User talk:Journalist492

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JoshuaZ 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not sure if this is the way to reply to you but here goes. I have read the guidelines you pointed me to and I do not think that putting a link to www.atheistdelusion.net on the Dawkins page is inappropriate. I can see from your page that you are a keen evolutionist and I fully understand if you are not keen to have critiques of Dawkins on Wikipedia - but surely someone as outspokenly atheistic and publicly so as Richard Dawkins should have listed on his Wikipedia page some resources giving the other side of the agrument. Atheistdelusion.net is just that kind of site. It is the largest and most comprehensive collection of linke to articles and audio critiquing Dawkins anywhere on the net. It doesn't actually host articles but merely points to them. Are you saying Dawkins is above criticism or that no link to anything critical of him can be allowed on rthe Wikipedia Dawkins page? Thanks for interacting. Journalist492

Hi Journalist. I have no problem with criticism of Dawkins (I'm not a fan of his by almost any stretch of the imagination), but the website in question seems to run afoul of WP:EL things to avoid "links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. It appears to be the personal webpage of Michael J. Penfold and not much else. The other websites you've added also seem to be associated with Mr. Penfold. As a general piece of advice, if you have an affiliation with Penfold or are Penfold, it isn't a good idea to add your own links. Regardless, his sites do not seem to be notable enough for general inclusion. JoshuaZ 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. When writing on talk pages such as this one, you can sign your comments by putting four tildes like this:~~~~ at the end of your message. The software will automatically substitute your username and the time of edit when you do so. JoshuaZ 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Joshua. Let me be right up front - I am keen to have at least one link on the Dawkins page that leads somewhere where readers can get the other side of the story. Richard Dawkins isn't merely writing about the findings of biological science - he has launched an all out attack on God and religion. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful and cogent criticism of Dawkins is out there on the net by leading scientists, philosophers and theologians. Sure there's a lot of rubbish and 'hate mail' too - but are the editors of Wikipedia willing to consider a link that is critical? Now, here goes for the squiggles - Journalist492 23:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe there's a list of articles pointing to the other side of the argument i.e. refuting Michael Behe. Why nothing similar on Dawkins' page. That suggests a bias in favour of Dawkins. Journalist492 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find external links critical of Dawkins that meet WP:EL you are more than welcome to put them in. JoshuaZ 14:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski there's a section called 'Critiquing Dembski' under a section entitled 'Defending Dembski'. What would you think of a 'Critiquing Dawkins' section with let's say 3-5 links to essays such as the ID philosopher Peter Williams' look at what he perceives as Dawkins logical fallacies? See http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm Journalist492 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have again tried to add a perfectly good link to the Richard Dawkins page, but a busy editor by the name of Svetovid has yet again deleted it. I note from his homepage that he is an outspoken atheist, rather like Dawkins. Please can you inform me if there is any kind of appeal procedure by which I can submit an unfairness/bias claim for them to consider? Journalist492 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axe

You're here with an axe to grind and that biases your edits. Since Wikipedia requires NPOV, your edits are going to get reverted constantly, and not just by me. This is not CreationismWiki and you're not going to turn it into CreationismWiki. ThAtSo 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told by JoshuaZ that "If you can find external links critical of Dawkins that meet WP:EL you are more than welcome to put them in." Do you agree with JoshuaZ's comment? I note that on almost every scientist's entry on Wikipedia who believes in creation there a list of external links criticising him/her. But on evolutionary scientists' pages that's not allowed. Strikes me as biased, expecially when it is atheists who are deleting my edits. What say you? Journalist492 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point. Your edits to Michael Behe have been reverted. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)