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)

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)

I don't think they are asking whether Dawkins is a nice guy or not or whether he is polite. By criticism, they mean critique. For example, Trishm, you mention that many are uncomfortable with his forthright dismissal or religion. If someone were to write write a book evaluating Dawkins' arguments, he would be called a critic. If the book were noteworthy, it might be worth mentioning it. This does not mean though that we need to hunt up a critic for every one of Dawkins' views.Chappell (talk) 15:55, 15 February 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.97.187 (talk)

This is a link to an excerpt from a book by Keith Ward, a clergyman who favours theistic evolution. It is subtitled "Doubting Dawkins". From his Wikipedia biography we learn that he is a notable figure and the author of books on the relationship between science and religion. He is also identified as a critic of Richard Dawkins' ideas. He is not mentioned in the article Richard Dawkins.

Has Dawkins' been criticized by any who share his views? For example, some might consider him too strident and fear that his advocacy could backfire on them.

Chappell (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park

Shouldn't there at least be a word about his portrayal in South Park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. It appears you are referring to a television show - am I correct? - and thus there would have to be something that made this notable as opposed to the other 427856480 shows on the system. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about here. Every other article mentions it if somebody just has a 5-second cameo in whatever show, and here we have someone who is not related to tv at all being the subject of one of the most commercially succesful cartoon shows of all time. even if it wasn't a very flattering portrayal, imo it should defenitly be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed to death when the episode first aired, and is linked as a "resolved issue" in an orange box at the top of this talk page. Consensus was that it wasn't appropriate for the article, you can read through the linked archives to follow the discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's utterly ridicolous, whatever though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. Listing every appearance of someone in some random TV show just to appease the fans is a detriment to the Wikipedia database. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know why I care about this at all, but I feel obliged to make this point:The reason to put it in would be that the vast vast majority of all people who ever heard about this man know him from south park, which is not a random tv show but one of the most well-known and succesful shows of the last decade, which featured him very prominently and at length for 2 episodes. i am no wiki-insider and don't know the exact rules as well as you do, but to suggest that this is completly irrellevant...makes no sense. I just keep coming back to the conclusion that the unfavorouble portrayal of him and his ideas pisses his followers of so much that they have to censor his article. I mean, I understand, as you had this discussion before and i'm pretty sure the opinion of someone whos not even registered isn't regarded that valuable at all, nevermind me (no sarcasm intended here) But i had to make this point for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a reference to south park be added under a In Popular Culture section. It cannot be denied that South Park has a huge cultural influence. South Park deeply effects everyone and everything that it mentions. Its like saying that the President speaking against Dawkins, wouldn't be note worthy. This is especially true considering Matt and Trey devoted an entire episode to Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimblorski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I too agree in that a section "In popular culture" should include that portrayal in South Park. And McGeddon, of course you are entitled to say what you think, but I want to encourage the IPs poster to not think that because the topic was discussed and a consensus was reached it is not possible to reopen the discussion if consensus seems to have changed. I haven't seen the specific South Park but I imagine it was not very flattering but nevertheless, by neutrality, all things that constitute reliable information should be included.  franklin  20:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He never appeared per se in South Park though he has commented on the episode here... Go_God_Go#Richard_Dawkins.27_response. So we have it covered. It would be an appearance if he provided something to get a credit e.g. a voice, then we would bother but as we can see he's not actually in the show. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Information is not available if it is not linked. You have to know about South Park or know that he was referred there to find that article (or use the random article tool and be lucky). Another thing is that for an entry in a "In popular culture" section he doesn't need to appear in the episode, he only needs to be mentioned some how (it rest to know how and what did they say). I read the article Go, God, go and it seems to be that contrary to what he (Dawkins) commented something important is said (of course, through the distorted filter of humor and of South Park, which is sui generis in humor) they describe evolution and talk about the possibility of seeing Atheism as a human condition that can lead to war an problems as well as any other. Of course, this is done to contrast with Dawkins' position about religion, in which he attributes this qualities as something inherent of it. Finally, such an entry in a "In popular culture" section wouldn't be something defamatory, it could say something like "This and that episode of South Park alludes Richard Dawkins". And if more detail is wanted it can be said about Mrs Garrison giving that version of evolution and the thing about atheism in the future. Definitely not the sex with Mrs Garrison since that is only there because of the usual style of South Park of being gross or do humor (which ever is preferred).  franklin  03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article doesn't need a trivia section so I don't see the point of all this. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this so many times. Please review the links at the top of the page and see why the consensus is to not include it. If you can come up with a new argument feel free to express it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just did and it seems to be that no such consensus exists. Even counting give a very tight consensus. Even more, it seems to be that the consensus was to create a Richard Dawkins in popular culture article, which after being created should be linked from here. I was reviewing the reasons for not including it and all turn around the good article condition of this article. It is not that I have to come up with a new argument, it is just a matter of coming up with the arguments for the inclusion and let me be counted among those who consider pertinent the inclusion. Mentioning the number of time it has been discussed only shows, the weakness of the claim of the existence of a consensus in this topic.  franklin  13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

