Talk:Richard Dawkins

Agnostic

I added a very small, hopefully uncontroversial section noting that Dawkins has described himself as agnostic (as documented). This is not something anyone engaging in this debate seems to disagree is a fact. The concern seems to be that some will read "agnostic" as meaning "not atheist" even though wikipedia's own entry on atheism begins with a broadly inclusive definition. I added that definitional context (using the same source) just in case. My reasoning is that the implications of labeling oneself agnostic belong in a debate on the atheism or agnosticism pages, not on a factual biography of Dawkins. I'll add that this is not the most elegant section and obviously I invite edits or even incorporating the information elsewhere in the article; I just ask that we move forward not backward to not even having this relevant fact (or even the word agnostic) somewhere in the article. Editorpsy (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this talk page demonstrates that it would have been controversial, given the relevant factors of (a) The Telegraph not exactly showing impartiality towards the article's subject; (b) an RfC on this above; (c) what you added appears to be taken out of context and is at best an oversimplification that is potentially misleading as to its intent. - SudoGhost 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the matter is controversial because the word "atheist" provides correct encyclopedic information, while previous attempts to introduce "agnostic" have been based on a misunderstanding of what Dawkins said and wrote (the issue is old news because it is fully explored in The God Delusion). Please search this talk page for previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should probably note somewhere in the article something like the following:

although Dawkins certainly does not believe in God, he does not regard the existence of God as completely and utterly disproved, just very very improbable. Thus when asked by Anthony Kenny why he did not describe himself as an Agnostic he replied "but I do". However Dawkins has made it clear that this is not intended as a shift in his position.

What do people think? NBeale (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Read previous RfC on this for details. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the RfC to the resolved issues subpage. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biologist?

The introduction mentions that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Yet there appears to be nothing in the article itself giving credentials to support this assertion. Unless proper credentials are cited he should not be given this distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLarsen (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're looking for. What in Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology is not enough to say he's an evolutionary biologist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins appears to be a popularizer of evolutionary theory among other things. In fact, it appears he's exceptional at popularizing given his former Oxford position as Professor for Public Understanding of Science, as well as his many popular books. I suspect he is well versed in evolutionary theory. But what I don't see is a degree in that field. I don't see any peer reviewed studies or publications. IMO, a evolutionary biologist would be a scientist who at least has written a dissertation on the topic, but preferably published related peer reviewed papers. SDLarsen (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no formal board certifying evolutionary biologists so "evolutionary biologist" is an informal title, describing a subject's field of endeavor. Given that he studied zoology ("the branch of biology that relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution, classification, habits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct") and held high ranking academic positions in that field it's safe to say, yes, he has the academic credentials to be called a biologist. His books such as The Selfish Gene focus on evolution, thus, "evolutionary biologist". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway, I have added a source to the lead statement. This is another one. - DVdm (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your first source isn't reliable as it is a book written about Dawkins by his friends. That introduces a conflict or interest. Your second source was written by a philosopher and thus cannot be trusted. I could likewise write a book and say in it that my best friend is a rocket scientist and that you are a nuclear physicist, but that wouldn't make it so. Now, if you find a few books or papers written by evolutionary scientists, and they refer to Dawkins as one in the text, then I'd say bingo! (You really should remove your citation.) SDLarsen (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An academic title, such as evolutionary biologist, says that the person has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in that field. Had Dawkin's dissertation added to the field of evolution then I'd say fine, he has added at least a bare minimum of knowledge and so he can honestly call himself a evolutionary biologist. Or if had published a peer-reviewed paper or study which added significant knowledge or theory on evolution then I'd say fine, he's an evolutionary biologist. (The peer group must include experts on evolution.) But merely writing books popularizing evolution -- even if they add new insight -- doesn't cut it because they haven't been peer reviewed. And writing a peer-reviewed paper with some mention of evolution but no significant contribution to the science won't cut it either. Standards like this should be enforced, otherwise title abuse will occur. SDLarsen (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As a side note you must be looking in the wrong places for his work. Here is a list of some of his Academic papers. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the longer list. I went through it and couldn't find anything that was peer reviewed and that added significantly to the science of evolution. I'd appreciate it if somebody could point one out for me. Also, make sure the journal's reviewers likely have some expertise on evolution. If a paper is published in the Journal of Psychology, for example, there's a good chance it wasn't reviewed for it evolutionary correctness. SDLarsen (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a publication not being reviewed for its evolutionary correctness implies that the author is not, or might not be, an evolutionary biologist. One can perfectly be 100% "evolutionary incorrect", and still be an evolutionary biologist, although perhaps a very bad one. It is not for us to judge. Re your remark about a "conflict or interest" in the source given, I don't agree. It could be a COI if the authors would say that Dawkins is the Greatest Evolutionary Biologist of All Time. They just say that he is an evolutionary biologist. I.m.o. there can be no interest in saying something as neutral as that, and thus there can't be a conflict of interest either. As far as I know, evolutionary biologist isn't even an official title. A biologist working in the field of evolution is—trivially—an evolutionary biologist, and we shouldn't even need a source for that. Anyway, have a look at Google scholar (e.g. [1]) and Google books (e.g. [2]) and make your pick. I'm sure there's something that makes you happy :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing my whole point. The purpose of titles is to convey what people do or have done. *Academic* titles convey in what fields a scholar has contributed knowledge. Now, just because someone writes something on a topic doesn't mean that that person contributed anything. So how can we tell if a person has contributed to a field of knowledge? By confirming they have had their knowledge published. But even that is not enough, because there are magazines that will publish anything. It has to be peer reviewed. And even that may not be enough. Because it might be published in a peer-reviewed journal that has nothing to do with the field of knowledge you are trying to verify. I've seen this happen before... a scientist published an anti-climate-change article in a peer-reviewed journal which had no expertise on the topic, and as a result the anti-climate-change bloggers started calling this guy a climate change expert. The editor ultimately had to quit over the incident, it was so serious. I just found it. Google "BBC News Journal editor resigns over problematic climate paper." You say it's not for us to judge, and I say you are right. It is for the peers of the scientist to judge. As for the conflict of interest in that book... I checked it out. It was written by friends -- indeed admirers -- of Dawkin's. That's it's whole theme. It's not a biography and it's certainly not unbiased. There is most definitely a conflict of interest in this book.SDLarsen (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think there can be a conflict of interest if there can't even be an interest in stating the most obvious thing one can possibly state. We could just as well say that we cannot trust a source saying that Dawkins' first name is Richard. I fully agree with IRWolfie's and Dbrodbeck's comments below. - DVdm (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How can there *not* be a potential conflict of interest in this book? It is offered to the public as an assessment of Dawkins. That's one interest. It's purpose is to honor and praise their friend, Dawkins. That's the other interest. And the result of this conflict is that the assessment is all positive. Nevertheless, even if there were no potential COI, you shouldn't be citing such an obviously biased book. The authors could fabricate anything they want you and others to cite, and you might actually cite it because you don't see the potential for abuse. (I'm not saying they did that, only that they could.) SDLarsen (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source calls him an evolutionary biologist, discussion over. Your criteria for what an evolutionary biologist is irrelevant. Your criteria for what constitutes adding significantly to the field is irrelevant (it doesn't stop him being an evolutionary biologist anyway). Any criteria which you create is inherently original research WP:OR, we don't make subjective judgments on wikipedia, we defer to reliable sources. Also I suggest you look at that list of papers again more careful, pretty much every source on that list is peer reviewed: Nature, Journal of Theoretical Biology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Behavioral, Science and Brain Sciences are all peer reviewed, in these journals even the letters are peer reviewed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source???? The whole theme of that book is to praise Dawkins as a person the authors admire. And the authors are all friends of Dawkins. How can that be a reliable (e.g. unbiased) source? As for "my" criteria for being granted a title, it is not original research but rather an academic standard. Check out the Wikipedia article on Credentials, specifically section 1.9 which discusses diplomas. But what if there is no diploma or certificate? I quote here from the introduction of the article, "Sometimes publications, such as scientific papers or books, may be viewed as similar to credentials by some people, especially if the publication was peer reviewed or made in a well-known journal or reputable publisher." You say you don't make subjective judgments on Wikipedia. But you are doing just that by calling Dawkins an evolutionary biologist without confirming it. It should be easy to confirm if it is true. Then you go on to say that most or all of the journals Dawkins is published in are peer reviewed. Yes, that is true. But none of those articles appears to be adding knowledge to evolution theory. If one is, please point it out for me (and others). SDLarsen (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea that any of those journals would not get qualified people to review an article is a tad absurd. Oh and they do not list individual reviewers for papers, they do it often for an issue, but you don't know who reviews what. To say that Dawkins is not an evolutionary biologist is, I think, rather pointy (WP:POINT) and frankly absurd. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It happens, and it's not that hard to see why. For example, when a paper covers multiple fields of study. I've seen this happen myself... a scientist published an anti-climate-change article in a peer-reviewed journal which had no expertise on the topic, and as a result the anti-climate-change bloggers started calling this guy a climate change expert. The editor ultimately had to quit over the incident, it was so serious. I just found it. Google "BBC News Journal editor resigns over problematic climate paper." SDLarsen (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To claim that a publication in Nature, the top scientific journal, is in someway comparable to fraud in a low profile open access journal is even more absurd. We have sources that say he is an evolutionary biologist, you can take things to RSN if you wish. There are hundreds of news stories which label Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist as well: [3] take your pick. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim anything about Nature. My original post used a made-up journal called Journal of Psychology just to make a point. Anyway, you say you have sources identifying Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist. Point to one in Nature or any reputable journal that publishes papers contributing to evolution theory and I will be satisfied. I'm not suggesting one doesn't exist, only that I haven't seen one. (And BTW, a newspaper article isn't a very reliable source of someones credentials.)SDLarsen (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is one [4][5]. You won't find original research article in a journal that identifies and talks about scientists in the way you are describing, that you are looking for it suggests a lack of familiarity with how journals work: you will be hard pressed to find an original research article that expressly identifies, for example, Stephen Hawking as a theoretical physicist because original research and review papers are there to talk about the science. Wikipedia does not need peer reviewed publications for verifying non-controversial facts about people, other reliable sources WP:RS are perfectly fine. If you wish to continue then take the issue to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect a professional journal to refer to Dawkins by title. There were people saying that there are plenty of books and news articles referring to Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist, and my reply was that I'd be satisfied with that as verification only if the source was a reputable journal. (Because popular publication aren't that careful, but a journal would be.) Nevertheless, what I really expect is very simple, and that is a paper authored by Dawkin's published in a peer-reviewed journal, where the substance of the paper adds something of significance to evolution theory. I mean, he has books on the topic, so surely he would have published some of his ideas in a scientific journal. Seems to me that should be easy to find. BTW, I followed your first link and found an article by Caleb Scharf that costs $18 to view. I don't know how that would help. The second is a news article by Nature staff editor Dan Jones. Again I have to pay $18 to view it. Does Jones refer to Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist or something along that line? If so, I would be satisfied and this article would be suitable as a citation for the claimed title of evolutionary biologist. (The current citation is totally unsuitable given that it is not a objective biography, but rather a set of essays written by Dawkin's friends showing their admiration for him. Hardly unbiased.) SDLarsen (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Four contributors think that the current source is suitable, so if you feel different about it, indeed you better goto wp:RSN, as IRWolfie suggested. Furthermore, regarding having to pay for a source, please read the little paragraph at wp:SOURCEACCESS. By the way, with this you get a little extract where you can actually see that the author says:

