Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 3

"Is VDARE.COM “White Nationalist”?

[Peter Brimelow writes:

.....

Now I will boldly go etc. We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews." BabyDweezil 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! You placed an extra period at the end of the link, which is why it didn't lead anywhere. I didn't notice (I just followed the link, the copy-pasted the text to report the problem, without actually examining the syntax); I'll fix that. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation fixed. This still leaves the "guilt by association" issue, in that MacDonald is not one of the VDARE contributors whom Brimelow characterizes as "white nationalist", and describes it as a "mischaracterization" to call the site itself "white nationalist". So, inasmuch as this is an article about MacDonald, it's still a stretch: to follow analogous logic, Wikipedia has white nationalist contributors; you and I write for Wikipedia; but that certainly does not make us white nationalists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you write for Vdare? BabyDweezil 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

God no! I don't think there is a single thing on which I agree with them! But I have helped organize actions where the Freedom Socialist Party were among the sponsors, although I am certainly not a Trotskyist. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• "He serves on the Advisory Board of The
  Occidental Quarterly, a journal that has been described by The American Prospect magazine as “the premier voice of the white-nationalist movement” [[4]]": A much better citation than the VDARE one, but still does not quite bear out what it says. Max Blumenthal, writing in The American Prospect, called it that. This was not an editorial, so it is not accurate to say The American Prospect called it that. - Jmabel | Talk
  20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's Regnery's response to Blumenthal's article, totally sidestepping the white nationalist issue with the usual mumbo jumbo:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15385.html

BabyDweezil 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that, but it should still say "Max Blumenthal, writing in The American Prospect". - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the reference supplied supports the statement that Derbyshire has been accused of anti-Semitism. And even MacDonald's own anti-Semitic rant in response to Derbyshire's review accused Derbyshire of being a "Judaized intellectual." BabyDweezil 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this statement since the reference doesnt indicate any public accusations against Derbyshire of anti-Semitism; he does anecdotally reference reader responses to him, but this doesnt seem to be adequate for this claim. BabyDweezil 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish sociology" linked in lead: I doubt this has article potential. I also think it is seriously ambiguous. Are we talking about sociology as it pertains to Jews (in which case it should be reworded, and I do not believe has article potential), or is this a phrase intended to parallel the Nazis' "Jewish physics", etc. (in which case it needs attribution as to whose phrase it is). - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree; tinkered with that wording a bit. BabyDweezil 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two opening quotes from the Slate article -- there are several reasons why, but first and foremost is a clear bias toward viewing MacDonald as an anti-Semite (see article's title; Slate is obviously NOT a NPOV source), and the fact that people are trying to immediately discredit his entire body of work only three sentences in to the article. The quotes state: "Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting 'basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology' and failing 'basic tests of scientific credibility' [5], though it has found an audience among some conservatives." The only verifiable information in the quote is the fact that MacDonald's work "has found an audience among some conservatives," but even this is misleading (and not sourced to boot): he has found an audience amongst his fellow evolutionary psychologists, (some) anti-Semites, (some) White supremacists, certain Paleocoservatives, and some Neo-Nazis, not simply "conservatives."

Nowhere in the Slate article does it talk about MacDonald's work failing "basic tests of scientific credibility"...NOWHERE. The phrase "'basic tests of scientific credibility" isn't found in the Slate article, so I'm not sure where this quote was taken from. Also, the quote "Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting 'basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology' " is also incredibly misleading; these leading scholars are NEVER named, as they wish to remain anonymous it seems (and the Slate article hardly qualifies as academic and/or objective, as it deals primarily in pop culture). Also, the people that did comment on MacDonald's work in the Slate article had never read his trilogy -- the people at Slate (Culturebox) "described the contents of MacDonald's book," and THEN these people stated (wothout reading his books, remember) that his books "contradicted the basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology"; this means that they (the unnamed experts, remember) never read them, only had the 'basic principles' described to them, probably in a highly POV fashion) and then 'discredited' them.