134.93.65.136, you say that "the vast vast majority of all people who ever heard about this man know him from south park". South Park's first season had viewing figures typically at the level of a few million; Dawkins's books have sold a similar number of copies. Obviously other people have seen the SP episode since it was first broadcast, but likewise many many people will have come across Dawkins though his academic publications, numerous columns for various major news services, appearances on national television, and his being referenced by all sorts of people talking about biology, atheism and religion in print, on television and elsewhere. I very much doubt that a majority of people who heard about him did so through South Park; and I'm completely certain it's not a vast majority. Basically, this was a minor event in the life of a man who's famous for a number of other reasons: I doubt it would appear in a biography of him regardless of its negative or otherwise portrayal of his views. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's definitely nonsense, to say that Dawkins is know for South Park. first come all those publications. I agree with Olaf on this. Now, I wouldn't doubt too much about South Park not being mentioned in biographies [1], since it has already happened.  franklin  14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• It also appears in these autobiographical notes [2] that is the one quoted in the Go God go article.  franklin  14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fair cop, I stand corrected on that. Thanks Franklin. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that South Park is not something that Dawkins did, it is a third party using his name. Richard Dawkins has been mentioned in the media tens of thousands of times, in newspapers, in magazines, on radio, on TV. There was a two page article about him in my morning paper today, for instance. Many of these mentions are in important and or popular publications or programs, that have reached not tens but hundreds of millions of people. It is up to the supporters of South Park to show why, of all these thousands of media references, the South Park program is important enough to be the only one to be mentioned in this article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely not. I don't think it has never been said that South Park should be the only thing to be included in a section "In popular culture". For example there is music inspired by his work, see Frameshift (band), the appearance in Stephen Colbert's show and who knows what else people can find about him. Another thing is that a section "In popular culture" isn't supposed to be only things that he did. It is true that Dawkins is mentioned in many publications but maybe those directly linked to a scientific character do not belong to a "In popular culture" section. That challenge that you pose is completely without base. Even more, unlike Frameshift (band), which is linked in the "see also section", South Park is never mentioned here. So I could ask, why is Go God Go the only one not included? A link to that article can perfectly go into the see also section. I think the thing with Colbert should also be said and it doesn't seems to be included right now. (to justify why this seems less compulsory notice the fact that Dawkins is not mentioned in Stephen Colbert's article).  franklin  07:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not just pile on popular culture. The essay at WP:IPC warns against this, and suggests that "if a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgement". Where is the secondary source supporting the notability of this South Park episode? All I ever hear is South Park fans telling us how "important" it is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• First of all be careful not getting too close to being disrespectful. People having a different opinion as yours don't have to be "South Park fans" so, don't belittle them. Now to the point. I addressed the concerns of your previous post i.e. why it doesn't have to be something that Dawkins did, why a "In popular culture" section doesn't have to include all media reference to Dawkins, and examples why South Park is not the only one (there others not mentioned, the thing with Colbert, and others mentioned, the thing with the music band). Now. In this new post you ask for the formality of reliable secondary source. That has already been given before, but let's repeat it. Dawkins autobiographical notes in his web site. It just happens that South Park is (for good or bad) a widely seen cartoon. There is an article dedicates to each of its episodes, in particular to this one. Now that I found about Frameshift (band) in the see also section. Why a link to Go God Go can not be there? As I said before, the information is not accessible if it is not linked. This article is linked from there but there is not way of getting there from here. Is information that is being hidden.  franklin  08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't aware being a SP fan was a bad thing. But no disrespect intended. I presume it is this comment you use as a reference: Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Hardly an endorsement of it's notability, if it is hardly worth a comment. And I suspect neither the band nor the the Colbert appearance are justified here either. Are we not just creating another "List of One-Off Trivial References in Media Adding Nothing to Understanding of the Subject"? --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is precisely understanding the subject what is about. Dawkins is, beyond his scientific role, a popular figure. His coining of the word "meme" gave him a status within popular culture that goes far beyond its scientific connotation. Also his activism in defending evolution and atheism. Not every scientist gets reflected in popular culture in those ways, not even among the really notable ones. See for example the Novel prizes, how many are really known? I how many are known beyond their scientific connotation? Very different in the case of Dawkins. Take, for example the impact of memes (especially in internet). It is because of the popularity of the term "meme" that some are invented even for the sake of it. The South Park thing shows the influence in the culture around evolution, atheism and religion. Precisely because what Dawkins aims is at a cultural revolution regarding these two points. I only gave one reference before for being lazy but more can be given. Take this one for example. In general, Dawkins as a popular figure is something that should be treated better in the article since it is an aspect of Dawkins that takes an important part of his life. Most of what he does is related and aimed to the popular culture and therefore it is important to show how it gets reflected. In any case, I just noticed that my participation in this discussion is unjustified. I just noticed that I am happy with the way things were in the article. The information is indeed linked.  franklin  14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• In articles in Encyclopaedia Britanica [3].  franklin  14:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawkin's religion

