Talk:David Berlinski

message: I completely reorganized the article into a few distinct parts in order to balance the entry in concordance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point-of-View policy. Previously, his views on Intelligent Design were outside of the views section and in their own section, and the article was littered with people slamming Berlinski for his views. I moved the criticism of Berlinski into its own section, and moved around relevant shreds to their respective sections. No content was actually deleted, and I added a short summary of his views from his latest book (Devil's Delusion).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of article 

message: * This article is extraordinarily biased: critics' quotes are placed if they were the absolute truth. Wikipedia is not credible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.101.2 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. His opposition to evolution and his involvement with ID are what Berlinski is principally known for, and is reliably sourced. To date these "views" have appeared to be fairly undifferentiated reworkings of pre-existing creationist anti-evolution arguments. If you can provide WP:RS info on what these exact views are, and how they might vary from these stock arguments, then by all means add them to the article. HrafnTalkStalk 04:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the ID section should be removed because a primary Wikipedia purpose is to educate readers on the subject's views (no matter how objectionable the subject's views might be to the writer).  For example, I came to Wikipedia to learn Berlinski's views on creation/evolution but found only undocumented summaries by writers who, apparently, want to argue against his views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailclan (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is incoherent -- if it is "a primary Wikipedia purpose is to educate readers on the subject's views", it would follow that we should add WP:RS information on those views, not that we should delete other WP:RS relating to the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fix or Delete" has long been a coherent principle and an everyday action in writing and editing.  The obvious preferred action is to fix the item.  But writers routinely delete material when, for example, they don't know the correct information in time for publication.  If they do publish, then they may mislead their audience and will undermine their creditability.  Hailclan (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fix or delete" implies that the current material is in some way erroneous -- which WP:RSs supporting it clearly refutes. The only 'problem' you have raised is one of omission, which by its nature cannot be mitigated by a deletion. This whole line of argument is specious, and unless you can find a completely new one, I see no reason to delete this section. HrafnTalkStalk 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The omissions are substantial - the quantity and relevance of Berlinski quotes is meager.  Yet the writers' provide ample criticism of those meager Berlinski quotes, and of their other undocumented understandings of Berlinski's views.  I learned a little about Berlinski's ID views but had to sort through a lot about others' anti-ID views - these editorial omissions and commissions are not incoherent or specious problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailclan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the problem is that Berlinski has said little that has evoked any serious response, most probably because (1) he lacks any qualification remotely relevant to evolutionary biology and (2) the claims he makes aren't sufficiently original to demand an independent response. "Ample criticism" is warranted per WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific position that his claims are meritless. We will go with what we have, unless and until something more substantial comes along. You have provided no logically-coherent argument for deletion of WP:V material. HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *I doubt if many would find it confusing. Berlinski is part of the IDM and one of their leading critics of evolution. The only way that you could get another meaning out of it would be to group the phrasing as leading critic of [evolution within the intelligent design movement]" -- such a grouping would not however be the ordinary English interpretation, and nonsensical in the context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design section 

message: Outside editors are kindly invited to post their comments in this section.
Please leave this section for outside input ONLY, per RfC instructions. Thank you.
Under what circumstances are blogs acceptable as Reliable Sources in Biographies of Living Persons's? What WikiPolicies apply? Reference current Talk Page for recent discussion.
*In the case of this usage, the blogs are perfectly good sources from which to source claims made by Moran & Myers. Regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, I have a few important notes:
*#Moran & Myers are readily considered "established expert" in the "relevant fields" of evolutionary biology, intelligent design, and the creation-evolution battles; use of their self-published works is not prohibited.
*#Not all blogs are created equal: Pharyngula is easily understood to meet the spirit if not the exact letter of WP:RS. That any claims sourced to his blog should be clearly attributed to Myers and Myers alone is also self-evident.
*#The section regarding Berlinski's vacuous interpretation of cetacean evolution may not be necessary, as there's plenty of scathing criticism from which to make a well-rounded "the scientific establishment considers his ID work to be buffoonery" section. Consider whether that single incidnet is receiving undue coverage. — Scientizzle 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The blogs are cited to provide the exact source of quotes that directly refute claims made by Berlinski; they are not cited as sources for any biographical details about Berlinski. This ameliorates some BLP concerns, which focus on poor sourcing of actionable biographical statements. Furthermore, while Moran's blog is more debatable regarding its inclusion (as he's less notable and its publication on Blogspot is certainly more of the personal variety), Myers is published on ScienceBlogs, a venture of Seed Media Group (Seed Magazine); while the content is decidedly his, it's not unreasonable to think of Pharyngula as similar to a columnist's blog on a news service. — Scientizzle 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Blogs as Sources in BLP's

