Talk:Richard Dawkins

Unweaving the Rainbow reference

As I read the part about Dawkins's response to Keats that science only exemplifies the beauty of the universe I immediately thought of Richard Feynman, who had the following (relatively famous) quote:

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

Which is from 1964. Does anyone know if Dawkin's referenced this? If he did I think it would be worth mentioning something like "He paraphrased Feynman's qutoe" or something to that effect. If not I guess nothing is worth mentioning, although that strikes me as pretty close to plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.245 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

'religion' in infobox

an editor added 'religion none (atheist)' in the info box, I reverted, and it has been re added. It seems to me, if you have no religion, then you enter nothing in the info box. Thoughts? (Apologies if this has been discussed before). Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it specifically says "none" in the infobox, it's also confusing and quite unessential to have it there, it may mislead readers into thinking Atheism is a religion which it most certainly is not. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was my take as well. I don't think it had been there before either. 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree on the confusion part, as none ain't a religion also! Anyways, mentioning religion and sex orientation (in general) is highly controversial, so it's generally recommended to avoid them when they're not needed. There's tons of discussions about this already, so it's just not worth the time to include it. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I added an archive search box to the top of this page to find discussions. It was discussed in October 2010 and possibly before then. --Javaweb (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I agree with all the above, and... Religion fields for atheists are usually added to articles by people want to make a point - Either "Look, he's an atheist, so he's not a good Christian, therefore he must be wrong", or "Look, he's a great scientist, AND an atheist, so atheism must be good." Both approaches are attempts to add POV to the article. It should go. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

Javaweb, I'm not sure if this discussion is what you're referring to. If not, then please provide it. That discussion has nothing to do with this one, as it's mainly about {infobox scientist} vs {infobox person} where it was one editor's opinion in his example of "religion = none". None should be empty (not shown). Again, I've explained my point above. Also, there's other discussions on similar issues on this article that refused the religion section, like this and this. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for searching the archive. I was not supplying the search link to show supporting views but in the hope it would be helpful. Thanks for searching. Dawkins is notable for advocating atheism and says his studies led him to that position, and his advocacy is a fundamental part of who he is and why people pay attention to him. Religion = None(atheist) is a perfect description. --Javaweb (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

You got straight to the point. His scientific studies led him to atheism, not the opposite. The religion section is for people who's religious views are behind their works. He's a scientist, so lets focus on that. Correction: he's also notable for advocating atheism, which is clearly stated for interested readers in the lead. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And I must add that my interest in him is as a scientist, not because of his atheism (which seems just a logical result of his scientific work). I suspect that those interested in his atheism are his opponents on that matter, and hence come to the article with a POV they want to apply. Not healthy. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One way to solve this issue would be to restore the "scientist" infobox which has had the religion field removed as pointless for a summary box for scientists. See #Infobox scientist/person above. For the record I think there is no reason to have "religion" in an infobox unless the subject was documented to have a religious belief known to be significant to them. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite true. It's usually irrelevant to a scientist's work. (Or it should be.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that both "atheism" and "none" are not religions, and thus the religion field of the infobox should generally remain empty for non-religious people. However the arguments mentioned above that:

• "Religion fields for atheists are usually added to articles by people want to make a point ... Both approaches are attempts to add POV"
• "no reason to have "religion" in an infobox unless the subject was documented to have a religious belief known to be significant to them.

are not very strong for this particular article. Dawkins is well known as "an outspoken atheist and a prominent critic of religion" - he's probably better known (and certainly outside of the scientific world) for his anti-religion views than for his scientific credentials, and the "Advocacy of atheism" section is the largest single section of our article. His "religion" - ie his stance on God etc - is a significant part of his notability, so perhaps we should mention it in the infobox.
(My personal POV: I completely agree with Dawkins' views on religion.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's why it is discussed in the article. I think readers would fall into two categories: (a) those who know perfectly well that Dawkins is an atheist and who do not need to see it in the infobox, and (b) those who don't know, and who would not learn much from an "atheist" label in the infobox (they will learn the details from the article). I don't really mind about an "atheist" label in the infobox, but it does seem highly inappropriate to metaphorically force people like Dawkins to answer the question "what is your religion?". I have the same view about the "White British" ethnicity; see above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between religion and ethnicity is that one may think that all religion is delusion and thus asking one's religion is making a false assumption (ie that you must have one), but it is much harder to make the same claim about ethnicity. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone (notable enough to have an article) that was not part of "a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, ...". Whether ethnicity is relevant is debatable, but its existence is undeniable. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I guess I'm opposing the labeling as excessive (I love the hatnote at White British: For the cattle breed, see British White). Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people who deny belonging to any ethnic group, just like those would object to being labeled as having any religion, even none or atheist. It seems irrelevant to me. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize and Dawkins is notable for being an atheist, so why not put it there? –CWenger (^ • @) 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because atheism is not a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Then what's wrong with "None" as was done in the edit in question, with "(Atheist)" to clarify. Unless he objects to being called an atheist I don't see the problem. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the Religion entry implies that having a religion is expected, and if someone doesn't have one we have to go out of our way to say so. That is applying a blatant POV. If someone doesn't have a religion, why should we even mention religion? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion simply does not apply. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion is expected, which is why it is an infobox parameter. I honestly don't see the problem. I don't think Dawkins would give it a second thought if he saw that. But to be honest, if people want to omit it I don't think it's a big deal assuming atheism is still mentioned under the "known for" tag. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should Religion be "expected"? That really sounds like you want to impose a particular social construct on everybody else. It may be normal where you come from, but it's not where I am. I have no idea of the religious beliefs of most of the people I know. (My friend the local Vicar would be the obvious exception.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In this day in age, people who claim a religion still far outnumber those who don't. No value judgement whatsoever, just facts. I assume that is why we have a religion field in the infobox. I understand your point that none/atheism does not exactly match the field, but I don't think it's such a stretch that people are going to be startled by it. To me, it's akin to if somebody was gay and could not legally marry wherever they lived, but we still listed them under the spouse field, followed by (domestic partner).

Would it make any difference if the field was named "religious views" instead? I understand that atheism is not a religion, but it is a religious view, right? –CWenger (^ • @) 07:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What would be your entry for Dawkins in a "Religious views" field? "None" would be very imprecise (he certainly has views ON religion), encountering all the problems associated with simplistic one or two word Infobox entries. (A reason I don't like Infoboxes anyway.) And, not wanting to go too far off topic here, but numbers of people "claiming" a religion is a very unhelpful figure. In my country, some 60% "claimed" a religion at the last census, but only 7% attend church on a weekly basis. So that claim at census time is pretty meaningless, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins' "religious view" is obviously "outspoken atheist and critic of religion". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit long and complex for an Infobox? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. If it is too long, "outspoken atheist" would suffice. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We simply don't add religious views nor sexual orientation to everyone on the infobox. The field is there when it's something related to the person's significance (as already said above), not to say none. An example is a famous religious scholar, "Greek Catholic", "Baptist",..etc. Straightforward, we just don't use the field, even if the person's religious views are clear. The article already covered "atheist" in the LEAD, so can we move on? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting earlier posts by Johnuniq:

For the record I think there is no reason to have "religion" in an infobox unless the subject was documented to have a religious belief known to be significant to them.

