Talk:John Templeton Foundation/Archive 1

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)

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)

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? Jamamala talk to me 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

Accusations of right wing orientation
This addition has been removed:

"To dispute the above claim made by Pamela Thompson that the Templeton Foundation does not contribute to political campaigns of any kind: According to campaign finances through September 30, 2008 as listed on The California Voter Foundation website (http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2008/general/props/prop8.html), John Templeton, President of the John Templeton Foundation, is among the largest donors supporting Proposition 8 and has contributed $900,000 toward its passage. This ballot initiative, if passed in November 2008, will eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

That John Templeton Jr has made this contribution appears to be correct, but there is no evidence that this was made by the Foundation and any such contribution would be against the rules of its 501(c)(3) status as outlined in this section. I'm not convinced that the status of this recent funding is any different to other personal contributions John Templeton Jr has made and are highlighted in the entry already. Also John Templeton Jr has previously gone on the record to say his personal contributions are entirely separate to the work of the Foundation. I can't see anything to contradict this, so I think the assertion added is not factually correct. There's still possibly an argument for including that John Templeton Jr has provided funding to this particular cause (maybe in the management section?), but not as evidence that the Foundation itself contributes to right wing causes. That is an important distinction. Jharteman (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above argument and will move the addition to the management section. Cragoosh (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PoV
The complete absence of any mention of TF's right-wing/ christian agenda renders the article PoV. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of the accusations of right wing orientation of the TF in this entry. The TF has stated that it is neither a political organisation or one that is biased to a particular religion. This article appears to fulfill NPOV. Garste (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8
The section had all kinds of information about details of proposition 8 - I have cut those details and added a simple link to the proposition 8 page. Honestyrules (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Relations with the Catholic Church
I would like to see some information on Templeton's overall relationship with the Church. I have read that it has opposed and even tried to exclude intelligent design from the intellectual outlook of Catholic believers, while the Eastern Orthodox are presumably free to believe in it or not. ADM (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

John Barrow
At the German Wikipedia John Barrow got mentioned as ID proponent having won the Templeton Prize. Why isn't it mentioned here? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

it is mentioned that the fundation is associated with people who work on intelligent design but it is not supportive of ID itself. I don't understand if what you are asking for is a section specifically for ID proponents who won the TP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is in question
The article has a suspiciously heavy tone of support. It reads like a pamphlet that could be distributed by The Templeton Foundation itself. Heavy quotations of Templeton official literature are NOT balanced with sober encyclopedic research. Remarks about critics and criticism display a superficial tone of near neutrality, while masking subtle editing. This would not pass a journalism class (or even a technical or academic writing course)... Please help in bringing the article to Wikipedia standards...  This is a "drag queen" of encyclopedic writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.144.153 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced in both directions: statements such as: "The Templeton Prize, which once went to people like Mother Teresa and the Reverend Billy Graham, now goes to scientists who are either religious themselves or say nice things about religion." belong in the controversies section. It looks more like two sides care more about pushing their ideologies in the article than about making it informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just made a couple of edits intended to improve neutrality. Removed reference and quote from Jerry Coyne from section on prize, whose point is replicated in final section. Also removed block quote from Freeman Dyson presented in a way which amounts to a blurb for Templeton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.134.79 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Conservative Party (UK) 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. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 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. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 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: . 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)

Here's a source: The Republican Governor's Association User:b_cadler Bob Calder 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

Source Citations
There are a number of broken citation links throughout this article. Below are recommended replacements links for those sources:

Citation 17 …a grant from Templeton to run a fellowship for young scholars interested in the nature of quantum reality and its philosophical implications.[17]

New Source Link:

Citation 21 …research on types of commitments young people hold and how those commitments develop, which was the first phase of the Youth Purpose Project.[21]

New Source Link:

Citation 22 More recently the Foundation awarded a grant to the University of Chicago for its research on an interdisciplinary study of virtue.[22]