message: In response to comment by Scientizzle 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor note: Moran is possibly more notable than PZ as a biologist. I do agree that the other issues do make sourcing with Moran more problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hang on, so relevant experts in a field saying someone outside the field is wrong is now evidence of bias? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Since Danny is insisting we do this in an overly formal fashion (that is rarely followed with the good reason that it generally makes discussion harder rather than easier), I suppose I'll add my other thoughts into this section here as well: Scientizzle's concern about undue weight may be serious enough to remove this regardless of whether or not there is a BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Josh, I agree with you affirmation of Scientizzle's concern about undue weight. How would you suggest the section in question be modified? - DannyMuse (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure. Removal might make the most sense. (To be clear this is independent of any  BLP claim). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for that: removal. But I suggest we wait a day or two and see who else weighs in on the matter, shall we? - DannyMuse (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments & Responses by Editors Previously Involved in Blog/RS Dispute

message: The article needs to define "Darwinian evolutionary theory" versus the various "intelligent design" positions.  If people don't know the terms, they can't understand the main issue of the "intelligent design" versus "no intelligent design" evolutionary controversy. 
The main competing evolutionary theory models would be Darwinian evolution (no intelligent designer - life arose spontaneously) versus various models which allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. These other evolutionary theories vary  ranging from a model almost identical to "Darwinian" except that they see a designer, through other variants with some evolutionary theories allowing only limited change.
Dr. Berlinski, and many others in the "intelligent design" group have a problem with "Darwinian evolutionary theory". Dr. Berlinski, while agnostic, does not want the door shut on the possibility of a designer. 
The term "Darwinian Evolution" is a common term and is referenced by many as a minimal Google search would show.
Note that a dictionary definition of evolution does not tell you enough about the issues of "designer" versus "no designer": EVOLUTION"...a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Darwin's+theory+of+evolution (Officially signed dna dances on Dec 18 Dna dances (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the idea that "Darwinian evolution" means "no intelligent designer - life arose spontaneously". Darwin never ruled out a Creator, and his opinion on the origin of life was that it was unknowable as far as the science of his day could tell. Of course his "Creator" was viewed as setting laws which produced the designed results, rather than breaking His laws with repeated miracles, and was in line with the theological concepts of many in the Church of England, including his Cambridge tutors and leading scientist such as Herschel. The divide isn't between "designer" versus "no designer": EVOLUTION", it's between theistic evolution and the various mutations of the anti-evolution movement begun by fundamentalists in the 1920s. . dave souza, talk 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precisely define which evolutionary theory is being discussed. 

message: The section about whales and cows is inappropriate. The sources are two very critical blogs, and this is a BLP, therefore I've removed the entire section. ATren (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to do this for a while. I totally agree.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog-sourced criticism about whales and cows. 

