| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.
|
Dawkins
editYou have removed my link to Hobson's Comment is Free article where he asks readers to burn their copies of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion.
Why?
SpeakerToAnimals 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi STA. It's because, as I said in the edit comment, this is an article about Hobson, not Dawkins. I feel it is slightly unbalanced to draw attention to the fact that a Christian theologian opposes Dawkins – which one doesn't? The CiF articles are all available from the external link which should suffice in my view. As with everything on Wikipedia, this is just my opinion and others may disagree. Take care. Laurence Boyce 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Most reasonable Christian commentators would not urge their supporters to burn their opponent's books. Hobson has been particularly vitriolic in his attacks on Dawkins and his hatred says far more about Hobson than Dawkins.SpeakerToAnimals 11:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The book burning thing was clearly a joke, and I don't think that "vitriolic" would be a fair description of Hobson's writings on any topic. Laurence Boyce 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Another good reason to remove it The Wikipedia article does not mention Dr. Hobson's article Atheism is Pretentious and Cowardly. Someone please put this in the Wikipedia article. It will likely be censored out if the article is mentioned. Then conservapedia can once again point out how Wikipedia's liberal bully boys run the show at Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 29 May 2008 (EDT) (that's Conservapedia BTW) TheresaWilson (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we should highlight individual articles unless they've achieved significant fame or notoriety. As a PhD, I'm sure he's written a significant amount—listing everything turns this article into a CV; listing selectively makes it prone to bias.-Wafulz (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Update
editHello Theo here I have a third child who wants to be included please and please mention my latest book Reinventing Liberal Christianity (2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.231.29 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thought for the Day
editThis article could mention that Theo Hobson sometimes does Thought for the Day. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)