Why not stating his religion? Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since his atheism is prominently discussed in the article's text, I assume you're referring to the infobox. If so the answer is that the 'religion' field was removed from the scientist infobox following this discussion. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems, only a very small circle of people discussed it. Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also "No Religion" is not a religion per se. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of him being a NonStampCollector [;)] :

To quote Clark Adams: "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease". -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find Adams quite confused here.  franklin  03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Take the definition of atheism: "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities." which is different from "no religion" while disease does implies the lack of health.  franklin  03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deities, hence the "a-theism". A theist believes, an atheist does not. It is semantically the same as "a-symmetrical" and the like. The position that there are no deities - that even Dawkins admits is one that cannot be defended with absolute certainty (remember "a-teapotist" and "a-fairyist"?) - is what is often (confusingly and rather erroneously) termed "strong" atheism. This is not the place to start a debate on the topic - especially with one possessing the potential to overrun the page - so I will not continue. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely, and that is why I said that I find Adams very wrong in that phrase. The relation between atheism and religion is not the same as health and disease. "religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", atheism is not disjoint from religion, actually it can be called a religion, an a-theist religion. On the other hand, the presence of a disease excludes the possibility of being healthy. franklin  05:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, atheism is not a religion. It is, by definition, a LACK of religion. Furthermore, this does not affect the decision for removal of the "religion" parameter from the scientist template, nor necessitate a mention when the article is very clear on this topic. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Notice that I never said the article needs to state Dawkins' religion or even more I never said atheism is a religion. I only chalenged Adams quotation. I said "it is not disjoint". I think both Adams and you need to go and study some more. There are in fact atheists religions. Several of them. And read also your own Wikipedia article on atheism, atheism is not lack of religion.  franklin  17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Two direct quotes from you, "atheism is not disjoint from religion, actually it can be called a religion" and "even more I never said atheism is a religion." On top of lying, your last set of comments were rude, disrespectful and ludicrously wrong. Are you trolling this page? Sure seems like it. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Both Adams and you need to go study"? "Go read your own Wikipedia article on atheism"? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• You forgot to quote "there are in fact atheist religions". So, although a bad use of English on my behalf, "it can be called a religion" refers to when the two labels are applicable. This section on the talk page started with a question that Olaf answered appropriately. I just showed that the rude comment (since that phrase by Adams is, on top of incorrect, belittling for the person who did the original question). There is a difference between defending a point and doing it by ridiculing those with the opposite opinion. If you find that trolling Ican only say that trolled can be who is susceptible of being trolled. Now corrected my English, reconsider what I said, read the corresponding articles in Wikipedia and/or other sources and tell me if I am "ludicrously wrong".  franklin  21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• "If you find that trolling Ican only say that trolled can be who is susceptible of being trolled." Wow, that's a pretty douchey thing to say. Enjoy being proud and defensive about being wrong. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• A starting point to read, More specific & As a curiosity or a joke.  franklin  22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins vs Craig

