Talk:Francis J. Beckwith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
Truthseeker2 (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
Hunterbaker (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
24.155.14.10 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
129.62.171.33 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
129.62.211.2 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Francis J. Beckwith, has edited Wikipedia as
Fbeckwith (talk · contribs)

Contents


[edit] Removal of factual statements, per subject's request

I have requested comment on this.

This is a simple factual statement that comes after an explanation of his "day job".

Beckwith is a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a conservative thinktank which is hub of the Intelligent Design movement.

Plus some relevant categories.

This is a simple statement of fact, it is not even approaching being libelous and fails even to put qualifiers on it (such as the fact that intelligent design is considered creationist pseudoscience by scientists).

Now perhaps that wording could be modified and improved. Of course, this is a wiki.

However, Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV. This is not the same as a "sympathetic POV". There has been precedents that the subjects of the article should not influence the articles' contents. Professor Beckwith has his own website for that. If there is a lack of information on his day job that creates a balance problem, then you should add to the article on that, not delete useful factual information from it.

His views on intelligent design are well known. He is the author of Law, Darwinism, and Public Education. He has spoken publicly on the subject [1]. I could go on... — Dunc|☺ 15:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems basic: He's a fellow of the Discovery Institute, all of this is well documented. If a murderer emailed us and asked us to remove details of his trial from his bio due to his unhappiness with it, we would not do so. If the pope asked us to remove well-documented bits about his position on subjects we would not do it. Well documented, publicly known, pertinent facts should not be removed from a bio without more reason than "he asked us to." How did he make the request? Did he seek to correct any errors, or did he just ask that valid data be removed? If the second, did he give any reason for the request? KillerChihuahua 16:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It's verifiable, factual information; it seems on its face to be relevant and consequential to a discussion of his ideas and opinions. If he feels that it gives an 'incorrect and unbalanced idea about his ideas', the correct way to deal with it is to beef up the rest of his bio. (The section in question isn't a lengthy criticism, diatribe, or attack piece–that sort of thing should almost always be trimmed, reworded, or removed outright–but rather a single sentence noting his affiliation with the Discovery Institute.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Investigating further, he denies being an ID proponent, but merely intended to explore the legal issues surrounding ID and the establishment clause and does not yet think that ID should be taught. because of a lack of research programme [2]. Nevertheless, he is a member of the IDC movement and could resign from the CDC if he wanted to. Clearly he is not in the same league as Dembski when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, and he may be scared of guilt by association. His book however is not uncontroversial though it is possible he may be arguing a position without taking that position personally. Though, as we have seen in the recent Dover panda trial, it is very wishful thinking if he thinks that the numerous links between old style creationism and new-style creationism will not be brought up in any trial. Given that he is a lawyer however, I am certain that he can put a spin on any opinions he does hold.
If this is true, it may be the case that a simple factual statement is an oversimplification, but I see no reason to remove it. Perhaps Prof. Beckwith could give us a suitable quote. — Dunc|☺ 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact remains Beckwith is a fellow of the CSC [3], and his articles and books (of which I've read a number) have all argued for ID being legal and appropriate to teach as science. There is no shortage of evidence that Beckwith is widely recognized as a prominent supporter of ID [4], a point that could be made as an attribution in the article if it's that contentious. Clearly all this justifies identifing Beckwith as a pro-ID supporter, either as a statement of fact, something I think is easily justified, or as an attribution. Either way, the point is it's necessary for a complete and accurate representation of just who Beckwith is. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me. Keep.--SarekOfVulcan 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with the factual statement mentioned at the head of this page. But the wording has now been changed so that the sentence begins with the statement "Beckwith is a proponent of intelligent design." This is unnecessary and unfair. All that has even been alleged is that Beckwith defends the appropriateness of teaching the theory in science classes. Since as far as I know he also thinks Darwinianism should be taught in science classes, you might as well call him a proponent of Darwinianism. There is a huge difference between saying that a theory should get a fair hearing and saying that it is true. Failing to respect that distinction evidences bias against Beckwith and totally violates the NPOV policy. The phrase "Beckwith is a proponent of ID" should therefore be deleted, but the statement about his affiliation with the Discovery Institute should be kept. (BTW, there is a footnote following the controversial phrase, but the link does not work.)Contarini 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis J. Beckwith e-mail to the help desk

Professor Beckwith has sent the following e-mail to the Wikimedia Help Desk.

