Talk:Richard Dawkins

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)