Talk:Richard Weikart

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 While it’s understandable that someone might use outdated information, the updated information was available on my on-line vita, so the author of this article was rather sloppy in his or her research.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)

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? ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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..." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning minor funding to criticize Weikart while deleting reference to his primary funding appears to be POV. Propose adding the following clause:

"While California State University, Stanislaus funded most of Weikart's research, the "DLH (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DLH, "minor funding"? In his book (which I own) he says the DI (creationist think-tank) gave "crucial funding." So he wants to downplay that on wikipedia:talk role with all that has happened with the DI. Do you have a source that CSU gave "primary funding"? Because that is certainly not what he said in his book. Also the type of CSU funding he got is not anything special. We66er (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side point, anyone notice that Weikart's CV lists From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany as well as The Myth of Dietrich Bonhoeffer under books[1]. Notice the recent book has the subtitle, but The Myth of Dietrich Bonhoeffer does not include the subtitle The Myth of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Is His Theology Evangelical? Interesting how Weikart omits things and downplays his own claims. Speaks wonders of how his POV shapes his presentation of things in his academic work too. We66er (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• From Darwin to Hitler, or not?
• From Darwin to Hitler, or not? Part II
• From Darwin to Hitler, or Not? Part 3
• Darwin, Marx and Bad Scholarship

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

Summary of From Darwin to Hitler

Alot of criticism has been cited of "From Darwin to Hitler" - however there is very little said about what the Weikart actually said. Most is assumptions based on the title that turn out to be wrong. recommend section introducing the book and stating Weikart's thesis.DLH (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem confused. There is a block quote from the conclusion of his book, which states what the book is about. That is stating the "thesis" without "assumptions" or opinion. This article is not the place for a summary of each chapter. Under "Academic response," those are what peers think of his work's conclusions and supporting evidence. You might think all those people are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the criticism is heavy. Additionally, creationists' opinions, who not surprisingly like the book, are included. We66er (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that Weikart has lent his name to Kennedy's and Stein's far less equivocal attacks on evolution, this argument holds very little water. Plus his claim (in his own words) that the Nazis found "scientific underpinnings" "necessary" to "convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy" is completely absurd. Nothing that I have heard gives the slightest impression that 'science' (as opposed to mystical German nationalism) was influential on their worldview. I have yet to hear of any direct reference to evolution or Darwin from Hitler (who rather praises Luther's anti-Semitic writings in Mein Kampf), and Social Darwinism arguably predates On the Origin of Species, being based more on the works of Herbert Spencer & Thomas Malthus (with the term 'Social Darwinism' only being coined almost a century later). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Weikart's responses to critics

Weikart responds "In none of my published writings have I ever attacked evolutionary theory".

Weikart provides Response to Critics with a general and three specific responses.

• General Response to Critics

• Response to Robert Richards

• Response to Sander Gliboff

• Response to Larry Arnhart

It would appear only fair to provide summaries of Weikart's response to his critics to provide a balanced summary. Otherwise it appears extremely POV in attacking Weikart without allowing rebuttal.DLH (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We can read above. The current article doesn't claim he "attacks evolution." Thus, there is no reason to add a denial. He has been tied to creationist and intelligent design groups, and his research funded by promoters of the Wedge strategy. Weikart's "response" on this talk adds nothing to the article. Basically, he says his critics are wrong. In the cases of historians, he says that about more senior and established historians with more publications and impressive credentials. Moreover, as his "reponses" are personally published on the internet they would bring down the quality of the article. What's in there now is peer-reviewed historial journals. (For example: he calls the Journal of Modern History "prestigious"[2]) Let's leave good quality informative sources in and leave primary internet replies out.

The current article explicitly quotes Forrester claim that Weikert is in effect "attacking Darwinian science". Consequently it is appropriate to include Weikert's explicit denial that he has ever attacked evolution. Else that sentence breaches Wikipedia:NPOV and should be deleted.

Including only negative critics and refusing to provide the author's rebuttal directly violates Wikipedia:NPOV and the critical importance of neutrality on biographies of living persons WP:BLP.DLH (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning he responded is good, but providing a summary is not valuable after I read them carefully. The responses are basically along the lines of "No, that person's wrong." Which is very telling when you factor in I haven't read a single positive review in a scholarly journal. The only positive reviews and promotions he gets is from creationists, who care little about the correctness of their arguments and more about attacking evolutionary fact.

