Jump to content

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Skilling

Dawkins has denied that he is responsible for Jeffrey Skilling's behaviour in the case of Enron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.146.61 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See Jeffrey Skilling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.69.58 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Richard Dawkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are there so many pictures of Richard Dawkins?

Can someone explain why need more than one or two pictures of Richard Dawkins? We don't need five different pictures of him standing behind a different podium at a different university in a different year. We just need one picture of him today, maybe one picture of him in college or as a younger man. Pictures of him interacting with others are OK, like when he receives an award or poses in front of the bus advertisement, but honestly you people can stop uploading all of your personal photos. You saw Richard Dawkins, congratulations why don't you put these pictures up on your facebooks?Brianbleakley (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a Wiki rule that says 5 pictures are too many?2601:4:1500:C90:9408:F5B:8F31:BA92 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In such cases there's only one rule: wp:CONSENSUS: we, the contributors to the article and to this talk page, decide what is too many. If we want 50 pictures, we get 50. I personally don't think that five was too many, but I don't really care whether it's five or three. - DVdm (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is another topic, but so-called WP consensus is the bunk. Consensus decisions are by nature almost always flawed. Blanket application of such inevitably glosses over too many important details and unique considerations. When it contravenes scrutiny and common sense, "consensus" does far more harm than good. It's also intellectually lazy, and I wish WP editors wouldn't use WP consensus as a bludgeon when folks are trying, in earnest, to help. Pass it along. 50.54.229.56 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Meanwhile you are free to set up your own wiki, based on dissension. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Spandrels

Citation 39 relates to the discussion of spandrels, not Dawkins own criticism of spandrels which is what needs to be cited/ supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminSchooley (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Dawkins

I've just reverted an edit that added additional criticism of Dawkins. My edit summary probably didn't give a clear idea of why I reverted the addition. I think the problem with the edit is that, with the material added, it is no longer clear which critic of Dawkins is making which criticism. Every criticism needs to be clearly attributed to the person making it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this principle, that every criticism needs to be clearly attributed to the person making it, explicitly laid out somewhere? I can think of criticisms arising from organizations, governments, and other entities that suggest the principle you're invoking is not necessary. BabyJonas (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Christian

In a interview Dawkins declared that he is "Secular Christian" (Cultural Christian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No. He said: "But I am a secular Christian, if you want to call me that." So the queston is: do they/we want to call him that? And whether they/we do or do not, how would that be of any value—or relevance—in this article? - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Darwin's Rottweiler, and God's too

The article used as the source for the title "Darwin's Rottweiler" mentions a book by Alister McGrath, titled "Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life". That book mentions "Darwin's Rottweiler" once, on the first page, which is about McGrath's personal encounter with Dawkins:

"It would also be some years before Dawkin's reputation as "Darwin's Rottweiler" would be established." — Alister McGrath, 2004

I added the book to the original news reference. I felt obligated to mention someone else's Rottweiler, namely that of God, in the form of Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, later Pope Emeritus, who was born in Germany in 1927. That title predates "Darwin's Rottweiler." Rottweilers are German, so the Goddog is probably why Darwin has a Rottweiler instead of one of the English breeds that might have been suitable.

It will remain a mystery as to how Darwin got a Rottweiler in the first place, and why God doesn't have a lion, spotless leopard, unicorn, or some other animal that doesn't exhibit as much microevolution as dogs do. Perhaps the Catholic acceptance of evolution has something to do with it. Roches (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog" before. Whoever invented the Rottweiler moniker did not need to think a lot to come up with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, but bulldogs are English and Rottweilers are German. In the absence of God having a Rottweiler, perhaps Dawkins would have been "Darwin's Border Collie." By that speculation, "Darwin's Pitbull" would suggest a guard dog related to the bulldog but even fiercer, although pit bulls are American. Roches (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Views on multiculturalism

