Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The Yahoo group referenced as a resource [1] is set to invited members-only. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll delete it as inaccessible. -Willmcw 20:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't delete after all, but added 'invitation only' since it is inaccessible. While I was editing I made some organizational changes - some of the sentences and clauses had gotten out of logical order - and added some objective facts. -Willmcw 06:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MacDonald also neglects the fact that intermarriage rates between Jews and non-Jews in Europe and North America are significantly higher than that of numerous other religious and ethnic groups (see Silent Holocaust). He also ignores the 19th century Haskalah movement that sought to integrate Jews into European society and the move by many in the Jewish community before World War II in favour of assimilation, including the widespread conversion to Christianity of upper-class and middle-class Jews in Britain, France, and Germany in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His alleged tendency to dismiss or ignore evidence that contradicts his thesis and cherry-pick evidence that might support his thesis leads to accusations that MacDonald is guilty of tunnel vision.

Where are references for these criticisms? Links to people who have made them would be good, as would proof that he has actually ignored those points -- has anyone who contributes to this page actually read his books? Jacquerie27

That has become a moot point because Professor MacDonald has apparently swamped the criticism by several hundred words of rebuttal. This article is growing into an autobiography by the professor. Maybe we ought to create a MacDonald responds to his critics section for his additions. I notice that he has not deigned to discuss his changes. -Willmcw 19:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Auto-biography:

If you are reasonably significant, someone will create an article about you sooner or later. Some of us feel that even editing an article about yourself is best avoided, on the same principle. If you do so, please only add verifiable information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate.

AndyL 01:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given the above I think we should ask Professor MacDonald to bring his corrections and edits to the talk page rather than implement them unilaterallyAndyL 01:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that may be necessary. Fixing factual errors is one thing, writing whole essays is another. -Willmcw 05:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed: "We should note, however, that intermarriage is easier in a statistical sense for a minority, because more partners and a wider variety of partners are available from the majority community than within the minority community itself. "

This is pov and, frankly, utter nonsense which doesn't explain a) why the Jewish intermarriage rate has increased through the twentieth century b) why it's higher than that of other minorities including minorities that are much less numerous (eg the Samaritans or the Parsees and, in North America the Amish and Sikhs) and c) has nothing to do with ethnocentrism or with MacDonald. If intermarriage is "easier" for a minority that doesn't mean a minority is bound to intermarry. Indeed, if a minority is highly exclusive or ethnocentric the "ease" of intermarriage is immaterial.

"All Jews could find non-Jewish partners if they wished, but all non-Jews could not find Jewish partners, even if they wished to do so. An equal propensity to intermarriage in minority and majority communities will therefore produce higher rates of intermarriage in the minority community."

Irrelevent and immaterial as well as somewhat tortured logic. Does this mean if 100% of Jews married gentiles Jews would be "ethnocentric" because only 5% of gentiles could marry Jews?

"Religious practice among Jews has also liberalized or declined as part of a wider process of secularization in western societies, and the Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine also argues in his book The Jewish Century (2004) that western society in general has increasingly acquired Jewish characteristics in the past century. These factors may suggest that intermarriage has increased in part because the gap between Jews and non-Jews has shrunk."

This may be relevant to an article on intermarriage but it has nothing to do with MacDonald or the question of ethnocentrism. AndyL 22:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed: "We should note, however, that intermarriage is easier in a statistical sense for a minority, because more partners and a wider variety of partners are available from the majority community than within the minority community itself. "

This is pov and, frankly, utter nonsense which doesn't explain a) why the Jewish intermarriage rate has increased through the twentieth century b) why it's higher than that of other minorities including minorities that are much less numerous (eg the Samaritans or the Parsees) and c) has nothing to do with ethnocentrism or with MacDonald. If intermarriage is "easier" for a minority that doesn't mean a minority is bound to intermarry. Indeed, if a minority is highly exclusive or ethnocentric the "ease" of intermarriage is immaterial.

In what way is it "utter nonsense"? There is more pressure on a minority to retain its status than on a majority, for obvious reasons. Use of Yiddish has declined markedly among Jews because there are far more people to speak English to -- another consequence of Jews' minority status. Nor does it claim to explain those facts.

"All Jews could find non-Jewish partners if they wished, but all non-Jews could not find Jewish partners, even if they wished to do so. An equal propensity to intermarriage in minority and majority communities will therefore produce higher rates of intermarriage in the minority community."

Irrelevent and immaterial as well as somewhat tortured logic. Does this mean if 100% of Jews married gentiles Jews would be "ethnocentric" because only 5% of gentiles could marry Jews?

Huh? No, it would mean Jews are 5% of the gentile population.

"Religious practice among Jews has also liberalized or declined as part of a wider process of secularization in western societies, and the Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine also argues in his book The Jewish Century (2004) that western society in general has increasingly acquired Jewish characteristics in the past century. These factors may suggest that intermarriage has increased in part because the gap between Jews and non-Jews has shrunk."

This may be relevant to an article on intermarriage but it has nothing to do with MacDonald or the question of ethnocentrism. AndyL 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course it has something to do with MacDonald: it is a thesis about Jewish influence on society, which is something he examines, and it may account for increased rates of intermarriage, which again is relevant to MacDonald. Jacquerie27 14:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does MacDonald make these arguments himself or are you making them for him?AndyL 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In what way is it "utter nonsense"? There is more pressure on a minority to retain its status than on a majority, for obvious reasons."

Then why are the Jews more inclined towards assimilation and intermarriage than, say, the Amish in the US or, say, Muslims in Europe or "Gypsies" in general?

