Talk:Richard Dawkins: Difference between revisions
→Is Dawkins a scientist or a science journalist?: of course he is a scientist as well as a science populariser |
|||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
:::{{ping|Bduke}} Did you watch the video? Maybe is just me, but I didn't see any waspishness in Dr. Wilson when he said that, nor when he provided the reasons behind that assertion. By using the argument of "how many times" one can find a description about someone or something, one should then agree with all major religions in their claims. That's to say that it is not a good argument or measure of truth/reality how many times something has been said. If all we need to do for being considered as scientists is to write about science or to create hypothesis, then Deleuze can be seen as a great scientist. In fact, Deleuze understood better modern genetics in 1968 than Dawkins up to date. [[Fashionable nonsense]] complains about philosophers abuse of scientific jargon, but I can't imagine a person who has abused more the scientific language than Dawkins. Science is an activity that requires experimentation. Considering that nowadays everything is called "science" is worthy to highlight that biology is an empirical science and therefore experimentation is a must. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an activist, and if you want a politician, none of which is a derogatory term. On the contrary, those are valuable activities. Will you call a person "journalist" if he or she doesn't write or is not part of a team that communicates something? Calling a person who doesn't do science a scientist is disrespectful with the scientific community. While politics have a major influence in the academia and in academic research, I would expect a site like Wikipedia to be totally independent. [[User:Prdm12|Prdm12]] ([[User talk:Prdm12|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|Bduke}} Did you watch the video? Maybe is just me, but I didn't see any waspishness in Dr. Wilson when he said that, nor when he provided the reasons behind that assertion. By using the argument of "how many times" one can find a description about someone or something, one should then agree with all major religions in their claims. That's to say that it is not a good argument or measure of truth/reality how many times something has been said. If all we need to do for being considered as scientists is to write about science or to create hypothesis, then Deleuze can be seen as a great scientist. In fact, Deleuze understood better modern genetics in 1968 than Dawkins up to date. [[Fashionable nonsense]] complains about philosophers abuse of scientific jargon, but I can't imagine a person who has abused more the scientific language than Dawkins. Science is an activity that requires experimentation. Considering that nowadays everything is called "science" is worthy to highlight that biology is an empirical science and therefore experimentation is a must. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an activist, and if you want a politician, none of which is a derogatory term. On the contrary, those are valuable activities. Will you call a person "journalist" if he or she doesn't write or is not part of a team that communicates something? Calling a person who doesn't do science a scientist is disrespectful with the scientific community. While politics have a major influence in the academia and in academic research, I would expect a site like Wikipedia to be totally independent. [[User:Prdm12|Prdm12]] ([[User talk:Prdm12|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::I agree that Dawkins is something of a journalist, although science populariser is a better descriptor as that is what he did as Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. That does not stop him also being a scientist. The idea that Dawkins is not a scientist is total nonsense. The Department of Zoology at Oxford and New College do not appoint non-scientists to the positions he jointly held in the University and New College. Oxford is also one of the top 4 universities in the world by recent rankings. That is my last word as you are unlikely to convince anyone here on wikipedia. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
::::I agree that Dawkins is something of a journalist, although science populariser is a better descriptor as that is what he did as Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. That does not stop him also being a scientist. The idea that Dawkins is not a scientist is total nonsense. The Department of Zoology at Oxford and New College do not appoint non-scientists to the positions he jointly held in the University and New College. Oxford is also one of the top 4 universities in the world by recent rankings. That is my last word as you are unlikely to convince anyone here on wikipedia. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Bduke}}For your last word my last word. Being hired as a professor doesn't have anything to do with being or not a scientist. For becoming a professor you need two things: a title; connections. That's it and has been like this for a thousand years since the academic system was invented (well maybe a less but who cares). Or will you say that a PhD in metaphysics is a scientist? No he/she is not. Philosophers are more humble in this respect as they don't see themselves as philosophers but as a philosophy historians until they really produce something new. Ask around in your academic environment and corroborate that by yourself. I recognize some lab technicians as hardcore scientists even if they don't have a PhD title, because they are scientists. People should earn their stripes, and Dawkins didn't earn his stripes as a scientist. As simple as that. He is popular... yes. He is a nice guy... some friends of mine who know him personally say he is. But he is not and probably will never be a scientist, unless he do some real science. [[User:Prdm12|Prdm12]] ([[User talk:Prdm12|talk]]) 08:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Skilling == |
== Skilling == |
Revision as of 08:42, 16 March 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Dawkins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Dawkins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | Richard Dawkins has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
POV tag
Reads more like a fan page and any controversial comments made by Dawkins which are added to the article are deleted. Therefore, the article is POV.Boone jenner (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Removed tag until you list what comments you want added to the article. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of news items about Dawkins comments on Down Syndrome fetuses and what parent should do (abort them). I think we need a "criticisms of" section for Dawkins which could eventually become a full fledged article. There were also his comments about pedophilia which are notable because of the attention they received in numerous newspapers and media outlets. I would say we should at least acknowledge these controversial comments. Otherwise this is just a vanity article. I'm re-adding the POV tag. People have attempted to add these comments and have been struck down. I suspect it's because a lot of Wikipedians are also fans of Dawkins and don't want to see his name disparaged. That's definitely POV.Boone jenner (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the archives of this page, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was just thinking "ah Dawkins has said another controversial thing, let's go to see wikipedia and see some of the others" and lo and behold, there is none. Most times he has made the news in the last few years it's because of something controversial he has said that the press has picked up on. I have read the above but still feel the article is missing out a great deal of the publicly-revealed character of the man. It seems odd to have a "awards & recognitions" section (containing purely positive words) without a corresponding negative section. Going by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies perhaps the section could be renamed "reception" and include both positive and negative interactions he has had with the public. I still don't understand what is so bad about having a controversy section when he has been involved in so many of them though. See Frankie Boyle's page for example, or Gene Simmons (the first two other peopel I could think of who have been involved in controversies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.34.132 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember that there is a wealth of difference between something that is controversial, and something that a tabloid newspaper source has reported as being controversial. WP, however, must remain neutral. As such, we decide if a 'criticism' is noteworthy or if it is not. Until such a time as Dawkins does something that we can unanimously determine as noteworthy, there is no requirement for a criticism section.Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC
- Use of term "tabloid" by yourself and others is POV/incorrect, avoids the issue and is an ad hominem attack. Please be more constructive. You basically ignored almost everything I said. If you want more evidence of its controversialness/noteworthyness, how about the fact he has today issued an apology of sorts? [[1]] 86.20.34.132 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was just thinking "ah Dawkins has said another controversial thing, let's go to see wikipedia and see some of the others" and lo and behold, there is none. Most times he has made the news in the last few years it's because of something controversial he has said that the press has picked up on. I have read the above but still feel the article is missing out a great deal of the publicly-revealed character of the man. It seems odd to have a "awards & recognitions" section (containing purely positive words) without a corresponding negative section. Going by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies perhaps the section could be renamed "reception" and include both positive and negative interactions he has had with the public. I still don't understand what is so bad about having a controversy section when he has been involved in so many of them though. See Frankie Boyle's page for example, or Gene Simmons (the first two other peopel I could think of who have been involved in controversies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.34.132 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the archives of this page, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of news items about Dawkins comments on Down Syndrome fetuses and what parent should do (abort them). I think we need a "criticisms of" section for Dawkins which could eventually become a full fledged article. There were also his comments about pedophilia which are notable because of the attention they received in numerous newspapers and media outlets. I would say we should at least acknowledge these controversial comments. Otherwise this is just a vanity article. I'm re-adding the POV tag. People have attempted to add these comments and have been struck down. I suspect it's because a lot of Wikipedians are also fans of Dawkins and don't want to see his name disparaged. That's definitely POV.Boone jenner (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The POV tag definitely belongs if his comments on Down Syndrome are left out. I challenge anybody to find a British news outlet that hasn't reported it. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a global encyclopaedia. I have no idea what he said. How about you report it here, with sourcing? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the onus is on yourself to provide citations, not to 'challenge' others to do so. Also, as a Brit, you may need to be aware that you might have difficulty finding tabloid sources that are considered reputable. Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently The Independent is a "tabloid" now. You can just smell the POV coming through on these comments by people who don't want any kind of 'controversies' section added. They're probably fanboys of Dawkins. For the record there are About 1,780 results on Google News for "Richard Dawkins down syndrome". I guess those are all "tabloids" too and untrustworthy? I would say 1780 news articles is definitely noteworthy. [2] Boone jenner (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please attempt to retain and remember WP standards of civility as discussed at Wikipedia:Civility.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Justin, perhaps it would have been better to post this reminder on the user's talk page rather than here as it bears no relevance to the article in question. I would also note that asserting that the user wasn't even attempting to be civil is a violation of WP:AGF. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please attempt to retain and remember WP standards of civility as discussed at Wikipedia:Civility.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently The Independent is a "tabloid" now. You can just smell the POV coming through on these comments by people who don't want any kind of 'controversies' section added. They're probably fanboys of Dawkins. For the record there are About 1,780 results on Google News for "Richard Dawkins down syndrome". I guess those are all "tabloids" too and untrustworthy? I would say 1780 news articles is definitely noteworthy. [2] Boone jenner (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- We should probably have an article on Social and political views of Richard Dawkins, given that he is such an opinionated figure. See this article for an example of what such an article would look like. Any criticism Dawkins has received over some of his opinions (such as on pedophilia, abortion, etc.) could go into that article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus
- The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html
- The Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html
- Sky News - http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row
- The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
- BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659
- 2.102.185.204 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I support he needs criticism sections for his bigot comments.--Yacatisma (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right! Criticism sections are inferior to the practice of folding criticism into the biography as appropriate, either thematically or chronologically. And in any case we do not need a POV tag to uglify the article when the worst that can be said about the article is that it needs more text. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Despite being a strident atheist, a proud homosexual and a regular reader of Richard Dawkins published works; I cannot help but agree that there are many things that Richard Dawkins asserts which are notably controversial. Recent comments such are those made on the topics of Down Syndrome (suggesting it’s immoral not to abort) and Muslims (suggesting the last time they did any good was during the middle ages) ARE controversial and abrasive. It would be ignorant to suggest otherwise. The coverage in the media (a small fraction of which is already linked above) combined with Richard Dawkins’ published apologies (which in themselves suggest that he offended a significant number of people) should provide sufficient grounds for inclusion. A quick peruse on Google News reveals that Richard Dawkins has a track record of making controversial and or offensive assertions on his Twitter account – which is one of his primary methods of publishing (aside from his books and public speaking). I genuinely believe it would be a violation of NPOV not to include some mention of these more controversial assertions – as they part of who Richard Dawkins is. He is in the business of being controversial – and quite frankly all the more power to him. But, you cannot have a balanced article whilst completely ignoring his abrasive assertions in preference for the more palatable ones. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- So write an article about the topic: Comments on the Internet that other people have found to be offensive. In a biography about the life and work of Dawkins, the fact that something he said about Downs Syndrome caused a passing storm has very little significance. An article at Wikipedia is not available as a coatrack where the views of very minor critics can be amplified—if someone has done significant work on rebutting claims made by Dawkins, put it in an article on the person making the rebuttal. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh come on, that statement tops the list for fanboy defence. Any public figure that receives significant controversy and criticism over a statement is going to get a mention of it in their article. It occurs on thousands of biographies on Wikipedia and you're arguing that Dawkins should be the exception. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is this: what text would go in the article, and where? Would you seriously suggest saying that a bunch of twitter followers were upset with a tweet? Has anything happened as a result of the "controversy"? Has any notable peson (that is, someone with an article at Wikipedia) made a direct criticism of Dawkins regarding this incident? Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The sources show there has been a response beyond Twitter followers. Also, that's not even a requirement. I see articles all the time that just mention statement X caused controversy. From what I've seen that's actually the norm and only sometimes will a criticism of the statement be noted. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules are often poorly enforced. When several editors are in dispute, the rules come under the magnifying glass. What we must do here is use WP:SECONDARY sources to make certain that a Dawkins statement is important to his life and career. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some editors here tell me that Dawkins is often in the news for his controversial statements. Well, maybe he is in the UK, but not where I live. He is globally known for his academic work and his books. Local tabloid dramas obviously remain that, local. For a global article on an academic writer, those events are trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It may help to define the use of the term "controversial" here. This would help to ensure that anything discussed is genuinely a cause of controversy, and not "something that someone said that others disagree with". That is the bedrock of establishing the basis of whether something can be considered to be controversial or not. So perhaps people who are arguing in favour of the inclusion of this could define it for us? Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Local tabloid dramas" - It isn't very local when a previous vice-presidential candidate of another country personally lambasts you for your remarks. I would also suggest that it isn't "local tabloid dramas" when the source of controversy was a written statement issued to in excess of a million people around the globe. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I couldn't help laughing out loud when I saw that you had linked to some concerns from that failed vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. I agree she is not a local tabloid drama. She is, sadly, a global one. Given her incredibly bigoted starting point, her views on Dawkins cannot be taken seriously for this article. That you think her views count for anything here says a lot more about you than it does about Dawkins. I suspect she disagrees on principle with almost everything he has ever written or said. But who cares? Seriously. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- That was good for a chuckle. A politician's blather, pandering to her/his base constituency is less reliable or notable than tabloid dramatics. Both are designed to sell a product and reality is irrelevant. Vsmith (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- At no point have I personally discussed or endorsed the views of Sarah Palin. I have merely cited the existence of her comment on the matter to disprove your scientific claim that the controversy surrounding Dawkins’ latest remarks was merely “local tabloid drama”. Hence, I would very much appreciate it if you refrained for making crass assessments of me as an individual, implied or otherwise. To further disprove your claim I will simply note that I am an Australian citizen. Contrary to your apparent belief, I do not subscribe to UK tabloids or tabloids more broadly speaking. Moving on however, someone recently asked how these “controversies” are relevant to the life of Richard Dawkins and/or his career. The answer is quite simple. Dawkins has invested significant amounts of his life advocating various notions to the public. He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this. Making broad sweeping remarks such to the effect of “You’re morally incorrect if you don’t terminate Downs syndrome foetuses” and “The last time Muslims did great things was during the middle ages” will naturally offend the very public you are trying to educate as evident by responses to his Twitter account. When you make a habit of offending people it somewhat undermines your ability to advocate scientific fields as it more or less makes people stop listening to you. How many people exactly? I couldn’t say for sure. However, it’s worth noting that Muslims only make up about 23% of the world’s population. That is the relevance to the article and his career – the impact these types of poorly explained remarks have on his ability to advocate to the common person. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You got it right when you said "He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this." That's why we have an article on him. What else the media wants to make a fuss about has little to do with that. It doesn't change his status as a scientist, nor the truth of what he writes on those matters, and again, that's the bit about him that justifies an article. The rest is trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You've completely missed the point. I've already explained how it is relevant and you seem to have completely ignored the undeniable. I will be restoring the POV tag in the near future if consensus cannot be reached. I will do so on the grounds that enough editors have commented regarding the POV (Both here and in the archives) that it would be intellectual dishonesty to assert that the POV of this article is not currently disputed. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are we still talking about a POV tag? I thought we had settled that matter as "no tag", and moved on to talking about what kinds of new text could or should be added about Dawkins' tweets, supported by what kinds of sources. Mostly, I see a measured hesitance here to add recent media controversies, since these will seem less and less worthy over time. Instead, I see a number of editors here concerned more with the long view, pausing to make certain that a media controversy is actually significant. Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Precisely. There is nothing new in the complaints about Dawkins. And certainly nothing of long term notability. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Binksternet has hit the nail on the head in some regards. This discussion should not be about whether or not the remarks were controversial, as it is more than apparent that they were. Those who are attempting to argue against that assertion are fighting a loser’s argument – seeing HiLo attempt to do so is mildly amusing. Even I will agree that there remains some room for discussion over whether or not the “twitter controversy” trend has continued long enough to warrant inclusion. I’m not fully convinced, though I do err on the side of inclusion out of an interest of maintaining a balanced article that grants appropriate weighting to recent events. I would also note that the assertions regarding Downs syndrome and Muslims are but a selection of his controversial remarks. Let not forget his choice words regarding the Jewish lobby in America – such were made a considerable time ago but caused him to be criticised at the time as well. But that in itself proves that this isn’t a “two controversial comments in one month but never again” sort of deal – rather it is systematic to the person. Finally, it is worth reminding everyone that any inclusion regarding the above need not be negative. That is, just because you say controversial things doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong – it just reflects that some people react to what you say rather strongly (either in support or rebuttal). This in itself raises a thought; perhaps controversial is the wrong word to describe what many see as a negative of Richard Dawkins. Perhaps “Polarising” is the better word. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which is precisely why I suggested some couple of days ago that we define the use of the term "controversial". Doing so will help give a correctly justifiable scale of which to work with. That is the best way to ensure that anything that actually IS noteworthy is noted, and anything that is simply internet drama is NOT.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- To judge the real notability of this stuff, see WP:10YT. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to take essays with a
grainmountain of salt as they are usually written with a particular point-of-view in mind. However, in regards to the ten-year test: I do believe that Dawkins' rabble-rousing and the impact it has on his ability to act as a public advocate for the fields of which he has dedicated his life to, will be relevant in ten years time. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)- Of course you do. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to take essays with a
- To judge the real notability of this stuff, see WP:10YT. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which is precisely why I suggested some couple of days ago that we define the use of the term "controversial". Doing so will help give a correctly justifiable scale of which to work with. That is the best way to ensure that anything that actually IS noteworthy is noted, and anything that is simply internet drama is NOT.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are we still talking about a POV tag? I thought we had settled that matter as "no tag", and moved on to talking about what kinds of new text could or should be added about Dawkins' tweets, supported by what kinds of sources. Mostly, I see a measured hesitance here to add recent media controversies, since these will seem less and less worthy over time. Instead, I see a number of editors here concerned more with the long view, pausing to make certain that a media controversy is actually significant. Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You've completely missed the point. I've already explained how it is relevant and you seem to have completely ignored the undeniable. I will be restoring the POV tag in the near future if consensus cannot be reached. I will do so on the grounds that enough editors have commented regarding the POV (Both here and in the archives) that it would be intellectual dishonesty to assert that the POV of this article is not currently disputed. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You got it right when you said "He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this." That's why we have an article on him. What else the media wants to make a fuss about has little to do with that. It doesn't change his status as a scientist, nor the truth of what he writes on those matters, and again, that's the bit about him that justifies an article. The rest is trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- At no point have I personally discussed or endorsed the views of Sarah Palin. I have merely cited the existence of her comment on the matter to disprove your scientific claim that the controversy surrounding Dawkins’ latest remarks was merely “local tabloid drama”. Hence, I would very much appreciate it if you refrained for making crass assessments of me as an individual, implied or otherwise. To further disprove your claim I will simply note that I am an Australian citizen. Contrary to your apparent belief, I do not subscribe to UK tabloids or tabloids more broadly speaking. Moving on however, someone recently asked how these “controversies” are relevant to the life of Richard Dawkins and/or his career. The answer is quite simple. Dawkins has invested significant amounts of his life advocating various notions to the public. He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this. Making broad sweeping remarks such to the effect of “You’re morally incorrect if you don’t terminate Downs syndrome foetuses” and “The last time Muslims did great things was during the middle ages” will naturally offend the very public you are trying to educate as evident by responses to his Twitter account. When you make a habit of offending people it somewhat undermines your ability to advocate scientific fields as it more or less makes people stop listening to you. How many people exactly? I couldn’t say for sure. However, it’s worth noting that Muslims only make up about 23% of the world’s population. That is the relevance to the article and his career – the impact these types of poorly explained remarks have on his ability to advocate to the common person. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some editors here tell me that Dawkins is often in the news for his controversial statements. Well, maybe he is in the UK, but not where I live. He is globally known for his academic work and his books. Local tabloid dramas obviously remain that, local. For a global article on an academic writer, those events are trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules are often poorly enforced. When several editors are in dispute, the rules come under the magnifying glass. What we must do here is use WP:SECONDARY sources to make certain that a Dawkins statement is important to his life and career. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The sources show there has been a response beyond Twitter followers. Also, that's not even a requirement. I see articles all the time that just mention statement X caused controversy. From what I've seen that's actually the norm and only sometimes will a criticism of the statement be noted. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is this: what text would go in the article, and where? Would you seriously suggest saying that a bunch of twitter followers were upset with a tweet? Has anything happened as a result of the "controversy"? Has any notable peson (that is, someone with an article at Wikipedia) made a direct criticism of Dawkins regarding this incident? Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh come on, that statement tops the list for fanboy defence. Any public figure that receives significant controversy and criticism over a statement is going to get a mention of it in their article. It occurs on thousands of biographies on Wikipedia and you're arguing that Dawkins should be the exception. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- So write an article about the topic: Comments on the Internet that other people have found to be offensive. In a biography about the life and work of Dawkins, the fact that something he said about Downs Syndrome caused a passing storm has very little significance. An article at Wikipedia is not available as a coatrack where the views of very minor critics can be amplified—if someone has done significant work on rebutting claims made by Dawkins, put it in an article on the person making the rebuttal. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Despite being a strident atheist, a proud homosexual and a regular reader of Richard Dawkins published works; I cannot help but agree that there are many things that Richard Dawkins asserts which are notably controversial. Recent comments such are those made on the topics of Down Syndrome (suggesting it’s immoral not to abort) and Muslims (suggesting the last time they did any good was during the middle ages) ARE controversial and abrasive. It would be ignorant to suggest otherwise. The coverage in the media (a small fraction of which is already linked above) combined with Richard Dawkins’ published apologies (which in themselves suggest that he offended a significant number of people) should provide sufficient grounds for inclusion. A quick peruse on Google News reveals that Richard Dawkins has a track record of making controversial and or offensive assertions on his Twitter account – which is one of his primary methods of publishing (aside from his books and public speaking). I genuinely believe it would be a violation of NPOV not to include some mention of these more controversial assertions – as they part of who Richard Dawkins is. He is in the business of being controversial – and quite frankly all the more power to him. But, you cannot have a balanced article whilst completely ignoring his abrasive assertions in preference for the more palatable ones. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right! Criticism sections are inferior to the practice of folding criticism into the biography as appropriate, either thematically or chronologically. And in any case we do not need a POV tag to uglify the article when the worst that can be said about the article is that it needs more text. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I support he needs criticism sections for his bigot comments.--Yacatisma (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've just declined a pending revision by an anon IP, who had added the POV tag -- as I don't believe there is consensus here for such an edit. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've re-added the tag (assuming an editor approves the revision) as there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. To remove it, there needs to be a consensus for removing it, not a lack of consensus to add it. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- ...And I've removed the tag once again. First: the only issues that have been raised here are easily enough satisfied by composing additional text. There is no existing text that has been identified as a problem. Second: several editors here seem to be intent on pinning a badge of shame on the biography simply because they do not like Dawkins. Wikipedia does not work like that; a well-founded and well-written article cannot be smeared indefinitely by a POV tag placed by ideological opponents. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- @2.102.185.204: please have a look at the policy regarding wp:NOCONSENSUS: "... a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case the bold edit was the addition of the tag, not its removal. You need to establish a new consensus for its addition.- DVdm (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they are easily satisfied by composing additional text. I've noted 7 reliable sources (and there are dozens more) reporting his opinion on down syndrome and abortion, as well as the controversy it caused. As the above shows however, there are several fanboys who don't want to add any text that reports criticism of his statements/opinions. The whole article is a problem due to neutrality issues, hence the POV tag.
- POV tags don't work like that. They are added when there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. They are not added just when there is a consensus for them to be added. For them to be removed the dispute over the article's neutrality needs to be resolved or a consensus to remove the tag must take place.
- There is currently a big chunk of Dawkin's biography missing. Instead of a reception section with praise and criticism of his work/opinions, we have an awards section. Until the neutrality issues are resolved, the POV tag shouldn't be removed - hell, it says that on the bloody tag itself. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Template:POV also says not to use the tag as a badge of shame, that it should not be used to warn readers about an article that you think is non-neutral. Your contributions here do not include any attempt to compose text for that "big chunk" of supposedly missing biography; instead you've argued for the presence of the tag. I would like to assume good faith, and you can help me by suggesting some text here on the talk page, or boldly adding text to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, I've argued that his comments on down syndrome should be added and I've provided sources. Since that's been stonewalled I added the POV tag. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Template:POV also says not to use the tag as a badge of shame, that it should not be used to warn readers about an article that you think is non-neutral. Your contributions here do not include any attempt to compose text for that "big chunk" of supposedly missing biography; instead you've argued for the presence of the tag. I would like to assume good faith, and you can help me by suggesting some text here on the talk page, or boldly adding text to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've re-added the tag (assuming an editor approves the revision) as there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. To remove it, there needs to be a consensus for removing it, not a lack of consensus to add it. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "POV tags don't work like that"? Everything here works like that. Without consensus you—de facto—don't get the tag. - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nope nope nope. If that were true POV tags would never be added, as why would a dispute over content produce a consensus for adding a POV tag? As the people opposing the revision obviously feel the POV of the article is fine and would oppose the POV tag. The POV tag is added when there is a dispute over the neutrality of the article, full stop. It doesn't require consensus to add, as that would never be achieved and it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved (which several people here don't understand, despite it saying that in the tag). Unless this discussion produces a consensus that there is not a POV issue, then the tag belongs until the POV issue is resolved. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I appreciate that this is an article rated "Good" and a POV tag doesn't look nice for the readers. However, a multitude of sources have been provided, notability has been established, statements have been quoted and reactions have been noted. Despite this there are a few people who oppose inclusion and as such there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Establish consensus, which you have not done, and then we can talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you even read what I wrote? 