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) 10:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

High citability of the "Extended Phenotype"

The statement that the "Extended Phenotype" is highly cited clearly lacks a proper source. While RD is a well-known persona, the fact that he is mentioned often does not mean that this particular work of his is kept in such high regard, especially in comparison with the Selfish Gene or God Delusion. Moreover, high citability has a very specific meaning in the scientific community, and one that concerns mostly scientific papers, not pop-sci books. I do not question the scientific value of the book, only the improper wording. I propose to either change it to, say, "often mentioned", or add a relevant citation. BroodKiller (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this (or some variation of it) be sufficient as evidence for the phrase "highly cited"? DVdm (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite conviced that it solves the problem here. You see, while Google Scholar indeed shows "Extended Phenotype" with 2400 cits, it also mentions "Selfish Gene" with over 10 000 citations, and "the Blind Watchmaker" with over 3000, yet none of them are described as being highly cited parts of RD's work. Moreover, the "Selfish Gene" article describes the acclaim and scientific debates caused by the book, whereas there is no such data for "Extended Phenotype".

Even though I don't find it a very strong argument, a quoted google search for "highly cited papers" shows ca. 395,000 results, whereas "highly cited books" gets ca. 23,000. In case of scientific work, citability is a term used specifically in the context of scientific papers/reports published in scientific journals, and rarely used outside of it, so I continue to stand my point. BroodKiller (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 13#Extended Phenotype. While a citation is highly desirable, WP:V requires verifiability which is accomplished in the previous discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, the same problem was brought up already in the past. I am not an editor, so I can't make a decision of reviving this issue, but let me just say what I think about this. Now that you've mentioned it, I agree that the current state is compatible with WP:V, but is this enough to warrant it's current form? Based on that, we could also write that TSG is his widely cited contribution, since it's verifiable. Somehow we don't do this. I have found a recent story which sheds some more light on the current status of the TEP (link below, wiki formatting does not like it). It was reaffirmed as a valid concept, but a of good explanatory value rather than high predictive power. Clearly, TEP is not on par with, say, the Neutral theory of evolution (I intentionally play a strong card here). You can say that "Sure, any contribution is still a contribution", even if it's just 'looking at things from a new point of view', but my main aim here is to avoid giving a false impression that TEP is of the same value as some well-established major scientific contributions. I also worry if the major reason for treating TEP the way it is treated is not RD's own desire to make it so (ain't this a potential conflict with WP:NPOV, btw?).

URL (copy and paste): http://www.esf.org/research-areas/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/news/ext-news-singleview.html?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=568&cHash=6695c0683c .BroodKiller (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, BroodKiller, 'editor' isn't a position of authority: anyone who edits any Wikipedia article or its talk page is, by definition, an editor. Any of us can bring up or resume a discussion, or make changes ourselves. If many people disagree those changes may be reverted, but the end product will (ideally) be the result of consensus and not any one person's authority. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sooo, where do we stand? Like I said above, I am still not convinced about TEP being rightly mentioned as RD's highly-cited contribution to evolutionary biology. BroodKiller (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a somewhat difficult situation because, as demonstrated above, the information is correct and verifiable, yet we don't have a citation. What is your point? Are you saying that TEP should not be elevated above, for example, The Selfish Gene? Do you have a suggestion? Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BroodKiller — when I last checked the primary literature (see the link that Johnuniq supplied), TEP was cited more than 700 times. I appreciate that ISI is not a resource that most people have access to (or even would want to have access to), so I'm happy to forward you a list of the citations if you'd like. But if citations in the primary literature are not sufficient for you, could you please expand on what would be? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oops, the above sounds a little brusque. What I meant was, are you after a single source which notes the high citation of TEP in the scientific literature and which we can cite here in support of this, or are you after some examples of the use of TEP that we could cite? I could try to refine my ISI WoK search to look for papers that specifically mention TEP ("extended phenotype") in their title/abstract. That might throw up some more detailed uses of it which might help in the latter case. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Yes, that's one thing that bothers me, because if we're using this measure then TEP does not seem to be 'worthy enough' of the special mention which it has.