message: The quickest way to improve this article dramatically would be simply to delete the two quotations at the end, both of which are gratuitously insulting to the subject, and convey no real information. Please compare the tone of this article with the Wikipedia entry on (for example) Ward Churchill. The latter article contains no purely ad hominem attacks on Mr. Churchill. There is no reason for including such attacks on Mr. Berlinski.Apruzan (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You assert that "Churchill is at least as controversial as Berlinski", but in a look at the article I see no evidence that Churchill is being favourably cited in a propaganda film aimed at changing constitutional law, or being presented as evidence by members of state education boards aiming to change public school education in accordance with Ward Churchill's views. It's reasonable to include criticism of Berlinski's arguments, as in the second last quote (Eugenie Scott) but I'll agree that the summary of "Berlinski's more scathing critics" looks excessive. . dave souza, talk 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:WEIGHT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You're the one that added Ward Churchill to support your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS style argument, each article has to be considered on its own merits in relation to policies. WP:WEIGHT applies to all articles, and this article is specifically subject to WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV/FAQ. The task includes explaining how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.  . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: In the cited source, the vehement opinions are in the context of discussion of his pose of sceptical lack of interest, such that "The creationists see him as a powerful ally who bolsters their case by mounting a putatively irreligious critique of natural selection. The atheists, meanwhile, can't stand him.." and to me the context is more revealing and informative than the bald invective. Also, it doesn't signify that much – pretty sure I've read PZ being much less kind and respectful to others. . . dave souza, talk 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree that this context is useful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Berlinski's resume looks a little too good to be completely true. For instance, "According to his Discovery Institute biography, Berlinski taught mathematics at the Université de Paris." Really?! He taught at an institution scratched off by the French Revolution in 1793? Really?! How old must he be then? I know those who do not believe in evolution operate along a different timeline than those who do, but isn't that pushing it a bit much?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.174.173 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They may well be referring to Paris Universitas or one of the other successor institutions. Until we find a better source stating exactly where & the exact extent of his teaching, explicit attribution should be continued. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Preposterous. The Paris Universitas is a newly created consortium of Parisian educational institutions because the French govt. wants a better score in the ARWU. In no way, would anyone claim to "teach at Paris Universitas"; that would make as little sense as saying, "teaching at Ivy League," for instance. 132.162.174.173 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have a problem with one labeling themselves as an "Ivy-League Professor" (which he happens to be anyways)? If so, we're merely haggling over language and your apparent need to resort to hilariously far-fetched attempts to discredit this man.98.114.206.148 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, we should search for as many citations for the information posted as possible, but I should note that contrary to what the original poster said, the Wikipedia article on the University of Paris states that it did not cease to exist until 1970, when it was split into 13 separate establishments, Each with that title followed by a number. At 68, it is somewhat feasible that Berlinski taught at the original university, or the biography could be referring to one of its thirteen children. In any case, independent sources should be hunted up, but I don't see anything here to suggest that his credentials have been falsified in any way.
I am removing the assertion that Berlinski was a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia.  The source given only says "The author spent part of 1971 as a research assistant and something of a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Biology, Columbia University."  As anyone in academia can tell you, a postdoctoral fellowship lasts more than "part of" a year, whereas a research assistantship is a much more ad hoc position.  Nothing in the source says anything about an appointment in the department of mathematics.  Dotdotdotatsignapostrophe (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Given what the source says, I would agree. "Something of" is simply too vague and informal a qualifier for it to be worth including the claim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shady credentials? 

message: I'm not comfortable using the Slate article  the way it is in the intro: Daniel Engber, its author, has published an article that was sympathetic to ID that repeated their own rhetoric uncritically as fact and used the Discovery Institute as one of his sources. The quote used in the lead from the article exactly matches Berlinski's own rhetoric that he is not religious and merely a skeptic, despite notable opinions to the contrary (Dennet, Dawkins, etc). I suggest moving and rewriting it or removing it altogether to avoid the risk of repeating their rhetoric for them. Odd nature (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Slate quote used provides a good overall description of why he is known.  Also, the intro does not even mention ID and hardly seems sympathetic.  In the Slate article Engber major thrust describes Berlinski and his style by saying , "In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia," and "Berlinski's radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science."  Again, not overly sympathetic sounding just descriptive.  As far as being religious, "notable opinions to the contrary" hardly seems more reliable than the profile written by Engber.  Am I correct in saying you have a clear bias against ID, the Discovery Institute and Berlinski and do not wish to promote him or his ideas?  That is fine on a personal level but we can't let that determine the editing process.  So please note the numerous quotes and descriptions in the critique section.  The primary problem with the article as I found it was that it was too negative against Berlinski to be considered fair. MatthewDD (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but I just don't find that justification very compelling. Odd nature (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate article 

message: I would like to put forward a concern about the last sentence in the opening: "The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think-tank, portrays Berlinski as a scholarly writer and mathematician.[2]" While the citation clearly shows this to be true, I am not sure I would regard the statement as particularly relevant. His portrayal by the Discovery Institute strikes me as unremarkable. How else would they portray him? - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Discovery Institute isn't regarded as a reliable source for much.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: It's relevant because Berlinski's main claim to fame is evolution-bashing, which he does in coordination with the DI. If they were telling the truth, they might describe him as a purveyor of smugly-ignorant polemics (which is hardly "scholarly"), who has made no significant contribution to mathematics. WLU's point about the DI's lack of reliability is well-taken. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: There's nothing in the article to suggest that "He was a professor of, among other things, mathematics" -- just that he "taught" mathematics, and a number of other subjects, at a surprisingly-large number of institutions. This seems to indicate that he was more than a little of a nomad, which in turn supports the suspicion that he did so in a fairly junior capacity (teaching assistant or similar) -- which tend to be more short-term and often part-time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Discovery Institute's "portrayal" 