I totally understand why people may view these edits as undue weight, but surely Dawkins' criticism of multiculturalism should be included in this article? Especially as editors keep removing Category:Critics of multiculturalism from this article, due to this content not being mentioned. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a short mention with source would be okay, like you did with this addition. But then you added this lot, which was quickly reverted here by I am One of Many. I propose we restore your first sourced addition. Ok with you, One of Many? - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your analysis! --I am One of Many (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! I've restored the edition you suggested – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I had an edit conflict doing exactly the same . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins#Criticism of multiculturalism looks like rubbish—the ref shows Dawkins objecting to creationism in schools. Does the video show anything by Dawkins to support the text in the artcle? If Dawkins really objects to "multiculturalism" I would expect to see him say so in print. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at one article used as a source, and I think a reasonable interpretation of Dawkins's comments is that he is objecting to both creationism and multiculturalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The section has two refs: 1 and 2 (video), plus a tweet. I have not watched the video. Please quote some words which show Dawkins is meaningfully a critic of multiculturalism. Has an independent source made that claim? All I can see is the standard stuff—Dawkins objecting to schools failing to present rigorous science. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Telegraph article, Dawkins is quoted saying, "Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come." Again, the reasonable interpretation is that Dawkins is being critical of both multiculturalism and creationism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That reasoning obliterates the meaning of "critic". Presumably there is some encyclopedic purpose for Category:Critics of multiculturalism, and I would expect that people in that category have said something that is clearly equivalent to "I oppose multiculturalism", or where independent secondary sources have stated that the person is such a critic. The above quote shows that Dawkins is objecting to what children are being taught in schools, and he is criticizing the government for abandoning education. Where is the source showing that Dawkins objects to multiculturalism? Editors should not interpret the above as placing Dawkins in the critic pigeonhole—doing so is WP:SYNTH (original research). Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That Dawkins is critical of multiculturalism is the obvious, natural interpretation of his comments - the overwhelming majority of people would understand them that way, and they would be right to do so. This has nothing to do with synthesis, which involves using multiple sources to draw novel conclusions. It is just false to claim that someone has to say something exactly equivalent to "I oppose multiculturalism" for a "Critics of multiculturalism" category to be applicable to their article. Your position would make applying such categories all but impossible in most cases. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
One passing mention of multiculturalism in a quote is not enough to justify putting Dawkins in that category. Without reliable secondary sources it would be original research and also give undue weight.Charles (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to mention some of Dawkins' views on how science is taught, but I am not sure it is appropriate to put him in Category:Critics of multiculturalism. He seems to be saying that the truth of science overrides the variation of other beliefs in a multicultural society. I do not think that the sources support that he objects to multiculturalism itself. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps we can keep the text of this edit, but remove the category, and replace the section header with Multiculturalism". - DVdm (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Criticism of multiculturalism, calling Dawkins a critic of multiculturalism means he "questions the ideal of the maintenance of distinct ethnic cultures within a state". Does anyone know of a reliable source connecting Dawkins with that or with any of the items discussed at Criticism of multiculturalism#United Kingdom? Two sources have been presented to verify the critic text: The Telegraph and Video

Would someone more patient and trusting than me please outline how the video is relevant. The first source shows Dawkins objecting to the acceptance of creationism in schools with an extremely thin mention of multiculturalism. I suppose the article could have a "Mentions of Dawkins" section where the current news-of-the-day is listed, but the multiculturalism section should be deleted as WP:SYNTH until a secondary source asserts that Dawkins is in any sense a meaningful critic of multiculturalism. True to form, Dawkins is objecting to the presentation of creationism in schools. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't help totally agreeing with all this too . - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the multiculturalism section is pure synthesis and should be deleted. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Culture: “the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time of an ethnic group”. [Merriam-Webster]

Multiculturalism: “the presence of, or support for, the presence of several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.” [Oxford Dictionaries (UK)].

When Dawkins said “Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come”, it is abundantly clear that he was objecting to "prejudices". To accuse him of being against multiculturalism in its broader aspects is outrageous and insulting.Ericlord (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "Criticism of multiculturalism" text. Would anyone wanting to add it please respond to the points raised above. In particular, what is in the video and how does it verify that Dawkins fits the descriptions at Criticism of multiculturalism? What independent reliable source has described Dawkins as a critic of multiculturalism? Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think your edits were a mistake. The category clearly does apply, just on the basis of common sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I asked a couple of simple questions which should be addressed. If something is "common sense", there should be a source mentioning it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq, I'm glad you removed the text, not only is it WP:SYNTH, but I also think WP:BLP applies given Ericlord comment above. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I too am glad it is gone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Same here. The presence of the category and the section header were inappropriate. At most we could mention his criticism of the Governement's fanaticism about multiculturalism, but I don't see where. Or why. - DVdm (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of archiveurl's

There are a lot of archiveurl's in the citations.　I wonder if we can somehow update some of these url's with newer web pages. It seems to be a part of why this article has not been nominated for FA in a long time.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources

I feel that this article should be re-worked to avoid citations pointing to http://richarddawkins.net/, the subject's CV, YouTube videos and other such sources. We should be searching the news for sources. I caution us not to add one-liner paragraphs to the "Other fields" section. Again, look to Reese Witherspoon for an example of an FA BLP.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Feature article nominator please?