"The notion that genes reach beyond the bounds of the organism is often referred to as the 'extended phenotype', a term coined by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, in his 1982 book of the same name..."

- DVdm (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! Thanks IRWolfie and DVdm. Sometimes I debate with creationists, some of whom insist Dawkins is a zoologist and not an evolutionary biologist. Now I have something authoritative to cite... though a bit awkward getting around the $18 fee. I still feel strongly about the current citation being weak (I won't use it in my debates) and I wish one of you would switch to this Nature article instead. SDLarsen (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I wouldn't mind adding (or swapping with)

Jones, Dan (2005). "Evolutionary theory: Personal effects". Nature. 438. Nature Publishing Group: 14–16. doi:10.1038/438014a. Retrieved 6-Jul-2012. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Others, waddya think? -DVdm (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not much, apparently. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No reply is a good time to be WP:BOLD :). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins added content

Hi. I added and sourced under the "criticism of creation" section "Dawkins was asked by a creationist "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Although he failed to address the question directly at the time he later gave a response." (i included link for the question which is stated verbatim and with subtitles in the video and linked his response he gave on a later date)

Is this Wikipedia grade acceptable?

Thank you

Jinx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinx69 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No. That's cherry picking—where an editor selects a particular factoid and uses it to present some point of view. For an encylopedic article, secondary sources are required so information satisfies WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins' Sexual Abuse

Apparently some people don't want this mentioned in his biography on Wikipedia. I believe it's a notable incident in his life, Dawkins made such a fact public himself. He might downplay it or tell it as if it were a funny anecdote. But any biographical article that discusses important details of his life and omits such an important incident is, I believe arbitrarily selective. The first two reverts by Johnuniq and Old Moonraker cited WP:Undue, but a closer look at WP:Undue reveals that it is about viewpoints. This is not a viewpoint but more strictly categorized as a historical occurrence attested to by Dawkins himself, and published on his own website. Thus Johnuniq and Old Moonraker are, in my opinion wrong about seeing WP:Undue as a basis for rejecting the inclusion of this incident. Now if either one of the two can explain exactly how they construe WP:Undue as a basis for rejecting this specific incident, I'd like to hear it. BabyJonas (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not always possible to explain something like WP:UNDUE sufficiently such that all editors agree. In brief, it is UNDUE to find the words "even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience)" in a 400+ page book (TGD) and use that as the basis to write "Dawkins indicated in his 2006 book, The God Delusion, that he was sexually abused as a child in a boarding school" (diff). It is slightly more reasonable, but still totally UNDUE and misleading to write "Dawkins revealed on his website that he was molested as a 9-year-old at an Anglican boarding school. Dawkins claims he did not suffer any harm due to the incident, instead finding it humorous.[6][7]" (diff). Dawkins makes the point that words like "abused" and "molested" have a very wide range of applications, and that is the reason that tidbits such as those proposed are UNDUE: what does "molested" mean? Once? Once a day? Was it accompanied with threats and fear? Did it involve physical abuse? The million dollar questions are "Did it affect the subject in some manner that warrants mention in an encyclopedic biography?", and "Is there a secondary source with an analysis of Dawkins' life and which suggesets that the incident had any significant effect on him?". Finally, it is not up to the three editors who have reverted the edits to explain why—it is up to the editor who wants to introduce material to explain why their proposal has merit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that because the book is 400 pages long, and only a few words mention this incident, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned. Am I understanding you here? Let me point out that while the incident is sourced from his book, it is not pertinent solely to his book, it's pertinent to his biography. In other words, such an incident would be an important part of Dawkins' biography even if he never wrote his book. His book and this incident's place in the book is irrelevant. As long as it happened, and it was mentioned by the victim himself, we can simply reflect what is the occurrence of a verified, well-sourced, historical/biographical event. Specific to your point of contention, unless there is something in WP:UNDUE that indicates that historical or biographical events cannot be reflected in the article, I don't think WP:UNDUE supports the withdrawal of this event from Dawkins' biography. BabyJonas (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins has an article here because of his science, his writings, and his very public position on evolution, not because he was molested. Many people have been molested, but unless it's relevant to the reason an article exists, I see no reason to include it. If Dawkins becomes a very public campaigner against paedophilia, then we would include it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that because Dawkins' field of expertise is science, that only scientifically relevant factoids merit placement in his biography? How about just seeing him as an important person deserving of a biography rather than a scientist whose biography should only mention a laundry list of his academic work? After all, we don't treat Edgar Allen Poe's biography any differently from, say, Kobe Bryant's. BabyJonas (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember this is a biography of a living person. WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies even if Dawkins has written a line or two about an incident in his past that he needn't have disclosed. To expand on such a disclosure here is not appropriate. As far as we know the incident has had little bearing on Dawkins' life and work, and to speculate otherwise would just be unfair considering he was a youth at the time and it was beyond his control. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 05:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As so often, it's about context. Dawkins himself uses this incident to make the point that mental abuse by the church is worse than some types of physical abuse [8]. In light of that, it just might be appropriate to insert it into the article as part of a description of Dawkins' attitude to religion (though that would still give it undue prominence); it is absolutely not appropriate to stick it in as an isolated fragment of gossip within the biography section, where it does nothing whatever to help the reader understand the subject of the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Snalwibma, I've said this before- Encyclopedic content must avoid trying to draw interpretations out of what the author or speaker is saying. As long as the issue is factual and biographical, that's what we are dealing with- a factual, biographical event and whether it warrants inclusion. Skymachine's response is more substantive in terms of WP:BLP and WP:Avoidvictim. I'm going to look over the issue further and see what they say. BabyJonas (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

His name

Why do we say "Clinton Richard Dawkins, known as Richard Dawkins..." instead of simply going with "Clinton Richard Dawkins is..."? Every bio article that I can remember seeing about someone who goes/went by his middle name uses this format. See Roy Welensky for the first relevant FA that I could find (I went through several dozen FA biographies before finding one about someone who didn't use his first name), or Woodrow Wilson for a non-FA whose name most of us likely know. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Also, although the relevant style guide doesn't seem to explicitly cover this situation, I think its spirit seems to suggest agreement with you too. I'm changing the article now. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought the "known as" part was redundant. BabyJonas (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Atheist in infobox

It is patently clear Dawkins is an atheist. This is expressly stated throughout the article with reliable references. Why is there such apprehension with adding this attribute to the infobox? What is the difference? We should be allowed to. Moreover, the FA article on Nikita Khrushchev (I understand this person is no longer alive, but I believe the same principle, at least in part, may still but applicable in this article) allows for the use of None (Atheist) in the religion section of the infobox. Ziggypowe (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually the one reliable source for this kind of claim is what the subject himself says. But Dawkins himself has been inconsistent. Sometimes he describes himself as atheist, sometimes as agnostic, and sometimes in completely other words. A glance above at just what's on this page will give you some idea of the problem. Consensus has been to let people read the article, go further to our sources, and draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What you said is sound, but why is it explicitly stated in the crux of the article that he is an atheist. Yet, this same information is precluded from being added in the religion section of the infobox. Ziggypowe (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Because atheism is not a religion. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Usually, if the subject is atheist, in the religion section of the infobox is put the following: None (Atheist). This denotes that the subject's religion is none while noting that the subject is an atheist (agnostic, et al). Ziggypowe (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule about that, and the fact is that the matter is controversial. Many (I'm one) don't like labels in infoboxes for any but crystal clear cases. Of course Dawkins is an atheist, but the article covers that and has room to mention the nuances (see Richard Dawkins#Advocacy of atheism). Many (I'm one) think "Religion – None (Atheist)" is silly because there is no reason to impose other people's labels on someone who rejects them. A year ago, the infobox was changed from "scientist" to "person" (see my minor whinge about that in the archive). If "scientist" were used, there would be no "Religion" field because discussions have concluded that it is unhelpful for scientists. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Ziggypowe, opinion differs about this. I agree with Johnuniq. For this article, there is clear consensus to not add this to the infobox. I agree with it. I have no religion. I do not have a religion called "None" or "None (atheist)". I would like to see all reference to religion in infoboxes removed for people who do not have a religion. There are some religious people who want to define atheism as a religion. Atheists do not agree with them. Atheism is the absence of a religion. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was in favor of keeping the box, but there is clear consensus to not add this to the infobox. Hence, keep it out. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"None (Atheist)" This denotes that the subject has no religion while noting that the subject is an atheist. The religion section does not have to name a religion. This is done in a plethora of articles including Cenk Uygur, Warren Buffet, GA article, Bill Gates, and FA article, Nikita Khrushchev. Adding it to the infobox can inform you the subject has no religion by including "None (Atheist)" This is pertinent to a person who has made it his life's work to criticize religion and champion atheism. --Ziggypowe (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how the lack of a religion is cause for something in the religion field? If the subject is still alive, we don't put No (Alive) in the death_date parameter. - SudoGhost 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Better to leave it out, per Johnuniq. --John (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Richard Dawkins page