"Yiddish has declined markedly among Jews because there are far more people to speak English to"

And there were not more Russian people to speak to for Russian Jews in the 19th century?

Huh? No, it would mean Jews are 5% of the gentile population.

Again, what does your original statement have to do with MacDonald? The article is on MacDonald, not on your own theories or apologias.AndyL 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree; Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Theories about intermarriage etc., if published, should be presented in an appropriate article (not this one, since this one is about Kevin J. MacDonald). Jayjg 18:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MacDonald is a published scholar and no one should object to representing his views in the article. But we need to stick to his published views. Moreover, he is not an important scholar of Jewish studies, and it sounds like most of his arguments are specultive. I don't see how they merit this much discussion. Slrubenstein 17:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Highly speculative; cannot be falsified or factually proven. We are not in the business to be his platform. The insertions happen to be factually incorrect. For example: Yiddish is markedly on the rise: both in non-religious (Bundist) and religious (Hasidim) circles. The discussion here mirrors a similar one on Jewish ethnocentrism.

His speculations about the Frankfurt School are a laugh. What makes this a particularily Jewish undertaking? None of them could claim any proficiency in the actual body of Jewish thought. Equating Jews with Marxists is a very dangerous generalisation that smells of McCarthyism. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the "real" story here -- more than the possible anti-semitism -- is the way many social scientists, in this case a psychologist, misunderstand and misuse biology. Slrubenstein 19:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yiddish is markedly on the rise -- because it shrunk markedly in the past. And there are very few, if any, Yiddish speakers left who do not also speak English. Lower Amish and Muslim intermarriage rates can also be accounted for. Nor has MacDonald "equated" Jews with Marxists, but from Marx himself onward, Jews have certainly played an important role in Marxism. And in Freudianism, and in the Frankfurt school. And in chess and nuclear physics. Interesting facts inviting explanation. Jacquerie27 22:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many, many Jews who reject Marx and Freud. But if you want an explanation, here it is: Jews were excluded from European life in most places until the mid 1800s, so it is understandable that they would find theories critical of European society attractive. This relates to the whole Yiddish thing -- the reason Yiddish declined is simple: the Holocaust. Now, what is the significance of these points? They suggest that you will be able to understand more of Jewish history if you look at political, economic, and social history than if you look for some evolutionary mechanism. Slrubenstein 22:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They aren't mutually exclusive. There are many, many Jews who reject Marx and Freud. Yes: MacDonald stresses that the vast majority of Jews were not involved in, e.g., communism. Nevertheless, the role of Jews in, e.g., communism was highly significant. Jacquerie27 00:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A) Most Jews were not communists b) Most Communists were (and are) not Jews, not in any time in the history of Marxism (and no, most of the leadership of the Bolsheviks were not Jews - in fact Jewish participation in the rival Mensheviks was much higher). To imply, as you and Macdonald do, that Communism or socialism are Jewish movements is absurd and it nothing but a hoary old canard trotted out by anti-Semites over the years.AndyL 14:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder, would you enjoy striking back properly at anti-Semites? If you would, would you take part in any movement that seemed to give you a chance of doing so? I didn't imply communism was a Jewish movement, I said Jewish participation in communism was highly significant, which it was. Your argument seems to be: unless a movement is wholly Jewish, Jews can't play any significant role at all. But one point MacDonald makes is that communism could not be a clearly Jewish movement, because that would have harmed or ended its chances of success. E.g., Jews consciously refrained from taking too public a role or adopted Gentile names. Note also that Yuri Slezkine says that Jewish participation in communism was highly significant. Or is it nothing but a hoary old canard trotted out by self-hating Jews over the years too? Jacquerie27 12:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "also speaking English" has to do with it. The number of Jews with Yiddish as a mother tongue, as their first language, is on the rise again, after a long and steep decline. As for accounting for Amish etc. intermarriage rates, does MacDonald do so, or is this something you have thought of? Jayjg 22:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacquerie, you managed to miss my point. There are many succesful Jewish scientists because when Jews assimilate, they still admire knowledge for its own sake. And they're willing to teach it as well, not like the Church monopolised on knowledge during the Middle Ages.