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Establish consensus, which you have not done, and then we can talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "POV tags don't work like that"? Everything here works like that. Without consensus you—de facto—don't get the tag. - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point, IP. There is little encyclopediac value recording negative (or positive) reactions to Dawkin's views from members of the general public. These non-notable views may be useful for the press to use as pot stirrers if they have run out of real news, but they have no enduring or other value for an encyclopedia. As a parallel, consider a controversial figure with a similar profile from the past. Suppose the Wikipedia article on Bertrand Russell was padded in the way you want to pad this article, with contemporary accounts of how Deidre of the Paddington Croquet Club and Alf of the Tottingham Strong Ale Pub were upset and did not approve of this or that view as expressed by Russell. I doubt you would find those interesting additions, and the situation is the same here. If there are wider consequences and the people who disapprove (or approve) of Dawkin's views end up burning down Parliament and disembowelling their opponents, then you could try here again with a much improved chance of success. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I just want the standards of Wikipedia to be applied fairly and evenly. The standard is that when a public figure says something that has caused controversy, beyond "members of the general public" or Twitter followers (as Richard Dawkins has done now and multiple times before), and is covered by a mountain of reliable sources, then it gets one or two sentences in their - in this case, massive (over 5000 words) - article. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- We have an article on Dawkins because of his work and writing in the area of evolutionary biology. He has no particular expertise in other areas, and doesn't claim it. That the tabloid media reports his pronouncements in other areas says a lot about that tabloid media, and the fact that they know they have a ready-made audience of bigoted Dawkins haters they can feed. It says almost nothing about Dawkins. It doesn't belong in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Information in biographies isn't restricted to the person's profession or interests. I don't think you have to be a bigot to dislike Dawkins. Here's some non-tabloid sources (which I already posted above) -
- The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus
- The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html
- The Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html
- Sky News - http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row
- The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
- BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659
- Note that this is just the immediate reaction and that most/all of these outlets have posted follow-up articles in the days since. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- We have an article on Dawkins because of his work and writing in the area of evolutionary biology. He has no particular expertise in other areas, and doesn't claim it. That the tabloid media reports his pronouncements in other areas says a lot about that tabloid media, and the fact that they know they have a ready-made audience of bigoted Dawkins haters they can feed. It says almost nothing about Dawkins. It doesn't belong in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- All those sources really reinforce my point. See where they're from? Dawkins is known globally for his scientific work and writing. Media in the UK, with its need to fill column inches and air time 24 hours a day, seems to report anything he says that will help gain an audience for them. (Maybe it helps sell his books too. And that helps the publishers, who are often connected with the media...) As someone resident elsewhere, I can assure you that, unlike his scientific work, such trivia rarely reaches our shores. It's not necessary in Wikipedia either. We don't have to fill column inches and airtime every day. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the requisite for inclusion in this article is that it gets reported by every media outlet in the English-speaking world and that only being reported by every single media outlet in the United Kingdom is not notable enough, then about half the article needs to be cut. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did forget his role as a very public atheist which, of course, overlaps with his stance against creationism. That is part of his global image. Otherwise, anything else his enemies want in the article is way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a biography. There is no "off-topic" if it involves the person's life. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- May I rephrase that for you? As a figure who has openly been critical of creationist causes and religious backlash to his study of his study of evolution and biology, as well as a public advocate of humanist causes, Dawkins has something of a plentiful audience of people who would applaud anything that is critical of him. The media is aware of this, and may choose to give stories relating to him undue weight. As wikipedia, we should strive be above that, and not to give undue weight in our articles. Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at rephrasing! Due to his well known opposition to religion and promotion of atheism, two traits that make most young men of the western world swoon, he has many fanboys on Wikipedia (which is overwhelmingly made up of young men) and as such, despite his comments being reported in every news outlet in his home country and the wide reaction to his comments, there are people who judge that the positive or neutral about Dawkins only require a single reliable source but when it's negative, it must be all over the entire English-speaking world. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did forget his role as a very public atheist which, of course, overlaps with his stance against creationism. That is part of his global image. Otherwise, anything else his enemies want in the article is way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the requisite for inclusion in this article is that it gets reported by every media outlet in the English-speaking world and that only being reported by every single media outlet in the United Kingdom is not notable enough, then about half the article needs to be cut. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- All those sources really reinforce my point. See where they're from? Dawkins is known globally for his scientific work and writing. Media in the UK, with its need to fill column inches and air time 24 hours a day, seems to report anything he says that will help gain an audience for them. (Maybe it helps sell his books too. And that helps the publishers, who are often connected with the media...) As someone resident elsewhere, I can assure you that, unlike his scientific work, such trivia rarely reaches our shores. It's not necessary in Wikipedia either. We don't have to fill column inches and airtime every day. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