A new article has been created Criticism of Richard Dawkins which looks an awful lot like a POV fork. I reverted the inclusion of a new criticism section here with a link to that new page. I thought others might want to take a look at it, and I figured it would be more likely to get eyes on it if mentioned here. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins is becoming a religious figure; like those of the medieval ages. No one can criticize him; anyone who does, will be labeled and punished. Wake up guy! It is 21st century AND Wikipedia where no one gets even honorifics. and yet some cannot tolerate a bit of criticism? If you think I will give up my right to practice the free speech, you are very wrong. I will talk to whoever necessary to make sure I post the criticisms from notable thinkers about Dawkins.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to take away your rights. I am talking about policy. We have also had this discussion on a number of occasions. Per WP:BRD I am going to revert this addition one more time. Give a real reason for a separate section other than 'you're taking away my rights'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a criticism page looks to me like an attempt to bypass past discussions here. I've turned it into a redirect. This has nothing to do with free speech but with Wikipedia policies. Please don't do this again, Kazemital. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I went through the discussions on whether or not there should be a separate criticism section. In many of them such as this, this and this there is no consensus on either side. This does not outweigh not having a criticism section. May be we need a poll or something similar to conclude this issue once and for all.

That being said, how is creating a NEW page related to the discussions of an existing page?Kazemita1 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A recent discussion can be found here [9] where the idea was quashed. I brought up your POVFORK page here as it seemed that people would notice it here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no reach of consensus to either side! What makes deletion of the section more plausible than keeping it? --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If I add a section using reliable source, I have a right to keep it, unless YOU SHOW ME CONSENSUS FOR DELETING IT, not the other way around.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is actually not how it works around here. You might want to read WP:BRD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliably sourced material can also be removed for a variety of reasons; including weight, relevance, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the aim is to document critical comments about Dawkins' work, then the right way to achieve that is to insert well-written and well-sourced material into this page, in the appropriate sections. If the aim is to provide a hook on which people are invited to hang a ragbag of personal attacks and links to miscellaneous anti-Dawkins bloggery, then no doubt a page at Criticism of Richard Dawkins is a good idea. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Critical things about RD are in the article already, there is no need for a separate section, or a separate article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you WP:OWN this article, then? You're the decider of what material can go in it? Kazemita1: Feel free to WP:BEBOLD. If there is WP:CENSORSHIP of criticism, we'll document it and take any editors with clear and actual POV pushing to the neutral point of view noticeboard. I suggest you get it right the first time, though. Make sure everything is sourced abundantly well to reliable sources.--v/r - TP 14:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely where have I censored anything? I am following policy. Note the discussions, and BRD, we are at the D part. As to your threat to take me to the NPOV noticeboard, go ahead, I have done nothing wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're comments above about "That is actually not how it works around here" and "There is no consensus to add the material" is counter to how Wikipedia works is what I feel is ownership as if you dictate how this talk page works and how this article works. I might've taken it out of context, but that's how I read it. I see no consensus against criticism. Now as to threats, I didn't threaten you. I told Kazemita1 to be bold but to get it right. If he does that, POV warriors can be held accountable. It was to encourage him to be bold.--v/r - TP 15:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, what censorship? The issue is under discussion and there is no need for censorship accusations and such battleground comments.

As to the Criticism of Dawkins bit, we don't need an article or section with that title. We don't criticize people, we criticise their works, there speeches and perhaps their approach/philosophy. Seems his books have articles - and that is where criticism of those belongs. Each section of the Works section of the article is the place for criticism of that particular work or approach, and seems it's there already. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Kazemita1 is being told explicitly not to add criticism. We haven't even given him a complete chance to show us what he wants to add. I want to see what this editor has in mind before he is shut down like this.--v/r - TP 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where he is been explicitly told not to add criticism. Please quote the sentence to that effect. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See the two sentences I quoted above.--v/r - TP 16:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel the need to defend what I wrote. Indeed, there is no consensus to add the material, I thought we operated on consensus, so I noted that. When I said 'that is not how it works here' I then linked to BRD, which, typically, is how it works. I did not say not to add criticism, I said there was no consensus to add it, and I noted that typically stuff is added, reverted and discussed. (BTW, again, there is already criticism in the article, I am not pushing a POV, even if the user boxes on my user page offend someone (see the section below). Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the halo userbox isn't offensive despite the fact that the Church of Battlefield 1942 says it's blasphemy. Anyway, the point I'm making is you don't need consensus to add material and never have. That's not how Wikipedia works. Now, if there is the presence of a consensus that something specific shouldn't be included then there is that. And a consensus that "criticism" in general is not allowed is unacceptable. Consensus that some specific criticism is disallowed is acceptable. But the lack of consensus is not reason to deny someone the ability to add material. It can't be or Wikipedia would have about 5 articles.--v/r - TP 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as you are not a Boston Bruins or Toronto Maple Leafs supporter I can work with you..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly my point TP. It seems there is this force to stop putting any criticism in the article. As if for the criticism itself you need consensus. I finished reading ~ 10 criticism books written mainly by university professors or alike. Some of the authors were religious, some secular and some of course agnostic/atheist. I gathered some notes out of those books and was hoping my atheist friends would be tolerant enough to allow me to put them in the article. But there seems to be no tolerance. And when I want to create a new article, they accuse me of bypassing the rules. For some reason I find this line from one of the criticizers describing the situation precisely:

God and the new atheism, p. 9(rough quotation): Dawkins does not differ between the general definition of faith and extremist faith. In his opinion, the moderate faith eventually is an "open invitation" to religious extremism and therefore should not be tolerated. This, the author argues is against the very principle of tolerance which both moderate religious people and traditional atheists agree upon. --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To TP, following edit conflict.

See the page he started - now a redirect, but still in the history. Or simply ask on their talk page. No one, that I've seen, is saying that criticism can't be added to existing article sections, rather that a separate article / section devoted to or titled Criticism of Dawkins is inappropriate. The only viable content there was a section entitled Criticism of Dawkins' Philosophical Approach, with a ref. So discuss that subject/heading and the reference presented there - how can it be included here -- or should it be? Vsmith (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I was adding stuff little by little. I had the material, but it would take me some time to make it wiki-friendly. and by time I mean a couple of hours not much. As a matter of fact, I was in the verge of adding a big chunk when I had an edit conflict with Dougweller. Anyways, I am going to add my stuff in the article without the title of criticism little by little. Please, be patient my friends. and feel free to help me improve them. THank you!--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion

Kazemital hasn't bothered to tell anyone here that he's started a discussion at WP:AN#Criticism of Richard Dawkins. < Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now closed as no issue was raised requiring an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The thread would not have opened if you were present in the above discussion. It was only me and a user who called himself atheist in his user page. It was clear my discussion with him needed an arbitration.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My user page says a lot of things. Yes, it mentions my lack of belief in the supernatural. It mentions my love of U2 and the Montreal Canadiens (some have likened both of those to religions...). It also mentions that i play Call of Duty and Halo. I hope none of those disqualify me somehow. You might want to read WP:AGF Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All right pal. No hard feelings. Let's just fix the problem.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't get arbitration at WP:AN over a content dispute. There are ways to do it, but this page is active enough right now. See my comments below after your long post. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Kazemita might benefit from a bit better grasp of things. We do not disqualify editors from content simply because of what people say on their userpages. Nor are we necessarily supposed to judge people based on solely on such information. And us Chicago Cubs fans definitely believe in something which cannot be rationally supported, like the idea that the Cubs might ever actually win. As I said at the AN discussion, I don't see any particular need for a separate article on criticism of Dawkins. Criticism of his scientific thinking probably belongs primarily in this article or articles related to his concepts. Criticism of him one a personal level probably doesn't deserve a separate section at all - we don't criticize British for having bad teeth, for instance. Criticism of his atheistic positions and statements probably best belongs in either Criticism of atheism or maybe Criticism of New Atheism, which probably is sufficiently notable for a separate article. But Dawkins is not the only voice in the New Atheism camp, and I don't think it is in anyone's interests to create a POV fork on just one exponent of that thinking. And, yes, I disagree with him on most of his points in the extreme, so I am not a supporter in any way. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Raw notes on criticism of Dawkins (Please help put them in the article)