@PLUMBAGO: I am perfectly fine with citations, and I trust the numbers from ISI WoK. Google Scholar also confirms the general observations we discuss here, but I worry that this path may lead us in the wrong direction when judging the 'value' of a scientific contribution. Take for example Motoo Kimura's Neutral theory of molecular evolution - it has shaped the world of evolutionary biology for the last 40 years (with high-profile reviews still being published, see e.g. “Neutralism and selectionism: a network-based reconciliation,” Nat Rev Genet, Dec 2008), and yet the original paper has been cited a little over 1500 times (data from GScholar). If we use here the number of citations as a strict measure of value of a scientific contribution, the real impact that a concept has had on science then we've clearly gone astray in this case. Just to clarify - by no means do I object the validity of citations as a good general-purpose measure of a success of an idea, but this is also why I think specific cases (like this one) should be investigated in detail, if someone points out a potential problem with this.

What I propose is that TEP is described as a 'successful explanatory concept' instead of a 'highly-cited contribution'. The phrase "In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology with the concept, presented..." could be reformulated into, say, "In 1982, he introduced into evolutionary biology a successful explanatory concept, presented...".

I have no quarrel with WP:V as a policy towards inclusion of information - info with a source is worth more than info without a source. It works like a charm if no other information is available. I do not think however that it should be the decisive principle if an aspect is debatable. Like I demonstrated earlier with TSG, you can easily take it to an absurdity. Heck, you could even go as far as state that TSG is 'worth' more than the Human Genome Project, because TSG has over 10 000 cits, and the J.C.Venter's 2001 Science paper has only 7500 (GScholar info, again), which is ridiculous to say. I concur that I'm using only GScholar here, so I would be grateful for verifying if what I am saying also holds under ISI data. BroodKiller (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

← Ah-ha. I see what you mean. And I think I agree. The current wording is rather clunky, and while not inaccurate, is not as straightforward as the alternative you propose. The citation you gave above about bird nests could be used to illustrate this. It may be worth describing TEP as "influential" to reference this high citation index (the latter could in left in as a footnote?). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfecto. To be honest, I actually like your wording better than my original proposition. Will you do the edit or should I go for it? Cheers BroodKiller (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just edited it myself, please check if you accept its current form. For reference I used a link to a Sciencedaily.com news about the same issue, because wiki did not like the direct ESF link.BroodKiller (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Influential" does not mean something is correct or has contributed anything. Many wrong ideas are "influential". Intelligent Design is influential. The fact is that the EP is not scientific. It cannot be tested. Dawkins admits this in the first page of the book. It has not been incorporated into evolutionary theory or any hypothesis at all. BECAUSE IT IS NOT FALSIFIABLE. It also explains nothing about the phenomenon it covers. I love how the Dawkins fans originally had the EP listed as a "theory" on here. Took me a while to convince the thick skulls otherwise. Now they hide behind the generic term "concept". ": an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances". "synonyms: see idea" Wow, Dawkins produced an idea. An unscientific one. Savagedjeff (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose instead then, Savagedjeff? As we have discussed before, and however we might feel about it - Wikipedia's policy is about verifiability, not truth. Do we have a source which discusses and dismisses EP? I have already argued about openly labeling EP as 'explanatory', I wonder what others will say about this again? BroodKiller (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Broodkiller — thanks for your edits. That seems better to me now. In passing, Savagedjeff has been here before. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am aware that he's been around this specific issue earlier. As could be deducted from our earlier discussion, I even partially share his opinion about the significance of TEP. However, I think that all we need in this context is being careful with the wording. TEP clearly is an interesting thing, we'll have to see how it will look in the future. If it will live on in the actual scientific literature and community (recent citings etc.), such a state will speak for itself. Just like will speak the opposite. BroodKiller (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for WP:FA?