E-mail removed at request of Beckwith.

Capitalistroadster 06:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Beckwith's objections have been aired here before, and there is broad consensus that the article is factual as it stands, despite is objections. As I and others have stated here before, The fact remains Beckwith is a fellow of the CSC [5], and his articles and books (of which I've read a number) have all argued for ID being legal and appropriate to teach as science. There is no shortage of evidence that Beckwith is widely recognized as a prominent supporter of ID [6], a point that could be made as an attribution in the article if it's that contentious. Clearly all this justifies identifying Beckwith as a pro-ID supporter, either as a statement of fact, something I think is easily justified, or as an attribution. Either way, the point is it's necessary for a complete and accurate representation of just who Beckwith is, his personal wishes not withstanding. Since when does Wikipedia omit factual and relevant information based on the subjects personal wishes? FeloniousMonk 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk,

Thanks for the reply. I have removed the text of his e-mail at his request. I think if we are to classify him as such based on the evidence, we should cite that evidence both in the articles and as references in the article as an assurance to our readers that the material is soundly based. Capitalistroadster 16:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, now he wanted his e-mail removed too? I'll add links to support the details. FeloniousMonk 16:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think our article presents the facts reasonably and draws no unsubstantiated conclusions. For the sake of balance and information, it might be worthwhile to list his other academic affiliations and organizational fellowships (the ones provided in his now-deleted email). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I added added his fellowship at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity about 20 minutes before TenOfAllTrades posted this... GMTA. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Removed redlink (deleted) categories. --FloNight talk 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Rewrote the introduction for clarity and to better explain his notability. Tried to not change the overall content. FloNight talk 15:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signal-to-noise ratio

According to a comment by Beckwith, he had a meat puppet add a large amount of fluff and puffery to this article in order to drown out the info regarding his links to the ID movement, Comment by fbeckwith — December 3, 2006 —telicthoughts.com, defending the fact that doing so created an article giving more coverage of him than far more important philosophers like Descartes and Everett Dirksen. Considering this startling admission by the Beckwith, I've begun the process of trimming the fat and the fluff from this article, and will continue to do so with time. I suggest admins here keep a better eye out for this sort of abuse of this article. Odd nature 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, thanks for catching that. It's interesting to note that more recently not only has User:24.155.13.78 been adding weasely, biased language, but is in Waco, as is Baylor and Beckwith. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by Beckwith

I've incorporated a small part of Beckwith's changes. I'd appreciate if people would look over those and verify that they were ok. I'd also like to remove a lot of the minor career details. Will anyone object to that? JoshuaZ 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outdated footnote text?

I removed the following text from one of the footnotes

"Given that Baylor's president John Lilley is apparently about to make his decision regarding Beckwith's appeal, those who want stand up for Beckwith's academic freedom might consider weighing in with an e-mail to Dr. Lilley at John_Lilley@baylor.edu. Alumni, donors, and parents of potential Baylor students are particularly important voices for the Baylor administration to hear right now."

My reasons were:

  1. 1It is outdated, referring to a decision to be made in 2006 (if I recall correctly). This decision has been made.
  2. 2I considers this an unsolicited call to contact and influence the decision of a university administrator, something that has no place in an encyclopedia.

Why did user:odd_nature revert this edit? Northfox 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your editing of my page.