When the critic is wrong, it is entirely appropriate to state that and give supporting details.DLH (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any citation whether Weikart denies human evolution occurred or if he thinks the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? He seems to avoid such a discussion as he criticizes the "moral implications" of biological fact. We66er (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant since he explicitly is not addressing biological facts of mutation, nor the theory of evolution, but the moral implications of that theory.DLH (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not irrelevant for an article about him and his beliefs. Such information would tell us more about his perspective. We66er (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Honors

Other biographies such as for Sir Fred Hoyle include Honors. It would appear only fair to include the significant honors that Weikart has received, as follows:

• 2005 Outstanding Research Professor, 2004-05, California State University, Stanislaus

• 2004 Templeton-American Scientific Affiliation Lecture Series Contest, Second Prize for "From Darwin to Hitler" video lecture

• 2000 Elected to member of the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi

• 1996 Forum for History of Human Science 1996 bienniel prize for the best recent dissertation in the history of human science.

• 1993 Selma V. Forkosch Prize for the best article in the Journal of the History of Ideas in 1993.

• 1988 Phi Alpha Theta member DLH (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:RSs for these?
2. WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, equal comparison? I'm not sure how important it is to mention, for example, he was "Elected to member of the Honor Society." That does NOT equate with Hoyle's Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. Yes, honors should be included. Maybe the "Forum for History of Human Science" but that needs a WP:RS so we can know what it is. We66er (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We66er has a point -- all these seem to be very narrow (to a single university, religious-affiliation-of-scientists, a single journal, dissertations-only, etc) -- none of them are general (inter)national honours for historians. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:47, 13 July 2008(UTC)

Thanks We6634 for "Honors should be included". The Forum for History of Human Science has the following supporting information:

Citation for 1996 Dissertation Prize: Richard Weikart, "Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein," University of Iowa, 1994.

The prize committee (whose members this year were Mary Flesher, Ellen Herman, and David Valone) respectfully submitted the following citation: "We found the dissertation to be well focused, a skillful blending of ideas derived from archival resources and previous scholarship, clearly written, and sustained in analysis. It brings together a solid understanding of the history of German socialism with a nice exposition of Darwinian evolutionist. The author's analysis of the work of Marx, Engels, Lange, Bebel, Kaustsky, and Bernstein are persuasive illustrations of the cultural authority of scientific theory and scientific findings within 19-century German radical social thought. The dissertation provides an empirical basis for historians of the human sciences to pursue our conversation about science's dual roles as truth and authority as well as to ponder the relationship between the physical sciences to the human cultural imagination and its products."

Appreciate it if someone can find how to link to that page.DLH (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Found: http://www.fhhs.org/Awards/Weikart.htm

Propose the following text for this award:

• 1996 Forum for History of Human Science 1996 bienniel best recent dissertation prize

DLH (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'Forum for History of Human Science' is merely "an interest group affiliated with the History of Science Society".[3] The latter appears to be the significant academic society in the field, and its article lists a number of its prizes (whose mention would be appropriate for wikipedia). I do not think that a "bienniel best recent dissertation prize" from a mere 'affiliated interest group' merits mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It meets the criteria Wikipedia:BLP as being published by a third party and is also a fact under Wikipedia:RS. The Forum has numerous members and is an appropriate subspeciality within the larger society. This award is specifically "announced at the annual History of Science Society meeting (held October or November). With both Weikert listing it, that forum publically selecting it, publishing the list and it being announced at by the larger society, there is not reason not to list it.DLH (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NOT#Content: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." CVs will typically contain a lot more detail than is appropriate for an encyclopaedic article (and I note that you have copied its 'Awards and Prizes' section verbatim above and labelled the whole thing 'significant'), and you have not established that this is a noteworthy honour. If the majority of other editors agree with you that it is significant, I will abide by the consensus, but my position is (currently) against it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not copy verbatim. I condensed and added links and references. The Forum for History of Human Science is not merely "an interest group", but apparently is the primary professional peer group within Weikart's speciality.DLH (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to nit-pick, you copied the list of 'awards and prizes' verbatim, but did not copy the descriptions of them verbatim. The Forum for History of Human Science describes themselves as "an interest group affiliated with the History of Science Society" (hence the quotes around the description). If you don't like this, then take it up with them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I selected the four major honors and added them in an Honors section as follows:

---

Among others, Weikart was honored by:

• 2004 Templeton-American Scientific Affiliation, 2nd Prize for video lecture "From Darwin to Hitler"
• 2000 Elected Member of the Honor Society Phi Kappa Phi
• 1996 Forum for History of Human Science 1996 bienniel best recent dissertation prize
• 1993 Selma V. Forkosch Prize, best article in the 1993 Journal of the History of Ideas

---

DLH (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have reverted:

1. Get consensus that these 'honours' are noteworthy first. I have disagreed, We66er has questioned them, but others might take your view of this
2. Get WP:RSs for all the honours you wish to include
3. Stop violating WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles! Do not provide links to the "video lecture" & "Journal of the History of Ideas" in the text. If they verified the statements , they should have been contained in a footnote -- as they don't, they are superfluous.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DLH, I don't see how the honors are noteworthy. People's CVs include all their awards, but that does not make thei worthy for an article. As Hrafn pointed out, the best sounding award turned out to be a special interest group. The same goes for the Templeton video lecture prize. You might have a case for the journal award, but we need some context and sources.

I agree with Hrafn about the video links as well. Most scholars can have a list of links to youtube of their videos presentations, but that doesn't mean it is wiki-worthy. Anyone who can read wikipedia can also search yahoo/google for video. We66er (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the prize was explicitly for the video lecture, it is appropriate to link to that video lecture for readers to see what the prize was about.DLH (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. Citations are for verification -- and the linked video does not verify that he won the award. Per WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles (which you still don't appear to have read): "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." If a link to the video is required at all (which is doubtful, since it only won second prize in a lecture series contest), it should be in the 'External links' section (or perhaps as an addendum to a footnote citing actual verification of this award). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

DHL, Your link additions are rather silly:

• http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/
• http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/response-to-critics.htm
• http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/response-richards.htm
• http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/response-Gliboff.htm
• http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/Response-Arnhart.htm

Notice how they are all on the same page? Notice how the main page is already linked? As it stands now, it is in violation of Wikipedia:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view and Wikipedia:NOT#LINK. I am removing them and adding a mention that he has a webpage with responses. We66er (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, it is in direct violation of WP:EL#Important points to remember #5: "In the 'External links' section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Amazon 'reviews'

It has been my experience that, unless specifically cited to some periodical (or similar), 'reviews' in Amazon are merely 'dustcover endorsements' (as further investigation confirmed in the case in the 'reviews' of FDtH), and should not be presented as independent reviews. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Publisher.27s_.22blurb.22_quotes_and_Bat_Ye.27or discusses the appropriate handling of such endorsements in more detail. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Hrafn's comments about dustcover claims not being WP:RS, the Evans quote comes from the back of the book. I remove it pending the location of the source. Without knowing the source/publisher it should not be presented with the same weight alongside published reviews in scholarly journals.

The reason is simple we need the full context because Weikart constantly omits material. Such on his website he cites:

"Weikart has written a significant study because it raises key ethical questions in broad terms that have contemporary relevance. His historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary pscyhology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced." --H-Net review on H-Ideas[4]

Well, the actual review doesn't quite say that in the context. The same review goes on to say:

...fails to follow the rich nuances of the discourse/practices and institutions that have preoccupied the contemporary generation of intellectual historians, who have paid attention to the continuities and ruptures within systems of thought. So his presentation of racism, for example, reiterates a rationale that does not stand up to the critical scrutiny of intellectual history.[5]

Unless you can find a source with full context and detail of Evans' claims, at the very least it adds nothing of substance to the article and at worst maybe misleading.We66er (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What subject is his undergraduate degree?

What is Weikart's undergraduate degree in? For some reason, Weikart has chosen to omit it from his Curriculum Vitae. Yet, his vitae lists unimportant things like a presentation to the Turlock Tuesday Reading Club in January 2007, but not his BA subject from Texas Christian University. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

International Scholars Publications = Christian publishing house

Two of Weikart's four books are published by "International Scholars Publications". I had never heard of this publisher so I wanted to find out if its respectable. A google search turns up nothing about it being in business, a webpage, its review process or history. Rather, a few searches in book databases show that "International Scholars Publications" publishes books either about Christianity or from a Christian perspective. Any more information about International Scholars Publications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWeells67 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref-bombing in 'From Darwin to Hitler' section

I am turning the 12 footnotes, each containing one citation apiece, into a single footnote containing the twelve citations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Weikart on evolutionnews.org

This edit:

1. Gives WP:UNDUE weight to Weikart's post on that blog.
2. Violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by stating Weikart's opinions as fact.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Issue: "Darwinism"

The intro to this article states: "Weikart's work focuses on the impact of evolution, which he and the Discovery Institute term Darwinism, on social thought, ethics and morality."

It's true that Weikart and the Discovery Institute use the term "Darwinism," but the way this is written it makes it seem like this is a special term of abuse that they have come up with in order to discredit evolutionary biology. I can see why someone would think that if they weren't familiar with the scholarly literature, but it's not really true. For example, historian of biology Ronald Numbers wrote a book called "Darwinism comes to America." Historian of biology Peter Bowler wrote a book called "The Eclipse of Darwinism." Historian and philosopher of biology Michael Ruse wrote a book called "Darwinism Defended." By no stretch of the imagination can these scholars be considered creationists or advocates of intelligent design. They're reputable, mainstream scholars employed at major universities. Michael Ruse actually played a key role in a landmark court decision barring Intelligent Design from schools (McLean vs. Arkansas.) (All these titles, btw, can be looked up in a moment on worldcat, a standard online bibliographic reference used by scholars.)

So, the way this intro is written right now it's somewhat misleading. "Darwinism" is a reputable, mainstream shorthand for "Darwin's views on evolutionary biology." I went ahead and removed the inaccurate section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxh371 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)