This article has languished for over five years as a Good Article. Could some appropriate person please Wikipedia:Be bold and nominate this article for featured article status? Short of that, then at least another peer review.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Some feedback from a user's talk page:
I had a quick look and it needs some work before a nomination. The reference area needs some work to bring it up to FA standard, such as names of newspapers need to be in italics should be done by moving the |publisher= to |work= field of the reference. Dates are in various formats –day first, month first & ISO–need to be all in day first format, which is appropriate for the article. Keith D (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion: examine Reese Witherspoon and ask yourself why her BLP is FA and not this one. We need secondary sources. Not Dawkins' own CV, which we use in several places. Not YouTube videos or MP3's of which there are many. What we should focus on is Dawkins' career and what news (controversial or otherwise) that he has made in the past ten years. That will get this BLP to FA.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my suggestion that somebody nominate this article for FA. When you examine other FA BLP's like Witherspoon or Hillary Clinton, you see a chronological history of events and accomplishments that made the news. This article does not follow that pattern and, I suspect, will thus never be FA.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

One sided

It would be helpful if some of Dawkins' more unsavoury statements were included, e.g. his comments on "mild rape" and "mild paedophilia", and numerous others. This reads like a secular hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.74 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is already in the Political views of Richard Dawkins article. The problem is that the "Other fields" section already has six choppy paragraphs and this article will never be brilliant prose or FA with the kitchen sink of one-liner paragraphs thrown into the "Other" sections.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I added a paragraph cited by this current event: Richard Dawkins dropped from science event for tweeting video mocking feminists and Islamists. From that, the reader should get the picture that Dawkins might be slightly out-of-touch with current social sensitivities.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Science first, then atheism and the rest

The organization of this article should be:

  1. Deal with the subject as a scientist
  2. Deal with his atheism
  3. Deal with the rest

The lead now reflects this order. Let us move the other sections around to do the same so that the article appears more orderly to the reader. BTW: The Foundation is a science thing since it is primary about evolution, at least according to the lead.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Dawkins is available to read in full if you find it through Google (search for https://www.google.com/#q=richard+dawkins+britannica ). It seems to focus on his books in chronological order rather than by subject (our article "section"). Out lead still needs more work because it introduces verbiage in the lead that is not in the body, notably about the Blind Watchmaker. Again, we need to move the explanation mostly down into the body. The Britannica article follows a chronological order like the other FA　BLP's I mentioned earlier (R. Witherspoon and H. Clinton). I have arbitrarily gathered the Foundation into the science paragraph of the lead. The Britannica article links it more to the God Delusion book (they happened in the same year). It could be gathered either way. Well, all I can encourage is that we keep trying to find inspiration from our existing FA　BLPs in order to get this article to FA.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess my point is that the lead deals mostly with some (four) of his books but the body text, in most cases, gives just a few sentences to each one. That strikes me as unbalanced. Food for thought for future work on this article.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Extended Phenotype

I'm no fan of Dawkins and I'm a bit sceptical about just how novel his "Extended Phenotype" idea really was. But in researching this I find that he was even earlier in putting this idea forward than the article claims. It wasn't in 1982 but in 1977 - when he gave a talk on this which was put into a 1978 paper. So if it was indeed a novel concept then he deserves credit for having developed it so early. NBeale (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some citation for the 1977 paper?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you are referring to this article:
R.Dawkins (1978) Replicator selection and the extended phenotype. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 47, 61-76
which is from his CV. See also de:Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie . I would guess that he dealt more fully with the subject in the book.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no Criticism section?