When I first read about Kevin MacDonald I understood that it may have been junk science. Now I know for sure. Slrubinstein is right on the mark. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can you know for sure? This isn't mathematics. Jacquerie27 00:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The hell it isn't. JFW | T@lk 08:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Has this page been protected? It appears 172 entered a protected notice at the same time I modified a sentence. Has there been a request for protection? Jayjg 20:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I requested it yesterday due to KBM's editing etc. I'd rather keep it for a little bit as a means of motivating MacDonald to come to the talk page rather than edit unilaterally (the other alternative is to tempban him for violating the wikipedia rules on editing articles on yourself despite being warned). AndyL 21:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure pages are supposed to be protected for that reason, and I doubt he'll be back if the page doesn't changes, since he seems more or less satisfied with the contents. Jayjg 22:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if the dispute with Jacquerie27 is resolved.AndyL 22:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's see what MacDonald has to say for himself: he's the one who's studied the topic in detail, not me, and it is difficult to argue against so many people, particularly on a topic as incendiary as this one. I think part of the problem is that people here, for understandable reasons, are very sensitive to theories that suggest Jews have had any significant negative influence on history. This does not mean such theories are automatically wrong or automatically ill-intentioned. Jacquerie27 00:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your "understanding" but there's no need to be patronising or so casually dismissive particularly when you seem to have argued yourself into a corner and are grasping at straws in your attempts to defend MacDonald. Indeed, given your previous claim that you don't actually believe MacDonald's theory, a claim I think is somewhat dubious, you should not be surprised if one doubts your intentions.AndyL 00:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good mixed metaphor. ;) I don't believe theories, so I don't believe MacDonald's theory. But I think it's worthy of attention and, if you like, of defence. That's how dialectic works, after all. Jacquerie27 09:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "to take arms against a sea of troubles" (Shakespeare) is a mixed metaphor. One can actually, however, grasp at straws from a corner. AndyL 14:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the straws grasped at are supposed to be saving you from drowning. Jacquerie27 11:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that. AndyL 12:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's avoid attributing motivation here on either side. The point remains that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Jayjg 01:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that MacDonald is adding lots of material to the article without discussing a single word, or even bothering to obtain a username. Scholarship and theories aside, he is not working collaboratively on this article. His last edit indicates an ongoing ignorance of wiki norms. [2] However, since it is not a 'hot edit war', I'm not sure that protecting the page is necessary. I think that reverting undiscussed edits by anon users would be more relevant to the problem. -Willmcw 01:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacquerie27 writes about MacDonald, "theories that suggest Jews have had any significant negative influence on history." If this is indeed the theory, then it doesn't belong on the Jewish ethnocentrism page as it isn't about Jewish ethnocentrism. Slrubenstein 01:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But if Jewish ethnocentrism has contributed to a negative Jewish influence on history, the theory is, partly, about Jewish ethnocentrism. Though personally I think Judeocentrism would be a better title. Jacquerie27 09:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know of no evidence to support this claim. Are there any scholars who claim this? I don't mean MacDonald, who is not an historian. Is there anyone who has researched the history of anti-Semitism who has an proof of this? Slrubenstein

You mean evidence to support the claim of Jewish ethnocentrism having a negative influence? Jacquerie27 11:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "negative influence?" Negative in what way? Influence on what or whom? I just don't know what you mean. Negative influence "on history?" That is pretty vague. What exactly are you trying to say? Slrubenstein

Say the Russian revolution. That had a negative influence on the Kulaks, among others. Was Jewish ethnocentrism involved? Or mass Muslim immigration into Europe. That's having a negative influence on freedom of speech in Europe, among other things (see e.g. Theo van Gogh). Again, was Jewish ethnocentrism involved? Jacquerie27 11:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the book Stalin's War Against the Jews by Arkady Vaksberg before you make too many assumptions about Jews benefitting from the Russian Revolution? Indeed, the Mensheviks had a much higher proportion of Jews among them than the Bolsheviks and they certainly didn't benefit from the October Revolution. As far as "mass Muslim immigration" to Europe is concerned, one result of that has been an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in countries such as France due to the opposition by sections of the Muslim population towards Jews so again hardly something from which Jews have benefitted. The reason for "mass Muslim immigration" isn't some nefarious Jewish plot but economics ie a labour shortage. AndyL 14:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know about Stalin and incidents like the (so-called) Doctors' Plot, so I was making no assumptions. Here's the Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine talking about what he calls the three Jewish paradises of the 20C: "all three represented different ways of being Jewish, and of being modern, in the modern world: non-ethnic liberal statehood in the United States; secular ethnic nationalism in Israel; and communism--a world without capitalism or nationalism--in the Soviet Union. ... My belief is that you can’t understand the second part of the Jewish story in Russia--the anti-Semitic policies, and what happens to Soviet Jews later, their desire to emigrate, for example--unless you know the first part of the story, which is mostly about amazing success." (http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/November_2004/QA-_A_conversation_with_Yuri_Slezkine.asp) You need to learn more about Jewish involvement in European and American immigration policy too. Jacquerie27 18:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh had nothing to do with Jewish ethnocentrism. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If some Jews encouraged mass immigration into Europe to make Europe more diverse and therefore "safer" (see Jewish ethnocentrism discussion) for Jews, Theo van Gogh's death has something to do with Jewish ethnocentrism. Jacquerie27 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This discussion, and much of the article content that appears under the (now-misnamed) Other criticism section should be located at the Jewish ethnocentrism article. This article is on MacDonald, the person. -Willmcw 00:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree; as I've said before, far too much of this information is spread over all sorts of articles. It needs to be consolidated in the relevant ones. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An alternative is to move much of that over here, or to a third article, perhaps titled Culture of Criticque, or something similar. In any case, it should be consolidated somewhere. See Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism. -Willmcw 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I repeat, I still see no evidence for "Jewish ethnocentrism." That some Jews found the USSR a safe haven, or even a paradise, for a period of time is in no way evidence of ethnocentrism. Moreover, I see no evidence that any Jewish desire to live in the USSR was in any way responsible for censorship in France or Stalin's genocides. None. We have been discussing this for days and for days I have been asking for evidence and for days Jacquerie 27 has avoided presenting any evidence. No evidence -- no verifiability -- and claims have to be deleted. this is a work of scholarship. Where is the evidence? Slrubenstein 21:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read MacDonald's material available on the net. If you're involved in articles on him and his ideas, that would seem an obvious step to take. Search for "JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNISM AND THE RADICAL LEFT" at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html for example. An extract:

While Stalin favored the Georgians, Jews had their own ethnic scores to settle. It seems likely that at least some of the Bolshevik mass murder and terror was motivated by revenge against peoples that had historically been anti-Jewish. Several historians have suggested that Jews joined the security forces in such large numbers in order to get revenge for their treatment under the Czars (Rapoport 1990, 31; Baron 1975, 170). For example, the Cossacks served the Czar as a military police force, and they used their power against Jewish communities during the conflicts between the government and the Jews. After the Revolution, the Cossacks were deported to Siberia for refusing to join the collective farms. During the 1930s, the person in charge of the deportations was an ethnic Jew, Lazar Kaganovich, nicknamed the 'wolf of the Kremlin' because of his penchant for violence. In his drive against the peasants, Kaganovich took 'an almost perverse joy in being able to dictate to the Cossacks. He recalled too vividly what he and his family had experienced at the hands of these people.... Now they would all pay -- men, women, children. It didn't matter who. They became one and the same. That was the key to [Kaganovich's] being. He would never forgive and he would never forget' (Kahan 1987, 164). Similarly, Jews were placed in charge of security in the Ukraine, which had a long history of anti-Semitism (Lindemann 1997, 443) and became a scene of mass murder in the 1930s.

