Talk:Richard Dawkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Dawkins article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
edit Resolved issues
?

The following issues have been extensively discussed and there is strong consensus for the status quo. Although consensus can change, we kindly ask that you familiarize yourself with previous discussion on the following topics before raising any of these issues again.

Resolved that trivia about South Park does not belong in this article. See the discussions Pop culture, South Park again, and South Park.
Good article Richard Dawkins has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Richard Dawkins, has edited Wikipedia as
RichardDawkins (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Improvement

I nominated the biography of Dawkins for the FA status. However, the nomination failed. I think there are several reasons why it failed. I think the following are the reasons why the biography of Dawkins has suffered for so long:

1. Disruptive editing by POV-pushing editors: I consider the disruptive editing by POV-pushing editors as one of the main reason why the article has suffered for so long. We have to clean up the mess created by these users. I think the solution would be to semi-protect the article. I see no reason why IPs should edit this article. Most of them are vandals. The article should be semi-protected. And, established users who are guilty of disruptive editing should be warned and prevented from editing the article.

2. References: I have noticed that users have added references without using citation templates. Users are recommended to use the following templates:

Users should also add page numbers. Many book references don’t have page numbers.

I want to promote this article to the FA status. Others users are invited to make constructive suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments at the FA review related to copy editing, Wikifying, insufficient inline citations, incomplete citations (including missing page numbers or other required details), and inconsistent citation form. All quotations require pinpoint page citations. I have not seen recent activity that would warrant semi-protection. Most IPs are not vandals, and Wikipedia has a strong policy commitment to allowing unregistered users to edit (I personally favor requiring registration as a prerequisite to editing, but that is NOT and WILL NOT be Wikipedia's policy). I've been trying to do some cleanup myself, but I am not personally inclined to fix everyone else's citation problems. A tiny point that not really an FA criterion: I don't think having all the images lined up on the right side is aesthetically pleasing; perhaps some thought should be given to the article's overall layout. Finell (Talk) 04:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Finell, not all IPs are vandals. However, many IPs have vandalized this article. I can give you examples. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support semi-protection in this case. As far as I am concerned, so much of my limited wiki-time and energy is devoted to undoing the vandalism, and checking for collateral damage, that there is none left for making positive improvements to the article. If we got rid of the sheer mindless vandalism (nearly all done by IPs) we would be able to focus on making it better, rather than just stopping it getting worse. Snalwibma (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Snalwibma. So much of time and energy is devoted to undoing the vandalism. If the article is semi-protected and if we can use that energy to improve the article, the article will achieve FA status! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's stop discussing page protection here. Anyone can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please just go ahead if you are so inclined; I will not go there to comment if you do. Finell (Talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdented by Finell) It's clear that citations/references are the problem here. I have been doing my best to tidy them up, but there remain a number of issues. I am going to read fully through the article and try to sort it out as best I can. On the issue of semi-protection, as I have said in another post on this talk page, I agree that it should happen. I have seen few constructive edits by IPs, and lots of nonsense and vendetta. It detracts seriously from the time of those willing to improve this article. AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work being done on the article, especially by AC+79 3888 and Masterpiece2000! Please keep it up. One small point: Where an article in a printed periodical also appears on the Web, in my opinion it would be better to use {{cite journal}} or {{cite news}}, with full citation to the print version, rather than {{cite web}}. Finell (Talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And it keeps getting better! Regarding citations, please do not remove from the templates labels for attribute just because they don't have values now, especially essential ones like year or date of publication. They will have to be filled to reach FA status. Finell (Talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt to find years and/or dates for references ASAP.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice, however, that some references cannot be dated -- e.g. the Charles Simonyi Professorship homepage, and TheEdge.org's profile of Dawkins. AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
With web sites, which of course can be changed at any time, you record the date you accessed the site. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no discussion about Richard and Ben squaring off in Expelled? I found in entertaining and amusing. Two world views... why not include it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.27.140 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every reference on the page has an accessdate now. I cannot see any references which should have dates of publishing and do not. (If someone can find any, please either add dates or let me know). I feel that the article is either currently at - or very nearly at - the level of FA status. --AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to that, I think that I will submit it for Peer Review at Wikipedia Biography soon.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To italicise or not to italicise?

There is inconsistency in the article regarding the use of italics for "terms".

Paragraph two states that:

[Dawkins]...introduced the term meme...

Whilst the section on Religion has:

...(from which the term "faith-sufferer" originated)...

So, either both should be in italics, or both should be contained in inverted commas. I personally think the latter. A "term" is not the title of a work; it is just a linguistic phrase.

--AC+79 3888 (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS prescribes using italic for a term used as a term; a term used as a term is not a quotation, either. Finell (Talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I have edited in accordance with those guidelines. Regards. --AC+79 3888 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality?

I assume (but do not know for sure) that Dawkins has Kenyan nationality as well as British, given the fact that he was born there and spent the early years of his life there. Anyone know? --AC+79 3888 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this, but I do not believe that a person's nationality, at least for biographical purposes (legal purposes is a separate matter), is solely determined by place of birth. For example, if a mother and father of undisputed, undiluted French nationality give birth while on vacation in Las Vegas, would the child have U.S. nationality in addition to French nationality? I don't think so, even though the child would be a U.S. citizen under U.S. law. You may want to look into this further. Finell (Talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Finell. I think unless we hear otherwise, it should be left as it is. I have never heard Dawkins publicly discuss the issue, I have asked on his website and no one seems to know. We can only be sure that he is a British citizen.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do reliable sources say that he is of British nationality? Do reliable sources say that he is of Kenyan nationality? From Wikipedia's standpoint, those are the deciding questions. Avoid WP:OR concerning his nationality (or anything else, for that matter). Also, Dawkins is a registered Wikipedian and monitors WP's articles about him, and occasionally edits them to correct factual inaccuracy (although that raises the issue of WP:COI). Finell (Talk) 07:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Dawkins was born in 1941, when Kenya was a British colony. There was no "Kenyan nation" to be a national of. He would have been born a British subject, as was everybody born in Kenya at the time, and had left Kenya well before Kenyan independence in 1963, so the question of Kenyan nationality would never have arisen --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point by Michael Johnson. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"no "Kenyan nation" to be a national of" The British would make sure of that!

-G

[edit] Lead

Congratulations on the major improvements being made. I suggest that the lead be reduced to about 1/4 or 1/3 of its current size, sticking to highlights rather than details, and the more detailed material be moved to the body of the article, to the extent that it is not already there. See WP:LEAD. Unfortunately, I have no time now to work on this. User:Tony1 gave the article a fairly comprehensive critique at WP:FAC; perhaps you could ask for his help in bringing the article to FA quality. Finell (Talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Stance

I have to question the appropriateness of including a religious stance and describing it as atheist in the infobox and I am not convinced that it would be pure pedantry address this issue. His atheism certainly shouldn't be hidden and it is not; being stated repeatedly in the article. Atheism, as mere lack of belief in any gods, does not constitute a religious stance. Similarly, mere theism also does not constitute a religious stance. You can be a religious atheist (eg. some forms of buddhism) or a non-religious theist (eg. someone who believes in the existence of the "god of philosophers" but does not associate it with any of the gods of religion and follows no religious tradition) without contradiction.

An accurate description of his religious stance would be none or no religion, though the religious stance section would probably be made redundant as a result, suggesting the lack of need for such a section.

If people think it should stay, as a compromise I would suggest replacing Atheist with Non-religious Atheist, or better yet, Secular Atheist (as secular, being synonymous with non-religious, actually constitutes a religious stance). Heihachi (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that atheism does constitute a religious stance: it is an affirmation that one does not believe in any god or gods. "Secular atheist" is also a religious stance, that is true, but it merely adds detail. I have no objections to changing it to "secular atheist", but it is not a phrase I have seen used on any other Wikipedia article. AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "atheist" is a religious stance, and that it should be there. But I would oppose changing it to "secular atheist" or "strong atheist" or "absolute atheist" or any other flavour of atheist. Not a good idea to try to put shades of meaning on it, least of all in a summary box. "Atheist" pure and simple is quite enough. Snalwibma (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, how can atheist be a religious stance? Is the fact that you believe the earth to be spherical, a stance on the shape of the world? No, Atheism is a stance like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Sort it out folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
See also here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Religious_stance:_Atheist.3F --RenniePet (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. Atheism is not a religion in itself; but it is a stance on the matter of religion. AC+79 3888 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AC+79 3888, Snalwibma, and Snalwibma. "Atheist" is good enough. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on all this. To have "atheist" as a religious stance is antithetical to all that Dawkins is saying about religion i.e. it is a delusion and damaging to society etc etc. Sticking "stance" to "religion" doesn't make his view on the existence of God all of a sudden the ethical framework under which he operates. By our sticking "atheist" in there we are semantically overloading this one word to represent his actual stance on religion. This is wrong; very wrong. If by "religious stance" we mean someone's moral or ethical stance then we should say that rather than placing "religion" on a pedestal as implying morality or ethics. This is very much Dawkins' argument anyway (that we imply religion to set a benchmark for moral and ethical good) so it is doubly wrong to use "Religious stance" and "atheist" together. It should be removed on the grounds or we change the infobox.Ttiotsw (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about an ethical framework? That would be to imply that ethics are intrinsically linked to religious ideology, which is quite insulting to those of us without religious belief. It is the choice of Wikipedia to include this field in the infobox, so your quarrel is with those in charge. The duty of this article is to fill as much information into the given fields as is possible. If people take his atheism as a marker of his ethics, then in my humble opinion, they are small-minded bigots, but that's not really the issue here. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The infobox field prints out "Religious stance". Our using "atheist" is only valid if we were talking about the existence of God or gods. In other articles they insert "Catholic", "Muslim" etc rather than "theist" or "monotheist". As far as I know the intent of the field isn't to measure belief in God or Gods but to show the ethical or moral basis of the person. For many this means simply inserting their Religion (though as we know with demographic studies that is a totally unreliable measure of anything).
With Dawkins the closest equivalent would be, for example Secular humanist but it certainly isn't "Atheist" any more than we would set the Religious stance of say a Pope to "Theist". Ttiotsw (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"Religious stance" doesn't mean someone's moral or ethical stance. Secular humanism and Humanism (note: capital 'H') are not religious stance. I think 'None' might be better. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for FA nomination?

I submitted this article for peer review at Wikiproject Biography, and the javascript programme which is commonly used to find faults didn't come up with a single suggestion for improvement. I've looked at it myself, can't see anything. I'm considering submitting it. But then, if people do not think it's ready yet, please explain why exactly, and myself and others who are interested in getting it to FA status can do so. Thanks. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest waiting awhile, given how recently it was last nominated. Finell (Talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a joke?

An article on RichardDawkins.net claimed that Richard Dawkins is to guest star in an upcoming episode of Doctor Who! Is this a joke? If not, should this be included in the article? Ilikefood (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article here. AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rottweiler and McGrath

In the lead: "Dawkins was first identified as "Darwin's rottweiler" by English theologian Alister McGrath...". I don't think this is right. I don't think McGrath was the first to call him that. I think it was Simonyi - see this article from 1996. Other sources do say McGrath coined it, but none of them seems to point back as far as 1996. Anyone know the truth? Maybe it would be wisest not to attribute the epithet to anyone in particular, unless we are certain. Snalwibma (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can establish it without any doubt then I think you are right; we shouldn't attribute it to anyone. AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I will make some necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary got cut off for some reason, but using the words "identified as" sounds as if someone has grabbed Dawkin's collar, are read Darwin's name on the tag. "Nick-named" may be too casual too, so if someone comes up with something better, good. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about simply "referred to as" or "described as"?AC+79 3888 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Referred to as" sounds better. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How about "nicknamed"? Autarch (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early life / Personal life

Should "Early life" and "Personal life" really be different subsections? Maybe they should be together under "Personal life"?--AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I think they should be different. It will be easier for people to read the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Devil's Chaplain

Adding external links to all the essays available (legally) on the net would be an improvement for A Devil's Chaplain. I presume some are available on some sites without the author's permission, while others are fine. This article seems to be getting very difficult to improve on, so if anyone is looking for some lighter work on Dawkins feel free to help out with A Devil's Chaplain or any of the other underdeveloped articles on his works. Richard001 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already several links to essays here, but it could be expanded. His official Oxford University site has got an extensive collection of links to various essays/letters/papers, the most important of which do seem to be in the article already. As I say, though, more could potentially be added, depending on user consensus.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant A Devil's Chaplain, which I have linked again a couple of times. Using 'this' to mean two different things isn't very clear is it? Richard001 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference in Bioshock (suitable for inclusion?)

I spotted this in the Arcadia level of BioShock and considering the central themes of the game's plot - genetic manipulation, the ethics of the aforementioned and a non-religious, scientific society gone wrong, I felt pretty sure it must be reference.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5995/dawkinsreferencezy4.jpg

However, there's no obvious place for it to go in the article and a lot of discrimination against games as a serious creative medium - although as this game sold 1.7 million in the last 6 months and is one of the highest rated games of all time, I think it's notable and deserving enough. (86.141.76.191 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

The problem is, right now it's original research to make the conclusion that he's the Dawkins referenced on the book. That said, if a major gaming magazine or two makes the connection and writes about it in articles, then we could cite those articles. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not that it isn't probably the same "Dawkins" (it probably is in the minds of the game creators) but that, as with South Park, it would be a trivial mention in which Dawkins probably had no involvement. It doesn't matter if any gaming mag picks up on this (and I would imagine that there will be plenty of anti-Dawkins bloggers who will spin this), it is still trivial unless there is evidence that Dawkins endorsed this product in some way e.g. obtained royalties or had a contract with the game company for use of Dawkins as a brand. I wouldn't expect that.Ttiotsw (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely it's also worth pointing out that the game takes place in an underwater city created in the 1950's, which would require Dawkins to be rather precocious to be credited with a biological law. Thanny (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Not worth including. It does not inform about Dawkins at all. Non encyclopedic. This is not a trivia forum. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins FA

I have nominated this article for the FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is here: [1]. Finell (Talk) 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage others to get involved. AC+79 3888 (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

can we not archive the entire talk page please? surely there has been some recent discussion.. 131.111.55.15 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

131.111.55.15, please suggest ways to improve the article. We don't appreciate unnecessary comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest making use of User:MiszaBot to automatically archive the talk page. I've used it on several other articles, and it works really well. Also, Masterpiece2000, the IP's comment isn't unnecessary – (s)he was correct in saying that archiving recent discussions is not helpful. Adam McMaster (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the lead

  1. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology with the theory, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype. Was the theory originally presented in a book? Do other scientists cite the book as the reference for these ideas?
  2. phenotypic effects are not limited to an organism's body but can stretch far into the environment, which includes the bodies of other organisms. I didn't understand this before reading the extended phenotype article. The Central Theorem makes the point more clearly, if it is the same point...
  3. Dawkins is an outspoken antitheist and atheist. I felt this was somehow redundant after the paragraph before it.
  4. —as a fixed false belief. Does this add anything to the sentence? Maybe it does... But also, is this Dawkins' own definition of delusion?
  5. Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler" Hmm... Rather than adding this at the end, it could instead introduce the paragraph I complained about above. Has that been tried? I will give it a try. It might really fail, so reverts are welcome. :)

Good luck with the FAC. --Merzul (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Yes, it was originally presented in this book. Says Dawkins: "I suppose most authors have one piece of work of which they would say `It doesn't matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read this.' For me, it is The Extended Phenotype. In particular, the last four chapters constitute the best candidate for the title `innovative' that I have to offer. The rest of the book does some necessary sorting out on the way." Daniel C. Dennett, who wrote an afterword for the book, regards it as seminal. Other quotations here.
  2. (nothing to say on this)
  3. Thanks for the suggestion, I moved the reference to atheism and antitheism to the preceding paragraph.
  4. Yes, it is, as laid out explicitly in the opening pages on The God Delusion.
  5. That's moved now. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding (1). I was surprised, because I haven't heard of many widely cited contributions to science being first published in a book rather than say journal papers. The book is of course an OUP publication. Maybe it's not uncommon in evolutionary biology to present novel theories in a book. I don't think the article needs any clarification on this matter, unless anyone else was similarly confused. --Merzul (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
About (2), the hard part for me is "phenotypic effects". I have a rough idea of what phenotype and genotype probably mean, but can't quite grasp the idea here. Is the sentence is expressing the same idea as the Central Theorem of the Extended Phenotype? --Merzul (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll out-indent and state the first issue more clearly, because I now noticed in the very early FAC comments that indopug was more or less similarly surprised. He said, "I find it weird that the lead introduces his theories based on the pop-sci books he had written them in..." The answer you gave there and what Silence said could help clarify this issue:

"Dawkins is much more significant and influential as a popularizer than as a researcher. Where he has had innovations, they have primarily been innovative ways of looking at phenomena, rather than new biology discoveries."

In this light, it makes perfect sense that The Extended Phenotype is a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology. The question is, if and how the lead could clarify this. --Merzul (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any book written by Richard Dawkins. I think a book reference is required. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talking about the FAC...