In the wikipedia entry on Moses, there is a big Criticism section where Dawkins is mentioned, along with other atheists, taking slaps at poor old Moses, but this article is like a puff piece written by Dawkins's publisher. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.120.224 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
This was discussed many times before, and the consensus seems to be not to have such a section here. You can search the talk page archives, looking for: criticism section.
I don't think that Dawkins' publisher has been involved writing this article—you can check the edit history of the article and of the talk page. To me it does not look like puff. Also note that Moses is not a living person, and we have some policies about biographies of living persons—see a.o. wp:BLP. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Although there is no criticism section, there is coverage of criticism in the penultimate paragraph of the "Criticism of religion" section. William Avery (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't usually have "Criticism sections" for the reasons explained here. You might also find our WP:BLP policies informative. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your polite replies. DVdm, I did write "is like a puff piece", and did not mean to implicate his publisher; I could have been clearer on that point. I know that Dawkins has a lot of admirerers, and this article seems to have been written by one or more of them. Dawkins is a person of impressive stature in his other pursuits, and I am sure that he was not involved in this article. My point was that The God Delusion was remarkably disappointing in its sophomoric bluster, and many - including atheists - have criticized it. I do get the point re WP:LP, but there is a difference between critiquing a book versus criticizing the man. (Re not signing, I've misplaced my password, but will look for it.) PS: William Avery, thanks. Section noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.120.224 (talk)

The text of the criticism sections has been restored as paragraphs in the sections about Dawkins as a scientist and atheist (well, critic of religion). The paragraphs seem to provide balance in their new place.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Admits

Largely agree with this revert of what I had accepted from 130.65.109.103, but I think we could retain the admits-part, but of course replacing the non-neutral term "admits" with a neutral "says" or "states". I.m.o. relevant but not worth quarreling about. - DVdm (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The "admits" wording is just one of several concerns I have with the problematic entry. (Some sources use "admits" as an implied 'gotcha' counter to Dawkins' non-belief, as you can see in the typed description of this YouTube clip.) As the subject has explained, he is as "agnostic" as everyone else is, because non-existence of things can't be definitively proven - but he expresses annoyance at the incorrectly assumed implication that such agnosticism means an equivalence between does exist and doesn't exist. Hence his "6.9" certainty (or 6.999 in other discussions) out of 7 explanation. He also refers to himself as atheist. He didn't say he "preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist"; that was the writer's incorrect opinion (which directly contradicts, by the way, content just three paragraphs later). Wording noted one of the chapters in his book in order to set up a juxtaposition, while failing to note the same book has a chapter titled: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God, which nullifies the faux juxtaposition. The addition also cited an opinion piece (albeit knowledgeable) for assertions of fact. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why Template:sfn

I　switched two books over to Template:sfn because Acacia pycnantha does so and because that article is FA and it was promoted in 2014. I would like to think that this article still has a chance at FA someday.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem citations

I have some problems with the citations that point to these urls:

Just a list of audios that are no longer available at rd.net but are available on YouTube on the name "Huxley Memorial Debate"
A list of YouTube videos (a BBC Channel 4 panel presentation about the environment and world population) that are still available.
(Already removed from article.) A video of a Dawkins speech at video.google.com that is no longer available there and is not archived through archive.org .

None of these citations are of written material. Another link I have a problem with is:

since the archived version has no content. --130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Copied here from a User Talk page.
I reverted your edit on Richard Dawkins. I do not seem to have a specific problem other than the number of changes you reverted. I question why you made some of the wording changes and whether they are a positive contribution to the article. Like "embraced Christianity" vs "Was a Christian" and "survival machine" vs "biological competition", these both seem to be poor edits, though you added lots of other good stuff. Last, Twitter is not a reliable source, but using an article from a reliable source which is about something that happened on Twitter, is not problematic, you should not have removed it. Lipsquid (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"embraced Christianity" is wording from the cited source, wording that has a slightly different meaning than "Was a Christian", and we need to adhere to what the sources say. "Survival machine" is also wording from the cited source, which is one half of the conflict to which Dawkins referred.
though you added lots of other good stuff
Yeah, but I see you reverted that as well. That makes no sense. As for the Twitter stuff, I don't believe it was removed because of reliable source issues. You'll find the actual reason it was removed in the edit summary. Would you be so kind as to address and resolve that issue before reinstating the problematic content? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your redo. "Embraced Christianity" is very different from "was a Christian", and the former is sourced. Similar remark for "survival machine" vs "biological competition". - DVdm (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank for clarifying that it was wording cited from source. The reason listed in the edit summary was "rmv tabloidism" and, though I know what a tabloid is (and the ChristianPost is not one of them), the term tabloidism was was not linked and comes up with no results on a Wikipedia search. So could you please give additional explanation? Lipsquid (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic Bump... Lipsquid (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll take your word that the Christian Post isn't a tabloid, but I wasn't referring to sources; I referred to the 3-sentences of content added to our article as tabloidism. Please review the following Wikipedia policies:
WP:BLP — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...
WP:TABLOID — ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia ... Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia...
The three sentences I removed were not only non-encyclopedic trivia, but were also non-neutral (giving only one side of the information, i.e.; saying an invitation was "withdrawn" without mentioning that it was also immediately re-issued). It was misleading (implying his stroke was caused by the stress of having an invitation withdrawn, when it actually occurred after the invitation was reinstated). It was uninformative (the following sentence could not be any less informative: He had been at the centre of multiple Twitter controversies in the previous three years). It was misplaced (the only part of this content which belongs in the 'Personal life' section was a brief mention of his stroke, and even that is arguable), and it gives the appearance of a clumsy attempt to shoehorn disparaging innuendo into a Wikipedia biography. Hopefully that more fully explains my concerns.
Now a question for you: What encyclopedic content about this living person, in your own words, were you hoping to convey to our readers when you reinstated those three sentences? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I already explained why I reverted your edit. Thanks for the additional info. Lipsquid (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