We have discussed this for years, and the idea of a 'criticism section about things I don't like about Dawkins' never goes anywhere. We really ought to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is asking for a criticism section. I'm asking for a short sentence in this 5000 word biography that notes his comments on down syndrome and abortion. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- So propose it? What sentence would you like included, and where? Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- It could go in "Other fields" where his opinion on various topics are noted. I might propose the specific wording in an RfC. Am I correct in thinking that an RfC is the only way forward? 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Another option is that you could stop wasting your time and ours. I do have fun in these discussions with Dawkins haters, but really, it won't lead to the change you want in the article. Calling those who disagree with you fanboys is not a mature thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not you and a bunch of people versus me. It's several people advocating inclusion and several advocating exclusion. You're right, I apologise. "bigoted Dawkins haters" is much more mature. You're wrong about me by the way. I'm on the same front as Promethean, in that although I like Dawkins and the debates/arguments he has against religion, I don't let that change my editing. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of forum-like exchange of opinion is going on here when what is needed is engagement with my comment at 02:08, 27 August 2014 above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not you and a bunch of people versus me. It's several people advocating inclusion and several advocating exclusion. You're right, I apologise. "bigoted Dawkins haters" is much more mature. You're wrong about me by the way. I'm on the same front as Promethean, in that although I like Dawkins and the debates/arguments he has against religion, I don't let that change my editing. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Another option is that you could stop wasting your time and ours. I do have fun in these discussions with Dawkins haters, but really, it won't lead to the change you want in the article. Calling those who disagree with you fanboys is not a mature thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- It could go in "Other fields" where his opinion on various topics are noted. I might propose the specific wording in an RfC. Am I correct in thinking that an RfC is the only way forward? 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- So propose it? What sentence would you like included, and where? Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is asking for a criticism section. I'm asking for a short sentence in this 5000 word biography that notes his comments on down syndrome and abortion. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone asked Dawkins himself? Clearly a very intelligent articulate & thoughtful man (with whom I do not agree) You do him a disservice arguing over these "angels on the head of a pin". He's controversial - the article should say it - it's simple. This discussion and the article is depressing - no dissent allowed - no room for a different opinion - the rise of the new fascism. The human race should beware. This is about as POV as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.223.88 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Omninational
Philosophically stateless people are called anationals. Positive philosophic anationals are called omninationals, because "a" has a negative meaning (atheist, anational, anarchist words including the negative "a") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.219.128 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Probabilisticism
In philosophy, probabilisticism is the ontological thesis that "statistically, many things are probabilistic" (even the thesis is probabilistic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.219.128 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Political views of Richard Dawkins
- Political views of Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
People watching this page may like to check the above new article which in all likelihood will be used to coatrack gotcha commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is Dawkins a scientist or a science journalist?
Any thoughts about this edit at Fashionable Nonsense? Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dawkins is a scientist, that IP is dead wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. I don't think the Zoology Dept at Oxford hires science journalists, for example...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder how the IP would explain away the 946 entries here? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- New here, so please accept my apologies in advance and correct me if I do something different from expected. I'm the one who edited the paragraph mentioning Richard Dawkins at Fashionable Nonsense. The reason is simple: For somebody being called a "scientist" he or she needs to do science. Richard Dawkins career is built upon comments about science not on research. Being a physician and a scientist who actually do research I believe the term scientist should be reserved for people who invest their lives doing real science. Epipelagic, please review at least 10 percent of the entries in google scholar and tell us how many of them are research papers. I have reviewed Dawkins' papers on PubMed and could find only one research paper dating from the 60s, and not a very impressive one to say the less. A bigger problem arises when a person is being acclaimed as an expert in an area and really do not know his own area of expertise well. Many of his claims about evolutionary biology are wrong; his perspective about genetics is also wrong; and the misuse he does to terms like "evidence based" and "scientifically supported" is being spread around the world. So I don't care if anti-theist movements and "militants" see in Dawkins a kind of hero. That's their problem, even though their animosity and violence is dangerous and can have terrible consequences in several societies. But science should be defended. No one should be allowed of kidnapping science in favour of a political perspective, even less if that person is not a real scientist. I wouldn't even add him as a source for this article considering the review he did of the book. However anyone can use the references they want no matter how good or bad they are. Saying "Several scientists..." and then putting Dawkins as THE example is simply misleading. Prdm12 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs. In other words, you are welcome to your opinion of Dawkins, but Wikipedia is not available for its expression—you would need reliable secondary sources to change whether articles refer to Dawkins as a scientist. Someone wanting to say that Dawkins is the greatest person alive would get the response. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Prdm12: If you can't discriminate which are research papers in the list I gave then perhaps this will assist you. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq:That's the point. It's not "my" opinion. It's something you can reproduce yourself (or anyone else) by doing some research. Wikipedia, as somebody noted earlier in this page, is not a fan page. The way I see Wikipedia is precisely as a source of accurate information free for anyone with an internet connection. And putting Dawkins as THE example of scientists doesn't help to the accuracy of any article here. Read the comments by his colleagues at Oxford if you think my credentials are not good enough, even when they are. Even more, calling Dawkins an "Eloquent science journalist" is a phrase quoted from Dr. Wilson and Dr. Noble have done an extensive and polite analysis of Dawkins' book the selfish gene. From my perspective, the easiest things to do are: to remove Dawkins from the article and put a real scientist on the scene; to remove it from the paragraph "Several scientists..."; to remove the phrase "Several scientists..." which is nonspecific and really says nothing. That will save us time for discussing other more interesting aspects of the book. I hope your beliefs and desires do not obscure your reason. Take care Prdm12 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic:Don't know what do you mean Epipelagic. Did you double-check that bibliography? I did. One research paper among themPrdm12 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- And what paper do you think that might that be? It is one thing to be a bystander while scientists of the calibre of Wilson and Dawkins squabble because they have hurt each others feelings. It is entirely another matter to think you are personally entitled to use their squabble for your own ulterior purposes. I doubt whether Wilson would come to your defence any more than Dawkins would. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: Maybe you need clarification about what a research paper is. If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to explain it to you. I ask because I don't try to be disrespectful to you. On the other hand, when you put Dawkins at a so impressive level, I can recognize you are not seeing the "evidence" but are being guided by your emotions, which is totally understandable but undesirable. Let's see an example: When you talk about Gandhi you don't say "several lawyers..." and then put Gandhi among them. Yes, he went to the law school, but he failed at establishing a law practice. Same here. Dawkins has spent his life as a journalist and communicator of science. That's his merit (even when his concepts are wrong). One is what one does, and Dawkins doesn't do science, ergo he is not a scientist.Prdm12 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, you're not here to talk sense but just to stir... I'll leave you to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what we think. If a sufficient number of reliable sources say that he's a scientist, then Wikipedia says that he's a scientist. Period. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq:Oh well, you maybe don't have to read Dr. Wilson's book. The quote is here:[1]Prdm12 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
References
- @Johnuniq:BBC interview to Dr. Wilson [1]. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBk2FdCWGf4 I leave the reference here again. For some reason it didn't add to the references section) IMO this is enough evidence to support the edition I did. If Dr. Wilson's interview is not a reliable source, I can't think which could be. All I can say is Wikipedia has a responsibility with the public and with the forthcoming generations. Becoming a hardcore scientist implies years and even decades of hard work. Anybody can come with an idea but the work of a scientist is to demonstrate it. Take care Prdm12 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
References
- Wilson and Dawkins disagree. Their disagreement has got somewhat heated at times and loose words have been said. Your reference is to this - 'he rather waspishly describes Dawkins, a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society and retired Oxford professor, as an “eloquent science journalist”'. Note the "rather waspishly". On its own, against all the many times Dawkins is described as a scientist, this is not a reliable source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bduke: Did you watch the video? Maybe is just me, but I didn't see any waspishness in Dr. Wilson when he said that, nor when he provided the reasons behind that assertion. By using the argument of "how many times" one can find a description about someone or something, one should then agree with all major religions in their claims. That's to say that it is not a good argument or measure of truth/reality how many times something has been said. If all we need to do for being considered as scientists is to write about science or to create hypothesis, then Deleuze can be seen as a great scientist. In fact, Deleuze understood better modern genetics in 1968 than Dawkins up to date. Fashionable nonsense complains about philosophers abuse of scientific jargon, but I can't imagine a person who has abused more the scientific language than Dawkins. Science is an activity that requires experimentation. Considering that nowadays everything is called "science" is worthy to highlight that biology is an empirical science and therefore experimentation is a must. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an activist, and if you want a politician, none of which is a derogatory term. On the contrary, those are valuable activities. Will you call a person "journalist" if he or she doesn't write or is not part of a team that communicates something? Calling a person who doesn't do science a scientist is disrespectful with the scientific community. While politics have a major influence in the academia and in academic research, I would expect a site like Wikipedia to be totally independent. Prdm12 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that Dawkins is something of a journalist, although science populariser is a better descriptor as that is what he did as Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. That does not stop him also being a scientist. The idea that Dawkins is not a scientist is total nonsense. The Department of Zoology at Oxford and New College do not appoint non-scientists to the positions he jointly held in the University and New College. Oxford is also one of the top 4 universities in the world by recent rankings. That is my last word as you are unlikely to convince anyone here on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bduke: Did you watch the video? Maybe is just me, but I didn't see any waspishness in Dr. Wilson when he said that, nor when he provided the reasons behind that assertion. By using the argument of "how many times" one can find a description about someone or something, one should then agree with all major religions in their claims. That's to say that it is not a good argument or measure of truth/reality how many times something has been said. If all we need to do for being considered as scientists is to write about science or to create hypothesis, then Deleuze can be seen as a great scientist. In fact, Deleuze understood better modern genetics in 1968 than Dawkins up to date. Fashionable nonsense complains about philosophers abuse of scientific jargon, but I can't imagine a person who has abused more the scientific language than Dawkins. Science is an activity that requires experimentation. Considering that nowadays everything is called "science" is worthy to highlight that biology is an empirical science and therefore experimentation is a must. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an activist, and if you want a politician, none of which is a derogatory term. On the contrary, those are valuable activities. Will you call a person "journalist" if he or she doesn't write or is not part of a team that communicates something? Calling a person who doesn't do science a scientist is disrespectful with the scientific community. While politics have a major influence in the academia and in academic research, I would expect a site like Wikipedia to be totally independent. Prdm12 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bduke:For your last word my last word. Being hired as a professor doesn't have anything to do with being or not a scientist. For becoming a professor you need two things: a title; connections. That's it and has been like this for a thousand years since the academic system was invented (well maybe a less but who cares). Or will you say that a PhD in metaphysics is a scientist? No he/she is not. Philosophers are more humble in this respect as they don't see themselves as philosophers but as a philosophy historians until they really produce something new. Ask around in your academic environment and corroborate that by yourself. I recognize some lab technicians as hardcore scientists even if they don't have a PhD title, because they are scientists. People should earn their stripes, and Dawkins didn't earn his stripes as a scientist. As simple as that. He is popular... yes. He is a nice guy... some friends of mine who know him personally say he is. But he is not and probably will never be a scientist, unless he do some real science. Prdm12 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- GA-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- Mid-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- GA-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- GA-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- GA-Class University of Oxford articles
- Mid-importance University of Oxford articles
- GA-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors