Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

removal of trivia

I dispute that if mentioning what Dawkins said one time about the possibility of life being seeded from out of space is trivia then so is the coincidence of publication of his book with Darwin's birth-day.

• Dawkins finds it possible - in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code - that life on earth was seeded by an alien life-form, implying the reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup.

• ...and coincided with Darwin's bicentennial year.

--24.94.18.234 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1, quote mining. the film Expelled is hardly a RS about Dawkins, that is almost laughable. 2, it is mentioned in the preface of the book that it was published in that year partially for that reason I think. Your incessant campaigning against Dawkins is getting tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am using a secondary source other than the movie Expelled for "what Dawkins said". Stop Red herring.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dbrodbeck's analysis on all (3) accounts. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding my agreement with Dbrodbeck. Classic quote mining. --Daniel 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. This misrepresents Dawkins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Expelled quote was a misleadingly edited, intellectually dishonest, and propagandistic quote mine scarcely deserving of our attention. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward. If you're using the word implying in the text you're trying to add, that's obviously original research. It's also not at all what Dawkins thinks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not using the word "implying". A secondary source whose reliability has been verified is using it and is therefore not at all an original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Robin: What is dishonest is Dbrodbeck's deception that made Wiki users think it was the editor and not the secondary source who wrote pointed out that implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time. Remember everyone, the two IPs are the same editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop deciving people and bring a legitimate reason not to include my edit. I showed you an academic secondary source who used the same wording that I was trying to post and yet you pretend to everyone I am doing an original research from the movie Expelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody here seems to be deceived, I never once mentioned OR. Anything from the movie Expelled is useless when it comes to RD or evolution. I gave legitimate reasons which everyone else here agreed with. Oh and sign your posts and perhaps register an account so we don't have to guess that you are IP jumping all of them time. Oh and calling my editing dishonest is a personal attack, redact it now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, without telling anyone here, our IP friend has taken this to RSN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Religion_and_the_New_Atheism:_A_Critical_Appraisal Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and to the Village Pump as well..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Richard_Dawkins_and_the_issue_of_ownership_of_the_article Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What he (or she) forgot to mention (or did not notice) is that the "secondary" source is a collection of essays, and that the particular essay in question was witten by Steve Fuller, a willing participant in Expelled and an ID proponent, and hence is not a reliable, third-party, published source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will withdraw my statement that the IP was conducting original research with the statement, but the source is clearly biased against Dawkins, there's no way we would use a statement by an ideological opponent to try to explain Dawkins views. The use of "implicit" in the source is the same problem I thought the IP was making, and it's based on a distorted and edited piece of film in the first place. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff recently added from 'leading political journal'

I have twice reverted an addition from the website newcivilisation.com. I have asked the editor to bring it here which (s)he has not, so I thought I would start a section. This seems to me to be a case of WP:UNDUE. Thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I skimmed the article and I don't think the writer or the website are really up to par for citing on the topic, especially not with such a huge quote. There is a huge amount of proper discussion of Dawkins' atheism in that section already. What amounts to a random blogger's opinion shouldn't be included. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Second that. There's not much to be found about this blogger. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins short film

Many editors have reverted this addition. Please discuss it here. It seems both non notable and promotional to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That addition is clearly an advertisement, and there's no indication that the video is in any way notable. It doesn't belong in the article. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unsourced spam, and probably a WP:BLP violation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It clearly was a puberal joke. - DVdm (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I put this section here so when I would report the IP for edit warring I could point to where we had discussed it. IP blocked now BTW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Looking for opinions on the idea of mentioning somewhere that Dawkins is probably one of the greatest victims of quote mining in recent history. The quote above, in particular, gets used and abused frequently, and Dawkins himself makes note of it in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (here's a link to the page). He even coins the phrase Quote Mining Index to describe the ratio between quoting that sentence and quoting the part immediately before it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Elevatorgate controversy?

I'm surprised that there is no reference to the "elevatorgate" controversy in the Dawkins article. There was a recent article in Slate about the controversy written by Rebecca Watson: It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too

And there is a reference to it on the Wiki page for Rebecca Watson along with a link to this Dawkins article.

Does anybody want to address this omission? Or has it been addressed and I missed the discussion?

Julia (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_15#Elevator_controversy

Meme section edits

The new information about Semon seems valid to me, but perhaps it would be a better fit in the meme article instead of here? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah if it belongs anywhere I think the mene article is the best place. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is this edit to insert new text after the first sentence of the first paragraph in Richard Dawkins#Meme:

Dawkins's concept of a unit of cultural replication, though self-attributed, is similar to Richard Semon's idea of a mneme ("an organism's capacity to conserve the effects of stimulation and to interact with the environment on the basis of conserved experience"), more than half a century earlier. [ref: p.121 of "Forgotten Ideas, Neglected Pioneers: Richard Semon and the Story of Memory" by Daniel Schacter]

That text has nothing to do with this article (a biography). Moreover, the text duplicates what the third paragraph already says (that para deals with the issue in a manner that is connected with this bio). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, well I guess that settles that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

No critics of Dawkins? 99.102.96.28 (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... So what is the edit that is requested? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." - please specify the exact change you wish to see made to the article, or just join the discussion in another talk page section if you are here to discuss critics in general. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Dawkins is one of the most controversial public figures in the public arena at the moment. There are books and books criticizing him. It makes zero sense that there is no criticism section allowed. It's ridiculous, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlygus1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read through the archives. We have been through this a zillion times. The articles is not called Richard Dawkins, and the people who don't like him. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realize Wikipedia protects the loudest, most controversial public figures as long as they are atheists. I guess we'll save the criticism section for real controversial people like Terry Eagleton or Milton Friedman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlygus1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the archives or did you just decide to post a sarcastic reply? It really is well discussed in the archives. You might want to read WP:SARCASM.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Grizzlygus1 - I believe criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism sections. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well put. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Grizzlygus1 - After reading the archives of this page, I find the reason for not having criticism in this article solely to be the fact that some people are assuming ownership of this article. Otherwise, this article is no different than any other BLP article and should not be treated like a resume or autobiography. --99.119.198.175 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it should be treated like a WP:BLP - and what does it (and other WP:LOP say about this matter? Shot info (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what it says in WP:AUTO: "Wikipedia does not wish to have an inaccurate article about you. We want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral. Our goal is to accurately reproduce the opinions of others, which should be sourced and cited."

