Talk:Richard Milton (author)

message: 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
:Agreed, and I think I'll be bold and do it.  I'm no fan of Dawkins, but this article violates NPOV in the extreme.  ~ CZeke 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I have to wonder if Milton himself had a hand in the previous version of this page... the phrasing is suspiciously similar to that found on his website (in fact, there was one line I just turned into a quote).  ~ CZeke 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, the classification as scientific researcher is clearly misleading, so I've changed it to author. Mutt (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classed as scientist versus writer

message: 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)
replies: text: No, he does not subscribe to any current theory about the origin of species.  He has mentioned this many times in his website and elsewhere, including in his book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. The repeated and deliberate mislabeling of him speaks miles about the intellect and honesty of his critics. Sumafi (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationist

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update to the article 

message: The article quotes a review by Neville Hodgkinson, however it is probably relevant that Hodgkinson has been criticised for promoting dubious claims, namely: , . 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)
replies: text: sedin.org appears to be the webpage of a Spanish creationist organisation. Not a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And I would agree that (even if properly referenced), The Sunday Times in general, and Neville Hodgkinson in particular are hardly WP:RS on science matters. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neville Hodgkinson and a reference 

message: 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? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References for Richard Milton 

message: I have read Milton's book, and he mentions the work of Hoyle, Sheldrake, Reich etc
*Independent book review of Milton's book 
"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)
replies: text: "throws in" ≠ "supportive" without WP:Synthesis. "I have read Milton's book, and he mentions the work of Hoyle, Sheldrake, Reich etc"=WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Liveintheforests: have you read WP:NOR? It states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You may therefore describe that he discusses these figures without WP:OR, you may directly quote him supporting them, but you may not interpret him as supporting them (lacking an explicit expression of support on his part). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Facts of Life offers loads of evidence for lamarckism, Milton's only mistake was writing that the earth is 175,000 years old. I am under the impression the user "Wellsworth" is Richard Milton himself as he only joined wikipedia to help the Milton article and he seems to know alot about Milton, so i will leave Wellsworth to sort out the piece of information on Hoyle and Sheldrake, it would be good if we could have a direct quote from Milton's book or article, on Milton's website there is also a section where he discusses his support for Hoyle and Sheldrake, if Wellsworth is really Milton then he should be able to help out with secondary sources also, there must be newspaper articles which have reviewed Milton's book which are not on the internet which Milton knows about. We could do with one on the article. I have asked Wellworth to help out on the article, hopefully he will be of help.  Liveintheforests (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wellsworth is Milton, then he really shouldn't be editing this article, per WP:COI & WP:AUTO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If Liveintheforests was not already blocked he'd probably be blocked for this - see WP:OUTING. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoyle and Sheldrake mentioned in Milton's book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roundly rejected?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this article still exist?