Talk:Templeton Prize

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  please don't remove the criticism section without reason 

message: 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)
thread_title:  clarification for the reference system 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  unclear 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Should we add religions of recipients at the list?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Didn't you just tell me to do that?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Russell Stannard

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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".
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lede Section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion