Talk:The Culture of Critique series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

• And how on earth could Judaism “[foster] in Jews a series of marked genetic traits”? Does he really argue this (in which the man is ignorant of basic genetic theory), or is it a mistake made by an editor of this article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This line seems to have been copied from an article by a critic, David Lieberman, "Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques". [1] Apparently Lieberman is a history professor, so he may well have misstated MacDonald's thesis as it relates to "fostering" "marked genetic traits". [2] -Willmcw 23:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Obvious Original Research 2 Jewish enthnocentrism again 3 Moving all the text to author page 4 Book titles 5 Why the page ? 6 Anti-Semitism?

[edit] Obvious Original Research

I've commented out some of the obvious Original Research, but much more needs to be removed. This article should be about MacDonald's theories, and published criticisms of them, not original research by Wikipedia editors wishing to defend or disprove MacDonalds theories.

[edit] Jewish enthnocentrism again

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

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

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

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

[edit] Moving all the text to author page

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

Ed, this was just all moved out of Kevin B. MacDonald a couple of weeks ago. Why are you undoing all this work without gaining consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the talk page and didn't see anything about that. Anyway, The Culture of Critique should be about that particular book. There is no such topic as Culture of Critique, is there? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was moved so that the MacDonald article could be a relatively non-controversial article about him, whereas this could be an article about his (in)famous theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reviewers, critics, and MacDonald himself generally treat his trilogy as a unit. Unfortunately, no overall name has ever arisen to refer to the body of work (which has swollen to four with a recently published monograph). While the title may not adequately reflect that, I'm sure the editors are open to a title-change. That would be much better than adding all the material back to the bio. Please read the long discussions of this on the bio talk page. -21:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given the large amount of time and effort that has gone into editing this, I don't understand why Ed Poor is making this move unilaterally. It goes against the consensus of the other editors. I think that reverting it until a discussion occurs would be appropriate. -Willmcw 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, guys: at least read the new version. I put hours of work into it. At least a 10-minute skim? Please? :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how many hours of work that went into the previous version? If you tell me you've read all the talk pages, and their archives, then I'd be more sympathetic. That said, your version may well be better. If so, let's move it back here. -Willmcw 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note the fate of your text move to Frankfurt School. There, too, the talk page has seen repeated disussions over MacDonald. There's nothing wrong with "being bold" and bringing a fresh sensibility, but also be aware that these are issues that have been extensively discussed. (Don't forget to add back the Frankfurt info to the MacD. bio). Cheers, -Willmcw 21:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, Stirling deleted MacD's views as "non notable non specific information"; I saw that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well, if you'd read the discussion, you'd know that the article is not on one book, but on his set of books on the topic. And yes, the editors reached the conclusion that this scholarship (which is not MacDonald's scholastic field) is best handled in an article of its own. Otherwise it totally swamps his biography, which created problems in the past. As for the time it takes you to read the discussions, your concern about time spent is "invalid". ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see; and I did find the time to scroll thru the stuff. IMO the article did not match the title. AFAIK "CofC" is the tithe of a book. If this title gave rise to a term "CofC", then its meaning was not explained. I saw on google the usage, kind of "the phenomenon that Kevin Macdonald calls the “culture of critique", but some authors attribute different meanings to it, and some of them are even putting wrong words into McDon's mouth. neither old, nor Ed's version give an explanation to thic catch phrase (at least not prominently enough to my skimming eye) Mikkalai 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

A term I've seen used most is "MacDonald's trilogy", but that does not sound like a suitable article title. There is no doubt that they are a trilogy, the author often refers to them as such. "This book is the third and final volume developing an evolutionary perspective on Judaism. " (Preface, The Culture of Critique [4]). I propose "The Culture of Critique trilogy" as a better article title, to address recurring concerns that it sounds as if it refers to only one book. --Willmcw 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What if he writes another book? I propose "The Culture of Critique series". -- Toytoy 03:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's OK too. In fact, he has written a fourth book, really a collection of articles, arguably on the same thesis. "Series" still makes sense as an entry in a books category. Good suggestion. Before doing a move, let's wait a few hours in case anyone else wants to jump in. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Culture of Critique series sounds good. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

• Views of Kevin B. MacDonald - my preference for sidebar
• The Culture of Critique series - Toytoy's proposal
• Culture of Critique series - ditto, but shorter
• culture of critique - MacD's pet term
• [[]] - your alternative here!
• [[]] - your alternative here!