I think readers would fall into two categories: (a) those who know perfectly well that Dawkins is an atheist and who do not need to see it in the infobox, and (b) those who don't know, and who would not learn much from an "atheist" label in the infobox (they will learn the details from the article)

I agree with both of those statements. Following on from these two statements, one could then argue that for any article about any person, either:

• The person has a notable/significant religion or atheistic opinion, in which case it will be covered in article, so there's need to include it in the infobox.

or

• The person's religious stance is not relevant to their notability and need not be mentioned. (After all, we don't include the football team that the person supports - if any - but for some people, that's more important than which church or god they support.)

Thus we don't need the religion field at all, for anybody. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An infobox religion would be fine if the person is known (from reliable sources) to have a religious belief that was significant to them (e.g. not just that they attended a Catholic school, but that they actively mentioned their Catholicism in later life). Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnardo's

See the article on Barnardo's. This does not seem to worry Dawkins as much as the Mortara case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.151.212 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins has passed over the behaviour of Barnardo in complete silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.127.7 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading those two posts is like coming into a movie halfway through. What do Dawkins and Barnados have to do with each other? HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of context would have helped readers: In The God Delusion Dawkins commented on the Mortara kidnapping because the motive was religious: authorities in one of the Papal States removed a Jewish child from its parents to raise as a Catholic. Thomas John Barnardo kidnapped children to remove them from extreme physical deprivation, and so was outside the remit of the book.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That does help. An interesting problem of perspective. In Australia, at least part of the History wars are about whether the Stolen generations were the result of white folk at the time trying to save Aboriginal children from physical deprivation, and hence justifying the removal of those children from their homes. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

192

See www.192.com This says that Dawkins lives in Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.127.7 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, I might ask, who cares? Secondly, that is hardly a RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge he does live there (though I've never seen him out and about), but yeah who cares? He lectures there (Still?) but it's not important if he lives there. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would...this be worth putting in the Ex links?

[1] I mean there's not much there. He clearly doesn't keep much of a profile on the University of Oxford website, and there's just a link to the Richard Dawkins foundation website. I dunno. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but thanks for looking into it. External links should be used rarely. --Javaweb (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

It's interesting in its leanness, but no, it is not suitable. People who follow the WP:EL guideline (I'm one) routinely remove links like that as not providing information that is helpful for the article. Another favorite line is that Wikipedia is not a directory of all possible links. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I totally agree. Thanks for the feedback! --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cowardice

Dawkins has been accused of being a coward by Oxford philosopher and atheist Dr Daniel Came, for refusing to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.1 Portillo (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That says a lot more about Dr Came than it does about Dawkins. Sadly for him, Dr Came does not appear to even be notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own, so my comment is largely wasted too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Portillo has simply stated a fact there, there is no need to personally attack the status of a man who has a PhD in Philosophy and is a lecturer at Oxford University. That fact that he is not currently "notable enough for a Wikipedia article" has no merit on whether or not he was going to chair a valid and reasoned debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.89 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(Thanks for having toned down your previously deleted remark. This is much better. - Please don't forget to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~)

Well, I'm sure that there are more facts to gather about the subject of the article, but I don't think that this particular fact is sufficiently notable. DVdm (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the comment was made by one Dr Daniel Came is ancillary considering the context of the Telegraph artice which was originally cited, which concerns itself with Dawkins' lack of willingness to openly debate William Lane Craig (who, for the record, DOES have a Wikipedia entry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.89 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign your talk page messages with 4 tildes (~~~~) - Thanks

Leaving the notability of P, Q, R and S in the middle, I don't consider the fact that "P said in the Q that R is a coward for not wanting to debate with S" sufficiently notable. If other newspapers would have picked it up and if this fact would have received broad coverage in the press, that could (perhaps) change things. DVdm (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So by that logic, should every piece of information on Wikipedia which was only mentioned in one national broadsheet newspaper now be disregarded? --130.159.123.89 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While this isn't true in general, it is often true in particular. You might review WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Came did not accuse Dawkins of being a coward: "In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part." Regardless, was there a suggestion for improving the article? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the actual language used. My reaction was at least partly to the use of tabloid language in the post that started this thread. "Accused" and "refusing" aren't words likely to engender mature discussion. Now that we know what was really said (written, actually) I'll paraphrase myself by saying that the original post says a lot more about User:Portillo than it does about Professor Dawkins. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And likewise, still leaving the notability of P, Q, R and S in the middle, I don't consider the fact that "Q reported that P wrote a letter to R saying that not debating with S could be interpreted as cowardice", sufficiently notable. DVdm (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent articles from the Independent, the Guardian, and the Telegraph make the accusation. I think that satisfies the criteria for WP:N. Dawkins's response was published in the Guardian here. Joycey17 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The three links you cite are opinion blogs, not enough to establish WP:WEIGHT. An editor's opinion piece is not a prominent viewpoint. - SudoGhost 06:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I also undid the second attempt to introduce this text but wrote such a long edit summary (per WP:NOTNEWS articles should not track every excited opinion-piece exchange of insults; even attributed, "apologist for genocide" is a bit much) that the revert had already been done. I know it's very exciting that Craig has got a rise out of Dawkins, and some people who need to find something controversial to write about have joined the fun. However, the matter really is trivial for an article such as this which is supposed to be a biography summing up a career—it is not a record of every skirmish. Further, the proposed edit (diff) could be interpreted as an undue promotion of Craig by attaching undue importance to a non-event (Dawkins did not debate Craig) through the insertion of text into this article (which is about a notable person). Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting in the context of Dawkins's broader policy on debating, which gets significant coverage. WP:WEIGHT is established by three seperate reliable sources, especially considering the only mentioned content is that the opinion exists. Joycey17 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. Weight is not determined by the number of sources (which leads to citation overkill) but by the prominence of each viewpoint. That three newspaper editors expressed opinions on respective blogs does not give any prominence to the information, thereby giving it insufficient weight to insert it into the article. - SudoGhost 07:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Weight is supported by coverage, though. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" (From WP:N).. Also, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author" (WP:NEWSORG). Note that what is being mentioned is not the fact that Dawkins refused to debate Craig, which would be totally irrelevant if not for the widespread, independent criticism it engendered. What I'm suggesting we mention is this editorial criticism for his behaviour in recent times, which is of high relevance in the context of the paragraph. Unless, of course, there is an unspoken rule here not to mention anything that doesn't cast Dawkins in a perfect light, I think there is reasonable grounds for its inclusion. Joycey17 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But how important will this particular little incident seem in a few months' time, let alone in a few years? Remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopaedia, taking the long view, and this issue is already more than adequately covered by the comment that "Dawkins has ... refused to participate in formal debates with creationists." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it is mainly Craig who is putting himself in a bad light with this stalking affair, and note that Craig is not the subject of this article. Dawkins: "In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.". So, let it rest — it is not notable at this point. - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:N applies to article topics, not each individual item within an article. This is what WP:WEIGHT is for, which those sources do not satisfy. - SudoGhost 18:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it does satisfy WP:WEIGHT, which states that an article must mention "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Dawkins's policy on debating is present, and if that has due weight, then widespread criticism of that policy will also have weight. To be consistent with your argument from WP:WEIGHT, the whole paragraph should be deleted. Also, whether or not anyone looks good or bad over this is completely irrelevant, seeming as it is simply a mention of a significant published view relating to an already-mentioned fact. Joycey17 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But how would the inclusion of this material not fall foul of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS? We do not document every little incident in someone's life. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont see this as a "little incident". I dont even see it as an incident. And I dont see it as Craig "stalking" Dawkins. Portillo (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an example of those who don't like Dawkins' views finding rude words to throw around about him. It doesn't add anything to a description of Richard Dawkins, but says an awful lot about those who don't like him. Constructive and informed criticism of Dawkins' views from notable others could be valid here (although I still don't think much of such material in any article), but just making rude comments is NOT encyclopaedic! HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not rude, I don't particularly dislike Dawkins.. It's just a small proposed note about criticism which has been made of his policy on debating in the media.. A helpful suggestion to give a small enhancement to the quality of the article being shouted down by overzealous fans. That right there is un-encyclopaedic. Joycey17 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not rude? "Cowardice" is hardly a compliment. I have long argued that areas of criticism are generally unnecessary in Wikipedia. I recently looked at the Noam Chomsky article. He would have to be hated by a lot of Americans. But I was very hard pressed to find the one tiny piece of criticism in it, and it allowed a response from Chomsky. We don't need criticism. It can only lead to impossible arguments about how much. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is rude. Plus, I fail to see why someone calling him a coward is even notable. This is a giant waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding something like 'activist' to lede

