Talk:John Templeton Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Templeton Foundation article.
Article policies
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] NPOV tag

I am removing the tag, as there has been no discussion on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I personally have concerns about this article's POV and would like someone who isn't currently involved in this edit war to check it for balance. Hope that's ok. Addhoc 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What are your concerns about the POV? Please elaborate so this issue can be resolved. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the neutral voice of the encyclopedia shouldn't describe the recipitants of funding as conservative. It should merely indicate that criticism has been made. Addhoc 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that JTF gives support to people who are -- and hardly are ashamed of being! -- conservative is neither a criticism of the foundation nor is it POV. Simply because you don't like conservatives does not mean that others follow your lead. Sdedeo (tips) 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I haven't said anything of the sort. What makes you think I am not very fond of conservatism? That nice David Cameron for instance. Anyway... even if you had better sources, I would still expect wording of the form "widely considered politically conservative" or similar. Addhoc 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, British politics is a poor comparison with US politics; despite their conservative power base their actual policies of the UK Conservative Party are much closer to those of the US Democratic Party. In the US the term "conservative" has to a certain extent and definitely in the context of religion been used by the Christian right to describe their views, even though there are conservatives who are not Christian right. — Dunc|☺ 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, in the UK David Cameron is attempting to win over floating voters by appealing to the centre ground, presently much of what he says would be entirely acceptable for a Democrat. Also, I understand the Conservative Party of the UK and the conservative label of US politics are not synonymous. However, my point was that I don't want to be perceived as someone who doesn't like conservatives. Addhoc 10:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You equated describing someone as conservative with "criticism"; I assumed you felt that way -- no matter. In any case "widely considered politically conservative" is fine; if we make that edit are you happy? Sdedeo (tips) 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted, that was clumsy editing on my part. However, I'll be delighted if that's a compromise that Geoff.Scholl (and his boss) can live with. Addhoc 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will make the change and remove the tag. Sdedeo (tips) 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where in that article does it say that JTF is widely considered to give grants to conservatives? I'm sorry but I just don't see a point in having that comment on the page. I just don't see how it is factual. I still would prefer it be removed. It is not backed up by your source, which is a biased source anyway. Geoff.scholl 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Try paragraph five of the Slate article, it's not hard to find. The article states that people X, Y and Z have received grants from JTF, and that X, Y and Z are conservative. The information on who JTF gives grants to is both in the Slate article and on JTF's own website! Are you denying that the people listed received those grants? Are you denying that they are conservative? Reporting the facts is not "bias".
I understand that you would prefer it to be removed. But it is verifiable, factual and NPOV -- just a report of who the foundation gives money to and what they do.
Sdedeo (tips) 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is 9 years old...it's hardly relevant to what JTF is doing now. The point of my complaint is that your information is outdated and irrelevant. Besides, the fact that 3 people who received grants from JTF are conservative still does not hold up your comment that

"The Templeton Foundation has given significant financial support to groups, causes and individuals widely considered conservative"

...widely considered by whom? I suppose if anything you could reference your article and say that X,Y and Z received grants and are conservative...but that's not what your sentence says now. Geoff.scholl 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point, if The New York Times and similar publications had indicated recipient of grants were mostly conservatives, then ok, but at the moment, just a single reference is a bit thin. I agree we should consider either rewording the sentence to make it closer to the current reference or if the present wording is to be kept, then other references would probably have to be found. Addhoc 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit war, could I suggest Geoff.scholl proposes a revised version that factually states there have been media reports, which imply the recipients are conservatives, however the foundation has advised they don't have a conservative agenda. Addhoc 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This article, notes that control is going over from Sir John Templeton to John Templeton, Jr and it appears that the Jr is an evangelical Christian and chairman of of Let Freedom Ring Inc and more conservative than his father. — Dunc|☺ 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, basically what you said sounds fine to me. Geoff.scholl 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous -- nobody disputes that X, Y and Z got grants, nor that they are conservative. This implies the sentence we currently have: "The Templeton Foundation has given significant financial support to groups, causes and individuals widely considered conservative, including gifts to Gertrude Himmelfarb, Milton Friedman, Walter E. Williams, Julian Lincoln Simon and Mary Lefkowitz [2]." Geoff.scholl has not disputed any of the facts in this sentence, only that his boss doesn't like these facts being reported.