I believe it would be intersting to mention, in a small section, about de debates that Dawkins made, like with Alistair McGraith and John Lennox, and also put that Dawkins is running away from William Lane Craig to debate him (of course, not in this words...). Momergil (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's already quite a lot about debates in the article (e.g. a reference to his "prominence in public debates about science and religion" in the Atheism and rationalism section). If there are other notable figures whom he has notably engaged in debate, maybe that section should be edited – though (a) it must be notable, and (b) Lennox is already mentioned (excessively, IMHO) at The God Delusion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Said

It is said in the article that Clinton John Dawkins was in the King's African Rifles. I have not seen a proof of this, apart from Dawkins' own blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in The Ancestor's Tale, which is a reliable source. It'd be nice to have a more independent one, but I think given the uncontroversial level of the claim - and that it's not actually by CJD himself - it's relatively acceptable. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Theoretical Biologist"

Source on Dawkins being a theoretical biologist? What qualifies him, or anybody, as such? When did Dawkins become a theoretical biologist? Has he always been one? The wiki on theoretical biology that this is linked to is embarrasing. It says nothing, isn't cited, and is filled with original research. So, theoretical biology, according to Crick, is "a suggested point of view for an attack on a scientific problem" That's a pretty broad definition. Not to mention the fact that Crick never called this theoretical biology. From the Wiki article:

"The common use of this word throughout the biological literature[original research?] has only recently culminated in a formal definition[original research?] offered by Francis Crick and Christof Koch" The whole line is nonsense and the article probably shouldnt even exist.

So Dawkins "suggests a point a view" that is untestable/not falsfiable and he is a theoretical biologist. We should add Freud to the list of theoretical biologists. I mean, anyone with a biology background who introduces "points of view" that aren't scientific is a biological theorist, right?

Savagedjeff (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. I can't find the phrase "theoretical biologist" anywhere in this article. What are you referring to? Even still, the great bulk of his professional work concerns theories of evolutionary biology, so I'm not sure why there is an affront to this phrase. CosineKitty (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess Savagedjeff is referring to the inclusion of Dawkins in a list of theoretical biologists at Theoretical biology. Maybe this thread should be moved to Talk:Theoretical biology. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First line : "Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British biological theorist". Click on that and theoretical biology comes up.

Savagedjeff (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see that. Sorry I missed the different wording. Wow, that other article is indeed a mess. As to this article: most of my exposure to Richard Dawkins has been by reading his books about evolutionary biology, the theory of the "selfish gene", etc. I guess we could have a debate about whether his theories are testable or not. Because most of his work is an attempt to explain observations in biology, the fossil record, etc., it would be a real stretch to say that theoretical biologist is anything other than the most concise and accurate description of what he is most noted for. CosineKitty (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well he is most noted for being a popular science writer that popularizes other people's ideas. There is no "selfish gene theory". There is no extended phenotype theory, and there is no meme theory. What are his biological theories? Name one. Theory has a specific meaning in science and Dawkins has produced none that I am aware of. Or has he added anything scientific to an existing theory. Not to mention that all these ideas were introduced and largely explained through pop books and not the peer review process.

Savagedjeff (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all, and saying such things comes dangerously close to libel. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Name one thing I said that is untrue.

Savagedjeff (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one. "Theory has a specific meaning in science and Dawkins has produced none". -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a theory has to be testable/falsifiable. So what theory has Dawkins produced? I know Dawkins' work like the back of my hand so I can't wait for your response.

Savagedjeff (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion to improve this article, because talk pages should not be used a forum per WP:TALK. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I assmue the specific suggestion is the removal of the words "biological theorist". I don't see that that's a bad description, whether or not he's ever produced a piece of work which would be called "Foo Theory". He's clearly a biologist and the stuff he does is not collecting samples or labwork: he works on biological theory. I haven't looked for sources but am confident that that's what 'theorist' means as commonly used by native English speakers. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But why is Dawkins a "biological theorist"? I don't see that term on any other biologist's wiki. Including Crick, who is was misrepresented to get that article created in the first place. When has Dawkins ever been referred to as a biological theorist by himself or others? Who even uses the term? And "theory" in science is much different than theory in general discourse. People out in the field are working on biological theory too. In fact, that is where most of the theory of evolution comes from.

Savagedjeff (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Savagedjeff argues the point from several directions, so here is my take on them independently.

• "Who even uses the term?" For what it is worth, Google search does show that the term "theoretical biologist" (32,100 hits) appears more common than "biological theorist" (6,990 hits). To my ear, the former also sounds more familiar. So I would have no problem changing to "theoretical biologist".
• About Crick: I'm not familiar with that issue; you may or may not have a valid point, but I don't see how that has anything to do with improving this article.
• The meaning of theory in science. Here is where I think the dispute seriously hinges. To settle the issue by consensus, we would all need to agree whether Dawkins has originated a new scientific theory, or at least nontrivially enhanced or modified an existing scientific theory. I'm open to persuasion in either direction, because I'm really not that familiar with Dawkins' work in biology. I think we can all agree that Dawkins is a well-known exponent and popularizer of the theory of evolution. If that is the entirety of his contribution to science, then it is not so easy to dismiss Savagedjeff's objections.

CosineKitty (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that those are not the entirety of his contributions; he is largely the one behind the "selfish gene" and "meme" concepts, the former of which is especially influential. I'm not a biologist either - as you know - but it appears that a major reason there is dispute about Dawkins' scientific contributions is that they are largely overshadowed by his more recent (and more controversial) work in scientific popularization and religion. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I agree that "theoretical biologist" is better than "biological theorist" for naturalness's sake. Second, I agree that his propagation of the gene's-eye view of evolution is a significant contribution to theoretical biology. Third, I still disagree that he'd need to have made such a contrbiution to qualify for the title: someone who spends their life studying biology as an academic is a biologist, regardless of how significant their impact is. If the biology they study is theoretical, thenthey're a theoretical biologist. Finally, I admit that the word theory has multiple meanings which can be confusing, but I stand by what I said above about the meaning of the word theoretical in its scientific context as most frequently used.Olaf Davis (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the label theoretical biologist. What I literally said was that to reach consensus (i.e. to settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction, including Savagedjeff's), if we could all agree that Dawkins has provided notable theoretical work in the field of biology, then the matter would be settled. That degree of consensus may not be possible. The idea of the selfish gene and his list of published papers may not be persuasive to everyone as "theoretical" works. Now that I have studied more about Dawkins' work, I am fine with the label, but of course I speak only for myself. Here are a couple of options. The majority opinion can simply overrule the minority opinion, and we leave the wording as-is. Or we change to "theoretical biologist" because that sounds better (my current preference). Another possibility is to describe him as an "evolutionary biologist", a "professor of biology", or whatever term satisfies everyone and accurately describes Dawkins.