Dawkins is primarily known to the general population as something like an "atheist activist," not as an evolutionary biologist, ethologist, or even as an author. It might be hard to pin down a good term, because he's not exactly a science popularizer in the traditional sense and he's also not an activist in the traditional sense, but I do think there should be a term in there that gets at his primary public role as a promoter of atheism and critic of creationism. Maybe just 'skeptic'? 24.62.204.224 (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that he is not known for being an author, his books on biology and religion are what attract attention to him! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He has written many more books on evolution than religion and many of them are best-sellers. For example, The Selfish Gene has a 30th Anniversary Edition and The Greatest Show on Earth was a big seller. His public advocacy of atheism came out of his dismay at the resistance to teaching evolution in the US coming from some religious quarters. On another topic, "advocate" is a more neutral term than "activist". I also agree with editor IRWolfie.

--Javaweb (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I'd like to know which "general population" knows him best as an "atheist activist". I have always primarily known him as a science author. Only those who are upset by his science see him as some sort of activist. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course he's an activist - "one who campaigns for change". The RDFRS' mission statement says that the foundation "... is to support scientific education ... in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism ..." (my emphasis). Whether he's "primarily known to the general population" for this is debatable, but there's no doubt that he is actively campaigning for change. (My personal bias: I am a pro-science atheist.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I said "adding," not "replacing." Relax. This is one reason why people aren't so thrilled with rationalists - they can be just as pedantic and close-minded as everyone else. Yes, he's very well known as an author and as everything he's listed as in the lede currently, but I'm talking about things like the bus ad campaign in England, which increased his public profile probably 10 fold. You have to remember your own social context - most of the people editing this page are probably rationalists with a fair amount of education. Within your social circles, a lot more about Dawkins can be expected to be known. I'm maintaining that Dawkins is more generally known for his social and political activism, because I know it's quantifiable. His books on religion contribute to that - it's not like he's the author of purely descriptive works on religion, he's advancing a point of view. That's activism. And even if he isn't more well known as an activist than as an x, y, or z, there's absolutely no doubting that he's well known enough as an activist to put it in the lede.

The only question is what to call it. In modern contexts, not too many people are considered religious activists - missionaries are called missionaries, and people promoting various religious flavors are categorized by the name of the movement. People labeled skeptics are typically the type who debunk topics in pseudoscience and the paranormal, like James Randi, and as far as I know, Dawkins isn't particularly known for that. Well-known atheists are almost always labeled as just "atheists" on their wiki pages. But a guy like Dawkins who's outspoken about religion isn't just an "atheist," he's... an "atheist activist," I guess? There's no widely used term in current use that describes a person like Dawkins in that context, because there are so few well-known campaigners for atheism.

But "activist" is very obviously a bad word to use for Dawkins, as evidenced by HiLo48's reactionary response. It means various things to various people, and some of those things aren't good things. "Outspoken atheist" is less controversial, but it sells Dawkins short. The article already mentions that he's a Bright, but again, not descriptive enough for what I'm talking about. "Advocate of atheism" would be good, and the info box already lists him as being known for "advocacy of atheism and science." Only problem there would be a potentially different connotation for "advocate" to British readers. Can anyone comment on that? 24.62.204.224 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, this all depends on perspective I guess. I don't live in the UK. I am vaguely aware of the bus ad campaign, but don't think of it when I think of Dawkins, and I suggest that the same would be true of almost all non-UKians. (And there's a lot of us.) The bus ad campaign made little difference to his public profile outside the UK, and I can assure you he's pretty well known to many foreigners. So, maybe to you Brits he's an activist. I just like his books. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm american. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"... 'activist' is very obviously a bad word to use ... as evidenced by HiLo48's reactionary response"
I don't agree that one person's response (an unreferenced generalisation about other people's opinions) negates a clear and neutral dictionary definition of the word. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "activist" is sometimes used for a subject who is known for activism but for little else. Dawkins is a scientist who has written major books on science related topics. The article makes clear what Dawkins has done in relation to atheism (as if the reader didn't know already!), and there is no need to add some ill-defined label to the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mitch: I'm fine with 'activist,' but it'd most likely lead to edit-warring if I put it in. Semantics can't just be ignored.