Finally, it's ridiculous to use Slate as a source in this situation -- is Slate a scientific journal known for their neutral, well-sourced articles on evolutionary psychology? Is Judith Shulevitz an expert on evolutionary psychology (nope), or does she have her own POV agenda regarding MacDonald's work (yes, because she's Jewish...)? These are questions that weren't aksed when someone put in these blantantly POV quotation; thus, I am taking them out. --Pseudothyrum 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This Slate piece is a work of investigative reporting by a professional journalist writing in the most popular Internet news magazine. It is common in journalism to quote unnamed sources, and to accept the word of the journalist about their credibility. I agree that the second quotation is incorrect (I only spot-checked the first one). Also, it isn't necessary to have detailed criticisms in the intro and the Slate magazone material is covered in more detail again in the "Criticism" section. So I think we can leave this out. We do need to summarize the criticisms. Something like "Critics have called his work anti-Semitic and unscientific". Could you briefly summarize the criticisms? -Will Beback · † · 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's further discussion I think we should restore the quote from Slate, though move it down to a later place inthe article. -Will Beback · † · 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom Kevin MacDonald, November 14, 2006
• Civil rights group investigates professor MaryJane O'Brien, Posted: 11/13/06
• The Thirteen Scariest People in America Scariest Academic: Kevin MacDonald by Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, Posted October 30, 2006.

We might add a line or two about this, though it probably be better to wait until the report is published. -Will Beback · † · 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody who is an admin please make this page editable only by those with logins. --Metzenberg 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can also make such requests at

WP:RPP. -Will Beback · †

· 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is MacDonald a quoteworthy commentator on the topic of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965#Controversy Over Jewish Involvement ([6])? -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• In general, I would consider MacDonald (at least on matters related to Jews) to be the sort of extremist source we do not quote in any way that suggests he is an authority. He can be quoted to show the thinking of contemporary pseudo-scientific anti-semitic thought, where that is relevant, but other than that I'd be very hesitant to quote him. - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

“the ethnic interests of white Americans to develop an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society.” - is there a White Separatists category for people? —The preceding

It looks like the David Irving article calls him a writer (no doubt after much acrimonious debate), which I think would work here as well.--Media anthro 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a Canadian court, it was a British court, where he went to sue someone specifically for calling him a Holocaust denier, and where he not only lost, but was found by the judge to be a Holocaust denier. He subsequently also pleaded guilty in court in Austria to denying the Holocaust. Given his own confession, it's hard to imagine why he shouldn't be described that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, he's apparently visited courtrooms in many different jurisdictions.

While I certainly think it's possible to be a Holocaust denier and a historian, I would prefer to use writer. I think that it is more in keeping with NPOV to describe him as a writer who has been described by others as a Holocaust denier. And after all, he does write (horrible things). --Media anthro 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irving lost an extremely well documented, well publicized court case in Britain. The judge lambasted him from the bench as a liar and holocaust denier. Under English libel law, Deborah Lipstadt had the burden of proof and she won a huge judgment against him, which left him broke. It was really Lipstadt's book that was on trial. Irving had previously claimed to be a professional historian. Everything is extremely well documented, including in the appropriate linked articles on Wikipedia. Don't we have some duty to be an honest encyclopedia here? --Metzenberg 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted Category:Anti-Semitic people along with Category:Anti-Zionists. MacDonald (or anyone else, for that matter) has NEVER verified these claims and he has never personally admitted to being an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. Thus, the categories were wrongfully inserted (how long did they sit in this article?). Will someone that watches this page closely please ensure that these categories are not re-added unless these claims are eventually (and FULLY) verified by a valid source or MacDonald himself. There can be no 'inferring' when it comes to charges such as these. --172.165.244.59 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The second part of the introductory sentence -

best known for claiming to use evolutionary psychology to inform his study of Judaism as being what he claims is a "group evolutionary strategy".

- seems awash with POV. The bit about "claiming to use" ev. psych. is derogatory - the guy's a scholar, he uses ev. psych., one might argue that he uses it poorly, but he certainly uses it. The final phrases of the sentences are a stylistic train wreck. How about re-writing it to something like:

best known for using evolutionary psychology to analyse Judaism and Jewish culture as a "group evolutionary strategy".

