Talk:Jay W. Richards

NPOV

Some of the material on the page doesn't conform to the wikipedia policy of neutrality. For example, the comment about global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmp717200 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this (apparently purely factual) statement violate WP:NPOV? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Richards has online lectures and published articles affirming the reality of global warming, but questioning the extent of human influence on the same (for example, http://www.acton.org/media/20080417_christians_and_global_warming.php). The statement "expressed skepticism about global warming" is therefore inaccurate, pejorative and fails to capture that distinction. GinnySue (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

GinnySue: if there are "published articles" then please cite them. I have no interest in watching the cited "online lecture" by an individual with no expertise, but an obvious theological axe to grind, on the subject. I would point out that his inexpert "questioning the extent of human influence on the same" IS expressing "skepticism about global warming" as the Scientific opinion on climate change is that it is "is very likely caused by man". I would also like to inquire what your relationship is to Richards, as you are a WP:SPA on this topic, show a strong familiarity with his WP:SELFPUB material and tend to write with a distinct partiality towards him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, Hrafn, because I detected no such partiality in the argument she just provided, and I detect a LOT of hostility to his viewpoint in your unwillingness to examine a cited source. Perhaps you should not be editing this article? Since I am pretty sure Wikipedia is opposed to Gestapo-like scare speech as used to intimidate or annoy other editors, or impugn them to an audience, maybe, just maybe, calling someone out for thinking positively about Richards as though that has anything to do with the issues they take with your presentation of his views as misrepresentative might be a really bad way to go.

Also, you're listed as a Wikidarwinian on your bio page. While I am a fan of free discourse and whatnot, properly done, you don't think that MIGHT conceal a little bias against Intelligent Design?

TonalHarmony (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Education

Does anyone have any information about this persons educational background? Or what he did before becoming an author, spokensman. Anything on his bona fides? 99.64.210.32 (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit, by GinnySue cited the following unreliable and/or WP:SELFPUB sources:

• blog.american.com (multiple times)
• www.calloftheentrepreneur.com
• www.thebirthoffreedom.com
• www.effectivestewardship.com
• www.amazon.com
• www.veoh.com

Additionally, the language introduced by the edit was POV and unencyclopaedic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the claims that Richards ceased working for Acton in 2008, and that he is "a Contributing Editor of The American" are entirely unsupported by cited sources (unreliable or otherwise). Claiming that he is a "documentary producer" on the basis of a single direct-to-DVD production that appears to have received no notice beyond his own self-published sources is "unduly self-serving". I would suggest prominent, reliable third party coverage before such claims should be included in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What reeks (only loosely related what is now nothing like a "recent edit")

Speaking as one with a wee bit more familiarity with Jay and his work than Hrafn, given that Jay was my boss while I interned at the Acton Institute in the summer of '08, this wanton skepticism with respect to his biographical details *reeks* of POV and hostility on the part of Hrafn. While I could not corroborate this work of my own without giving out too-personal information to someone who seems rather hostile towards a member of an organization for which I once worked, and a rather snarky editor at that, I would refer the audience to this:

http://blog.acton.org/archives/1947-what-would-jesus-drive-jay-w-richards-in-nro.html

and this:

http://www.acton.org/category/social-tags/jay-richards

and this:

http://www.acton.org/category/person/jay-w-richards

And as to the subject of assisting and even leading Acton's documentary production (none of which Hrafn has watched, CLEARLY, since he is in all the cited documentaries as a speaking part), the last link attests that he was working with Acton Media at the time of those documentaries which Acton produced. Call of the Entrepreneur, Effective Stewardship, and Birth of Freedom were EACH Acton documentaries on which he assisted. Consider me an expert witness, since I helped distribute them; furthermore, I was there at some of their filming, assisting Jay, who was in the room with the interviewed voices.

Furthermore, while I will not relate any personal interactions, Jay's work on other projects was dominating much of his time in 2008, and when I called him the next semester he had already left Acton to work on his own projects. So that data, if not cited, is entirely correct. Moreover, that he is a contributing editor at the American is something one may deduce from the bio blurb at the bottom of any of his SIX ARTICLES in that periodical.

The blurb: "Jay W. Richards, PhD, is a senior fellow and director of research at Discovery Institute, a contributing editor to THE AMERICAN, and author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem."

At the risk of sounding rude, perhaps Hrafn should take a few deep breaths and step away from the keyboard for a while if this is his typical modus operandi, shooting down sources without REALLY consulting any expertise but his own. I mean, cripes, it only takes a Google search! TonalHarmony (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Speaking as one with a wee bit more familiarity with" Wikipedia policy than TonalHarmony, I would point out that his comment:

1. reeks of failure to WP:AGF
2. ignores WP:NOR -- Wikipedia does not base its articles on personal "familiarity" but on published reliable sources.
3. Displays a strong WP:COI

I would further point out:

1. That their sources display an odd pattern: http://blog.acton.org/archives/1947-what-would-jesus-drive-jay-w-richards-in-nro.html http://www.acton.org/category/social-tags/jay-richards http://www.acton.org/category/person/jay-w-richards -- I think I said something above about the need for third party sources.
2. Watching Acton's videos in order to determine whether Richards qualifies as a "documentary producer" would appear to be WP:OR. As stated above, Wikipedia relies upon published reliable sources for such information.
3. That none of The American articles were cited in this article (and some of them hadn't even been written) at the time I commented. WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
4. That "when I called him" is WP:OR, and we're still waiting on a WP:RS confirming that Richards has left Acton.
5. That it is really, really silly to go into such conniptions, and talk about "step[ping] away from the keyboard" eighteen months after I wrote the original posts.
6. The article reflects what WP:RSs state about Richards, not what I think on the subject.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Reference for Position at Acton Institute

As far as I see, Richards isn't listed as member of the staff at Actons Institute. I've not found a current document on Acton's site, which states his current function. I only find him mentioned als author or "guest". --Parzi (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He WAS, at least while I was there in 2008, a Research Fellow and he worked with Acton Media. Here's a source.

http://www.acton.org/media/audio/folly-universal-health-care

"Dr. Jay Richards, Acton Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media"

TonalHarmony (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens Debate

Why is there so much trivial detail about a few things that Richards said in his debate with Hitchens? It doesn't seem to add much even about the philosophy that he holds. The last paragraph talking about catching a pen not violating gravity seems completely unnecessary and adding nothing. Personally I thought it was an incredibly stupid non-sequitor when he brought it up in the debate, and it seems just as out of place here. I may be biased, though, so I'll not edit it. But I'll call attention to it, and if someone wants to justify it or remove it... Snakesonaplane1988 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. After reading it again and noticing grammatical errors (along with seeming out of place and irrelevant), I'm removing the last two paragraphs. Snakesonaplane1988 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

PhD, "with honors"?

Honors are almost (but not completely) exclusively used for undergraduate degrees. This is the first time I've ever heard of the designation applied to a doctorate. I searched around on ptsem.edu for "honors" but most of the mentions were either not in the context of a degree modifier at all, or were in the bios of various faculty, and most of those were attached to undergrad degrees. I couldn't find any mention of the PhD from PTSEM being awarded with any of the usual "with honors" designations. None of this means the title is invalid, but since it is so unusual I think it would improve the article's robustness if additional, more independent sources were provided. 71.189.127.192 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Richards is unhappy with his article

Wikipedia--Don't Trust, and Verify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.127.192 (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay W. Richards. 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/20061230215318/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)