Right now in the article, it seems like the opinion of a large number of notable authors about Dawkins who tend to think different from him is suppressed. and this is a problem to be solved...--99.119.198.175 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bundling all critical responses into a big "Criticism" section is generally discouraged. It's usually better to mention the criticism here and there in context across the whole article - if you're just reading about Dawkins' work on evolutionary biology, you shouldn't have to remember to also check for a general "Criticism" section much further down the article, after reading a glowing section about how influential his work was.

If you perform a simple text search for the word "critic" in the article, you will find plenty of critical responses to Dawkins' work from other writers, scientists and thinkers. The fact that they haven't been grouped into a single "Criticism" section doesn't mean that these responses have been "suppressed". User:Grizzlygus1 added a criticism section from whole cloth mentioning Ruse, Eagleton and McGrath, but all three and more are already namechecked in the "Advocacy of atheism" section - Eagleton's "Book of British Birds" quote, which Grizzlygus1 included in the proposed "Criticism" section, is actually already included in full in "Advocacy of atheism"! --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC

The following is an example of suppressing critic opinions:

• Astrophysicist Martin Rees, who has described himself as an unbeliever who identifies with Christianity from a cultural perspective, has suggested that Dawkins's attack on mainstream religion is unhelpful.[115] Regarding Rees's claim in his book Our Cosmic Habitat that "such questions lie beyond science; however, they are the province of philosophers and theologians", Dawkins asks "what expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"[116][117]

Why would we even talk about Rees's other claim in "Cosmic Habitat" when Rees is not targetting Dawkins at all in that book? To me it looks as if it was intended to suppress the first claim by dragging the (unhooked) 2nd claim for which we had a counter criticism from Dawkins.

Also, having a criticism section is not necessary. If in the literature there is a notable amount of criticism toward a specific statement/opinion by Dawkins, it is worth being mentioned; preferibly in the section of the article that covers Dawkins's original statement/opinion. I will hopefully add a sentence or two in the days to come. After making an account that is (username is perhaps going to be something like user_99_119)99.119.198.175 (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

For starters, IP why did you even bother with cherry picking something out WP:AUTO and disregard the more obvious advice in WP:CRIT as pointed out above? I do notice that you use the expression "notable" - this is good - you are on the path to working out why the critism that most people would like to see in BLPs is advoided. It needs to be notable in the sense that it satisfies how Wikipedia wants Biographies of Living People written. Shot info (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I make a small suggestion here? IMO yes, I would definitely find it useful as a reader to have critical reactions in context rather than in a separate section. However, I do think it's legitimate to group critical reaction to a particular topic under a criticism-related subheading for ease of reading, such as under the "Advocacy of atheism" section. That said, I think the title of the subsection as "Controversy and criticism" is problematic as it invites its own controversy - as per WP:criticism I would suggest an alternative section title such as "Reception", "Reviews," "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques," or "Assessments" in order to avoid any negative connotations. NPOV, accuracy and breadth all good, but I think we should be careful not to get into sticky arguments over WP policies and sacrifice readability. Cnbrb (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect of Criticism of Richard Dawkins

It goes to the page Richard Dawkins, couldn't that be an independent page? It seems to be enough independent literature about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent? I doubt it. Most of it is driven by the same thing - Conservative Christian dogma. But I'll repost something from above, for your thoughts. It refers to a criticism section, but could equally refer to an article (which would be even worse).

"I believe criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism sections. OK?" HiLo48 (talk)

I understand that focusing on criticism about Dawkins is opening a can of worms. But do you realize that not only Conservative Christians have something to say against him? Furthermore, if this is to be treated like other contentious issues, then there should be an article about it, since creationists (which is a criticism of evolution theory), AIDS denialists, 9-11 conspiracy theorists,~and moon landing denialists, already have an article on their own. If something is notable on its own, and has accumulated a reasonable amount of literature, I think it already deserves an article. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you would want to be very careful. The articles on "AIDS denialists, 9-11 conspiracy theorists,~and moon landing denialists" tend make them look like ill-informed, paranoid fools". You wouldn't that for Dawkins' critics, would you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Richard Dawkins is by no means limited to Conservative Christian dogma. By the way, how many edits does it take to be able to edit RD's article?User 99 119 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You can find the cited material from James Smith's book that is on Terry Eagleton's comment on Dawkins here. The link I had provided in my earlier edit was meant to show the academic background of the author and the positive reviews the book had received.--User 99 119 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SILENT: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident" . I provided the source and have not heard any comments. --User 99 119 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A "criticism of ..." article would be a very bad idea. See WP:POVFORK for some (but by no means all) of the reasons why. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add any material. As for WP:SILENT that would be after 4 days right? Seems a little short to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am talking about inclusion of this edit. Let me know what you find wrong about it.--User 99 119 (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the Eagleton bit in general adds to this BLP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) and please do not forget to include the corresponding policy/guideline.--User 99 119 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. — raekyt 02:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting."--User 99 119 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a more general question. Is there a broader consensus against "criticism of..." articles and sections as a whole? Because there are tons of criticism articles and sections out there. I would think there would be a guideline saying, either we have such articles or not, but if we allow them, we go by WP:GNG to determine if a criticism article should be written. If we don't have them as a rule, there are a lot of articles that need redirecting. I took the liberty of searching for such articles including "criticism of". The results are illuminating. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, which shows a lot of 'criticism of' articles which are actually redirects, and a list which has only 4 actual articles on people, 2 of whom are dead. As for the Eagleton stuff, we'd have to see what Eagleton says and consider if it should be added. The removal was correct so far as I'm concerned because if we use Eagleton as a critic we should use Eagleton as a source. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Long ago, I could not find sufficient secondary sources of the criticism of Dawkin's criticism to warrent a spinout article, but there was more than enough sourcing to justify a section. Accordingly, the category Category:Criticism_of_Richard_Dawkins was listified to the article. I have just replaced that section. It needs prosification by someone who can take an NPOV view of the criticism of Dawkin's criticism. I know it is a challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• It would also need some decent sources and a consensus here to include. Pending that I have removed it. --John (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  OK. I'm not sure about the version I reintroduced. The original introduction of the criticism of Dawkins section was a listing of the blue linkes: Darwin's Angel; Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life; Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; The Dawkins Delusion?. Is it disagreed that these works should be linked from this article? Some are. If all notable works, aka current articles, criticisng Dawkins are linked, should they be collected to provide an incoming link target for the redirect being discussed here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section (shown in this permalink) is not appropriate: the article of a scientist who has sold literally millions of books should not be used as a place to air the thoughts of opponents who have had no influence on the work or life of the subject (this is a biography, not a "let's hear from all sides" investigation of whether Dawkins is correct). The removed criticism is a series of bullet points mentioning a journalist/author, a theologian, a moral philosopher, a biologist who "challenges the foundations of current biological sciences", and a literary theorist. Their views should be explained in their articles. The current Dawkins artice makes it abundantly clear that not everyone agrees with the conclusions expounded by Dawkins—there is no need for anything more. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why this article should not have a link to Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be for someone to propose some specific text to add (and where), and invite comments on that proposal. There may well be some important criticism or link that needs to be added, but I haven't seen it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a proposal John. It is from a secondary source written by an academic fellow. [1]--User 99 119 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

