Talk:Stephen Budiansky

Removal of sourced content

"In his book If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness, Budiansky affirms that animals most likely experience emotions but denies animals consciousness and also contends that animals do not really suffer because their sensation of pain lacks a social context.[8] He uses this thesis to attack the animal rights and deep ecology movements. Budiansky explains animal behaviour through a neo-Darwinian perspective as associative learning and evolutionary adaptation for survival."

This content is well sourced to a review [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Other content that was removed "He argues that animals do not deserve equal consideration because unlike humans they do not have moral agency." This is sourced to Budiansky's own words in an interview where he says:

One of the reasons I fundamentally disagree with the animal-rights philosophy is that it seems to be based on the notion that pain is the overriding factor in determining whether an animal has rights. There's more to life than avoiding pain, and I think that's true for animals as well as for us. The idea that because animals can suffer pain they therefore deserve equal consideration is a very limited view of the world. And even more than that, sentience or consciousness is not the same as a moral capacity, a capacity to anticipate the future, a capacity to have thoughts about thoughts, a capacity to have an awareness of oneself as an independent moral agent. These are things that result in different experiences of the world, and I think they make it perfectly valid and normal to make distinctions between us and other animals.[2]

Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There is conflict of interest with this single purpose account and IP which appear to be removing any sources critical of Budiansky's research, even though such content is well-sourced. This type of editing is not acceptable [3] and is pure white-washing. Please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Well sourced content should not be removed without a valid reason.

• Harkaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.91.177.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the subject of the "biography of a living person" article Stephen Budiansky, and have never concealed that fact.

The edits I have made over time to articles referring to me have never to my knowledge been an attempt to "remove any sources critical of" my work, but only to ensure factual accuracy and neutral language.

However I have several specific and one general concerns with the recent addition of the section "View on Animals" to my biography page.

First, there is the general matter of balance. The addition of a section constituting approximately half of the entire article length devoted to the single topic "Views on Animals" is I would submit contrary to the admonition in WP:BLPBALANCE: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." It is a heavily disproportionate focus on one relatively minor aspect of my professional work as a writer, historian, and biographer as should be evident from the bibliography of my works.

Second, more specifically, the added material consists disproportionately of the views of animal-rights advocates and is unbalanced by favorable reviews of my books on animals that have appeared in many other reputable publications; e.g.:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/24/books/books-of-the-times-why-fang-and-claw-are-underfoot.html

"Forcefully argued and eloquent"

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/21/books/horse-sense.html

"This objective, well-documented account of the evolution, physiology and psychology of the horse provides an excellent source book for students and an appealing text for those of us who are horse-addicted."

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-budiansky/the-covenant-of-the-wild/

"Ambrosia for anyone—whether in agreement with Budiansky or not—who appreciates the beauty of an argument that combines careful scholarship with common sense."

This is a pretty clear violation of the guidance in WP:BLPBALANCE, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints." The quoted criticism in the recently added material is virtually entirely from the very particular viewpoint of animal-rights advocates.

Third, I have no objection whatever to citations to critical views on my work (as long as it is presented with the balance called for in WP:BLPBALANCE). However I do not believe it is valid to represent such criticism as constituting an accurate description of the views actually contained in my published books, and such quotations should be clearly identified as presenting an opinion of a (usually very interested) critic rather than a representation of arguments I have made in print. Quoting what someone says I have said is not a valid substitute for quoting what I actually said, when the purpose is to represent my published views. For example, the statement "He disagrees with the idea that dogs can be brave, loyal or love their owners" is not I would submit an accurate representation of what I have said. You can say, "According to a review by animal-rights advocate so and so, he disagrees with . . ." but it is more fair and far more germane and to the point to take the trouble to look at and and quote from my actual published words.

Fourth, a small point and perhaps you can prove me wrong, but I don't think it is accurate to label me as belonging to the category "Critics of vegetarianism." I do not believe I have ever criticized vegetarianism per se, but rather regard it as a personal choice completely worthy of respect by others. I have criticized the assertion that it is a moral imperative but that is not the same thing.

Finally another very small point: these recent edits have removed citations to my "official site biography" on the supposed grounds that this is an impermissible use of a primary source. However WP:BLPSELFPUB specifically permits such citations within biographies of living persons. I would suggest that citation be restored. It is not in violation of the other conditions as the citation is not e.g. "unduly self-serving" but rather only provides source for some of the neutral personal facts contained in the article (e.g. that I live on a small farm).