Expand to read

PLEASE BE PATIENT!!! Source Text God and the new atheism. p. 9 Dawkins does not differe between the general definition of faith and extremist faith. In his opinion, the moderate faith eventually is an "open invitation" to religious extremism. The author however, argues this approach to be against religious tolerance which is honored by both moderate religious people as well as traditional atheists. Darwin's angels, p. 25 The author believes religious faith is not synonymous to creationism. ---, p. 77 Dawkins claims that Jesus' teachings of kindness only applies to his fellow jews and therefore concludes that religion does not endorse unconditional love. The author however asserts that this is in contrast with the historical account of the new testament. ---, p. 80 The author quotes from Robert Page who studied all suicide bombings from 1980 and concluded in a journal paper that no kind of religious faith is a cause of suicide bombing; instead politics plays the main role. Dawkins' Delusion, p.99 Dawkins claims that religion leads to tragedy. The author quotes the skeptic Michael Shermer saying: “For every one of these grand tragedies there are ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good that go unreported . . . . Religion, like all social institutions of such historical depth and cultural impact, cannot be reduced to an unambiguous good or evil.” Patience with God, p. 4 The author argues that atheism does not always lead to happiness. He brings Stalinian USSR and Maoian China as two examples. Evolutionary Philosophy Journal, Robert Stewart The author blames Dawkins for wrapping questionable concepts with scientific words to legitimize them. In his opinion, there is no difference between Dawkins and creationists on this matter. Is God Delusion, p. 42 Dawkins claims even though Martin Luther King was a Christian, he borrowed the philosophy of civil disobediance from Gandhi and therefore concludes Christianity did not play any role in his movement. The author however, quotes King declaring the motivation and spirit of his movement originating from Christ and how much role faith played as an internal force of calmness. Alvin Plantinga, Dawkin's Confusion "Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. " "...despite the fact that this book [The God Delusion] is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist)... the fact is many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class." "We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;Therefore p is true. Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I've propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one." Michael Ruse, in "Richard Dawkins: How a scientist changed the way we think", p. 152, in his essay titled: Dawkins and the problem of Progress: "Generally, however, Dawkins is scornful of attempts to pin down quantitites of progress, in any absolute sense. He rips into such notions, ... How does Dawkins make his case, How does someone who clearly thinks that sciense should be value neutral who accepts natural selection and modern genetics, argue for progress" ---, p. 159 "These are intended as genuine questions, not as rhetorical refutations. In his recent book, The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins takes the way that avoids a lot of the tricky questions. By tracing life back from humans, he openly acknowledges from the first that he is himself privileging humans. He is structuring the book according to his own wishes, not those of nature. I do hope that this is not a sign that Richard Dawkins is now withdrawing from the arena of what we might call progress studies." Patrick Bateson p.166 "Some years before our debate, I had argued that insistence on the gene as the unit of selection was a bit like arguing that even though people buy cars, the units of slection are the great hydraulic presses that stramp out the car bodies and all the other machine tools that mke the car's components. " Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life is a book by Alister McGrath , a molecular biophysicist and theologian who is currently Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University . The book, published in 2004, aims to refute claims about religion made by another well-known professor at Oxford, Richard Dawkins . McGrath’s book does not seek to demonstrate how Dawkins’ claims differ from Christianity , rather, it argues that Dawkins’ arguments fall far short of the logical and evidence-based reasoning that Dawkins himself espouses. McGrath begins with an overview of evolutionary biology and Darwinist theory. He then presents Dawkins’ view that the current state of scientific knowledge should lead a rational person to conclude that there is no God. McGrath argues that Dawkins fails to declare or defend several crucial assumptions or premises. McGrath also defends other conclusions in the book, including: the scientific method cannot conclusively prove that God does or does not exist; the theory of evolution does not necessarily entail any particular atheistic, agnostic , or Christian understanding of the world; Dawkins’ refutation of William Paley’s watchmaker analogy does not equate to a refutation of God’s existence; Dawkins’ proposal that memes explain the evolutionary development of human culture is more illogical and unscientific than a clearly articulated defence of Christianity; Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology and mischaracterizes religious people generally. McGrath argues that Dawkins’ rejection of faith is a straw man argument. According to McGrath, Dawkins’ definition that faith “means blind trust, in the absence of evidence” is not a Christian position. In contrast, argues McGrath, accepting Dawkins’ definition would require blind trust since he offers no evidence to support it. Rather, it is based upon what McGrath calls “an unstated and largely unexamined cluster of hidden non-scientific values and beliefs” (p. 92). McGrath then argues that Dawkins frequently violates the very tenets of evidence-based reasoning that Dawkins himself claims to uphold and use to dismiss all religious belief. Also on page 92, McGrath states "... Darwinism neither proves nor disproves the existence of God (unless, of course God is defined by his critics in precisely such a way...)." Reception In Science Magazine the skeptic Michael Shermer , reviewing this book, says "[McGrath's] defense of religious faith is a passionate and honorable one and he demonstrates that some of Dawkins's characterizations of religion are indeed overly simplistic or selective, but he never delivers an answer to the God question. The closest thing to an argument for God's existence I could find in the book is this: "Why should God require an explanation at all? He might just be an 'ultimate,'...one of those things we have to accept as given and is thus amenable to description, rather than explanation." That may be, but like all other arguments made in favor of God's existence, this only works as a reason to believe if you already believe. If you do not already believe, science cannot help you." Darwin's Angels: Dawkin says: "I am optimistic that the physiscists of our species will complete Einstein's dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer... According to the author, cornwell, even Stephen Hawking is not in favor of the theory of everything anymore: Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. ” —Gödel and the end of physics <http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/>, July 20, 2002 but to the understandability of the behavior of all physical systems, as when Hawking mentions arranging blocks into look further here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything The Dawkins Delusion:(the author used to be atheist) p. 11: "Though an atheist, Gould was absolutely clear that the natural sciences-including evolutionary theory-were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief. Unless half his sceintific colleagues were total fools - a presumption that Gould rightlydismissed as nonsense, whicever half it is applied to -there could be no other responsible way of making sense of the varied responses to reality on the part of the intelligent, informed people that he know." Original statement by Stephen Jay Gould: "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific American 267,no. 1(1992) http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). The God delusion trumpets the fact that its author was recently voted onr of the world's three leading intellectuals. This survey took place among readers og the prospect magazine in nov 2005 In the last photo of this book, there is a quote from some honorable skeptic doctor. Dawkins seems to think he is competent. Prospect Magezene: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/dawkinsthedogmatist/ by Andrew Brown(has a wiki page in wiki eng) "Incurious and rambling, Richard Dawkins’ diatribe against religion doesn’t come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism" Michael Ruse http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse "The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist" "unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery." Terry Eaglton(one of Britain's most influential living literary critics), London Review of books, Vol. 28 No. 20 · 19 October 2006 pages 32-34: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. " "This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. " Our Cosmic Habitat By Martin J. Rees "The preeminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breaths life into the equatoins of physics, and actualized them in a real cosmos? Such questions lie beyond science, however; they are the province of philosophers and theologians." p. xi The limits of science, Peter Madawar(noble prizewinner) p. 66: "That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by existence of questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer... I have in mind such questions as: How did everything begin? What are we all here for? What is the point of living?" Is God a Delusion, p. 33: In authors view Dawkins is ignoring the possiblity that when religion becomes a tool of division or a venue in which critical reflection is shut down, religion has lost its way. p.37: Dawkins commits the crude logical blunder of treating the conclusion of Aquinas' argument as if it were an assumption The Devil's Delusion, p.1: Biologist Keneth Miller affirmed that he saw no conflict whatsoever between his own catholic faith and Darwin's theory of evolution. Francis Collins who directed the Human Genome Project has made a very similar case for his religious beliefs. p.7: Richard Dawkins is described to be very "responsive to criticism" p.11: quoting Dawkins affirmation that Religion has the power to console, the author suggests pondering on the root of the fact of why religion has this power over the course of human history. p.14: Narrating a verse from Quran suggesting believers that there is a lesson to be learned in the turning over the night and the day, the author find a direct relationship between devoting to religion to scientific pursuit. p. 14: "In Islam, as in no other religion," the historian David King has remarked, "the performance of various aspects of religious ritual has been assisted by scientific procedure." p.19: Twentieth century was not an age of faith and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot will never to be counted among the religious leaders of mankind. p. 26: The author quotes Dawkins saying that the bad deeds of Nazis or Communists was not because of their atheism and it was rather their own desire to kill great many people. The author then concludes this came from the fact that those bad people did not believe that God was watching them. p.27: According to historian Richard Weikart, in "From Darwin to Hitler" Hitler chose his policy of killing the jews on the basis of evolutionary ethics in which based on Darwin's theory it was concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. p. 34: He disagrees with Dawkins and says if people are unpoliced by God they will not remain good, just as when they are unpoliced by the police. Alongside the philosophy of criminal law, he argues, moral enforcement is needed when law enforcement ends. p. 68 Berlinski though not necessarily approving Aquinas' conclusion, finds Dawkins's objection to Aquinas' argument inept. Aquinas, he states, did not make such an assumption that "God is immune to regress" as suggested by Dawkins. p. 145: Berlinski accuses Dawkins of "foolishily mingling" improbability and existence. He argues that parity of reasoning one could conclude that the existence of universe is unlikely in virtue of its improbability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazemita1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC) PLEASE BE PATIENT!!! --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

... wow, that's just a mess. Thank you, whomever collapsed that, it was a bit too much to have on this page at once. This probably should have been on a sub-page while you worked on it, like User:Kazemita1/sandbox or something.

That said, most of this looks like shotgunning anything where anyone disagreed with Dawkins, not substantial criticism. There's a lot of "the author believes" or "the author states" here, which makes it hard to accurately gauge the source. The Darwin's Angels one sounds like it could potentially work here, but I'll need to track down the book to see how it's worded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have a bit about McGrath, but the article on his book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life should be linked somewhere, maybe in a See also section. We should also link Darwin's Angel. Given that we have these articles we should avoid reproducing them here. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@The Hand That Feeds You: Well, if you are bothered with terms like "The author thinks" or "The author believes", then what do you say about this statement of Dawkins?

"I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science" --Kazemita1 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If Dawkins can use name-calling and it is allowed in his article, then so can his criticizers.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Dawkins so some of his thoughts are presented to provide an accurate view of his position. The matter of criticism sections/articles has been thoroughly thrashed out at Wikipedia (it mainly arises in regard to politicians where people seek to coatrack whatever negativity they can find in the leadup to an election). If anyone wants to add criticism of Dawkins to Wikipedia, the procedure is straightforward: find a reliable source and extract due material for a relevant part of the article. We do it like that because editors are here to improve the article (improve it as an accurate portrayal of the subject), and should not be here to use Wikipedia for POV commentary on any topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rest assured, I will be using reliable source. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no name calling in that quote. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, where is this 'name calling'? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I see that even comes close is the "purely political ploy," which is a judgment on tactics, not on the person. So, if that's what is being referred to, that isn't name-calling. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. It is shotgunningKazemita1 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I met RD once when I gave a talk at Oxford, he never struck me as the sort to drink beer out of a can as described in our article on shotgunning.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would call it cherry-picking & synthesis myself, but I can see what HandThatFeeds means, and I can not see how it is in any way name-calling or a personal attack. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 01:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

{User:Hadjishafiee] What is the big deal with having criticism in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjishafiee (talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the "raw notes" need some work, but it is doable. Right now, there are not much criticism included in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasiraei (talk • contribs) 06:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with those folks who find the criticism section unnecessary19:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babajoon (talk • contribs) — Babajoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Truth without evidence

The recent edits have done good work, but one change needs more consideration. At the end of Richard Dawkins#Evolutionary biology, the text:

All of his previous works dealing with evolution had assumed its truth, and not explicitly provided the evidence to this effect

was changed to:

All of his previous works dealing with evolution assume its truth without evidence

That cannot stand as only cranks would imagine Dawkins or his books "assumed" evolution to be true. Perhaps replace with some text simply stating that previous works were not directed towards the evidence for the "truth" of evolution (I used scare quotes because that's a terrible word—how can it be improved, "supported"?). Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire statement must be discarded as unsourced, original research. I have removed it and attached the factual (and sourced) remainder of the statement to the preceding sentence. Looks better, but perhaps the wording can be improved upon. - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting up a coatrack?

In this article dealing with Richard Dawkins is it really necessary to provide, with every account of the man's viewpoint or summary of his work, a list of people who disagree with him, including summaries of their viewpoints and work? This is Dawkins's article and it's WP:UNDUE to give an unbalanced amount of space to his detractors; recent additions seem to be demonstrating a tendency to use the article as little more than a WP:COATRACK for polemic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it seems like a massively unnecessary WP:QUOTEFARM was added as well. - SudoGhost 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this needs serious cleaning. I just removed something very ugly, but I think some drastic pruning is called for. - DVdm (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sudo, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion ("Criticism of Richard Dawkins Page") people have agreed to add in the criticism material inside the article rather than having a separate section or a separate article. I even discussed it in Administrator's Noticeboard. They said if the amount of criticism material is becoming large, we will decide to have a separate article for it. Now, do you think the material is going beyond the limit that we need a separate article?Kazemita1 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at AN you were told it was not an AN issue. As well, I see no consensus to add so much stuff at all, I will revert it again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks indeed like the additions are clearly against consensus. - DVdm (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to briefly refresh your memory on what happened in AN:

• "You would start by adding coverage of criticism to the existing article, which if properly balanced and fairly weighted should be accepted. Then, if the criticism section(s) in the article start to get too large for the main article, a split might be reasonable."

• " Balanced doesn't mean equal amount of content for support and criticism of a subject, but it also doesn't mean suppression of legitimate criticism because someone likes the guy. If Kazemita1 has something legitimate to add, it should be given appropriate consideration; not disregarded because we already have 3 sentences."

That being said, if you do not like "some" part of my edit, please do me a favor and "only" omit that part. Do not revert in bulk. For example, the following sentence was by no means in the categories that was mentioned in this discussion (coatrack etc.):

"while criticized by philosopher of biology Michael Ruse, prominent literary critic Terry Eagleton and journalist Andrew Brown."

Also, please clarify yourself with the word "Christian thinkers". As I mentioned more than once, the people who responded were not all Christian. Again, if you find part of my edit against a policy do not generalize it to the rest. --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me the consensus to add this material. There simply is not for adding this coatrack. So, the policy, one of the at least, is WP:CONSENSUS. You might want to take a look at WP:UNDUE as well. Edit warring to get your way will not enamour you to other editors. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing two things together. I am addressing the Coatrack/undue discussion here by reducing the quoted materials. My request was simply to leave the obvious material, (such as Dawkins critics being non-Christian).Kazemita1 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, and you seem to be, no wait are, edit warring, stop it now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems to be you that is doing the edit warring without any effort to find a middle ground and pushing your own point of view. I keep reducing the material under dispute and you seem to delete both disputed and non-disputed text. Would you mind telling me, which policy requires consensus for removing the word "Christian" when there are obviously many non-Christian thinkers in the article have responded to Dawkins? All I am asking is a little cooperation.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, that would be a start. Show me, precisely, where I edit warred. You have already hit 3 RR today. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not hit 3RR as in each edit I kept moving towards the middle ground by removing the content under dispute. While you my friend, kept reverting it back to where you wanted it to be. If any of your nice guys just be a little more specific and tell me which part needs to be removed, I would appreciate it. It will save us a huge time going to a dispute resolution committee.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I had 2 reverts 2 days ago, which most of the editors here seemed to have agreed with. I have had one today. You really don't know what 3RR is do you? Fine report me to WP:3RRN if you think I have edit warred. As for dispute resolution, umm no. Everyone (pretty much) here seems to disagree with you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR means any edits to an article not just identical changes. It is clear that Kazemital1 has no interest in maintaining a neutral point of view in the article.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to accuse people isn't it? When I first started to edit this article, it was written:

The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and by psychologist Steven Pinker.

as if there was no scholarly opposition against it. All there was, were some Christians thinkers saying bad things against it. I changed it to the following showing there was also criticism from independent people, not just religious:

The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and by psychologist Steven Pinker, while criticized by philosopher of biology Michael Ruse, prominent literary critic Terry Eagleton and journalist Andrew Brown

Are you saying this is against neutrality?Kazemita1 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one, the sources in the upper part of the article you've cited are all WP:PRIMARY sources, usually the books themselves. The others are opinion pieces in newspapers. If they are noted criticisms, shouldn't there be third-party references used to show WP:DUE weight? Secondly, why is content added to the article discounting material in Dawkins book listed before the actual book is addressed in the article? Given that several editors have removed this content, it would probably be best to stop and explain why it does belong in the article, as opposed to reinserting it multiple times and asking editors why it doesn't belong. If you have sound reasons to insert the material and can present third-party sources that reflect this, I'll be the first to agree with you, and we can work towards establishing a consensus for adding whatever material is decided upon. - SudoGhost 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I like your approach. Let's go one issue at a time. Please, let me know what is the problem with the following edit:

The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and by psychologist Steven Pinker, while criticized by philosopher of biology Michael Ruse, prominent literary critic Terry Eagleton and journalist Andrew Brown

If the issue is that you want me to find a secondary source that reflects (and agrees with) Michael Ruse's review, or Terry Eagleton's review on The God Delusion, I will be happy to provide one.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the non-primary source would help substantiate this and show that these criticisms carry weight. - SudoGhost 01:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done
• Terry Eagleton's review has been quoted in The Dawkins's Delusion on page 95
• Michael Ruse's statement "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist" is quoted on the cover page of the same book by McGrath & McGrath.
• Andrew Brown's article in prospect magazine is mentioned on page 12 of the above book.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• That book isn't really third-party, it's already in the article as a primary-source criticism; we should use more than just such sources referring to one another, that doesn't really express any weight for the statement. - SudoGhost 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Terry Eagleton's view was endorsed by RSN. By the way, may I ask what declares weight for Steven Pinker's praise and that of others in the following. I do not see any third-party secondary source citing them praising Dawkins' book:

The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and by psychologist Steven Pinker

Kazemita1 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

resolving issues one by one

• Does anybody have a problem with changing a number of Christian thinkers have responded to it to a number of thinkers have responded to it ? Considering the secular jew David Berlinski (The Devil's Delusion), and comments by traditional atheist Michael Ruse?Kazemita1 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Disingenuous to change "Christian" to "thinkers" Are the majority of respondents Christian? Is the Jewish respondent the outlier? Changing it to "religiously motivated ideolog" might be better? I don't think most people associate these people as "thinkers" if your talking about opponents to evolution. — raekyt 05:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's clarify things a little bit. First of all, they are not opponents of evolution. Secondly, I am not pushing for keeping the word "thinker". I am mainly bringing your attention to the crowd of non-Christians who responded and therefore asking you to remove that word Christian. How about a number of authors have responded to it? or a number of people have responded to it?--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple secondary sources including David Ramsay Steele(Atheism Explained) and Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) have quoted Robert Pape's paper on the cause of suicide bombing not being religion directly as a response to Dawkins' claim. Do you see a problem adding the following to the article:

People have disagreed with Dawkins' argument, quoting Robert Pape's research on the subject. In this 2003 paper, based on surveys of every suicide bombing since 1980, it was shown that religious belief of any kind is neither necessary nor sufficient to create suicide bombers and the matter is rather political.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are any of these people authoritative? First you have to show that David Ramsay Steele, Alister McGrath and Robert Pape are qualified to make the claims they're making. Published peer-reviewed papers, or anything else that shows that they know what they're talking about? Having a biology degree, or whatever doesn't necessarily qualify you to discredit the whole foundation of the field of biology without MOUNTAINS of evidence. — raekyt 05:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Pape who wrote the paper on suicide bombers (later to be published as a book) is authoritative. He is a famous political scientist and his paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal of American Political Science Review. Alister McGrath is just quoting him. Nevertheless, he is someone whose views Richard Dawkins never ignored(other wise, he would not have debate with him or taken his time to respond back to his criticism).--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to the paper? — raekyt 06:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just added--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And what specifically is this paper being used to criticize of Dawkins? — raekyt 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That "for Dawkins it is obvious that religious belief leads to suicide bombings". You may find it on page 80 of The Dawkins Delusion here (search for keyword 'Pape').Kazemita1 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Dawkins said, where in his work does he say what this book is criticizing him for? Where does Pape make these accusations? — raekyt 06:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what Dawkins said(currently mentioned in the article):

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

and McGrath -if you look at page 80 of his book- is directly criticizing Dawkins based on Pape's research. --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't find McGrath's use of Pape's paper to refute what Dawkins said there as credible. Pape's paper, notable or not, seems fairly highly cited but I haven't got the time to really check all those cites, but Pape certainly isn't arguing that religious motivations and faith in religion is never a motivation for suicide bombing, and to make a distinction hes focusing on suicide BOMBING, and 9/11 wasn't a suicide bombing and was clearly religiously motivated as with many such attacks by al-Qaeda. Dawkins, likewise, clearly isn't stating that all suicide attacks are religiously motivated. So how is McGrath's criticism relevant for inclusion? Beyond McGrath's book, is there a multitude of reliable sources that make those assertions? — raekyt 07:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind that no one is allowed to do any original research in Wiki articles. In other words, whether you think McGrath's use of Pape's paper to refute what Dawkins said is credible or not, does not change anything. Your authority as an editor only goes as far as discussing whether McGrath is an authoritative critic of Dawkins work. Or whether Pape's work, that McGrath used to refute Dawkins statement is a well-cited paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with WP:OR, what I'm saying is that as far as anyone is concerned you or I have no more authority than McGrath in making this kind of criticism. Did Pape make this conclusion and criticize Dawkins? Or is this just resting on what McGrath published in a book, which is a primary source, and his opinion, that is backed up with what? To use this you need secondary sources to backup this criticism, and you need to show that this is a legitimate criticism. What I'm saying is Pape didn't say what McGrath is saying, and Dawkins didn't say what McGrath said he said, at least in my limited reading of the two sources. — raekyt 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As for your question of whether "there is a multitude of reliable sources that make those assertions", the answer is yes. You might want to take a look at this to see many authors have concluded similar to McGrath and Steele. In other words, McGrath is not alone in drawing such conclusions.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That link shows nothing, clearly such a broad search term will net virtually anything, and anything that contains just one of those three words, so thus irrelevant. — raekyt 07:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The link shows several books criticizing atheism which are citing Pape's paper. Not that difficult to click on the first 8 titles.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But since Dawkins isn't in the search terms, they may not have anything to do with Dawkins, so again how are they relevant? The burden of proof here is on you to show that (1) that this criticism of Dawkins's comment is accurate and (2) that it's wide spread, or notable beyond the opinion of one or two ideologues written in books of limited publishing. Are these books significant, best sellers, high printing, published by huge publishing houses, have a lot of independent press coverage, lots of reviews in popular media? There's got to be some WP:WEIGHT behind the criticism to show that it's relevant for inclusion, and not just some guy who no one cares about opinion... — raekyt 08:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That was not the issue; the issue was the way of reasoning (assertion as you put it) McGrath used to refute Dawkins' claim on religions being harmful. Per your request, I showed you that the type of reasoning McGrath used is backed up by many sources and therefore his criticism is reliable enough to be posted.Kazemita1 (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Dawkins in the quote you gave is not asserting that all suicide bombers are religious in nature, and Pape isn't asserting that no suicide bombers are religious, just that the ones he looked at the majority wasn't, and the way I read McGrath's statement it sounded like he was asserting the opposite of both of those statements. So, no, I don't agree that it warrants inclusion. — raekyt 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot decide whether a critic has a point or not based on your personal point of view. Your job is to investigate the reliability of the sourced material (or notability of the critic) which was done in depth in this discussion. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I am looking at his source material and I don't agree with his conclusions. You can always take this WP:RSN if you disagree, and/or wait for other people to chime in. Out of all of McGrath's books railing against Dawkins, this is the best criticism you want to include that he makes? Surely something else he said is better sourced/backed up. The Pape paper seems like grasping at straws to make his assertions to a fairly off-hand remark Dawkins made for a website. If Dawkins is saying that absolutely all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, then sure Pape's paper would probably be relevant, but if hes not, and only saying some are, then Pape's paper is irrelevant. — raekyt 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your disagreement with a critic's conclusions does not make it against any policy once the source is proven reliable and the author notable. As for your question of why I chose this part of his book, the answer is because the counter-argument, i.e. statement by Dawkins relevant to McGrath's criticism, was already present in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've taken it to RSN so we'll see how that turns out. — raekyt 09:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My question was way more general and the answer was provided right away saying that a book of criticism is reliable when it gets good reviews (which is the case for McGrath's work as it got positive feedback by Michael Ruse, Bryan Appleyard and a response from Dawkins). You, on the other hand, have started a new thread on the specific case of Pape's argument and will have to wait for your response.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your looking at but the RSN I linked too that you started today says nothing of the sort... — raekyt 09:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion between the two of us on this topic started long after I submitted my question and long after I got the following answer from RSN: "News magazines are generally not appropriate sources of criticism for academic works. Seek peer reviewed journal's book reviews." It surprising when you say I took our discussion to RSN.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't state anything of the sort, I just said you took this source to RSN, which you didn't tell anyone here you did, so our discussion here is kinda pointless since RSN is about the highest authority here we have on if a source is usable or not and how. — raekyt 09:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did not mention any source name in RSN and it was you who mentioned of this specific source for the first time (and you did it after our discussion started). That being said, I totally agree with you that RSN is about the highest authority here we have on the subject. Therefore, you may remove McGrath's criticism on this matter-that I am about to add to the article- once you have RSN's approval--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add more fuel to the 3RR fire, go right ahead, I'd advise you NOT to edit the article until that is resolved. — raekyt 10:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper:

"If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."

This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side I had it discussed in the Reliable source noticeboard as well. You may find the conclusion here. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that edit like this isn't accurate or true, he simply wasn't refering to all suicide bombers, and the RSN backs up this assertion by consensus, so any such edits would be removed. — raekyt 03:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Does anybody have a problem with completing the quote from Rees' book:

Regarding Rees's claim in his book Our Cosmic Habitat that "such questions lie beyond science; however, they are the province of philosophers and theologians"

Currently, the last sentence is missing.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why we are using the quote in first place. Considering the prior claim mentioning Rees is not supported by the existing source: Are there sources that actually connect the two? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not the correct source (your link). The source would be Rees' book (Our Cosmic Habitat) which Dawkins both cites and quotes from in his book.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can find the actual quote here--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The prior claim being...

"Astrophysicist Martin Rees, who has described himself as an unbeliever who identifies with Christianity from a cultural perspective, has suggested that Dawkins's attack on mainstream religion is unhelpful.[116] "

...which is not supported by the source. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, you raise a good point here. Maybe we should totally remove Dawkins counter-argument, i.e. his quote from Rees' book (cosmos habitat) and his following discussion about theologians. Since there is doubt it be related to the previous argument from Rees in Guardian article. Nevertheless, my point in starting this thread was, that if we decide to bring Dawkins quote, we should bring it in full.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Kazemita1, could you please not change talk page comments like this [10]. It makes it very hard to follow the discussion, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of sufficient criticism

This article represents RD's works, views, and awards very clearly. However, in its current form it does not yet meet the standards of an encyclopedic article; it does not provide a minimum representation of the views critical of RD's. I compared this to the articles about a few other figure who are similar to RD. And by similar I mean a figure who is a 1) Scientist, 2) Prolific writer/speaker, 3) Public advocate of controversial religious/philosophical/political views. Two examples are Sam Harris (who shares many views with RD, and is also a major figure of New Atheism) and Noam Chomsky (a prominent linguist with controversial political views).

1- The page on Sam_Harris_(author) has a separate and quite lengthy section dedicated to criticisms of his views.

2- The page on Noam Chomsky spends several lines taking note of criticisms of his views (both on linguistics and on politics), not as separate sections, but each right after the descriptions of his corresponding views.

I invite you to do your own comparison with similar pages. We can adopt the approach taken in either of these two (or other related) pages and improve the current article. Without us doing a much better job representing the other sides, this page will merely look like a CV. MHNova (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — MHNova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is criticism in the article actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument, out of the millions of pages that exist here your bound to find a violation to about every policy we have, we do what we can and clean what we can when it's noticed. According to policy it's always best to put criticism within the article as appropriate and NOT to have a specific criticism section. WP:CRITICISM It may very well be the case that a criticism section is ok for those linked articles, or it may be a case where it's not and no one has integrated it yet as it should be. Irregardless it's irrelevant to the discussion here. — raekyt 05:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both your responses. A couple of points:

First, I may not have been clear enough, but the two examples I mentioned were not my arguments to prove the need for criticism, but are simply two examples of how it may be done. The actual argument I am making is pretty simple: An encyclopedic article like this needs to go beyond a CV and reasonably reflect the critical views (if there are any).

Second, I have absolutely no problem with (and actually prefer) integrating the criticism within the appropriate sections (as my second example above shows). So, no argument there.

Now, am I correct in concluding that both Dbrodbeck and Raeky agree with me in principle with the need to give a reasonable amount of representation to the views critical of RD in the article (Except that Dbrodbeck believes this is already done sufficiently)? - MHNova (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Noone is opposed to criticism being added to the article, but it has to abide by our policies, and WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. Problem is a lot of what is being proposed isn't inline with policy. What do you propose? — raekyt 07:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Remember, MHNova is new (2 edits, both to this page) so (s)he may not know all of the policies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Any specific notable criticism of a particular Dawkins text really should be associated with the article on that particular text. Dawkins, who happens to be a living person, clearly has more to his life than his atheist advocacy. The theist criticisms can be addressed more broadly in the biography article with due weight. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about what others think, but it seems to me that talking about specific works at the level we are getting at now in the article is a bit much. Perhaps in the articles on the works themselves, but this is supposed to be a BLP, not a list of things people have said about everything he ever wrote. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, completely. The "to and fro" presentation of arguments, with one "side" ever seeking to outplay the other with a more extensive rebuttal, is totally unsuited to a blp, but I see it's creeping back in, bit by bit. There's an argument against this style of editing here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I particularly dislike the way that disconnected bits of what Dawkins himself said and wrote are now being added in (as here), purely (it seems) in order to provide a hook on which to hang another thread of criticism. This is supposed to be a coherent account of Dawkins and his work, not a platform to allow everyone who disagrees with the subject to "have his say". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what is happening. I would really like to go back somewhere around here [11], before all of this started getting done. It is, to my mind, much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally and support restoring that version.--Charles (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you folks that personal desires does not play any role here in Wikipedia? What rules is wiki policies of WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. and no matter how large your number is, you cannot act against Wiki rules. --Kazemita1 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, but what about the WP:IAR rule, although it may pay for you to ignore that particular one. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure those are the same policies. Anyway, WP:CONSENSUS is also important (and I still see no consensus for all of these recent additions). These additions look a great deal like a giant coatrack. We have one editor who has some sort of axe to grind. We then have many SPAs (or near SPAs) chiming in. Criticism is fine, but yes in the right weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding weight, it is not even comparable to articles of important figures; they have much more stuff. Regarding consensus for adding the new material you should have attended the discussion like other folks did. I am going to work now and I will be back by 10 p.m. or so (pacific time).--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went away for a day, it is the summer and all. If you describe what I see on this talk page as a consensus for all of these additions, well, I am not sure we define that word the same way. You did, however, violate WP:AGF when you figured my userboxes were a reason to dismiss my comments. You took things to AN and made a vague post at RSN. I am not interested in arguing with you, but I don't want this page to turn into some sort of place where every damned thing RD has said is posted and then the reply by someone or another is given. That is just bad writing, and irrelevant, for the most part, to the man's life. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A few points: (My appologies for the length)

1)While RD has many facets to his life, his prominence is more than anything due to his public advocacy of atheism. (If you disagree, I refer to this very article, starting with "Dawkins has especially risen to prominence...") So, it is natural to put a lot of focus on the section "Advocacy of Atheism", and of course give due weight to critiques, as well.

2) I am finding it peculiar that some folks find the inclusion of a minimal amount of critical views contrary to having a "coherent account of Dawkins and his work", unless you interpret a coherent account as a CV or a fan page.

3) Some folks keep referring to due weight, so let's look at this closely. I don't know how everyone else measures the weights, but due to lack of a more objective method, I did a word count specifically on the section "Advocacy of Atheism" using the current version (last editted by Kazemita). The word count in sentences that contain any form of criticism is 262, whereas the total word count in that section is 1922 (please double check). So, the weight given to criticism even with all Kazemita's additions is less than 1 in 7. Note that I am not counting the word count of the whole article or considering the images, or else the weight would be much smaller.

Is there anyone here who believes the due weight for critiques of RD's approach to atheism/religion should be less than 1/7?

Let me clarify that I am absolutely not saying we should inflate the criticism to give it sufficient weight. Any critical view should come organically and from credible sources. But given the current small real estate given to criticism even after Kazemita's additions, using the due weight argument against the addition of critical material is irrelevant. MHNova (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the article. It really looks fine and encyclopedic to me. Specially the majority criticism is added to the atheism advocacy section. I don't also get why adding criticism from reliable sources to the atheism advocacy conflicts with WP:LIVING. Taha (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPV instructions says that there's no problem to put criticism from reliable sources. There 's no reason to oppose to put such criticisms in this article.--وحید قاسمیان (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the guy who mentioned Sam Harris' article. Add criticism to it, but do not remove it. Nersy (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RD is known to be a promoter of scientific method by replacing the prejudice in religion by verifiable evidence and academic discipline. Any scientific idea should be criticizable and objectionable. I am a bit surprised to see in the very page of RD in Wikipedia such prejudicial behaviors. A user has added some opposite ideas to the page. And since some of the important gurus of Wiki happens to be atheist they come to WP:CONSENSUS and they decided to WP:IAR any kind of criticisms. I suggest reviewing the notes of RD on Galileo Galilei. It appears that in the 17th century some people in Italy came to some sort of WP:CONSENSUS to believe the earth is in the center of universe and they forced Galileo to WP:IAR the true facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estedlal (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

— Estedlal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So again because someone is an atheist they have no right to edit here, or, their opinions and interpretations are not useful and it is all a conspiracy. Thank you very much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Estedlal, may I remind you that personal beliefs of editors are irrelevant to the discussion here and any reference to them should be strictly avoided. MHNova (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientific ideas are constantly tested by scientists using research results published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Critiscism based on the beliefs of certain factions of certain religions is however unverifiable and has no place in a fact-based encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened this discussion and, now that one editor has been awarded a 48-hour break, I'd now like to be able to seize the opportunity and put it to bed peacefully. Are contributors broadly in agreement with the piece as it stands, or is something more needed? Too much squabbling, or adding controversial material without consensus, will put the WP:GA status at risk.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Last Outstanding Issue

We still have a little bit more work to do to reach a consensus. It seems the last outstanding point of contention is the paragraph that was last added by Kazemita1 and deleted by Charles. How about we have a last round of discussion on this and close the issue? To start, may I ask Charles (or others) what their main reason is to object this paragraph? MHNova (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's some words I've been working on at my user page for some time....

Criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Given existence of the criticism-only articles for famous religious leaders, I guess your conclusion/paragraph is against the general consensus of Wikipedians, right? Taha (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such "general consensus", criticism sections should be avoided if possible, let alone entire articles dedicated to such. Wikipedia:Criticism sections#Approaches to presenting criticism. - SudoGhost 03:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And, there already is criticism in the article. Something I have been pointing out since like the late 1940s, ok since Friday.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A discussion here should be framed by someone identifying proposed text (quote it here or link to a diff—links to user pages are not needed), then say why that text would be helpful in a biographical article to explain the achievements or significance of its subject. If it is desirable to mention that the subject said something that was generally controversial, it may be appropriate to mention some WP:DUE responses, but this article is not Why Dawkins is wrong. If someone notable made a great criticism, that should be in the article on the other notable person. If the other person is not notable, WP:DUE says their views are not required here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the best approach Johnuniq Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove the criticism, yes, but remove unnecessary praise also, such as "The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto and James D. Watson and by psychologist Steven Pinker". This sort of critical reception of texts should be confined to the seperate in-depth articles on each text. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 05:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) The Rohan Pethiyagoda and James Gleick quotes are excessive also:

"Author James Gleick describes Dawkins's concept of the meme as "his most famous memorable invention, far more influential than his selfish genes or his later proselytizing against religiosity"", "Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that "Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined [...] We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth"

These ought to be removed. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 06:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable to indicate the general nature of responses to Dawkins' work (by notable authorities) as that is an indication of the impact of the person. The praise text "The God Delusion was praised by among others..." is immediately followed by the balancing "while criticized by..." so I don't see why it is inappropriate. The quote about memes is reasonable as it sums up a significant view, although ideally it would be stated by a suitable academic (but that's not likely as few academics would embrace memes until there was an academic basis for the topic—indeed, Dawkins presented it just as an idea). The Pethiyagoda quote is a bit long (I don't have a strong opinion about that); I think the mention and a quick rationale should be retained as representative of a response to work by Dawkins. The article should also note (in encyclopedic language) that various religious figures despise Dawkins, but it is the nature of a biography that it presents a list of what the person has achieved—the reader can decide whether they like the results without editorial guidance. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You may like these praise passages for contributing some utility to the article, but shouldn't the consideration here be whether they are truly necessary. To get rid of them would certainly help with the balance issue when pruning back some of these problematic criticism passages. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur: removing the passages of excessive praise would be no loss, particularly when accompanied by judicious trimming of some of the material introduced to refute them. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a long quote in the article regarding 9/11 and how harmlful religion is according to RD:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

It is my honest opinion, that such a long quote -if decided to remain in the article- needs be balanced out with due criticism. With a quick research I was able to find 6 books that use Robert Pape's research to criticize RD directly on his claims of blaming religion for suicide bombings:

• 1 (directly to Dawkins) The author, Terry Eagleton, is known as one of the world's leading literary theorists
• 2
• 3 (directly to Dawkins)
• 4 (directly to Dawkins)
• 5
• 6 (directly to Dawkins)
• 7 (directly to Dawkins)
• 8 (directly to Dawkins)
• 9
• 10

To me this just shows the notability of the dialog and I therefore propose adding something to represent the counter-argument if the decision is to keep the quote.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would question keeping the quote at all, honestly. There was discussion some years back regarding "Criticism of (religion)" articles, and I remember at the time finding academic sources saying that the atrocities in the name of atheism and irreligion by the Nazis and the Soviets may have had larger numbers than several of the prominent religious wars combined. That may or may not be relevant, but the quote clearly talks about "belief", and, honestly, actively believing in the non-existence of any sort of religious principles, as per Dawkins and others, is basically "religious" in its own right. If it is to be kept, though, it would definitely help to include some disagreeing viewpoints, as indicated above. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point in suggesting to remove the quote John. I have no objection to removing it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I started this subsection with the hope that we resolve this "last issue" of the quote on 9/11 and its criticisms. Hopefully we stay focused on this and don't go back to the already resolved issue of whether to include any criticism at all or not.