Jonuniq: An encyclopedia is not the place to assume prior knowledge. And the article does go into detail about Dawkins' atheism, but it's not summarized well in the lede. That's what the lede is for, so it should be in there. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the word "campaigner" instead of "activist"? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think either "advocate" or "proponent" would be more accurate descriptions. - SudoGhost 08:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either of words conveys the sense of actively going out and doing something to further the cause, which is clearly (in my opinion) what Dawkins is doing. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll put 'activist' in if we can agree that it should stay and that we'll revert edits that remove it, but the problem is still that 'atheist' is never or almost never used as an adjective, so "atheist activist" is an odd phrase. Invariably, people will think it's supposed to read "atheist, activist" and change it. Advocate is the PC substitute, but it's weak. Categorically, he's a "religious activist," in the same way that two activists on opposite extremes of the spectrum are still "social activists" or "political activists," but that'll just cause confusion. I think "anti-religious activist" is the way to go. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a description is necessary. danielkueh (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your disapproval is useless if you don't care to explain it. I'm adding "anti-religious activist" for now.24.62.204.224 (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that explicitly states that Dawkins is "anti-religious." He may be against the teaching of creationism in schools and against religious dogma but he is not against people having a religion or professing a religious belief. He does encourage closet atheists to "come out" but that is different from being "anti-religious." So unless you can provide a source, that statement stays out. danielkueh (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth (with my bold for emphasis): "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads Dawkins's work or reads his interviews will know what he means when he makes statements like these. He is obviously referring to religious dogma or religious fundamentalism. That does not mean that he is an "anti-religious activist." For example, he thinks religion should be taught in schools [2], from an academic point of view of course. He is also known to have a "soft-spot" for the Anglican church as an institution [3]. Plus, he even celebrates Christmas and enjoys Christmas carols [4]. The point I'm trying to make here is that labeling him as an "anti-religious activist" oversimplifies his beliefs and positions. I would prefer a label such as "advocate of atheism," which is more neutral and is consistent with the rest of the article. danielkueh (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The best description of his viewpoint: he prefers natural and scientific explanations to supernatural ones. I think the original intro was fine. If something has to be added, "advocate" is a perfect term for what he does and is more neutral than others:

A person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. --Javaweb (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

"Anti-religious activist" can only have a place here if it can be properly sourced as an expression all by itself. Without a source it would be a first class example of orginal research. DVdm (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that using a specific phrase requires sourcing as an expression, unless we are attributing it as a quotation (which we are not). We should (and I believe, have) found reliable sources that he is both "anti-religious" (one who disagrees with religion) and an activist ("one who campaigns for change") against religion, so combining the two terms shouldn't be a problem - unless there is some specific meaning commonly attributed to that specific phrase that might not apply to Dawkins. I'm not aware any such specific usage - but I'm sure that if there is, you'll provide a WP:RS for it. I accept that the term "anti-religious activist" might have non-neutral connotations, which may cause neutrality or even WP:BLP concerns, but I really don't think WP:OR comes into it at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this particular phrase requires very strong sourcing even without the quotation marks. Please have a careful read of wp:original research and specifically of wp:SYNTH. This is a schoolbook example, specially in a wp:BLP. DVdm (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent NY Times profile called Dawkins, "the world’s most influential evolutionary biologist", "best-selling author and outspoken atheist", "profoundly original thinker, synthesizer and writer", "political liberal", "atheistic lecturer", and "evolutionary scientist". [5] Roger (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link—that's a very good article with a couple of interesting pictures. For some strange reason, The New York Times did not use the terms "anti-religious" or "activist" in their quite long article that is full of descriptions of what Dawkins does. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read WP:SYNTH, but I still don't think it applies to "anti-religious activist". DVdm, could you explain why you think it's a problem? An example, with explanation, such as those in WP:SYNTH would help. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source saying that he is both "anti-religious" (one who disagrees with religion) and an activist ("one who campaigns for change") against religion, so combining the two terms shouldn't be a problem

Guys, can you tone down the goddamn hostility? It's amazing how everyone has an opinion on the matter after the discussion has already wound down. And Danielkueh, you don't dictate what stays out of the article.

The simple fact of the matter is that what he does is more than just advocacy, it's activism. He is actively campaigning against institutions of religion while simultaneously promoting reason and a view of the world rooted in science. The term "Bright" accounts for the second part of that sentence, but not the first.

This entire argument seems to be based on phenomena Dawkins himself has spoken out against:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

There's no point to trying to water down his job description. He is very clear about his positions on religion in society, and his promotion of those positions fights fits the term "anti-religious activist" precisely. It is a strictly descriptive term. Put aside your prescriptive notions for a second to see that. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on that Dawkins lecture, I would say that "outspoken atheist" is more accurate than "anti-religious activist". He spends a lot of time promoting atheism, and encouraging people to identify with atheism. He has a few put-downs of religion, and says that he despises religion. But he is addressing atheists, and he does not suggest any directly anti-religious activities. Not that my opinion matters. Just stick to what he calls himself, or what sources like the NY Times call him. Roger (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The man tells religious audience members that they're hallucinating. He's done at least a couple of television programs that I know about completely excoriating world religions and their institutions. In that talk, he specifically brings up funding for a potential freedom from religion campaign, referring to the success of one he had previously spearheaded. What more is required? If we are to take what he says about himself into consideration, then the suggestion that he promotes atheism rather than campaigns against religion is directly contradicted by his self-characterization as a "militant" atheist, an atheist willing to "rock the boat," in the video above.

This is a tempest in a teacup, guys. The term is an apt one and its inclusion would improve the article. That's all anyone can really hope for. It's OR in as much as any novel sentence is OR. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Schlafly, the TED talk audience isn't a group of atheists, just part of what Dawkins calls the American intelligentsia in that clip. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In reply to "What more is required?". Answer: a good solid unambiguous reliable BLP-conforming source. DVdm (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

24.62.204.224, Clarification. I am not dictating, I am merely following and applying WP polices here. I suggest you take the time to learn the core policies of WP such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. This is not a blog site. danielkueh (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction, Danielhueh: you're being patronizing and WP:OWNING because I'm an IP. Mitch Ames has given you sources. It's unreasonable to expect the exact phrasing to turn up, especially when Dawkins is already listed as an activist on wikipedia. You're editorializing and nothing more. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas, atheist is not the same as anti-religion, not even close. You'll have to (1) compile a new article List of anti-religion activists and educators first, then (2) make sure that Dawkins is and remains listed there, and (3) finally realise that Wikipedia is not a reliable source in the first place. And please, try to assume good faith: a comment like "you're being patronizing and OWNING because I'm an IP" is very off the mark. DVdm (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

24.62.204.224: Yes, he is listed is an "atheist activist" on Wikipedia. So what's your point? With respect to Mitch's link, it does not support your WP:POV description of Dawkins as an "anti-religious activist."

Now before you start flattering yourself by speculating that I'm making this a personal issue against you simply because you are a non-registered user, I would like to invite you to read the following second paragraph from WP:BLP (I bolded the key words):

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I have made my point clear that the description, anti-religious activist, is not the best description because it oversimplifies Dawkins's positions and approach. Plus, for many reasons, it is a potentially misleading term. It also qualifies as WP:OR. He may be an activist when it comes to promoting science and atheism. He may be against religious dogma/fundamentalism and its intrusion into science. But to say that he is an "anti-religious activist" is put to "2 and 2 together." Unless there is a high quality source that explicitly describes him as such, I'm afraid it is WP:OR.

At the end of the day, you just have to accept the fact that there is very little enthusiasm for your proposed description of Dawkins as an "anti-religious activist." End of story. Nothing personal. See WP:consensus. danielkueh (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of wiki policy, danielkueh. Please refrain from wikilawyering at me.

He is an activist, that much you admit is a possibility. He believes intelligence and belief in a personal God are mutually exclusive. He describes religion as the most evil force in all of history. Combining those elements is more akin to a basic calculation than synthesis.

