Jump to content

Talk:From Darwin to Hitler/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Subject

This article was classifying the book as Intelligent Design; while the book is relevant to the ID movement, it is not about the ID movement, which is what the subject= parameter in the infobox is for. I grabbed what seemed the two most specific keywords from the WorldCat entry instead. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

not npov

I was searching for Darwin's influences on Hitler and this was among the top of the Google search. I don't know the validity of the claims made in this book but the article appears to be nothing but an attack piece aimed at discrediting the material off hand rather than simply presenting a summary of it, allowing others to make their own judgements, as most NPOV articles of this sort do. You don't see, for example, James Randi's "The Truth About Uri Geller" introduced as a book by Prometheus Books, a publishing company publishing material advancing atheism and skepticism. However, here we get the book introduced as a conspiracy of the Discovery Institute to further it's "wedge strategy," the evidence for which is just Barbara Forest's biased opinion. We then get more biased unrelated/unnecessary information about ID, Expelled, Creation Ministries, etc. It is from this perspective which we are to subsequently view the book; and indeed the article goes on to "discredit" the publication, presenting evidence that we're supposed to believe is correct, unbiased and indisputable. It's important to remember that truth is not dependent from it comes because it stands on its own merit, whether it is uttered by a creationist, atheist, etc. You may agree the book is propaganda, it's based on "creationist" lies, etc and you may agree with the criticisms, but this is not wiki's point to decide. It is up to the reader to do the research, not wiki. Here we're simply led to the conclusion, from the onset, championed by one side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.32.51 (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression articles should review a work not simply state criticisms of it. Given the current intellectual debate where one side is presented as "scientific" and "intelligent" and the other as "superstitious" and "ignorant" or "unscientific" the reviewer's leave little doubt of their bias. They also seem to be afraid someone will come away with a negative impression of naturalism or Darwin. While the percentage of Rhodes scholars to road workers is believably small, much of the populace can still think for themselves. Let Weikert's book stand for itself and kindly do a review of content and not a catalogue of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaamera (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE is the relevant policy. This book was overwhelmingly panned, and frequently eviscerated, by the historian community, and has only received support from the (WP:FRINGE) creationist community. That Weikart has an obvious anti-evolution axe to grind is essential information in setting the scene for it. It was written by a member of an anti-evolution propaganda organisation, and featured prominently in an anti-evolution propaganda movie that this organisation was intimately involved in. I'd say WP:DUCK applies. The book has been discredited by the relevant experts, and this article reflects the weight of their expert opinion -- as Wikipedia NPOV policy states that it should. WP:FRINGE in fact explicitly states that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

POV

The part so called "academic recection" is the best example on a biased piece of propaganda against this book:

  • There are quoted solely those reviewers who negatively criticized the book. Between those critics are included some periodist far from being scholar authors and for a change none of those scholars who actually praised the book are mentioned at all.
  • The response from the authot against those critics are omiktted and solely referenced.
  • Not solely the author but also some other scholar authors have noticed that most of the criticism are even so absurd that attributes to the author exactly the opposite he claims, for example, he does not claim that Nazims is a necessary result of Darwinism.
  • According to the sources it a peer reviewed book but is being treated as a sort of fringe pseoudo scientific piece.

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to each point:

1) If you can find the book positively reviewed in academic journals then leave the citations. It's not the article's fault that historians don't take the book seriously. Find positive reviews and add them.
2) The author's responses are linked. Repeatedly adding them after a reviewer's quote would give undue weight to his single opinion. That the author is the only one defending the book is clear. That single opinion should not out weigh the academic community's opinion. Furthermore, adding his response to every published sources is not only unusual to any article, but would destroy coherency in the article.
3) You claiming that "some other scholar authors..." is uncited and nonsense. First, the article doesn't claim what you say it does. Secondly, if you have other WP:RS from academics add it to the article.
4) I don't get this point. The book is about history or more specifically, intellectual political history in Germany. The term "pseudo" appears nowhere in the text. The book was published and was heavily criticized by scholars in German history. The article reflects that. If you have a problem with the criticism, take that up with the historical community, not wikipedia.

