Talk:John Polkinghorne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] User: Michael Johnson

How come every scrap of slanderous and hateful nonsense is quickly pounced on by Wikipedia, but when it comes to the Cult of Dawkins and his followers they ignore it? User: Michael Johnson I ask you politely to stop leave slanderous libel on articles that are religious in nature. I don’t want to attack your character, but am curious as to why you are so insistent upon vandalizing Christian websites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWrightGlasgow (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the strange unsigned comments above (a clear breach of WP:NPA) about articles that are "religious in nature" (it isn't - it's a Wikipedia article and should adhere to WP:NPOV), the suggestion that this is a "Christian website" (it isn't), and the ridiculous notion of a "cult of Dawkins" (there is no such thing), I'd just like to support User:Michael Johnson and comment that Richard Dawkins' reaction to Polkinghorne is interesting and informative, and should be included. Apart from anything else, it compliments Polkinghorne! Snalwibma 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly did not vandalise anything. This is a biographical article and I simply added a comment by another notable person, one who's career parallels Polkinghorne. and with whom Polkinghorne interacts, at least in the form of books. I find your comments quite ridiculous. With respect, perhaps you should gain some more experience in editing Wikipedia before making this sort of edit. --Michael Johnson 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Dawkins

I see it has been removed again, with no discussion or explanation. I think the person who is doing this (JWrightGlasgow) should at least explain why he/she thinks it is not appropriate to include Dawkins' comment. It is not "slanderous and hateful" or "slanderous libel". If anything, it says nice things about Polkinghorne. I think it is worth including. If you disagree, let's hear why, and let's reach an agreement. Snalwibma 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the comment from Richard Dawkin's. If Polkinghorne had said something of Dawkin's then that would be relevant to the article but as it is there is no point to it. I acknowledge that it is a compliment since it refers to Polkinghorne as a "good scientist" but on the same token it's giving Dawkin's a credibility like he has the right to make that claim in the first place. Last time I checked Dawkin's wasn't given the sole responsibility of deeming other scientists as being good or not. So for this reason it is being removed. A biography is an account of that persons life. Unless it can be proven that what Dawkin's said about Polkinghorne had any kind of impact on his life then it should not be included.Ragingdane 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - as you wish. A pity, I think, as it removes an interesting comment about Polkinghorne, and its removal suggests that Polkinghorne exists in his own private vacuum, with no connection to the big world out there. I thought the Dawkins comment added a glimpse of that wider world. Ah well. I assume you will now check carefully through the article on Richard Dawkins and remove all similarly irrelevant comments from Alister McGrath et al! Snalwibma 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the comment as it was included was indeed a compliment, and certainly not slander or anything - absurd that anyone thought it was really. However, I don't see how it's remotely interesting or notable - if Dawkins has said anything significant about Polkinghorne (e.g. made a specific criticism or ), but simply saying "Richard Dawkins considers him a good scientist" doesn't sound that interesting, and I don't see why we care about his views on such matters. The fact that Dawkins states his confusion about how he believes in God is also quite insignificant and unsurprising.
The McGrath comments on Dawkins are different because McGrath has done more than simply write a couple of throwaway lines on Dawkins, he has written a number of notable sources responding to/criticising him. If Dawkins had done the same about Polkinghorne, I would certainly support including such references. (I do think this article is somewhat oddly lacking in any response from other people - positive or negative - and wonder why that is.)TJ 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I was of course joking about the McGrath comments on Dawkins, and I do see the difference. But I agree with you - and this is really why I made my earlier comment. The Polkinghorne article does seem to present him in a vacuum, as if he is isolated in his own private world of speculation about the nature of the universe and the number of angels on that pin-head. Long on analysis of his philosophy (which seems, dare I say it, rather like original research), remarkably short on what impact (if any) he has had on the big wide world, and on how that world has responded to him. It makes it appear that he has had no contact with the real world. Is this the case? Snalwibma 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at this thread, it looks like 'Snalwibma' was sold a bridge by 'RagingDane' on March 7th. The Dane justified removing Richard Dawkins' famous statement re JCP because "a biography is an account of that person's life. Unless it can be proven that what Dawkins said about Polkinghorne had any kind of impact on his life then it should not be included," to which the Snal yielded too easily.
The answer of course is that this is an encyclopedic article, not a biography. Indeed, "Biography" is one of its headings, and if we were to accept this rule (which actually seems rather reasonable -- for a biography), then its application should be limited to that heading. But there are other things to be said about people besides what impacted their lives -- like, for example, how they impacted ours. -- Randall 24.154.187.13 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on "Real World"