The quotes on "group evolutionary strategy" provide enough editorial distance: it's clearly his phrasing; we're not saying WP endorses it. —The preceding

Now as to people thinking that there are issues of libel. This is a public forum, where we have a right to establish the facts about him as they stand. If we maliciously claimed that he killed his mother, and he didn't, that would be slander. And even if we claimed here that he lied or is a liar, and he didn't or wasn't, he might have cause for action. But the fact that Kevin MacDonald is a public person, an author of books who has claimed expertise on the subject of Judaism protects Wikipedia and anyone who wants to comment on Kevin MacDonald's views from any possibility of libel. Since MacDonald is a public figure and a self-professed expert on Judaism and evolution, we have a right and even an obligation as a good encyclopedia to analyze his works honestly. We're not analyzing his character here, just his writings. --Metzenberg 01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A source (August 2006 Uncommon Denominator, The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute) says:

• The dead give-away to the fundamentally disreputable nature of the new racist scholarship is the fact that its practitioners form a kind of closed loop, a tight-knit cadre, praising and publishing each other’s work, and not responsive to the professional standards of the broader academic community (which they disingenuously dismiss as ideological standards)...The same names come up over and over again: ...Kevin B. MacDonald...
• Combined with his testimony on behalf of holocaust denier David Irving, in Irving’s unsuccessful libel trial against author Deborah Lipstadt, MacDonald’s work has been enthusiastically embraced by neo-Nazi groups. No one is suggesting that MacDonald himself espouses such extremism, and he has been at pains to distance himself from the disreputables in his intellectual corner, but at the very minimum his work keeps some very shady company, routinely cropping up next to the more blatant material. [7]

We had summarized that, and other uncited sources, as:

• There are some
  white supremacists
  who support the views of MacDonald because of his opinions about Jews, but MacDonald denies having any affiliation or contact with any of these extremist groups.

Is this an accurate and NPOV summary? How can we improve this text?-Will Beback · † · 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor isn't trying to summarize the source. He wants a cite for the statement that KM denies WS affiliation. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more material, from the campus newspaper "Civil rights group condemns work of CSULB professor":

• "His work is bandied about by just about every neo-Nazi group in America," [the SPLC's] Potok said of MacDonald
• It is like nuclear energy, you can use it for good or you can use it for evil,” MacDonald said of the white supremacist’s interest in his articles and books.

I don't know what to make of that last statement. I'll see if I can find a source for him denying affiliation. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is the source for the denial, and a possible explanation for his reference to nuclear energy [above], in "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques" January 29, 2001 David Lieberman, H-Antisemitism: Occasional Papers.

• Predictably, MacDonald's work on Jews has established a significant following among white supremacists and other right-wing extremists ready to embrace any argument promising a rationale for antisemitism. MacDonald himself disavows any responsibility for this phenomenon, arguing that he should no more be held accountable for the political applications of the truths uncovered by his scientific inquiries than Albert Einstein should be held accountable for political decisions taken to deploy nuclear weapons.

So with this source in mind I think the previous summary is correct. Any changes needed? -Will Beback · † · 08:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC

Where do you see proof from the SPLC and the Commonwealth Institute. The SPLC is notorious for not even having correct sources. Second, again nobody seems to put around the fact that address the white supremacism question. Who again are these White supremacists? Do they identify as such? If they don't why should we take politically inclined groups with axes like the SPLC and Kevin MacDonald's colleagues at this university at hear. And also what is an extremist? MacDonald disavows any responsibility because he doesn't see groups like the Occidental Quarterly as White supremacists. And where does he say I am anti-semitic or anything along these lines. The campus newspaper cites the SPLC as well so how is that a good source if the SPLC is a pov organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs).

The last source, "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy", is sufficient to support the material. -Will Beback · † · 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My attention's been drawn to this page - by the sock of a banned user, at that - and while the accusations and denial of right-wing connections seem to be marginally notable in this case, I cannot think that it in any way deserves to be in the lead paragraph. Can someone give me a decent reason why, in the absence of a single noteworthy accusation of direct connections to rightwing groups, and the presence of a clear denial, this should be in the summary of a living person's bio? Note also that an accusation of antisemitism that is cited only, according, to this article, to a single advocacy group, doesnt deserve to be in the lead either. Hornplease 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because only one source is cited it doesn't mean that there's only one source available. This is one of those "tip of the iceberg" situations. The subject is chiefly notable for his writings on Jews, and those writings are prominently cited by extremist groups. Therefore a significant measure of the subject's notability is his adoption by extremists. Personally, I think intros should just summarize the article with details in the later sections. We could find more sources and add a fuller version of the issue in the body of the article. On the other hand, we don't want to make it too obvious. Actually, it looks pretty good the way it is. -Will Beback · † · 10:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'd have to demonstrate that a preponderance of his notability is due to the popularity of his work with extremists; and you'd need several reliable sources discussing his work in order to do that, not just articles based specifically on the SPLC's press releases. And the intro would have to be reworked, to put his denial first. Hornplease 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We can put his denial first, but I see no reason to require that we prove the "preponderance of his notability" is due to any particular factor. That's virtually unprovable and if that were the standard all Wikipedia biographies would be blank. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The Los Angeles Times has never written an article about MacDonald's professional work on child development, but they have reported on his theories of Jewish "evolutionary strategy" and noted by the popularity among extremists.[8] Others have also reported on that aspect of his notability.[9] -Will Beback · † · 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; "preponderance of notability" indeed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, once again, great drive-by.