I believe "evolutionary biologist" would likely be best; that is how he is often introduced and/or described as. Regarding "biological theorist" or "theoretical biologist", I much prefer the latter as well, if only because it is more natural (think of theoretical physicist as a parallel). -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Radical One, how about that libel charge? You gonna prove it or show one instance where I was wrong? Noticed you kind of forgot about that attack on me. So either retract it or show some evidence. And again, you show no clue about biology or the man's work. The Selfish Gene is merely a popular account of the gene centered view of evolution. Which Dawkins has adding nothing to. What is the contribution in this book? Memes is also in that book. Memes is a pseudoscience that has been abandoned by nearly all of its original supporters. I'm sure Dawkins is even embarassed be proposed such a thing and why he never talks about it and if it is brought up he says like one sentence and tries to change the subject. The gene centered view of evolution is not even right anyway. When you say he is "largely behind" the selfish gene, what does that even mean? And explain to me how it is influential. How can propagating one particular view of evolution, which most biologists dont even agree with, be considered a contribution to evolutionary theory? Are people who go out and trumpet nothing but String Theory in pop books making contributions to physics? No. I will show you what contributions to evolutionary theory actually look like:

Ernst Mayr- "His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced) based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation."

Savagedjeff (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I used his conception of the selfish gene theory as an example.

Furthermore, it appears you are more interested in starting an argument with other editors than improving the article. Such intent is against Wikipedia policy, highly discouraged, and repeat behavior of this sort may result in termination of your access to Wikipedia. So watch it. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in presenting facts which is all I have done. You are intersested in threatening and silencing me. So back up your claims because as of right now this article and material seems a little over your head.

And there is no "selfish gene theory". Keep trying.

Savagedjeff (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a selfish gene theory, if not in the same etymological sense as "theory of evolution" and "theory of relativity". Need I take you through it?

"This article and material seems over your head". If you are going to stoop to insults, I would hope for your sake that you enjoy having warnings (like the {{subst:uw-npa2}} I left you for this) leveled against you. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I also suggest you try a new style of talk page contributions - many of your comments on other pages, such as here and here, with that latter also involving another comment that appears to convey a dislike you seem to have for Dawkins and his work, are argumentative and inflammatory, and excessively critical. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, take me through it. And explain its influence. Even the wiki article on gene centered view of evolution use selfish gene interchangeably with gene centered view of evolution. As in one of the names that the gene centered view of evolution goes by. Dawkins gave it a different name that sounded cool to sell books. Just like he did with niche construction by renaming it the extended phenotype. The Selfish Gene is a POPULARIZATION of the gene centered view of evolution. It is not a theory. Theory has SPECIFIC meaning in science and you people are trampling all over it. The Selfish Gene isnt even a hypothesis. Savagedjeff (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The gene-centered view of evolution is essentially the concept of the selfish gene!

"Dawkins gave it a different name that sounded cool to sell books." Are you accusing him of plagiarism, and never having conceived anything of his own? THAT is libel.

Yes, it is not a technical "theory" in the scientific sense - I am aware of the nuances of the definitions; I have had to debate many creationists on the usage of "theory" - but most people reading Wikipedia will not know or care about minor issues of semantics. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we back up a little bit? This is getting needlessly argumentative and personal. To Savagedjeff: it is apparent you believe Richard Dawkins is overrated. That's fine. But please, try not to take things personally. Saying things like "you people" does not persuade me that you are trying to work with others; it implies that every other random person who happens to comment here is somehow in the same box, and to my ear, that you put yourself above the rest of us. Perhaps referring to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be a less offensive-sounding than libel, which to a newcomer might sound like we are ready to start calling lawyers or something. Bottom line: please talk about the article, make specific suggestions for changes. We already seem to have some consensus about changing "biological theorist" to "evolutionary biologist". Can we at least agree on that? CosineKitty (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An article about a scientist should have the term "theory" used in scientific context. I can't believe you would even be able to say otherwise. I can only attribute this to dishonesty and bias at this point with such a ridiculous statement. There is no nuance in the scientific definition, and science is what we are talking about. So stop with the red herrings. Why don't you go over to the Theory of Evolution page and tell them that most wiki readers don't care about such minor semantics. I am accusing Dawkins of being a popularizer of science and never adding to any existing theory, or conceiving a new one. Dawkins should be called a biological popularizer if anything, not a theorist. Considering he has produced many pop books and no theories. Or maybe even a biological philosopher. Dawkins is like Freud. He just talks. He proposes ideas that he even admits can't be tested. This is not science. This is not theory. This is not even hypothesis. Which is why they are written in pop books and not journals.