Tricky to get an FRS and a KBE and be President of a leading Cambridge College without any impact on the wide world or contact with it. Can you think of any other examples?? :-) He was one of the better physicists of his generation (even Steven Weinberg rates him despite their radically different religious views) and he's arguably the world's leading writer on science and religion, as well as making significant contributions to medical ethics. He gives invited lectures all over the world etc.. etc.. What more do you want? NBeale 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an old saying that no-one achieves anything worthwhile in this world without making enemies. Where is the critisism? From either side? Even Mother Teresa had her critics. -- Michael Johnson 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official web site down and out. Cull ?

Using waybackmachine [1] I see not much on that site and right nothing at all. Has the URL moved ?. Has this Wikipedia page taken over ?. What the heck is that bear doing with that tree ? I vote we drop it as broken. Ttiotsw 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea why it's down - seems to be a tech glitch. I've chased the provier and moved the link to the URL redirect. The Q&A page is updated more often. NBeale 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Has this Wikipedia page taken over?" :) Indeed, it seems the guy who should maintain Polkinghorne's pages is spending his time on Wikipedia instead. I don't mind a charitable coverage of Mr. Polkinghorne at all, and so I welcome NBeale's work when it is focused on giving positive coverage of theist writers. This is much more constructive than inserting criticism about Dawkins everywhere possible. --Merzul 12:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This entire article lacks secondary sources. All but one of the sources are Polkinghorne's books, the interpretation of which constitutes original research. Editors need to bring secondary sources to support the article. --Michael Johnson 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen much worse. Secondary sources would be much appreciated, in particular, following a more general source that outlines his religious position instead of concocting it ourselves would help giving equal weight to all aspects of Polkinghorne's philosophy, not just those we understand or like the most. However, I'm not particularly worried, so I'm going to trust NBeale that he is only mainly making descriptive claims, and most importantly, doesn't misrepresent Polkinghorne. Also, while reasonable criticism is much welcome, as you said "even mother Theresa had her critics", it's not a serious NPOV or BLP violations that criticism isn't yet included. In short, I don't see this article as being harmful to Wikipedia. --Merzul 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, I think it is very serious NPOV violation to create an article on some topic and only present one side of it, but I don't think it is a serious problem to create a biography and only present the positive side. This is my personal view that respect overrides neutrality concerns, and that on articles about fellow humans we can be extra nice to them. This applies equally to Richard Dawkins, of course. ;) --Merzul 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you violate policy as WP:LIVING really applies so if it's slightly contentious unless it's really really (ed. enough 'really's, really) well sourced it's usually out. Of course once they die then any old rumour goes as long as you can get some notable hack or hackette to quote it. Ttiotsw 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying this article is bad - it is actually quite interesting. However the Philosophical Outlook section contains only one reference from an outside source. Everything else is referenced to Polkinghorne's books, and this constitutes original research. Editors need to find secondary sources they can reference to. If they can't leave the tag in place till someone comes along who can. I'd hate to use the alternative option, which is wholesale editing. A bit of critical comment would not go astray, either, if the editors can bare to put it in. Or is the problem Polkinghorne is not notable enough for others to have written about his ideas? --Michael Johnson 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Regarding criticism, it's not that his ideas aren't discussed, I looked at some journal articles with titles like "a response to Polkinghorne", but these are not stuff I'm very capable of writing about. --Merzul 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No it's not OR to describe people's ideas refed to their books! There is one big books about him in German, which I have now refed. There is lots of other secondary material (127k ghits) not time to go through it all. NBeale 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus amongst physicists

On the para stating that Polkinghorne suggest there is a consensus amongst physicists of either fine-tuning or multiverse, someone added "Others, such as Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion and Paul Davies in The Goldilocks Enigma, suggest that there is no such consensus and that there are several other possibilities." I've removed this because:

  1. It's un-refed
  2. Dawkins is not a physicist
  3. I haven't read TGE but as I understand it it doesn't disagree with the fine-tuning/multiverse dilemma at all.
  4. We don't include the views of Y and Z in an article about X unless they are specifically commenting on X. NBeale (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)