There's no good reason for this to be contentious. The requisite facts are known. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of tautologies, and Danielhueh + DVdm does not very little enthusiasm make. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

24.62.204.224, I'm not wikilawyering. I'm just informing and reminding you of the policies. Also, take the phase "very little enthusiasm" literally. With the exception of a few suggestions by Mitch, I don't see much enthusiasm or strong backing from "all the other editors in this discussion" for the inclusion of that description. Hence, there is "very little" enthusiasm. You are the only one that is strongly POV pushing for this. So unless all the editors change their minds, I don't think there is really much more for me or anyone else to add here. We're done. danielkueh (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, without sources, combining those elements is the definition of WP:SYNTH. As such, I have no enthusiasm for inclusion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite indeed. Enthusiasm to take wp:OR on board in an article seldomly surpasses one (identifiable) party. DVdm (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to remind you, danielhueh et al, that I started this conversation entirely to determine what phrasing editors would approve of. We are not "done" here, and again, you don't prescribe whether a conversation can occur on an article's talk page. Rejection of my preferred wording has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of an appropriate characterization of Dawkins' atheist activities in the lede. If it has to be "advocate of atheism" to get a consensus, then so be it. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the description, "advocate of atheism." It is already in the article. Thanks to Roger, there are good sources for it too. I would like to know what the other editors think. danielkueh (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK with me. If it is in the article already, then what are we doing here anyway? Discussing the place of punctuation w.r.t quotation marks is much more interesting. - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would go with "advocate of atheism". Activist is too ill defined and militant implies use of force or coercion which are utterly alien to Darkins' philosophy.--Charles (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen several claims that combining "activist" with "anti-religion" is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH [6][7][8] - even given that both individual terms are both well-sourced, as is Dawkins' explicit campaigning against religion - but I still don't understand why. Even if we all agree not to use the phrase, could DVdm and/or Danielkueh please explain why combining them is OR/SYNTH. What position are we synthesising that is not supported by a source? WP:SYNTH gives a couple of examples, and clearly explains the problem. A similar explanation here would be helpful. (This is not just another push to use that phrase. I'm happy to not use it if there's no consensus, but I would like to understand why it is SYNTH/OR, so that I and others don't make the same mistake again.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mitch, I'll try to give this one last stab. Dawkins is known as a campaigner and a activist. In many of the sources, he campaigns to promote science and atheism, or more specifically, coming out as an atheist. That is what he is an activist for. He is an atheist, not an anti-theist. He has said "he is against religion." But let's not oversimplify it. We know what he is talking about. He is clearly not against people having a religion, attending church, or singing religious hymns. What he is against is religious fundamentalism, its intrusion in schools and other walks of public life, and its special status in society. Hence, his TED talk of encouraging people "not to be so damn respectful." He may want children to grow up "unlabeled" so that they can make up their own mind as adults. He is not against them having a religion as adults if that is what they want. He does not even advocate the abolition of religion. He just wants people to think for themselves. So to call him "anti-religious," as if he was the secular version of the "anti-Christ," is already pushing is it a little bit. And to call him an anti-religious activist is to push it even more. That is not the basis of his campaign. There is a fundamental difference between promoting science and atheism and promoting soviet style persecution of religion. So unless there is a source that explicitly describes him as an anti-religious activist in every sense of the word, it is WP:OR. danielkueh (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent statement of the situation, which of course is totally correct.

Re the question by Mitch Ames: I'm not sure how could there be any doubt since WP:SYNTH is defined as the act of taking statement A and statement B and combining them to create a new statement that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. Dawkins has written works including The God Delusion so it is rather natural that there are lots of sources saying all sort of things of things about him. However, this article is not the place for editors to decide how Dawkins should be described, nor should descriptions be pulled from sources which are merely reacting to an argument by Dawkins (instead, use works by reliable secondary sources that have written about his life). Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh, you say that Dawkins is not an antitheist, but our article (citing OED) defines an antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". Are saying that none of the references support the statement that he is actively opposed to belief in the existence of a god? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mitch, I have already answered that question. Since there appears to be an emerging consensus in favor of "advocate of atheism" and not "anti-religious activist," I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion. danielkueh (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is never acceptable for editors to decide how to describe the subject of an article, and doubly so for a BLP. Above, Roger provided a link to a recent NYT article that is exactly the kind of reliable source that should be used as the basis for how an article sums up its subject. Please review that article and see what terms The New York Times thinks are suitable (hint: none of the phrases suggested above are present). Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of the descriptions used in the NY Times article that was given by Roger. I am fine with "advocate of atheism" only because it is already in the article and seem so mundane and conservative. Also, here is a link to an interview in the Guardian, which states that Dawkins "continues to vehemently advocate atheism." [9] danielkueh (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that my {{od}} makes it seem I was replying to you, when I intended my comment for those who are discussing the introduction of some new description (particularly the recent discussion about what an antitheist does). Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I thought I may as well be consistent with WP:V and WP:BLP by providing a citation. :) danielkueh (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert by DVdm on 10-6-2011

DVdm reverted my punctuation edit on 10-6-2011, then messaged my Talk saying he "hoped [I] didn't mind", instead of opening for discussion here. His user page assures he monitors discussions initiated on users' Talk, but that isn't happening. So below is copied from my Talk. (DVdm if you are listening, I've obviously lost patience with you and find your Wiki behavior irritating and rude.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you are right and I can learn something. But I have reviewed both quotes in their source materials, and the sentences in the article containing the quotes, and re-read MOS:LQ carefully, and don't know what you are talking about.

First, here is the basis for my change (which you reverted) from MOS:LQ:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

For both quotes, the period is part of the quoted material.

Second, let's take a look at the reason you gave for revert in your edit summary:

no complete sentence: "If the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if is in the middle of a sentence."

You are quoting from MOS:LQ alright, but what part of it am I supposed to think supports your revert? The second part that starts: "The period should be omitted if ..." ? Well for one, your above quote from MOS is not correct. Here is the correct text from MOS: "The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." And if that is the part supporting your revert, it does not apply, since neither of the two quotations are "in the middle of a sentence", both of the quotations are at the end of sentences.

So I have no idea what your argument is for reverting me, it seems to me that you are completely wrong. But I want to be corrected if I am wrong, I want to learn. So please explain, and please be responsive to my points above. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There probably is no need to mention disagreements with other editors on this talk page.

It appears the issue concerns this edit by Ihardlythinkso which changed ". to ." with these two results:

Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know."

...describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one."

I am not ready to remind myself exactly what WP:LQ says over a minor issue like this, but consistency is good, and my first impression is that the quoted text looks like an extract, and (using Wikipedia's LQ style), the original (period after quote) seems best. I accept that the period is in the original statement, but we do not need to quote that period—I would argue that the quotation stops before the period and we are quoting a fragment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"I am not ready to remind myself exactly what WP:LQ says"?? Then you really have no voice in this discussion, do you, because my edit, and the revert of it, each had basis specifically and entirely on WP:LQ. That said, if you want to throw MOS out the window, then I think you have a consistency problem with the whole of WP. (How does your argument even possibly make sense?) And as far as the issue being "minor", I was not the one to drag it into the limelight, I made a simple punctuation correction, and was reverted. Incorrectly so. Now you justify that by saying MOS should be thrown out of the discussion? I don't get your logic – AT ALL. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fragment" seems to be the central support you and DVdm give when denying my punctuation edit. Okay, here is the only reference to "fragment" in MOS:LQ:

When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside.