Will, I'd like to point out that you said 'significant measure of the subjects notability'. I'd just like to point out that unless this article is reworked, it needs to demonstrate that it's something more than significant, or it becomes guilt by association. In particular, the 'appropriation' of his work by white supremacists seems to be more sensible wording, in the presence of his denials, whether I personally believe him or not. (I don't.) Remember, guilt by association is specifically ruled out in

WP:BLP. If nothing else, the fact that its in the 'criticism' section seems to indicate that he is responsible for the appropriation. Claims like that need a lot of substantiation. Hornplease

15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Daniel Vining explores what’s in a name: how the definition of the word "racism" has shifted in recent decades, and what that semantic wrenching may portend.
• Brent Nelson takes a look at how the white working class was forced to bear the burden of integration in the South, and later the North, by wealthy Caucasian "conservatives"
• Michael O’Meara provides a brilliant appreciation and explication of the dense philosophy of Martin Heidegger*, as well as suggestions for its reception by partisans of the West.
• Then there’s Edmund Connelly’s lively essay on the undisputed Jewish preeminence in television, in particular how Jewish aims and values have increasingly conditioned programming in this arguably most influential medium.

(I have wikified

Look at the advertisement on the page facing the Table of Contents. It is for a book called The Dispossessed Majority. One of the so-called "reviewers" quoted in this advertisement writes that this book, "represents a landmark assessment of of the racial, cultural, and political plight of America's white majority." Later on, the advertisement proclaims, "Available again, The classic that influenced a generation of racially conscience (sic.) Americans."

I think this article won't be accurate about Kevin MacDonald unless it tells of the opinions that he proudly presents, and the associations he proudly makes. Whatever you think of Kevin MacDonald, he is an honest man who does not hide his associations and opinions. And one more thing about MacDonald. He does not suffer us by writing a personal memoir. If he has ever been persecuted, he doesn't claim it. He wants his ideas to be taken seriously for what they are. I thought Wikipedia's job was to tell the truth, to provide accurate and well-source information. So my question to you, RG415WBFA, is, since MacDonald is completely open about what he believes and with whom he associates, why won't you give him credit for having the honesty and integrity to do so? --Metzenberg 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a judge of it. I actually have met Kevin MacDonald and have read the Occidental Quarterly. And I don't see how this can be classified as so called white supremacist when it just talks about Europeans and their plight. Blacks do this many times more often in America and much more openly and nobody says they are Black supremacists. There are Tibetans who are being demographically displaced and nobody says they are Tibetan supremacists. As for MacDonald not being persecuted, I never particularly emphasized that. But, you can look at this vdare article http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/061114_splc.htm and tell me if he isn't persecuted. It is not a big deal if you don't say that he is but he certainly is unfairly targeted. Dr. MacDonald never cowered away for his affiliation with the Occidental Quarterly and I never said that he did so I don't know what you're talking about and you keep saying it like I didn't. So you seem to have things wildly wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs).

RG415WBFA, The 10th icon from the left on your editing form gives you an easy way to sign your comments on Talk pages. Would you please use it? --Metzenberg 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleared the ties to white supremacists and neo-nazis section and the sentence in the introdcutory paragraph without signing in. I apologize for not signing. It was not intention. RG415WBFA

Please don't removed sourced content without a reason. What's the reason for clearing that materil? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did remove it with a reason. I wrote it when I changed. It has factually incorrect information such as calling the Council of Conservative Citizens a White Supreamcists when according to the Wikipedia entry it is objectively not one. One more example is calling David Duke when again he isn't that according to Wikipedia nor doesn't call himself that. It is riddled with points of view intertwined with correct information.

