Talk:Richard Milton (author)

Untitled

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)

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)

Classed as scientist versus writer

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)

Agreed, the classification as scientific researcher is clearly misleading, so I've changed it to author. Mutt (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Milton is a writer and his website http://www.alternativescience.com stated that. However, that website seems to have been taken down. Does anyone know why? Rodneysmall (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Creationist

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)

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)

What's going on?

This is ridiculous. Guys, you need to look up the word "bias" and ask yourselves whether you're not falling into the same trap. Whilst you may have evaluated Milton's arguments and decided that they're not up to much, other people, intelligent people, will evaluate them and decide they make sense.

Why do people have to be so idiotic on pages like this? So now we have an article that mentions that Richard Milton wrote a book and then it implies that absolutely no one agrees with it. And you have the cheek to talk about Milton's bias. Some serious growing up needs to go on here.

92.41.176.51 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Robert Day

I don't follow your reasoning. Read WP:DUE regarding science. If you have any WP:RS about Milton offer them up, but keep in mind non-science will be presented as non-science. We66er (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Idiot. This article is not about darwinism or any other scientific concept. It is about a British author. A person. "Keep in mind non-science will be presented as non-science" my ass. Sumafi (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal insults. Yes, this article is about a person, but it is also about a person who's principal claims to fame are his controversial books promoting "alternative science". (If you disagree with this statement, please give an example of what else he is notable for.) Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the article to focus upon his claims. Furthermore, since his claims have been notably criticized, it is appropriate for the article to include this criticism. If you wish to balance the article with counter-criticism, please provide reputable sources. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But this article doesn't even introduce any of the person's work. I goes straight into criticism (if you can call Dawkins' childish remarks that). According to the article's history, there once was a one sentence description of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism but user We66er removed it! Also, if there is one thing this article should mention, it is the fact that Milton is not a Creationist. Apparently he is frequently mislabeled that way despite his clear statement to the contrary, and it is precisely these types of facts where Wikipedia could truly help. But this, too, was removed from the article! I must have mistakenly arrived at some humour website. Can anyone point me to the real Wikipedia? Sumafi (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To address your various points:

• I agree that the article needs a greater exposition of Milton's claims.
• Please provide a reference for the claim that Milton isn't a Creationist. (I don't necessarily disagree, but it is a non-obvious claim, and requires a reliable reference.)
• What have you got against Dawkins's criticism? Whilst the first half of his article is mainly rhetoric, the second half makes a large number of very specific statements. If you wish to counter Dawkins's criticism, please provide references that repudiate these statements.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-obvious claim? You think anyone who criticises neo-Darwinism is automatically a creationist? Milton's position regarding religion is spelled out on the back cover of his Shattering... book. He also mentions it here. If you read Milton's book, you will see that Dawkins misrepresents him in almost every statement he makes. For example, Dawkins writes: “Richard Milton thinks [the earth] is only a few thousand years old.” Our article here on Wikipedia says: “[Milton] also appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television documentary arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.” Dawkins' review is full of childish remarks like that. He even writes: "... needs psychiatric help" based on a strawman he himself invented. I've seen Dawkins on TV and he appeard intelligent and thoughtful. So why all the lying and false propaganda wrt Milton? I can only conclude that he is scared shitless. --Sumafi (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a non-obvious claim. Note that I didn't say "false"; I merely said "non-obvious". The vast majority of facts on Wikipedia are non-obvious, and so require supporting references. You have now provided a reference, so thank you.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Supporting references are required to classify a person as a creationist (or indeed a supporter of any belief system), not the other way around. Or should we assign every person on Wikipedia to Class:Creationists if there are no supporting references to the contrary? Besides, Milton is a journalist, not a scientist, his position on this is hardly even noteworthy outside the coverage of that one book. --Sumafi (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added this link as a reference for Milton not being a creationist. BTW, your Class:Creationists proposal sounds like a great idea for a WikiProject. ;-)

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 10:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This must be the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia (or in fact anywhere). The second sentence in the article is about Richard Dawkins, who never even properly critiqued Milton's darwinism book, just called for it to be burned! And that's just one book of the six he has written. To say that this article is laughable would be an understatement. Sumafi (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I suspect Dawkins is on the whole right in the areas of controversy he critiqued in his review of Milton's book, he made a number of personal comments about Milton in that review which in my view bordered on the libellous. I don't think linking to his review does him any favours.