and addressing Dougweller's comment, if you are not happy with secondary source, we could also use Eaglton's own writings to source the material, like the following:

"He further states that Robert Pape's findings on the subject of suicide bombing casts doubt on Dawkins's assumption -that religious ideology leads to radical Islam- ."--User 99 119 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am lost in this discussion. Has it moved on from a discussion about a proposed separate article on "Criticism of Richard Dawkins" to discussion about possibly inserting a single sentence into this article? What exactly is being proposed? Could someone clarify it, and if necessary insert an appropriate subheading? Thanks! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this debate. Back to the main topic. I think it's reasonable to say that criticism of Dawikins does not just come from Conservative Chritians. Off the top of my head I can think of several other branches: Criticism of the "gene centred" model of evolution (or of the "selfish" gene concept); criticism of the concept of "memes"; criticism of his role as a media scientist; criticism of his promotion of the "brights" movement. I'm sure there are others. The problem is that all of these are best dealt with on pages about those concepts. Criticism of his personal anti-religious crusade is not essentially criticism of his ideas, but of his activism and its alleged effects. That should go here. An article that just lists "10 things people don't like about Ricard Dawkins" is in itself pointless. It'sa not the best place to discuss the actual pros and cons of specific ideas, and it will degenerate into listing. Furthermore, what's to stop it including criticism of his goofy smile and nasal voice? After all if enough people comment on it, it is "notable". Paul B (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is critical stuff in the article. We should all remember this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't say. I'm sure we do all remember that. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism of his personal anti-religious crusade is not essentially criticism of his ideas, but of his activism and its alleged effects. That should go here[this article]". I find this statement by Paul a starting point.User 99 119 (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, for the second time in this thread (and about 400th if you go back and read the archives) there is already criticism in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two alternate approaches to try to break off a criticism article or create a criticism section. One would be to just add more well-sourced and germane information to a section until it gets large enough to necessitate a split to conform with summary style writing. The other would be to write something like (and please excuse the hideous example title) philosophical, political, and scientific views of Richard Dawkins and include more back and forth about his views and responses/criticisms of said views. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Another approach is to omit criticism altogether. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Requirements for a ciriticism to be considered notable

Folks on all sides: what do you find as notable criticism? Preferibly, use Wiki policies/guidelines to support your view

• WP:NOTE: I find a criticism to be notable if it is covered by at least one secondary source and has significant coverage from reliable sources.User 99 119 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that notable criticism is already in the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Does that mean you are suggesting any further due criticism -which one can find plenty of out there- should be in a separate article such as criticism of Richard Dawkins?--User 99 119 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm suggesting there is already an appropriate way to add critiques to the article without necessarily needing a new section or article. See my comments above about methods. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why should there be any criticism? Listing someone's views here is not an endorsement. Significant people who disagree with Dawkins (or anybody) can have their views listed in their articles. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to offer ideas. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Criticism is notable if it is notable enough to be included in the body of the article as it is presently structured, and if its inclusion contributes to an understanding of the subject of the article. Criticism that needs to be shunted off into a separate section or a separate article is not notable enough. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• For reasons I have already repeated several times, I don't understand why any criticism belongs in the body of the article at all. It's not Wikipedia's job to be a vehicle for someone's opponents. Let their comments appear in their articles, and let our readers make up their minds. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Snalwibma: I do not know how you got the idea this was meant to be a separate section.
• @HiLo48: Criticism should be in the article to keep the article neutral. WP:AUTO and WP:CRIT have very clear instructions on this.--User 99 119 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed contents

In order to avoid edit wars, let us propose the text first:

• Terry Eagleton praises Dawkins's willingness to fight religious fundamentalism, but he finds Dawkins guilty of portraying all forms of religious belief as undifferentiated mass. He further states that Robert Pape's findings on the subject of suicide bombing casts doubt on Dawkins's assumption -that religious ideology leads to radical Islam.User 99 119 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this belongs in an article about Eagleton. Not here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Text like "X praises Y ... but finds Y guilty ..." will never be suitable for Wikipedia (ask at WP:HELPDESK for tips on that as this is not the correct page for such matters). Regarding the idea (if completely rewritten) Eagleton is already mentioned in the article, and it would be absurd to puff up the opinions of a literature and cultural theory professor by unduly promoting them here. Those views might be useful if independent and highly reliable sources have commented in depth on the influence of Eagleton in the relevant field, or the brilliance of his commentary in relation to Dawkins. The way to understand Wikipedia's procedures is to gain some experience on a range of articles. For example, people try to insert the views of commentators into articles on politicians all the time, so the "criticism" concept is a well trodden path. At least in politics there is some hope of glimpsing an objective truth (a particular method of stimulating an economy presumably either is or is not good), but opinions on religion or the outcomes of religious ideology will never be more than opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you realize we are talking about criticism of Dawkins's opinions and not his ideas. If his opinion is worth being mentioned in the article then so is his criticism: "Criticism of his personal anti-religious crusade is not essentially criticism of his ideas, but of his activism and its alleged effects. That should go here[this article]". User 99 119 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins failing to account for the EXISTENCE of DNA. What section do i put it in?