The best thing to do when you find text with problesm is to fix the problesm, not remove all of the text. I'm going to restore it so we can fix what needs fixing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason Mr. MacDonald has been classified in the article as a "scholar of antisemitism". Actually, "Antisemitic Scholar" would be more accurate but I guess it would be too POV to write that. I suggest erasing the misleading classification - at the very least.

Yabti 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He writes scholarly books about anti-semitism. There's nothing misleading about categorizing him as a "scholar of antisemitism". That he is considered anti-semitic by many is a separate matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is possibly the most biased, ethnically-pandering article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Judaism should be subject to cold scientific analysis just like any other phenomenon. MacDonald, a quite gentle-mannered, intelligent, rational and moral scholar, is made out be some sort of neo-Nazi guru and instigator of neo-Nazi terrorism. Only negative slanders by MacDonald's personal enemies and far-left fringe groups are permitted as critical quotes, while the great wealth of people and quotes in his general support by actually honest analysts (Frank K. Salter, Kevin Hannan, David Sloan Wilson, Paul Gottfried, Henry Makow (son of Holocaust survivors, etc.) are systematically silenced and repressed. These voices of support should be included for justice's sake. No wonder the whole educated world considers Wikipedia a grotesque joke, dominated as it is by hyperaggressive ethnic cliques (Jewish tribalism) and vice-activists (pedophilia- and sodomy-apologists). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs).

That's an intersting perspective. If you have sources for these favorable quotations regarding the subject please add them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources for the favorable quotations are found here:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Reviews.htm

Now the question is, will there be enough courage and impartiality to display them on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 06:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

An older link to the same material was already included, I updated it to the new link. Wikipedia has nothing to do with questions of impartiality, only of accuracy. In my opinion, and as far as I can tell, the article is not biased. Maybe you forgot to offset your own bias? —AldeBaer 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This commentary was moved from the article to the talkpage. --Slp1 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has apparently been compiled by lefties and should not be considered an objective or balanced description of Prof. MacDonald and his scholarly work and accomplishments. I happened to know him personally for years, and can attest that he is not a monster that this article attempts to portray him as. On the contrary, he is a gentle and ethical academician who relentlessly searches for truth, no matter how unpopular or hated such truth might appear. The reader can judge the emotionally loaded contents of this page for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.63.174 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2007

Would you care to give us examples in the article where MacDonald is portrayed as a monster? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is so biased against Dr MacDonald that no one will believe in the criticsm directed at him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have citable material that you think is missing, or if you believe that there is material currrently in the article that cannot be properly cited to generally reliable sources, please bring it forward. Otherwise, the fact that you believe the article is biased doesn't count for much. - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved two sections concerning the The Culture of Critique series to that article. We should try to keep this article focused on the person, while the other article is devoted to the books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion or just edit warring? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

sneaky vandalism by 'Will Beback' - blanking, twice, of key contribution[a modest response to MacDonald's critics]. I have correctly labeled this section's discussion heading, as it was labeled when 'Will Beback' deleted it and its contents the second time.Bill0756 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blanked anything. I moved the two section concerning the "Culture of Critique" series to the article on that topic. Why do you think they belong here instead of there? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

MacDonald summary response to Pinker's Slate article added, due to the decision to articulate Pinker Slate points on wiki. If either is eliminated, then the other could be also, resulting in something like, "MIT prof Pinker objects to MacDonald's theories and process in a letter to Slate magazine<link reference>. MacDonald strongly objects to Pinker's attacks, and responded by line on his website to Pinker's Slate letter<link reference> Bill0756 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Crticisms of MacDonald (and his rebuttals) belong on this page. Criticisms and rebuttals of the CoC belong in that article. Most of the criticisms appear to concern the books, not the person, so that's why I moved them. Why did you move them back? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, vandalism by Will Beback. Blanking a modest quote and link to MacDonald's observations on Wikipedia entries regarding his name.72.193.200.77 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, in this latest vandalism, continuously blanked a modest quote and link to MacDonald's view on Wikipedia entries regarding him. After more than one attempt at blanking MacDonald's link to MacDonald's response to these Wiki identified critics, and blanking a MacDonald quote viewing several Wiki critics as offering "negative assertions", Will Beback removed both link and quote, and placed it in a lesser relevant "miscellaneous" section, from the"response" section . Will Beback each time asserted false information that a link did not come from MacDonald's website, when it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. I moved the material on Wikipedia down to a "miscellaneous" section, per the example provided by Elias. That's appropriate considering the minor nature of the "complaint". The other changes are just housekeeping. For example,