I found the sections on religion hard to follow. There is so much material, and it argues back and forth. More importantly, is this proportional to what Dawkins is known for? Clearly, the most recent media attention is about his atheism, but still... Well, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know, but my intuition says that atheism is given too much prominence here. Is the consensus that the article is proportional?

Also, why is the "Creationism" section after the "Atheism, humanism and rationalism" section? Isn't the logical/historical development of his popular science work from evolution and criticism of creationism, to only fairly recently, atheism and criticism of religion in general. --Merzul (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is a big fan of Dawkins' work in the scientific arena, I would have to say that it is (in my opinion, unfortunately) proportional. The media attention received by Dawkins is, and has been, almost solely centred on religion. Just look at the citations. As for your second point, I'm undecided. I'd like to hear what others think. Regards, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say...before I joined Wikipedia, I knew little about Richard Dawkins. I think I read about meme when I was studying one psychology book! I think Merzul is right. "Creationism" section should be before "Atheism, humanism and rationalism" section. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that rearranging these two sections would be better (I seem to recall suggesting this a year ago...). The logical sequence, and the one that reflects RD's career, is evolution (scientific explanation of life) -> creationism (other explanation of life) -> religion (other aspects of the "other" stuff). Snalwibma (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've not edited the article for a while, but I think the current version is a bit over-heavy, probably on recentist grounds, when it comes to the atheism section. While it's certainly what Dawkins is currently best known for, and is it something that his career has gradually been moving towards, I think it could do with being shorter just for balance. I'll try to have a closer look next week at how best (IMHO) to trim it.
Just in passing, one thing that seems like an oversimplification is the blanket labelling of Dawkins as an atheist (which, to be fair, is a label he happily applies to himself). However, he's explicit in TGD that his position stops slightly shy of this, since it is something of a faith position. Anyway, the article makes no mention of this. It may be too difficult to incorporate such a subtle shift of position, and it may be something that others think is trivial, but since he does make a point of being clear about it in TGD, it seems worth mentioning to me.
Finally, the final two paragraphs in the intro could perhaps do with some form of concatenation and shortening. They overlap quite a bit, and I think a single paragraph on Dawkins' view of religions is probably enough. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Park

the last time I came here, there was a quip about His portrayal on South Park which I felt was the funniest I had ever seen RD in my life.

but It's gone now

I wish I was important for Trey and Matt to make fun off, but Oh well I'm not, and my fellow Nairobite should feel it a badge of honour.

Therubicon (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been done to death; ain't gonna appear in the article. See the archives for discussion. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been suggested, but borderline stuff could go in a 'see also' section (as a compromise between keeping and leaving out). Plenty of other not-quite-article-worthy links to articles that discuss Dawkins (e.g. Templeton prize) could go there too. Something like

It's clear that material fits on a continuum from worthy of inclusion to not worthy of inclusion, and stuff that lies in between seems suitable for a see also section. On the other hand, I suppose you could also argue that including borderline material like this at the end doesn't improve the article. I think I prefer the former though, as the reader can easily skip such material, while it's harder to find it if not included in the article. Searching for 'Richard Dawkins' will get you a lot of irrelevant articles, and there isn't exactly a Category:Richard Dawkins either. Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled

Please see [2] on how the movie makers twisted his position. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shmuley Boteach debate

Shmuley Boteach, an American orthodox rabbi, recently released a video (for sale on his website) of a debate he had with Dawkins in Oxford in 1996 which Dawkins has said never occurred. Apparently, Dawkins lost the debate on religion (Boteach's side acquired more converts per a post-debate vote), which by Boteach's allegation "may account for [Richard Dawkin's] selective memory."

Here's the page with Boteach's response: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565

This clearly appears to be a "he said, the other he said" situation. All the information on this comes not from secondary reliable sources, but from Dawkins and the rabbi. Without someone else's verification, this doesn't seem notable. Redrocket (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Shmuley Boteach debate is not notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Section on Critics of Mr Dawkins?

Maybe I need my glasses on, but almost all controvercial celebrities have a critics section.

Why none for Dawkins? There are surely enough of them to warrant such a section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.17.104 (talk • contribs)

This is brought up very regularly, but you have to check the archive. Most recent is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So a neutral point of view requires no critics section regarding Dawkins since it has already been discussed and is mentioned in old archives? Do I have your response right? I thought a neutral point of view meant representing both sides of controversial public figures? Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.17.104 (talk • contribs)
No, you don't have my response right: I was trying to be helpful. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you were trying to be helpful and I do appreciate it. But you completely ignored the point of the question about there being a need to balance the article. Somehow a buried archived comment isnt quite what I had in mind. As to signing the comment, I cant remember my password to my account, lol, I do need to track this sort of thing better, but the name for the account was RGCheek, if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.17.104 (talk • contribs)
The point is that there is lots of criticism of Dawkins' views built in to the article. This has been extensively discussed, and the consensus (every time) is that a separate "criticism" section would be unhelpful to the reader and likely to lead to distortion. Much better to place contrary views in context, as is done throughout the article. That is the sense in which the article is balanced. But there really is a great deal of discussion about this in the archives, and it's not really "buried"! Snalwibma (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. The way this article handles criticism is much better, integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

>As to signing the comment, I cant remember my password to my account...
That's not what Old Moonraker was talking about. You "sign a comment" (irrespective of whether you're using an account or an anonymous IP address) by placing four tildes at the end of your comment. Then the necessary identifying information is appended, along with a time stamp. --RenniePet (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] academic life

As was pointed out in the FAC, much effort goes into maintaining the Work section, but what can be done about his life. In particular his academic work. He has papers on animal communication with John Krebs for example. Is there anything from Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think that could be used to say something about his ethology work? --Merzul (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for now. Please copy-edit aggressively. And since I don't have the book I added based on internet sources. It would be nice to have stuff from those essays. --Merzul (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC action items

Trying to put it all here in a consistent format to keep track of what is being done, feel free to edit each action bullet. Let's comment always with two bullets "**" to keep the structure consistent, the point is to see what anyone is working on, and what people think still needs to be done. Use {{fixed}} and {{wontfix}} to indicate as if voting, whether you think it is fixed (by yourself or someone else) or shouldn't be fixed at all. For FA purposes, it is naturally up to the reviewer to strike out his comment on the FAC page, and when that happens we simply remove it from here. It would help if each person only comment once about each point, this way, if there are very many {{wontfix}}, then you know, which objections editors here feel should be ignored.

I have no idea, if this is useful, or simply duplicates the FA page. But it might help sorting out more subjective objections that should not be addressed, etc. --Merzul (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 1

  • "Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and completed his education at the University of Oxford." - <Sniff> I wish was so smart that I could have graduated when I was eight years old.
    • Fixed. Cheap fix, but ok. --Merzul (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that last paragraph of the lead necessary? Seems like a tacky add-on, and the stuff isn't there anywhere else in the article.
    • Fixed. More-or-less. --Merzul (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Club the Education sub-section to either the one above it or below it.
    • Fixed. I believe. --Merzul (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it weird that the lead introduces his theories based on the pop-sci books he had written them in. Aren't those books peripheral to his work as a scientist and researcher. Its odd that you go discuss the career and work of a scientist on the basis of the pop-sci books he had written.
    • I was also confused by this, can anything be done to make the explanations in the talk pages appear in the article? --Merzul (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 14, "The Atheism Tapes" is lacking publisher information. I see you give the WikiSource information on it, but the information given on them doesn't tell me how Wikisource got them?
    • Fixed. Different source used. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You've mixed using the [[:Template:Citation]] with the templates that start with Cite such as [[:Template:Cite journal]] or [[:Template:Cite news]]. They shouldn't be mixed
    • Question. Do they yield an inconsistent output, or does it merely offend the gnomes? Merzul (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study" - Is memetics a scientific field of study?
    • Fixed. Now reads "coined the term meme". AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy" - We shouldn't expect all our readers to be familiar with the watchmaker analogy (or the teleological argument in general), and ones who aren't familiar with it won't understand its significance to the previous sentence about Dawkins' "views on religion". It's a minor issue, but one easily remedied if Paley's analogy was noted as an argument for the existence of God. This seems to me to be more useful in the lead than the bit "described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind watchmaker", which a vast majority of readers will either not understand (those who aren't familiar with the watchmaker analogy) or will already know about anyway (those familiar with The Blind Watchmaker).
    • Fixed. Explanation given. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2

