This article was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2011. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ok this is all bullshit, i mean, you can tell right off the back, it says "criticisms" and then goes on to support the guy? that ISNT criticism...it looks VERY biased, someone needs to change that
I've read some columns of his and I don't know of any experiments he's done - surely he's a writer rather than a scientific researcher? Autarch ( talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Milton is a writer and his website http://www.alternativescience.com stated that. However, that website seems to have been taken down. Does anyone know why? Rodneysmall ( talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
He is widely cited as being a creationist. Since his website is down, anyone have a WP:RS to claim otherwise? We66er ( talk) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Guys, you need to look up the word "bias" and ask yourselves whether you're not falling into the same trap. Whilst you may have evaluated Milton's arguments and decided that they're not up to much, other people, intelligent people, will evaluate them and decide they make sense.
Why do people have to be so idiotic on pages like this? So now we have an article that mentions that Richard Milton wrote a book and then it implies that absolutely no one agrees with it. And you have the cheek to talk about Milton's bias. Some serious growing up needs to go on here.
92.41.176.51 ( talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Robert Day
Whereas I suspect Dawkins is on the whole right in the areas of controversy he critiqued in his review of Milton's book, he made a number of personal comments about Milton in that review which in my view bordered on the libellous. I don't think linking to his review does him any favours.
Meltingpot (
talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The worst IMO was (as has been mentioned above) accusing him of bad faith, i.e of not putting his cards on the table regarding his religious beliefs (which Milton has repeatedly denied having). He also repeated the slur on his webpage by calling him a creationist, although the evidence is wanting.
He also called him stupid and claimed he needed psychiatric help.
Milton was right to say in the preface of the book's reprint that it was character assassination. It was certainly unprofessional for someone of Dawkins' eminence to make such comments in a public journal - he was lucky not to have been faced with a lawsuit for them.
Meltingpot ( talk) 12:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like an update put on the article, what is Richard Milton up to thesedays is he still an author? Any recent news please add it to the article, does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am working on an update to this article. However, I am a complete Wikipedia newbie, so if any of you would like to help me, I would love it. More info on my talk page. --Wellsworth 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have drafted something - it's in my sandbox. As this is my first contribution to wikipedia and I may be making mistakes, I would like to get this right in sandbox first and then publish it rather than publishing it and getting lots of flak! Please don't edit my sandbox! If you have comments (and I hope you have) can you make them on my talk page please?
Please note, I have not finished the editing. I know that some of the references are missing and that the links to Milton's reference sites don't work. --Wellsworth 12:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Having consulted previous contributors on my suggested changes, I have now updated the page. If something is still wrong, please contact me as I would be happy to amend further. Personally, I would be happy to remove the whole section on 'controversies', as it's a bit 'he said, she said'. I kept it in because I was afraid that it would just get put straight back in by the original authors. If we were to remove that section, the whole page would be facts rather than opinions. Wellsworth 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth ( talk • contribs) I also removed the 'see also' section as it seemed irrelevant Wellsworth 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth ( talk • contribs)
The article quotes a review by Neville Hodgkinson, however it is probably relevant that Hodgkinson has been criticised for promoting dubious claims, namely: [1], [2]. Given that this is in the area of science, it would make me wonder if Neville Hodgkinson is a WP:RS in this area.
The reference added here to sedin.org points to a page that lists summaries of chapters of Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism along with (undated) quotes from newspaper reviews. A reference that gives the actual date and publication (a link would be nice but not essential) is what is needed here, not a link to what appears to be promotional material from what appears to be a creationist website. Autarch ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the lack of third-party notice of Milton's websites, the fact that one of them is defunct, and that the other two are at best peripherally related to his notability, are they worth mentioning? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is pretty much all the references on the internet for Richard Milton, theres probably more, but these are the ones that seem to be most popular. Some of these can be used for the article. Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests ( talk • contribs)
I've stricken the unreliable sources.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I have read Milton's book, and he mentions the work of Hoyle, Sheldrake, Reich etc
"he throws in a bit of Jung and Sheldrake, along with Fred Hoyle's theory that life originated in outer space" (panspermia) Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn have you read Milton's book? Look at these page numbers. I have a copy on me right now:
Hoyle and panspermia mentioned in detail on pages 236 - 238. Richard Goldschmidt discussed on pages 278 - 279 Sheldrake doesn't appear in my edition of the book it seems. Il try and find the other edition. But it's all there. Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not Richard Milton! I do know him, that is true, and I wanted to get involved in wikipedia and this seemed like a good place to start, but I am definitely a separate living human being not a figment of Richard Milton's imagination. 195.137.62.210 ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The controversy section states that his books have been roundly rejected yet then goes on to state that he and his books have supporters/defenders. Since the word roundly means "so thoroughly as to leave no doubt", his books cannot be "roundly rejected" if they have defenders. Maybe what was meant was that his book were rejected most scientists, in which case we should add something stating exactly who roundly rejects his books. -- 2600:1700:56A0:4680:8D71:1252:6671:6521 ( talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It’s clear there is no evidence of even the performance of objectivity, so why was it written? Or at least deleted after working through this ‘veiled’ crisis of existential impotence. Explicitly, why the title? Nothing presented in the article is the direct or unique consequence of Milton, the entire article could be added to the pages of the people who you actually cite.
