This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 7 March 2010, David Gelernter was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
So, was he appointed as Trump's advisor or not? -- Историк2010 ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
He wasn’t. Trump left the position vacant for a long time and finally nominated Kelvin Droegemeier. ← Hob 04:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower, but went to hell in the 1960s and has yet to recover. Radicals have taken over the universities and spread their poison. That is the gist of David Gelernter's book ... Patriotism and families once flourished, Gelernter argues, and then patriotism disintegrated into bitterness, and the nuclear family crumbled ... There was a time when those elite schools were run by a benign establishment, generally white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who saw their role as civilizing and uplifting. But the WASP's were knocked out by what Gelernter calls PORGI's, "post-religious, globalist intellectuals," who took over and indoctrinated the students."
isn't that more like anti-indoctrination, rather than anti-intellectualism? isn't it a bit rich to call a yale compsci prof "anti-intellectual?"
I think the reviewer's position is that to equate teaching with indoctrination is inherently anti-intellectual, and that it is hypocritical for a professional intellectual/professor to make such an argument.
See above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.13.71 ( talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is too much elaboration on the company and the activities within that , here in a BLP. It would seem proper to move the same into the main article instead. Devopam ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The article notes that Gelernter was targeted by the Unabomber, but doesn't state why he was targeted. Why was Gelernter targeted? Even if Kaczynski had a lousy explantion, what was it? If it was, say, because Kaczynski was against the use of computers, then also, how did Kaczynski settle on Gelernter, of all computer programmers? It would be nice to have it in the article. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. Betathetapi545 ( talk) 08:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
I guess it may be relevant that Gelernter has fallen for Stephen Meyer's pseudoscientific ideas. But shouldn't we use secondary sources instead of linking Gelernter's own misleading comments embracing Intelligent Design fallacies? Here is what Jerry Coyne wrote about the subject. Rather than the biology-illiterate layman Gelernter's writings, we should use what an actual expert writes on the subject. Or, if that is not good enough, we should apply WP:FRINGE and not mention the subject. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"His view on climate change is out of step with the overwhelming scientific consensus.[26]"
While the statement may be true, the citation for it is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blicher ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
News sources are not good enough for claims that contradict a scientific consensus. But when they support it, they are.And how is it determined whether a claim "contradicts" or "supports" the scientific consensus? Your personal opinion? That doesn't fly on Wikipedia. The reference should be replaced. 2001:569:7F63:5900:CD96:116C:64BC:9577 ( talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 7 March 2010, David Gelernter was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
So, was he appointed as Trump's advisor or not? -- Историк2010 ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
He wasn’t. Trump left the position vacant for a long time and finally nominated Kelvin Droegemeier. ← Hob 04:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower, but went to hell in the 1960s and has yet to recover. Radicals have taken over the universities and spread their poison. That is the gist of David Gelernter's book ... Patriotism and families once flourished, Gelernter argues, and then patriotism disintegrated into bitterness, and the nuclear family crumbled ... There was a time when those elite schools were run by a benign establishment, generally white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who saw their role as civilizing and uplifting. But the WASP's were knocked out by what Gelernter calls PORGI's, "post-religious, globalist intellectuals," who took over and indoctrinated the students."
isn't that more like anti-indoctrination, rather than anti-intellectualism? isn't it a bit rich to call a yale compsci prof "anti-intellectual?"
I think the reviewer's position is that to equate teaching with indoctrination is inherently anti-intellectual, and that it is hypocritical for a professional intellectual/professor to make such an argument.
See above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.13.71 ( talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is too much elaboration on the company and the activities within that , here in a BLP. It would seem proper to move the same into the main article instead. Devopam ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The article notes that Gelernter was targeted by the Unabomber, but doesn't state why he was targeted. Why was Gelernter targeted? Even if Kaczynski had a lousy explantion, what was it? If it was, say, because Kaczynski was against the use of computers, then also, how did Kaczynski settle on Gelernter, of all computer programmers? It would be nice to have it in the article. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. Betathetapi545 ( talk) 08:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
I guess it may be relevant that Gelernter has fallen for Stephen Meyer's pseudoscientific ideas. But shouldn't we use secondary sources instead of linking Gelernter's own misleading comments embracing Intelligent Design fallacies? Here is what Jerry Coyne wrote about the subject. Rather than the biology-illiterate layman Gelernter's writings, we should use what an actual expert writes on the subject. Or, if that is not good enough, we should apply WP:FRINGE and not mention the subject. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"His view on climate change is out of step with the overwhelming scientific consensus.[26]"
While the statement may be true, the citation for it is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blicher ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
News sources are not good enough for claims that contradict a scientific consensus. But when they support it, they are.And how is it determined whether a claim "contradicts" or "supports" the scientific consensus? Your personal opinion? That doesn't fly on Wikipedia. The reference should be replaced. 2001:569:7F63:5900:CD96:116C:64BC:9577 ( talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)