Talk:Templeton Prize

1996 winner

The 1986 Templeton Prize was awarded to James I. McCord, who had been president of Princeton Theological Seminary, and not to Watergate figure James W. McCord.

continued since 2001?

Why "until 2001" when it has continued since then? someYoungGuy 02:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ad template?

The page was helpfull. I was puzzled by the statement at the top that the item reads like an advertisement. I cannot agree with this statement at all. Don't see what it would be advertising for. ??? G.Nap, Tilburg, NL

please don't remove the criticism section without reason

an anom user removed the following section: "The prize has been criticized by British ethologist Richard Dawkins, labeling it "a very large sum of money given (...) usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion""

If you want to make a case that this doesn't belong in the article, please do so on the talk page and don't remove it without a comment.

Sirana 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So do we revert the deletion? The prize is controversial and criticised by prominent scientists and philosophers of religion and scientists, and there's no reason that shouldn't be in the article. If nobody says otherwise in the talk section I'll revert it soon.

Eshafto (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't revert on a comment made nearly three years ago. The list has since become featured and the lead contains a section on the criticism of the prize. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

clarification for the reference system

When I first gave the reference (Dawkins 2006:19)I was using the standard Harvard referencing system as layed out in Wikipedia:Citing sources, but I removed the page count, since I don't believe it is really necessary. Feel free to add it again if you think it is important, or use any other referencing system layed out in Wikipedia: Citing sources

Dawkins criticises the prize explicitly or more implicitly throughout The God Delusion. I think giving a single page number would be misleading. I also think that the criticism by Dawkins is notable, and have would added it myself if it hadn't already been there. Metamagician3000 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

unclear

"Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims, but no Atheists have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients." this is unclear. does it mean that although no atheists have been on the panel, there have been atheistic winners; or that there have been no irreligous panel members or awardees? Psidogretro 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been neither Atheist winners nor Atheist panel members, I changed it to "Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients of the price. There have been no Atheist panel members or awardees." Sirana 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I removed the part that says there have been no Atheist panel members. While I am confident that that is in fact the case, I haven't actually researched the religious affiliation of every past panel member. Sirana 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing Dawkins' criticism here is hardly NPOV

Although I will refrain from editing this article, I completely disagree with Sirana: To include criticism from Dawkins in this particular context is highly inappropriate and in my mind violates the NPOV principle, because Dawkins' poor opinion of a prize awarded for spiritual understanding, often enough to scientists, is entirely predictable and rather frivolous. His views on the Templeton prize, or the Archbishop of Canterbury for that matter, belong only to the article on Dawkins. If you must quote Dawkins' view, for what that is worth in this context, do so in a separate section on criticism and include different views. NDeli 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Unless someone can find a more substantial criticism than a famous atheist (or two) saying he doesn't like the prize (perhaps by summarizing the criticism given by Dawkins in his book, provided it amounts to an actual argument rather than opinion), that section should be removed.--Boffob 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. First of all, the Dawkins quote is in the seperate section entitled "Criticism", so I'm not really sure what you mean with the last sentence.

Second, it is not our job as wikipedia editors to decide what is "substantial" criticism. We are not saying that Dawkin is right with his criticism or that he is wrong. But I think it is essential for the article and the deeper understanding of the Templeton Prize to state that it is criticized by atheist participants in the "Science vs. religion" debate. I believe both Dawkins and Carrol are important enought in this debate that their views on the prize do matter.

Also to say that Dawkin's poor opinion of the price is "predictible and rather frivolous" is an opinion of yours that is not backed by any facts and so is not fit to be the basis of any change to this article.

I'm not opposed to taking another Dawnkins quote if you believe that it sums up his criticism better, but imho it definitly shouldn't be removed without substitute.