As for Slate being "liberal" -- so is the New York Times. The Wall Street Journal is conservative. We use them as sources all the time.

As for the JTF not having a conservative agenda, that's fine -- but we would need a source for this.

Meanwhile, Duncharris, can you update the transition from Sir -> Jr? Sdedeo (tips) 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain your objection to a rewording such as "there have been media reports, which imply the recipients are mostly conservatives". I am not disputing the facts, but I have concerns about the balance and tone, in order to achieve a NPOV. Also for the JTF not having a conservative agenda there is a reference already included: [1]. Addhoc 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's "weasel wording"! The facts are facts -- that X, Y and Z got money is not an opinion! By the way, nobody is saying that the recipients are overall "mostly conservative" -- only that JTF has given money to conservative groups and people. Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am not disputing that X, Y and Z got money, nor am I suggesting we shouldn't state this. I am suggesting the current version could be improved. In particular, I want to separate this factual statement from the media report relating to political views held by recipients. If we are only using a single reference, then we could say this "The Slate magazine has implied the recipients are conservatives". From there we could then give the foundation view, which is they are not promoting a conservative agenda. Addhoc 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these people are conservative is not at dispute -- it's not an opinion. These people are openly conservative (or libertarian), they're not trying to hide it. Nobody is claiming they're liberal or middle-of-the-road or anything! Sdedeo (tips) 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I continue to stand by my original statement; the conservative comment needs to be changed; as Addhoc said it's really not supported by your source. Also, the interview with Dr. Harper that you put as one of your sources states pretty clearly that we don't have a political agenda. However, it's really not on me to put a source that states whether we do or do not have any political agenda. Your source still does not match your conservative comment. We give grants and things of that nature to a whole lot more causes, individuals, etc. other than X, Y and Z who just happen to be conservative. Geoff.scholl 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Would this be a reasonable compromise... remove the "widely considered conservative" phrase and replace: "The foundation has disputed comments they have a conservative agenda or they promote intelligent design. " and instead introduce: "There have been media reports implying a conservative agenda and promotion of intelligent design, which have been denied by the foundation." Addhoc 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Geoff.scholl 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not reasonable. X, Y and Z are conservative; it's not controversial that they are; they received money. None of this is an opinion, all of this is fact. If Geoff.scholl wants to do some research and see if famous leftists have received money, that would be fine. Sdedeo (tips) 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in Wikipedia there are two main policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. This is a dispute about NPOV. In this context, I am not disputing the facts. I am suggesting the current version could be improved. You are currently involved in an edit war and I am offering a suggested compromise. Could you comment further on my suggested version and explain in more detail your objections. Addhoc 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Geoff has made no mention of NPOV; he continues to claim that the conservative nature of the grantees is "not supported by a source". The reason "conservative" must stay is that is it salient for characterizing the nature of grantees of the foundation. Your sentence "there have been media..." seems fine. Sdedeo (tips) 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new version

I have rewritten the discussions of conservative and ID material; this may solve the conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo -- I like what you added, but your NY times articles are problematic because users who do not have NY Times accounts can't see the articles. Geoff.scholl 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a continual problem. However, there is nothing in wikipedia policy against linking to "for pay" archives; we do it all the time when referencing, e.g., scientific articles, and it would be very problematic if we could never reference the New York Times because of its archive policies! Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is solved now because as of this week, all old New York Times articles are freely available. Secondly, articles that require registration can certainly be added to Wikipedia as sources; even newspapers, books or other sources that are completely offline can be added. In many cases, these types of sources are actually the most informative.--Gloriamarie 06:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

New additions to this page have attempted to give more detail on what the Templeton Foundation is and what it does. These improvements have been made without making any substantive changes to the previous long standing version's content. Deleting all the additions does not seem to offer any kind of productive improvement. Issues with any of the changes made should be dealt with, and improved upon, point by point. Dacre 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Conflicts

The beginning of the article states that the Templeton Foundation was founded in "1987", but it then later goes on to say that the Templeton Prize was "first awarded in 1973." I can't see a way in which they are both true, so does anyone have an answer? Jamamalatalk to me 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "scientists who like the Templeton foundation"

We can't just list grant receipients and call them "supporters of the Templeton foundation". Nor is it reasonable to list scientists who are on the board of trustees (of course they support the foundation -- but then, they are hardly neutral!) What is needed is explicit, and precise statements in support of the foundation (such as we have from Peter Woit, e.g..) These should be placed in context in the "Debate" section. Sdedeo (tips) 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticisms and controversies" - or what?

Disclaimer: I'm in the process of listening to an audio version of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and from that have just learned of the Templeton Foundation - had never heard of it before, I must admit. So of course I come to Wikipedia to learn more.

As I'd practically expected, there is a section called "Criticisms and controversies". What I hadn't expected is that it is so watered-down and wishy-washy. When I read some of the referenced articles, for example the one by Peter Woit, I see some serious criticism, but the text in this article typically quotes a less-critical statement from the article along with another statement supportive of the Templeton Foundation. It's almost as if the author(s) of this section are trying to "pull their punches" and minimize any negativety. Why? The section is called "Criticisms and controversies", so let's focus on the "Criticisms and controversies", and leave the rest of the article to be feel-good.

Anyway, I hope to update the section about the Peter Woit article later today. This discussion item is just my way of explaining why I think an update is relevant. --RenniePet 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rennie -- be careful to stay NPOV. It would not be appropriate to simply delete "balancing" statements. e.g., you shouldn't delete the JTF's response to Barbara Erenriech, and you shouldn't present only part of John Horgan's take (which, in the end, is rather ambiguous on JTF.) Peter Woit, too, is rather wishy-washy on JTF. Of course, if you can find a reliable source that isn't, and criticizes the JTF without pulling punches, then of course it should appear.
None of the article is meant to be "feel-good" or "feel-bad": all of it is meant to be NPOV. The "criticism" section is not a place to "balance out" something somewhere else, but rather a place to report on criticisms and responses. That's the guiding rule. Sdedeo (tips) 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally got around to re-writing the bit about Peter Woit's criticism of the Templeton Foundation. This is located in a section about criticism, so I think it is incorrect and wishy-washy to not simply present Woit's criticism as such. Any "on the other hand" and "on the third hand" back-pedling just makes it poor writing.
If you really think any of Peter Woit's non-critical statements are interesting and relevant then they can perhaps be placed elsewhere in the article. That's my angle on things, at least. :-) --RenniePet 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rennie -- what you say makes a lot of sense, I think your re-write here is great, and I think your decision to focus purely on Woit's evaluative statements about the foundation is fine. To a certain extent Woit gets mushy at points, but I think it's completely reasonable to take his strongest statements and focus on that. Nothing seems out of context or misleading. Sdedeo (tips) 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some fair points made here, but I think to not include balance and qualifications to criticisms does affect NPOV. Regarding Woit's quotes, I think Rennie is right to insert the stronger points, but where Woit is being 'wishy washy' he could be seen to be giving a rounded critque - this should be maintained in order to keep NPOV. I also don't think it is sufficent justification to withhold any balancing statements, particularly when they are from the same source, because the section is called Criticisms and Controversies. However, by way of compromise, I have suggested though that we call it 'Controversies' instead. I've also reinserted 'Debate within...' because I think that more accurately describes the situation and the way concerns have been expressed about the Foundation by scientists.