Okay, now take a look at the complete source sentence from which one of the quotes is extracted:

But among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we do know.

The only word dropped by the article is the word "But". And you are calling what's left a "fragment". Okay. And so what does MOS:LQ say about it? And here too:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

Really, if you want to make up rules and throw MOS out the window, than I cannot discuss this with you rationally, because whatever I point out about MOS you will decide you can arbitrarily ignore. If I'm reading MOS wrong, then let someone who understands MOS:LQ discuss this and correct me, instead of belittling the issue as "unimportant" and then telling us what "seems" good to you after admitting you didn't take time to read the MOS. (And, why did you even decide to come here and "contribute" if this issue is so unimportant in your view?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"the ... period after quote ... seems best. I accept that the period is in the original statement, but we do not need to quote that period ..." Since you admit you didn't read the MOS:LQ, here is the first sentence of it again, copied below, please read it carefully:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

Now, what is your argument again? That MOS doesn't count? That you can ignore MOS if you want to while reverting my MOS-consistent edit? Becasue it's such an unimportant issue, but not so unimportant to keep you from coming here and supporting the revert of my simple punctuation edit? Really, please explain! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In MOS:LQ, what do you think "quoted material" means!? It means the source material the quote came from. (Did you think it meant something different?) What? (But then, you said you never read the MOS:LQ, so why am I bothering to ask how you interpreted it? But then, you comment on it using terms "fragment" and phrase "quoted material"! Is your idea here to make your arguments so untracable that no one can follow them logically to refute them? What? Oh yeah, this issue is so unimportant, but you came here to refute my edit and support the revert. Oh yeah! That makes total sense!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The quoted fragment in

• Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one".

has no subject and no verb, so grammatically it is not a complete sentence. MOS:LQ says: "If the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if is in the middle of a sentence." That is unambiguous. The key issue is complete sentence here. Now, when a subject ("it") and a verb ("is") would be added to the fragment, it would become a complete sentence, and the punctuation could be pulled inside the quotation marks. It would then go like

• Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, arguing that "it is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one."

Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed that I actually also undid another case of LQ, which was in fact correct. I hadn't noticed that. So I have corrected that now again:

• Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know."

Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. DVdm (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just about to add to the confusion here: According to the British Standards Institution the comma goes inside only when the quotation is standing by itself as a full sentence. As, by consensus, British English applies to this article it would seem that User:DVdm had been right all along. The original BS is available as a .pdf download, but as it's £92 a pop (!), I haven't bothered, relying instead on the quotation contained in Peters, page 455, emphasis as in original.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Subtle is the Lord." If I get this right, that means that both the following would be correct:

• Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". <== OUT
• Dawkins said: "Among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." <== IN

The simple reason: in the first case the quoted fragment fails standing by itself since its first word is not capitalised.

And for the same reason, likewise:

• Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, arguing that "it is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one". <== OUT
• Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, arguing: "It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one." <== IN

I love this :-) DVdm (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to add to the confusion, but wouldn't we use a comma instead of a colon (MOS:LQ)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkueh (talk • contribs)

;-) - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not change subjects please (comma versus colon) when other things are still confused. DVdm, why do you keep incorrectly quoting MOS? Here is your quote of MOS and your comment:

"If the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if is in the middle of a sentence." That is unambiguous.

But here is the MOS:

... if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence.

See the difference? I am totally not knowing why you are quoting the latter part of the MOS. Because it does not apply to anything here. MOS is talking about the physical location of the quote in the sentence using the quote. That is not applicable here at all.

Also, MOS does not say what to do, if the fragment does *not* communicate a complete sentence! (So I think the MOS is ambiguous on that point. Earlier MOS:LQ states to include the period if it is part of the quoted (source!) material.

The argument from Moonraker that the sentence cannot stand by itself due to lack of capitalization ... I really don't think MOS means that when it says: "if the fragment communicates a complete sentence". The use of word "communicates" is key. If the MOS wanted punctuation perfection in addition, it wouldn't be expressed that way. So that is an odd interpretation to demand capitalization to "communicate".

I see now that the second quote ("not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one") is a fragment that doesn't communicate a complete sentence, so I'm okay with the period OUT. Thanks for your apology re the first quote ("among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know.") - but again I can't buy the idea that MOS requires capitalization to "communicate a complete sentence". (Where are we on that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) p.s. You "love this", I'm just trying to get it right (i.e. learn); but editors who want to marginalize w/ "this is unimportant" comments ought to steer clear. (Of course it is not as important as ARTICLE CONTENT for Christ's sake, it would be stupid to think otherwise. But that's apples & oranges, and if someone can't distinguish apples & oranges, that is stupid, too.)

Ah yes — Facepalm—, I think I misinterpreted that. Sorry. Anyway, I think that the current state of the quotes in the article is ok, so perhaps we can just discard a part of my silly comments. - DVdm (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wyndgade Country Club

The new Richard Dawkins#Wyndgade Country Club section is not suitable for a biography outlining the important features of Dawkins' life. Yes, it is silly that the US is in its current state, and it's absurd that some club would have this confused reaction. However, Wikipedia should not be used to right wrongs or highlight the news of the day. There must be a hundred similar silly stories associated with Dawkins, and this article is not the place to list them, however interesting or topical they are. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

agree: should be pulled for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE DP76764 (Talk) 23:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I had noticed that the same text had been added to The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True#Wyndgade Country Club before I wrote the above, I would have just removed the text from this article. I'll wait for any other thoughts, but particularly in view of the duplication I think removal would be fine. I see that the info is also at Sean Faircloth#Richard Dawkins Foundation and Center for Inquiry#Wyndgade Country Club and Richard Dawkins—that is not how articles should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I just noticed this section. When was it inserted? It seemed rather left-field and does not appear to add anything to the article. danielkueh (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It was added two hours ago by one editor here, and tweaked by two other editors here and here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD would be the best guide at this point. danielkueh (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the comments I had posted here a few hours ago? Sgerbic (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The history page shows that your only contribution here was the single comment I am replying to. Glitches can occur (very rarely), but I have never heard of a message disappearing after it became visible. One problem does arise if someone edits a talk page, then previews it, and when happy, clicks "save", then closes the browser window: you have to wait until the edit is actually saved because an edit conflict may occur, and the edit will not be saved unless further action is taken. So, sorry, but would you please post again. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think we need this here, although it surely needs to be mentioned in the books's article. DVdm (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. Get rid of it, but consider keeping a much slimmed-down version (one sentence) in the article about the book. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No justification at all: it obviously fails the WP:RECENT test. In view of the uncited reports that someone acting for Dawkins is going to mount protests and sue, I think there's a possible WP:BLP issue as well. I'm going to implement the clear consensus, right now. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cross post: User:Daniel J. Leivick has done it, while I was havering away here—thanks!--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, didn't notice the discussion here. I found this same section posted even less appropriately on the O'Reilly Factor page. I removed it there, but it still exists in the article for Dawkin's latest book. --Daniel 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Education

Dawkins' education should be added. All the page references is "MA, DPhil (Oxon)" and mentions the subjects he studied and who he studied under. But what are his actual earned academic degrees? In fact, that information is nowhere to be found on the internet, so if he truly earned degrees, they should be listed on this page. Did he actually earn genuine degrees from Oxford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh2114 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Michael Powell (September 20, 2011). "PROFILES IN SCIENCE". New York Times. After graduating in 1962, he studied with Nikolaas Tinbergen, a Nobel-winning scientist, and taught at the University of California, Berkeley. He returned to Oxford in 1971. {{cite news}}: Text "RICHARD DAWKINS

A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy" ignored (help) So he got a DPhil (phD) from Oxford in 1962. You know that because he did post-doc work with a biological sciences Nobel Prize winner. His field was ethology: The study of animal behavior.

• L Drickamer; D Dewsbury (2009). "Chapter 8". Leaders of Animal Behaviour — The Second Generation. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) A volume of invited autobiographical chapters by ethologists, including Chapter 8 for Dawkins. Covers his education in detail.

Although he wrote this description, it was published by Cambridge U and they would be well aware of his Oxford experience, as would his fellow Oxford Dons who would have read it. That's what I found in a short Google search. Hope it is helpful. --Javaweb (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Please stick to one spelling convention

See this edit. See guidelines. I believe this was discussed before and is now in an archived discussion. I notice that one editor is from the UK, another probably from the US. I don't have an opinion if British or US spellings should be used but we should choose one style and document the choice. --Javaweb (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The second line of the article wikitext has {{Use British English}} (which can be seen as a hidden category, if the option to see them is on in preferences). However, that edit was for a field in {{Infobox person}} where the only permitted spelling appears to be "Organization". Discussion on whether the infobox should be "person" or "scientist" has occurred before, for example above. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started a discussion on the infobox person page requesting both spellings be accepted by the macro. --Javaweb (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

It's worth mentioning that "organization" is British English too, as is "organisation." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

3:2 favor "organisation" though (BNC).--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Do any organizations in the UK use the spelling of the word sceptical for example? From what I have seen skeptical is the more common usage in the UK. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Went back to the BNC for this; answer was "frequently": 754 for sceptical compared with 13 for skeptical. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean Faircloth info not needed here

It belongs in the Dawkins Foundation article. --Javaweb (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Agree: it fails WP:TOPIC. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Work section

This section needs serious revision. I would like to point to the fact that Dawkins, as a scientist, was an ethologist with publications in this field in academic journals like Science and Nature. Therefore, the Work section should begin with an Ethology subsection and a thorough description of his work in ethology is essential. The article in its current form misrepresents Dawkins as merely a popularizer of science as it ignores most of his peer-reviewed academic publications and therefore does not take him seriously as a scientist.

178.48.130.236 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You can also be bold and make the changes yourself, see WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox width

Under the awards section of the infobox, can the formatting of the Zoological Society of London entry be modified somehow? It is causing the rest of the infobox to be unnecessarily wide. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and just replaced "Zoological Society of London" with "ZSL" which seems ok. It improved (reduced) the width quite a bit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I considered doing that but I didn't know if an abbreviation would be acceptable or not. It looks a lot better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparent Responsibility for the Slave Trade

Surely the current revelations about his distant ancestor's involvement in the slave trade deserves a separate section? Dawkins said a reporter had called him and named a number of his ancestors who he said were slave owners.

After the reporter quoted the biblical verse about the Lord "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" Dawkins said he ended the conversation.

However, he said the reporter rang back and suggested Dawkins may have inherited a "slave supporting" gene from his distant relative. See <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/richard-dawkins-disbelief-slave-trade-ancestor>. 80.42.230.249 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)C. Hitchens, Zardoz80.42.230.249 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My mind has instantly categorised this as irrelevant nonsense. I think it's your job to convince us otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. No way should such trivia and bull**** be in this article. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost a pity we can't use it! If the suggested new section were included, it would be a demonstration of just how inane some of these detractions are becoming.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is truly bizarre. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The revelation is trivial. The only difference between this, and the depiction of Dawkins in South Park, is that South Park is intentionally ridiculous. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"agnostic"

I have just reverted this edit, which changed "Dawkins is an atheist" to "Dawkins is an agnostic". I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am saying it needs discussing before implementing. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call - Dawkins self-identifies as an atheist; per MOS:IDENTITY, that's what we should use. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Way to make myself look like a pillock - now that I've realised there was a source attached, in which Dawkins explicitly self-identifies as an agnostic, my above comment is nonsense. Since he self-IDs as agnostic, we should probably describe him as such. However, there are a lot of reliable sources which call him an atheist, probably far more than use his (apparently) preferred term of agnostic. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope we're not saying that others are more accurate at portraying the man than the man himself. That tends to happen with important figures, say like, Jesus. Ratspeed (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have added that the editor who made the change did include a reference in which Dawkins apparently calls himself an agnostic: [10]. Discussion here should take account of that. My view is that a single comment by Dawkins does not trump the longstanding self-description as an atheist, especially when he goes on in the same source to place himself at 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7, believer to absolute atheist. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like The Telegraph (which admittedly has a heavy editorial bias against atheism) has picked up the story as well, so it's not just a solitary source. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article is riddled with problems, like the assumption that an atheist is not an agnostic, and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the substance of what Dawkins has said so that he seems contradictory where he's 100% consistent with everything he's ever said (and indeed, he has said precisely this many times before).Zythe (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins has made comments in his books (can't recall what or where exactly) about the logic of belief in God, and has said that if evidence were available he would [change his mind?] [believe in God?]. It's an honest statement consistent with his general position that progress results from questioning evidence. However, Dawkins has a set of beliefs regarding God that are indistinguishable from those of many atheists. For example, see Out Campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins is an atheist (a 6.9 on his own spectrum of theistic probability). As a scientist, he is an agnostic in the literal sense of not possessing sufficient evidence with which to arrive at knowledge as to the whether or not the non-falsifiable position that "God exists" is valid. He disusses this at length on The God Delusion, Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor (as best O'Reilly will let him), with Paxman and elsewhere. Let's not attempt to misrepresent him, in the sense of the popular understanding of "an Agnostic", as someone who believes that any position on the existence of God is foolish (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould's pitiful argument for non-overlapping magisteria). In sum: Dawkins firmly believes that God does not exist (a-theist; lack of belief in theos, God), though in some sense he doesn't know it either (a-gnostic, lacking hard knowledge in relation to a particular proposition, in this case the existence of God). Very few atheists are gnostic atheists, but they are also agnostic on the subject of Russell's teapot as well. In The God Delusion he discusses how contemptible a term "agnostic" really is. I hope that's put this to bed.Zythe (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes essentially just Agnostic atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to be able to discuss this matter in the best possible manner I believe we need to see exactly how the discussion unfolded, so I've transcribed the pertinent part of it (from a video clip accompanying the Telegraph article. Obviously this is not to encourage original synthesis. It just seems useful:

K = Sir Anthony Kenny (chair)

D = Professor Richard Dawkins

K: ...and you, I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of God's existence.

