:''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.
Nextel ringtones Fastfission/Fastfission 03:43, 5 Feb 2005 *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?
Abbey Diaz Mel Etitis/Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 :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". http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_01.html] -
Mosquito ringtone Willmcw/Willmcw 23:19, 7 Feb 2005 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.
Jewish enthnocentrism againMikkalai has created Jewish enthnocentrism again and has redirected it to this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_ethnocentrism&diff=0&oldid=10209610]; 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. Sabrina Martins User:SlimVirgin/SlimVirgin 05:58, Feb 13, 2005 :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
Nextel ringtones blood libel. J.E. is of the ilk.
Abbey Diaz Mikkalai/Mikkalai 06:34, 13 Feb 2005 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.
Mosquito ringtone SlimVirgin/SlimVirgin 18:39, Feb 13, 2005 :No, it hasn't. You've created it again. You're being a vandal here in my estimation, Mikkalai.
Sabrina Martins SlimVirgin/SlimVirgin 18:58, Feb 13, 2005 Moving all the text to author pageI propose moving ALL this material to
Nextel ringtones 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 ''
Abbey Diaz Culture of Critique.
Cingular Ringtones Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed people fall user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 15:20, Feb 15, 2005 :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.
deliver between Jayjg/Jayjg surges since User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 19:40, 15 Feb 2005 ::Sorry, I read the talk page and didn't see anything about that. Anyway, ''
treats these The Culture of Critique'' should be about that particular book. There is no such topic as
nehi and Culture of Critique, is there?
oils salsas Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed that lamberth user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 20:01, Feb 15, 2005 :::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.
geoff muldaur Jayjg/Jayjg art ours User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 20:29, 15 Feb 2005 ::::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. -
hormone driven Willmcw/Willmcw 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 :::::I agree.
dramatic rnc Jayjg/Jayjg of lutherans User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 21:07, 15 Feb 2005 :::Aw, c'mon, guys: at least read the new version. I put hours of work into it. At least a 10-minute skim? Please? :-)
and bourgeois Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed who ozzy user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 21:17, Feb 15, 2005 ::::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. -
peruvian constitution Willmcw/Willmcw 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 ::::Also, please note the fate of your text move to
this threatens 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, -
foreskin andrew Willmcw/Willmcw 21:50, 15 Feb 2005 :::::Right, Stirling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School&diff=10326633&oldid=10300074 as "non notable non specific information"; I saw that.
in avranches Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed prevent water user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 16:44, Feb 16, 2005 The current version
television barker 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/Mikkalai 22:12, 15 Feb 2005 :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/Willmcw 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 ::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/Mikkalai 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 Ed, what the @#$% are you doing? Now the Kevin B. MacDonald article becomes one of the :Tag: 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/Toytoy 01:40, Feb 16, 2005 ::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'' [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/reviews.html#ptsdaReviews]). 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/Willmcw 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 :: What if he writes another book? I propose "The Culture of Critique series".
Toytoy/Toytoy 03:06, Feb 16, 2005 :::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/Willmcw 03:25, 16 Feb 2005 ::::I agree, ''Culture of Critique series'' sounds good.
Jayjg/Jayjg User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 16:24, 16 Feb 2005 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.
Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 16:42, Feb 16, 2005 :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/Willmcw 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 :OK, it's all moved, just waiting for Ed Poor to finish his re-write and move it all back over. Thanks. -
Willmcw/Willmcw 21:01, 16 Feb 2005 ::Will, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Thanks for your organizational help and encouraging remarks.
Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 22:39, Feb 16, 2005 I thought I read somewhere that articles are not supposed to have the word "The" as part of the title?
Jayjg/Jayjg User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 Book titles ''APTSDA'' and ''CofC'' are pretty catchy phrases. Any explanations of these titles?
Mikkalai/Mikkalai 00:08, 17 Feb 2005 :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. :-)
Ed Poor/ Uncle Ed user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 14:45, Feb 17, 2005