WP:MOS tells us not to use academic titles like "Dr.". Please assume good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mischaracterization to offer a partial list of MacDonald's objections [per Bloodsthecat]. MacDonald has a long list of objections to Bierich, either none or all objections is appropriate. Please read info in links before editing; both Bloodsthecat and Will Beback have offered either mischaracterizations of MacDonald(Bloodsthecat suggesting MacDonald only had the two objections to Bierich he points to), or outright false information(Will Beback's assertions, each time before he blanked info, that MacDonald's quote was not from his website when it was).Bill0756 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire article deals with his work on Jews. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this article should put some focus on his other work? Like for instance that he began studying wolves? I mean let's face it, he has done other projects than Jews. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While he has done other projects, and those should be mentioned, he isn't notable for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

-EliasAlucard, Maybe no one yet is familiar enough with his other works to comment. They are cited[in Professional Background] but as you suggest, not articulated at all. Of course anyone wanting to articulate them would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, this article puts a loooooot of emphasis on his work on Jews. That's fine, but I'd like to be able to read more on what he's written on other topics. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to add anything notable to this article, and you are welcome to read more of what he has written on other topics to see if they are notable and add them. I see nothing in the literature indicating such notability, and I don't see anything i.m.o. that is notable in his writings not related to Jews. Macdonald's only notability appears to be due to his Judeophobic and white supremacist writings, and the response he has gotten to them, and his own rebutalls to the criticisms, which are largely only featured on his own website or in fringe publications. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia
• MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories.^[1]

Are we just adding everything that's barely mentioned on the subject's website? I think we're going beyond normal biography here if we're mentioning every pet peeve. The link in question doesn't say anything about having "taken exception". Let's avoid adding so much stuff sourced only to the subject's website. Reliable sources should be used, meaning material published in newspapers, books, journals, and the like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, the topic MacDonald is engaged in is a very controversial topic regardless of if what he's saying is true or not. When publishing the stuff he has published, he will get attacked negatively from right to left in a sort of character assasination (basically ad hominem), all this done because Jews and others don't want to give him a shred of credibility, and the word of shame label "anti-Semite" is constantly applied on MacDonald. If he thinks we've misrepresented him on Wikipedia, it most definitely should be mentioned here. Of course, it would be nice if Kevin himself could give a bit more details on what he thinks is inaccurate, but it is our duty to cite and report the content. Another example is Robert Spencer, after a lame ad hominem attack on his publisher, Regnery, from Carl Ernst, it has as you can see, been cited and reported on his Wikipedia entry. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The source you list doesn't say that he think Wikipedia misrepresents him. Read it. Until we can find a source that supports the material it should be deleted. Please don't misrepresent what MacDonald has actually said. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny now or what's the deal? The Wikipedia section as it is right now, cites him directly, and the source points to his site. No one is misrepresenting him, we are actually citing his own statement. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement on the linked page is:

• Wikipedia has two articles on me, the main one listed under my name, Kevin B. MacDonald, and another listed under The Culture of Critique series. Both contain negative assertions about my work by John Tooby, Steven Pinker, Jaff Schatz, and David Lieberman. My replies to these comments can be accessed via the above links (1.Tooby and Pinker; 2. Schatz and Lieberman).

I don't see how you can summarize that by writing:

• MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories.

Furthermore, this isn't MacDonld's website. We don't need to copy everything he writes, particularly those that comment on other people.

WP:BLP forbids using self-published sites to source commentary about 3rd-aprties, and there appears to be alot of material sourced only to MacDonald's website. We should rely on published sources, not blogs. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what was written in the Wikipedia section in an earlier revision of the article. It has now been changed to a more NPOV version.[10] Question is, why do you keep pretending like the section, as of right now, states something else? It's true that this isn't his website and neither are we plagiarizing what he's written, we are simply reporting short excerpts from some of his debates/discussions/arguments (that we are allowed to do, last I checked).

