Talk:Richard Dawkins

Controversy section revisted

MikamiLovesDeleting has submitted a Controversy section, which was reverted by Dbrodbeck. I am starting a discussion here to invite Mikami to express his/her thoughts for why the section should be included. A look at previous discussions on this page suggests a prevalent opinion that the content should not be included, but if there are new thoughts, we should welcome them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(Side note: If this is a common suggestion/request/complaint, and consensus has been well established against the section the numerous times this has come up before, then I think McGeddon's suggestion above is a sound one, that a FAQ be created or that the consensus stance be highlighted in the Resolved Issues template at the top of the page--and maybe with links to relevant archives?) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cyphoidbomb. Many comments Dawkins has made that are typically seen as controversial have generated enough attention to merit its own section. Much of his controversial remarks are often associated with his character and what he is best known for. His twitter controversy involving his remark about Muslims at least deserves notable mention because it has been brought to attention by various news outlets such as The Guardian, the Telegraph or Daily Mail MikamiLovesDeleting (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @MikamiLovesDeleting: Can you please list those "Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc" sources and proposed content/section here? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly @Anupmehra:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387635/Richard-Dawkins-embroiled-Twitter-row-controversial-comments.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10232082/Professor-Richard-Dawkins-embroiled-in-Twitter-row-over-Muslim-comments.html

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-twitter-row-muslims-cambridge

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/richard-dawkins-muslim-jibe-sparks-twitter-backlash-8753837.html

MikamiLovesDeleting (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anupmehra: in regards to content for the article, I will admit that I copy-pasted from the new atheism article, but I felt that the controversy that was mounted on Dawkins offered a good starting point.

In August 2013, Richard Dawkins attracted criticism after Tweeting "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though." Many responded with outrage, including political commentator Owen Jones, who replied "How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment." Dawkins said he singled out Muslims because "we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.

MikamiLovesDeleting (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We must not create a section that will primarily provide a platform for Dawkins haters to push their POV. I take a similar position for all articles on public figures who have enemies. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We can revise what I have proposed above. What I am simply arguing is that Dawkins is notable for drawing attention for controversial remarks and the attention just so happens to come in the form of critical remarks. Nowhere in the article do we have to state that these remarks are true, but these remarks exist whether or not we agree with them. If we wanted to aim for neutrality/objectivity we could write something along the lines of "Dawkins is known to have generated criticism from various remarks he has made." That's it. No hint of providing "a platform for haters." We are simply acknowledging the existence of these remarks, which are notable because of how often they circulate MikamiLovesDeleting (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Those remarks are usually more about the remarkers than about Dawkins. If they had articles, the comments could go there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo completely on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. Twitter, especially Twitter back and forth chatter / debate, is not notable nor a reliable source in itself. Memills (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late comment. I've been busy doing nothing recently. Coming to the point, I'm simply not agree that Dawkins is notable for his alleged controversial remarks. If any person believe not including above proposed content makes Dawkins non-notable. Feel free to nominate it for deletion. Well, also partially agree that including proposed content would provide a platform for some people to push their POV and would somehow contribute to disrupt the WP:STRUCTURE of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[Abruptly opens door] Sorry to interrupt, guys, but I think that, regardless of how it is structured, the controversial things Dawkins has said (not just tweeted) and the reaction thereby provoked do deserve inclusion. For instance, Dawkins' statement that "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see." [1] provoked a great deal of controversy. [2] [3] [4] Perhaps this should be worked into the "advocacy of atheism" section, since the reason he made the remark in the first place was to show that groups of religious people can gain influence, so atheists should be able to too. Jinkinson talk to me 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversial things can be included in the article where appropriate, but a criticism section is walking the line of WP:NPOV and even if done carefully is still sloppy writing at best. If Dawkins did or said something, for example, involving his advocacy of atheism that met with a considerable amount of criticism that was reflected in reliable sources and warranted mentioning it in the article, it would go in the Advocacy of atheism section as appropriate, not in its own section with no context or balance. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case it would seem appropriate to give Dawkins a 'controversies' section as the controversies mentioned do not seem to fit neatly into existing parts of the biography. This most likely explains why his statements on Muslims and the Nobel prize, and 'the Jewish lobby' have been ignored so far - they aren't really examples of 'Advocacy of atheism'. Controversies sections are fairly common in wikipedia biographies, and have the useful function of gathering together random public pronouncements. After all James Watson has one and it is possible to include them while maintaining NPOV.

These statements form an important part of his representation in the media. Another example is from last week when it was alleged that Dawkins said fairytales had a negative influence on children, which he later went on to deny. Whatever the case, these episodes indicate that a) The press may misreport Dawkins b) The man may not always express himself very clearly when addressing the public c) Dawkins certainly believes the press misreport him. These are relevant to a man who has a complicated and contentious public persona and should form a part of his biography on Wikipedia.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I humbly disagree with your claim that a "Controversies" section could be added "while maintaining NPOV". The mere use of that heading negates the claim. We must not provide a stage on which his haters will gather and play. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

text accompanying footnotes 98 et seq.

the criticism, particularly eagleton footnote 100, is that dawkins has misconstrued and caricatured the philosophical arguments he claims to have debunked. another source for this would be edward feser, the last superstition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781587314520. therefore it is not sufficient to quote dawkins in response saying "theologians are no better than scientists in addressing deep cosmological questions." if he has responded to the criticism that he has not understood or has intentionally misrepresented aquinas, we need that cite. otherwise, the text should identify eagleton's and feser's specific criticism, and should say "without responding directly to this criticism, dawkins has said theologians are no better," etc. Zach bender (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is meant to be about Dawkins, not what his critics think of him and what he says. I'd prefer to see just Dawkins' views here. The views of his critics belong in their own articles, if they are notable enough to have them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

any number of other bios on wikipedia that give space to criticisms of the subject's ideas. dawkins is notable largely for his expressed views. criticism comes with that territory. Zach bender (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And, if the criticism is notable it will be in an article about the criticizer. This is Richard Dawkins not people who don't like things Richard Dawkins said. We have discussed this a great deal, you can check the archives if you would like. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

possibly i am mistaken, but my initial comment was directed to the accuracy and completeness of existing text, which apparently has survived the archived discussions. i am not proposing to introduce new criticisms, though feser is a good source. eagleton, already cited, is sufficient, i guess, but his critique is insufficiently expressed, giving the appearance that dawkins' "response" was adequate to the critique. dawkins wrote a book, and people knowledgeable in the subject area said his arguments were not well grounded. specifically, that he grossly misconstrued aquinas and ended up debunking a straw man. if we mention the book, which surely we should, then we should mention the criticisms and not merely by saying "some folks disagreed, but dawkins said who cares," but by identifying what the criticisms were and noting whether he addressed those criticisms. as was done with respect to "the selfish gene." 71.36.187.111 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

signature to previous comment did not go through.Zach bender (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

i might also note that if we were working with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGEBLP the current policy there is that if someone is advancing a theory outside his area of expertise "that depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" that fact should be noted. dawkins is not a metaphysical philosopher, and his arguments have been identified by those who do actually work in that field as superficial and misdirected. Zach bender (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, FFS! You really do have it in for the guy, don't you? Have you never expressed an opinion on an area in which you don't have a doctorate? Your POV is far too clearly on display. It shouldn't be. It's Dawkins we're discussing here, not what anybody, including you, thinks of him. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

i very much enjoyed his book on "the selfish gene," and was somewhat disappointed in the tone of "the god delusion." i myself do not have a point of view on the validity of dawkins' cosmology, though i think he himself proceeds from unacknowledged premises. i have some difficulty with aquinas for the same reasons.

i believe i have sufficiently explained in my previous two posts why some editing would be appropriate here. we are building an encyclopedia here, which should serve as a resource for people who have not looked as deeply into each of these sources as you or i have. Zach bender (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on these matters are of no interest to Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks, charles. i was responding to hilo48's ad hominem. my point being, let's suppose i personally, albeit irrelevantly, did _not_ "have it in for" dawkins. let's suppose i am interested in putting up the best info possible for the casual reader. let's suppose at the other extreme i am trying to build dawkins up. in any of those three cases, the proposed edit would be offered for the purpose of "improving" the entry. someone who actually knows this particular controversy, reading this section, would be struck by the fact that it presents dawkins' view of the matter more sympathetically than that of his critics. that's all, no matter. anyway, i am reading over on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus that the way for me to have approached this would have been to make the edit and then work through the reversions. my experience with consensus building in the "real" world did not suggest this to me. Zach bender (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should the article present his critics' view at all? That information belongs in their articles. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources comment critically about Dawkins, then his biography is the best place for the information. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. Put it in the articles on those reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Dawkins, not a critic. However, I continue to believe that critical voices aimed at Dawkins have their place in this biography. The topic is Dawkins, right or wrong. Some reliable sources talking about Dawkins are highly critical. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We can write about what Dawkins has done. We can write about what he has said. Nothing at all is gained by adding opinions about him from other people. Our readers can decide for themselves what they think of him, and don't need to be told how to think by others. That information is about them, not Dawkins. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your assertion in any of Wikipedia's policies. Instead, I see in WP:NPOV that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view", and that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So if reliable sources criticize Dawkins, we tell the reader about them. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The most neutral thing to say about someone is nothing. Millions of words have been written about Dawkins. As soon as you choose just some of them, you are cherry-picking and adding POV. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not seeing your assertion echoed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Certainly there is not guideline that says to write nothing about a person. If "millions of words" have indeed been written about Dawkins, then we would be remiss if we chose to say nothing. Instead, we are directed to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Given Dawkins' controversial position, that's going to be very difficult to achieve. There have already been many bitter disputes over the years over which criticism to include. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that the task is difficult, that it has long been difficult, largely because drive-by editors dump their venom here from time to time, without heed to the overall balance. Nevertheless I think the task is worth doing. The reader will be best served by including balanced criticism. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most proposals have been way over the top, with the opinion of people with no achievements being coatracked on a page about Dawkins. An abstract discussion with no proposal is unlikely to be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Dawkins on eugenics and medical ethics

Dawkins asks for us to discuss and debate the medical ethics of designer babies and eugenics. Can someone add this to the article? It seems the article is lacking in Dawkins contribution to medical ethics.

By Richard Dawkins

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase.

Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

Publiceditz (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "contribution to medical ethics". It's essentially a blog thought-of-the-day. What would the article say: "in 2006 Dawkins asked a provocative question relating to Hitler"? Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

New Controversy Section: Repeated Comments on Pedophilia and Rape

Issue

2014 saw a new set of comments from Dawkins about rape and pedophilia, with the backlash breaking news on several front pages including Huffington Post.

Why then are confirmed atheists like Charlesdrakew(talk), bias towards Dawkins, vandalizing this article by stifling any proposed Controversy section?

Therefore we are calling a vote in line with WP:CON: whether to have this Controversy section or not. Please respond with "yea" or "nay" ASAP.

The proposed Controversy section would read:

Controversy

In July 2014, Dawkins sparked a fierce debate on Twitter by claiming some types of rape & pedophilia are worse than others by comparing different types of sex crimes.. He said "date rape is bad" and "stranger rape at knifepoint is worse" and contrasted "mild" paedophilia with "violent" paedophilia on Twitter.

Following backlash, Dawkins later clarified with: “Mild pedophilia [sic] is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.”

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia content isn't built by voting, there's no need to do things "ASAP", and who's this "we" you're referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We try to avoid controversy sections here. There is no ASAP, and this should be discussed thoroughly before such edits are made. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While agreeing with the above two comments by NeilN and Brangifer, it is a fact that that Dawkins has made comments that have stirred up a certain amount of controversy and hostility towards him. Many of these have been discussed individually on this page in the past, and taken individually they are fairly inconsequential. However, there is a pattern of antipathy towards Dawkins, arising from his comments, that I think is worthy of note in this article. The section on "Awards and recognition" is generally congratulatory towards him - rightly, recognising his scientific accomplishments. However, I think the scope of the section should be widened to give an appropriate level of recognition to the antipathy felt towards him in some circles, obviously reflecting what reliable sources say - within the existing section (perhaps renamed "Awards and public profile") and not by creating a "Controversies" section. Any fears that such a paragraph would attract POV editors can be countered by normal editorial oversight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So, if you are an atheist you have a conflict of interest? Rubbish. Oh and as noted, we don't vote here, and who is this 'we' and what is this whole ASAP thing? Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never disclosed my religious affiliation on Wikipedia so why are you calling me a confirmed atheist? Whether I am or not makes no difference to editing. Not a vote and again who is "we"?Charles (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the OP's second sentence. Should the noun "bias" actually be the verb "biased"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and controversy sections are unacceptable. All they do is attract negative comment, which breaches WP:NPOV, and very often WP:BLP. The material usually says more about the complainers than the subject of the complaints. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your opinion on my suggestion - that controversies, reliably sourced, arising from Dawkins' public comments should be mentioned briefly in the existing section on "Awards and recognition", renamed "Awards and public profile"? There is little doubt that some of Dawkins' comments have made him a somewhat controversial figure, and merit a brief mention in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying that this is a controversy? The sources don't really say that Dawkins is wrong, but only that he made some comments that generated additional comments. Roger (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a controversy, fierce and public disagreement, without necessarily absolute proof one side is wrong or right. Anyway I vote yes on including the section, its been addressed in notable enough media, and I suggest adding reference to Dawkins' comments on the Rebecca Watson elevator incident as well (which comments, as noted on her page, led to an internet flame war and policy changes.) 71.175.26.106 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Thank you all for your timely response, great feedback. Just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist and being a principled editor here. And I appreciate the clarification that Wikipedia is not democratic.

To maintain our legitimacy as editors, the consensus of the entire Talk Page is as follows: 3 out of the 6 topics on the Talk Page are about including Dawkin's controversies.

The controversies referenced are very select and as follows:

 1)2013 interview with The Times magazine: Dawkins was unable to condemn what he called "the mild pedophilia" he experienced at    
  school when he was a child. He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed 
  with what he called "just mild touching up." The ensuing backlash included Peter Watt, director of child protection at the 
  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abuse in 
  Childhood and himself a victim of abuse.[5] 
 2)2011 "Elevator incident" comments: Described in Rebecca Watson's Wikipedia biography  
  [6]. The controversy increased when Dawkins joined the discussion, 
  describing her response as an overreaction since she had not been harmed, and then contrasting the "elevator incident" with the plight 
  of women in Islamic countries. The result of this exchange led to an extended internet flame war and Watson stated that she would 
  no longer buy or endorse his books and lectures. However there is no reciprocity mention of this incident in Dawkin's biography. 
 3)2014 Twitter pedophilia and rape posts: Dawkin's different classifications of sex crimes and their severity resulted in backlash 
  from prominent figures after a Twitter storm. Jody Woodward, a spokesman for East London Rape Crisis, who said "Rape is rape; there is 
  no such thing as mild rape." Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty told The Telegraph her “jaw dropped” when she heard of Dawkins’ 
  comments. She said "There’s no such thing as a little bit of rape or a mild rape. Let’s just get that clear once and for all."[7]

We can agree that these incidents resulted in controversy for Dawkins because of

 - Widespread backlash
 - Media coverage
 - Criticism from prominent figures
 - Rebuttal from Dawkins

Thus including these incidents could be crucial for a WP:NPOV.

In line with no censorship of Wikipedia (WP:CENSOR), how these listed controversies are included would be a further matter of debate. I feel, along with the consensus on the Talk Page that a "Criticism" section as initially proposed (see first post on the Talk Page) would attract personal attacks.

But because these listed controversies have surfaced many times on the Talk Page and are properly referenced, these listed controversies comfort many editors' concerns that any controversies should be properly referenced as to not attract personal attacks.

The proposal is now to include these listed controversies under instead a "Controversy" section or expand the "Awards and recognition" section as Ghmyrtle (talk) proposes. This will ensure personal criticism and attacks can in no way be written in the "Controversy" section as they would not be "controversies" to the standard we have listed 1) to 3) as. Watchlist editors already prevent vandalism elsewhere in the article.

Now, are there any other further concerns about including these listed controversies?

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to censor anything. Every time this stuff has come up it has been shot down. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh... twitter posts / personal recollections / statements of opinion... do not rise to the level of notability. Otherwise, just about everyone would have a "Controversies" section. Also, this is a biography of a living person, and special care needs to be taken. Memills (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are the "controversies" sufficiently notable to warrant their own article? That is, should there be an article on the event? I assume not, so the only reason to add them here is to provide biographical information about Dawkins that is not already in the article. The problem with the proposed topics is that they are clearly just a bunch of opinions by various people who have no particular authority regarding the issues. The standard approach in such cases is (where WP:DUE) to add the opinions of a person to the article on that person, not here. To put them here would be to use this article as a coatrack to amplify the incidents and to give undue prominence to the non-authoritative commentators. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

They certainly are opinions. Language like "...unable to condemn..." is pure POV. It's basically saying that he would not openly agree with the opinion of a questioner. Not appropriate content for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The most absurd part was your #2 controversy, a single American blogger and podcaster says she will not buy Dawkins' books anymore and you think that should be entered to this article as some kind of a controversy? --Pudeo' 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Richard Dawkins actually a humanist?

Dawkisn is in the category "English humanists". Is that really justified? Sure he supports the BHA, but has he ever explicitly self-identified as a humanist? What is the requirement for being in that category anyways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.85.37 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Try this and this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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? [[8]] 86.20.34.132 (talk) 20:07, 21 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. [9] 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)

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)