Talk:John Polkinghorne

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Website

We shouldn't be using polkinghorne.net as a source. We're allowed to use personal websites in BLPs only where it is written or otherwise controlled by the subject, but this one says he is not responsible for the contents and refers to him as John. Per BLP that means we can't use it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim. Are you telling, asking, or sharing your opinion and opening up discussion? And how would you characterize the site -- as a fanpage? And are you suggesting that it could not be sited to for any purpose whatsoever? I would also be interested in hearing NBeale's take on these issues, if he is watching this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NBeale's take is not important here, as he is in a COI and has already demonstrated himself to have extremely poor conduct articles related to himself. (Yes, I know you and NBeale are going to complain about that statement, but any uninvolved editor with two eyes can read the consensus of the numerous Nicholas Beale AfDs and see what people think about NBeale's behavior.)

As for the use of the website, it simply does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, yes, I'd say it's closer to a fansite. It starts by calling him "one of the greatest living writers and thinkers on science and religion: a truly world-class scientist turned priest ..." I doubt very much that Polkinghorne would have written that about himself. But the point is not what kind of site it is. The point is that Polkinghorne is not in control of it.

Two content policies, WP:V and WP:BLP, cover this situation. They say: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons ... Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ... so long as [inter alia] ...the material is not unduly self-serving ... and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." This fails on three counts. It is not written or published by Polkinghorne; it is unduly self-serving; and there is doubt as to Polkinghorne's relationship with it. See Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves and Wikipedia:BLP#Self-published_sources.

Anyway, I'm sure anything that site might have been used for can be found elsewhere, so it's not a big deal. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag -- if you, as a sysop and experienced editor, know that I am going to point out to you that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states the following, it might be less than inappropriate for you to have made the above statement. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says:

• "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban", and
• "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as [Wikipedia core] policies are closely adhered to", and
• "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles", and
• "Importance of civility -- During debates ... disparaging comments may fly about the ... author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions", and, most importantly:

• Conflict of interest in point of view disputes. ... where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

Not only is your statement in direct contravention of the clear policy, you appear to be knowingly baiting two editors who have complained about your behavior to the arbitrators, behavior as to which you have been brought to task by the arbitrators.

It is especially alarming as you n the past, in your interactions with NBeale, acted as follows. When he questioned a delete you had made, you tagged him w/a 3RR notice for editshe had made on 3 separate days on an unrelated article. When he questioned that, you wrote to him: “grow up”, and called him “very immature”. Later, restoring an article requested by him, you wrote “Per your incessant requests, I ... sent it back to AfD, since you clearly want to hear how bad it is from a bunch of editors instead of just one”. You predicted it would be snow closed. It was. By Black Kite. After 75 minutes, without the article author having a chance to state his case. NBeale wrote: “this level of aggression [is] completely unique in my experience". You replied: “Do you just not know how to read?”, then accused him of “ranting”, and being “immature”.[2]

I would remind you, that when the arbitrators considered this and other behavior, they said, inter alia:

• "there are several serious issues here. @Greg L - several admins have been desyssop or resigned due to cause this year.", and
• "I don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance. Hopefully early intervention can help the involved parties refocus their energy into more collaborative contributions.", and
• "I have a sense of when a matter is going to blow over without assistance from the Committee or whether a matter with escalate or fester. IMO the most likely outcome (without ArbCom remedies) is the situation escalating with loads of drama or becoming a prolonged dispute. If ArbCom takes the case, hopefully the matter can be resolved with the least disruption", and
• "I'm going to put my accept on hold to see if Rjanag's new statement with an apology will help permanently resolve the conflict", and "since Rjanag does seem to want to improve from this and move on rather than be confrontational...", and
• "I do hope that Rjanag understands that rudeness on the part of administrators is unhelpful to the point that it can be considered antithetical to continued use of the administrator tools, and will adjust his behaviour with that in mind", and
• "I would like to ask all parties whether there are any allegations of further problematic behavior by Rjanag since he posted his apology. Rjanag should understand that future conduct and comments similar to the ones being complained about could tend to change a number of "decline" to "accept" votes very quickly."[3]