Beckwith left the following on my talkpage -- I think it belongs here. HrafnTalkStalk 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir (or Madam):

I have made changes to my bio to reflect the scope of my work over the 20 plus years of my academic career, without whitewashing some of the controversial topics I have written on. I am no longer a fellow of the Discovery Institute; so that has been changed. I removed the passive-aggressive accusations against me. To say, for example, that so-and-so thinks something about my beliefs, but when you turn to that reference it is simply the same assertion and a footnote that actually doesn't establish it, then one is not offering a factual account. It is enough to say that I have not veered from my viewpoints on issues like ID and public education. The fact that other people cannot comprehend such a nuanced position should not be included to cast aspersion upon my well-established viewpoints on this matter. It is also misleading to say that speak often on ID. Not true. If you look at my speaking schedule for 2006 and 2007, I spoke on the topic twice, and in both cases it was on panel with two or three other scholars. Over the past two years I've given over 70 lectures and talks. So, two out of 70 is not often, by any measure.

The model for my bio should be the same as other academics who have been involved with controversy over the years. Take for example, Peter Berkowitz, Brian Leiter,and Christina Hoff Sommers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Leiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berkowitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Clearly, recent controversies about my tenure battle and my appointment at Baylor should be represented, and they are in my version. But they are presented in a balanced fashion, with references to both friend and foe. My bio should be accorded the same respect. For example, if one mentions the Hunter Baker on Brian Leiter's vitriol against a law school reviewer who gave my book a positive review in Harvard Law Review, then why not mention the "Academic Thug" blog against Leiter, who is penchant for controversy and political flamboyance puts me to shame. Yet, that is absent from his bio. (Because Baker did not try to hide his position as my TA, and I certainly did not cooperate with him in doing so [I had the class syllabus that listed him as my TA on the AAR and my websites!], it is wrong to take one blogger's attempt to exploit this oversight on Hunter's part and make it into a `controversy'. Hunter's a good man with a good heart. He doesn't do things like that on purpose. Moreover, the "controversy" was one of million back and forth pissing contests online that happen everyday. It is a blip in Hunter's life, and really does not involve me, other than my student defended a student elsewhere who had reviewed my book positively. Hunter's article dealt with how Leiter treated the student; it did not concern me or my book. This is why that "controversy" should not be in my bio. For if it is that important, why isn't in Leiter's bio? After all, he, and not I, was the subject of the controversy. So, if it's not in his bio, it clearly should not be in mine).

Peter Berkowitz's denial of tenure suit against Harvard is mention, but it is done factually and respectfully. We are not given a narrow list of Berkowitz's "supporters." But in my case, the bio makes it sound as if DI and its support was virtually all I had, and that they lobbied on my behalf. That is simply inaccurate. They supported me, to be sure. But there were literally thousands of folks that supported me, including Rod Dreher (Dallas Morning News), Ron Numbers, and Jody Bottum (First Things). No ID supporter among them. But because my case was public and DI supported me, I left that in. But I talk out the over-kill of quotes and references.

I am not asking for a whitewash. I am asking for something that is not a hatchet job, a bio that depicts my wide range of interests in an unbiased and accurate way. For example, referring to my work on ID as advocacy is false. All of it is legal analysis, with virtually all of it appearing in respected law reviews and an academic monograph, based on an MJS dissertation. Second, my work on alternative religious movements is wrongly depicted as part of the "Christian countercult movement." My work has certainly been used people in that. But much of it is above their heads, and in fact has been the target of their criticism. Recently, I spoke at Princeton at a special conference to which I was invited: Mormonism and American Politics. Do Christian countercult folks get invited to Princeton? No.

My law degree was denigrated as equivalent to an MA and not an LLM or LLD. Although not technically inaccurate, it is misleading. Look, for example, at Wikipedia's description of the same degree at other institutions, where it is called an MSL, MLS, or MSEL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.S.L. This is what it says: "M.S.L. programs are usually designed for academics who hold Ph.D.s in a discipline related to the law, and who want to add a legal dimension to scholarship." The late legal scholar, Kermit Hall, has a bio in wikepdia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_L._Hall His MSL degree is mentioned, but not denigrated. This is also true of Teresa Phelps, whose degree and bio are on the web page at the law school on whose faculty she sits: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/phelps/

Thank you for time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. [fbeckwithATmac.com]

FJB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbeckwith (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not a regular editor here -- I followed Beckwith's trail of edits from Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎, and reverted his edits here because they were clearly controversial, substantial and involved a conflict of interest. I therefore leave it to the regulars to address his specific issues. HrafnTalkStalk 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Are notable individuals allowed to edit their own bios? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted.[1] Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace.