  • "several best-selling popular books" - As opposed to a best-selling unpopular book? Like what, Mein Kampf? Is this meant to say "popular science books"?
  • "and supporter of the Brights movement." - Is this crucial enough for the lead section? It doesn't seem to add much information necessary to understand Dawkins himself (to the extent that it's significant at all, it only reiterates the rest of the sentence: that Dawkins is a freethinker, skeptic, etc.), and there are surely more influential and well-known organizations that Dawkins supports.
    • Comment I think it should stay, and I believe this to be the consensus. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I also think it should stay. Brights movement is popular. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "creationism and intelligent design" - This phrasing is used twice in the lead section. Is it the opinion of the Richard Dawkins article, or of Wikipedia generally, that intelligent design is not (a subtype of) creationism?
    • Won't fix. Wikipedia cannot make the statement that Creationism and Intelligent design are the same thing. That is an opinion; one which is refuted by the Intelligent Design movement. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean refuted or rejected? They are two very different words - to refute something means not merely to reject it but to disprove it. Autarch (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "the English-language version had sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been translated into 31 languages" - The English-language version had been translated into 31 languages? Assuming there are 32 total languages The God Delusion has been written in, what other version could have been translated? It's just a very strange way to put it: at the very least, what about "31 other languages" for clarity?
    • Fixed. Now reads 31 "other" languages. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with an above comment that the "Darwin's rottweiler" paragraph seems strangely tacked-on and out-of-place in the lead section; it doesn't really add any vital information. If it's meant to convey the notion that Dawkins is often seen as a particularly vociferous or fierce advocate of evolutionary theory, then it does so too coyly and with too much of a historical bent.
    • Comment This text has been incorporated into the preceding paragraph. However, I do not believe that user consensus is to remove it altogether. It succintly defines Dawkins' public persona; both in the eyes of supporters and the opposition. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Richard Dawkins was born on March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya, and named Clinton Richard Dawkins." - So was it Richard Dawkins who was born, or was it Clinton Richard Dawkins? Very strange sequencing here. The more conventional approach would be "Richard Dawkins, born Clinton Richard Dawkins..." or the like.
  • "When he better understood evolution, at age 16," - What made him better understand it? Did he misunderstand it earlier in his life? This section is too general in general.
  • "his religious position again changed because he felt that evolution could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, and thus a designer was not necessary." - "and thus a designer was not necessary" makes it sound like Wikipedia is affirming the lack of necessity for such an entity. ", rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary" or the like would avoid this trap.
  • "there was a lot of unrest and demonstration" - "a lot of" is colloquial. "significant" or "substantial" or the like is more professional, though being more concrete and specific is, as always, preferable.
  • "Dawkins got heavily involved in all of that." - Is this line a joke? The intense vagueness and casualness make it seem like satire.

[edit] Section 3

  • "As an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution" - Does this mean that all ethologists subscribe to the gene-centered view of evolution?
  • "This has spawned the field of memetics" - Again, is memetics truly a full-fledged "field", or merely a method?
  • "Dawkins used the term" - Which term, meme or memetics?
  • "resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors" - If new memes can be either more efficient or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, then why is the "more" aspect given more prominence (by relegating "less" to a parenthetical note)—indeed, for that matter, why bring up replicative efficiency at all if that's the case?
  • "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations published by the American Humanist Association." - Confusing grammar. Is a comma missing?
    • Fixed. Comma inserted. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "According to Dawkins, faith, being belief that is not based on evidence, is one of the world's great evils and is thus analogous to the smallpox virus, though more difficult to eradicate." - Awkward and not particularly enlightening or useful. Doesn't explain why something being "belief that is not based on evidence" is therefore "one of the world's great evils", why being one of the world's great evils makes something specifically analogous to smallpox (as opposed to, say, malaria, war, or starvation), and the "though more difficult to eradicate" seems tacked-on and snarky. (And snarkiness should only be tolerated in quotes.) Surely there are better ways to summarize the substance of Dawkins' article.
    • Fixed. Quotation marks added. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Dawkins argues that being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about" - A pun? One should avoid alternate uses of the term "apologetic" in theological discussions. This wording is also rather awkward (a poor attempt at formalizing the colloquial "nothing to be sorry about"). A better word here than "apologetic" is "ashamed" (following "nothing one should be", not "nothing to be"), though a complete rewrite of this sentence may be warranted instead.
  • "standing tall to face the far horizon," - Unacceptably poetic language for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage.
  • "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Unacceptable overgeneralization and bias for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage. Atheism, as atheists themselves often define it, never indicates either "a healthy indepence of mind" or "a healthy mind" (the implication being that the religious mind is not only delusional, but diseased?)
  • "establishing positive public connotations with" - connotations "for"?
  • "Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in making us feel embarrassed" - "Us"? Which "us"? The article's editors? All known sentient beings? A majority of 21st-century upper-middle-class English-speakers? Academia?
  • "when we routinely employ "he" instead of "she"" - "We"? Which "we"?
  • The way the discussion of "religious children" follows, rather than precedes, the argumentation and context Dawkins uses to support his view, makes Wikipedia seem like it is advocating that view rather than merely providing information on it. This is also suggested by the way the view seems like a tacked-on non-sequitur in context: one might assume, before reading the last couple of sentences, that they would be about "the fight against certain stereotypes", rather than about group identification and labeling.
    • Comment Disagree. Would like to get consensus. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I also disagree. Wikipedia is not advocating such views. That's Dawkins' views. We are merely providing information on it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 4

  • "The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)" - Comma goes after the parentheses. Also, Dawkins had no say whatsoever, or he was just overruled? Also, it should be obvious to any neutral reader that this parenthetical digression seems exceedingly tacked-on and argumentative; it comes across as a polemical attempt to preempt a possible criticism, rather than as a neutral encyclopedic report on the facts. How significant is the title and the story surrounding that title to the Richard Dawkins article? And even if it is important to know that he disliked the title, couldn't we find a better way to explain that than with unprofessional and hasty-looking parentheses?
  • The sentence about McGrath and Harries' segments seems out-of-sequence and awkward in its current context. Are McGrath and Harries meant to be examples of "religious moderates"? And why is this sentence not in the same paragraph as the one actually discussing McGrath?
    • Comment I don't think it should be moved to the McGrath paragraph. It was filmed for the ROAE? documentary and the sentence also mentions the interview with Harries, which would itself be definitely out-of-place in the paragraph on McGrath. I made this point to the user who brought this issue up, but he/she has not yet replied with a suggestion as requested. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The way most of this section is presented suggests significant bias. For example, note the use of the pejorative/dismissive verb "claims" for McGrath's comment and for critics of Dawkins generally, whereas Dawkins' comments are characterized by humbly well-informed verbs like "notes", "suggests", or "avers". When Wikipedia uses wording like "Dawkins also criticised McGrath for providing no argument to support his own beliefs", it is essentially agreeing with the substance of Dawkins' criticism (in that case, that McGrath had no argument for his beliefs); whereas the bias is more subtle in other ways, such as in that Dawkins' critics are usually heavily paraphrased, whereas Dawkins' rebuttals and arguments are frequently quoted in part or full.
  • "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has also come" - Is Is Religious Dangerous? a criticism of The God Delusion, or just of certain ideas which happen to have appeared in The God Delusion?
  • "and have asserted that global conflict would continue without religion" - Has Dawkins said otherwise?
  • "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that the critics misunderstand his real point" - All of his defenders claim that all of his critics misunderstand his "real" point?
  • "David Nicholls (writer)," - Set "writer" off in commas if anything, not parentheses.
  • "Dawkins does not contend that religion is the source of all that is wrong in the world" - Again, do any of Dawkins' high-profile critics (much less all of his critics) actually accuse Dawkins of blaming religion for "all that is wrong in the world"? One can believe that Dawkins is overstating the dangers of religion, for example, without believing that Dawkins attributes "all that is wrong in the world" to religion. We shouldn't let words be put either in Dawkins' mouth or in the mouths of his critics without extreme care, lest that be the only word said on the subject to our readers.
  • "Rather, that it is an "unnecessary part of what is wrong"." - Not a sentence.
  • "Dawkins himself has said that his objection to religion is not solely that it causes wars and violence, but also that it gives people an excuse to hold beliefs that are not based upon evidence." - Why is this phrased as a rebuttal to a criticism? Who claimed that Dawkins doesn't object to religion's use of faith to justify evidence-lacking beliefs?
  • "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection--an unconscious, automatic, blind, yet essentially non-random process--has no purpose in mind and, if it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is that of the blind watchmaker." - Malformed emdashes. Strange way of providing Dawkins' response. The crux of Dawkins' argument isn't "natural selection is blind", it's "natural selection is a sufficient 'watchmaker'"; a wording like "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and nonrandom complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, "blind" watchmaker." is clearer.
  • "Dawkins suggested that the deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience." - Those things contain more beauty and wonder than they contain myths and pseudoscience, or those things contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience do? (Also, the use of "myths and pseudoscience" here, outside of specific context or quotations, is suggestive of polemic. Encyclopedias should avoid the pejorative use of "myth" to avoid confusion with the neutral use of "myth" in history and sociology.)

