Talk:Max Weismann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
And what has this person done to warrent an encyclopedia article? There are A LOT of presidents and directors of entities and a lot more editors -- why is this one so special? --maveric149
Presumably, if the guy is a friend of colleague of Adler's and also the head of the Great Books program, he's a somebody in academia. The program itself is important in 20th c. American pedagogy, so perhaps someone should just add more about the guy. JHK
- If having this guy on the 'pedia is OK with you JHK, its OK with me. Although, more information on this guy is needed so that people outside of academia can understand why he is important. --maveric149
-
- Thanks for the support, Mav -- I don't actually know anything about the guy, but inferred his relative imprtance based on his association with Adler, who does deserve some space. It could be he's nobody special, but I think it might not be bad to leave him here till somebody can take the time to research a bit more! JHK
I am a neophyte as regards Wikipedia, and was frankly quite surprised to stumble upon this article on Weismann, so I’m not really sure how to think about it. I met him a number of times when I lived in the states, and the best thing I can say about him is that he is relatively harmless. Basically he is an Adler parrot (of course, Adler himself disapproved of parroting). Because of this, however, I cannot imagine justifying his inclusion in this encyclopaedia.
JHK’s having “inferred [Weismann’s] relative imprtance based on his association with Adler, who does deserve some space” seems to me spot on. While the work Weismann does surely has some value, his only real claim to fame is that he happened to know Adler. I don’t know to research this, but I sure would like to see some real proof that Adler co-founded the “Center for the Study of Great Ideas”. Also, there is no mention of Weismann’s academic credentials, however I suppose he might just be an autodidact. But the notion he is a professor anywhere seem to me a bit farfetched. He’s not a bad guy really, but as Maveric 149 suggested, it’s possible that there are many far more deserving to be included before Weismann. ~Anthropos1
Apparently Mr. Weismann is now considered a professor at Rushmore University. I fear this only detracts further from any credibility he might legitimately claim. According to Wikipedia, “Rushmore University is an unaccredited institution of higher learning offering master's and doctoral degrees in a variety of business-related fields, exclusively via distance learning” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushmore_University). It seems to me the wording in this description does little to inspire confidence.
Further, Mr. Weismann seems either unwilling, or perhaps unable, to substantiate the claim that Mortimer Adler and he co-founded the “Center for the Study of Great Ideas”. Dr. Adler’s fine reputation with the University of Chicago, as well as a number of especial fine ‘Great Books’ colleges like Shimer College in Chicago, St. John’s at Annapolis and Santa Fe, and Thomas Aquinas in California, ought not be compromised by association with Mr. Weismann. It seems likely to me that Mr. Weismann has done everything possible to hitch a ride on Dr. Adler’s reputation, and unfortunately Dr. Adler is no longer with us to clarify the situation. If this is not the case, Mr. Weismann ought to have some way to verify this claim.
Perhaps, until such claims are properly verified, it would be better to exclude them from Wikipedia. Anthropos1 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
