Talk:Richard Weikart

message: 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  While it’s understandable that someone might use outdated information, the updated information was available on my on-line vita, so the author of this article was rather sloppy in his or her research.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)
replies: text: His work seems to be a magnet for cranks and anti-science creationists. Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Weikart on [[Richard Weikart]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Recent edits make my point moot now.  Run along, nothing to see here...Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: this sentence is important and is not clear

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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). HrafnTalkStalk 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of From Darwin to Hitler

message: 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)
thread_title:  What subject is his undergraduate degree? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  International Scholars Publications = Christian publishing house 

message: I am turning the 12 footnotes, each containing one citation apiece, into a single footnote containing the twelve citations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref-bombing in 'From Darwin to Hitler' section 

message: This edit:
#Gives WP:UNDUE weight to Weikart's post on that blog.
#Violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by stating Weikart's opinions as fact.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weikart on evolutionnews.org 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV Issue: "Darwinism"