New Source Link:

Citation 25 This initiative seeks to elucidate enterprise-based solutions to poverty by studying the specific factors that lead to success at the individual level.[25]

New Source Link:

Monarch87 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Citation 27 One example of its work is the grant given to an academic from Princeton University for the study: “Budapest: The Golden Years Early 20th Century Mathematics Education in Budapest and Lessons for Today”.[27]

New Source Link:

Citation 40 Commenting on the Templeton Prize award to Taylor, the United Kingdom’s Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks said, “If there is such a thing as a saint in a secular age, he deserves that title”.[40]

New Source Link:

Citation 42 …for his investigations into the properties of microwaves and his co-invention of the laser,[42] and theoretical cosmologist

New Source Link:

Citation 44 George F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town,[43] who advocates “balancing the rationality of evidence-based science with the causal effect of forces beyond the explanation of hard science, including issues such as aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and meaning”.[44]

New Source Link:

Monarch87 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Citation 45 The $100,000 Epiphany Prizes for ‘inspiring movies and TV’.[45]

New Source Link:

Citation 49 Media Transparency lists grant-receiving institutions for 1998 to 2004; the top five are:[49]

New Source Links:

Citation 64 “…we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements".[64]

New Source Link:

Citation 66 At the conference, Francisco Ayala, an evolutionary biologist, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and longtime advisor to the foundation, said intelligent design and creationism were "blasphemous" to both Christians and scientists.[66]

New Source Link:

Monarch87 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Citation 72 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.[72]

New Source Link

Citation 74 a misleading attempt to move away from using religious language (without changing the religious agenda), the funding of right-wing anti-science groups, and more .[74]

New Source Link:

Citation 79 Templeton critics Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling, and Daniel Dennett declined to answer[79]

New Source Link:

Citation 83 by which means it persistently seeks to muddy the waters and keep religion credible in lay eyes. It is for this reason I don't take part in Templeton-associated matters.[83]

New Source Link:

Monarch87 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Updated links for Citations 17, 27, 44. Updated citation numbers for Citations 42 (prev. 42-1), 44 (prev. 42-2), 45 (prev. 44), 49 (prev. 48), 64 (prev. 63), 66 (prev. 65), 72 (prev. 71), 74 (prev. 73), 79 (prev. 78), 83 (prev. 79).

Monarch87 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Factual Updates to John Templeton Foundation Wikipedia Article
William Damon Misspelled

William Damon’s name is misspelled in this sentence, revising to include an additional “l” in his first name: “Stanford University is among the recipients of a grant for Wiliam Damon’s research on types of commitments…”

Foundation Leadership Update

Update to the Foundation’s leadership. On July 22, 2015, John Templeton Foundation announced that, with the passing of Dr. Jack Templeton, Heather Templeton Dill was appointed president of the John Templeton Foundation by the board of trustees. Source Link:

Dr. Sunny Bains

According to her biography, she now works at University College London Faculty of Engineering Science so the below sentence should be updated to reflect this change as well as the citation link: “Dr Sunny Bains of Imperial College London[72] claims that there is” New Source Link:

2008 Award Recipients

The citation for the below statement does not link to a list of 2008 recipients. “In 2008, the Foundation received the National Humanities Medal from the National Endowment for the Humanities.[5]” New Source Link:

Big Ideas Series

The citation currently used does not link to the series mentioned in the below statement: “It used this to host public discussions of subjects like ‘Nothing: The Subtle Science of Emptiness,’ ‘What It Means to Be Human,’ and ‘Parallel Universes’.[19]” New Source Link:

Thompson Response

The citation currently used in the below statement does not link to a response by Pamela Thompson. “…that it is ‘a non-political entity with no religious bias’ and it ‘is totally independent of any other organisation and therefore neither endorses, nor contributes to political candidates, campaigns, or movements of any kind’.”[59] New Source Link:

Monarch87 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing History Correction
Just a note that the following updates were made by Monarch87 without being logged in.