Meltingpot (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Such as? There is a difference between being rude and being libellous. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The worst IMO was (as has been mentioned above) accusing him of bad faith, i.e of not putting his cards on the table regarding his religious beliefs (which Milton has repeatedly denied having). He also repeated the slur on his webpage by calling him a creationist, although the evidence is wanting.

He also called him stupid and claimed he needed psychiatric help.

Milton was right to say in the preface of the book's reprint that it was character assassination. It was certainly unprofessional for someone of Dawkins' eminence to make such comments in a public journal - he was lucky not to have been faced with a lawsuit for them.

Meltingpot (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Update to the article

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)

I am working on an update to this article. However, I am a complete Wikipedia newbie, so if any of you would like to help me, I would love it. More info on my talk page. --Wellsworth 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have drafted something - it's in my sandbox. As this is my first contribution to wikipedia and I may be making mistakes, I would like to get this right in sandbox first and then publish it rather than publishing it and getting lots of flak! Please don't edit my sandbox! If you have comments (and I hope you have) can you make them on my talk page please?

Please note, I have not finished the editing. I know that some of the references are missing and that the links to Milton's reference sites don't work. --Wellsworth 12:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Having consulted previous contributors on my suggested changes, I have now updated the page. If something is still wrong, please contact me as I would be happy to amend further. Personally, I would be happy to remove the whole section on 'controversies', as it's a bit 'he said, she said'. I kept it in because I was afraid that it would just get put straight back in by the original authors. If we were to remove that section, the whole page would be facts rather than opinions. Wellsworth 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth (talk • contribs) I also removed the 'see also' section as it seemed irrelevant Wellsworth 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth (talk • contribs)

Neville Hodgkinson and a reference

The article quotes a review by Neville Hodgkinson, however it is probably relevant that Hodgkinson has been criticised for promoting dubious claims, namely: [1], [2]. 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)

sedin.org appears to be the webpage of a Spanish creationist organisation. Not a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Websites

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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

References for Richard Milton

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)

• See second page down Review of Milton's Facts of Life

• Neo-Darwinism, Is it Time to Reconsider, Richard Milton

• Independent book review of Milton's book

• An article written by Milton himself [ Only acceptable within limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) ]

• Here is a negetive review from an evolutionist website of Milton's book

• Here is a review of Milton's book which is mixed. This reference is already on the article

• Shattering the myths of Darwinism

• Darwin Doesn't Work Here Anymore by Richard Milton

• Shattering the myths of Darwinism review

• Where Did We Come From? An Exploration of Different Theories of Evolution

• Description of Milton's book from a Christian organization
• You can also see here many books which mention Richard Milton [Search not a source Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) ]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs)

I've stricken the unreliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoyle and Sheldrake mentioned in Milton's book

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)

"throws in" ≠ "supportive" without WP:Synthesis. "I have read Milton's book, and he mentions the work of Hoyle, Sheldrake, Reich etc"=WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn have you read Milton's book? Look at these page numbers. I have a copy on me right now:

Hoyle and panspermia mentioned in detail on pages 236 - 238. Richard Goldschmidt discussed on pages 278 - 279 Sheldrake doesn't appear in my edition of the book it seems. Il try and find the other edition. But it's all there.Liveintheforests (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

If Wellsworth is Milton, then he really shouldn't be editing this article, per WP:COI & WP:AUTO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not Richard Milton! I do know him, that is true, and I wanted to get involved in wikipedia and this seemed like a good place to start, but I am definitely a separate living human being not a figment of Richard Milton's imagination. 195.137.62.210 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If Liveintheforests was not already blocked he'd probably be blocked for this - see WP:OUTING. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Roundly rejected?!

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)

Why does this article still exist?

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)