The above is not evidence of "ethnocentrism." You can view it as self-preservation (and approve of it) or as revenge (and disapprove of it) but neither are examples of ethnocentrism. Slrubenstein 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're describing modes of competition between groups. That is what MacDonald's theory is about. To seek revenge for or the preservation of one's ethnic group is ethnocentric, not heliocentric or geocentric. If you don't agree, please describe how Jewish communists would have behaved differently if they had been acting ethnocentrically. What exactly in your opinion would constitute evidence of ethnocentrism by a particular ethnic group? Jacquerie27 10:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you still do not understand what ethnocentrism is. It is not ethnlcentric. If Jewish communists were ethnocentric they would have not become communists, they would have become revisionist Zionists (Likud), maybe. Slrubenstein

Then please tell me: What is seeking revenge for or the preservation of one's ethnic group if it is not ethnocentric? (This is your definition of the behavior of Jewish communists.) And you still haven't told me: What exactly in your opinion would constitute evidence of ethnocentrism by a particular ethnic group? Jacquerie27 22:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By "Jewish Communists" I think you mean Lazar Kaganovich. When one considers he approved and participated in Stalin's purging of many Jews in the 1930s as well as the purging of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the 1940s, the suppression of Jewish culture etc. Not exactly the acts of an ethnocentric Jew. AndyL 11:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What would have happened to him if he'd disapproved and declined to purge Jewish communists with the rest? Hint: imagine Stalin asked you to "approve" a purge. Jacquerie27 22:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see, so when he followed Stalin's orders to purge the Ukraine, Kagonovich was acting out of "Jewish ethnocentrism" but when he participated in the purges of Jews he did so out of self-preservation. How very selective of you. AndyL 22:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's that description by a Jewish historian of how Kaganovich took 'an almost perverse joy in being able to dictate to the Cossacks. He recalled too vividly what he and his family had experienced at the hands of these people.... Now they would all pay -- men, women, children. It didn't matter who. They became one and the same. That was the key to [Kaganovich's] being. He would never forgive and he would never forget' (Kahan 1987, 164). Does that sound like self-preservation to you? Jacquerie27 22:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever it sounds like, it doesn't sound like ethnocentrism. It talks about "what he and his family had experienced at the hands of these people", not what "the Jewish people" experienced. That's personal, not ethnic. By the way, does this "Jewish historian" cite this as an example of "Jewish ethnocentrism"? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suppose that Kaganovich was acting entirely egocentrically. He and his family had still been harmed by anti-Semites as Jews and he had generalized his enmity to an entire people and used communism as a vehicle for revenge. That is part of the process MacDonald is studying: generalization of personal experience to ethnic enmities and ethnocentrism. As for Kahan: he describes Kaganovich as 'an evil that turned against his own people. ... He is the prime example of the species known to my fellow landsmen as the "self-hating Jew".' I Another commentator says: 'Kahan seems to think it a greater sin for his uncle to kill Jews - "his own people" - than non-Jews'. Kahan also says this:

But as Lazar consolidated his position, he found that the Jewish revolutionaries, to whom Lenin owed so much, had to be beaten down. There was no choice. They would not yield to the party line. They were too intent with keeping their own identity.

"Goddamn them," he screamed at Khrushchev, his huge fist slamming against the door. "What do they think I will do? Bend over backward and kiss their ass? They won't learn Ukrainian, they won't use it, they insist on staying apart from what we are doing. They speak only Yiddish. They resist. Those pizdasosy - 'bastards' - resist. We try to do something better for them and they want the czar back. They fight us. What do they want, anyway, their own country? I wish there were such a place. I would send them there - all of them. Pizdasosy!"

Lazar now saw the road dividing before him: Stalin went one way, and the people among whom he was raised and, yes, of whom he was a part by blood went another.[3]

So Lazar had to follow Stalin and persecute Jewish communists who were too ethnocentric. Or die himself. Jacquerie27 08:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacquerie27, at this point I can only think you are being willfully obstructionist. I have told you, repeatedly, why the examples you provide are not of ethnocentrism. I defined ethnocentrism for you and you ignore the definition. What you are talking about is not ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism means believing your culture is the best. Self-preservation, even collective preservation, need not be motivated by ethnocentrism. An ethnic group may believe that they are merely average, or even an inferior culture, and still act to defend or propomote their interests, even if it means killing others -- that is not in any way evidence of ethnocentrism. Slrubenstein 18:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism does not necessarily entail the belief that one's people or culture is best, merely that one's people or culture is most important. Ethnic supremacism necessarily entails the belief that one's people or culture is best. If Jewish communists had not believed their people were most important -- or best -- they would not have sought revenge or preservation for them. Jacquerie27 23:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, getting revenge for actions done to yourself, your family, or even your extended family, is personal, not ethnocentric. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It depends on how you interpret the injury. If you interpret the injury as directed at you or your family as individuals by individuals, you seek revenge on the individual perpetrator(s). That is personal. If you interpret the injury as directed at you or your family as representatives of an ethnic group by representatives of another ethnic group, you seek revenge on the ethnic group of the perpetrator(s). That is ethnocentric, i.e. between groups. Jews were injured as Jews and responded in a collective manner. That is part of MacDonald's theory: Jewish collectivism as a strategy of group competition:

Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.[http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html

None of those traits are unique to Jews, but he's saying they're stronger among Jews, on average, which is a scientific question, or becoming so. There's little evidence in favour of it around here, of course. Jacquerie27 12:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, what did Kaganovich actually do to promote Judaism? Nothing. He did quite a lot to undermine the position of the Jews in the Soviet Union, however. He's a popular "Jew bogeyman" for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites who strain to find examples of Jewish involvement in Stalinism (had since Jews were one of Stalin's targets).

Communists were one of Stalin's targets. Georgians were one of Stalin's targets. Men were one of Stalin's targets. Therefore communist Georgian men had no involvement in Stalinism. Q.E.D. Jacquerie27 12:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see this as nothing but a revival of the Nazi claim of "Judeo-Bolshevism", why else the rather tortured insinuation that Marx was Judeocentric if not to hold Jews guilty by association for Marxism which the right claims was a project aimed to destroy western civilization. AndyL 00:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see this as nothing but a revival of the Nazi claim of "Judeo-Bolshevism"... Are you accusing MacDonald of reviving Nazism? If you are, you're supporting his theory: "Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue."[4] Jacquerie27 12:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing him as reviving a Nazi claim that Communism (which they called Judeo-Bolshevism) was really a Jewish attempt to impose Jewish values on Europe. You've conveniently passed over the word "claim" in my original sentence. You've also conveniently dodged my point about your rather tortured claim that Marx was a "subconscious" ethnocentric Jew and that you're basically making the facts fit the theory (tunnel vision) since, if Marxism is part of a Jewish strategy then Marx has to be an ethnocentric Jew despite all evidence to the contrary. Good thing the theory isn't known as Englesism or you'd really have a problem. AndyL 16:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to get back to the point Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the Talk: pages are not the place to promote personal theories of Wikipedia editors. If Kevin MacDonald wrote about this stuff and had it published, and uses these examples, then he can be quoted. Otherwise it's irrelevant to this article. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good thing the theory isn't known as Englesism or you'd really have a problem. Was there ever any chance it would be known as Engelsism? Jacquerie27 22:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had an open mind about J27 for over a year, but at this point, after days of extensive discussion on this and another page, it seems pretty clear to me that he is anti-Semitic. He is incapable of responding to reasonable discussion of this material, because he instinctively rejects any criticism of his views as further evidence of Jewish power or attempts to promote their influence -- a classic example of anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein 19:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Sobran defines "anti-Semite" not as someone who dislikes Jews but as someone Jews dislike. I admire Chinese intelligence and culture greatly, but I have questions about Chinese ethnocentrism. If that makes me an anti-Sinite, okay. ...after days of extensive discussion on this and another page. Extensive discussion of what? Kevin MacDonald's theories. Which I don't think you've acquainted yourself with at first hand. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jacquerie27 22:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the basis for the section starting: MacDonald's views are compatible with the views of many evolutionary scientists, including: which goes on to lists three books? On who's authority do we know that they are compatible with MacDonald's theory, and is being compatible the same as supporting? -Willmcw 18:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, have you read the references? I spent a couple hours researching this guy, and I found tons of support from others in his field, and precious little criticism, mainly coming from non-psychologists, and w/o a technical focus "nothing but gussied-up anti-Semitism" is typical. The support section will be expanded, when I, or others get around to it. Until then, do some research, its not hard. Even that anti-MacDonald MSN article has alot of useful info. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you vouch for these three authors agreeing with MacDonald by name? What does compatible with mean in this context? I think that is a poor choice of words. Agree, have similar ideas, or somthing like that would be more useful. I suppose the works of Isaac Newton are compatible with MacDonald too. ;) (PS, I've done more than a couple of hours of research. Thanks for the suggestion though). Cheers, -Willmcw 19:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other editors have asked MacDonald time and again to stop making changes to his own article without first discussing them. We have had the page protected briefly in order to discourage him, but he has never made any comment or response. Since this is not an autobiography, and it is a colaborative project, MacDonald's refusal to participate in Wikipedia according to our norms is frustrating. -Willmcw 18:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Obviously, data on intermarriage in the United States are irrelevant to whether Judaism retains its ethnic core in Israel and other non-Western societies. Indeed, abhorrence of intermarriage and deep concern about Jewish intermarriage in Europe was a prime motive for the early Zionists in attempting to establish a Jewish state. See Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5.)

How do you know thats really MacDonald? If it is, it would be great to have him engaged in the talk page. I'd LOVE to have him contribute over @ Frankfurt School, or Jewish Ethnocentrism. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do some research. It's not that hard. ;) Gee, if we could get MacDonald to discuss his edits in the talk page rather than filling the article with lengthy defenses of his theories, that'd be a big help. We've tried and tried. -Willmcw 19:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the solution may be to simply remove all of his changes until he finally deigns to show up here. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like it's gonna take a lot of removing...and MacDonald says that Jews are aggressive. -Willmcw 20:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've left an explicit invitation on his Talk: page; he can't miss it. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, he ignored the comment that another editor posted there over a week ago. Would an RfC serve any purpose? I've seen at least two other instances of subjects editing their own articles, but in both cases they participated in 'Talk' discussions regarding their edits. -Willmcw 20:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Auto-biography:

If you are reasonably significant, someone will create an article about you sooner or later. Some of us feel that even

editing an article about yourself is best avoided, on the same principle. If you do so, please only add verifiable

information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page

may be appropriate.