(cur | prev) 19:10, 1 October 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,754 bytes) (-108)‎. . (→‎Accusations of conservative orientation: updated citation link) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:09, 1 October 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,862 bytes) (-74)‎. . (→‎Science in dialogue: updated citation link) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:07, 1 October 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,936 bytes) (+15)‎. . (updated citation link) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:50, 30 September 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,921 bytes) (+79)‎. . (→‎Debate within the scientific community: Dr. Sunny Bains now works at University College London) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:08, 30 September 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,842 bytes) (+426)‎. . (→‎Leadership: Foundation Leadership Update) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:06, 30 September 2015‎ 207.245.100.126 (talk)‎. . (53,416 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Character development: William Damon Misspelled) (undo)

Monarch87 (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Templeton Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308232330/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973 to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Templeton Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120330232151/http://medialeaks.eu/?p=15 to http://medialeaks.eu/?p=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on John Templeton Foundation. 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/20121103111851/http://www.mapoflife.org:80/index/ to http://www.mapoflife.org/index/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110042915/http://pantheon.yale.edu/~gpwagner/index.html to http://pantheon.yale.edu/~gpwagner/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on John Templeton Foundation. 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/20150924114731/http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/what_we_fund/overview_cfa.pdf to http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/what_we_fund/overview_cfa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529062042/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/life_sciences/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/life_sciences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528004737/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/human_sciences/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/human_sciences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527130440/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/philosophy_and_theology/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/philosophy_and_theology/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612025100/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/science_in_dialogue/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/science_in_dialogue/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605140015/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/character_development/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/character_development/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525173346/http://www.templeton.org/what%5Fwe%5Ffund/core%5Ffunding%5Fareas/freedom%5Fand%5Ffree%5Fenterprise/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/freedom_and_free_enterprise/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525054327/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/exceptional_cognitive_talent_and_genius/index.html to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/exceptional_cognitive_talent_and_genius/index.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120630105010/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/2010_funding_priorities/can_gm_crops_feed_the_world/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/2010_funding_priorities/can_gm_crops_feed_the_world/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523210614/http://www.templeton.org/bigquestions/ to http://www.templeton.org/bigquestions/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150320093943/http://www.templeton.org/purpose/ to http://www.templeton.org/purpose/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203074640/http://www.templeton.org/africa/ to http://www.templeton.org/africa/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321041101/http://www.templeton.org/market/ to http://www.templeton.org/market/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213150651/http://www.templeton.org/capabilities_2006/jt_interview_2.html to http://www.templeton.org/capabilities_2006/jt_interview_2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502174515/http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/03/how_bad_is_the_templeton_found.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/03/how_bad_is_the_templeton_found.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328090422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php

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) 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Templeton Foundation. 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/20151114120023/http://templeton.org/who-we-are/our-team/staff/heather-templeton-dill to https://www.templeton.org/who-we-are/our-team/staff/heather-templeton-dill
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523210603/http://www.templeton.org/about_us/ to http://www.templeton.org/about_us/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612043914/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415222416/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/mathematical_and_physical_sciences/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_the_big_questions/mathematical_and_physical_sciences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527130436/http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/genetics/ to http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/genetics/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225132159/http://www.templeton.org/evolution/ to http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321041118/http://www.templeton.org/reason/ to http://www.templeton.org/reason/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001110655/http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grant-search/results to http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grant-search/results

