Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)

Please discuss here

IP 2001:569:5177:2900:9153:45DB:921A:48A3 is of course welcome to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. As should be clear from the fact that they've been reverted by three other editors (not to mention the discussions above which hinge on similar issues), consensus appears to be strongly against the changes they wish to make. While it's true that statements by the ADL and SPLC usually need to be attributed, in this case they are far from the only sources making the same claims. In cases such as this one, where there are abundant reliable sources stating the same thing, the reader is not served by equivocation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The only thing of note for Kevin MacDonald is that he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Without that, there would be no article about him. If you edit the article so as to avoid saying this, the article is not being truthful about him.

It is wrong to describe his work on the subject as scholarly, since he has no training or background in Jewish history or culture. He is writing well outside his field of expertise, and cannot claim to be a scholar in the area. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of labels in lead sentence

Grayfell, I think you would have a better case for the current version if you could identify that there are more reliable sources describing him as a "conspiracy theorist" and "white supremacist" than a "psychologist." Otherwise the ordering you have in your version (first "conspiracy theorist", then "white supremacist", then "psychologist") makes no sense and gives activist vibes. My impression is that he's far more frequently described as a "psychologist" than those other labels, and when those other labels are used they are always subsequent to his initial description as a psychologist. (The only exception to this is in the Kriegman piece).

I'm also worried that the mention of the CSULB academic senate voting to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work is not due for the first paragraph of the lead. It should be mentioned in the article, of course, perhaps even in the lead, but the emphasis on it right away is strange. Academic senates aren't experts in the field, often just university bureaucrats. It's worth noting as well his department defended his right to freedom of expression ("We respect and defend his right to express his views..."). JDiala (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

MacDonald is not generally known as a psychologist in some abstract sense, he is only noteworthy because he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist. Otherwise he likely wouldn't even meet WP:NPROF and wouldn't have an article at all. The goal of the first paragraph is to explain why people are noteworthy. This is a WP:FRINGE topic, and Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit misleading. It's not his conspiratorial views per se that make him notable (any schmuck can believe in a conspiracy theory, they don't automatically get famous) but rather that he is a professor with real academic bona fides that happens to hold these views. The edit I've suggested doesn't contribute to his public relations (as it still describes him as a conspiracy theorist, a white supremacist and every other epithet in the original version) nor does it fail the task of "[explaining] why [he is] noteworthy". As I've already asked you, you would have a stronger case if you presented multiple reliable sources which follow this ordering convention. Since you don't, I don't think your position has much merit. JDiala (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the scholarly source below that doesn't even mention MacDonald's academic bona fides in its opening sentence, see also these sources:

[1]

white nationalists and notable anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald

[2]

white nationalist Kevin MacDonald

[3]

another white nationalist named Kevin MacDonald

[4]

influential antisemite Kevin MacDonald

Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but you have to compare that against sources which emphasize his status as a psychologist when introducing him, of which there are far more. JDiala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not whitewashing him, and it describes him as: "Kevin B. MacDonald, a 74-year-old psychologist and retired professor at California State University, Long Beach. Mr. MacDonald’s theories about Jews have become the philosophical and theoretical inspiration for white supremacist and nationalist movements." Something like that would be much more accurate and neutral than opening with him being a "conspiracy theorist" and other epithets. Roger (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why privilege Wall Street Journal WP:RSOPINION over scholarly sources? See e.g.

[5]:

Kevin MacDonald is a key figure in shaping contemporary antisemitism for the Alt-Right

[6]:

Kevin Macdonald, a former professor and longstanding figure in the white supremacist movement