CelebrityNetWorth

This discussion is copied over from User talk:Intelligentsium.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have started Talk:CelebrityNetWorth#Reliable source to discuss the topic you raise in your edit of Richard Dawkins. I would guess that CNW works hard to ensure that the numbers they publish are backed up by some documentation, just in case the celeb takes issue with the number and considers legal action or something like that. I was very surprised by how large the number was for RD. Where did it all come from? His book sales? The would seem relevant. And User:Mcfar54 accepted that pending edit. E. O. Wilson even said that Dawkins is "not a secientist". See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson . And I support Dawkins. Well, think about it.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:CelebrityNetWorth#Reliable source. Let's move the RS discussion there. However, with regards to Dawkins, two things: to include his net worth, it has to be demonstrated that (1) Richard Dawkins' net worth is a notable fact about him, and (2) CNW is a reliable source. One person saying that Dawkins is not a scientist does not make it so (though at his age it's quite uncommon for scientists to still be doing active research; I do agree he's probably more of a writer and educator), but whether he's a scientist or not doesn't make that much of a difference - in either case, why is his net worth important to his article? Intelligentsium 03:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is notable that he has that much money. Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research. It is a lot more net worth than, say, Mark Hurd. And Hurd simply worked to make a lot of money. To me, Dawkins's money is notable in and of itself.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
"Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research." Exactly - it's precisely because CNW claims he has that much money that I am suspicious. I don't believe simply being rich makes a person notable (or at least, not at that level. Indeed there are 2,400,000 millionaires in the United Kingdom and over 20 million in the world). Net worth might be a valuable fact for an article about a business executive like Mark Hurd, but for someone whose primary reason for notability is not making money, it may be trivia at best and undue coverage at worst to mention it. Intelligentsium 03:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(Outdent)

So criteri #2 is now being dealt with over at WP:RSN. Back to criteria #1. Well, it seems now that RD is a notable author. Authors writer and copyright their works, publisher them an sell those books for money. Just like Alan Moore or Tony Kushner or Kenneth Copeland or Angela Rippon. Those articles now have net worths stated and the edits have not (yet) been reverted. So the question is: is an estimate of RD's net worth OK to state in the article if CNW turns out to be a reliable source? Comment?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Note;User:Nymf has already reverted all those articles and more.--16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is quite likely that his wealth comes from his books and television work. I am not sure however whether it should be mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the discussion here is moot because all of the web site that are returned for the search https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=richard+dawkins+net+worth are deemed not WP:RS. For now.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins is most notably an author

I think that the first sentence should read:

Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English author, ethologist and evolutionary biologist.

