Talk:The Culture of Critique series

Too much criticism?
The criticism section is more than half of this article. Surely the key criticisms can be summarized more succinctly. This is an encyclopedia article after all; not a manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.227.76 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it looks like another Wikipedia smear piece instead of an objective article. Sad how this site has fallen in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.179.104 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the previous comments. It's absurd to describe the guy as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first place. Smack dab at the beginning of his books he writes:

"Perceptions of Jewish group homogeneity are quite possibly behind the very prominent theme of much anti-Semitic writing that despite appearances to the contrary, Jews are working together in a vast interlocking conspiracy to dominate gentiles. Such “conspiracy” theories, some of which are briefly described in Chapter 2, tend to overlook the extent to which different elements of the Jewish community have adopted different and even incompatible strategies vis-à-vis the gentile community"

His books are a defensible evolutionary psychology treatment of Jewish ethno-cultural adaptations. EO Wilson and even Bill Hamilton endorsed at least part of what he argues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.105 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll notice that the criticism section of articles of things like this are always larger than the rest of the article here on Wikipedia, almost as if the article editor wishes to use the article as their own personal criticism of the subject. I'm sure there's a perfectly reddit explanation for it like sheer coincidence. 47.42.170.138 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alternate conspiracy theory: the subject of the article is broadly discredited and a consensus among Wikipedia editors reflects this. Generalrelative (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alternate redditor theory: bias begets bias 71.80.200.46 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
The problem with the intro is that, rather than laying the information out for readers to draw their own conclusion, it cites some biased article to try to justify defining these books in a certain way. This is a big problem with Wikipedia as a whole at the moment: As long as you cite a source, you can make the article as NPOV as you want. For an example of what I mean, imagine if I opened the article for Gloria Steinem by saying she was a misandric. anti-white activist, and cited The Daily Stormer or Return of Kings as my sources. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't summarise non-fiction books the way we do fiction, we rely on secondary sources. We can't have editors deciding which bits to quote or use in some way. Doug Weller  talk 14:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All that does is cause editors to pick and choose which sources they want to use. So it doesn't actually solve the problem. This policy has caused Wikipedia to become incredibly biased in its articles on non-fiction and political topics. But I suspect the policy won't change anytime soon, because the higher ups on the site seem to share that bias. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. We "pick and choose" sources based on their reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Blaming "higher ups" for how reliable sources describe someone is indistinguishable from playing victim to a grand conspiracy, but it has nothing to do with reliability, or with bias. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects the academic / cultural mainstream; that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. So if the overwhelming academic consensus is "this book promotes baseless antisemitic conspiracy theories", we have to reflect that assessment.  Ignoring that sort of consensus among the sources would violate both WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article's second link (alleging the unscientific and baseless nature of the series) leads to a blank page on a site dedicated to the history of anti-Semitism, the third link provides no evidence that the book is badly researched or baseless, the fourth relies on the word of an author that admits he hasn't even read the books. If this is the overwhelming academic consensus everyone is talking about, I weep for the state of academia. 111.71.214.153 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of people outside the alt-right care enough about this obvious crank to even comment. That said, a quick search revealed:
 * Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, wrote that MacDonald's work fails "basic tests of scientific credibility." Another scientist, John Tooby, who, along with his wife Leda Cosmides, gave the field of evolutionary psychology its name in 1992, directly challenged MacDonald's work. Tooby told Salon.com in 2000 that "MacDonald's ideas — not just on Jews — violate fundamental principles of the field." John Hartung, the associate editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an associate professor of anesthesiology at the State University of New York, called MacDonald's The Culture of Critique "quite disturbing, seriously misinformed about evolutionary genetics, and suffering from a huge blind spot about the nature of Christianity.
 * I'll go ahead and add this to the pile I suppose. But really, what kind of person would even doubt that this work is unscientific and baseless? Wikipedia is not a safe space for Nazis. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Characterizations
Excuse me but how is it appropriate to call the author a white supremacist and a conspiracy theorist before we even state his profession "longstanding consensus"? Characterizations like these should be part of the criticism section, not the first line of the summary of this book. It is, at least according to its author, a book about evolutionary psychology. So the author being an evolutionary psychologist should be the first thing about him in the summary. 2A02:587:5468:2800:D9C4:72F8:3641:79AA (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The substantive descriptions we use are not based on what subjects say about themselves but rather what the preponderance of WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources say. And it's quite clear that such sources highlight the author's antisemitism, white supremacism, and/or penchant for conspiracy theory whenever they discuss the book. That's why those descriptors are there. Generalrelative (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But the author himself never claims to be a white supremacist or an anti-semite. Not saying he isn't one, but shouldn't those descriptors be part of the criticism against him on his own page and not the summary of his book? The only thing that matters about the author is his background as an evolutionary psychologist. 2A02:587:5468:2800:D9C4:72F8:3641:79AA (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Separately—is it sort of SYNTHy to introduce him in this way? I haven't done a super deep scrape through sources, but I haven't found descriptions of the book that begin by characterizing their author as a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist. Shouldn't those characterizations be primarily directed at the books in this article, rather than the writer? Most similar articles on published works that I can find don't introduce the author in the first sentence by their commonly observed/characterized political affiliation. Zanahary (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with first describing the books in those terms, as opposed to their author. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The only reason these books are significant, at this point at least, is because of MacDonald's fringe views. They are certainly not treated as being significant works because of the specific ideas within them, for many reasons. In plain language, he pushes white supremacist conspiracy theories, and the simplest way to summarize that is to say he is a white supremacist and a conspiracy theorist. If readers need to know more than that, they can read the rest of the article, but he isn't notable for being a writer who also happens to write white supremacist conspiracy theories, he is notable because he writes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's plainer to say the books push conspiracy theories and antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to this, given the right language. Grayfell is entirely correct about this book series' claim to notability, but that doesn't preclude a copy edit for specificity. How would you (or FFF) suggest rephrasing the opening sentence? Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per sources already cited, MacDonald started from his own unfalsifiable assumptions and worked backwards, which is classic pseudoscience. Multiple sources have noted that his sloppy pseudo-scholarship reflects his racial biases in a way which ignores critical analysis or hard data, or even basic commons sense.
 * To put it another way, MacDonald pushes white supremacy, conspiracy theories, and antisemitism, and these books are only noteworthy as an example of those biases, not on their own merit. The books themselves are not taken seriously as academic works, nor is there any reason to. Making this about the books would be subtly missing the point being made by these sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point here. The article is about the books, not their writer. If the books are described in reliable sources as being pseudoscientific, etc., then that's what ought to be included. Are you saying these books are non-notable, and the author is instead notable? Zanahary (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's not get bogged down in the abstract here. The best way to avoid a content dispute is very often to simply suggest some content. I'll ask you again, Zanahary: what do you think an improved opening sentence would look like? I personally have looked at it and can't think of a reasonable improvement, but maybe you can. Let's start there. Generalrelative (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that a change needs to be made, at least not for the reasons discussed.
 * As an encyclopedia, we should attempt to provide context, not just facts in isolation. The goal of the lead should be to indicate to readers why a topic is notable. This topic is not notable because of the content of the books in isolation, as the body of the article explains. The series is notable because of the context of the author.
 * An additional issue is that MacDonald and his defenders (such as Dutton and arguably Cofnas) have created a narrative that MacDonald is a legitimate academic who wrote a book that is controversial because of the conclusions it reaches. To put it simply, this is false. Reliable sources mostly see this as a cheap trick. The books are discredited because they start from flawed, unfalsifiable premises, bypass actual data, and arrive at even more flawed conclusions, and also, both the starting premise and the conclusion are morally repugnant. To focus on the books in isolation would be to accept MacDonald's narrative. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all correct, Grayfell. My point is just that if Zanahary (or anyone else) can suggest an improved opening sentence that is consistent with this understanding, there will be nothing for us to argue about. Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about we first open the paragraph with saying its a book about evolutionary psychology and then at the end of the first summarizing paragraph, we say that the book has been widely been found to be pseudoscientific, pushing anti-Semitism and white supremacy? In this way we open objectively and proceed to close the summary of both book and author with the proper and warranted criticism. 62.74.225.38 (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like: It was tougher than I thought it'd be. Somehow "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" marches its way off the tongue with grace that "antisemitic cospiracy-theoretical books" cannot manage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you've nailed it, FFF. What do you say, Grayfell? Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. I've made the change. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)