Talk:Richard Dawkins

Photo options

He was very gracious to spend the time with me, and I'll let the regular editors of the article decide which to use (if at all). --David Shankbone 03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5

Number 3 for me please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While #3 is fine, #1 (as currently in article) looks best to me. I have already thanked David Shankbone for the excellent image. For some reason, #1 does not look that great above, but it does look good in the article. I suppose Dawkins knew it was for Wikipedia, and that it may end up here? Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he knew this was aimed for Wikipedia. I do like 3, and 2 is my least favorite (better as a full as he is stroking the piano), but I advocate head shots for lead images. That said, in my time on WP I have seen many instances where the head shot for the lead looked awful compared to the full shot. Thanks for considering my photos whatever you all decide :-) --David Shankbone 04:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think #1 is best. I would have said #3 or #4 but I think the piano at the back spoils it and looks out of place. If he were a pianist maybe. Shaunthered (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, we were sort of limited with backdrop. It was the piano, a bunch of junky school chairs or an EXIT sign. He was the one who chose the piano given the other options. The photos are large enough that if you like the expressions on the piano shots you can crop them (and Photoshop - I'm not that best at that). --David Shankbone 14:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

For me, cropping would create the problem which led me to put1, 2 and 5 down the list in the first place. I don't like images that look like passport photos. Now that's purely me expressing a personal preference, and I'm totally happy to run with a popular vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for 1 or 2. I think a head shot is best. The piano really does distract a bit. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1,3, or 5 is best. I don't like the piano, as well. I find it distracting -- although amusing. PalindromeKitty (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to admit, no matter what is chosen, it's the best his hair has ever looked on this article :-D --David Shankbone 06:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your photo improved this article. I'll find an appropriate barnstar. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely the horns are missing :-) NBeale (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that you'll find, cf. David Shankbone's comment above, that his "best hair eva" carefully obscures these. --PLUMBAGO 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote for #1... (Good to see good ol'NBeale is still editing here...) Mikker ^(...) 12:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

Stephen Hawking recently announced that God wasn't necessary; fine, I agree & I'm sure Richard Dawkins agrees. Professor Hawking, as a mathematician, presumably takes a Platonic view; fair enough, I can't. Has Professor Dawkins ever expressed an opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem ? I could be chasing shadows but, even if mathematics maps onto reality, Gödel would seem to imply room for God, how else can one achieve completeness?86.135.127.147 (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and Gödel's ideas are not going to make my faith superfluous anytime soon. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, -- this is an encyclopedia talk page for discussion about improving the article. See WP:FORUM. You may discuss this on user talk pages or perhaps find a message board like atheistforums.com or richarddawkins.net. This is not the place. Thank you Obamafan70 (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Descendant of General Henry Clinton?

If the pedigree listed here:

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Royal/Notes/dawkins.txt

can be believed, then Richard Dawkins is a descendant of General Henry Clinton (commander of British forces in the Revolutionary War) and Governor George Clinton of New York. I am not that knowledgeable on more modern British genealogy; can anyone confirm or deny? If this is true, then it is certainly notable.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In River Out of Eden, Dawkins wrote how we are all closely related, and estimated that he and an arbitrary one of his students would have shared an ancestor no more than a couple of centuries ago. So, even if the ancestry were reliably sourced there is probably little reason to mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Occupation