Harkaway (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In regard to the balance. Most of your books on history or military have not been widely reviewed or reviewed in peer-reviewed journals by scholars (I found 3 reviews on JSTOR) but all of your books on animals have so the vast majority of reception and sources exist for your books on animals because more reviews exist, this is not a false balance. You appear to be most known for your books and writings on animals and your criticism of animal rights, and this is where the majority of the reception of your ideas has come from. There is no point in denying this. If you extensively search for your name on Google Books or JSTOR or in newspapers you will see you are cited as a critic of animal rights and for denying animal consciousness in many books and papers on animals. So this is not a false-balance. I do not object to citing your books on history either (we can get to that) but the mass of content about you, is about your views on animals. If you search for book reviews you will find that the majority of reviews that have been published are for your books on animals and the environment. It appears scholars have taken keen interest in your views on animals because you appear to be a contrarian.

It should also be pointed out that that your views on animals and the environment are fringe views that are not accepted by the majority of scholars in the fields of animal cognition and animal studies, nor accepted by the majority of biologists, ecologists, neuroscientists, physiologists or zoologists for that matter so there will be more criticism of your views than positive reviews. Because this is the case, we cannot present a false balance. In one of his papers Jonathan Balcombe listed you as one of the few remaining writers left that denies animal consciousness. The vast majority of academics and researchers from multiple fields disagree with your position. So we do not give equal weight to a minority viewpoint.

We have academics and qualified biologists who have disagreed with your ideas. Jerry Coyne for example [4] and Niles Eldredge who noted you have a poor understanding of evolutionary biology. Juliet Clutton-Brock has also criticized your ideas [5]. These people are not "animal rights advocates". Not one review on your article was written by an animal rights advocate.

I understand that your views about animals have been quote-mined in various books on animal rights but a quote I am seeing from you quite a lot has not really been taken out of context. Here is a quote of yours that has been cited quite a few times, it taken from If a Lion Could Talk (pp. 193-194)

The multiple shades of many emotions that our language expresses reveal the crucial importance of social context — of the thoughts we have about our experiences and the thoughts we have about those thoughts — in our perception of those emotions. Sadness, pity, sympathy, condolence, self-pity, ennui, woe, heartbreak, distress, worry, apprehension, dejection, grief, wistfulness, pensiveness, mournfulness, brooding, rue, regret, misery, despair — all express shades of the pain of sadness whose full meaning comes only from our ability to reflect on their meaning, not just their feeling. The horror of breaking a limb that we experience is not merely the pain; the pain is but the beginning of the suffering we feel as we worry and anticipate the consequences. Pity and condolence and sympathy are all shades of feeling that are manifestly defined by the social context, by the mental-state attribution to another that we are capable of. Consciousness is a wonderful gift and a wonderful curse that, all the evidence suggests, is not in the realm of the sentient experiences of other creatures.

It's quite clear that you deny animals consciousness. When reviewers of your work point this out, they are pointing this out because that is what you have said. They are not "animal rights activists". But yes, there are animal rights activists who have criticized your work, some have even claimed that your works are being cited and used to justify animal abuse and exploitation. Dr. Michael W. Fox for example has accused you of "politicizing and twisting science to discredit animal welfare and rights advocacy and environmental protection" [6]. But this isn't a reliable source. I have no intention of citing animal rights activists as sources. Valid criticisms of your books have been made by scholars in peer-reviewed journals and other reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In regard to the 3 reviews that you have cited, two of those were not written by specialists. I have since removed quoting Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly on the article I think you would agree with that. I would support not to give undue weight to these websites as they are not peer-reviewed or written by academics or specialists in the field of animal research. I added a positive review to the article about your book on Horses by Christine Janis which was published in the American Scientist. The 3 reviews you cited above (two of which were published in the New York Times) were written by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt [7], a journalist and another by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas which looks more reliable. We shouldn't be giving undue weight to non-specialists so it's unlikely we would cite Lehmann-Haupt. But he starts his review by saying "The enemy that Stephen Budiansky lines up in the gunsight of this passionate, indignant book is the advocate of animal rights who argues that it is wrong to kill beasts, wrong to eat them, wrong to use them for scientific research, wrong even to subordinate them to humans as workers or pets." I don't think this review really helps you. You seem to be claiming above that there is undue weight on your article about animal rights, but all these reviews note that you are a staunch critic of animal rights. That is what you are best known for. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Reviews of Budiansky's book on dogs

This review by ethologist and behavioural ecologist Marc Bekoff [8] notes that Budiansky's views on dogs are entirely unreliable.