That lists his "author" role first. That is what he is most notable for. Just read our lead section. It only talks about his books after the first short paragraph. Or should we modify the lead section. I hope we do not go about wildly expanding the lead section. RD is hard to summarize.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the way it flows now, scientists usually make a name in field and then become authors. For example - "Stephen William Hawking is an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology". It is fairly common for scientists to have author towards or at the end of the list. Not a huge deal to me either way. Lipsquid (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that he is most notable, first, as a scientist. With the exception of fiction writers, authors tend to write about that in which they are most versed and famous; this holds true with Dawkins. It doesn't make sense to say: He's an author on evolutionary biology, and he's also an evolutionary biologist. The field should be first, followed by the fact that he also lectures, writes and teaches in that field (or closely related fields (i.e.; science vs creationism, etc). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author is the correct order. Early in his career he was primarily and ethologist who subsequently began to focus on theoretical and conceptual issues in evolutionary biology, and finally finally an author who wrote more popular books and articles on these topics. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have not bothered in the article to note that The Selfish Gene was his second most popular book. He made millions on that one too. That came early in his career. And what notable science had he done before that? See? It is hard to say because you do not remember or never knew. His first book made him notable and early in his career.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The book is on evolutionary biology. I first met Dawkins shortly after he wrote The Selfish Gene, so I do think I know. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but we list no notable scientists that RD influenced.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There are several notable scientists that Dawkins influenced, detailed in this book. Would you care to add that information? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Added Steven Pinker to influenced parameter in infoxbox. But he is not a biologist. But anyway...he is a scientist.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nationality in lede

I've resubmitted my edit, which changed the subject's ethnicity to his nationality as per the norm in Wikipedia.

The norm, it seems to me, is exemplified by the following articles:

Hjálmar Hjálmarson Mike Myers Franz Arzdorf Keith Allen etc

NB: I forgot to save this page, so my resubmission may have already been rejected or reverted again. If it has, I'll resubmit once more, with apologies. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I support the change to say that he is British. Various reverts have said "We are not talking about passports". What else are we talking about? England has not been a country for hundreds of years. It has no separate parliament. Describing him as English is nonsense. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Resubmit with apologies" simply means edit warring. "Overlinking"--you can look that up, at WP:OVERLINK. Passports: well, it's not that simple, and MOS:BLPLEAD has some guidance. Also, I have it on good authority that WereSpielChequers is not a total idiot, and may have something to add. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment saying that "Resubmit with apologies" equates to "edit warring" does not support WP:AGF. Please don't WP:BITE. Thanks for clarifying 'overlinking'. I guess you were referring to my wikilink for 'British'. My comments on the actual issue are below. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. Personally I have some sympathy with the idea that British v English can sometimes seem nonsense. But nationalism in the UK is a complex and tricky subject and the norm in Wikipedia is best explained at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. ϢereSpielChequers 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. It is complex, but it is still nonsense. I have both a British and an Australian passport. I consider myself to be both British and Australian. In the UK I lived in several places in England, but never in Scotland or Wales. I do not consider myself to be English. So what is the evidence about how Dawkins is described by others or by himself. If there is no evidence that he is described as English, we should use his passport and call him British. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • England is an ethnicity, in terms of international law and as compared to the difference between the nationality of a sovereign state and the description (or demonym) of a region or nation. By dint of calling England a 'nation', it must therefore have a 'nationality'. That is common sense of course. However, I think for consistency and style, the people of the UK should be mentioned by their sovereign nationality first, in the lede. Subsequently, I think it is important to mention also if they are English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh (or none of those, or other). As I mentioned in my edit(-war) comment previously, generally people in a comparable country, the USA, are called 'American' in the lede, and not 'Texan', 'North Carolinian', 'Californian', 'North Dakotan' etc.

WP:MOSBLPLEAD suggests we do not use the ethnicity in the lede. If there are no more objections, I'll go ahead and re-edit (without the wikilink). --98.122.20.56 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had RD as a popular science author, just like the first line in the Steven Pinker article, but the addition of "popular science" for RD got reverted. Feedback, please?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

He above all a science author and secondarily a popular science author, so why not just leave it as author? --I am One of Many (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
So what about Steven Pinker. Is his science easier or less notable and so just "popular science"? Should we remove "popular science" out of his first sentence as well?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinker is a more engaging and entertaining speaker. In his post scientific life, Dawkins is noted more for his activism than his entertainment value.Poodleboy (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unclear on this portion towards the beginning

"With his book The Extended Phenotype, published in 1982, he introduced into evolutionary biology the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment."

Uhm, what does this mean? Should this have a reference to put it into context? Is he talking about patterns on the seashell of a snail or crab being affected by the animal's gene's or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.204.36 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Beavers create dams for their own benefit, but cause a wider environmental change. Wallowing pools become watering holes of last resort during drought, etc. Lipsquid (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Also I see there is an article on the topic The Extended Phenotype - Lipsquid (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Funny, I added a reference to the Beaver Dam image and a few other clarifications aimed at making evolutionary biology more understandeable to lay people reading, but they were reverted wholesale by someone. It is that kind of edit warring that turns people off contributing to Wikipedia. Billyshiverstick (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Well, fuck you asshole. I quit. Happy now? Billyshiverstick (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Radio station cancels Dawkins' appearance over Islam tweets

The Independent reports that a radio station in Berkeley, California cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over his tweets about Islam.[1]

I looked for a section in the article on his views about Islam, but I didn't see anything. I also didn't find anything in the article about his statements about Islam.