message: I would note that, in contradiction to the claim of this edit summary, there is no "ongoing discussion on talk page" on Berlinski's involvement in the IDM, that the last discussion was nearly two years ago, and centred upon the best way to characterise his involvement, not on whether he is involved. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just giving the facts?Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Those are great facts. What I was suggesting is that the article give the facts about Dr. Berlinski and assume that the readers are smart enough to understand them. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poorly cited"? What's your rationale for that? Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One book gives his name in a list of others. We are talking about a real living person. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about "a real living person" who is a senior member of the IDM's main organisation, who co-starred in the IDM's biggest propaganda film -- how the hades is it "potentially harmful" to point out the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS (and cited) point that he's a leader of the IDM? Even without the citation WP:DUCK clearly applies. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: (ec)And that's a problem why? You do realise he's a CSC fellow, right? What else does the CSC do? Anyway, I've added a ref to the 'gold standard' when it comes to scholarship about the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another: Ronald Numbers, another leading scholar on the subject says: "When the Jewish magazine Commentary in 1996 published a version of ID theory by mathematician and novelist David Berlinski..." ("Darwinism, Creationism and 'Intelligent Design'"). Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within the intelligent design movement ? Part  deux 

message: Didn't seem to fit at this stage -- but may prove useful in future. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused quote from the Numbers section on 'The Deniable Darwin' 

message: How can this be true when he is involed in the discovery institute which states in its manafesto that the god of the bible created humans! [Potential WP:BLP-fodder redacted]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the token agnostic (they also have a token Muslim and Jew). He seems happy enough to be given a megaphone for evolution-bashing that he doesn't seem too worried about the religious agenda of his bedfellows. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnostic? 

message: Why isn't his daughter Claire Berlinski mentioned? She is a self-styled rightwing conservative who lives in Istanbul.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridayii99 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one was interested or thought it appopriate according to WP:BLP? I don't know, it's impossible to say why it's not in here as there's been no discussion. WP:BLPNAME would apply here. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claire Berlinski  

message: The exchange between Berlinksi, Dawkins, and Dennett in response to "Deniable Darwin" seems to have little relevance to this section since it is about Berlinksi's views on evolution. The exchange is clearly not an argument which provides an additional insight into either Berlinksi's view or real objections to his view. Furthermore given the sheer size of the Dawkins quote in particular is problematic; to take up that much space it should be carrying weight by giving more information than could be summarized in the short sentence "Richard Dawkins doesn't like Berlinski and doesn't take him seriously." Unless there is some justification for this exchange, I nominate for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.60.227 (talk • contribs) 22 November 2014
:I'm the one that put most of it there. I think there should be some mention of the fact that a rather large back and forth discussion between Berlinski and his critics ensued, but I agree that it could definitely be shortened. One idea might be to bury some of the quotes in the footnotes so the actual article isn't so bulky. Costatitanica (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Berlinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publdoc.html?arg3=&co4=AND&co5=AND&co6=AND&co7=AND&dr=all&pg4=AUCN&pg5=TI&pg6=PC&pg7=ALLF&pg8=ET&review_format=html&s4=Berlinski&s5=&s6=&s7=&s8=All&vfpref=html&yearRangeFirst=&yearRangeSecond=&yrop=eq&r=1&mx-pid=1815707
*Added  tag to http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publdoc.html?arg3=&co4=AND&co5=AND&co6=AND&co7=AND&dr=all&pg4=AUCN&pg5=TI&pg6=PC&pg7=ALLF&pg8=ET&review_format=html&s4=Berlinski&s5=&s6=&s7=&s8=All&vfpref=html&yearRangeFirst=&yearRangeSecond=&yrop=eq&r=2&mx-pid=1766416
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803205311/http://www.jtsa.edu/The_Library/Collections/Archives/Music_Archives/Berlinski.xml to http://www.jtsa.edu/The_Library/Collections/Archives/Music_Archives/Berlinski.xml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140118020147/http://www.weeklynostandards.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/897jsvgo.asp to http://www.weeklynostandards.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/897jsvgo.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Might a subsection: "Berlinksi Debates" be worthwhile. I came to WP hoping to find a list of high-profile debates he may have participated in. He debated Christopher Hitchens. Others? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the thread is a bit old this may still be useful to future editors: if reliable secondary sources have covered and commented on some, those could probably be cited and used to mention such events.  Otherwise Wikipedia is usually not the place to list such, especially when it's advocacy (WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION, WP:PSCI, etc).  Since you specified "high profile debates", such sources may exist.  —PaleoNeonate – 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might a subsection: "Berlinksi Debates" be worthwhile? 

message: Per Berlinski’s arguments in “The Deniable Darwin”, he views intelligent design as a possible explanation of the origins of life, but that insufficient data exists to prove such a statement. This is the basis of his “warm but distant” comment. 98.145.145.193 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Berlinski page