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) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yang Fenggang page
I would like help from an administrator in addressing what I believe is a defamatory statement about Fenggang Yang in this article on the Templeton Foundation. The section ("Fenggang Yang and Center on Religion and Chinese Society of Purdue University") contains numerous factual inaccuracies and misleading statements, which are mainly designed to make it seem that Professor Yang is a controversial or discredited fringe figure who gets money because he is a Christian scholar. The citation for this paragraph is an article in French (https://journals.openedition.org/assr/24770) that does not support the statement. First, the Wikipedia entry says scholars (inaccurately plural) have questioned Yang's career rise. But the French article merely notes that Yang has had a successful career ("et a fait carrière") and does not question it or find anything sinister in it. On the contrary, the French article notes that Professor Yang has written a classic essay on religion's spread in China that is widely cited ("qui est déjà un classique cité partout"). The cited source does have the usual academic reservations in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the review. But it is not highly critical--just the usual academic discussion. It's really hard to imagine that this article would be critical because the author, the French scholar Vincent Goossaert, serves as an advisor for a well-respected academic journal that Yang founded! Thus it's clear that the Wikipedia contributor is misleadingly using Goossaert's article to make it seem that serious academics have problems with Yang's work. This is completely absurd--Yang is one of the most influential scholars in the field. Of course, all scholars receive criticism for their work but it's misleading to make it seem that normal scholarly debate is the same as widespread misgivings over a person's work. Thus I would ask that someone review this section and maybe even delete it. I can also only assume that the author of this section had malicious intent-probably because Yang is barred from China and widely seen as critical of the government in Beijing. I assume that the author is pro-Chinese government and probably hired by them to defame government critics-a widespread phenomenon for which there is even a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party Ian Johnson (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The part about Goossaert's opinion has been fixed. However, I have introduced the names of several other scholars who have criticised the theories of Yang (specifically the religious market theory), which proves that Yang is indeed a minor figure in the study of religion in China. Besides this, it is unquestionable that Yang has been involved in the wave of hysterical mediatic propaganda (yellow journalism) about the claim that "China will be the largest Christian country by 2030", a claim based on nothing—not a single scientific survey finds a Christian population in China larger than 2.5%. And, ehm, no, I am not an agent paid by the Chinese government for saying this.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I agree that the information about Yang Fenngang and the CRCS is undue in the Templeton Foundation article. I have moved them in the Draft:Fenggang Yang, where I hope they will not be deleted.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly is suspicious that you've just now discovered Wikipedia in time to seek to discredit Yang, and that there are scholars who criticize him proves nothing: I wager I could dredge up a dozen credible sources on record as saying that the likes of Churchill, Lincoln and Wilson were really minor figures when it came to waging their respective wars, but we don't claim that their calumny "proves" anything.   Ravenswing   01:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not "discovered Wikipedia" now, I already read this article multiple times in the past and intervened to revert the promotional edits by user Phoenixhill. And I have not "discredited" anyone. All the criticism I have introduced comes from academic sources. Ah, and we are not speaking of historical or political figures, but about specific claims and academic theories. It happens that I am quite fond of the topic in question.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Unethical?
The user Phoenixhill (who is Fenggang Yang himself, as the Chinese word 凤岗 fènggǎng translates as "phoenix hill" in English, and is thus involved in a serious WP:COI) continues to delete entire sourced sections claiming that they are "unethical". The only unethical thing going on here is the massive flow of funds that the Templeton Foundation pours into the pockets of selected scientists with the precise aim of making them publish pseudoscientific research "clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity" (quoting John Hogan, from the article).--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Core Funding Areas
The following are suggested changes to correct outdated information regarding the John Templeton Foundation's core funding areas (now known simply as funding areas):

Funding Areas

2	Funding Areas

2.1	Science & the Big Questions

2.1.1	Human Sciences

2.1.2	Natural Sciences

2.1.3	Philosophy & Theology

2.1.4	Public Engagement

2.2	Character Virtue Development

2.3	Individual Freedom & Free Markets

2.4	Exceptional Cognitive Talent & Genius

2.5	Genetics

2.6	Voluntary Family Planning

2.1	Science & the Big Questions

The Science & the Big Questions Funding Area supports innovative efforts to address the deepest questions facing humankind. Why are we here? How can we flourish? What are the fundamental structures of reality? What can we know about the nature and purposes of the divine?