Dawkins is well-known for his statements about Islam. He has repeatedly been accused of Islamophobia, anti-Muslim animus and making controversial statements about Islam and this has been reported in reliable sources such as The Guardian.[2][3][4]

Shouldn't the article have a section on Dawkins' views on Islam? Knox490 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is finding a WP:SECONDARY source. The first link above merely points to a factoid (an event was canceled) and some comments. This article (last time I checked) mostly uses independent sources and avoids cherry-picked tweets to suggest certain points of view. I'm not opposed to some discussion, but independent sourcing is tricky. Dawkins has lots of haters, and their views need not be amplified here, and any opinions by Glenn Greenwald can be in his article to demonstrate his views. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not a problem. Richard Dawkins has confirmed that a radio station in Berkeley, California cancelled Dawkins' appearance over his tweets about Islam.[5]
And if Dawkins has a lot of haters, why shouldn't this be noted in the article along with reliable sources to confirm this matter? If someone is engulfed in controversy with many people and is a controversial figure, readers should know this.Knox490 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be on a campaign to add talking points at the moment—I noticed Talk:PZ Myers#Michael Nugent taking Myers to task about his bestiality comments. If a secondary source has noted a lot of haters, a WP:DUE mention may be suitable. Editors should not pick which factoids they think need to be highlighted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It would be undue to start making a list or timeline of criticism, but mentioning that Dawkins attracts criticism is probably not a problem. I've seen him read publicly some of his hate mail and some conference fellows have sometimes criticized his assertiveness. It is not surprising for religious groups to label him and this is not necessarily notable. Skeptics are labeled of pseudoskepticism by fringe activists, those who criticize religion are likewise labeled by those who are offended (antisemite, islamophobe, heretic, apostate, infidel, pagan, etc). But what is the main reason which attracts this criticism? Mostly because he educates and popularizes science and denounces: the censorship of education, the denial of science, the suppression of critical thinking and reason, the promotion of superstition, the political lobbying by religious groups, religious segregation (examples being private confessional schools, shunning of dissidents), the subjugation of women, the indoctrination of children... I don't think that much of the article should be dedicated to the aggrandizement of the resulting resistence. —PaleoNeonate - 00:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is not assertive. Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive. Dawkins is not confident in his New Atheism/agnosticism. Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist philosophers in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[6] The Oxford philosopher and atheist Daniel Came wrote to Dawkins about his refusal to debate the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[7] Dawkins can be a bit aggressive/boorish and also smug/condescending, but I wouldn't say he is assertive due to his lack of confidence to tackle his opponents strongest arguments. The atheist Phil Zuckerman said about Dawkins: ""He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness."[8] Knox490 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
They would say that wouldn't they. That's why I mentioned the need for independent (secondary) sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, Richard Dawkins has indicated on his website that his appearance was cancelled by the radio station because they did not like his comments on Islam. Please tell me why Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source about this matter - especially when we have a major British news organization like The Independent saying the same thing. Knox490 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We now have 2 more reliable sources via mainstream news organizations reporting that Richard Dawkins book appearance was cancelled by a Berkeley bookstore due to his comments about Islam.[9][10] In addition, a major news website also reports this matter.[11] Knox490 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Having just read Guardian article cited above, I came to this article and was surprised to see no mention of Dawkins' comments about Islam. I feel that the KPFA event cancellation and reasons for it should be included. Funcrunch (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The BBC is now reporting about the incident, see: Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'.
We now have multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on this matter. Two of the reliable sources, The Independent and the BBC report Dawkins saying, "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today".[12][13]
Dawkins has taken a hardline view against Islam and he is receiving blowback from his previous statements about Islam/Muslims. Dawkins has said, "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."[14] Knox490 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The New York Times is now reporting on the story: Richard Dawkins Event Canceled Over Past Comments About Islam. Knox490 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't there a large "Political views of Richard Dawkins" section

When you look at Google News for "Richard Dawkins" in the first 20 entries and onward, the articles in the mainstream news and magazines are very frequently political in nature.