-- WP:COI HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

At least one of his edits, regarding the degree made sense. I've removed the line there that was WP:OR and in any event unecessary. It looks to me like the article needs a lot of work. Beckwith's comparison to the other professor articles actually isn't accurate but not for the reason he says. All three of those should have more detailed discussions about how and why they are controversial. I've also looked over the Hunter Baker controversy. I'm not sure it deserves its own section, but it appears to be more than just a little war of blogs since it got coverage in reliable secondary sources (such as the Washington Monthly article). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Joshua, but given that I've lately seen the DI trumpeting Beckwith as a "legal scholar", it might be informative to see what sort of assessment of his legal credentials we can provide within wikipedia policies. HrafnTalkStalk 02:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Beckwith is a legal scholar by almost any reasonable defintion. And in any event, Wikipedia's allegiance is to NPOV, not to debunking the DI. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He is? Aren't most legal scholars attorneys? I can't even imagine being an expert on a legal theory if you cannot practice it. The best constitutional theorists are admitted to argue before the Supreme Court. It's like watching an ESPN talking head tell me about hockey--I'd rather listen to an actual hockey player or coach. Or a Ph.D. in Biochemistry trying to tell an MD that he's practicing medicine wrong. I think the fact that Beckwith has some insignificant degree in legal issues (it could be about business law for all I know), that does not make him an attorney, let alone a legal scholar. I think it should be well-know that he's overstating his background. DI is irrelevant, except that that unethical individuals such as Beckwith do their dirty work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He has relevant degrees and writes in the area. That makes him some form of legal scholar by most definitions. If he isn't such an impressive legal scholar that's a separate issue but is very much OR. Again, are job isn't to combat every claim made by the DI, but to write a WP:V,WP:NPOV compliant article. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Meme That Would Not Die

"According to Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly, this controversy gave rise to creation of The Panda's Thumb (weblog),[15] which has been one of the most notable fora for critics of intelligent design."

This is false. PT's debut occurred at that time, but not because of the Leiter/Baker incident. There's pretty much always going to be some antievolution shenanigan happening, so application of post hoc ergo propter hoc will always "work" to associate the beginning of a project with some event.

Please, please stop passing this on. Yes, Kevin Drum says that, but he happens to be wrong. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion on Elsberry's talk page I've corrected this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have removed links to a web site that is no longer visible, and which is not archived at the Internet Archive. I will be closely reviewing this article for WP:BLP concerns. I have noticed that a number of 'sources' cited in this article are web logs, and I will be examining them to insure that they meet all the requirements of Wikipedia policy. -- Donald Albury 12:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Right-Reason piece that Dalbury removed as a citation can still be found on internet-archive here. Whilst I disagree with Beckwith's defence of Nancy Pearcey contained in it, I think it is mischaracterising it to call it a defence of ID, and so am supporting its removal. I would however suggest reading it for the Pearcey quote that sparked the debate (particularly the fuller version in the comments), which is I think an unusually unequivocal statement. HrafnTalkStalk 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed links to the jimmyakin.org blog, as blogs are generally unacceptable sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) and I see no way there can be an exception for that blog. I have left in a cite to Beckwith's own blog in support of the fact of his return to the Catholic Church (a person's own blog may be acceptable for what that person says about him- or herself). I have added citations for his defense of the pro-life position and of the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools, but removed the language that he was notable for those positions, as that seems to be a conclusion drawn by an editor without a good citation in support. -- Donald Albury 15:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a citation to pharyngula.com, as it is a blog, and the cite was not necessary to the material it was cited for. I have also hidden two sections that were unsourced. I will attempt to find reliable sources, and restore text when I (or someone else) can find reliable sources to cite. -- Donald Albury 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)