Alot of this section should be merged into Jewish ethnocentrism. I'll probably do that once things settle down. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Per 'Talk' discussions here and on Jewish ethnocentrism, several editors agree that the material should be merged, either here or there. Do you really think it'll settle down? -Willmcw 21:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, please don't add back in MacDonald's edits unless you are willing to vouch for the research yourself, or discuss it as we have asked MacDonald to do. This is not a vanity page for MacDonald to express his 'feelings'. -Willmcw 21:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a merger has to take place, I think this page is best, because this is the one MacDonald knows about and visits. Jacquerie27 22:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoever the anon is, they provided citations. Anyways, you did a good job w the rebuttels section. Things usually settle down BTW, and if nothing else people move on. I have to admit some pages seem almost perpetually chaotic however, and sometimes I am the one to move on. When good editers move off, and partisans, trolls and etc... take over... its certainly not good for the article. Thats a meta question, and not something I think we can expect to solve here. I'm always willing to talk about stuff, BTW, so long as the conversation is civil and productive. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The anon identified himself as MacDonald in one of his earlier edits. I believe his exact statement was "I am Kevin B. MacDonald"AndyL 22:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The anon claims to be Kevin MacDonald, as you can see from his edit record. This is the only article he has edited. Certainly, he provides citations, including copying material verbatim from his papers. But his theories are original research, and posting his theories here as such violates a basic rule of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone objects to MacDonald adding factual info, like his birthdate, or correcting factual errors. But adding, repeatedly, lengthy paragraphs of information supporting his theories, without any attmept to discuss despite numerous requests, is bad editing. MacDonald is a partisan of the most direct kind, which is why it's better for biography subjects to avoid editing their own articles. Thanks for the kind words about the rebuttal section. I don't like deleting material, but the other criticisms had turned into a Why I'm right section. Since we can't get MacDonald to "play with others", at least we can give him a sandbox of his own. -Willmcw 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given the Wikipedia guidelines regarding autobiography I think any edits by MacDonald should be removed until he discusses them in talk. AndyL 22:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree, especially since I don't assume the anon is Kevin B. MacDonald. Sure, he might be, but he could be anybody, even one of us. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If he is not MacDonald then he is a liar pretending to be that person, which is a whole other problem, perhaps even more serious. Rather than get into that, we should assume that he is who he says he is, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. -Willmcw 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the accepted technique for authenticating a Wiki identity as a wider-world identity? Jim Bowery 23:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This comes up occasionally when people use celebrity names for their usernames, which is the opposite problem. In any case, the first step is simply to ask, "are you the person you claim to be?" If this were Britney Spears, or some such, the next step would be to ask for an email to be sent from the celebrity's official website, giving validation. That probably wouldn't be necessary here, unless somebody is very skeptical. We can post a note on the IP's talk page, but so far there is no indication that he reads it. If he got a username, that would help too. -Willmcw 23:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to doubt this is Kevin MacDonald, and many reasons to believe it is. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good job, things are looking much cleaner and more readable. Glad to see the politeness here and in the edit summaries too, I think the article is reflecting that progress. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the subject of this page, I have indeed edited it in order to bring some semblance of sanity to it. When I started, it was completely one-sidede: MacDonald is a notorious antisemite and all his theories have been proven wrong. I will continue to edit the page until forced to stop. I can't understand the point of the most recent edit. I had placed the material on Zionism as a strategy to avoid assimilation and intermarriage in the section on assimilation and intermarraige because the thread of the other editors was to imply that Judaism as an ethnically pure group has effectively ceased to exist because of current intermarriage rates in the United States. I repeat, it is only in Western societies that Jews have ever had any tendency to intermarry, and a prime motivation of Zionists was to prevent this by establishing an ethnostate. To place that in a separate section on "MacDonald's Peronal Rebuttals" and then say "MacDonald feels that racial separatism . . ." is ridiculous because the reader completely loses the context and because there are dozens of references supporting this point; it's not a personal prejudice or irrational attitude on my part. Kevin MacDonald

Dr. MacDonald, thanks for joining us on the Talk page. Editing in Wikipedia is not intended to be a confrontational process, and engaging other editors in discussions about errors in the article will help make it the best possible biography. Due to your necessary lack of objectivity on your own life and work, it would be best if you discussed your edits here before adding them to the article. It is your lack of collaboration that has forced us to find other ways of approaching the editing process. While it may not seem ideal, it is fairly standard on Wikipedia to have a criticisms section. Your replies to those criticisms may be valid, but it should be very clear that you are the author of the rebuttal. If you would like to re-write the Personal rebuttal section to suit your preference, then that is what it is there for. But please don't edit the criticisms themselves. -Willmcw 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think that the people who wrote the original article and have been engaged in this have been in the least bit objective. This is why I began writing. So now it's back to what it was before the recent round of edits. I don't mind the removal of the comment citing Slezkine's work, but if it is restored, I insist on providing my viewpoint on the relationship between Western culture and Judaism. And I don't see why the followoing comment by me was removed: (Obviously, intermarriage is not an issue in Israel. Indeed, racial separatism and deep concern about Jewish assimilation and intermarriage in Europe was a prime motivation of many of the early Zionists (reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5). For example, for Jewish racial theorist Elias Auerbach, Zionism would return Jews “back into the position they enjoyed before the nineteenth century—politically autonomous, culturally whole, and racially pure” (Efron, J. M. (1994). Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 136)." Or the comment that "moreover, he notes that the leadership of the Jewish community continues to be in the hands of ethnically committed Jews who are strongly opposed to intermarriage." They are certainly germane to the discussion, since the people criticizing me are trying to show that Judaism has no ethnic content. KM

Your comment was removed because you were informed some time ago that you were required to discuss edits on this page rather than implement them unilaterally and you chose to ignore that requirement. AndyL 00:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

" I repeat, it is only in Western societies that Jews have ever had any tendency to intermarry, and a prime motivation of Zionists was to prevent this by establishing an ethnostate."