To cosine: My main problem is that this page is maintained by fan boys who are largely scientifically illiterate and will do anything to inflate Dawkins' credentials. Just look at the size of the article. Take the opening. It is 270 words. Compare that to other articles. Max Planck opening- 40 words. Planck is one of the best scientists of the century and on par with Einstein. Dobzhansky-63 words. A giant in evolutionary biology. etc.. etc.. The difference between Planck/Dobzhansky and Dawkins, besides the obvious disparity in scientific output, is that Dawkins has a cult of personality surrounding him.

Savagedjeff (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I vote changing it to "evolutionary biologist", if for nothing else than it is more natural and more common.

"I am accusing Dawkins of being a popularizer of science and never adding to any existing theory, or conceiving a new one...Or maybe even a biological philosopher. Dawkins is like Freud. He just talks...This is not science...Which is why they are written in pop books and not journals."

Which is why you are being accused of POV editing. Such things can NOT be in an article about a living person; they are defamatory and violate the BLP policy mentioned by CosineKitty.

I've had it with this sort of discussion; this has degenerated into an argument with someone who feels Dawkins' reputation is largely undeserved, and aggressive responses - often including insults, no less - to those who disagree. Therefore, I will not respond (to SavageJeff) here anymore, but I will not hesitate to revert edits and drop warnings if unconstructive edits are made to the article itself. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We should wait

The clumsy wording regarding "is a British biological theorist" was introduced by a banned editor who made many changes to the article. In an effort to diffuse the discussion above, I have restored the first paragraph to how it was in this revision (at 08:52, 25 September 2009). I strongly recommend that we do not try to fix the wording any further because it is highly likely that the whole article will be reverted to the September revision when John Vandenberg resumes removing all edits by the banned user. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the edits helpful? If so, why will they be removed? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is best (per WP:DENY) that we do not say much about the case (and in fact I do not know much about it). However, there are a very small number of ultra-banned editors where it is standard to completely remove the contributions from their latest sockpuppet to avoid encouragement. Other editors are free to consider removed material and add it, preferably in their own words, but any large restorations would be reverted. When the changes were occurring, at least three regular editors were troubled by the direction (see archive 12 and search for "September"). If the article is wound back, I will go to a fair bit of trouble to ensure any good edits are reinstated, as will others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is good to know.

On a side note, it seems a rather ill-conceived policy to revert even constructive edits (and thus sacrifice quality) just to wipe away one editor...this is not the place to discuss that, so I will not continue.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very rare that we do this. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_57#Strange_edit_summaries_by_Golumbo for a recent discussion about this same banned editor.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The revert has now happened. I have to go now, but I'll work on the article in the next two days and will try to incorporate all the good edits since that time. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping "evolutionary biologist", which is in the current version from before the banned user's edit, instead of "biological theorist" or "theoretical biologist". This has the advantage that it's dead easy to source so hopefully we don't need to argue about it. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Evolutionary biologist" was the one I preferred as well. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress

• As discussed above, the article was reverted (09:24, 7 February 2010) to the version at 08:52, 25 September 2009.
• In this edit (05:51, 8 February 2010), I think I have incorporated all the good edits up to the end of November 2009.
• I have also done some minor cleaning: change double space to single space; no trailing spaces; no curly quotes; unlink dates.

I will be doing more work, maybe soon, but definitely in the next 24 hours. To avoid confusion, it might be best if other editors wait until I've finished. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Editors may want to review the changes I have made to the infobox and categories, as below.

• The "current" version refers to this (10:02, 8 February 2010 by Anomalocaris).
• The "previous" version refers to this (08:35, 7 February 2010 by Ttiotsw).

