Talk:Richard Weikart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Richard Weikart on Richard Weikart

Many statements in the article, Richard Weikart, are patently false (at least in its present 11-8-06 permutation), and the article violates Wikipedia’s pledge of neutrality. Since I (Richard Weikart) am understandably not allowed to edit this page, I’m relegated to making corrections in this venue.

Here are the most obvious errors:

First, I am no longer associate professor, but full professor (and chair of the Department of History at my university). While it’s understandable that someone might use outdated information, the updated information was available on my on-line vita, so the author of this article was rather sloppy in his or her research.

Second, I am not controversial for my “attacks on evolutionary theory.” In none of my published writings have I ever attacked evolutionary theory. Since I am a research fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, it is not difficult to figure out that I am not a fan of neo-Darwinism. However, the claim that I am controversial for attacking evolutionary theory is simply false. My work is controversial, because it examines the unsavory impact Darwinism had on social thought, ethics, and morality. I show that prominent Darwinists themselves promoted eugenics, infanticide, involuntary euthanasia for the disabled, and racial extermination in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and I show the way they used Darwinian theory to buttress their ideology. Some people do not like hearing about this, but it happened. (I do not claim that all Darwinists promoted these ideas, but many did).

Next, the claim that my book was mostly funded by Discovery Institute is both false and confusing. It is confusing, because the book was published by the peer-reviewed scholarly publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, without any subsidies. Thus, the book was funded solely by the publisher. Discovery Institute did not shell out a dime for its publication. Further, the statement is false, even if the intended meaning is that the *research* for the book was funded mostly by Discovery Institute. While Discovery Institute did provide some research funds to me, they did not provide most of the funding. My own university, California State University, Stanislaus, provided more funding for my research than did the Discovery Institute.

Next, the book cover contains no such statement as the one listed in the Wikipedia article. The statement listed is taken from my website, not from the book cover.

Concerning Ann Taylor Allen’s review, she is entitled to her opinion. A response to her and other of my critics can be read at http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/response-to-critics.htm. Her claim that believing Christians and Jews do not oppose abortion and euthanasia is anachronistic. It is true today, but it was not true in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—-the period covered by my book.

Besides all the wrong information contained in the article about me, the Wikipedia entry is not neutral and balanced, because it conveniently ignores all my achievements. Anyone who wants to know about the scholarly prizes I have won, or the peer-reviewed articles I have published about social Darwinism, need only consult my on-line vita: www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/vita.htm

I do not deny that my book has been controversial and has received some negative reviews, and there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia drawing attention to criticisms of my position. However, one would never guess from the Wikipedia article that some prominent historians endorsed my book, nor that my book has received many positive reviews, such as one in _German Studies Review_, which stated, “This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism aRichnd Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were.”

Richard Weikart, Professor and Chair Dept. of History California State Univ., Stanislaus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.182.200 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2006

Richard, what peer-reviewed articles have supported your work? Please provide the citations. I see you proudly quoting Richard Evans's endorsement, but I cannot find the original source of where he said it. While it is clear that the National Review, for example, liked it that magazine is hardly a WP:RS for academic opinion. In fact, due to its political stance it and its tendency to support creationism/ID it would suprising that sources such as it would not endorse your book (or other misinformed books that match their political/social ideology).
It appears that your work is, to say the least, not widely accepted by historians. Moreover, your reply to Allen’s review is flat out wrong. Further, it appears that your work has been called "anachronistic" in peer-reviewed journals. As for your oft-cited Darwin quote from Descent, that appears to be a common creationist quote in which those people take his words out of context to attribute claims that he did not write. Paper45tee (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
His work seems to be a magnet for cranks and anti-science creationists. Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funding for From Darwin to Hitler

Dude that was very funny stuff. Midnight Gardener (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

'Dude' -- you do realise that replying to something written 18 months ago makes you look like a kook? ;) HrafnTalkStalk 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude, have I ever denied being a kook? That's something I embrace.  :-) And I knew his comments were old, nonetheless they're timeless. He has a point on the DI "funding" his book, in spite of one blogger making this claim (with zero evidence) there's never been a connection made (that I know of). Obviously this fits in well with the DI's goals but saying he's on the DI payroll therefore they funded his book is not enturely accurate. That would be like if the DI purchased a book from the NCSE and then an article claimed "The DI financially supports the NCSE". Anyhow, Stein said he was given this book by one of the Expelled folks and that lead to his decision to join the ranks of the anti-science creationism cult so I have been reading up on Weikart. What an intersting dude...PT has sliced and diced his book far more thoroughly than the Alvos review. As they pointed out Weikart seems to have a habit of ignoring overwhelming evidence that does not jive with the conclusion he wants to peddle. Maybe I'll add to the article when I have a chance. Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this. It seems that Dr. Weikart is being somewhat artful in making very precise claims about the funding of his book. One can, though, see a somewhat different emphasis if one goes to Amazon and uses the "Search Inside" feature to look for "funding". One, in fact, finds this:
3. from Front Matter:
"... inspiration. Many thanks also to the Center for Science and Culture (especially Jay Richards and Steve Meyer), which provided crucial funding and much encouragement, without which this project would have taken much longer to complete. ..."
So here on this page, Weikart carefully minimizes his association with the Discovery Institute, yet in the book itself, he is much more enthusiastic in his appreciation of their role. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me add the following from Weikart's offical vita:

Funding sources;

  1. Sabbatical from CSU, Stanislaus, 2000-2001, to write first draft of a book, "Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Devaluing Human Life in Germany."
  2. Research Fellowships from the Center for Science and Culture, 2000-2001, 1998-99, 1997; partial funding for a sabbatical and released time, plus funding for three trips to archives in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Poland.
  3. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Grants from California State University, Stanislaus, 2000-2001, 1999-2000, 1998-99, 1997-98, 1996-97, 1995-96; grants for research assistants and funds for travel to European archives, UC-Berkeley, Stanford, and the Hoover Institution.

So, Weikart may be correct that he has taken more dollars from his home university than from extramural sources. In my experience, many developmental grants (the majority of his Cal State University grants) are from pooled donations and are supposed to facilitate initial work leading to either extramural funding, or direct classroom/faculty activities. Academic history departments are not in my experience, but in the sciences such little research funding would lead to dismissal, and not tenure. Gary Hurd (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is not an admission I don't know what is. You have to love those DI fellows. Maybe we should link to his comments as a secondary source? Anyhow, thanks Wes! Midnight Gardener (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd use it as the sole source -- given that Weikart has admitted to it, it is now a fact rather than a "Larry Arnhart states..." HrafnTalkStalk 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. That all meeds to be reworked. And what's your take on this sentence: "This is controversial because of his association with the Discovery Institute that partly funded his research." To me this misses the point (and is poorly sourced). Just because the DI is associated with something or even funds it does not mean it is controversial. In fact I have only come up with the source used in this article that even mentions the DI funding. However, there is a surplus of sources who portray the book's glaring ommissions, quote mining, ignoring disconfirming evidence and lack of scholarship - these things are what make the book controversial, at least those are the objections mentioned in numerous reviews. Opinions? Midnight Gardener (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed it. It was largely duplicative of the following sentence & thus redundant. We should be careful to use only high-quality sources. Weikart's a legitimate history prof, so employing less qualified sources would simply make the article look silly. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this sentence is important and is not clear

Hey gang I think we need to fine tune this sentence:

"provided crucial funding" for the book's research as part of their 'wedge strategy' for attacking Darwinian science as morally corrupting"

The way it is written, the quoted text by the author does not have a direct relationship to the summary of his comments. He does not mention the wedge strategy nor does suggest the book satisfies attacking Darwinian science as morally corrupting. His comments seem to give thanks and give credit to the DI for their financial and moral support/funding. Their support helped him accomplish writing the book. Did he make other comments including the wedge strategy that I'm overlooking? If not I think the summary should be modified. Midnight Gardener (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits make my point moot now. Run along, nothing to see here...Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, "Creationism's Tojan Horse" discusses Weikart's book in the context of the wedge strategy. If anyone's curious you can search through Forrest's book at google books. Paper45tee (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We're on the same page, very nice improvements to this article. This is a very credible artile. Nice work. Midnight Gardener (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other criticism

While I think the wikipedia article should only contain academic reviews, his work has been thoroughly discussed on notable blogs. Mentioning that Weikart's work has been criticized on notable scientists' blogs might be valuable to the readers. Paper45tee (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Best place for prominent blog criticism is in the ELs. HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)