied on sources which cannot have critical opinions about Jews? What if the website is actually telling the truth (though opinionated). Don't you think it's ignorant to disregard it on the basis that it has opinions you disagree with? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- MacDonald's three-part series in evolutionary psychology, "A People That Shall Dwell Alone," "Separation and Its Discontents" and "The Culture of Critique," was labelled as anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi propaganda in late 2006. The labels came from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks hate groups. The organization sent a representative to CSULB to interview students and faculty members about MacDonald's work in November of 2006. The recent developments within the psychology department to distance itself from MacDonald's work came after the department's advisory committee met to discuss his December forum presentation.
- Why are you removing it from the article? The source clearly, mentions that the dissociation came after the SPLC had sent representatives to MacDonald's university. Clearly, the SPLC is involved SOMEWHAT in his dissociation. Do you seriously believe that CSULB would have proceeded with a dissociation if the SPLC had not sent their boys over to his campus? The article should definitely reflect the SPLC's involvement in his dissociation, because that's what the college source does. Despite the fact that bigots like rense like to whine about how evil Jews are persecuting antisemites like Macdonald, I'm afraid the professor has only himself to blame. — Guess what, Joe Levin, co-founder of the SPLC, is Jewish. Has the thought ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, "bigots like rense" aren't that far off from the truth? I hope you didn't get offended or anything by me pointing this out. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- EliasAlucard, the next instance of anti-Semitic claptrap that you spew on this page is going to be taken to an admin; it's enough. Regarding the question at hand, pay attention and read the article--it DOESNT say "that the dissociation came after the SPLC had sent representatives to MacDonald's university"--it is you who is making the causal connection (no doubt, becuase your twisted little mind must find a way to blame Jews). It simply mentions the SPLC, which is covered AT LENGTH earlier in the article and does not need to be mentioned just because it was in the source--the relevant part is the faculty moving to dissociate, inferences about why are just original (and Jew baiting) research. Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is extremely interesting. You accuse me of having a "twisted mind," which is needless to say a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. This, simply because, in our content dispute, I've included information (cited information, might I add), mentioning, that his dissociation came after the SPLC had visited his campus; I believe this is important regarding the context of his dissociation, whereas you rant on about "antisemitic claptraps" and similar nonsense. You also accuse me of "Jew baiting." Well guess what? This entire article happens to not have anything to do with Jews. You accuse me of original research, despite the fact that it is sourced, which is really bad faith from your part because you are misusing the policy of WP:OR in order to censor information you for some unexplained reason find "offensive". I believe it has an importance to mention that the dissociation occurred after MacDonald's work had been labelled "antisemitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" by the SPLC, just as the source states. And I think that your censorship of this information (because you regard it as "antisemitic") goes against WP:CENSOR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since we alreay discuss the SPLC visit to the campus it's redundant to mention it again. We might move the sections next to each other so that the context is more apparent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. This short line: This came after the SPLC labelled his work "anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" in late 2006 (see above). Should not be removed since it's important for the article's cohesion and why he has been dissociated. It's in no way WP:OR no matter how much User:Boodlesthecat claims so, since it's first of all cited, and second of all, already covered in previous sections of the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way: Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. — I have my own POV as to why he's been dissociated. I believe, that the SPLC, might very well, have an influence on his dissociation. The fact that one of the founders of the SPLC, happens to be Jewish, makes it even more likely to be, that politically influential Jews are trying to attack him because of his criticism of Jewish political influence in his book trilogy. However, despite my personal POV, that is not included in the article. So pretty please, with sugar on top, refrain from your ridiculous and silly personal attacks on my character ("twisted mind"), false accusation of WP:OR, and similar nonsense, simply because you cannot refrain from your own POV that every academic who is critical of Jewish behaviour is an "antisemite" and "has himself to blame". What next? Are you going to accuse Norman Finkelstein of being a Holocaust denier too because he is critical of how the Holocaust has been handled? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, yet anothe ranti-semitic rant is not a reason to include the sentence. Unless you can provide a reference stating that he was dissociated from as a result of the SPLC visit (the source clearly states it was done by the faculty, do not revert this. Stick to the article--next time you use a talk page to go on a Jew hating rant its going on a noticeboard. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The guy has written three books that are critical of Judaism/Jews. It's not a "Jew hating rant" to suspect that Jews may very well have an involvement in his dissociation (they surely wouldn't oppose his dissociation, that's for sure). It's in fact, a reasonable point of view to believe that they have been pushing for him to get dissociated. The inclusion of the sentence has nothing to do with what I discuss on the talk pages. Fact of the matter is, the daily49er source specifically mentioned, in the same context, about his dissociation, the SPLC's visit to his campus. That's the only source needed to include the statement. If the SPLC's campaign against him had no relevance to his dissociation, they would not have mentioned it in the article. By the way, you should stop equating criticism of politically influential Jews, with hatred. Hatred is a very strong word and you are disingenuously misusing it to here to describe opinions you don't like. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, yet anothe ranti-semitic rant is not a reason to include the sentence. Unless you can provide a reference stating that he was dissociated from as a result of the SPLC visit (the source clearly states it was done by the faculty, do not revert this. Stick to the article--next time you use a talk page to go on a Jew hating rant its going on a noticeboard. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way: Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. — I have my own POV as to why he's been dissociated. I believe, that the SPLC, might very well, have an influence on his dissociation. The fact that one of the founders of the SPLC, happens to be Jewish, makes it even more likely to be, that politically influential Jews are trying to attack him because of his criticism of Jewish political influence in his book trilogy. However, despite my personal POV, that is not included in the article. So pretty please, with sugar on top, refrain from your ridiculous and silly personal attacks on my character ("twisted mind"), false accusation of WP:OR, and similar nonsense, simply because you cannot refrain from your own POV that every academic who is critical of Jewish behaviour is an "antisemite" and "has himself to blame". What next? Are you going to accuse Norman Finkelstein of being a Holocaust denier too because he is critical of how the Holocaust has been handled? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. This short line: This came after the SPLC labelled his work "anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" in late 2006 (see above). Should not be removed since it's important for the article's cohesion and why he has been dissociated. It's in no way WP:OR no matter how much User:Boodlesthecat claims so, since it's first of all cited, and second of all, already covered in previous sections of the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since we alreay discuss the SPLC visit to the campus it's redundant to mention it again. We might move the sections next to each other so that the context is more apparent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is extremely interesting. You accuse me of having a "twisted mind," which is needless to say a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. This, simply because, in our content dispute, I've included information (cited information, might I add), mentioning, that his dissociation came after the SPLC had visited his campus; I believe this is important regarding the context of his dissociation, whereas you rant on about "antisemitic claptraps" and similar nonsense. You also accuse me of "Jew baiting." Well guess what? This entire article happens to not have anything to do with Jews. You accuse me of original research, despite the fact that it is sourced, which is really bad faith from your part because you are misusing the policy of WP:OR in order to censor information you for some unexplained reason find "offensive". I believe it has an importance to mention that the dissociation occurred after MacDonald's work had been labelled "antisemitic and neo-Nazi propaganda" by the SPLC, just as the source states. And I think that your censorship of this information (because you regard it as "antisemitic") goes against WP:CENSOR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- EliasAlucard, the next instance of anti-Semitic claptrap that you spew on this page is going to be taken to an admin; it's enough. Regarding the question at hand, pay attention and read the article--it DOESNT say "that the dissociation came after the SPLC had sent representatives to MacDonald's university"--it is you who is making the causal connection (no doubt, becuase your twisted little mind must find a way to blame Jews). It simply mentions the SPLC, which is covered AT LENGTH earlier in the article and does not need to be mentioned just because it was in the source--the relevant part is the faculty moving to dissociate, inferences about why are just original (and Jew baiting) research. Do not revert before you can make a sensible and non Jew-baiting case for inclusion. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whats your point. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? no one is really interested in listening to your vile Jew bashing claptrap. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I want to improve the article. But it would be easier to collaborate if you didn't accuse me of hatred for voicing opinions you find objectionable. Whether you like it or not, MacDonald has challenged the politically influential Jewish power in America. That means, it might backfire on him, from politically influential Jews. To seriously believe that his dissociation had nothing whatsoever to do with Jews, is naïve. He has been teaching on CSULB, for how long? And all of a sudden, he became dissociated very recently, after the SPLC visited his campus. And one of the co-founders of the SPLC happens to be Jewish. If you think it's all a coincidence, that's your opinion, but I disagree. You have no justification to call that hatred and it's just a cheap shot. I also think there's a lot of bias from your side to misrepresent MacDonald, because you dislike his opinions. Attaching the antisemite category on him is libellous and it doesn't conform very well with the {{WPBiography}} policy we have to misrepresent him like that. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small
- Whats your point. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? no one is really interested in listening to your vile Jew bashing claptrap. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Macdonald is free to pursue any action he wants if he feels this is libelous. But tell me, EliasAlucard, why are you so hostile towards Jews? Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, MacDonald shouldn't have to go that far, to the point where he needs to take legal action against Misplaced Pages, because it's our responsibility, per {{WPBiography}}, to not misrepresent him. MacDonald writes: I have at times been accused of being an anti-Semite. But the reality is that I greatly admire Jews as a group that has pursued its interests over thousands of years, while retaining its ethnic coherence and intensity of group commitment. Clearly, anyone who admires Jews (and is open about it), is not antisemitic and he shouldn't be listed under en:Category:Antisemitism either. But tell me, EliasAlucard, why are you so hostile towards Jews? — This is your point of view, not mine. Truth is, I'm really not at all, hostile against them. Heck, I even think they have the right to live in Israel and that Israel should be a Jewish state (which is more benign than what Jews feel about us Assyrians; see Kevin MacDonald discussing it here). I do, however, agree with the very valid criticism Kevin MacDonald has brought up against Jewish political influence. I think he argues his case very well, and to equate his interesting and well researched critique with "hatred" is intellectually dishonest. Jews have a lot of political power, and they, just like other ethnic groups, misuse their power. They should be criticised for their misuse of political influence, just like everyone else with a lot of influence, should be, if they screw up. I don't buy their hypocritical victim mentality because they are "victims" with nuclear bombs and they kill Palestinians on a daily basis. And I (unlike you) don't feel offended when someone criticises Israel, Jews, or Jewish political dominance, because it's not my obligation to feel offended over such a thing. If they had no political influence whatsoever and people accused them of all sorts of things about their non-existent political power, that would of course, be "irrational hatred". But that's not the case. I also don't buy their incessant Holocaust dogma, because Abraham Foxman clearly showed his position on the Armenian Genocide. I think I've answered your question. Back to MacDonald. MacDonald has been defamed a lot simply because he dares to speak about Jewish political power. If you think Kevin MacDonald is an antisemite, that's your opinion, not Misplaced Pages's. He should only be listed under category antisemitism if he exclaims something like "all jews should be killed" or anything along those lines. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Macdonald is free to pursue any action he wants if he feels this is libelous. But tell me, EliasAlucard, why are you so hostile towards Jews? Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You've again shared your vile anti-Semitic views, EliasAlucard, but havent explained what made you such a Jew hater. skip it. If you see anything libelous in this article about Macdonald, take it to an appropriate forum, like BLP. Otherwise, you should probably stop wasting talk page space venting your hatreds. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry man, but that slanderous lie about "hate" doesn't wash any more. I firmly stand by my words that they should be criticised for their political actions, regardless of if it's the Palestinians or whatever else they're involved in, politically. To call it "hatred" is ridiculous, and if you keep twisting it into hatred – when it's not hatred – there might come a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour, because people like you misuse these words of shame to silence (valid) criticism of Jews every single time. I think you're insulting your own intelligence here by accusing me of hatred. You're simply not willing to discuss this issue in a reasonable manner, but rather, resort to personal attacks simply because you cannot debate this issue. Also, is there any reason why you labelled Kevin MacDonald with ethnic supremacy? He's arguably ethnocentric, but how is he a supremacist? You're seriously trying to misrepresent him here. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like that in your hate-poisoned little world, EliasAlucard, "a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour" has already arrived. Ethnosupremacism category is justified by among other things the following quote: "We should never forget and should be immensely proud of the fact that Western societies act as magnets precisely because of the spectacular success of the peoples of European descent in creating the science and technology that is the basis for the incredible explosion of wealth and the breakthroughs in medicine and public health." Stop reverting blindly without discussion. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you, Boodlesthecat, would cease putting words in my mouth and voice my alleged opinions – opinions I don't share. I can speak for myself and I don't need you telling me what I believe. No, I don't want Jews to be hated. I think, however, that calling valid criticism of Jewish political movements "hatred," will only lead to more hatred of Jews, in the long haul. Why? Because you're making them immune of criticism that way. And what happens when people become impervious to criticism? The answer is that they become more hated because of their actions, since they can do no wrong because they never get criticised. Is it at all possible, to criticise Jews in your world, or do you see "hatred" everywhere? About the category. Your rationale is simply not acceptable. MacDonald is stating the obvious. Most of the technological inventions today (and wealth that comes as a result of it) were created and developed by Europeans or people of European descent. Of course not entirely by Europeans. But, people of European ethnic descent, were largely responsible for a lot of the science and other technical inventions created during the 19th and 20th century. There's no supremacy in stating a fact. You think he's an ethnic supremacist because he is critical of Jews, that's your opinion. Don't interpret a fact MacDonald discusses into ethnic supremacy. If this is the rationale used to categorise people as white supremacist, ethnic supremacist, etc., then we really need to check the other articles and why they're labelled that way. To categorise MacDonald as an ethnic supremacist because he discussed Europeans' contribution to science and medicine, is WP:OR. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Stop reverting blindly without discussion. — From WP:BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles. Sorry man, but categorising him as an ethnic supremacist over a POV just doesn't cut it. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you, Boodlesthecat, would cease putting words in my mouth and voice my alleged opinions – opinions I don't share. I can speak for myself and I don't need you telling me what I believe. No, I don't want Jews to be hated. I think, however, that calling valid criticism of Jewish political movements "hatred," will only lead to more hatred of Jews, in the long haul. Why? Because you're making them immune of criticism that way. And what happens when people become impervious to criticism? The answer is that they become more hated because of their actions, since they can do no wrong because they never get criticised. Is it at all possible, to criticise Jews in your world, or do you see "hatred" everywhere? About the category. Your rationale is simply not acceptable. MacDonald is stating the obvious. Most of the technological inventions today (and wealth that comes as a result of it) were created and developed by Europeans or people of European descent. Of course not entirely by Europeans. But, people of European ethnic descent, were largely responsible for a lot of the science and other technical inventions created during the 19th and 20th century. There's no supremacy in stating a fact. You think he's an ethnic supremacist because he is critical of Jews, that's your opinion. Don't interpret a fact MacDonald discusses into ethnic supremacy. If this is the rationale used to categorise people as white supremacist, ethnic supremacist, etc., then we really need to check the other articles and why they're labelled that way. To categorise MacDonald as an ethnic supremacist because he discussed Europeans' contribution to science and medicine, is WP:OR. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, EliasAlucard, stop spewing anti-Semitic crap on the talk page
What part of the rule that the Talk Page is not a place to spew your vile opinions don't you understand, EliasAlucard? And am I putting words in your mouth when you post anti-Semitic crap on Nazi websites?. Stop playing the same games Macdonald does and just admit youre a Nazi supporter. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no Nazi supporter. Posting on stormfront does not mean you're a Nazi supporter. I reject Nazism on the same basis as Zionism: same shit, different name. Both Zionism and Nazism reject Christianity, and both are supremacist ideologies of the same nature, and there's no real difference between them. Kevin MacDonald, describes Nazism as a group evolutionary strategy against Judaism, which is a quite accurate description as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, forums like Stormfront are the only forums where you can openly discuss Zionist influence, which means that forums like those are the only places where you can be critical of Jewish power. Other than that though, I oppose Islam, Communism, Nazism and Zionism, due to the extreme and potential danger of these ideologies, as well as their anti-Christianity nature (all mentioned ideologies are in one way or the other, hostile to Christianity). And may I remind you, I'm an Assyrian and I live in Sweden. Supporting Nazis isn't exactly beneficial to my situation. Also, all my posts on that forum are related to Jews; I couldn't really give a shit about Nazism as an ideology, other than my personal interest in various nationalist ideologies (of which both Nazism and Zionism are included). If anything, you could say I'm an Assyrian nationalist (and I believe in ethnopluralism for all human races, as opposed to the typical Nazi concept of Social Darwinism; which is extremely dangerous if implemented in reality). I'm also, of Semitic descent, and that's very, very incompatible with Nazism. Kevin MacDonald, on the other hand, is no Nazi supporter. He has a large following among neo-Nazis, obviously, because he has written three irrefutable books on Jewish political power. He also has sympathy from Hisham Tillawi, and just about anyone else who is critical of Jewish political influence. You, Boodlesthecat, live in a childlike world where it's inconceivable to be critical of Jewish political influence, and any criticism of Jewish power – valid and rational as it may be – is equalled with the magic word, "hatred", in lack of real arguments. You don't have to believe me, but I honestly don't hate Jews. I greatly admire Jews like Jim Steinman, Stan Lee, and many others. I am simply critical of their political double standards and their blatant hypocrisy. I think that criticism is a good thing, as long as it's valid and honest criticism, and the one being criticised is mature enough to handle it and won't shriek "antisemitism" every five seconds in reflex. MacDonald has so far sampled mature and honest criticism of Jewish power. He doesn't make stuff up and he doesn't adhere to bizarre theories like Ashkenazi Jews being the "Khazar" converts to Judaism, and other similar false theories often used by neo-Nazis. I understand, however, that you, finding opinions like those of MacDonald's, "offensive" and "objectionable", take every cheap shot chance you can get to mislabel him and dirty up his name by adding the supremacist categories and similar dirty tricks, in order to ruin his credibility because you don't like his message. For some reason you think you're doing a good thing by trying to sully his name like this. It's no coincidence that MacDonald's research has resulted in the Culture of Critique series. Anyone seriously and honestly, without bias, investigating Jews and Judaism over its long history, will get the same results as those of MacDonald. Bottom line is, don't accuse me of being a Nazi supporter when you don't know me and don't know what you're talking about. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, EliasAlucard, for an extremely humorous post that irrefutably confirms my suspicions. So youre not a Nazi, you just post attacks on Jews on Nazi websites because the evil Jews have made it impossible to critique Jews anywhere else. OK! I can see why you so vhemently defend Macdonald--like you, he feels the Nazis had no choice but to do what they did because of Jewish behavior. In any case, you might want to learn a lesson from Macdonald's fate. no duobt he, like you, will continue to blame Jews for the response to his "ideas," rather than take responsibility for promulgating discrediting Nazi crap. And your rather rather thin obfuscations above are pretty transparent, EliasAlucard; the Nazi debasement of language is pretty well understood and fools no one except the fools. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- More nonsense. MacDonald reads Jewish ethnocentrism like an open book. He knows Jews better than they know themselves. For your information, I got banned from Jihad Watch recently for daring to be critical of Jews (you know, "Jihad Watch", that impartial and extremely objective website which promotes criticism of Islam – some even say "hatred" – yet bans everyone who even dares to suggest that Halal and Kosher slaughter is the same thing). And guess what?!?! David Horowitz happens to be involved in Jihad Watch. Yeah right, Jews really allow people to speak their minds on everything. This thought control nonsense has got to stop. If Jews like Alon Ziv wouldn't be promoting miscegenation for gentiles (and they never promote miscegenation for Jews, of course) like it was the next best thing, people like Kevin MacDonald would have no case against them, and people wouldn't have a problem with Jews, and people like me wouldn't be posting on Stormfront complaining about it. As it is right now, Kevin MacDonald has accused them in his trilogy of promoting miscegenation, and guess what? He's right about it. Thanks for the LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii by the way, interesting reading. Not that it matters anyway. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, EliasAlucard, for an extremely humorous post that irrefutably confirms my suspicions. So youre not a Nazi, you just post attacks on Jews on Nazi websites because the evil Jews have made it impossible to critique Jews anywhere else. OK! I can see why you so vhemently defend Macdonald--like you, he feels the Nazis had no choice but to do what they did because of Jewish behavior. In any case, you might want to learn a lesson from Macdonald's fate. no duobt he, like you, will continue to blame Jews for the response to his "ideas," rather than take responsibility for promulgating discrediting Nazi crap. And your rather rather thin obfuscations above are pretty transparent, EliasAlucard; the Nazi debasement of language is pretty well understood and fools no one except the fools. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, the only time I hear the word "miscegenation" is when it comes out of the mouths of Nazis and KKKers. Which one are you? Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither one of them (although both have at times, valid criticism of Jews). Miscegenation is a valid word, right? In any case, this is not a forum, and we should end the discussion here. You know my views on this subject, and from now on, stick to discussing MacDonald and how to improve the article. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you look back on how this started, EliasAlucard, it was from my request that you keep your anti-Semitic crap off the talk page. And of course miscegenation is a "valid" word, used currently almost solely by racists, Nazis, white supremacists and the like. So I'm not surprised that it was the word you chose. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist maniac, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence. By the way, as far as the "miscegenation" thing is concerned, Jews are 100 times more ethnocentric and more racially conscious than Hitler and his henchmen ever were. Let's not forget Israel's racialist laws. I don't know what the heck you're complaining about. Your Jewish idols aren't any better, and you should follow through with your logic and accuse them of the same thing you seem to think the Nazis are the "bad buys in your neighbourhood". But hey, you being impartial and everything just can't be honest enough to do that, because you get "offended". — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain something to your diseased Nazi brain, EliasAlucard--"pro-Jewish" is not the opposite of "anti-semitic." Your Nazi ass will rot in hell before you will tell me what to keep out of an article that you are soiling with your Nazi crap. Dig? Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah yeah, mr. Hypocrite. You know what I'm saying is the truth. You just can't handle the truth, that Zionists are the ultimate Nazis. I don't really care what you want to believe in that naïve world view of yours. Just don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of "Holocaust instigator" "white supremacist" or anything like that, and we got a deal. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Noope. Longstanding policy is no deals with Nazis, because they lie and cannot be trusted. Sorry. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Longstanding policy is no deals with Nazis, because they lie and cannot be trusted — I think that's a reasonable and sound policy. Make sure you live up to it by including your beloved Zionists in that same policy, or else you're not a man of your word. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Noope. Longstanding policy is no deals with Nazis, because they lie and cannot be trusted. Sorry. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah yeah, mr. Hypocrite. You know what I'm saying is the truth. You just can't handle the truth, that Zionists are the ultimate Nazis. I don't really care what you want to believe in that naïve world view of yours. Just don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of "Holocaust instigator" "white supremacist" or anything like that, and we got a deal. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain something to your diseased Nazi brain, EliasAlucard--"pro-Jewish" is not the opposite of "anti-semitic." Your Nazi ass will rot in hell before you will tell me what to keep out of an article that you are soiling with your Nazi crap. Dig? Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist maniac, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence. By the way, as far as the "miscegenation" thing is concerned, Jews are 100 times more ethnocentric and more racially conscious than Hitler and his henchmen ever were. Let's not forget Israel's racialist laws. I don't know what the heck you're complaining about. Your Jewish idols aren't any better, and you should follow through with your logic and accuse them of the same thing you seem to think the Nazis are the "bad buys in your neighbourhood". But hey, you being impartial and everything just can't be honest enough to do that, because you get "offended". — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you look back on how this started, EliasAlucard, it was from my request that you keep your anti-Semitic crap off the talk page. And of course miscegenation is a "valid" word, used currently almost solely by racists, Nazis, white supremacists and the like. So I'm not surprised that it was the word you chose. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither one of them (although both have at times, valid criticism of Jews). Miscegenation is a valid word, right? In any case, this is not a forum, and we should end the discussion here. You know my views on this subject, and from now on, stick to discussing MacDonald and how to improve the article. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, the only time I hear the word "miscegenation" is when it comes out of the mouths of Nazis and KKKers. Which one are you? Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Personal attacks are simply not tolerated. Discuss regarding content, not of other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about anti-Semitic claptrap? Is that tolerated? Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boodles, jsut stop it. I know your trying to lighten the mood here but its not working. EliasAlucard is obviously not an antisemite; maybe hes and anti-zionist but he just said he was an antinazi. and even if he was an antisemite it has no relvent on his work here as long as his additions are valid. if you have such a huge problem with eliasalucards' presence here you should take it to WP:COIN. Smith Jones (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: I'm not an antisemite. I even, as an Assyrian, consider Jews to be very closely related to my ancestry. However, I subscribe to the same school of thought as Kevin MacDonald (i.e., some "antisemitism" can be rational). I am very happy for the sake of the Jewish people that they have managed to reacquire their ancient homeland, and I wish some day, the Assyrian independence becomes a reality too. However, I also, realise that there are serious issues with many nationalist Jews (often, so called Zionists), who preach double standards and let's face it, many Jews dislike – yes even hate – us goyim. But that doesn't mean I want all Jews to be killed or anything. All I'm saying, is that they should be criticised so that they can improve themselves. I also think it's a shame, in a way. Because Jews are talented, intelligent, and can contribute with a lot of good to the world (they certainly have the potential to do so). They simply need to knock it off with all this warmongering and start realising that criticism can be valuable. People should stop shielding them from criticising with the use of ad hominem attacks like "Nazi" or "ANTISEMITE"; they're never going to better themselves as long as they can attack anyone with these personal attacks. In other words, all Jews, "get your shit together" and we can live in a better world. I think the golden rule is something they should follow: do to others what you would have them do to you. On a side note, Muslims and Islam need a lot of criticism too. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything User:Boodlesthecat wants to discuss?!?! — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: I'm not an antisemite. I even, as an Assyrian, consider Jews to be very closely related to my ancestry. However, I subscribe to the same school of thought as Kevin MacDonald (i.e., some "antisemitism" can be rational). I am very happy for the sake of the Jewish people that they have managed to reacquire their ancient homeland, and I wish some day, the Assyrian independence becomes a reality too. However, I also, realise that there are serious issues with many nationalist Jews (often, so called Zionists), who preach double standards and let's face it, many Jews dislike – yes even hate – us goyim. But that doesn't mean I want all Jews to be killed or anything. All I'm saying, is that they should be criticised so that they can improve themselves. I also think it's a shame, in a way. Because Jews are talented, intelligent, and can contribute with a lot of good to the world (they certainly have the potential to do so). They simply need to knock it off with all this warmongering and start realising that criticism can be valuable. People should stop shielding them from criticising with the use of ad hominem attacks like "Nazi" or "ANTISEMITE"; they're never going to better themselves as long as they can attack anyone with these personal attacks. In other words, all Jews, "get your shit together" and we can live in a better world. I think the golden rule is something they should follow: do to others what you would have them do to you. On a side note, Muslims and Islam need a lot of criticism too. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boodles, jsut stop it. I know your trying to lighten the mood here but its not working. EliasAlucard is obviously not an antisemite; maybe hes and anti-zionist but he just said he was an antinazi. and even if he was an antisemite it has no relvent on his work here as long as his additions are valid. if you have such a huge problem with eliasalucards' presence here you should take it to WP:COIN. Smith Jones (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages meta-reference
MacDonald has noted that his biography on Misplaced Pages as well as an article on his books, the Culture of Critique series, contain "negative assertions".
Is this notable? No. How many public figures in the world support Misplaced Pages and like their biographical Misplaced Pages articles as is? See criticism of Misplaced Pages. 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, 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 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)
- 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 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)
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. 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)
- 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)
- Is this even relevant? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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, and according to his résumé. 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.” 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)
- 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)
- 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.” Is this something we can use in the article? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)