Any takers? I don't know how to do it and I'm just too freaking lazy to find out anyway.:| TelCoNaSpVe :| —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

--Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationalism

In the section Atheism and rationalism, where is the rationalism? Are we sure he isn't instead empiricist? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There was some chat about the rationalism -- see this archived section: [1]. Rationalism is mentioned in the lead, but through a source with a dead link. It's also in the next subsection Richard Dawkins#Richard Dawkins Foundation. "Empiricism" doesn't appear in the article. I think we can scratch the "and rationalism" in the section header. Go ahead, if someone can find something useful (and sourceful) to say about it, they can restore the header. DVdm (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He claims "scientific rationalism" in his book "The God Delusion", but the trouble with his claim is that true rationalists claim there is some knowledge to be reasoned out by pure and sole thinking. He may actually confuse the word as an alias for modernism or positivism. I'm gonna remove it, anyone who can find a correct rationalist reasoning to cite, and can insert a short rationalist paragraph, might do so with my applauses. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No he is a rationalist as he claims. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Moonraker, that was an excellent job. DVdm (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't managed the "paragraph" that Rursus rightly called for. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Applause, as promised! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To make the obvious point, rationalism means many things, and an empiricist in the sense used in history of philosophy can be a rationalist in a number of other senses--a believer in the importance of proportioning belief to evidence, or avoiding irrational beliefs. User:JustinBlank 75.139.113.231 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

The God Delusion was praised by many intellectuals...

Three says the text. The source provided happen to be richarddawkins.net. According to my read, he shoots himself seriously in his own foot twice, once by proponing a clearly theistic evolutionary model of a multiverse where universes containing life in some quite unexplained way are favoured by natural selection (!!!), another time by explaining that evolution is optimizing, peacock feathers are thus optimized, the horrible unoptimized religion is like peacock feathers. I will replace "many" for "three", since the praise alleged seem far fetched. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I made it

The God Delusion was praised by among others... [list of three]

someone more certainly praised it, somewhere. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to the change you made as such (more specific is better, in general), but your argument here -- if I'm understanding it right -- seems to amount to "the article says that many intellectuals praised TGD, but it contains arguments X and Y which I find weak, so it's unlikely that many intellectuals praised it", which seems to me hopeless in multiple different ways. Most uncontroversially: to get from "I think argument X is weak" to "it is unlikely that many intellectuals praised a book containing argument X" you need to make several separate implausible leaps of logic. (Less uncontroversially, I think you badly misunderstood him. But let's not argue that here.) Gareth McCaughan (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Aumh. OK, then my reason is WP:NPOV, although I used some reference to facts and other subjective operations to indicate that the stmt was unlikely POVvy. Sorry for being opinionate, the topic is a little controversial, so I should know better. Otherwise I think I understand him correctly. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins' father dead?

How reliable is the source that states Dawkins' father, Clinton John Dawkins, died in 1989? I just watched an interview with Richard dated Jan 9 2010 on youtube in which Dawkins says his father is still alive.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euMi5Akf8Kc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.69.236 (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I watched part 1 of the video (I intended just looking for the "father" reference, but the interview is unusually good). The statement that the father is still alive occurs at 7:30 (although you need to start before that to see that they are talking about the father). It is not clear when the interview was conducted, but it's clear that it was well after 1989 (probably in January 2010 as the youtube page suggests).

The dubious information was added in this edit by Jim Michael on 27 May 2010 with an unclear reference, namely findmypast.co.uk. The source looks dubious to me (is the person the father of RD?).

The same user made other changes in these 8 edits. I think some of that should be removed (certainly all the material relying on findmypast), but I'll leave it for a while to see if anyone has further comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I mistook a man who had exactly the same unusual name as Dawkins' father as being him; I have now removed the incorrect lifespan. Apologies for my good faith mistake; thank you for drawing our attention to it, and the YouTube interview. The rest of the info I added is consistent with what we know from other sources, so the accuracy of that is not in reasonable doubt. This biography is of a very prominent person, and it has insufficient info about his family and personal life, which is why I added it. It is still the case that his mother is not mentioned. All I could find about her was her name, but the sources appear to be taken from this article when it stated her name, but did not give a reference. In the YouTube interview, he talks about both his parents in the present tense. Jim Michael (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins says in his web-site that his mother trained as an artist, but did not act as one for long. He said this to prove that

his parents were not missionaries. That they were not is no doubt true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Critique of Dawkins

Perhaps some mention should be made in the criticism of Dawkins and other New Atheists made by proponents of historical materialism and some strains of Marxism, such as Noam Chomsky or Terry Eagleton? see http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching as one minor example Hash789 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already at The God Delusion and is not needed here (not significant to Dawkins' life). Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