[edit] Section 5

  • His first book was very controversial, and I wonder if we have dug into that enough here?
    • Comment I don't think it was very controversial. Just because a set of ideas is considered to be an original way of looking at a subject doesn't automatically render it "very controversial". Does the person making this claim have sources to this effect? Right now, the book, its ideas, and the climate in which it was written are all covered in the article. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, there were a lot of rumors about how he obtained his chaired position. Were those explored fully?
    • Won't fix. Nonsense; any such rumours were presented on the message boards and non-notable websites of creationists and religious apologetics. No serious allegations were ever made. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "not attended to Dawkins, thinking it unnecessary to "break a butterfly upon a wheel" -- something's wrong. the first quote doesn't end, and quotes within quotes are in 'single quotes'.
  • "Dawkins coined the term meme..." para has no ref.
    • Fixed. Citations added. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "He was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference." So?
  • In his 1991 essay Viruses of the Mind -- essays in quotes not italics.
    • Fixed. Italics added. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • and religion is incompatible with science-- add a "that" before religion
  • "[89][90][14][91][92][93]" and "[94][95][96]"-- yuck, why do you need so many? For the first statement. place a ref after every comma, and for the second, that's hardly controversial--after all, it is him speaking about his own work--so why 3 refs? More later,
    • Fixed. Three of those citations have been removed. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Education and academic career. This section is really short, and quite superficial in its content. For example, list of lecture. Honestly, I don't think anybody would read a big list of names like this, and would just the skip the paragraph. All the useful information in that para can be condensed to "Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures" and add a note that names all the lectures. The section simply contains too little information overall. Here is a man with a forty year academic career, and all Wikipedia can offer is a few disjointed sentences.
    • Comment I disagree, as per my comments on the FAC page. Again, would like consensus. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think this point has some merit, the list of lectures is boring and I also skipped it when reading. I have an idea what to do about it, which may or may not work. I will try it; but it will take a little time, I will look into these speeches and see, if I can expand on a few of them and maybe we move the rest to the notes. --Merzul (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Below "Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.", the section becomes a bunch of short stubby paragraphs that go, "he was judge on this, an editor on that and was on this panel." This would be a good place to describe chronologically the work he's done as a researcher (although he's not famous for that).
    • Comment I have incorporated the text a bit more into a couple of larger paragraphs, and attempted to improve the flow of it. However, I fail to see how a chronological listing of his research papers would be in any way appropriate for this article. Does anyone else seriously agree with this? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, include what kind of work did he do in his various capacities and at Oxford. I reckon all his work (except his theories and beliefs in his books which are detailed later). Also, try to club ideas to form bigger paragraphs, they are much nicer than short stubby paragraphs.
    • Comment As per my above reply, I disagree with these sentiments. Take a look at the pages of other scientists, you will not find such listings of papers. Anything of note is already mentioned. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Publications This section is a mess, plain and simple; it is very ugly and difficult to read. A table for his books seems a little unnecessary, esp. the ISBN for the audio versions, release years of second and thrid editions etc; just list the books out.
  • External should only be in the external links sections and "See also: Papers and commentary by Richard Dawkins (no longer maintained) and Dawkins' Huffington Post articles." feels like something I would find on a Geocities fansite.
    • Fixed. Moved and edited. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please list the documentaries in a single column, it looks awful the way it is now.
    • Comment I disagree with a single column. What do others think? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Essays should be in "quotes", like I said previously.
    • Fixed. All essay titles on the article's page are in inverted commas. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Debates on evolutionary theory between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould." reads oddly.
  • "See also: List of books by and about Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins Bibliography at the Richard Dawkins University of Oxford website." should be in the External links section (which BTW could be cleaned up a little bit). If needed a separate List of works by Richard Dawkins article could be created.

[edit] Section 6

  • Need convincing how Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg satisfies Non-free image use criteria #8, namely how does a picture of the book's cover significantly aid understanding of the Richard Dawkins article? AFAIK, if you are using the cover of a book, the article must discuss the cover too. (Of course this is not true for the article on the book itself, where the book cover pic is needed for identification purposes).
    • Comment Unlike the RDFRS logo (which has been removed), I think that the cover of this book does significantly add to the surrounding text. It was the book in which two of his best-known innovations originated - those of memetics and the gene-centred view of evolution. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with AC. The image is necessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image is necessary Striking image, perhaps his most important book. Simultaneously contributed to the conceptualization of natural selection and also informed the general reader.
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png--ditto. How does its logo significantly increase understanding of the article?
  • The references need to be formatted. Newspaper articles titles should be in quotes. Publishers such as newspapers and books need to be italicised and linked the first instance of their occurrence (Note: don't link, capitalise and italicise the word "Magazine", keep it alongside the magazine name). For instance, "Discover magazine" should be "Discover magazine".
  • FRLS should perhaps be added to the first sentence and infobox
  • Should the "Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science" be in italics ? Check if MOS has a view
  • I think, The Blind Watchmaker is more relevant to anti-IDism and The God Delusion to atheism, and the associations in the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede can be switched; and the material reorganized in some other way to reduce the redundancy in the these paragraphs.
  • I agree with some of the above comments, that the "Darwin's rottweiler" is an an unimportant detail, and requires too much of an historical digression to be included in the lede.
    • Comment I disagree, and other users have done also. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with AC. "Darwin's rottweiler" is an important detail. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly reference to the "watchmaker's analogy" may to be unwarranted. It may be better to define the main ideas of the book, without necessarily justifying or explaining the title in the lede. IMO, someone who has not read the book, will not understand the significance of the watchmaker being blind.
    • Comment I disagree. Would like other opinions. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "He first came to prominence ..." - "first" is redundant.
    • Comment I disagree. Would like other opinions. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree with AC. I have removed "first". I think "first" is redundant. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 7

  • The sentences, "In 1982 ... organisms." and "In his 1986 book ... blind watchmaker.", while grammatically correct are very hard to parse on first reading - and perhaps should be reworded. Have you analysed the article for readability ?
  • Multiple references for the same statement can be combined into a single footnote for improved readability.
  • The sale information for God delusion seems to be and example of recentism; after all the numbers are not dramatically different from, say, the Selfish Gene, which (arguably) is a more notable work.
    • Comment: the numbers for TGD may be notable (a) because they're large (especially for popular science; though I note that A Brief History of Time has clocked 9 million), (b) because they've accrued over a short period of time. TSG was published more than 30 years ago, but (rightly or wrongly) has managed only two thirds of TGD. --Plumbago (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To me the in the infobox looks tacky, but that may be a personal preference.
    • Won't fix This is a non-issue. The image is acceptable. You will also find the image in other articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Has he had only 2 doctoral students ?
    • Won't fix This is a non-issue. According to Template:Infobox Scientist, the names of any notable doctoral students should be provided. Not all doctoral students. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "...the Dawkins name was described in Burke's Landed Gentry as "Dawkins of Over Norton". Would be a good idea to give some idea of the year/century. Also, isn't this just a reflection on Dawkin's father's family, rather than his parents' ?
    • Deleted by the looks of things. --Plumbago (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Education and academic career" is very list-y. The prose and flow can be improved by some minor rephrasings; example, "... graduating in 1962. From 1962 to 1966, he was a research student at the University of Oxford. He received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." can be rewritten as "... graduating in 1962. He was a research student at the University of Oxford for the next four years and received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966."
    • Fixed. This is much better now. Merzul (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also it is not clear from the text that Tinbergen was his thesis adviser (as claimed in the infobox), which is much more important than being a tutor during the undergraduate days or even the research adviser from 1965-67.
    • Fixed. Added "continued under Tinbergen's supervsion". Merzul (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "From 1967 to 1969, ... involved in such activities." Again the writing and flow can be improved and made less stilted. Example, "From 1967 to 1969, ... University of California, Berkeley. This was a period of great unrest in America due to the ongoing Vietnam war. Sentiments among the students and faculty at Berkeley were largely opposed to the war and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities". Try to make the prose more engaging as per criterion 1(a). The whole education section, currently appears to be a paraphrasing of his CV. Even if that is unavoidable, it can be a better paraphrasing.
    • Maybe fixed Vietnam protest portion. I've tried to make the text shorter and more readable on this point. Your mileage may vary, however. --Plumbago (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 9