I see that RD's occupation is listed as "ethologist". That was certainly what his PhD was in, but now it seems he describes himself (correctly in my view) as a writer - see here. NBeale (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He is stated (first) as former Professor of.....Professors also engage in an activity known as writing. A latter sentence uses a description of him as a writer. I don't think it would be fair to list him as a "writer" under occupation if that is what you are implying. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So "Former Professor and Writer" would seem to agree with the facts, and his self-decription? NBeale (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the word 'writer' is not being used in the context of his occupation. Similarly, I can go mountain climbing and cite a NY Times article that I am an expert mountain climber, but my occupation is a professor. One can engage in an activity such as writing without it being a profession in and of itself. If somebody asked me my profession, I wouldn't be tempted to say writer, I would say former professor. Also, keep in mind the broader context which is that mere popularizers of science are considered lower in stature. Obamafan70 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He is Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and a best selling author. Of course he is a writer, quite unlike myself, for example, who is an academic who writes papers. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here: he is probably best known for his popular writing, even on topics far outside his professorial expertise, such as religion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-sequitors. We are debating what his occupation is. Stephen Hawking is best known for his writing, but his occupation is as a professor of mathematics. The same is true for RD. Obamafan70 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is another classic case of a Wikipedia template distorting sensible discussion. The ONLY reason this discussion is happening is because a simplistic template is asking for a simple, one word (or very few words) entry for what is taking people whole sentences to describe even informally above. The reality of why we have an article at all is at the start of the second paragraph - Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene..... He is a writer/biologist/stirrer/media and lecture circuit personality/and many other things. We MUST find ways in Wikipedia of not being driven to simpleton entries in infoboxes, and wasting time arguing about them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think we are having this discussion because of NBeale's track record of criticism with the subject of this article. Changing his occupation from a species of academic to "writer" diminishes the extent to which his opinion can be considered authoritative. He has a doctorate; let's show some damn professional courtesy here even if he's primarily well-known for his militant non-beliefs. PalindromeKitty (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that he IS a species of academic, AND a writer, AND many other things. It takes a lot of words to describe that. Let the article tell what he is, in several sentences, and leave it out of the infobox completely. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The source given by NBeale to justify the description "writer" actually says "the former Charles Simonyi Professor ... [and] ... a writer who understands the issues ...". There is a world of difference between saying "X is a writer" and "X is a writer who ...". If the source said he was "a man who understands ..." would NBeale be urging us to change the label to "man"? Note also that NBeale devotes considerable energy to trying to demonstrate that Dawkins is "not a real scientist". See his blog, here, for example. This is just one further attempt to introduce the Beale POV into Wikipedia. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

< If we are looking at his "occupation" as opposed to "former occupation" it is surely writer. The last scientific paper by Dawkins that I can find in Google Scholar is a book chapter co-authored with John Krebs in 1982. NBeale (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody else who has posted here is looking for anything as simple as "occupation" as opposed to "former occupation". Dawkins is a complex man. How about we leave the simplistic infobox entry empty (it simply won't appear then) and leave the more detailed, more meaningful description of what Dawkins is to the article itself? HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Snalwibma. Status quo. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins hasn't been an "ethologist" since 1995 at the latest. His own official website decscibes him as: "the former Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University" and "a writer". Under WP:BLP we should not describe someone as "an X" if they do not describe themselves as an X without very good evidence. And there is none. NBeale (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you account for this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He certainly was an etholigist so it is quite resonable for him to write an essay about growing up in ethology. Note that he is described as follows: "RICHARD DAWKINS, elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in May, 2001, is a gifted writer, who is known for his popularization of Darwinian ideas". As I say, his present occupation is a [gifted] writer. NBeale (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's present occupation is writer (see spade of recent articles and books by Carter). I'm pretty sure we would all find it grotesquely inadequate to list his occupation in the field of literature instead of politics. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 has it essentially correct all along. This silly argument is because the infobox requires a small entry that does not allow a proper description of a complex person. I suggest we put "academic and writer" or "writer and academic". Retired Professors are still academics at Oxford and he is a Fellow of New College I think. The argument that writer is not his occupation is false. I bet he makes more money from his books than his university pension. Let us move on. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Makes perfect sense. NBeale (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit reverted -- have we reached consensus? I don't believe so -- though I'm sure we all appreciate and respect NBeale's boldness, with which I disagree in this instance. Also, I wanted to respond to the previous statement (I bet he makes more money -- see WP:SPECULATION). Additionally, I don't see why we are accepting the "primary source of revenue" definition of occupation. By that definition, I'm a "Wall Street investor" since I make more money from investing than I do from academia.Obamafan70 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you are so opposed to describing him as a writer. It is quite clear that his writing is far beyond what a normal academic does. I think all 10 books are still in print and were best sellers. On further reflection however, I thing he should be described as "Academic and writer" not "Writer and academic". "Etholigist" is not appropriate as his academic interests became wider as he moved into other areas including the academic study of the popularisation of science. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The objections have been summarized in prior sentiments by a number of editors. I would personally have no objection to "scientist and writer", but I can't speak for other users. Obamafan70 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "evolutionary biologist" or "evolutionary biologist and writer"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still keen on leaving it blank. Just because such an entry CAN be there doesn't mean it HAS TO be there. Infoboxes do not help clarity. There is plenty of detail in the article to explain what Dawkins was, is and does. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And why is he still listed as an evolutionary biologist/ethologist or whatever he was in the present tense? He isn't a practicing one. He is retired. For example, from another Wikipedia page: Willie mays "is a former American professional baseball player". Dawkins is a former scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.126.203 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"According to Dawkins..."