Mr. Budiansky offered downright mistruths about the behavior of dogs through the repeated use of combinations of cute phrases, slippery and slick writing, recycled and convoluted arguments, and uncritical evaluations of available data. He confused the behavior of wild wolves with captive wolves, failed to recognize that critical studies had not yet been performed in many of the areas in which he implied otherwise, used insulting statements about some researchers with whom he disagreed, ignored the work of numerous scientists who had studied various aspects of the behavior of dogs, wolves, and other wild canids, and offered sweeping over-generalizations including that dogs are parasites who prey upon, and exploit, human frailties and insecurities.

In contrast there is a positive review by a non-specialist [9] Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor energy to engage in an extended debate over my reputation as seen through the eyes of a Wikipedia editor whose stated focus is to promote attention to veganism and animal rights on Wikipedia. I would point out however a few considerations that others may take up:

1. Book reviews that appear in peer-reviewed academic journals are not themselves peer reviewed, and carry no more weight than those in other reputable publications. And Marc Bekoff, by the way, is as interested a party and as unreliable a critic of my work as Michael Fox, frequently misrepresenting my words for their own purposes.

2. My entire career has been not as a scientist but as a science journalist, newsmagazine editor, defense correspondent, and writer of books aimed for the general public. Whether or not my biographies and military and intelligence histories have received the same attention in academic journals included in JSTOR, they represent not only the entirety of my published work for the past 20-plus years, but their reception in terms of sales and review attention in leading publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and their having received "starred" reviews in publishing journals such as Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly, are all indicators of what I am "best known" for, when "best known" means not among academic specialists but among the audience my career as a writer is based upon. Likewise my Guggenheim Fellowship as a writer of general nonfiction— awarded for my work on a biography of the composer Charles Ives. If you say these books have not been widely reviewed you simply haven't looked at the places writers and readers of books look -- the New York Times book review e.g. I think it was gratuitous and rather spiteful of you to alter the first line of my biography to state otherwise, and don't know how you can possibly presume to know that I am best known as a critic of animal rights. Readers of military history, intelligence professionals, and members of the US Air Force would unhesitatingly say I am best known as a military and intelligence historian, particularly for my books Battle of Wits and Air Power. People in the school band-music world would likely say I am "best known" as a critic of lousy band music (!).

3. There was also an act of bad faith on your part in responding to my first small edits with a fusillade of cherry-picked critical comments that expanded by a factor of 10 or so your initial section "Criticism of Animal Rights." I agree with you that I should not have removed your characterization of my view that animals lack moral agency. I had never remembered using that particular term and actually do not quite agree with that view, but the interview (from 20 years ago!) that you cite does provide support for that and I do not object to it. You could have responded to my edit of that by raising the issue and restored simply that cut-- without simultaneously unleashing a barrage of additional material. That was clearly payback and piling on in an attempt to back me off, which I think is not in keeping with the spirit expressed throughout Wikipedia guidelines, particularly the admonition to be "kind" to subjects of Biographies of Living Persons.

4. I would reiterate I do not believe you can find anywhere in print that I am a "critic of vegetarianism." If you can, I stand corrected.

5. FYI herewith another positive review of my animal books by specialists:

Clive Wynne, professor of psychology and director of the Canine Science Collaboratory at Arizona State University:

"Budiansky . . . may be the best writer around on animal behavior . . . Budiansky's scholarship is impressive. In addition to discussing behavior and a kind of cross-species sociology that almost nobody else attempts, he ranges freely over physiology, anatomy, evolution and genetics, explaining all with admirable clarity as he goes." Review of The Truth About Dogs, in American Scientist vol. 89, no. 2, Mar. 2001, p. 173.

My own feeling is that in fairness and decency you should revert to your first edit as slightly amended by me to ensure neutral language (the version of 12:42, 24 November 2022‎) and leave it at that. 199.91.177.229 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, the peer-reviewed sources I have added are all reliable. If you provide decent sourcing they can be added to your article, so we can add Clive Wynn's positive review of your work. The over-all reception for your books on animals has been negative from scholars but a minority have written supportive reviews of your books. I am including positive, neutral or negative reviews. It doesn't matter to me what the reviews say, only if they are reliable sources. I don't see why we would give equal weight to an anonymous review in Kirkus Reviews over a book review in a peer-reviewed science journal written by an specialist.