Infobox

• Change the "citizenship" entry from British to blank, as in previous version.
• The current "fields" entry omits sociobiologist which was in the previous version (omitting it seems correct to me).
• Change "influences" entry from nothing to previous entry: Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton
• Remove "religion" entry (no longer in the template).

Categories

• Remove category that was in current version:
  • Category:Recent single origin hypothesis
• Remove categories that were in previous version:
  • Category:Converts to atheism from Protestantism
  • Category:Critics of religions or philosophies
• Add categories from previous version:
  • Category:20th-century academics
  • Category:20th-century English people
  • Category:21st-century academics
  • Category:21st-century English people
• Change "British" to "English" in:
  • Category:British biologists
  • Category:British humanists
  • Category:British science writers
• Sort categories with this first: [[Category:Richard Dawkins| ]]

I am going to do a little more checking, and look at a couple of edits I haven't processed yet. However, I am nearly finished and the article should be correctly restored to how it was, less the banned editor's edits. Please do any fixes or improvements as wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Image

I understand the desire to use the most up-to-date image available, but the current image looks like absolute crap compared to previous versions like this one: [4] And when I say it "looks like crap", I don't just mean in terms of his personal appearance, I mean that the image isn't even properly focused. Can we go back to using one of the older images please? Bueller 007 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine as long as we don't use the one from a book signing, as the expression on his face in that photo - he was likely caught in mid-word - is deeply unflattering. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current image is much better than the previous one you're citing. I wish to keep the current image. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the image mentioned by Bueller 007. The current image is great for a family photo album (subject caught off-guard, ha ha), but it strikes me as less than professional, although I'm not used to arguing aesthetics. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I find that this article lacks of a section on criticism on Dawkins position. And I mean not just the criticism coming from the religious side but from the scientific community (not the religious scientific community). I mean real scientific criticism.  franklin  05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it lacks a separate section. But there are plenty of references to what critics say, under various headings. What specifically do you think should be added, where should it be placed, and how should it be worded? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended Phenotype

What is its contribution to evolutionary biology? Considering it is not even a testable hypothesis and has not been incorporated into evolutionary theory.....at all. Where can I see this contribution in action? source please?

Savagedjeff (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving somebody a few days to justify this "contribution" or I am removing it.

Savagedjeff (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are arguing here. A contribution to a field can only take the form of a testable hypothesis? Seems fairly ridiculous. We can argue about semantics but at the end of the day a book largely on subject matter relating to evolutionary biology and widely cited seems like a contribution to me. Basically - see all the responses to your previous thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs)

TEP is, for a book, extremely widely cited in the primary scientific literature. A quick check over at the ISI Web of Knowledge suggests that it's been cited more than 700 times since publication in 1983. That's enormous. Most scientists would sell their grandmothers to achieve this level of (published) interest in their work. And this is just one of his contributions — TSG racks up a further 800+ citations in the primary literature (even TGD has around 200, and it was only published in 2006). --PLUMBAGO 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So where does it fit in evolutionary theory? What use is it if it can't even be tested? What did it contribute? Please link me to the site with the citations. I would like to see them

Savagedjeff (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you please engage with Plumbago's reply, or raise a substantive issue regarding development of the article. This is not the place to express personal dissatisfaction with Dawkins or TEP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

and I asked for a link. I want to know how writing a pop book based on an untestable and unscientific hypothesis is a contribution. So, tell me how it contributed to evolutionary biology as is claimed. Or remove it. Is the God Delusion a major contribution to theology as well?

Savagedjeff (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the Richard Dawkins page about criticism of Dawkins. I am an atheist myself and agree with his general worldview, but he is mainly preaching to the converted and not trying in the least to meet religious people on a premise of debate that they can even remotely accept. So his comments about religion just amounts to hitting these people over the head with a big club. I'd like to see a few words about those secular academics, like Terry Eagleton, who offer justified critiques of Dawkins' attitude and method. Tue Sorensen (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)