The phrase "according to Dawkins" is used several times in the article to describe a particular and personal view held by Dawkins. That is fine. But it is not appropriate as used in the section "Criticsm of Creationism", in discussing the processes of evolution: "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world.." The sentence should be revised along the lines "Dawkins shares the view generally held by scientists that natural selection...etc" Sue Zuki (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. They were weasel words. Strongly agree. Fixed. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree, as well. WP:WEASEL in full force there. Thanks for the heads-up, Obamafan70 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion: Atheist

Shouldn't it be Religion: None (Atheist)? It makes much more sense. — Kieff | Talk 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A better approach would be to restore {{Infobox scientist}} (which was recently replaced with {{Infobox person}} with no discussion).

Doing that would omit the following:

Ethnicity:  White British

Education:  MA, DPhil (Oxon)

Occupation:  Ethologist

Years active:  1967-present

Employer:  University of California, Berkeley; University of Oxford

Organization:  Fellow of the Royal Society; Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

Notable works:  The Selfish Gene (1976); The Extended Phenotype (1982); The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

Influenced by:  Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton, Daniel Dennett, Nikolaas Tinbergen (doctoral adviser)

Religion:  None

Spouse:  Marian Stamp Dawkins (m. 1967-1984); Eve Barham (m. 1984-?); Lalla Ward (m. 1992-present)

Children:  Juliet Emma Dawkins (born 1984)

Parents:  Clinton John Dawkins; Jean Mary Vyvyan (née Ladner)

Website:  The Richard Dawkins Foundation

The "Organization" field might be replaced with "workplaces". People would have to read the article for the other info. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The scientist's infobox seems more reasonable to me. Obamafan70 (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No infobox at all would be better, IMHO. Infoboxes lead simpler editors to think that complex attributes of complex people can be expressed in 3 words or less. They cannot. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While he's both a person and a scientist, it makes sense to use the more specific format. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see HiLo48's point, but I think readers should still be held responsible for reading the entire article after reading the infobox. And yes, scientist as per Dylan Flaherty's reasoningObamafan70 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

>In reality he is notable as an author, not a scientist, so Person is more NPOV. NBeale (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a POV. He is notable as a scientist, although much of that is the publicizing of science through his books, and of course through his position before retirement - the chair for publicizing science. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible changes

In the Biography section, near the beginning of paragraph three, "Oundle School Church of England school" ...is this proper British English, or just type too fast? Also in Biography, paragraph four ends with a sentence fragment which would benefit by being reconnected to the previous sentence by changing the period to a comma. Thanks in advance. 75.204.129.143 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. We had a lot of editing a few months ago (some over-enthusiastic editors), and the text is so obviously wrong that I investigated where the error occurred in case some text was omitted in all the furor. However, it looks like it was just a minor error, and I have now corrected the two problems you mentioned. For the record, the clumsy text about Oundle School was added in this edit which used this ref; the ref includes "When the family returned to England, he went to a C of E school, was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens" which implies that Oundle was a Church of England school (roughly reasonable). Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice. And fast. 75.204.129.143 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Death of father

His father died recently and perhaps someone might like to update the article (changing tenses as well as a direct mention). I've added a brief mention of his fathers' work on converting the inherited estate into a farm as well as his death. I realised that the change in tense from "both his parents are interested" to past tense is debatable.Autarch (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for resolving the race condition when a similar edit was done about the same time. It was handled well. Any advice for me on how to avoid overlapping updates in the future? Make this less likely? --Javaweb (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

You can't really avoid problems like that, although preparing your text in a text editor before starting the browser edit can help. You could also look at the history tab just before saving your edit; history will show if a recent edit has occurred. I would normally put this kind of suggestion on a user talk page, but I have edited this section to insert a colon (:) to indent the above comment (it was joined on to the previous comment), so I thought I'd post here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a separate browser tab with the history and refreshing it right before deciding to saving is easy enough. Thanks.

This will get rid of most of the problem.--Javaweb (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Meme culture/behavior

This edit changed the description of meme from "cultural equivalent of a gene" to "behavioral equivalent of a gene". The same edit has been made at Meme. It's possibly not worth worrying about, particularly since there is no precise definition of "meme", but a scan of the 30th anniversay edition of The Selfish Gene shows (in a book review at the back) that W. D. Hamilton says He floats the term "meme" ... for the cultural equivalent of "gene", and in the meme chapter, Dawkins talks a lot about culture and very little that I can see about behavior. For example, Dawkins wrote "Cultural transmission is analogous to genetic transmission in that, although basically conservative, it can give rise to a form of evolution." Opinions? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Obit

In the obituary in the Independent written by Richard Dawkins, nothing is said about any action Clinton John Dawkins saw in the Second World War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.169.115 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think his father's being drafted in WW2 is important. Why mention his father's war service at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There were many ad hominem attacks on the page to say that Dawkins Snr was a draft-dodger. Editors cited his war service to counter this. The perpetrators may have gone away now. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a need for the mention of his Father's service? Any arguments to keep/remove it. It only belongs in a book-length biography and not in a wiki article so I say remove text. --Javaweb (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What his father did in the war is relevant to Dawkins' life, especially in regard to where he spent his early childhood in the 1940s. That is why it should be included in this bio. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the Criticism section be deleted ?

The critism-section should IMO be deleted (or at least expanded drastically). It mentions unscientific creationist-propaganda (Ben Stein's Expelled-movie) and does not any information about what exactly about Dawkins is being criticized. Ironically, most of the content mentioned is about criticism of "The God Delusion" and not Mr. Dawkins himself. Dawkins's website once featured a section dealing with books refuting The God Delusion, I don't know if it's still available as his website got redesigned. Nobody reads those books mentioned in the criticism section. I checked their rankings on amazon.com:

Darwin's Angel released: February 2008 rank: #1,455,278 http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Angel-Seraphic-Response-Delusion/dp/1846680484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292703931&sr=8-1

Dawkins' GOD released: 7 December 2004 rank: #1,455,278 http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-GOD-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/140512539X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292704051&sr=8-1

Dawkins' Delusion released: 16 Feb 2007 rank:#92,481 http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-ebook/dp/B002VGSX6Y/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292704476&sr=1-8

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed holds a rottentomatoes-rating of 10%. It's simply intelligent-design-nonsense. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