In addition to supporting academic research on these and similar questions, we support efforts to bring relevant findings to non-specialist audiences. Through a wide range of media — print, digital, broadcast, and film — we seek to raise awareness about cutting-edge discoveries in ways that are clear and probing. In addition, we fund programs that help teachers, journalists, religious leaders, and other professionals apply these discoveries in ways that enrich and extend their work.

2.1.1	Human Sciences

The Human Sciences Department aims to catalyze discovery about human nature, human flourishing, religion and spirituality, and other fundamental structures and realities within the social, behavioral, and cognitive sciences. The department supports basic and applied scientific research projects, especially those that seek to increase enthusiasm for neglected topics within the academy.

2.1.2	Natural Sciences

The Natural Sciences Department seeks to support projects that address these and similar Big Questions concerning the origin and nature of the universe and humankind’s place in it. High risk projects that promise substantial rewards are especially encouraged, as are projects unlikely to be supported by standard funding agencies.

2.1.3	Philosophy & Theology

The Philosophy & Theology Department seeks to address these and other enduring Big Questions by supporting research that promises genuine progress in our understanding. The department is especially interested in research that engages deeply with the sciences, including interdisciplinary collaborations in which philosophical or theological understanding informs and is informed by the findings and methods of the sciences.

2.1.4	Public Engagement

The Public Engagement Department supports innovative programs that advance the Foundation’s mission beyond the academy. The department works with a wide variety of partners to find ways to translate scientific research and inspire reflection on its deeper significance.

2.2	Character Virtue Development

The Character Virtue Development funding area seeks to advance the science and practice of character, with a focus on moral, performance, civic, and intellectual virtues such as humility, gratitude, curiosity, diligence, and honesty.

2.3	Individual Freedom & Free Markets

The Individual Freedom & Free Markets Funding Area supports education, research, and grassroots efforts to promote individual freedom, free markets, free competition, and entrepreneurship. Grounded in the ideas of classical liberal political economy, we seek and develop projects that focus on individuals and their place in a free society. Whether by academic research, instruction, public outreach, or supporting debate on public policy, we aim to contribute toward making the nation and the world more just, more prosperous, and more conducive to human flourishing.

2.4	Exceptional Cognitive Talent & Genius

The Exceptional Cognitive Talent & Genius Funding Area supports programs that aim to recognize and nurture exceptional cognitive talent, especially for those at an early stage of life. This Funding Area also supports research concerning the nature of cognitive genius, including extraordinary creativity, curiosity, and imagination.

2.5	Genetics

The Genetics Funding Area seeks to advance genetics research by supporting novel approaches and contrarian projects, especially research that is undervalued by traditional funding sources. In addition to basic and translational research, this Funding Area supports educational programs that increase public awareness concerning the ways in which genetics-related research and its applications can advance human flourishing at the individual, familial, and societal levels.

2.6	Voluntary Family Planning

The Voluntary Family Planning funding area supports research, programs, and policy development efforts around the world that seek to better understand factors that influence family planning decisions, provide information on and access to family planning methods, and strengthen policy related to effective family planning. We are particularly interested in partnering with faith-based organizations to support this work in their local communities. The Foundation only funds research and programs that affirm the value of human life from conception until natural death.

Monarch87 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Templeton Prize
Since the Templeton Prize has its own in depth article, there is no reason for this section to be this long. The following is a suggested change to the section:

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify "entrepreneurs of the spirit"—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality.

Mother Teresa received the inaugural award in 1973. The past five laureates include His Majesty King Abdullah II (2018), Alvin Plantinga (2017), Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (2016), Jean Vanier (2015), and Tomáš Halík (2014). Other notable laureates include Archbishop Desmond Tutu (2013) and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarch87 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note
I started going through this page's history from the beginning and got up to 2010 before I got sick of it. There has been a pattern for many years of people editing from the foundation's POV creating an account, making a few edits, and then never coming back. These accounts have had a tremendous influence on this page.Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)