Four months later and no further discussions or changes. I'm removing the tags you added. Also you added the tag for disputing facts, but nowhere on this talk page did you dispute a single specific fact. Please don't falsely tag pages. SalHamton (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Before editing any article any editor should take the time to read and look for reliable sources and verify the information. you too Mr. SalHamton.
1) I will add some scholar sources dealing with the book in a way that is not represented in the current article but missrepresnted. for example this one is currently presented as a piece of criticism about the book while it refers to the book in other terms.
2)Your claim that the book is not taken seriously by historians does prove that the sources are so wrong represented that you got a very stupid idea of the hitorian's opinion on the book. For example this source is cited also as a piece of criticism, and certainly the current article is focused on cherry picking those parts that seems to criticize the book while the own review give also merits to hte boojk, for example "These criticisms aside, 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 psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced. Along the way, we are offered a number of interesting side currents, including a discussion of Nietzsche's embrace and resistance of evolutionary theory (pp. 46-49), as well as interesting tidbits of what Wiekart covered in his book, Socialist Darwinism (pp. 90-94)." Certainly reading the entire review from Jonathan Judaken (Department of History, University of Memphis, onw easily concludes it is not represented but cherrypicked in the article. Let you verify yourself.
3)some other opinions:

"This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story." -- Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America

"This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history--a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English." -- Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914
"This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the progressive banner of biological 'health and fitness.' The book should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians but among ethicists and scientists too." --Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University
". . . Richard Weikart's excellent new book. In precise and careful detail Weikart narrates an indispensable chapter of cultural and intellectual history . . ." --National Review
"This important work of intellectual history will act as a catalyst for rethinking the scientific and social forces that shaped the racial policies of the Third Reich." --Choice
"This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were." --German Studies Review
4)another positive review: [1]
5) while citing the author responses in detail could be for you an undue weighted form, surely anyone with brain realizes that merely referring a link to its web page telling (the author responded criticism in his web page), not even summarizing its responses, it is a very superfluous, vague and mediocre way to deal the issue.
At least it would be useful to summarize that much criticism against the book claims the author suggest a direct and logical link from Darwinmism to Nazism, while the book self explicity says: “Nor am I making the absurd claim that Darwinism of logical necessity leads (directly or indirectly) to Nazism. In philosophical terms, Darwinism was a necessary, but not a

sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology.” In the conclusion of the book: “It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust, as though Darwinism leads logically to the Holocaust. No, Darwinism by itself did not produce Hitler's worldview, and many Darwinists drew quite different conclusions from Darwinism for ethics and social thought than did Hitler.” --ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You literally copy-and-pasted promotional quotes from Weikart's page ( http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm ). Adding book blurbs from the author's promotional website fails WP:NPOV because book blurbs are not reviews. They are not WP:RS. Moreover, its also a violation of WP:SOAP.
Let's take, for example, the promotional quote: "This important work of intellectual history will act as a catalyst for rethinking the scientific and social forces that shaped the racial policies of the Third Reich" attributed to "Choice". What is "Choice"? Is it a magazine? It is a movie? Is it a rocketship? There is no reference to an author, issue, page number, date, publisher or anything. If you google that quote, only webpages that mirror Weikart's content have it. To put it another way, that quote exists nowhere else, but Weikart's page. It fails WP:RS. Thus: 1) We don't know what the publication is, 2) who wrote it, 3) if its a review or 4) IF CAN BE SUPPORTED OUTSIDE WEIKART'S PROMOTIONAL PAGE! Maybe made it up?
Then there is your painting that H-net review as positive. That is also dishonest as there are not only many criticism, but it's also unusual for an academic review to point out problems with a book while using an exclamation point! (See: "What this approach cannot explain is why Darwin, "a typical English liberal" supported laissez-faire economics and opposed slavery!" Very rare indeed!)
If you aren't interested in improving the article in the next few days in accordance with WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT, I'll be removing those tags again much quicker than the four months you left them on this last time. You wanting to add promotional blurbs is not enough to 1) dispute NPOV and 2) facts. 05:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs)
1)The "critics" cited in the article are also reviews, and actually they are cited or linked also in the web of the author, and surely they were taken from there to wikipedia. And indeed cherry picked.
Certainly you are the one painting all the issue in black and white, for example as if the review from H-net could be assumed in that way and summarized in that way here. That is hilarious and mediocre. You are the one claiming that the book has not been taking seriously by the academic community, but I have provided precisely a piece of the cited critics that expressively and despite of critics, recognizes the importance and quality of the book. Have I to quote t again?: "These criticisms aside, 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 psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced. Along the way, we are offered a number of interesting side currents, including a discussion of Nietzsche's embrace and resistance of evolutionary theory (pp. 46-49), as well as interesting tidbits of what Wiekart covered in his book, Socialist Darwinism (pp. 90-94)." So I have to insist again: Certainly reading the entire review from Jonathan Judaken (Department of History, University of Memphis, onw easily concludes it is not represented but cherrypicked in the article, or at least very bad summarized in a very biased form.
2)Actually the exahustively review by Judaken, including its critics are proof that the book deserved analysis and mention and review nd of course critics from scholars... I am sure this phrase from that review: "In his painstakingly researched third chapter, Weikart examines the institutionalization of evolutionary ethics" be a sort of sarcasm, due it is followed by a description of the chapter. So again, why you are claiming the book has not been taking seriously? why is that exahustive review summarized in a way that missed any positive critic and also missed the actual description and analysis of the book done by that review? why the wikipedia focused on a very cherrypicked phrase of criticism taken from that review? just in order to keep the style of the WP:OR of the editor who wrote that "academic reception" part?
3)That leaving aside that you have not said any word about this: http://www.discovery.org/a/2534 which is a positive critic, outside the web page of the author, which you blamed.
4)So far, if the author web page quotes critics, be it positive or not, it is reliable and verifiable source. Your assumption of bad faith or unreliability about the author'spage just shows you are not assuming it objetctivelly but fanatically, you should keep apart from topics that compells you to fanatism and obsession, for the sake of everybody including you own quality of life. But to be honesst I can laugh about your obssesions even as much as I laugh at mine own. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
More smoke screen. I have no idea what you mean "linked also in the web of the author" and then "cherry picked." I don't care about "author web page" and whether Weikart puts criticism or unicorns on it. I care about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The wikipedia article details the criticism that scholars in his academic field have written published academic reviews of about.
I haven't "done" anything. I came to this article and saw tags you put on four months ago. I removed the tags because the article is fine and you failed to make any improvements in four months. If you want to give the article more "balance" then go for it by obeying WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You've had FOUR MONTHS to make edits, but have made no changes.
The National Review article on the Discovery Institute website has nothing to do with "academic reception," academia or the historical profession. Indeed, the author of that article is: 1) NOT a historian 2) has NO EXPERTISE in German history 3) is a currently professor of EDUCATION in the US, and 4) who published a review in a publication that promotes an ideological view. In other words, a professor of education's statements in a conservative magazine doesn't reflect the reception of a German history book in the field of history.
You will be given a few more days, though you've left the tag on for FOUR MONTHS, to make changes using WP:RS. At that point, any further edits with tags with be vandalism as reflected by your four month campaign to leave the tag on without improving the article. SalHamton (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The current section does not represent the sources. It is POV and biases and distorting. And you seems to think you are my boss and while I laughs even more the tags shoould remain until any editor with more time do the changues required. Your attempt to solve a content dispute in the way you are doingbis innaceptable. Ask for other editors opinions ir any other way of consensus or keep aside. --ClaudioSantos¿?|
Repeating the same false claims does nothing to further this discussion. The article has been on wikipedia for five years in this state. It is only you (who can't tell the difference between a scholarly review and a book blurb) that doth protest. You've been given several chances to correct what you see a "balance" issue in the last four months.
Also I'd like to point out regarding the above, the positive aspects of some of the reviews have been in the article for years (such as the "significant study" part you quoted from Judaken's review). The reality is: there is no scholarly review that doesn't take serious exception to the book. Thus, the article must present that per WP:WEIGHT. SalHamton (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

nope your bad faith assumption on me is Wp:clown so I will Wp:laugh and wp:clap. Wp:bye wp:dear. wp:Mediocrity could be wp:contagious so I better run away from here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC) l

If you don't want to take the time and actually read policy, wikipedia is better served without you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. SalHamton (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are proclive to feel such a happy owner of wikipedia I am happy to have not any penny to loose nor to be tied to, even less imaginary. If certaily I did more than read the policy and the law, at any rate actually I was in wikipedia and surely in the world before you, and I do not expect* nor mind if I am to be further, but don't you worry because white death is for everybody, also for you and also for me, but not today my dear, not today. So I'm not sorry for leaving you alone dancing your morbid song. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's that English isn't your first language, but nothing you wrote makes any sense. By the way, according to scholars Graeme Gooday, John M. Lynch, Kenneth G. Wilson, and Constance K. Barsky in Isis (journal): "numerous reviews have accused Weikart of selectively viewing his rich primary material, ignoring political, social, psychological, and economic factors that may have played key roles in the post-Darwinian development of Nazi eugenics and racism." Full article available here. Hence a new scholarly source has been added to the wikipedia article pointing out the criticism the book has received. SalHamton (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I remember certain puppets claiming similar ineptitute to understand, who also seemed to be too tied to mechanical language and formats, despite of illness being the common language and root of every language. I do not have a cure for that sort of ineptitude, sorry, it would be a waste of time to discuss more complicated matters, even fool matters, so do not loose your breath anymore discussing, just let the article in the way you like it, I will not touch any more your toy.PD: it seems you do not understand my farewell, so perhaps you shall be egotist a while: if there is any door by which I'm passing through, then the respective room is you, nothing more, but also nothing less.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
So nothing to offer about the article other than poorly written and often incoherent personal attacks? SalHamton (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
ClaudioSantos, please do not modify other people's sentences as you did to mine here. SalHamton (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Of that piece of garbage is guilty my O.S. but the later can not explain how a section dealing with the reception of the book, is considered to be due weighted when it is four times longer than even the section exposing the book arguments and contents. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You have serious misunderstandings about WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT if you think it has anything to do with section length. SalHamton (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

2015 discussion

Late on this book. Although positive evaluations might be relatively rare they weren't hard to find and I do believe there is a tendency on Wikipedia to wait things toward what Secular Humanists say. Sometimes, as in this article, without even acknowledging they are secular humanists. Linking Hitler directly to Darwin, as this book may do, is "risible" but linking Ernst Haeckel to Hitler is relatively mainstream. I feel this article, at present, was POV by making it sound like linking any Darwinist to Nazism is "ridiculous" when in fact it's not fringe among historians at all to see the Nazis as inspired by "a perversion of Darwinism."
Further the language and sourcing used is far from neutral. To the point of sounding like a slightly excessive defense of Darwin from a book most people have likely never read. (For the record I don't think Darwin was some racist monster. What I'm saying is we don't need to lead people into "correct thinking", the facts should speak for themselves) If the preponderance of views on the book are negative than the preponderance here should be negative, but I don't think that necessarily means the article should drift perilously to being advocacy against the book. Just reporting the facts should be sufficient. And I question whether using advocacy sites, without calling them that, is quite right.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be recycling creationist misinformation about "Darwinism" and proposing undue weight to that viewpoint, but are of course welcome to cite properly sourced expert opinion. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a creationist and this book might well be rather excessive. I just mean some of the wording in the article was a little overtly "how dare he" and piling on source after source of criticism. If the book was titled "From Carl Linnaeus to Hitler" I don't think this level of "piling on" would be deemed necessary. At the same time it's not a "creationist claim" that certain people tried to use Darwin, or what they thought he was saying, to justify any number of things Right or Left well-meaning or not. See Social Darwinism, Social evolution, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Eugenics, or Alfred Ploetz.[2]--T. Anthony (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, these Wiki articles are rife with unsourced assertions re this topic, which should probably be deleted: could you have a look at adding sources? The NS has a passing mention, leaving the puzzle: how could Darwin inluence Arthur de Gobineau#Nazism? The Nazis clearly [mis]quoted de Gobineau, did they ever actually quote Darwin? Don't think Hitler did. . . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
p.s. was wondering about the NS author Steve Fuller, this confirms he's the Steve Fuller (sociologist)#Intelligent design supporter so unsurprising that he agrees with Weikart. . . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware of that on Fuller. I knew there was some dispute on this, but Alfred Ploetz connection to a "crude Darwinism"[3] seems pretty solid in things I found. He was at least at a conference with Leonard Darwin.[4] The 1937 Hitler Youth handbook is said, by Robert N. Proctor, to discuss evolution by natural selection. I grant it's contentious, particularly this writer's effort to directly link, but the linkage of some Darwin-influenced pseudoscience with Nazism is pretty far from fringe.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The first cite says "Ploetz had adopted a very crude Darwinian scheme..." but the scheme as described is completely at odds with Darwin's writings. Attending a conference Leonard Darwin also attended doesn't tell us much: Leonard Darwin was a eugenicist rather than a Darwinist, whatever that's taken to mean. Proctor describes the 1937 Hitler Youth handbook as discussing Mendelian inheritance, Darwin's natural selection, Lamarckian acquired characteristics, and Weissmannism, before disputing that environmental influences can ever bring about the formation of a new race. Looks like they rejected both Darwin and Lamarck. The main problem is that "Darwinism" commonly referred to ideas which were unrelated to Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm meaning more people had been inspired by Darwin into weird directions Darwin would have disliked and not anticipated. Obviously I don't agree, if this person is saying that, that Darwin leads to Hitler. Still I sometimes feel Wikipedians are overly defensive against the idea Darwin's work even can be twisted or distorted into anything bad and want to assure their readers "that never happens." But that it does happen isn't really a fringe opinion that must be discredited. And I do think linking things like Action T4 to philosophies people had about "Survival of the fittest", so okay not Darwin himself, isn't a stretch. So maybe more "Spencer to Hitler" would maybe have been more solid if less likely to sell. Still it makes sense scientists then would have also wanted a justification from Darwin or been influenced by him because many to most non-Soviet scientists were.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
More complex, in that "Darwinism" was commonly used as a label in English for non-Darwinian ideas, had little influence in France, and Haeckel's concepts were explicitly rejected by the NSDAP Office of Racial Policy (Richards, pp. 16–17 in particular) As Richards shows, anti-Semitism got no support from Haeckel or Darwin, but creationists still try to imply a connection. Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies was openly touted by the Nazis, but for some reason no creationist books on From Luther to Hitler.... . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reasons this article is crap, a brief summary

Yo so I have finals in a few adys so I'll be brief about the first thing that catches my eye.

  1. Zimmerman's review wasn't entirely critical and mentioned positive aspects of the book as well, the selective quoting in the article makes it look like wholly negative review. One quote has literally been quotemined to remove the words "for all his good research" preceding it.
  2. Positive reviews exist which have been ignored such as this one Other reviews while overall negative, have positive things to say about the book, in this reception page the postiive things negative reviews have to say have been heavily downplayed.
  3. This Hector Avalos stuff seems superWP:FRINGE, I've spent the past month reading tonnes of books on the history of Darwinian thought and I've not read a single person who denies that darwin believes contact between races can lead to the extinction of weaker ones even if he didnt welcome it. I dont have time to listen to the entire recorded debate, but this just plain shouldn't be in here.
  4. The line about race changing its meaning is utter tripe and not even the source cited (which seems to just be some random anti-creationist website)

In conclusion, please either fix the article or put the NPOV tag back Brustopher (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your points 1, 2 and 3 are invalid. Overall width and solidity of Weikart's research is acknowledged in the article, the review you are linking to presents a distorted view of darwinism and Hector Avalos pointing out Weikart's quote mining is a prime example of what is wrong with the review in the first place. I am strongly in favour of removing the POV tag. Tkjanacek (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Point 3 is definitely valid, the quote presented by Weikart and his interpretation of it is one that I have not seen a single historian writing on Darwin dispute. Darwin believed that contact between race of man would lead to their distinction. He may not have been too happy about it, but he clearly and undeniably thought it was true. Brustopher (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_Darwin_to_Hitler/Archive_1&oldid=1145947617"