WP:BLP you're trying to make. We should rely on published sources, not blogs. — His website is not exactly a blog... And even if it were, this article is about Kevin MacDonald, and that would make his blog, a primary source for citation. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs

) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I personally think that if he feels mirepresented on Wikipedia, being that this is Wikipedia, such an opinion of his would make it notable for inclusion. Don't you agree? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics: where does he "take exception" or say that he's been "misrepresented"? Are you basing those assertions on the text I posted above, copied from his website used as a citation? I don't see it it. He says that there are "negatice assertions" but he doesn't disagree or complain about those unspecified assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps he was referring to an earlier revision of this article when he wrote that which contained a lot more POV. But this is what he has written and that is what we have reported, nothing more, nothing less. I honestly don't see the problem and what the fuss is about. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you behind or something? We have removed that MacDonald also has taken exception to the generally negative characterization of himself and his ideas on Wikipedia entries regarding him and his theories. version. Why do you keep bringing it up? Get over it, it's not in the article any longer, but now it features a direct quote instead so there won't be any misunderstanding. This is the second time I point this out to you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So now you're just quoting him verbatim? We already provide a link to his website, why do we need to quote so much of it here? The quotation you put is doesn't add anything to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is a typical Wikipedia thing. For instance, John Podhoretz has been accused of being gay in his Wikipedia entry. This was false, and has been removed. Now his article reports it here. This is what we do at Wikipedia. If the guy feels we've misrepresented him, we usually report it in the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Unindenting

A) MacDonald doens't say that he's been misrepresented.

B) The Podhoretz comments were published in reliable sources, not posted on his personal website.

C) Podhoretz's comments are included in a "Miscellaneous" section. In this article MacDonald's comment is given a subheading, making it much more prominent.

D) If we simply want to say that MacDonald feels he's been misrepresented I don't object to a sourced sentence somewhere in the article. I do object to devoting a whole section to it, to misrepresenting what he's written, and also to the enormous amount of space devoted to quoting MacDonald attacking his critics and the critics of his books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, THE ARTICLE DOES NO LONGER SAY HE FEELS MISREPRESENTED, IT JUST CITES HIM VERBATIM. CAN YOU PLEASE DROP IT? YOU NO LONGER HAVE A CASE SINCE USER:Bill0756 CHANGED IT HERE.[11] I hope I've made myself clear now. If you continue to bring up the Kevin MacDonald feels he's been misrepresented statement again I will disregard your opinion entirely. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill out. You wrote, "If the guy feels we've misrepresented him, we usually report it in the article." If he doesn't feel misrepresented then why are we devoting a whole section to his commentary? You haven't responded to my other points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresented = obviously, "negative characterization". The current revision of the article, just quotes his comment on his wikipedia entries. I think that's notable enough for inclusion in the article. Don't bring up the "misrepresentation" thing again. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Negative characterization" is not synonymous with "misrepresentation". Anyway, you haven't replied to my other objections. If you think that the Podhoretz example is a good one then let's treat this the same way: as a miscellaneous item. A couple of obscure sentences on his personal website don't merit a whole section in a biography. That's undue weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we just remove this absurd section? Wikipedia mentioning that the obscure author mentions on his obscure website that wikipedia mentions him...sheesh! Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't just run around and delete sections from articles. If you dislike the author, that's fine. But if you want the section removed, you'll need a valid reason for doing so. Disliking the section, is not a good reason. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is abject absurdity a valid reason? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "abject absurdity" can be applied on a section where Kevin MacDonald describes his wikipedia entry. If you could perhaps, elaborate and somehow further enlighten me on that, perhaps it can be applied. But something tells me your personal POV (i.e., your contempt of the author) has something to do with it. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<-----It would be the pinnacle of absurdity to attempt to explain why the abjectly absurd is absurd. If Wikipedia mentioning that the obscure author mentions on his obscure website that Wikipedia mentions him isn't understood as being by definition absurd, then I cannot enlighten you further. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to completely ignore your opinion. The fact that you think he's an obscure author seems very obvious to me that you want to put him in a negative light. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A good reason is "undue weight".