Going, back to the issue: Clearly the quote is unnecessarily long and unless accompanied by possible notable criticisms (which apparently exist) puts the neutrality of the article into question. Can someone here explain why the presence of this quote is essential to the article? MHNova (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If the only way to keep out the coat racking is to remove it fine. I still wonder why we need opposing views in an article about an individual. This is not, as noted above why Dawkins is wrong it is a bio of RD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote gives readers a very clear understanding of Dawkins' thoughts on the topic in his own words. Learning about Dawkins is the purpose of the article and the quote provides insight to that purpose without comment. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Achieving balance in this article without bloat or coat-racking

Kazemita1 (and others) I urge you to take a look at the Osama bin Laden article and consider how that article handles bin Laden's views. Like Dawkins now is, Bin Laden was a controversial figure in his lifetime, he had many critics and some diehard supporters, and yet the article allows his views to be put forth without the need to offer a counter as to why he was mistaken according to the balanced judgement of wikipedia. Notable personal opinions of a biographical subject (even if controversial) rightly belong in the article of a biographical subject, and the article reader is free to agree or disagree according to their own personal beliefs. The comments stand to be judged on their own merits rather than be herded into a point/counter point essay. It is not an encyclopedia's job to advocate for or against the views of a biographical subject (or even try to achieve both at the same time in the name of balance). Balance issues only come into effect when third party opinions are in play. Thus if we remove the third party critical/favorable opinions from this article (unless truly necessary and notable) we will magically achieve balance. It is as simple as that, why don't we just prune it back into shape rather than graft monstrosities onto its branches. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're kidding. Any attempt to draw a parallel between Dawkins and bin Laden is just plain ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument" as pointed above by Raeky. That being said, I think the specific criticism that we are talking about is quite notable, given people like prominent literary theorist Terry Eagleton has addressed that. It is for this reason therefore that I propose thinking about keeping both (statement and criticism) or none.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to deletion debates and neither that article nor this are in danger of deletion. I asked you to consider how the article handles criticism of a person known to have many critics and detractors. This should be a qualitative comparison between an article I consider to execute this balance well and the Dawkins article, which is hardly balanced even with your additions, and further third party viewpoints will not change this situation. I don't think the Eagleton criticisms are notable enough as he accuses Dawkins of not knowing theology and yet Eagleton himself is not considering the historical criticism of the gospels that ought to be at the core of his theology debates, so it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 06:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said, SkyMachine. This is a biographical article, and one of its functions is to present/explain the views of Richard Dawkins. It is not an essay on the rightness or wrongness of anything, and there is absolutely no need for a spurious "balance" that insists on every statement from Dawkins being countered by something from one of his critics. In the context of an article about Dawkins, as long as it is pointed out that some of what he says is controversial and has attracted criticism, it is entirely appropriate for the article to devote more space to what he himself says than to what his critics say. As for the specific quote about suicide bombers, I think "Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense ... Let's now stop being so damned respectful" neatly captures his viewpoint and helps the reader understand the subject of the article, and should therefore remain in the article. But there is absolutely no need to trot out a raft of counter-quotes. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@Skymachine: Was it not you who was saying "also remove praises". How come you do not push for that anymore? Why is it that you always fall for removing criticism, but forget about removing praises? like the one you earlier mentioned:

"Author James Gleick describes Dawkins's concept of the meme as "his most famous memorable invention, far more influential than his selfish genes or his later proselytizing against religiosity"", "Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that "Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined [...] We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.18.234 (talk) — 24.94.18.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To me they should be treated the same. I thought that's what I said. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@SNALWIBMA: You seem to be a journalist as your userboxes say. My question from you is how do you weigh Eagleton's criticism of Dawkins? Do you not find it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.18.234 (talk)

I assume you are referring to Eagleton's review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. Yes, it's a good review. It's probably worth mentioning in the article on The God Delusion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate in which he poses criticism towards many including Dawkins. Specifically Dawkins' claim of relating Suicide-bombing and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.18.234 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am curious why in the heck we need some sense of 'balance' anyway. The title of the article is not 'Richard Dawkins, and people who disagree with him' Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are curious why we "heck" need criticism in the article. Thank you very much!--24.94.18.234 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with saying 'heck'? Or did I miss something. I imagine your vast 4 edit experience on wikipedia has found some policy that says I can't use the word heck? I know other words, but instead I decided to use 'heck'. This is tiresome, and this whole last week and a half have been ridiculous. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Snalwibma has hit the nail on the head. This is all a pointless exercise.--Charles (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that Dbrodbeck hit the nail even harder. As a matter of fact and of "balance", for every voice mentioned that disagrees with Dawkins, there should be another voice mentioned that explictly agrees with Dawkins. That i.m.o. would be real "balance" in the Wiki sense. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, for the specific case of suicide-bombing/religion controversy, you would find it balanced if we further mention the similar shared belief by folks like Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet on this matter along with the scholarly opposition to this belief?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

These are not other words for the words I wrote. - DVdm (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

SkyMachine, up here Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Lack_of_sufficient_criticism I brought up two examples of how in similar biographical articles the critical views are incorporated. The biographies I gave as examples belonged to two people (Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky) who, you'll admit, are much much more similar to RD that your example. So, please do not use an example like that as an argument against inclusion of any criticism.

It is really amazing how as soon as someone tries to focus the talk on the specific text or references under discussion, some folks divert the discussion by questioning the most basic principles, such as "do we need balance in this article at all?". If anyone shows a wikipedia policy that says biographical articles should only narrate one's achievements, views, awards, and praises, but should not include the criticisms or controversies, then you can count on my support for removing all criticism. Until then, please stop making such arguments and stick to the text and references under discussion MHNova (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That Sam Harris criticism section is atrocious, biased and loaded language, poor sources, internet forum discussions used as examples of criticisms, good god. And yet you still wonder why people wish to prevent such mess from oozing up over at this article. Plus if you go back over this past week's postings on this forum you will see that many an editor has expressed the view that criticism sections are unwise and poor practice in BLP articles, hardly any consensus for this criticism coatrack (excepting of course all those newly created single purpose accounts that happen to agree in step). SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 00:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Skymachine: "poor sources, internet forum discussions used as examples of criticisms". These do not apply to the sources proposed to be used here as they are published books from notable authors. On a separate issue, I would like to know your opinion on writing a whole new article with the title of "Criticism of Richard Dawkins", given that you do not agree with putting any sort of criticism in this article, even if the sources are disscussed in the WP:RSD to be reliable enough. Will appreciate your response on this.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all of this started because of an article (which is now a redirect) called 'Criticisms of Richard Dawkins'. It was a simple POVFORK and COATRACK. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate venues for this criticism may be the articles on the texts subject to the criticism or the New Atheism article. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 01:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this issue to the WP:NPOVN as people in New Atheism and The God Delusion are preventing editors from adding criticism on the same basis and this does not seem to be fair.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead, try using the talk page of those articles. Why rush to a noticeboard when you don't get your way? Dbrodbeck (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾, you did not answer my question. The discussion is not about creating a separate section for criticism. That topic was settled here several days ago, and there was an agreement to incorporate well-documented criticism within the appropriate sections, rather than creating a separate section. See comments by raekyt above (who, BTW, said "No one is opposed to criticism being added to the article"). SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾, thanks for bringing up BLP. Both you and Dbrodbeck please go to that article and read the section titled "Balance". In fact, let me quote the very first sentence of that section:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

You'll notice that your resistance to inclusion of ANY criticim (irrespective of their source) is in clear violation of the policy. I'd like to ask other editors to share their opinion about this.MHNova (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not the page for a general chat. If anyone has a concrete proposal, please make it, but please read the previous responses first and respond to any that opposed a similar proposal (that is, say why the proposal is appropriate and why the objection does not apply). Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing appears to be settled. From that BLP section: "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects at all times." Undue criticism of a single hedged line by Dawkins in one of his many books is not exactly in this spirit. Anyway as I have said before if it belongs anywhere that would be in the article on the text. At this point I get the feeling that I am stuck in a game of whack-a-mole. The majority of views expressed so far here have been against these inclusions. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MHNova. What I see here is a sort of hypocritical behavior that is very easygoing when it comes to praise, but extremely harsh when it comes to criticism. This is really absurd. --216.31.211.11 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC) @Johnuniq: on the topic of proposal, my proposal in TGD's page is still awaiting your review.216.31.211.11 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost all criticism in BLPs is unhelpful I agree with Dbrodbeck's comment above. The title of the article is Richard Dawkins, not Richard Dawkins, and people who disagree with him. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with HiLo48; that could not have been phrased better. The original suggestion which compared Dawkins, a non-religious scientist whose worst offense so far as I am aware was to somewhat dismiss concerns of sexism in the elevatorgate dramafest; to bin Laden, a religious fanatic who orchestrated several terror attacks, is beyond the pale. I am having trouble believing anyone considers that in any way an apt comparison. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

"In addition, I am not convinced by Dawkins’s argument that without religion there would be “no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’…” In my opinion, many of these events — and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists — were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."--216.31.219.19 (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(a) This belongs in his biography and not the book's page because? (b) The review is clearly in favor of the book and author, this paragraph is the only criticism in the review, by picking this bit out you make it seem like Shermer disagrees with he book or Dawkins, which he doesn't. (c) Your wording is essentially SYN, you can support that Shermer doesn't like this kind of comparison, or more accurately doesn't feel it fair to paint all religious people by the same brush. So, I don't feel this is warranted for inclusion here and likely anywhere. — raekyt 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also a piece of unnotable trivia from a wp:primary source. - DVdm (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shermer 2

Link to Shermer's book

Link to secondary source, citing Shermer's criticism --216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What was "Uncertain atheist" phrasing? — raekyt 07:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit added a valid reliable secondary source: "... In fact, by embracing the discoveries of science we can see God, the universe, and humanity in full, multidimensional glory." — doesn't sound very scholarly. Moreover, the added text just gives a piece of trivia about Michael Shermer. - DVdm (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@Raeky: This phrasing is from the source. My guess is he is using 'uncertain' as an equivalent for 'skeptic' which Shermer is.

@Dvdm: The quoted text is not a part of the edit you are referring. If you have doubts on the reliablity of the book, then you are invited to take it to the WP:RSN.

--216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not have consensus for inclusion, so I suggest you jaunt over to RSN to see if they agree with the addition of this source to this page to support what you're trying to support. — raekyt 07:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem.Done--216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)