  • The personal life section talks about Dawkin's marriages (when did he divorce Juliet Emma Dawkins, by the way ?), but inexplicably the last sentence of the section is, "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who.[23]" Huh ?
    • Fixed. Removed this - it was liable to cause further attempts to shoehorn in South Park material. (For reference, the removed text was "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who[1]". --Plumbago (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The gene-centred view also provides a basis for understanding altruism. ... future reciprocation." It is not clear how this is related directly to Dawkins the person since as of present the article does not say that Dawkins proposed/advocated/popularized or even supported this view.
    • Maybe fixed this. Not sure. I've tidied the text surrounding group selection and have ended this paragraph with a sentence that ties it back to Dawkins and cites one of his papers on the subject. --Plumbago (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Critics of Dawkins' ...in a population. In The Selfish Gene, ... appreciable frequency"." It is not clear how the second sentence answers, or is even related to , the first. The last two sentences of the paragraph seem to be related to this idea, but there are two intermediate sentences, which seem independent. Please check. Also note the repeated wikilinking of gene.
  • The last paragraph of the "Evolutionary biology" section has good content, but the sentences need rearranging to make the presentation cogent.
  • "He hypothesised that people could view many ..." Isn't "He posited ..." more accurate ? The explanation of the concept of meme could use a rewrite to be accessible to a general reader.
  • "... he has largely left the task of expanding upon it ..." Wow! That sounds presumptuous.
  • The lengthy last paragraph on the origins of the term meme seem undue to me for this article. The discussion rightly belongs to meme, and here a single sentence summary may be sufficient.
  • "Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, ..." Give a brief inline definition of the term "creationism"
    • Fixed. Think this should work. --Plumbago (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Add some descriptors for John Maynard Smith and A. E. Wilder-Smith, just as you describe Edgar Andrews as the president of the Biblical Creation Society.
  • "Although, on the advice of his ..." -> "However, on the advice of his ..."
  • Is the Moyer interview the most eloquent explanation of evidence of evolution in Dawkin's writings/interviews ? I am somewhat sceptical, although I don't have a specific alternative in mind.
  • "and he plans—though the Richard Dawkins Foundation" -> "and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation
    • Fixed. Done!
  • Should the second section "Work" be renamed "Work and views" or something else, since "Creationism" is certainly not a "work" of/by Dawkins! Alternatively would it be possible to break apart his scientific research and advocacy works, or have some alternate organizational structure for the article sections/sub-sections ?
  • I recall an article who while positive to Wikipedia chided it for trivia. We are still not free of it. Does "Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[6][7] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"" belong in lead? I think not.
  • Further, the lead needs to be rewritten to for more logical structure (merge the last two paras); the watchmaker discussion seems to detailed (does it really deserve three lines of lead? I think not)
  • Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg: how does this image assist us in understanding the topic (Dawkins himself), the book itself or the concept of meme? Why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Additionally, the license tag for book covers allows use only in "[an] article discussing the book in question". Prose referencing the book is used to discuss Dawkins and does not appear to reasonably constitute discussion of the book itself.
  • Comment The Selfish Gene is arguable the most popular book by Dawkins. He coined the term meme in that book. I think the image is important. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png: same questions as above: why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A)) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of Dawkins or the foundation? Importance to the author is not necessarily analogous to importance to our understanding. As logo is essentially only text, why could prose not adequately facilitate identification of the foundation (NFCC#1)? Why do we need additional assistance identifying an organization named after the subject of the article?
  • Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two (===) headers per WP:MOS#Images.
    • Fixed. Now, the images are according to WP:MOS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is that useful?

I'm wondering if the above stuff is useful in helping clarifying what objections to take seriously and what are opinions many people disagree with and should be ignored? --Merzul (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and delete it, if you don't think it is useful, it is taking up an awfully large chunk of the talk page, and currently it only duplicates the FAC page. --Merzul (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuing my internal dialogue out loud... If only the reviewers would strike out the comments that are addressed, then clearly more than half the above list would disappear. What would remain might be the more subjective stuff and I've seen people implementing one change after another without actually checking whether other editors agree with the requests of the reviewers. But I don't know, good night, Merzul (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for your effort. I really appreciate your effort. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is. Thank you, Merzul. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, thank you, for fixing the article. Merzul (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RDFRS Logo

This has been pointed out on the FAC discussion. I think it should be removed. Images can only be used under the fair use rationale when they significantly increase understanding or add to the text. Masterpiece2000 removed it, but his edit was reverted. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The image doesn't bring anything of importance to the section itself. The article on the foundation is the ideal place for it. — Kieff | Talk 08:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think that the image should be removed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lectures

I do think the list of lectures is a bit boring and one may just skip them. I would rather mention the most notable ones. Fixing this so that it fits in this section is harder than I thought. I'm still thinking about this, the basic idea would be to spell out the topic of his Tanner lectures, as this is probably one of the most prestigious lecture series in the world. Just posting some links

Not entirely sure about reliability of those links, but the first question is if we want a slight modification of that paragraph. Any opinions? Merzul (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exponential growth?

In Other fields the journalistic phrase exponential growth (of population) occurs twice. Do we really need it here? It may be technically/mathematically correct; but many readers will understand it as simply meaning "very fast"—a meaning which is out of place in an article about a scientist. I've removed it, but if others feel strongly about it they can of course revert! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exponential growth does mean very fast, so why would you leave it out? Bluetd (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it doesn't mean very fast. See Exponential growth. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be put back in, perhaps with a wikilink to the exponential growth page. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles that deal with scientific or mathematical terminology must be reasonably comprehensible to the general public while also providing information for those with graduate degrees. So, it is important to say exponential growth but get across to those who don't understand the term that the growth is fast. Wikilinking is necessary but not sufficient. Finell (Talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was precisely that in scientific or mathematical usage exponential growth doesn't necessarily mean fast. The discussion in Exponential_growth#Intuition spells this out: the money in my savings account may well be growing exponentially, but it hasn't made me rich! In popular & journalistic usage exponential is just fast that has gone to college: is that a justification for using it in this sloppy way in a WP article? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You are arguing a philosophical etymological point. The meaning is clear from the context. Also the only reason you're not rich is you either have a bad savings account or live in a country with inflation, or you assume too small a deposit in such an account [another purely philosophical context-driven meaning (based on changing assumptions)]. Jok2000 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins vs. Gould

I note that we seem to have articles on all books I know of by or about Richard Dawkins (e.g. Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, The Dawkins Delusion, but Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest by Kim Sterelny is left out. If we're looking at FAs we should also be casting an eye around for articles that we've neglected completely, and I'm fairly sure this is one of them; I doubt we would struggle to come up with some reviews of it to establish notability, and it would also allow an article to give greater details on the relationship between Dawkins and Gould. Richard001 (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Richard. I intend to work more on other Dawkins-related articles in the near future. A lot of my editing time has thus far been taken up with this one because of it being a Feature Article candidate and what-not. I'll try to get something together on Dawkins vs Gould for an article. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the relationship between Dawkins and Gould is important. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive cuts to the religion section, still very long

I went ahead and cut out almost all discussion of the content of these books and documentaries. Feel free to revert, but I think it might be better to put back only small sections that are really essential. The point is that even after I don't know how many hours of cutting stuff out, the section is still too long, in my opinion! Merzul (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add. If someone fears that I have gotten rid of too much criticism, then well yes, I cut out stuff like "Winston suggests that Dawkins brings science into disrepute", but instead there is now criticism that actually makes sense. The arguments by Kenny and Rees are at least good ones, and note that there are no rebuttals. Merzul (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I understand why this was reverted. In any case, the short version is here, and although it needs much copy-editing and other improvement, I think it is easier to progress from there than to clean up the current section gradually. We can clearly work with what is here now, but I personally prefer starting from a trimmed down version and add the most important stuff that was cut off, e.g., Alister McGrath and Keith Ward with some rebuttals, what do other people think? Merzul (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section is too long. I think the section should be organized better. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree, in any case, it is probably better to gradually cut stuff that is not needed. E.g., Winston's opinion that "Dawkins brings science into disrepute". This is an exaggeration to make his point and that formulation is a fringe opinion. Even the worst critics of The God Delusion praises his science writing. The objection that Dawkins attack on religion may harm science is much better expressed by other writers. I'm removing Winston at least. Merzul (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with the religion section

The main issue there is that so many sources are crammed in there. I'm really doubtful that we are doing justice to the sources. For example:

[Dawkins] disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) and with similar ideas proposed by English astrophysicist Martin Rees regarding the coexistence of science and religion without conflict, calling the former "a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp".[3]

The last quotation is from an interview with Dawkins, his full answer is (emphasis added):

I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.