Dr. MacDonald, it is my understanding that your focus is on Ashkenazi Jews and not on other Jewish ethnicities as it's been pointed out that Jews are actually quite racially diverse. So, if your focus is on Ashkenazi Jews, then the fact that the rate of intermarriage among Ashkenazi Jews is quite high is a central point. In fact, it is not just in the United States and "the West" that Ashkenazi intermarriage rates are high but in Eastern Europe, in particular Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union and Latin America and wherever Ashkenazis live including Israel (where only a minority of Ashkenazi are) where they are intermarrying with Jews of other ethnicities. So if the rate of intermarriage is high among Ashkenazi Jews in general doesn't that throw a spanner in your claims about Ashkenazi ethnocentricity? If, on the other hand, you claim that Jews in general are ethnocentric, not just Ashkenazi Jews, how do you explain the vast racial diversity within Judaism ie the fact that you have Ashkenazi Jews who look European, Shephardic Jews and Mizrachi Jews who look Arabic, African Jews who look African, South Asian Jews who look South Asian, Chinese Jews who look Chinese. If Jews are ethnocentric how could this occur?AndyL 01:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that unless all modern Jews can be shown to be ethnocentric, no Jews at all have been ever, and you don't seem to recognize that there are varying degrees of ethnocentrism. First, as has been pointed out, high rates of intermarriage are a modern phenomenon whose effects are still uncertain and which is vigorously opposed by many Jews, some of them very powerful, like the British Chief Rabbi[5]. If those Jews aren't being ethnocentric, why do they oppose intermarriage? Note also that a 40% or 50% intermarriage rate does not mean no ethnocentrism, but less ethnocentrism. If Jews married at random the intermarriage rate would be 95% or higher, and the Ashkenazi Jews who marry Jews of other ethnicities are marrying out of a sub-group, Ashkenazi Jew, into a closely related group, Jew, not into the Gentile world. Also, "the vast racial diversity within Judaism" is a misleading phrase: what are the raw numbers and percentages of the various groups? A Jew selected at random is not likely to be Chinese or African (Chinese Jews don't even an entry yet), and imagine listing the races and ethnic groups within Christianity. You'd have to include every race and ethnic group there is, not a handful. If Jews aren't at all ethnocentric, why isn't their ethnic diversity the same? If Jews aren't at all ethnocentric, why have they never sought converts the way Christians and Muslims always have? Seeking converts would be an obvious way of offsetting losses thru intermarriage, but there are no campaigns for conversion that I know of, only campaigns to preserve an existing Jewish stock, not to recruit Gentiles into it. Jacquerie27 17:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr MacDonald, your edit beginning Obviously, intermarriage... was moved, not removed. Since you are now a regular editor here, it would be good if you learned some ofthe norms around here. One is to avoid words like, obviously. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now it doesn't make any sense at all. I will try to get it into some kind of shape. I deleted the last paragraph because it in no way reflects my views and, as it was, it implied that this was one of my personal rebuttals. KM

Prof MacDonald, the message on your talk page stated that autobiographical contributions are firmly discouraged. I would recommend you not to edit your article at all, and I have reverted your changes to this end. If you are under the impression that the article misrepresents you, I would suggest you avail yourself of a username and send an interuser email to User:Jacquerie27, who appears to be quite capable of representing your views. JFW | T@lk 05:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, please don't regard me as an effective advocate of anyone's views. I'm still learning on the topic and I don't have the time or the commitment to match the more numerous opposing wing, who will be here after I'm gone. Jacquerie27 17:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the comments as they stand do not make any sense, partly because they don't make clear what they are referring to. If you are going to have a section titled MacDonald's personal rebuttals, then I should edit it. KM

We can change the section title to be appropriate. That is a working title to handle the material that you kept adding to the criticism sections. It might be better to start over. The fact is that the general discussoin and criticism sections need to be re-written too. -Willmcw 05:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fairness to MacDonald, I think that we should allow him to post a short rebuttal of his own making, or at least clean up the stuff that was previously strewn around the article. And then the professor should find other articles to contribute to. -Willmcw 05:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, at least let him clean it up, it didn't make any sense as it stood. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I will not do any more editing. It's still not very well organized but I think it makes more sense. KM

Thanks, professor, and thanks to everybody for bringing this article along amicably and collaboratively. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about the issue I brought up:

Dr. MacDonald, it is my understanding that your focus is on Ashkenazi Jews and not on other Jewish ethnicities as it's been pointed out that Jews are actually quite racially diverse. So, if your focus is on Ashkenazi Jews, then the fact that the rate of intermarriage among Ashkenazi Jews is quite high is a central point. In fact, it is not just in the United States and "the West" that Ashkenazi intermarriage rates are high but in Eastern Europe, in particular Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union and Latin America and wherever Ashkenazis live including Israel (where only a minority of Ashkenazi are) where they are intermarrying with Jews of other ethnicities. So if the rate of intermarriage is high among Ashkenazi Jews in general doesn't that throw a spanner in your claims about Ashkenazi ethnocentricity? If, on the other hand, you claim that Jews in general are ethnocentric, not just Ashkenazi Jews, how do you explain the vast racial diversity within Judaism ie the fact that you have Ashkenazi Jews who look European, Shephardic Jews and Mizrachi Jews who look Arabic, African Jews who look African, South Asian Jews who look South Asian, Chinese Jews who look Chinese. If Jews are ethnocentric how could this occur?