I know this has been an issue in the past on this page, but Richard Dawkins is often used in popular culture as 'The scientist', so I wonder if it is worth reopening the debate, and include a section mentioning the way he is used? For example, his being referenced in the final of season 5 of doctor who ("I don't trust that Richard Dawkins and his star cult" - will need checking for exact quote, i'm working from memory) and he's mentioned in Terry Pratchett's 'Nation' at the end. I don't think you can truly document his impact without citing the numerous times he's been written into popular culture. Abergabe (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversion

Dawkins' conversion from Church of England to atheist is a fundamental part of his life. It is reliably sourced in the article. Ref 17, Darwin's Child, The Guardian: 'he went to a C of E school, was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens.' He fits the criteria of Category:Converts to atheism from Protestantism, as the C of E, which he was raised in, is a Protestant denomination, and he is now an atheist. Jim Michael (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget his earlier conversion from atheism (or possibly agnosticism) to Christianity when he was practically a baby! It's a bit of a subjective call, but I suspect that this category is best kept for people who "converted" (back?) to atheism when they were adults. At least some of the examples currently in the category seem to fit the bill on this point (e.g. Jonathan Edwards). I think that while one's early views may be worth noting in a biography section of an article, this particular category (plus related ones for other religions) would probably best be stocked with people who have had a foot in both "camps" during their adult lives. The transition is of much greater significance in these cases since they're likely to have thought long and hard about both positions, whereas a child or young adult is less likely to have. But this whole category is a slippery one in the first place. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is an ugly area. You will see how ugly if you go to and then to the discussion on changing the name of the category. One generally doesn't convert to atheism. One decides that the religious structures one was surrounded by as a child are no longer needed, and happily carries on life without them. We need a word that means something like "abandons religion". HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that many of us, and Dawkins in particular, reject the notion that a child should be labeled with the religion of their upbringing. Sure, if an adult attends a CofE church, or writes of a CofE faith, and later announces they are an atheist, it may be appropriate to consider them a "convert". But it is completely inappropriate to assume that because a child participated in their environment (studying the subjects presented at school, and performing the rituals including confirmation, again presented at school) that the person was in any meaningful sense a CofE member of such standing that an encyclopedia needs to record that the person "converted" from CofE to atheism. I have used quotes on "converted" because it is highly dubious to regard a rational decision as a conversion, as if it were merely clever talk or emotional upheaval that led to the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need a way of saying that the FIRST conscious choice of a person in the area of religion was to not have one. It's not a conversion at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins' conversion to atheism is probably the best known and most relevant case in the world. He really believed in Protestant Christianity and a God designer of the universe and everything in it when he was a child; he didn't merely go along with it to please his parents. When he was 16, he decided through logic that the religion he previously believed was nonsense propaganda, and that atheism and evolution were what made sense. Bear in mind we are talking about a very intelligent person, who was 16 when he converted, and that he didn't merely decide not to bother with being a Chrstian anymore, or decide that it wasn't 'cool', nor just ceased his interest in it. He is very active in his atheism. To say a person should be an adult when they convert to make it meaningful or relevant is not justified, nor is saying a person has to be notable before they converted. Wikipedia bios routinely cover aspects of their subjects' lives, including their early lives, during which time many of them were not at all notable. Thousands of adolescents convert. Much of his life and career involves writing, lecturing and presenting programmes to promote atheism and point out the flaws, shortcomings, contradictions, false history and lack of logic in various religions. He said after 9/11 that religion is not harmless nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense. I can't see how he could be more of a convert; he speaks to millions against what he used to believe in. Whilst atheism may not be a religion, it is for Dawkins an active belief in the non-existence of God, not merely a lack of belief in God. His life heavily involves actively promoting atheism. He couldn't be any more atheist. He didn't merely choose not to believe in Christianity (or any other religion), he chose to make it his life and work to promote atheism and argue against religions. His belief in the non-existence of God is as strong as any Christian, Muslim or Hindu's belief in their God(s). To claim that there's no such thing as converting to atheism is contradicted by the existence of Category:Converts to atheism, and its subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we wish to diminish the significance of "conversion" to atheism in adolescents. To use the Dawkins example again, while it may be true to say that his conversion to atheism was the result of careful, logical thought, it is probably not true to say that his prior conversion to protestantism was the result of the same application of careful and logical thought. Largely because he was a child then, and absorbed the influence of his upbringing. However, people who convert when adults are liable to have been in full possession of their faculties prior to their conversion, and so have likely thought long and hard about their position as a believer. As such, their subsequent conversion is arguably more significant.

Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, I would argue that if we use the category in the way that you are proposing, then the majority (to date) of notable atheists from western nations would fall into it, since most will have been raised on Christianity prior to rejecting it later. Which would then make the category more-or-less synonymous with that of western atheists (or "converts to atheism"), and therefore redundant. My argument is that it would be much more interesting to use the category to document "staunch" Christians who became "staunch" atheists. But since that would require some definition of "staunchness", which I'm assuming is at least congruent with "adult", then I think my suggestion is unworkable. By way of summary: your suggestion = workable, but potentially redundant; my suggestion = an interesting subset of atheists, but unworkable. As a result, I suggest dumping the category. Or am I completely missing an obvious justification? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think that one should put too much stock in the idea that having a Wikipedia category about some topic points to its real-world existence!  :-)

Jim Michael - you say that Dawkins "really believed in Protestant Christianity and a God designer of the universe and everything in it when he was a child; he didn't merely go along with it to please his parents", and then give us lots of examples of how keen an atheist he is. To convince me that he ever really converted, you need to give equally powerful evidence of your original claim, that he, as a thinking person and of his own choosing "really believed in Protestant Christianity...", etc. That's what's missing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

So where is the "Criticism" section? Don't tell me he hasn't been criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.117.155 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We tend to avoid dedicated criticism sections for people - it's generally preferable to mix positive and negative reactions into the text than putting them in separate lists. The article currently does mention criticism of him - see the paragraph beginning 'Oxford theologian Alistair McGrath', the following one, and the one beginning 'Astrophysicist Martin Rees' at least. If you have a specific criticism in mind that you think needs (more) coverage feel free to suggest it. It might be helpful to look at the recent archives of this talk page first though, because editors have discussed this quite a lot in the past. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately too much of the criticism of Dawkins in the past has been from people whose position is. "My church tells me creationism is true, so Dawkins must be wrong." Many edits based from that perspective have been quickly (and rightly) reverted over the years. That can then perhaps lead to other, more valid criticism being more carefully handled too. We also have to remember that that this is the biography of a living person. Wikipedia can be (and has been) sued if nasty, inaccurate things are said about people. Considerable care is required when adding criticism to an article like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Spell

Dawkins' father spent a spell in Africa from 1939 to 1949 to evade conscription. We need more detail about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.156.32 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you certainly read the article carefully. Duh. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins Junior is the only one I can find who claims that his father was in the KAR. The KAR was a small unit that did little fighting in the War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk)

Ref. 19, one of the proofs, is now a dead link. The question arises as to why Richard Dawkins has taken the previous claim out of his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the forums on RDnet were re-organised a few months ago, so any url beginning http://richarddawkins.net/forum/ is dead now. The info is anyway cited from a book (a flat thing made of trees, available in libraries), but a search of RDnet also turns up [2] which confirms what the article already says (see comment 16). You appear to be trying to spin a conspiracy out of a dead link. That's silly. 'The question arises as to why Richard Dawkins has taken the previous claim out of his site' indeed. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Squiddy has passed over in silence the small size of the KAR. So far, Squiddy has proved that Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins have said that his father was in the KAR. In "comment 16", Richard Dawkins rather oddly refers to the "brief" time his father was in the KAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(i) I've 'passed over in silence the small size of the KAR' because I can't see any relevance. (ii) No-one has even suggested, let alone proved, that RD's father was not in the KAR. (iii) 'Brief' in the context of the comment clearly means 'for the duration of the war' as opposed to 'professional soldier'. Do you have any actual point, is there some change you'd like to see in the article? It seems at this point that you are trolling. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.richarddawkins.net/articles/4757-brief-scientific-autobiography Richard Dawkins says, "In 1943 my father was posted back to Nyasaland".

Third Way Magazine

A quote with a {{cn}} tag is from an interview in Third Way Magazine. I couldn't find any reason in WP:RSN not to use this, so adding the reference. If RD was happy to use it, so are we. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)