Sirana 09:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the section, the Carrol criticism is nicely sourced (as it can be read in its entirety in the link) and should stay. But I do believe a better summary of Dawkins' arguments is necessary. The particular quote used really doesn't provide enough explainations of the reasons why Dawkins finds the Templeton Prize objectionable.--Boffob 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of bias is not a valid way of refuting their criticism--AlexCatlin 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Dawkins expresses his criticism about the Templeton Prize quite clearly in this acceptance speech for the Deschner Price in 2007: [1] "There is a prize called a Templeton Prize, which, as you know, was founded by extremely rich man who gave his money to any scientist prepared to subvert science and betray the scientific ideals. The only specification of the quantity of the Templeton Prize is, that it has to be larger than the Noble Prize in money." I'm sorry for not replacing the quote myself, but my native language is not Englisch (I'm German) and I didn't want to add linguistical wrong sentences to the article. --91.34.237.57 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins criticism is fine, it just shows that he is suffering from the same single mindedness that plagues evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.126.8 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice!Masternachos (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, the Templeton Foundation has a tendency to award its prizes to Christians rather than atheists that put their efforts in to answering big questions. Writing this fact into the article does not undermine NPOV. AFAI, NPOV only applies to opinions, not facts!! Poolofthought (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent addition shows that the Templeton prize has also been given to at least one outspoken and avowed athiest, Baba Amte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.111.117 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that Baba Amte could be described as an atheist; a website of his quotations indicated a belief in a God. Apepper (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's original research though... 98.198.83.12 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Semms to me that calling Dawkins "anti-religious", while true, is not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.211.102 (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dawkin's opinion about the Prize is hardly relevent, and the above opinion that the prize is rarely awarded to athiests is hardly relevent; the point of the prize has nothing to do with athiesm, it has to do with life's spiritual dimensions. Dawkins may be a famous athiest, but he has absolutely nothing to do with the prize, and his opinions on it have nothing to do with the prize itself, so much as religion in general and all expressions of it. Would we include quotes from Dick Cheney in 'criticisms of Obama' or would we include quotes from the Pope in 'criticisms of Richard Dawkins'? No! Dawkins' article doesn't even have a criticism section. This has nothing to do with the prize, and everything to do with the NPOV of the editors. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and "be bold" and remove it. His criticism isn't one that's reputable. He's an atheist and he doesn't like religion, we get it, but there's no reason to place a quote of his into every article about religion. Sean M. Carroll's criticism is more relevant, though the quote used doesn't show criticism towards the Prize, rather, people who take the research grants money while not believing in what it's for. I also moved the paragraph down some, it just didn't seem right to put it there. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So much for being bold. I love biased editors screwing up this place. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Wait, this criticism is already in the Templeton Foundation page... why do we have it on both? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed a rather large section added en-mass without discussion about the scientific community's criticism of the Prize. Firstly, the list is featured so it's never a good idea to whack in 8KB of prose without discussion as it undermines the status of the list. Secondly, criticism is dealt with in top-level terms in the introduction. This section would give undue weight to one side of the argument. Thirdly, paper sources aside, the section I removed contained links to two blogs (which are not considered reliable sources) and one dead link. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this relevant?

"The prize has been criticized – British biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". "

First off should be rewritten like this if to be reinserted.

"British biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins observed in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". "

Since stating that the prize for promotion of spirituality is usually given to someone who supports religion is both obvious and not apparently a criticism. Is Dawkins suggesting the the prize for promotion of spirituality be given to people who attack religion, or is he just making an off hand observation that it is usually given to people who promote religion. Without more context of his comment it's impossible to tell if this statement is intended to criticize, and if it's not then it's clearly undue weight to a mild and obvious observation. Should we start stating in an article about grass that "Richard Dawkins observed that grass is often mowed, using a lawn mower".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are more than just Dawkins' criticism in that section. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

???? Did you read my post?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes. It's a criticism because he said it was about being "nice about religion", the implication being that scientists "sell out" for the prize.  ????? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So Dawkins is saying that any scientist who supports religion is being a "sell out"? Does that sound like a point that warrants inclusion in the article?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As you've said on your talk page, you don't know much about Dawkins. His comment on this continues to be mentioned in the media and in books, so yes, it definitely belongs. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't... 64.234.0.101 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

References

NortheWestLakes (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Update.

It would seem to me that ramblingman, in having included a comment (that I removed) that the Templeton foundation was "sneakier than the creationists", has an axe to grind concerning wanting to denigrate religion.

NPOV states that: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Whether that apparent personal bias of ramblingman is reflected in the version as it stands, however, is a point about which I will not directly comment for now.

I am relatively content that these comments by these critical (and apparently non-neutral and very anti-religious) scientists are included to the extent that this gives the opportunity to point out that this view, and the more lengthy quote from from Harry Kroto are both contrary to the facts of to whom the prize is in fact awarded.

Whether the quote he has added from Jerry Coyne adds anything and should remain, is a more difficult question in my view.

Whether the page in its present form devotes too much space to unsubstantiated and false criticism of the Foundation and the Prize, and whether it fairly and accurately represents "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", I am at present undecided.

Not at all. Feel free to add as many references telling how remarkable and ethical the prize is. I'm sure you already know that I was the principal author when taking this to featured list status so I'm fully aware of NPOV, V, etc etc. This is a prize which headlines as a hugely wealthy prize with highly notable recipients. To add criticism is perfectly acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NortheWestLakes (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)I think Ramblingman, in my view has missed the point of what I have said. What I'm raising with the community is not whether or not there should be criticism in the article, but whether the criticism that is currently included contains "significant views" and is NPOV, and whether the article as it stands, is actually NPOV. I am choosing to remain neutral on that for now - as I did say. But someone else may wish to edit it to add balancing comments. However Ramblingman in 2009 in the talk section said that this article should be kept short, so adding rather than deleting works against that.

Since the views are all from prominent individuals, it doesn't seem problematic to include them. If there are any critiques in favour of the prize, then they could just as easily be added. I'm not clear if such views exist. As for whatever was said 10 years back, the lead section of the list is still short. There's no issue with that whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous inclusion of criticism was fully in violation of NPOV. It was the ever-same line of attack, just put into the mouth of three people, two of which actually coincided in when they criticized the prize (2011, hence, it was actually one occasion). The wording also suggests that they merely parroted what Dawkins said a few years earlier. Hence, I combined them all into one criticism, voiced by three different people.

The objection "If there are any critiques in favour of the prize..." cannot be taken in earnest, as the references to the later two (2011) has always included, nay, has actually always been about the response. Hence, using these merely to source two atheist scientist parroting Dawkins has always been cherry-picking. I also included the response. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Religions

Should we add religions of recipients at the list?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if (a) you can't cite it reliably (b) or if it's relevant. What are you trying to prove here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you just tell me to do that?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This might be a bit difficult if the article presents individuals such as Paul Davies, who appear to be religious but do not appear to be easily labelled as belonging to an orthodox religion. Vorbee (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Russell Stannard

According to the article on Russell Stannard, Stannard won the Templeton Prize in 1986 - ergo there is a discrepancy with this article. Vorbee (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC) The article on Russell Stannard has now changed what it says to "Templeton U.K. Project Award". Vorbee (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Templeton Prize. 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/20120509223008/http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=894efb53-74d6-4b64-b275-ee22c7a296e0 to http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=894efb53-74d6-4b64-b275-ee22c7a296e0

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) 07:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede Section

In the lead, there is a significant criticism section. Looking at the talk page here, seems like a back and forth on this in the past. I am pinging The Rambling Man who seems to be the only experienced editor involved in maintaining the NPOV as a featured list. Looking at this, it seems like it could be rewritten slightly but wanted to bring it here prior to being WP:BOLD since it is a featured list.

The current reads:

The prize has been criticized: British biologist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate in chemistry, also suggested "there's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientists they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion", while American biologist Jerry Coyne described the Templeton Prize's aim as being "to give credibility to religion by blurring its well-demarcated border with science ... [and] goes to scientists who are either religious themselves or say nice things about religion". However, of the 48 recipients up to and including 2018, the majority were not scientists. Martinus J. G. Veltman, the 1999 Nobel Laureate in physics, is quoted as having criticized the prize. However, this is offered in the context of a paraphrase of what he wrote, and the full quotation is: "Recently he [John Polkinghorne] received the enormous Templeton prize. I think it was for something indeed not that easy: bridging the gap between sense and nonsense".

References

There is some positive commentary out there such as the NYT calling it a prestigious and coveted award. These could be added for balance. I think the first sentence to remove is "the prize has been criticized" and simply let the commentary speak for itself. There are other terms such as "however" that can be removed in MHO. I am just trying to add images of the winners for now but can come back later with a suggestion on slight wording changes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot about this. I added a sentence for balance for people referring to it as a prestigious and coveted award. I removed the "it has been criticized" as again, that is subjective and should be left to the reader to determine if it is or not. Finally, I removed everything after "however" as this seemed to get into too much detail for a list article. I would welcome the creation of a page that describes everything about the award including why it was founded, etc., but not sure about creating an unnecessary WP:CFORK. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Inaam Ullah Khan - Laureate of Templeton Prize.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)