WP:WEIGHT. It isn't an important issue and so it shouldn't be made to appear important. If MacDonald had written and published an article about his disputes with Wikipedia over this biography then it would be significant. Instead, he simply points to the article and very briefly says that it includes "negative assertions". Our section on it is longer then his own comment. It is Elias, who keeps retoring the info, who needs to justify its inclusion. I'm going to remove it again - please don't restore it until there's a consensus to do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the section. I am not the only one restoring it (see for example Bill's edit here). Kevin MacDonald is an academic scholar who has faced a lot of character assassination because of the controversy in his books. I think that makes his point of view on his Wikipedia entry (which I believe contains some unjustified POV) notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the person adding the material to justify it. Which material in this article contains unjustifed POV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is to document and discuss vandalism, which has been significant against MacDonald here. I suggest my or others' accusations/observations be checked in the "history" section. Other people here in 'discussion' have mentioned the terrible bias against MacDonald this Wiki entry has, but now specifically maybe it's time to have a vandalism documentary. Ironically, MacDonald's own response to major critics featured here, was blanked more than once, then moved from the "Response to Critics" section, and edited with the effect of dilution. Anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put a link and quote from MacDonald giving his perspective on the Wiki entries regarding his name; they were first erased twice then moved to a less relevant section, then they were edited to dilute his response. The violator, Will Beback, has denied each time, offering obfuscating excuses, and when not outrightly blanking pro-MacDonald info and links, usually he rephrases and/or moves content to obscure Wiki entries or sections, but constantly there is pro-MacDonald info missing from each of his vandalisms. Will Beback and others have vandalized this Wiki entry several times, usually using clever techniques. Many times Will Beback has offered false assertions[each time he blanked the MacDonald's Wiki quote, Will Beback said it wasn't from his website but it clearly was, then Will Beback asserted he only moved the content to a new section but omits the fact he first blanked, twice, the MacDonald quote]. MacDonald has said that he's generally given up on editing Wikipedia himself due to such vandalism and bias.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback initially blanked the entire section regarding "Responding to Critics" as it first appeared, giving as an excuse that it had to do with his "books" rather than himself. Of course Will Beback at the same time was editing and adding criticisms of MacDonald's book theses in the entry, so the effort was offering criticism while denying response to it. This was massive vandalism and is documented in the "response to Critics" section here in discussion. Finally Will Beback allowed the "response to critics" info to stay after twice blanking it from the "Kevin B. MacDonald" entry.Bill0756 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that there is a shortage of pro-Macdonald info; in fact there's a whole section about the praise Macdonald has received; just so happens that most of it is from from Nazis. But you are right, anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website, since encyclopedias generally do not exist to be a repository for every mundane utterance that appears on those websites. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Good faith edits aren't vandalism. "Assume good faith" is a policy.

2. We have a separate article on the Culture of Critique series, and that is where criticism of those books (and rebuttals) belong best. Once we've finished editing the material here it should be moved there.

3. MacDonald's reference to Wikipedia was being misrepresented, with assertions that weren't included in the source.

4. As Boodlesthecat says, we don't need to include every comment from the subject. It's our job to summarize, not to quote.

This article has been through a lot over the years, including considerable participation by the subject. I'm not interested in re-arguing every point all over again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Bill is raising some valid concerns. Look, we know MacDonald is a controversial figure and that he has political opponents against him because of what he writes in his books. I think it would be foolish to assume that every editor (I'm not going to mention any names) working on this article is doing it out of the best intentions. Political agendas are not uncommon on Wiki, and I don't doubt for a second that some Wikipedians are going to try and misrepresent MacDonald. On a side note, Bill is right when he says that anyone trying to research MacDonald should go to his website. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. If you see an instance of misrepresentation, please point it out. As for political agendas, I most certainly have my opinions on this subject--in my house, in fact in my whole neighborhood and every neighborhood I have lived in, the Nazis are the bad guys. But again, if you see any misrepresentation, please point it out. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I mention Nazis? Are you insinuating that MacDonald is a neo-Nazi because he writes books that are critical of Jews? Nice

guilt by association fallacy and a reductio ad Hitlerum. I think the misrepresentation is vague in this article, but it exists. For instance, a widely quoted source in this article is the SPCL,[12] and MacDonald himself has been critical of the SPCL. How is this a neutral source and how do we know that the content cited from that source doesn't misrepresent MacDonald, seeing how he has been complaining about misrepresentation from the SPCL? And how is a source like the SPCL, which is clearly against MacDonald's work, neutral and objective on the matter? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs

) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult Wikipedia 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

What's wrong with the source? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, where did you get the "insult Wikipedia 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 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.[13] 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.[14] 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:

• 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.[15]

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: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

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)