What is here could be paraphrased,
“This guy? No, I won’t even dignify his heresies by repeating them…but here’s some ad-hominem attacks from my most wise and venerated science daddies. Yes, a chorus of bah-humbugs IS academic critique.” Killswitchwp ( talk) 01:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2011. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ok this is all bullshit, i mean, you can tell right off the back, it says "criticisms" and then goes on to support the guy? that ISNT criticism...it looks VERY biased, someone needs to change that
I've read some columns of his and I don't know of any experiments he's done - surely he's a writer rather than a scientific researcher? Autarch ( talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Milton is a writer and his website http://www.alternativescience.com stated that. However, that website seems to have been taken down. Does anyone know why? Rodneysmall ( talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
He is widely cited as being a creationist. Since his website is down, anyone have a WP:RS to claim otherwise? We66er ( talk) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Guys, you need to look up the word "bias" and ask yourselves whether you're not falling into the same trap. Whilst you may have evaluated Milton's arguments and decided that they're not up to much, other people, intelligent people, will evaluate them and decide they make sense.
Why do people have to be so idiotic on pages like this? So now we have an article that mentions that Richard Milton wrote a book and then it implies that absolutely no one agrees with it. And you have the cheek to talk about Milton's bias. Some serious growing up needs to go on here.
92.41.176.51 ( talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Robert Day
Whereas I suspect Dawkins is on the whole right in the areas of controversy he critiqued in his review of Milton's book, he made a number of personal comments about Milton in that review which in my view bordered on the libellous. I don't think linking to his review does him any favours.
Meltingpot (
talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The worst IMO was (as has been mentioned above) accusing him of bad faith, i.e of not putting his cards on the table regarding his religious beliefs (which Milton has repeatedly denied having). He also repeated the slur on his webpage by calling him a creationist, although the evidence is wanting.
He also called him stupid and claimed he needed psychiatric help.
Milton was right to say in the preface of the book's reprint that it was character assassination. It was certainly unprofessional for someone of Dawkins' eminence to make such comments in a public journal - he was lucky not to have been faced with a lawsuit for them.
Meltingpot ( talk) 12:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like an update put on the article, what is Richard Milton up to thesedays is he still an author? Any recent news please add it to the article, does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am working on an update to this article. However, I am a complete Wikipedia newbie, so if any of you would like to help me, I would love it. More info on my talk page. --Wellsworth 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have drafted something - it's in my sandbox. As this is my first contribution to wikipedia and I may be making mistakes, I would like to get this right in sandbox first and then publish it rather than publishing it and getting lots of flak! Please don't edit my sandbox! If you have comments (and I hope you have) can you make them on my talk page please?
Please note, I have not finished the editing. I know that some of the references are missing and that the links to Milton's reference sites don't work. --Wellsworth 12:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Having consulted previous contributors on my suggested changes, I have now updated the page. If something is still wrong, please contact me as I would be happy to amend further. Personally, I would be happy to remove the whole section on 'controversies', as it's a bit 'he said, she said'. I kept it in because I was afraid that it would just get put straight back in by the original authors. If we were to remove that section, the whole page would be facts rather than opinions. Wellsworth 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth ( talk • contribs) I also removed the 'see also' section as it seemed irrelevant Wellsworth 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth ( talk • contribs)
The article quotes a review by Neville Hodgkinson, however it is probably relevant that Hodgkinson has been criticised for promoting dubious claims, namely: [1], [2]. Given that this is in the area of science, it would make me wonder if Neville Hodgkinson is a WP:RS in this area.
The reference added here to sedin.org points to a page that lists summaries of chapters of Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism along with (undated) quotes from newspaper reviews. A reference that gives the actual date and publication (a link would be nice but not essential) is what is needed here, not a link to what appears to be promotional material from what appears to be a creationist website. Autarch ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the lack of third-party notice of Milton's websites, the fact that one of them is defunct, and that the other two are at best peripherally related to his notability, are they worth mentioning? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is pretty much all the references on the internet for Richard Milton, theres probably more, but these are the ones that seem to be most popular. Some of these can be used for the article. Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests ( talk • contribs)
I've stricken the unreliable sources.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I have read Milton's book, and he mentions the work of Hoyle, Sheldrake, Reich etc
"he throws in a bit of Jung and Sheldrake, along with Fred Hoyle's theory that life originated in outer space" (panspermia) Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn have you read Milton's book? Look at these page numbers. I have a copy on me right now:
Hoyle and panspermia mentioned in detail on pages 236 - 238. Richard Goldschmidt discussed on pages 278 - 279 Sheldrake doesn't appear in my edition of the book it seems. Il try and find the other edition. But it's all there. Liveintheforests ( talk) 19:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not Richard Milton! I do know him, that is true, and I wanted to get involved in wikipedia and this seemed like a good place to start, but I am definitely a separate living human being not a figment of Richard Milton's imagination. 195.137.62.210 ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The controversy section states that his books have been roundly rejected yet then goes on to state that he and his books have supporters/defenders. Since the word roundly means "so thoroughly as to leave no doubt", his books cannot be "roundly rejected" if they have defenders. Maybe what was meant was that his book were rejected most scientists, in which case we should add something stating exactly who roundly rejects his books. -- 2600:1700:56A0:4680:8D71:1252:6671:6521 ( talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It’s clear there is no evidence of even the performance of objectivity, so why was it written? Or at least deleted after working through this ‘veiled’ crisis of existential impotence. Explicitly, why the title? Nothing presented in the article is the direct or unique consequence of Milton, the entire article could be added to the pages of the people who you actually cite.
What is here could be paraphrased,
“This guy? No, I won’t even dignify his heresies by repeating them…but here’s some ad-hominem attacks from my most wise and venerated science daddies. Yes, a chorus of bah-humbugs IS academic critique.” Killswitchwp ( talk) 01:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)