What section should i link the video on youtube of atheist cult leader #1 (Dawkins) failing to account for genetic information?

Jinx69 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

None of them. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 01:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, none of them. KillerChihuahua 01:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The section titled Richard Dawkins#Jinx69 doesn't like Dawkins. Oh dear, it doesn't exist. I guess you're stuffed then. Please take your nonsense elsewhere. Maybe Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy of atheism

The section "Advocacy of atheism" currently holds the bulk of material on critical reaction. But it doesn't do it well.

The section seems to be structured chronologically. This may be a good way to summarise Dawkins works, especially if noting their development with time. But it doesn't do so well to intersperse support and criticism, as that feels like a running commentary. the section also feels mildly POV in presenting "advocacy of atheism" from Dawkins perspective.

In reviewing the section, I see three distinct parts, as separated here. The first part is well presented. The second, part 2 ("Dawkins's work has been controversial") follows with fair logic, taking a new direction with coverage of criticism. The third part (which I call "Public campaigns"), falls back into the pro-Dawkins feel of the first part, but not very well presented, more like later additions still waiting to be properly integrated.

What feels to be missing is a "Reception" section that should contain both the awards (found in section "Awards and recognition") and criticism (part 2 above).

Structural edit proposal 1

I'm thinking that Part 2 "Controversy and criticism" should be cut from "Advocacy of atheism" and merged with "Awards and recognition", under a new section name; and allow Part 1 & Part 3 to sit together. I'd appreaciate comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Structural edit proposal 2
Alternatively, Parts 2 "Controversy and criticism" and 3 "Public campaigns" could be swapped in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In these two edits, you inserted "Controversy and criticism" and "Public campaigns" as subheadings in Richard Dawkins#Advocacy of atheism. Those edits should be reverted as the section is about the fact that Dawkins has advocated atheism, and all the "controversy" and "criticism" and "public campaigns" are associated with that advocacy. If someone notable (like Gould) has made a significant criticism in another topic, that criticism would be incorporated into the text mentioning the topic—it won't be merged into one "controversy and criticism" section. The new subheadings are entirely artificial, and have no encyclopedic purpose other than allowing people to skip all the boring details and go straight to the "controversy and criticism" section. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you missing the point or ignoring it on purpose? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am with Johnuniq on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the material being criticized by Gould and the ones criticized by folks like Martin Rees. Gould disagrees with Dawkins' idea whereas Rees disapproves Dawkins' anti-religous opinions. I see no problem to mention it the way SmokeyJoe proposes.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I favour retaining the criticism subsection under "Advocacy of atheism" as it is documenting critical assessment in context. As a reader, I find it makes the content easier to digest. However, I would like to suggest (as I did earlier) an alternative title for this subsection such as "Reception", "Reviews," "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques," or "Assessments" in order to avoid any negative connotations (as recommended in WP:criticism). It is completely legitimate to group this critical reaction under a criticism-related subheading as it adds to readability - problems really occur when a single, large "Criticism" section develops. I should add that it is entirely the choice of the reader which part they want to "skip" to and not the role of the WP editor to take away that choice by removing headings they personally are uncomfortable with. Cnbrb (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is why I oppose virtually any criticism in articles like this. Of course Dawkins has people who disagree with him. Probably millions of them. As soon as you include any criticism it's an opening the floodgates thing. There's never a clear line showing where to stop, nor how to structure it. I believe that Dawkins' views should appear in Dawkins' article, and those of his opponents in theirs. There's really no point in carrying on the debate here in Wikipedia. It does not make for a better article about the real subject. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo. Best to keep others' opinions on their own pages. If they are not notable for a page of their own then we do not need their opinion. No need to create coatracks.--Charles (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's especially stupid including the fact that someone like Alister McGrath disagrees with him. McGrath is described in our own article on him as a theologian and Christian apologist. It would be notable if McGrath agreed with him. That he disagrees with Dawkins is no surprise to anybody, and it's ridiculous to include that fact in Dawkins' article. It's simply not notable. In fact, I'd perhaps even call it non-POV by giving McGrath unjustified publicity. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not summarising others' criticism. The question is whether to note that such criticism or commentary exists, and link to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question, and to me the answer is bloody obvious. Can you give me any reason at all why the article on Dawkins should tell the world that a theologian and Christian apologist disagrees with him? It's simply not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The two standard criteria are (1) independent reputable sources discuss the disagreement; or (2) the other Wikipedia page has at least a section devoted to the disagreement. (1) The disagreement is notable or (2) for internal linking to help the reader explore. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care what the "two standard criteria are". (Standard for whom, anyway?) It still looks stupid having a paragraph telling us that a theologian and Christian apologist disagrees with an atheist, unless someone is desperate to give that theologian and Christian apologist a soapbox to stand on. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think I was disagreeing with you. I'm talking about the logical structure of the section. You are asking questions about criteria on whether something is worth a mention at all. Your questions are reasonable, and I suggest an objective approach. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I go along with the view that there should be no critical commentary allowed, although I do take the point about it becoming difficult to manage. It would be more constructive to work out what/who should be included by consensus rather than impose a ban. I honestly don't wish to assail anyone's motivation here, but an article where dissent is missing or is routinely removed really does raise questions in the mind of the reader. If a whole series of articles criticising religion can (quite rightly) exist on Wikipedia, but criticism of the critics (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) is erased as a matter of policy, this is going to look highly suspect and make Wikipedia look like nothing more than a counter-offensive against the lunacy of Conservapedia. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as someone once said. I don't propose getting involved in this article, I have just taken a passing interest, but I just would like to caution against imposing a content ban which will ultimately damage the standing of the article and the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source. Personally, when I read about a writer who leads public debate, I expect to read that someone has disagreed with them, otherwise it starts to come across as a puff piece. Just saying - keep the critics in, structure it how you see fit, by all means keep a lid on it or work out some ground rules to discriminate stuff worth including, but please, please, don't go down the deletionist route, it diminishes the whole effort. Keep smiling, folks. Cnbrb (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your POV is showing. At no point did I say dissent should be removed only from articles criticising religion. It should be avoided in all articles if possible. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My comments were not specifically aimed you HiLo. I mention these articles to illustrate a point, that there is a considerable imbalance in Wikipedia content as a whole. Perhaps for the sake of consistency, the articles criticising religion should be removed! But I wouldn't advocate that at all. The same goes for criticism of politicians, artists, musicians, but this specific discussion is about religion and its critics. The only POV I am showing is that I believe Wikipedia should be taken care of. Cnbrb (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the points raised by Cnbrb legitimate, given the fact that the responses/criticisms to Dawkins' opinions (pay attention, they are opininos not ideas) are coming from a diverse crowd including many notable secular (and sometimes atheist) folks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we should have responses to the criticisms, and then responses to the responses and responses to the responses to the responses. Or, we could not put things such as this in the articles, and we could put them in the articles of the people who made the criticisms. Plus, the idea that a theologian doesn't agree with an atheist, that is hardly news. This is ridiculous, we go through this every few months. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern too is with statements such as that from Cnbrb which says "this specific discussion is about religion and its critics". In fact, this article (which is what we're supposed to be discussing here) is called Richard Dawkins. Content should be about him and his works, not "religion and its critics", nor about his opponents and their opinions, especially where such opinions are totally predicable and obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I may have expressed myself badly here. I just mentioned religion and its critics because someone misunderstood my earlier statements to mean that person thought "dissent should be removed only from articles criticising religion" - I was trying to say, perhaps not very clearly, that I my views do not apply only to religion-related topics, but in this case the article is about a critic of religion, and so it is relevant to mention religion. But yes HiLo48, you are quite right, this article is about Richard Dawkins, his contributions to public debate and some of the reactions to that contribution (which I think seems entirely reasonable). That's all. Cnbrb (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: This problem could be solved if there was an independent article named criticism of Richard Dawkins. That being said, basis of the disagreement of people like Higgs is not religious beliefs even though it is coming from a theologian; I can think of secular folks who comment on new atheism and Dawkins in specific using the same argument.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So you would be happy to see removal of the entirely predicable disagreement from Alister McGrath? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If it were to be replaced by similar disagreements mentioned by Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, Terry Eagleton, David Berlinski and other secular people, yes. But I fear that criticism is not tolerated in this article at times even if it is coming from a non-religous person and is published by an academic publication and is notable enough to be pointed out by a secondary source.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The boundaries would be so much clearer if none was allowed. And the article would be just as good, if not better. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My sincere recommendation then is reading Wikipedia policy titled biographies of living persons:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources"Kazemita1 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable Kazemita1. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the ultimate in conservatism. When someone is advocating a different approach to current policy, you go to a whole lot of trouble to tell us what current policy is, with the implication that we should all just follow the rules, forever, no matter what. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How shall we prove these criticisms are notable? Oh and, again, you know there is criticism in the article. As well, to satify NPOV we should have replies to any criticism that somehow (ill advisedly IMO) ends up in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We have notability measures defined in Wikipedia. and yes if there is a response to a criticism it should be mentioned. But I guess your concern as you said before is the fact that this will make the article very large if we were to add all those material. I can only think of one way to resolve this issue (the issue being to keep this biography article size limited and at the same time not to stop editors from adding notable criticism from reliable sources). If you guys agree we could take it to the admins or anyone who is in charge of such things. Let me know what you think.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita1, it's unreasonable to suggest reducing the biography section while allowing criticisms of Dawkins to grow uncontrollably. This article IS a BIOGRAPHY of Richard Dawkins. Comment. Frankly, the section about hisDawkin's advocacy of atheism is getting too long and needs to be trimmed back. I think the conversation should shift to how best to trim the existing material. I have two suggestions: 1) remove the quotes and 2) group the critics together (e.g., secular critics, religious critics, etc) rather than mentioning specific names. danielkueh (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We are all 'in charge of things' here. We operate by consensus. There is no consensus to add anything right now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, I did not say anything about reducing the biography section, and as a matter of fact I do not agree with reducing/trimming any part; be it praise or criticism. Dbroadbeck, indeed we are in charge of this article, all of us together. What I was suggesting in my last edit was to ask your opinion on having some aythority release criticism of Richard Dawkins so that people who work on this article, i.e. Richard Dawkins do not go thru the same discussion every few months. As I undersant you once said this is rediculous.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, it's ridiculous that so many people want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to argue against those we write articles about. Please do it somewhere else. (And here is the relevant policy, for those in love with such things.)HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita1, you're right, I misunderstood your previous response. I have struck out part of my comments. Anyway, I am proposing that we trim this entire section as a whole and not just the criticisms. This section is getting too long. danielkueh (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another relevant policy is WP:COAT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I take it your response to my suggestion is No. However, I do not understand the relation to [[WP::COAT]] as this essay not only does not ban criticism articles, but also provides guidelines to it:

"In the case of an article which focuses on criticism of an individual such as Criticism of Muhammad, unacceptable material would include sources which extend too much beyond the individual. For instance, sources focusing mainly on Islam are different than sources focusing on Muhammad and his Islamic experience per se."Kazemita1 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Daniel, I find your suggestion to have different subsections for secular and religious reactions very helpful.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestion. that would make it easier to delete all the religious objections, because including them is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

Obviously, The God Delusion is going to be cited multiple times. Currently these citations are inconsistent (different publishers). It is possible to unify them (WP:REFNAME), but then page numbers will be lost. The alternative is to list the work in a bibliography, and use short citations. Given the extent of the reference list, this would be a lot of work, which I don't have time for just now. Is there a more experienced editor who can chime in on a better solution? Feyrauth (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

Richard Dawkins has mentioned that he suffered sexual abuse at school (http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-defends-comparison-of-belief-in-hell-to-sex-abuse-87322/, and The God Delusion chapter 9, page 316) influencing his opinion of religion as child abuse. However, he also mentions that he went to three schools, and currently only one is mentioned in the article - something as important as this should be included, but it would be dangerous without knowing which school. Does anyone know a source with more details? Feyrauth (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, you might want to take a look here [2]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Trimming the Advocacy of Atheism section

I have been following some of the above discussions on adding criticisms of Dawkins or his work to the Advocacy of Atheism section. While, I am not particularly opposed to adding criticisms to this section, I am however, opposed to lengthening it unabated. While Dawkin's advocacy of atheism is is important, it is NOT THE ONLY thing that he does. The amount of material detailing "he said, she said, he said that she said, etc" is really excessive! I would like to propose trimming this section down. I have two suggestions: 1) remove all quotes and 2) group the critics and their criticisms together (e.g., secular critics, religious critics, etc) rather than mentioning specific names. So here is a proposal. I have taken the existing text and trimmed it down to the bear essentials. It now consists of two parts: 1) Dawkin's advocacy of atheism and 2) his criticisms of religion. I think it summarizes what readers need to take away from this section without getting bogged down by unnecessary details and distractions. I realized that this is probably too stripped down for many editors, but I would like to shift the conversation to "what are the most essential pieces of information that should remain in this section?" Thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Advocacy of atheism ===

Dawkins is an outspoken atheist who considers the existence of God to be just another scientific hypothesis. He believes that understanding of evolution has led him to atheism and that religion is largely incompatible with science. He has risen to prominence in public debates relating science and religion since the publication of his book The God Delusion, which has achieved greater sales figures worldwide than any of his other works to date. Its success has been seen by many as indicative of a change in the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, central to a recent rise in the popularity of atheistic literature. Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. Inspired by the gay rights movement, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly; he hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority. Dawkin's advocacy of atheism has been controversial, and he has received both praise and criticism from prominent scientists, theologians, and writers alike.

Dawkins is a also prominent critic of religion and has stated his opposition to religion is twofold: Religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence.. He considers faith—belief that is not based on evidence—as one of the world's great evils. He sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination. These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term Bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview. He has given support to the idea of a free thinking school, which would not indoctrinate children in atheism or in any religion but would instead teach children to be critical and open-minded. Inspired by the consciousness raising successes of feminists in arousing widespread embarrassment at the routine use of "he" instead of "she", Dawkins similarly suggests that phrases such as "Catholic child" and "Muslim child" should be considered as socially absurd as, for instance, "Marxist child", as he believes that children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological beliefs.

Overall, I agree with this, but please note we cannot vote on this proposal until -as you mentioned- the criticism related subsection is completed as instructed(I mean what you said about categorizing secular and religious critics)--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't vote around here. It should also be noted that this edit [3] makes it pretty clear that the IP 99.119.198.175 and the user [4] and Kazemita1 are all the same user. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita, you clearly misunderstood what I said. I did not give any "instructions." I merely "suggested" that we should "group" or "collapse" the critics and criticisms "together," which is essentially what I did here (or above). Replacing a direct quote and with an indirect one is NOT my suggestion. Now please do not expand the current section until we get a better handle of the type of information that should be in there. danielkueh (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, so that must mean User:User_99_119 is a WP:sock of Kazemita. danielkueh (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what danielkueh has proposed is execellent. Kazemita1 - there is a very well sourced mention in the proposed wording of the opposition to Dawkins' views. You will have to work very hard to convince me that more is appropriate. This article is not the place to debate the existence of gods. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You have not grouped anything from the reception and reactions subsection Daniel. Dbroadbeck, what a discovery! I already had stated it here.Kazemita1 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita, I did. It is last sentence of the first proposed paragraph. I just went step further. :) danielkueh (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are going to have to work a little bit more on that as the whole subsection of "reception and reaction" was added by consensus and cannot possibly be briefed into a sentence.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was merely pointing it out so we all knew we have been, essentially, engaging one person for the past few weeks. I agree with HiLo that what danielkueh has proposed is much much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita, the creation of the so called "reception and reaction" subsection was a way to reorganize the entire Advocacy of Atheism section. It did not add any information. It merely grouped certain statements together. Thus, it is really of no relevance as the discussion here is now centered on the type of information that should be presented in this section. Frankly, I didn't think the reorganization was helpful as it disrupted the logical flow of the entire section. The proposal that I am putting forward above is not final yet. As you can see, once you remove the "back and forth" between Dawkins and his critics, there really isn't much about Dawkins's work on atheism in this section. That IS the problem. This section is suppose to be about his advocacy of atheism and not a way to advertise his critics (or fans) and certainly not to give a disproportionate amount of space to his disagreements (or agreements) with them. danielkueh (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you call logical flow of the entire section found here? I found it illogical - a pretty decent section to begin with, structured chronologically, then diverging to include reactions, then loosing chronology, then entertaining apparent later additions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I'm not going to devote too much time to explain this because I believe this is going off topic. But just to entertain your curiosity, here is a couple of examples. Dawkins's disagreement with Gould is found in the Receptions and Reactions subsection when it should be listed early in the Advocacy of Atheism section. Plus, the distinction between public and non-public campaigns appears to be an arbitrary one. The more appropriate demarcating point would be the publication of his book, The God Delusion, which led to his prominence in advocating for atheism and criticizing religion more forcefully. danielkueh (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. The "Public campaigns" I coined as fitting what I observed. First mentioned were academic and book publiching. Then, in order of mention in the section, can public, or "in the media" stuff. I thought the subtitle accurate and helpful in understanding the section, in the short term, and did not think that more wholesale imrpovement wasn't needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have expanded the current proposal to threefive paragraphs and try to place the ideas and events in chronological order as follows:

=== Advocacy of atheism ===

Dawkins lecturing on his book The God Delusion, 24 June 2006.

Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a supporter of various atheist, secular, and humanistic organisations. Although he was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of thirteen, he started to lose his religious faith when he discovered Darwin. He revealed that his understanding of evolution led him to atheism and is puzzled by the belief in God among scientifically-literate individuals. He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria and considers the existence of God to be just another scientific hypothesis like any other.

Dawkins became a prominent critic of religion and has stated his opposition to religion is twofold: Religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence. He considers faith—belief that is not based on evidence—as one of the world's great evils. He rose to prominence in public debates relating science and religion since the publication of his book The God Delusion in 2006, which became an international best seller. Its success has been seen by many as indicative of a change in the contemporary cultural zeitgeist and has also been identified with the rise of New Atheism.

Dawkins sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination. These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term Bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview. He has given support to the idea of a free thinking school, which would not indoctrinate children in atheism or in any religion but would instead teach children to be critical and open-minded. Inspired by the consciousness raising successes of feminists in arousing widespread embarrassment at the routine use of "he" instead of "she", Dawkins similarly suggests that phrases such as "Catholic child" and "Muslim child" should be considered as socially absurd as, for instance, "Marxist child", as he believes that children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological or religious beliefs.

Dawkins with Ariane Sherine at the Atheist Bus Campaign launch in London

Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, stressing that atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. He hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority. Inspired by the gay rights movement, he founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly. He supported the UK's first atheist advertising initiative, the Atheist Bus Campaign in 2008, which aimed to raise funds to place atheist advertisements on buses in the London area.

Dawkin's advocacy of atheism has been controversial. Writer Christopher Hitchens has defended the perceived stridency of Dawkin's stance towards religion while Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and psychologist Steven Pinker have lavished praise on his book, The God Delusion. In contrast, literary critic Terry Eagleton, theologian Alister McGrath, and science philosopher Michael Ruse have accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently while scientists Martin Rees and Peter Higgs have criticised Dawkin's confrontational stance towards religion as unhelpful, with Higgs going as far as to label him a fundamentalist. In response to his critics, Dawkins maintains that theologians are no better than scientists in addressing deep cosmological questions and that he himself was not a fundamentalist as he was willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence.

Where possible, I did try to be faithful to the sources. Most of the text were copied from the current "Advocacy of Atheism" section. So if there is a discrepancy, feel free to correct it. Any other suggestions would be helpful. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You got rid of direct quotes; thanks, but you completely censored "reception and reaction". (Yes, you kept that one sentence of course!). Your trimming is unbalanced.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Kazemita1, please read the title of this subsection. It is entitled "Advocacy of Atheism" and not "Dawkins's quarrels with his critics." The current length of "Reception and Reaction" is excessive AND misleading. In addition to being about as long as the second proposal on this Talk page, it only lists negative receptions! Now that's unbalance! Bear in mind, I also removed specific mentions of praises by scientists and other supporters of Dawkins from this second proposal. danielkueh (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"The current length of "Reception and Reaction" is excessive AND misleading"? Can you explain please? Do you contrast with Richard_Dawkins#Awards_and_recognition? Dawkins has attacted significant attention. It should be mentioned (though not necessarily summarised). If significant attention is covered elsewhere, on other pages, there needs to be logically discoverable links to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that subsection is misleading because it lists only negative criticisms of Dawkins and his work. If the reception to Dawkins's work is only negative, then how is it that his book, The God Delusion, is a best seller? Look at the number of sentences that are positive and the of number of sentences that are negative, and you can see why it would be misleading to call that subsection "Reception and Reaction." A more appropriate subtitle would be "Unflattering criticisms of Dawkins's advocacy of atheism and his responses to them." How is that subsection excessive? Well, it primarily focused on just Dawkins's work on atheism. The amount of space devoted to just that sort of criticism alone IS excessive. If that subsection section provides a general criticism of Dawkins's work as a whole (including his work on evolutionary biology, memes, etc), then I would not call it excessive. But at the moment, it is quite disproportionate, considering that it is even longer than many of the main sections (e.g., Criticism of creationism, Meme, and Evolutionary Biology) of this article. Finally, as I made it clear to Kazemita1 above, this section is entitled "Advocacy of Atheism" and not "Dawkins's quarrels with his critics." So the focus here SHOULD be on this advocacy of atheism and not on his critics. danielkueh (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC) danielkueh (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your counter questions are good points, yes. I think the solution is to merge criticism

(mere mention and linking to) with Richard_Dawkins#Awards_and_recognition. I did come close to asking, has Dawkins been criticised for work in other fields than theism? I'm guess no. I think we are not in disagreement? Coverage of the criticism of Dawkins should be contained on the other pages that already host it, and if no other page presents the criticism, then it is not worthy of mention here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, yes, Dawkins's other works (gene-centric view, memes, etc) have been criticized as well. If you would like to know more, have a look at this article [5] by Stephen J. Gould as well. danielkueh (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added one more paragraph that summarizes the reception to Dawkins's work on atheism. I believe the length and details are fair and proportionate for this section. If there are no further objections, I would like to propose replacing the current section with this one. danielkueh (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of observations:

1. Higgs and Rees criticize Dawkins's attack on mainstream religion, not his attack on religious fundamentalism. The term "religious fundamentalists" can be removed in the above paragraph.

Done. danielkueh (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Dawkins's disagreement with Gould's non-overlapping magesteria seems to me a core belief of Dawkins and needs to be mentioned in this section somehow.

Done. danielkueh (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Michael Ruse and Michael Shermer's disagreement with Dawkins are similar to that of Eagleton and their name can simply be put next to his without any further explanation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Partially done. I added Ruse but not Shermer. First, Shermer is not a critic of Dawkins. Quite the opposite, he tends to collaborate with him. If anything, Shermer's so called "criticisms" are merely "concerns" or "friendly advice." Second, this paragraph is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of commentators but to merely make a point that Dawkin's work is controversial and that there are prominent individuals that agree and disagree with him. Thanks for the suggestions. Those were helpful. danielkueh (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So there's an encyclopedia article about this guy, and someone picks a fight with him, and that becomes worthy of inclusion in the article? Is that how they did it in Britannica? How about doing the write-up in the article about the Dawkins critic, if he's so "prominent" ? Linuxgal (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh Linuxgal, I hear you. Believe me, I do. danielkueh (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Danielkueh's proposed edits look good to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good Danielkueh, nice job.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good to me too.--Charles (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've inserted the proposed text into this article. danielkueh (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Cambridge Union Debate

I added In 2013 Dawkins and colleagues debated against Rowan Williams and colleagues the proposition that "Religion has no place in the 21st Century" at the Cambridge Union and were defeated by 324 votes to 136.

This debate was widely trailed in the media worldwide and the result was covered in most of the major UK newspapers and picked up in Australia and other places. So unless there are coherent arguments against including this I suggest we re-instate it. NBeale (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why it should be added to a section called "Dawkins's advocacy of atheism." danielkueh (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's really a story about the Cambridge Union, not Dawkins. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It adds nothing new. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this (a biography of significant events in the life of a scientist) do not cover the latest score. Articles on religious topics do not get branded with every setback reported in the daily news, and neither do biographies. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When Peter Higgs criticised Dawkins on 26-Dec-2012 within 2 days we had reflected this fact in the article, becasue Higgs is a major scientist and this is WP:N. This debate is at least as notable - the first formal debate that Dawkins has undertaken for a while. WP:NPOV requires that we don't only record the incidents favourable to our subjects - even if many Editors here think Dawkins is a hero. If a "hero" cannot stand the truth then he's not much of a hero. NBeale (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the two stories are comparable. One is about a scientist, someone you might normally expect to agree with him, disagreeing. The other is a debate, something that's really a story about the Cambridge Union, not Dawkins.