Seems to me that the current wording follows the best sources. Generalrelative (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The second source supports ordering with psychologist first, ironically undermining your argument against me above. JDiala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picking, choosing one source out of 6.YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's far more as indicated in the link I've provided in the above sub-thread. This one was just particularly humorous (?) since it tends to undermine his own argument. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Or they're just being meticulous, neutral and fair. YBSOne (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Their argument is that no matter if his (MacDonald's) academic title is presented first, the notability is through the fact of antisemitic conspiracy theories not his academics. YBSOne (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that all of the sources describe him as a professor first. Besides the WSJ and GW Univ articles, the Blutinger article introduces him as: "Irving called Kevin MacDonald, an American Professor of Psychology from California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), to the witness box to testify. MacDonald was an odd choice for a witness in a lawsuit over Holocaust denial. A psychologist whose research focused on behavioral child development, ..." [7] These are all articles that are quite negative about MacDonald, and certainly not trying to whitewash him. WP ought to be at least as fair to him as these articles, and avoid the silly name-calling. Roger (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling an accurate description "silly name calling" is itself silly. Our goal isn't to ignore context, it is to summarize sources to provide context. The reason all those sources exist is because of the extremism and pseudoscience of his views. That is the context we should be summarizing. These sources do not exist because of any particular school he used to teach at. Adding weasel-words to undermine these countless sources is also inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The context isn't being ignored. The disagreement here is chiefly on ordering not inclusion. The suggestion we're making is more in concert with that of reliable sources as has been shown above (see my Google Scholar link). In general when the WP tone is notably more partisan and activist than the tone of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources then it's reasonable to raise the question of whether we're misrepresenting the source. JDiala (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I had previously tried to stay out of this discussion, but I would agree that the suggested change is warranted. A version of @Roger's suggestion would be better ("Kevin B. MacDonald, a 74-year-old psychologist and retired professor at California State University, Long Beach whose theories about Jews have become the philosophical and theoretical inspiration for white supremacist and nationalist movements" or something of that nature). Per MOS:LEAD (emphasis mine): When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm. As currently written, it overwhelms and thus comes across as biased (to clarify, that's not saying it is biased - I'm saying that it comes across that way - hence setting it up for accusations of things like "silly name-calling"). The suggested change doesn't suppress information, nor does it ignore context. Rather, it presents it in a more readable way that actually gives it context and sets it up better for the clarifying sentences that follow. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not accept that this overwhelms the article, and that framing seems like it's presenting a subjective opinion as though it were an objective observation. The majority of the body of the article is about his antisemitism and conspiracy theories, because that reflects the vast majority of sources. If sources are overwhelmingly about a specific aspect, placing this aspect front and center is the neutral approach. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the point is that the adversarial tone presented in the article far exceeds what is present in reliable sources. As for subjectivity, there is nothing wrong with editors making subjective judgements for stylistic things. Words like "overwhelm", cited by Butlerblog above, are inherently subjective. I think it is reasonable to describe in the lead that he is a far-right evolutionary psychologist known for propagating racist views. However, there is no need to describe every little controversial thing he's ever said, or enumerate every epithet or mean thing anyone's said about him, which is what the lead currently comes off as. This is not encyclopedic and not aligned with the project's goals as it is rather activist. Note also that articles of comparable scholars like JP Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Amy Wax have far more moderate tones while still discussing the legitimate criticisms in the lead. JDiala (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: I do not accept that this overwhelms the article To be clear, that's talking about the opening sentence and the lead itself - not the article as a whole. As for "seems like it's presenting a subjective opinion as though it were an objective observation" that's actually more how it comes across to me as currently written with the recommendation seeming to be more objective. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Undark

@JDiala: This is regarding this edit and subsequent reverts. Undark Magazine is a reliable non-profit news outlet affiliated with the Knight Science Journalism program. Undark has a history of fact-checking and corrections, and has won several significance journalism awards for its coverage of science. The specific article is by Michael Schulson, who is a contributing editor to the magazine. That he is a freelance writer is completely irrelevant. The paragraph is about MacDonald's purportedly scientific claims, and summarizes the position of experts on the topic. Nothing about this is a BLP violation. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, the issue at hand is not the source used but rather the misrepresentation of its content, as was pointed out in the edit summary. Both variants of the sentence in the recent sequence of reverts, namely "Others in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience..." and "Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience..." are misrepresentations of the source, because they attribute a particular claim ("pseudoscience") to a class of people ("scholars", "Others in his field") when the article does not attribute this claim to anyone in said class of people. This is therefore a misrepresentation.

To elaborate on this, the word "pseudoscience" is used precisely twice in the article: (1) in the article title, and (2) in the sentence "And finally, why are ostensibly respectable, peer-reviewed journals — including one that counts intellectual luminaries like Harvard’s Steven Pinker and neuroscientist Sam Harris on its board — now publishing lavish defenses of what has been dismissed for decades as anti-Semitic pseudoscience?" For both (1) and (2), the claim can only be attributed to the voice of the author, Michael Schulson. But Michael Schulson is someone with no academic pedigree, so he should neither be referred to as a "scholar" nor as someone in MacDonald's field.

This is a clear misrepresentation of the source. You are attributing a claim to people who do not make the claim. Therefore, it's a serious BLP violation. In particular, this falls into Case 2 in WP:BLPREMOVE. As a courtesy, I will let you respond, but if you're not going to seriously engage with the points made, I will have to revert and continued edit warring will end up in WP:BLPN. I note that I was more generous in the above discussion in preserving the status-quo version, but that was more a stylistic disagreement. But this is a clear OR case in a contentious BLP so there really cannot be any tolerance.

As an addendum, not only does the source not support the attribution of the pseudoscience claim to other scholars, but it actually supports the opposite. It is implied in the piece that many scholars think MacDonald's work is legitimate. For instance, Cofnas writes that many scholars admire MacDonald's work secretly. Todd Shackelford, an evolutionary psychologist, describes the defence of the theory as "serious" and legitimizes defence of the work by publishing it in a reputable journal. JDiala (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we even reading the same sources? As the source explains, Cofnas was associated with Richard Lynn's Ulster Institute, which is about as fringe as it gets. As for "legitimize", I don't think you understood what the source was saying. Here is a relevant paragraph from the source:

Of course, there are many ideas — some with passionate followings — that don’t receive much attention in academic journals. These might include flat-earth theory, for example, or the belief in unicorns, or the theory that the federal government stages school shootings. To debate a theory like MacDonald’s is both to legitimize it and to tacitly accept some of its premises — namely, that there’s such a thing as a distinct, subtle “Jewish agenda” or “Jewish psychology” that exists in tension with white European society.[8]

Both the broader context and specifically the use of the word "tacitly" show us that the author is not saying that this is legitimate. He's saying that accepting the flawed premise of this theory would be an error.

The source is clear that MacDonald's claims are comparable to fringe views like flat-earth theories and school shooting hoaxes. 'Pseudoscience' seems like a reasonable way to summarize this.

So per many sources already cited, including the Undark one, this is a fringe perspective, and the only debate is how to handle it as a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)