AndyL 09:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this discussion going to affect the article? If not, please discuss it on a user page or exchange email addresses. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It could go into the article. AndyL 10:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I am not going to edit the article further. The Thomas et al data, which is based on mtDNA and is therefore really only one genetic locus, do indicate more genetic diversity between the various Jewish groups than the earlier data indicated. The autosomal data reviewed in A People THat Shall Dwell Alone show that all of the main Jewish populations have a Middle Eastern origin, and I think in the long run this will be corroborated by more sophisticated studies. Oriental Jews remained in the Middle East and North Africa where genetically segregated groups were the norm; there was no intermarriage. (This is the basis for my point about the fundamentally different cultural origins of Jews.) Part of the Sephardic population was absorbed by Spain as a result of the Inquisition which was basically an attempt to force Jews to assimilate to Spanish culture. (It's interesting that communities of crypto-Sephardic Jews have continued to be discovered beginning in the 20th century and most recently in the Southwestern US). The rest left Spain but remained in genetically segregated communities, mainly in North Africa, and the Near East (Turkey). I don't see a general tendency for Ashkenazim to intermarry. By all accounts, there was no intermarriage at all prior to the Enlightenment which was a consequence of Western culture. (Jews were regarded by Enlightenment intellectuals as hopelessly backward.) As Jews began to be influenced by the Enlightenment, the result was the greatest upheaval in Jewish culture in their history. Many Jews began to be more assimilated (e.g., the Reform movement which only exists in Western cultures and is absent even from Israel), and this led to some intermarraige, but genetically segregated groups continued to exist even in Western Europe and now in the US. Because the Enlightenment came last to Eastern Europe, these trends occurred much later in those areas.

"The Thomas et al data, which is based on mtDNA and is therefore really only one genetic locus, do indicate more genetic diversity between the various Jewish groups than the earlier data indicated. "

Doesn't this contradict your claims of ethnocentricity? How did this genetic diversity occur? AndyL 15:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The extent of genetic admixture is independent of ethnocentrism which is influenced by a set of psychological mechanisms. That is, Ashkenazi Jews could very well be extremely ethnocentric, as in my view they are, even though there was some genetic admixture with local women when the group originated. As to how Jewish populations got the level of genetic admixture they do have, you will have to read the Thomas et al study which is linked to in the body of the article. KM

Many times in this discussion it has come down to one question, posed by MacDonald an J27: "If those Jews aren't being ethnocentric, why do they oppose intermarriage?" I have two comments. First, if they really cannot imagine another reason for opposing intermarriage, then they lack imagination. Most behaviors have many possible causes and a scientist -- in order to develop a hypothesis, must be able to imagine different possible causes. If there is only one possible cause, then you are talking about faith, not science. Second, why is it that they are posing the question on this talk page? That they do so indicates that they have done inadequate research, because they should of course be posing the question to Jews who oppose intermarriage. If they did serious research, spending enough time getting to know and talking to Jews who hold this view, they would discover other reasons. This too is a matter of good science -- empirical research. To propose an argument about why people do things, without having done adequate research, again indicates that MacDonald's position is more a matter of faith than science. Slrubenstein 19:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MacDonald hasn't asked the question here and I haven't yet read his extensive discussion of Jewish responses to intermarriage. Have you? I have visited Jewish anti-intermarriage websites, however, and the arguments advanced there do seem to be ethnocentric:

I don't see anything wrong with it... You don't see anything morally wrong with breaking the chain of tradition, passed down from father to son, mother to daughter for the past two hundred generations? Aren't you going to take into account the feelings and needs of your parents, family, your own childrens' best interests, and the future of the Jewish people? And, if you don't see anything unique about the Jewish people, as opposed to the faith of your non Jewish partner, maybe it's time you attend some Jewish study classes at your local educational outreach center.[6]

I accept those arguments myself: Jews, like any other people, should try to preserve themselves and their traditions. Jacquerie27 22:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Preserving one's own culture for its own sake is not ethnocentric. Slrubenstein 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have these personal rebuttals been published anywhere, in any journal or book? If not then they break the No original research rule and don't belong in the article. AndyL 21:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not if we cite Kevin B. MacDonald, rather than him citing himself. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who actually writes the content doesn't matter. If I were a friend of MacDonald's, and I know from talking to him that he believes X, Y, and Z, writing that is still original research if I can't cite the views in some other published source. Wikipedia should not present new facts, opinions, or information that are not already available elsewhere. -- Schaefer 23:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between coming onto wikipedia and writing your own rebuttals and citing rebuttals which have already been published. The former is original research, the latter is not. What I am asking is which of these categories does the "MacDonald's personal rebuttals" section fall under. The fact that he is the author and has had *other* material published does not change the fact that his opinions are original research if they aren't already published (ie been approved by peer review ). AndyL 22:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking the "personal" out of the section heading doesn't stop the comments from being original research if they haven't already been published elsewhere, btw. AndyL 22:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have these personal rebuttals been published anywhere, in any journal or book? If not then they break the No original research rule and don't belong in the article. More importantly, they break the Nothing User:AndyL wishes to drop down the memory hole rule. The only person who can answer that question is KM himself. At least some of them have very likely been published. Jacquerie27 22:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)