I think cutting him off there is absurd in the highest degree. Reading the full quote, I get the impression that NOMA as a political ploy is not at all what Dawkins has a problem with, clearly he is not opposed to winning middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp, but the problem, he says, is that the concept is empty and simply wrong. Merzul (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins has a problem with it. He also think it is empty and simply wrong. I think the sentence should be expanded. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me from reading his interviews that Dawkins is well-aware of the benefits of NOMA as a political ploy. I'm sure he knows that many of the key players in the fight against intelligent design are religious scientists. He said himself in his classic TED talk that the pro-evolution lobby are nervous about him "rocking the boat". I think he would be happy to play along nicely, if only NOMA wasn't bogus and if only he didn't see his atheism as an immediate conclusion from the proper understanding of evolution. Merzul (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books listing

Is there a need to have "Dawkins, Richard" before each of the books in the list? Surely it's axiomatic that he's the author. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring that up; it reads kinda stupidly. You don't have to use cite templates actually; its often easier to just type out the info in the refs...In this case, definitely. indopug (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is a problem. It is better to use templates. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't think listing out Dawkins' name nine times when it clearly says "Works by Richard Dawkins: As sole author" is just a little redundant? indopug (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You could use the template {{citation}}, where leaving the name out still gives an acceptable output, e.g.,
I think repeating the name is redundant, but I seem to think that about many things :). Merzul (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good suggestion by Indopug! I have made necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I think this article has many problems. I think sections Richard Dawkins Foundation and Out Campaign should be merged with the section Other fields.Out Campaign cannot be considered as a major work of Dawkins. We have an article called Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. We don't need a section like Richard Dawkins Foundation.

I also feel that only the images of Dawkins should be included in the article. Other images should be removed. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree. Regarding images, if we want this to ever be featured, then at least the fair-use images must be removed. As much as I think the book cover makes the article nicer, the wider consensus on image use does not allow this. Merzul (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed it, I think we all agree that it did not comply with what Wikipedia outlines as acceptable usage. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding merging. At the very least, the Dawkins foundation and the out campaign could maybe be merged. Ultimately they both fit under the umbrella of "Atheism, humanism and rationalism"; although it would make that section even longer... Merzul (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Image:ScarletLetter.svg should be re-inserted because it is copyright-free; we do not need a fair-use rationale for it. See here. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is unnecessary. The image should be in the article Out Campaign. I have merged the section Out Campaign with the section Atheism and rationalism. However, I think the section Richard Dawkins Foundation should not be merged. RDF will be more important in future. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Christian

Dawkins says he is a cultural Christian. Look at the following:

However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian" and, in relation to Christmas traditions in the UK, says: "I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat [to] these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."[68] He suggests that "we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense", and proposes the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[69]

I think we are giving to much importance to this. I think we have to remove few lines. I would like to know what others think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, too much prominence is given throughout the article to various minutiae of Dawkins' attitude to religion, and to theists' opinions of him. A lot of this was introduced a year or so ago when the article was under sustained attack from someone who wanted to insert long lists of "well-referenced" comments that "Distinguished Professor X disagrees with RD" and "Lord Y says RD is horrible" and "Dawkins is really a Christian in spite of himself". Much was rejected, but some of this rubbish slipped through. Delete it. GNUSMAS : TALK 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess what we need is some higher quality comments from Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, then comments by Lord XYZ aren't so desperately needed. I have no opinion on the cultural Christian reference, but I'll see if I can grab hold of that book, I almost bought it a while ago. Merzul (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made necessary changes. Look at the following:
However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian",[68] and proposed the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[69]
Now, it looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health and honors

Has anyone else noticed that Dawkins often seems to have a cold at public appearences recently. If I remember rightly that was the case on Brigtstocke's Late Edition, the set of Doctor Who, a German "Digital age" conference and some American tv show. I'm probably reading something into nothing, but I've never noticed any other celebrity apologise for being ill on tv. Is he ill often I wonder? Luckily a cold isn't usually the manifestation of any major illness, but he is retiring this spring. perhaps laringitis or something?

On a more important note: does anyone know why Dawkins has not a single UK Royal honor. I just don't get it: is he not important enough or too controversial? On the first, admittedly his colleagues like John Maynard Smith and William Hamilton (also ethologists) don't have any awards, but surely Dawkins is more important than that just for his popularisation of science and place as Charles Simoney Professor at Oxford. I mean Robert Winston is a Lord, Jane Goodall is a Dame, David Attenborough is a Knight, Patrick Moore is a knight, James Lovelock is a CBE and Stephen Hawking is a CBE (will be made a KBE soon, I think). Dawkins isn't even an MBE! Is he just too controversial as an atheist activist to be honored? Or has he refused on honor from the "defender of the faith"? Anyone know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He is retiring in accordance with age requirements of his employer not because he is ill.D-rew (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A big gap in this article

Here:

In one of his first papers, "A threshold model of choice behaviour", he devised a model to explain the following question:

Among the problems raised by choice behaviour is that of the mechanism of decisionmaking. Given that a chick pecks more often at a red spot than at a green one, but nevertheless sometimes pecks at the green one, what mechanism determines each individual choice?[2]

While working on these questions, and inspired by Tinbergen, he gradually developed the ideas that culminated in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.[3]

Between the quote from the research paper and the 1976 book is a huge chasm. In fact, i would characterize it as a non-sequitor. Judging solely on what is in this article - the quote from the research paper and the reference to the 1976 book, I would say that in between the two Dawkins did not gradually develop a set of ideas but rather turned away from original research in ethology to popularizing the research of others, i.e. I see a break in his work, not continuity.

If there is continuity, it needs to be spelled out because it simply is not communicated in this passage.

I am not an expert on Dawkins and thus in no position to fill the gap. But if Dawkins has explained somewhere the connection between his dissertation research and the 1976 book, we need to provide that explanation here, with the citation. Otherwise, it seems to me that his later career manifests a break frm his early career.. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any gap in the article. We are not trying to link the connection between his dissertation research and the 1976 book. "A threshold model of choice behaviour" was not his dissertation research paper. It was published in 1969. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC has made the article much worse

So I've been absent for a while... and I realise you guys have been reacting to complaints from FAC nitpicking but, seriously, the article is in a worse state now than before the FAC process started.

1) The lead is now far too long, disorganised, a stylistic mess, full of needless references and re-introduced the FRS stuff at the beginning which we decided ages ago shouldn't be there.

2) The external links have been gutted. I was responsible (again ages ago) for the ELs as they were a couple of months ago and in that state they provided a great way into Dawkins' work. The current ELs are badly organized, randomly selected and far from comprehensive.

3) What happened to the list of his notable essays under "publications"?

4) Finally, the entire "biography" section is now a mess. Why in the world does it go "early life", "education and career" and then "personal life"? Why is there a 2 sentence block-quote? Why are there two paragraphs consisting of only two sentences?

I'd much rather have a good non-FAC article than a horrible FAC article. Clearly, Dawkins is far too controversial for reasonable FAC reviews: some of the views expressed in the reviews are downright silly. I move to change a bunch of the stuff back. Mikker (...) 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is fine. Far too long suggests to me that you need to read WP:LS again, if you ever read it in the first place. Richard001 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Your tone suggest to me that you need to read WP:AGF again, if you ever read it in the first place. Mikker (...) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mikker. Addressing your point 4 above, I've reorganised the biography section along the lines it was organised in February. It reads better to me, but please revert as anyone sees fit. I've also removed the blockquote, which was (a) boring, and (b) seemed to add very little that was pertinent to the discussion. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, I tend to agree with Richard001 about the length of the lead - previous versions were rather terse to my mind (though the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs overlap somewhat and could be conflated to a degree). On the FRS mention, other such scientists also mention this status in their leads - it's (obviously) quite an honour. Regarding the ELs, can you point to a date for a version that I can compare with? Trawling backwards, there seem to have been even fewer ELs back as far as January!  ;-) The notable essays section may just have become subsumed into the main text, although it isn't clear to me how their notability should be decided (obviously something like Viruses of the Mind is notable enough for its own article). Anyway, good to have you back. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Plumbago. I've raised the EL issue a couple of times on talk (here is the most recent) and suggested this as a good starting point. I don't pretend that all those ELs should stay, but it's at least better than what we have currently. (See [4] for an early discussion of the ELs on talk).
As for the lead, I'm not going to insist on the length issue, it's not the current lead's most pressing problem. Again, I much prefer the previous lead, though the changes to the last paragraph - with the exception of the extra refs - are certainly an improvement. The whole bit about the blind watchmaker, for example, should go imo. My other problems with the lead are mainly stylistic, so I'm not sure I want to insist on them. Maybe I'll make some changes myself and see whether they survive peer review. :-)
The mention of FRS just seems silly to me: it's in the infobox and in the body, I see no reason for it being right in the first sentence. I can't find the discussion we had about the issue about a year and a half ago in the archives... But, again, it's probably not that important.
As for notable essays: again, I'm happy to give way if all of you disagree with me, but I think it's a useful addition to the article. Determining notability is certainly an issue but, then, we had a list of (representative?) essays for ages and no one seemed to disagree with them. Mikker (...) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mikker, it is not correct to complain about the article. Let me address some of your points. You complain about the lead. I think the lead is fine. Notable essays under "publications" was critized by many editors. People have so many issues with this article. It will be very difficult to promote this article to FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, Intelligent design got FA status in the end, long after I'd given up thinking that was possible!  :-) Anyway, if I've time this week, I'll try to look over the remaining review comments above. --Plumbago (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope this article will also achieve FA status someday! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propagandist advertisement

Copied from my talk page: it's a response to this edit which removed a reference to self-published criticism of Dawkins for ignoring some meta analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of homeopathy:

Old Moonraker, I agree that Richard Dawkins is a contentious issue but this shouldn't make hime free of criticism. Please read the source. Yes, it comes from a personal site, but for convenience only as the other posted sites (the Network of Researchers in the Public Health of Complementary Medicine, the University of Queensland and the media release it came from) are restricted access and this has been copied to the website for public viewing only. The article is duly referenced in proper academic fashion. As for reliable source - I am a researcher at the School of Population Health at the University of Queensland in the field of complementary medicine and I am currently contracted by Elsevier to compile a book on the evidence base of CAM practice which will be published in mid 2009. I know the evidence of CAM (some works, some does not) but to apply scientific rigour one must await the results - not predetermine them according to bias or subjective opinion as Professor Dawkins has done. The fact that he promotes himself as the epitomy of scientific integrity and then fails to apply it (in an area where work is still very much in its infancy - hampered further by predetermined views such as Professor Dawkins that it isn't worth studying in the first place). If he stated merely that "there is no research" this would be okay, the fact he states "none of it works" despite quite substantial evidence for many treatments - certainly not all I'll admit - is not. As far as I knew the fact it is referenced by reliable sources meant that not a reliable source was not an issue in this manner as it was dependent on content rather than source. Wikipedia should become haven of protected species. For someone such as Richard Dawkins who has so many criticisms levied against him by a broad range of people (I have several colleagues who have refused to be in his 'documentaries' due to his lopsided opinion) yet so few of these listed in his 'encyclopaedic' is certainly not reflective. At least letting people know what criticisms exist - not just 'further reading' so that the page isn't merely a propagandist advertisement for the man.Grubbidok (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The material has been reinstated. The section accusing Dawkins of "intentionally ignore[ing] valid supportive evidence of complementary medicine" seems to be bordering on a violation of the WP:BLP policy—there is no justification for this allegation of intellectual dishonesty. It should be removed again, and without delay. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Grubbidok says there's a book due to appear next year (though it's unclear whether this book will have anything to say about Dawkins), and that the criticism of Dawkins he/she has added to the article in fact comes from a source that is reliable, "duly referenced in proper academic fashion". If so, I suggest that Grubbidok should either cite the information properly (i.e. not use a blog as a source) or wait until the book is published. In the meantime, it is no more than gossip, and does not belong here. And even if there is a proper source, there are still questions to answer: Is it a useful addition to the article? Does it help readers in their understanding of the subject? I would not dream of trying to assess that until a proper source is produced. But in general it's as well to bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia article about Dawkins, not a dumping ground for every scrap of unfavourable comment that can be unearthed. If that's the game, may I recommend taking it to Conservapedia, which has an article on Dawkins where as much dirt as possible is only too welcome? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Very good argument by Snalwibma. Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not making myself clear – you seem to have missed the point I was making. I apologise in advance for the length of this reply but I hope that I can make clearly the point is not a personal quest against Dawkins but a quest for open debate on scientific rigour. For the record the UQ response to Dawkins controversial screening on the showing of Enemies of Reason on the state-run ABC1 was the referenced piece – it was posted on the blog site for public access purposes only. Please read it before you make judgement. As for the book – it focuses on the absolute lack of evidence for CAM treatments, which is different from lack of evidence of effect (there is ample epidemiological evidence to support its use). This suggests that more specific research needs to be done in the area – as opposed to Richard Dawkins’ view that “it is not real medicine and therefore shouldn’t be tested as such”. This was not a book against Dawkins, but merely to state that this was an area in which I feel qualified to engage. The crux of the issue is that criticisms of Dawkins seem to be frowned upon on this site, and I believe this seriously affects the neutrality of the article. Whilst it is true it should not be a dumping ground for all and sundry, to let him off without being exposed to any at all is simply not suitable for a site of this calibre.

The idea of Richard Dawkins having a critics section is not new (see section 19). I would argue that evolution, complementary medicine and fascism rightly have criticisms predominantly listed so someone who levies against many of these should in all fairness also be subjected to the same treatment. We should not ignore the criticisms (especially considering their consistency across subject matters) merely because many of us unquestioningly agree with his views. The real question that I think his criticisms raise is whether his arguments suggest that dogma is allowed in science, but not in religion or what he calls pseudoscience. In fact – the fact that he quite frankly states his aim of converting readers “if the book works as intended religious readers will be atheists by the time they put the book down”. In fact his long time rival Gould has publicly repudiated the need to separate science from religion – they have existed for centuries. The renaissance was inspired by the miracles of Islamic Science before it hit Europe. Dogma is the real enemy of science, and is the same no matter whether it is from the religious or scientific camps.

In his own article “Is science a religion” written in the Humanist magazine in 1998 he stated that Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. However, he often criticises the lack of evidence, as opposed to lack of evidence of effect in many of his criticisms. This dogmatic approach is not scientific in nature – he states that although some epidemiological evidence of effect – probably placebo in his view – exists in homoeopathy but because we don’t understand fully how homoeopathy works it should not be used as it is “not real medicine” endangers proper scientific process. The real scientific approach would be to investigate the effect – placebo or otherwise – and then make conclusions – rather than pre-determining its ineffectiveness according to his dogmatic beliefs.

We need more scientific inquiry into this area, not less merely because Dawkins deems it unworthy. Until conclusive evidence exists we cannot make judgements one way or the other. He states that there is a difference between feeling strongly, even passionately about a topic because we have thought the evidence to make judgement as opposed to making judgements based on internal feelings. Indeed, his expertise is biology and his research is undeniably first rate in this area – however, extending into other areas in which his expertise does not is dangerous territory. I have limited my riposte, for example, to his treatment of CAM. Not because I find bad science less abhorrent in other areas but rather as this is my field of expertise I know the arguments he has used hold no water (the met-analyses he used against homoeopathy has been rebuffed by academics and it ignored many of the other meta-analyses in the area – you can’t cherry pick your studies in good science) Dawkins critics across disciplines consistently state that he lacks the expertise in the areas in which he directs his criticisms and does not examine the evidence objectively. To hide this similar theme in the text seems to deny the right for people to know that he has critics in more than just the field of creationism. I am to be honest a little offended that you immediately dismiss these opinions to Conservapedia (I agree many of his views but merely disagree with his methods) as it seems to suggest that critics are only okay as long as they are “on your side” against the popular causes. If the man chooses to present himself as the epitome of rigorous scientific integrity that is his right but he (and his fans) should be open to the fact that those that legitimately disagree should also be able to argue their opinion. Otherwise that page risks being held prisoner to the cult of personality more appropriately seen on a fansite, not a Wikipedia article whose neutrality should not be questioned.

Should you deem this as necessary as many clearly seem to do (and the zealots see fit not to immediately remove criticisms) a raft of legitimate criticisms can be supplied – from president of the Royal Society Martin Rees; Bryan Appleyard in the New Scientist; a number of editorial pieces in Times, Guardian etc as well as a number of book sources and ‘reputable’ websites. I have no real issue who, what or how the other side of the debate is represented or at least acknowledged, so long as it is.Grubbidok (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TL;DR. I don't think anyone here has a problem with including criticism of Dawkins in the article. In fact, there is a lot there already. If you have some more that merits inclusion, go ahead. Just ensure that such additions are:
  1. Built in to the fabric of the article in an appropriate location and style (not just tacked on or dumped, which has happened all too often)
  2. Useful new material (not simply a "me too" comment from yet another person, however distinguished, who feels he has to jump on the anti-Dawkins bandwagon)
  3. Of lasting usefulness and relevance (not added simply because it's "hot news" or relates to something that appeared on TV last night)
  4. Properly referenced to a reliable source (not based on a blog, personal opinion or original research)
  5. Fair, honest and accurate (not in breach of Wikpedia policies on biographies of living persons)
SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Grubbidok, you are pushing your POV. Please don't do that. Masterpiece2000 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Could somebody please change Richard Dawkins' picture on the right of the main page? I respect him and he just looks a little crazy in the picture that's all :P Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)