You seem not to be heeding the arbitrators' advice here, while making what appear to be baiting statements in direct contravention of policy. Given that background, your above comment troubles me more than a little, and strikes me as problematic behavior/conduct. Slim is a very capable editor--I don't see the reasons for you intervening here, but would gently suggest that you reconsider the arbitrators' advice in application to these circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The strange vendetta of Slim and Rjang continues. They have blatant COI on this and should not be editing here. The "improvements" consist largely of turning Polkinghorne from a "scientist" to a "person" and removing information about his (distinguished) scientific career. If Dawkins is a scientist then polkinghorne certainly is. Furthermore we are explocitly allowed to use the official websites of notable people as sources about them. Lots of quotes from richarddawkins.net etc... NBeale (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the use of the person infobox as any sort of downgrade at all. In fact, I think using the Scientist infobox is if anything downgrading the significance of his religious activities. Personally, I think the restructuring of the infobox information by Slim is appropriate and will be more informative to the majority of people. I also endorse her rewrite of the intro. Haven't checked the rest of her edits but I think those two changes at least are effective. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Just for the record, I always use the person infobox for bios because it has more appropriate parameters for writing about someone's life. I can give previous examples where I've done this with working scientists, though in addition Polkinghorne hasn't worked as a scientist for a long time. But the point is to use an infobox with good personal parameters. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Slim. Dawkins hasn't worked as a scientist for ages either. Can you give another example where you have changed an FRS from "scientist" to person and cut most of the information about his/her scientific work? I really think you have a COI here and should not be editing this article. NBeale (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Not editing because of a COI! Nice one NBeale.

More seriously, Polkinghorne spent a substantial portion of his career as a scientist, in fact into his 50s (he's no Alister McGrath). So while he's currently known for his dealings with the supernatural, I suspect history will focus on his scientific work. Anyway, I (unnervingly) find myself agreeing with NBeale that changing him from "scientist" to "person" (in infobox terms) is probably not the right move. Do you (SlimVirgin) have specific precedents in mind for this that we could compare/contrast with? Dual career individuals present a problem on this front, but Polkinghorne spent probably the most significant portion of his life as a working scientist (at least as I understand things; I find papers on physics up to 1978). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

His fame derives from being a scientist. Restore the scientist infobox. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/NBeale, Plumbago, Price, [and Swan below].--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WRT to the use of the scientist infobox, unless we had an infobox for christian religious leaders, and most of our WP:RS unambiguously wrote that his career as a religious leader was more important than his career as a scientist, then I too agree we should use the scientists infobox. Geo Swan (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with this at all. He quit his job as a scientist almost thirty years ago. 90% of the article is about his religious views and his writings on religion. It seems to me therefore that pigeonholing him as a "scientist" does a considerable disservice to his later career and is at odds with the content of the article. I think Slim has done a good job of summarizing his career in the current infobox and I support those changes. Gatoclass (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I have argued above that Polkinghorne merits the science infobox, I would certainly agree that the balance of the article is skewed heavily toward his paranormal interests. However, I believe that this just reflects the nature of his current impact rather than what he's most notable for (my POV, of course). As with any other good length article, its balance is largely a function of the editors who've put in the time to write the article. If they're not particle physicists, then the article is liable to soft pedal on this aspect. I reckon that the article just needs a proper section on his research work — people don't get into the Royal Society for nothing (and certainly not —AFAIK— for their views of the supernatural). All that said, I'm no physicist, so having trumpeted article improvement, I'm not a good person to write this section, but I'll see what I can dig up on him next time I'm on the WoK. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone could write a section on his work in physics that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked for examples where I've used the infobox person for scientists, either adding it for the first time, expanding its parameters, or replacing the scientist one. I can only think of three examples offhand, but I do it regularly. I do it with other professions too, because the person infobox has better parameters for bios. For someone like Polkinghorne, who hasn't worked as a scientist for decades, I can't see the relevance of pointing out in an infobox who his doctoral advisers were. Anyway three examples: Aubrey de Grey; Russell Blaylock; Rupert Sheldrake. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the example given pretty much illustrate Slim's POV agenda here. All of these three are considered highly dodgy by most scientists: whereas Polkinghorne's scientific work is recognised as first-rate even by people like Stephen Weinberg who fundamentally disagree with his theology. Even Dawkins calls him a "good scientist". (PS Dawkins hasn't worked as a scientist for decades either, unless you count popular writings on science-related subjects in which case Polkinghorne continues to do so) NBeale (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "highly dodgy" (please watch out for BLP). I find them interesting. I enjoy reading about scientists who see the world a little differently, which is why I'm drawn to their articles. That includes Polkinghorne. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<There was a whole section on "physicist" but it got removed by Slim into "education and early life". Since he was a working physicist until he was 50, that't a really stretched definition of "early life". His work on the S-Matrix was important and got him elected as an FRS. Also his most recent book on physics, "Quantum Theory, a very short introduction" came out in 2002. NBeale (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideas/philosophy section

This section would benefit from a rewrite. In parts it's a little bit of a POV quote farm; other parts take up a lot of space without really saying much. An example of the latter, which includes a lot of POV language, though perhaps not Polkinghorne's:

He suggests that there is a relationship between the ways in which science and theology pursue truth within the proper domains of their interpreted experience and drawing on his experience of the development of Quantum physics suggests that, in both disciplines, there are five points of cousinly relationship between these two great human struggles with the surprising and counterintuitive character of our encounter with reality:

1. Moments of enforced radical revision
2. A period of unresolved confusion
3. New synthesis and understanding
4. Continued wrestling with unresolved problems
5. Deeper implications

The above arguably describes what anyone does in trying to solve any problem. I've copy edited it down to: "He argues that there are five points of comparison between the ways in which science and theology pursue truth: moments of enforced radical revision, a period of unresolved confusion, new synthesis and understanding, continued wrestling with unresolved problems, deeper implications." But that's just a shorter way of saying very little.

I think this whole section could use a rethink. I don't mind giving it a go, but it'll be a longer term project because I'll have to get hold of the books. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pointless Criticism

The criticism section doesn't add anything of substance to this article. It contains three critical voices: Simon Blackburn, Richard Dawkins, and A. C. Grayling. Blackburn's basic position is: "Polkinghorne beieves in God? How pathetic." Dawkins' basic position is: "Polkinghorne is a Christian? That's baffling." And Grayling's basic position is: "Christianity is crap; I can't believe that the Royal Society is taking this seriously." None of this is particularly substantive, none of it is really encyclopedic, and all of it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I'm cutting it again. Eugene (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No you are not cutting it again. Criticism is by notable individuals in reliable sources, and I really don't see why one small section at the end of an article constitutes UNDUE. You'll need to do more than caricature the critics as unthinking. --PLUMBAGO 20:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, you don't think that this is undue? Do you honestly think that a print encyclopedia would include this information: three vauge anti-religious sighs offered in two humanists magazines and an anti-religious polemical book? Would you honestly think such a thing was warranted if the situation was reversed, with, say, a few passing criticisms of Grayling slapped on his Wikipedia page as a criticism section just because I can find some in Christian magazines and evangelistic books ([4],[5])? I seriously doubt it. I'm cutting it again; if you put it back I'll work up a RfC and settle it that way.

The fact of the matter is that Blackburn, Dawkins, and Grayling's criticism isn't really directed at Polkinghorne but at religion more generally; that Polkinghorne happens to be the religious person in their cross-hairs is merely incidental, so such comments add nothing of value to the reader's understanding of Polkinghorne as an individual. Eugene (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I think you'll find that the criticism is pretty specific to the subject to hand. It's not, as you suggest, generic anti-religious; although, since the subject's views are hardly unique, in one sense the criticism could be viewed as "generic". Dawkins, in particular, has criticised the subject (among a small group of fellow Christian scientists) for being eminently conventional on his science while holding rigidly to one particular set of religious beliefs. Hardly generic. And Grayling was talking about one of the subject's books.

One point on which I might agree with you is the use of a "criticism section". It would arguably be better to meld it into the body of the text. That's what happens in other articles (cf. Dawkins), and I'll look into this next. The current article, which wipes out all critical viewpoints, is a patent white-wash. --PLUMBAGO 22:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to retain the criticism, though it would arguably be better worked into the fabric of the article rather than stuck in its own section. Without it, Polkinghorne appears to exist in his own bubble. The comments by Dawkins et al. help to show that he has an influence in the outside world. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is essential but must be compliant with Wikipedia policy. The text of which Eugene complains is not complaint, so I agree with Eugene. Snalwibma's and Plumbago's idea to work it into the article is the way to go. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was drawn here by Eugene's post at WP:BLP/N[6]. I had first responded there, but I now see that the BLP/N post was not mentioned here, so it was evidently not intended to move the discussion there. So I will repeat here (and elaborate a bit) what I said there: This material appears appropriate to me. It is a well-sourced summary of commentary about Polkinghorne's ideas, and thus doesn't violate WP:BLP, and it is certainly not so extensive in length, compared to the other material in the article as to violate WP:UNDUE. In fact, I believe its deletion would be contrary to WP:NPOV. Polkinghorne is controversial, and it would do the encyclopedia no benefit to shy away from that fact. I do not agree that these criticisms are generic criticisms of Christianity rather than directed at Polkinghorne--his name, ideas, and words are invoked specifically--and I do not agree that the text here is unduly harsh, given that it accurately reflects the very harsh tone of the criticisms. I have no disagreement with the effort to work the material into other sections rather than having a separate criticism section. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section is policy-compliant, and given the structure of the article it's not obvious how the criticism could be spread throughout it. The main problem with the article is that we discuss Polkinghorne's ideas at greater length than secondary sources do, so too much of the article is based on primary source material. In addition, the critics are all prominent thinkers, so it would be highly POV to ignore what they say. It's actually a compliment to Polkinghorne that people of the calibre of Blackburn, Dawkins, and Grayling have paid attention. There are thousands of writers in the field who'd love to have such well-known critics. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that says that activisit atheists aren't all that fond of Polkinghorne; all that negative criticism we have for the man comes from that group. Surely this is notable and should be mentioned, SV. Eugene (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Physics subsection talking about religion

There's something incongruous in that we have separated his career into Physics and Priesthood, but the Physics section starts off with "He joined the Christian Union while at Cambridge and met his future wife, Ruth Martin, another member of the Union...." It suggests that the whole thing has been written from the perspective of Polkinghorne the priest. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the biography part of the article has just been sliced rather arbitrarily into sections whose contents are not well-described by their section-headings. A bit of a rewrite/reorganisation should tidy things up nicely. In passing, it would be great if someone could add some more about Polkinghorne's non-supernatural interests (or former-interests). He was made an FRS off the back of them, but the scientific content of his 25 year physics career is more or less compressed here into a single sentence. I'd do it myself if I was au fait with his field. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon Blackburn in Critical Reception Section

The British philosopher Simon Blackburn has criticized Polkinghorne for primitive thinking, and for using rhetorical devices instead of engaging in philosophy. Thus when Polkinghorne argues that the minute adjustments of cosmological constants on which life on earth depends begs for an explanation that goes "beyond the scientific", Blackburn argues that this relies on a natural preference for explanation in terms of agency, and necessitates what Blackburn calls truly spectacular leaps of understanding about the mind of a designer that requires no birth, nurture, language, culture, or physicality. Blackburn's position is that, in order to develop, science had to move beyond this kind of primitive thinking. He writes that he finished Polkinghorne's books, with their "supreme contempt for philosophical reasoning and historical thinking," in despair at humanity's capacity for self-deception.[31] Against this, Freeman J. Dyson called Polkinghorne's arguments on theology and natural science "polished and logically coherent."

I think this paragraph might be too long and detailed on Blackburn's position. I propose the following, shorter version:

The British philosopher Simon Backburn has criticized Polkinghorne for using primitive thinking and rhetorical devices instead of engaging in philosophy. When Polkinghore argues that the minute adjustments of cosmological constants for life points towards an explanation beyond the scientific realm, Blackburn argues that this relies on a natural preference for explanation in terms of agency. Blackburn writes that he finished Polkinghorne's books in "despair at humanity's capacity for self-deception".[31] Against this, Freeman J. Dyson has called Polkinghorne's arguments on theology and natural science "polished and logically coherent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosMarti123 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Grayling "suggesting" not "arguing"

I have to declare an interest because I'm a collaborator of Polkinghorne and co-author of Questions of Truth. But Grayling didn't "argue" that Polkinghorne "exploited his fellowship"but merely asserted it and in fact he was as wrong about this as he was about the book being self-published (FWIW the publisher had been established longer than the University at which Grayling was a professor) since it was I who arranged the venue and not Polkinghorne). Since there is no reliable source I won't press the point, but we don't say "argue" unless someone produces a reasonable argument. NBeale (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Grayling's remarks about "illiterate goatherds" seem to refer to the Old Testament. If they were illiterate, how did they write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.246.172 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Polkinghorne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Pneumatology/participants/polking.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226064633/http://www.prrg.org/p/prrg-staff.html to http://www.prrg.org/p/prrg-staff.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123714/http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_01.html to http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725014932/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000223/article.pdf to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000223/article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Polkinghorne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607140449/http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Polkinghorne.html to http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Polkinghorne.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828211048/http://www.issr.org.uk/presidents.asp to http://www.issr.org.uk/presidents.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210949/http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~cpro/event/06Act.11-e.pdf to http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~cpro/event/06Act.11-e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about past tense and present tense

The section headed "Ideas" says that Polkinghorne said in an interview "that he believes his move from science to religion has given him binocular vision." Since he died in 2021, should "believes" be replaced with "believed" now? There are other places in this section of the article that use that present tense, too. I am open to suggestions about what tense should be used. Rollo August (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)