Talk:Richard Dawkins

Automated peer review

Please remember to run this every several edits: tools:~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Richard_Dawkins At this point, it only complains about American and British English spelling differences and the standard copyedit reminder.--Livingrm (talk)

Title Foto

The most upper foto of Dawkins doesn't seem to be very nice (on purpose?) Why not use one like this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23images/dawkinsRichard.jpg The current version is like using http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/media/13398/Obama_440.jpg as the title foto of an article about Obama. --84.177.203.84 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the one there. I don't think it's un-nice. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording of 'lead sentence'

Having read the talk page, I understand the logic of starting each paragraph with a 'lead sentence', and I think that it generally helps to structure a complex article. However, this sentence:

"Dawkins has a large set of reasons for his anti-religious stance."

doesn't read well to me; it doesn't strike a suitable tone for an encyclopedia. I hesitate to make a change in what seems to have been a rather over-edited article, but what about changing it to something like "Dawkins has put forward many reasons for his anti-religious stance."? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds much better. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems biased

Why is there little or no criticism of Dawkins? Certainly some credible people have some issues with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. How many threads have we had on this topic so far? Can't we add the "blah blah Criticism Section blah blah" matter to the resolved issues list, or to an FAQ? — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP why don't you try to find some credible criticism and contribute on improving the article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that 69.211.150.99 was asking before doing. If there is no Criticism section by now, it seems that there is some reason why not. He's asking. --Dan Kuck (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As Dawkins is a fairly controversial figure, there definitely ought to be some sort of "Criticism" section. As much of the controversy surrounds his book The God Delusion, we could probably use many of the links provided on that page.95.146.236.165 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on/criticism of The God Delusion belongs at The God Delusion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that there is much valid criticism to be made. Despite Dawkins being unfailingly polite and soft-spoken, he is criticised for being shrill and strident. This criticism, while widespread, is unfounded, and really reflects the discomfort with his forthright dismissal of religion, rather than a valid criticism of Dawkins or his work.Trishm (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. --Dan Kuck (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He is often intolerant of other people's opinions opposite to his even in science ( See Jay Gould criticism ) , uses argumentation not short of phallacies ( see the straw man argumant often used his books , just for starters ).

I'll second that, see http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10778/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.37.80 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New honorary doctorate

Richard Dawkins recently received an honorary doctorate in science (DSc) from the University of Aberdeen, which is not included in the article. Source: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/details-4924.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcados (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)