Most scientists think Dawkins is far too over the top on religion and wouldn't agree with him on this motion at all. The US National Academy of Sciences has made its position quite clear, and the AAAS engages very positively with religion. But the fact is that this is AFAIK the first time Dawkins' position that "religion has no place in the 21st Century" has been properly debated and put to a vote (and to an sudience from one of the world's greatest scientific universities) and this fact and its result is clearly Notable and attested by many Reliable Sources. NBeale (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why a single sentence noting this event and its outcome shouldn't be included in the article (and I speak as one whose views are a lot closer to those of Prof Dawkins than to those of NBeale). But the opinions of those members of the Cambridge Union Society who attended are neither scientifically significant nor necessarily representative of wider public opinion: it's a debating club at an elite university with a self-selecting membership, not a scientific faculty or a statistically valid sample of wider public opinion. It was, to be fair, widely reported in the British press (perhaps with a certain amount of schadenfreude in some quarters). To give it any more than a passing mention smacks, however, of undue weight. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is such a trivial issue in the overall life and work of Dawkins that including it at all would seem to be undue weight.--Charles (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed undue weight, plus, the idea that 'most scientists' think a certain way is at best an unreferenced opinion and carries no weight in the decision to include this or not. The whole thing simply is trivia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NBeale - Very reliable sources tell us all about Hollywood romances, their babies, and their weird names. Wikipedia tends to ignore them, because they are not notable or due content, just like the anti-Dawkins material you are, unsurprisingly, pushing here. Does your god really want you to follow strategies like this? If yours is the way of truth, surely it doesn't matter. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

<We can't consider a debate at the Oxford Uhion which he "won" as notable and a debate at the Cambridge Union which he "lost" as trivial - it's double standards. We should either remove the Oxford one or (which seems more reasonable) insert the Cambridge one with the same prominence and comparable wording. 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we just close this discussion? So far, the consensus is overwhelmingly against the inclusion of the Cambridge Union debate. And I doubt this is likely to change. Plus, there is really no serious discussion on how to improve this article or section. If anything, this is slowly turning into a forum. danielkueh (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to have valid reasons to censor information from an article other than that a few Dawkins Defenders don't like the facts. The improvement under discussion is to put in a sentence comparable to the one about the Oxford Union debate. Unless we can have a valid reason why these two cases should not be treated in the same way we should treat them in the same way. NBeale (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No actually, it is you who doesn't like stuff. There is a clear consensus here. You are the editor who has problems with the consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very disappointing to see some contributions to this discussion phrased in terms of "Dawkins defenders" who "think Dawkins is a hero". The purpose of this page is to discuss ways of improving the article. It is extremely unhelpful when one lone voice insists on describing all those who take a different view from him in such terms, trying to use the article as a vehicle for attacking his bogeyman Dawkins and this discussion as a means of attacking those who disagree with him (without knowing what those people actually think of Dawkins, incidentally). NBeale, take it to your blog. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a vehicle for you to promote your world view. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

NBeale, this has nothing to do with censorship. And I (and I suspect other editors as well) am really tired of this pointless discussion. No one is trying to censor anything as there is a lot of information that is consistent with Dawkins's views that has been removed from this section (see discussion and edit above). And I don't think you have actually taken the time to really think about how or where to add that information on the Cambridge Union Debate. First of all, it does NOT improve the article, at least not in the way it is written. If anything, it ruins the article because it is so out of place. So do everyone a favor and THINK, THINK, THINK. Think about how it should be written, where it should be inserted, and the point that it should be making. Don't just say we should add it because of another comparable information about the Oxford Union Debate (which is just trivia) in this article. THAT IS REALLY PATHETIC. So unless you're going to get serious about actually improving this article, this discussion should be closed as you are turning it into a forum. danielkueh (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If we agree the principle that something should be included about this then let's collaborate on exactly how/what. If you'd against it on principle then it's a different discussion, and you need to explain why this isn't worth including whereas the Oxford Union debate is. attacking other editors isn't helpful. (and BTW I'm not a lone voice, another editor agreed that it should be included). NBeale (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We haven't agreed to include it because you haven't given a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of why it should be in there. Once again, THINK THIS THROUGH. Aside from some petty Oxbridge rivalry, I still don't see why it should be inserted into this section. And for the record, the description about the Oxford Debate that is in another section is just trivia. It does not mention anything that is "favorable" to Dawkins. In fact, if editors want to remove it, go right ahead. And this is not a personal attack. I am trying to tell you to think more seriously about what it is you are trying to accomplish here rather than crying out against censorship or "Dawkins's defenders." If anything, you're the one who is engaging in personal attacks. My suggestion to you is simple. Put up or shut up. Really. danielkueh (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say it "should be included". I said I "didn't see why it shouldn't". Subtly different. Besides, having read the other comments here, and considered the section more carefully and noted the absence of references to any other debate, I've changed my mind. The reference to the Oxford Union debate elsewhere (whose result is not mentioned, incidentally) illustrates a point about Dawkins' usual refusal to debate with Creationists. It may or may not be notable (though Google "Huxley Memorial Debate" and you'll get plenty of hits). The Cambridge debate, conversely, is just one of many similar public debates involving Dawkins over the years; he and Rowan Williams have debated publicly several times IIRC. No other individual debates are mentioned in this section (nor should they be; Wikipedia is not a diary) so this one should not be treated differently just because Dawkins lost the vote. I retract my "support" for the proposed insertion. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave,it says in the article: "The debate ended with the motion "That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution" being defeated by 198 votes to 115". Dawkins has only debated with Rowan once,though he had a dialogue chaired by Anthony Kenny in Oxford last year. In fact Dawkins said that "I normally turn down formal debates, but the charming Rowan Williams was too good to miss" Dawkins Tweet. This debate now has over 100k ghits so I really don't think it can be dismissed as trivia. NBeale (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

References