Specdec 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that if the header was more general, like "Opinions in the scientific community" then a balanced view should be provided. But when a topic is controversial then it is normal for an article to have a section headed "Controversies" or similar, and in that section you focus only on the controversies, and don't try to provide a "balanced" view in that section. It's sort of like the debate about "spoilers" - if you read a section entitled "Plot" then you can assume you are going to get the details about the plot even if that wasn't what you wanted - if you read a section entitled "Controversies" then you are going to get controversies. :-)
Without having any basis for my opinion, I'd guess that many scientists are happy with the funding and therefore reluctant to speak out, or soft-peddle their criticism. At the same time I'd guess that a majority of scientists are concerned about the implications for scientific integrity, if they were to provide an honest opinion without taking the money into consideration.
But that's just my opinion. Any others? --RenniePet 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Specdec -- if you want the section to be "debate" then you need to provide explicit statements of support for Templeton from the community -- ideally statements that respond to the criticisms others raise (that's what makes it a "debate".) Sdedeo (tips) 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd hoped more Wikipedia contributors would indicate an opinion on this. Lacking that, I've simply reverted almost everything that Specdec added.
Like I've already said several times, the subject is controversial, there is criticism, and a fair article should have a section that focuses on that crticism. Padding the section with inconsequential obseravations is poor writing. If you want to say something nice about the Templeton Foundation, fine, but do it elsewhere in the article (if it's sourced). If there are reputable scientists who criticise the criticisers for their opinions, add that, as long as it is sourced.
We can also ask for another opinion - I believe Wikipedia has a process for that? --RenniePet 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I really think the easiest way to resolve this conflict is for Specdec to do the work and find explicit praise or "criticism of the criticism" from other scientists. Specdec, why don't you do this, and if you fail come back and let us know -- we can take it from there. Sdedeo (tips) 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted that additional points from Woit's blog as I'm not sure that these elements are inconsequential padding. As said before, I think it shows a rounded critique and in some ways makes Woit's explicit criticisms about the Foundation stronger because it appears he is being 'fair'. Of course it's still his opinion and I can see how some might think he shouldn't qualify his views, but if we don't have these qualifications in that refer directly to criticisms of the Foundation then I think we are in danger of taking him out of context.

I have found an article from Paul Davies, who is member of the Templeton Foundation's board of trustees, which makes a reasonable attempt at explaining another perspective on the Foundation.

Overall I think we should have this section as 'Debate' because it is a debate. The possible effects of funding, generally and specifically, in science are controversial. The idea of having any kind of relationship between science and religion is even more controversial. As I understand it, it is difficult to give an absolute answer to both these issues. To a certain extent, it comes down to the appeal of well-argued opinion on both sides, i.e. it is a debate.

I think this sits quite well within the controversies section and it is much more informative if you can see both sides of the argument. Specdec 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what to say. In my opinion that long quote from Paul Davies does more to support the idea that the Templeton Foundation is off on a wild-goose chase than to make it look favorable. (Quoting Einstein who was an avowed atheist, and claiming several times that science is "dehumanising and alienating", a weird idea that only religious people seem to get into. "Science cannot and should not be a substitute for religion" - no, we don't need a substitute for religion, who wants a substitute for superstitious nonsense?)
I guess the key sentence is the last one: "But I see nothing sinister or unprofessional about scientists working with open-minded theologians to explore how science might be a source of inspiration rather than demoralisation." My guess is that many (probably most) scientists do see this as unprofessional (but lucrative), and some are worried that it can become "sinister" if it gets out of hand.
Anyway, this talk page is not for religious debate. I think this section of the article is too long and unfocused, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to get into a revert war or to call for a third party opinion. If someone else does think a third party opinion is what's needed, I'll support that. --RenniePet 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Boy, the more I look at the long quote by Paul Davies the more confused I get. "You scientists are dehumanising and alienating, you trivialize the significance of humans and celebrate the pointlessness of our existence. You are simply so demoralizing that we're going to give you tons and tons of cool cash to work together with the padre here and come up with something more inspirational!" Oh well, it's their money... --RenniePet 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now I think things are fine, and I'm happy to let the "criticism" versus "debate" question drop. We have to remember that really all we do is report on what "notables" say, and I think we've done that. The resolution here has been pretty good, in as much as we've gone out and found new material as opposed to quarrelling over how to present the stuff we already have. Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Although disproportionately long, the section is well-balanced and reads well (the long Davies quote is splendid). The only thing that jars is the 2nd Dawkins quote "If I understand Horgan's point, it is that Templeton's money corrupts science.". The Horgan quote, as given, is hardly a point at all: "told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion." Organisation spends $1m on a conference on X and would like to see articles published on X (duh!). Dawkins seems to be saying "I can't really see what criticism Horgan is making, but what he really meant to say was Y". Can somebody with the original texts clear this up i.e. either make a clear point (e.g. Dawkins directly claiming that Templeton corrupts science) or delete the non-issue? Pdch (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)