D: No, I don't. I don't. You are wrong when you said that. I constructed in The God Delusion a 7-point scale of which 1 was "I know God exists," and 7 was "I know God doesn't exist," and I called myself a 6.
K: Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?
D: I do! But I think it's a...
K: You're described as the world's most famous atheist.
D: Well, not by me!

..not by me.

K: Can I ask you to spell out your argument [...] your Boeing...
D: I'm a 6.9.
K: But you have your Boeing 747 argument to show it's entirely improbable...

D: I believe that when you talk about agnosticism it's very important to make a distinction between "I don't know whether X is true or not. Therefore it's 50/50 likely or unlikely," and that's the kind of agnostic which I'm definitely not. I think one can place estimates of probability on these things, and I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low. Let's say I'm a 6.9.

__meco (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of agnosticism vs. atheism (Oxford and TheFreeDictionary), it appears to hinge on whether the person banks on any amount of doubt. For instance, if one were to watch interviews of Ayn Rand, a self-professed Athiest, she persists that the proof is in fact present, that it "doesn't take a lot" to disprove God's existence. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGYgk&t=2m40s ) I think it's also unfair to say that Richard Dawkins is a scientist in one context of self-description and a non-scientist at other times. If he himself has any inkling of doubt, or says that he himself cannot prove God's existence, I think it's fair, regardles of the tone of the article or its copy-cat prints, to say that he himself does not declare himself arrogant enough to declare his absolute knowledge of something which in his own words in most probability does not exist. Ratspeed (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

i don't get why Zythe says 'lets not try to misrepresent him' and then goes on to say we have to misrepresent him, say he is an atheist , when in the interview he says he is an agnostic - an agnostic at the end of the spectrum of agnostic, but an agnostic.' thats the kind of agnostic I'm not..' - I'm a different kind of agnostic - how do you get 'a -theist' - lack of belief in theos -wheres the greek word for belief in a-theos - its just a-theos - lack of God - and dawkins says he he thinks theos existing is not a- not there at all, but a 'very, very low' probability- i think the article has to say he's an agnostic, if we don't want to misrepresent him. Sayerslle (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we not have it both ways? "Dawkins is an agnostic atheist who ascribes a "very, very low" probability to the existence of a supernatural creator" or something similar? It's not as concise, but whilst he is, technically, an agnostic, his role as a figurehead of the atheist community tends to suggest that the 1% doubt (actually 1.42% on his scale) doesn't figure highly in his considerations. It seems to me that mentioning both ters would be appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not have something like , "Dawkins is a vice-pres of etc..., has called the probability of any supernatural creator existing as very, very, low, and supports etc.." Kind of dodge the atheist/agnostic blah blah, what's in a name, but have the precision of what he actually said Sayerslle (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all this "agnostic" thing is widely blown-up recentism. We all know that nothing is above described conversation is new, he has said the same thing many times in past, even in his book. If he accepts that "one can't disprove god" doesn't make him agnostic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM). There are numerous talks and debate videos, where Dawkins refers to himself as Atheist. For being 6.9, Dawkins has refered to himself as agnostic atheist, where technical correctness is required. But for all practical purposes anyone 6+ is De facto atheist (Dawkins's video explaining it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_jD-ki6b_Q). Also as per Dawkins, that there are very very few people who are 7, so if we want to be technically correct, then practially every atheist is an agnostic atheist. So I think we should keep the current wordings of referring him as Atheist. Abhishikt (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To help reach a conclusion, I've initiated an RFC, below: Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Atheist of agnostic?

Should Dawkins be described as an atheist, an agnostic, or an agnostic atheist? (See section immediately above for context) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheist - I think all this "agnostic" thing is widely blown-up recentism. We all know that nothing from above described conversation is new, he has said the same thing many times in past, even in his book. If he accepts that "one can't disprove god" doesn't make him agnostic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM). There are numerous talks and debate videos, where Dawkins refers to himself as Atheist. For being 6.9, Dawkins has referred to himself as agnostic atheist, where technical correctness is required. But for all practical purposes anyone 6+ is De facto atheist (Dawkins's video explaining it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_jD-ki6b_Q). Also as per Dawkins, that there are very very few people who are 7, so if we want to be technically correct, then practically every atheist is an agnostic atheist. So I think we should keep the current wordings of referring him as Atheist. Abhishikt (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agnostic. If the transcript above is correct then Dawkins says he calls himself an agnostic. It is absolutely wrong (and I think against WP:BLP) for us to classify him a something different. In terms of religious beliefs, it is completely wrong to suppose that 3rd parties can trump self-identification. NBeale (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pity that you didn't read above paragraph. As I said, "for all practical purposes anyone 6+ is De facto atheist" is what Dawkins says in the video he made. It's even in his book 'The God Delusion' http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=god+delusion&hl=en&ei=xaRIT5bXKsTQiAK1zsmxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6wEwAA#v=snippet&q=de%20facto&f=false.

And what Dawkins wrote in his book carries more weight than what he talked in some interview. Abhishikt (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheist: In his chapter on "The Poverty of Agnosticism" in The God Delusion Dawkins allows that "temporary agnosticism in practice" is a legitimate response until evidence of the deity's non-existence (or existence) is found. Meanwhile, he is happy to rely on probability to declare himself an atheist. Later in the chapter he expands on this, counting himself a de facto atheist, only agnostic about God to the same extent that he is agnostic about fairies at the bottom of his garden.

A previous commentator has mentioned WP:BLP as a reason to to label him as an agnostic here, but surely to do so would be directly in opposition to his own view, as expressed in TGD, and hugely presumptive on our part—completely the opposite of WP:BLP in fact. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Atheist - I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the article's subject so if I say thing that is not accurate, please feel free to clarify. However, my understanding is that reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Dawkins as an atheist, and that he is considered by some to be the "most well known" atheist. It is also my understanding that the "agnostic in the technical sense of not being able to say with certainty that God does not exist" has previously been addressed by Dawkins and/or reliable sources, who then still conclude that Dawkins is an atheist. What I gathered from what I read in the transcript is that Dawkins considered himself "technically" an agnostic only by lack of definitive knowledge, in a way that supports his being an atheist. Therefore I do not see why this would supercede the fact that Dawkins is a self-described atheist, something that is reflected by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• We should reflect what the sources say. That means saying both along the lines of "Darwin has described himself as an atheist (ref), but in an recent debate said that technically he was an agnostic and was a 6.9 on the scale 1 for God existing and 7 for God not existing (ref). He is often referred to as a famous atheist (ref)". This is a good example or why we should not be putting either term in an infobox. The question is much too nuanced. Also, being an agnostic and an atheist are not exclusive.

Atheist is the appropriate single-word term. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Atheist best describes him. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)