For example, Publisher's Weekly says "[Budiansky] accuses professional ecologists of promoting a political agenda rather than a scientific one, but his glaring naivete calls such an extreme position into question. His claim that science students ``who can't stand the sight of a mathematical equation head for ecology makes one wonder if he's ever seen a basic ecology textbook. Budiansky's engaging style does not compensate for his lack of meaningful content." [10] By your criteria we should cite that then right? As said before, I don't think we should be citing reviews from non-specialists. I apologize from quoting from Publisher's Weekly before on the article, I am adding the very best sourcing to the article and much higher quality sourcing exists.

You called dogs "parasites" [11] so Marc Bekoff has not misquoted you. In this interview it is reported "In The Truth About Dogs, you refer to animal rights activists as "animal rightsniks." Where do you disagree with them, primarily? Budiansky: Primarily? Let's see...for starters, on moral, biological, social, legal, philosophical, evolutionary, and aesthetic grounds" [12]. It seems a large part of your life has been to attack animal rights activists openly in books, interviews and publications; you have made a name for your self out of that. If you can show me 20+ book reviews for your works on history in academic journals then maybe you would have a case but you have not provided any reliable sources. In regard to your last comment it appears you want to white-wash this article of negative reviews, but that is not neutral editing. I don't agree with suppressing reliable sources from the article. If you attempt that you will probably be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Psychologist Guy. Disclosure: I'm a friend of Budiansky, so take what I say with that in mind. I have to agree that what he said about ecology and mathematics was pretty uninformed, and I'm going to rib him about that, believe me. But on the whole, I have to agree that what he wrote about animals twenty years ago is not what he is best known for today. If you Google him, and discount the current Wikipedia article on the one hand and his professional webpage on the other, his more recent work dominates. If you look at mentions of him in the NY Times for the last ten years, the only one related to animal behavior is from the crossword page, where a quote from "The Truth About Dogs" was made into an acrostic.

I buy his argument that we shouldn't judge the fame of non-academics only by what appears in peer-reviewed journals. If we did, then a person like Brian May might be considered more famous as an astrophysicist than as a rock star. Budinansky makes his living writing for a general audience. To judge by his output for the last twenty years, his faithful readers, the one that shell out the cash, are not clamoring for another animal book.

I would suggest that we at least change the intro to the article to remove the emphasis on his animal writing. I would also suggest that rather than remove the animal section, we achieve balance by adding sections about his writing concerning military history and biography. Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly meat-puppetry, see WP:MEAT. We have many reliable sources reviewing Budiansky's books on animals and that is what he is most well known for, so that is accurate to reflect that on his Wikipedia article. If you make a career by making controversial statements (like he has about animals) and spending 20+ years bashing animal rights activists in interviews, magazines and newspapers then of course the majority of reception and reviews of his work are going to be about that issue and they are going to pick that up. He has made a name for himself in that area. Because he is most well known for this then this is fair balance to what the Wikipedia will report because all the sourcing is in that area. His books on biographies and history are rather tame to the general public and not making it into many of the academic journals. As said I have found 3 peer-reviewed journals reviewing his history books so we can add a "history" section to the article that reflects his work in that area, but the majority of academic sources that we have are on his animal books. We do not create a false balance just because Budiansky and a group of his friends request it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Example, his book Perilous Fight appears to have been reviewed only in one academic journal [13]. We can use this source. A section on his historical research should be created, but obviously there will be far less sourcing than the sources that have been published on his books about animals. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well, I have had this page on my watchlist for years. I guess I'm a very old meat-puppet.

Psychology Guy, you are a far more experienced editor than I am. Have peer reviewed journals become the sole reliable sources for Wikipedia?

I am not an academic. I seldom read peer reviewed journals. My sense of people's renown is based on their coverage in popular media, mostly newspapers and other news outlets.

I suspect I'm in the majority. Far more people read the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today than read your average peer reviewed journal. If you want to know who is well-known now and for what, you would be better off reading People than Science. Sad, perhaps, but true.

But honestly, Psychology Guy, I'm getting a strong hit of righteous anger from you. I don't sense a spirit of cooperation towards finding a mutually acceptable way to edit the article. And if you don't feel that way, pardon me, but I'll bow out of this conversation. Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)