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

I would not favor "Views", because we aren't interested in his views on all topics. Since there seems to be some consensus on The Culture of Critique series, I'll move this article to that name. -Willmcw 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's all moved, just waiting for Ed Poor to finish his re-write and move it all back over. Thanks. -Willmcw 21:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Thanks for your organizational help and encouraging remarks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Book titles

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

I think I saw something on a MacD page (or a pro-MacD book review?) explaining that "culture of critique" refers to Jewish intellectuals because they criticize or "critique" everything that gets in their way. I'm not sure though.

By the way, I'm starting to get a whiff of double standard in M's views: like, (1) how dare those Jews struggle so hard for survival and/or dominance (no fair!) vs. (2) everyone struggles for survival and dominance, and Judaism is merely one of several very successful examples of this struggle. I'm getting the impression that MacD says BOTH, even though the two ideas clearly contradict each other. Is there anything to this?

Oh, and thanks for moving down the references; now that my grand scheme nearly fulfilled, I appreciate you and others jumping in. It's really been nice of you all to let me take the lead in making such a radical change. I hope it ends up satisfying everyone all around. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the page ?

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

The whole point at the time, as I recall it, was to keep the edit wars out of the biography article, and restrict them to this article instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Jay is right - we were in an unproductive editing situation in which MacDonald himself was playing a major part. "Deserve" is a tricky claim to establish, but a result of the edititing situation was that the material kept getting longer and longer. Note that this is one article on a series of three (or four) books. We have many articles on single books of even lesser importance. Maybe we should have an article about each of Plato's dialogues, but that is not our standard. We could merge them this article with the MacDonald bio, but I don't see the benefit. -Willmcw 18:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (PS - see Category:Dialogues of Plato for 18 articles)

Willmcw, I see the whole section about immigration in the Kevin B. MacDonald article as belonging here, since its all based on the third book in the series. Another argument in favour of bringing the section here is that that section is the only one in that article which has attracted edit wars. What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK then. Conciliatory attitude. I can understand/appreciate that, but, let's be frank- these books could have been mentioned in the main article. don't see much point in creating a whole page and rehashing criticism voiced in a few articles that could have appeared as external linx. Mir Harven 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI, prior to the split the MacDonald bio had grown to 4,000 words and was receiving dozens of edits a week. Yes, many of us thought that it was longer than its notability required. What you see now is the result of large amounts of wikitime and effort. Though not perfect, these two articles are "sleeping dogs" that have settled into stability. Let's not re-merge the articles unless there is a clear and compelling reason. -Willmcw 20:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lesser evil. OK, I can live with that.Mir Harven 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism?

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

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

The series takes a negative view of Jewish ethnic influence on the rest of civilization. Does anyone think it is pro-Semitic? -Will Beback 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's very reductionist of you, must everything be either anti or pro semitic? Why can't the study be merely a study? Neutral. Realist. Unrealist. But irrelevante to anti-semitism, which it is? But perhaps even the guy that does the toast wrong does it because it's "anti-semitism"? Well... i detect some paranoia: a lucid study is merely a lucid studdy.

Just because something isn't a philo-Semitic work doesn't meant that it's automatically anti-Semitic. That's the problem/paradox when writing on Jewish issues -- if a person isn't unabashedly positive towards Jews he/she is immediately labeled as an anti-Semite, i.e. a person isn't allowed to write in a sharp and critical way without been labeled as a 'Jew hater,' even if this is untrue. So, in light of this, I'm removing the category again. --152.163.100.197 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "anti-Semite" is synonymous with "Jew-hater". And I don't think that anyone can argue that the series does not take a negative view of Jewish ethnic influence on the rest of civilization. It's that negative view which merits the category. Also, like it or not, the series is used by others to promote anti-Semitic views. -Will Beback 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "negative" libel is merely yours, and POV.

Furthermore, one of the key topics of the books, especially CofC, is anti-Semetisim and its causes. For that reason alone the category is appropriate. -Will Beback 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it patently isn't. You seem seriously obssessed about this "Anti-Semitism". To the point you seem incapable of unbiased review of this article.

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