And Dawkins, one of the key founders of the New Atheism movement, said about the New Atheism movement, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.[15] Since at least 2006, Dawkins has been very political.

Having a mere link to a Political views of Richard Dawkins article in the Richard Dawkins article very much downplays his very significant focus on politics.

In recent years, Dawkins has had very intense battles with feminists/Islamacists/progressives.Knox490 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your contribs shows an unhealthy interest in spreading FUD against a couple of BLP subjects. The problem, as I noted at 10:43, 23 July 2017 above, concerns finding reliable secondary sources that would make any new information WP:DUE. If Dawkins had never been a biologist and author of several widely known books, this article would not exist. There would not be an article about yet another person who makes commentary on the internet—that is the reason the article is the way it is. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
John, the book which sold the most copies by Dawkins was the book The God Delusion (It was not any of his biology related books although those books did sell well). I mentioned above that Dawkins considers the New Atheism movement to be a political endeavor (He was one of the founders of this movement). Dawkins expertise is not in philosophy/theology/politics and he has received a lot of legitimate criticism from even his fellow atheists that are public figures. For example, the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said about the book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[16] Dawkins has also received abundant valid criticism from political commentators from all portions of the political spectrum.
Dawkins's ineptness when it comes to political communications and his penchant for creating online internet firestorms has become such a major issue that his own doctors advised him not engage in controversies because they felt it would be injurious to his health.[17]
I believe you have an unhealthy interest in defending new atheists from legitimate criticism. The public criticism of Dawkins by public figures has been abundantly documented in reliable sources. I do admire passion in people relative to their worldviews/politics and new atheists are often described even by themselves as "firebrands", but passion does need to be tempered by an openness to receive legitimate criticism. I have endeavored to be very civil on talk pages and I ask you to return the favor. Knox490 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of Dawkins Defenders who resent and revert anything that smacks of Criticism of Their HERO. But perhaps they will be a bit more open minded now? Try creating a section. NBeale (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Either that, or most of the Dawkins criticism does not deserve the term "criticism" because it is too lowbrow and too irrelevant to include here. The part that does not come from theologians and their defenders tends to be smarter, to appear in more reliable sources, and to be more worthy of inclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Dawkins is anti-Islam.69.255.82.84 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I am talking about the people who did not understand what he wrote and accuse him of saying things he did not say, and about those who use the Courtier's Reply. Those supply "most of the Dawkins criticism".
Anti-Islam is another can of worms. This sort of "criticism" comes from the Control-Left, not from the Godbotherers. What does it have to do with what I said? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In recent times the vast majority of the criticism of Richard Dawkins comes from the secular left. At present, about 60% of the first page of Google news is negative towards Dawkins and the vast bulk of it comes from the secular left.[18]
If one looks at the present search results and Google News results for Richard Dawkins, the dominant criticism of Richard Dawkins comes from The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Salon, New Republic, The Independent, The Times and The Atlantic which are all news sources filled with secular leftist journalists.
When Dawkins chose to direct his fire against feminists and Islam, he failed to consider the constant barrage of criticism that would ensue from the secular left. Knox490 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so, when I say "most criticism", I mean "most criticism" and not "most criticism in recent times". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and progressives

I asked for some input at Talk:Social justice warrior. If anyone more familiar with Richard Dawkins than I could add some input/feedback, I would appreciate it. Knox490 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins has used the term social justice warrior/SJW and we do have a reliable source noting this matter. "Learned a useful new phrase this week: Social Justice Warrior. SJWs can't forgive Shakespeare for having the temerity to be white and male." - Richard Dawkins.[19][20]
Since identity politics has become a big political issue (particularly the issues of feminism, racism and Islam) and has become a bit of a thorn in Dawkins's side, could the article please tackle this issue?
One the issue of race, we have the notable atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticizing the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.[21]
On the issue of sexism/feminism, there was the "Elevatorgate" controversy which was covered by a number of reliable sources such as major news outlets and Discover Magazine.[22][23][24][25]
Dawkins has indicated that he is always being accused of Islamophobia and that the word Islamophobia is a non-word.[26]
What is Dawkins' current view on "SJWs"? Has his position hardened, softened or stayed about the same? Knox490 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It clearly is a word though, isn't it? If the best defense someone can give of not having particular views about certain people is that they attack the word to designate those views, they are confusing terminology with the thing the terminology is meant to capture and not really dealing with the problem. 155.192.180.10 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_23&oldid=1026294966"