My point is: You can always write a book about another book / person / whatever you disagree with or do not like, but this doesn't render it a good book and therefore one worth mentioning in a criticism-section. Nuhr (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism section ought to stay. It isn't anything more than a list of books that are critical of his views at the moment anyway. All the books listed have their own article (so presumably pass notability?). Whether they are widely read or not is not relevant to their place in the article. Neither are the strength of the arguments they contain. That several books have been written specifically criticising Dawkins could be viewed as an indicator of his importance as a public commentator (why bother writing 50,000 odd words to rebutt the views of a man without influence?). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I put that section in, in the form it remains, following this CfD discussion. I believe that the section belongs, because the subject and his work has been subjected to notable criticism. A point here is that the criticising books have their own articles. As such, they should be linked, either directly, or via no more than one step. Preferably, the section would be prosified, and in doing so, some comment could be made about the criticism, as per User:Nuhr. It would have to be referenced. Is there an independent source that comments on this criticism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to delete "criticism of Dawkins" - he is one of the most criticised writers on the planet. In addition to critics who are religious believers (like my mentor John Polkinghorne) there are atheists who very strong scientific and philosophical critics of Dawkins like Denis Noble, Terry Eagleton, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini. And Dawkins' fundamental ideas about the Selfish Gene have been shown scientifically to be wrong ( see here for the detailed refs). NBeale (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The blog article proves nothing. It offers nothing but appeals to authorities that few have heard of and their conclusions, without supporting arguments. The factoids chosen are not the most useful. For example, the blog refers to Mary Midgley as #1 on some Amazon sublist in the UK. More informative is she is #552,544 on amazon.com and the book came out in September. Her field is moral philosphy, not evolutionary biology. Philosophy is a venerable field, as this scene in an ancient Roman unemployment insurance office "proves" but it cannot prove much in science. --Javaweb (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

No objection to including a section describing the criticism that has been levelled at Dawkins, as long as it is written well, in a balanced way, respecting WP:BLP, and not merely used as a hook on which to hang the sort of nonsense that one finds here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what do you think is "nonsense?": the Nature article, the Science article, or the article in the Journal of Physiology? NBeale (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The articles are all perfectly fine. What is nonsense is the frame into which they are put, and the spin that is put on them. That is what we have to avoid here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my concern IS the nonsense above. The claims of people like Polkinghorne are irrelevant, because their god tells them what to believe. (Yes, I know he WAS a scientist.) Their beliefs are proudly not based on rational thought. To say that a non-rational thinker disagrees with a rational thinker wouldn't add much to the article. Genuine scientific disagreement would be valid, but it needs to be mainstream, and published in reputable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

<:You certainly can't dismiss anything that isn't science as irrelevant: we can prove that not everything true can be scientifically proven. Nor can you dismiss the work of scientists becasuse of their religious beliefs - it is ridiculous to say Polkinghore is "non-rational", have you read him? And unlike Dawkins, Polkinghorne made substantial contributions to science before he turned to writing on religious matters. But EO Wilson, Martin Nowak and Denis Noble are truly world-class scientists, and if a front cover paper in Nature isn't "mainstream, published in reputatble sources" from a scientific PoV then what is? NBeale (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you prove that something is unprovable? --Dekker451 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already said that mainstream science published in reputable sources is fine. Polkinghorne is a priest, believing in God. That's a faith position, not a rational one. Yes, I do know of his past, but it's exactly that, his past. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mainstream science published in reputable sources is fine. --Javaweb (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

OK I've added the papers, and a couple of books (including one I have co-authored but I'm not the main author and it is one of the better-selling ones, please amend if you think its COI-inappropriate) but I don't think "Expelled" belongs here, it's not a book or a paper. NBeale (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Refereed scientific papers critical of Dawkins' views by notable scientists include" stuff is nonsense and needs to go. It is the nature of science that someone writes paper A, and later paper B disagrees with paper A. We do not list all the papers with criticism of the views of some scientist at their bio (cherrypicking and WP:SYNTH). If a secondary source were to describe a couple of such criticism papers, we might mention that; otherwise it is coatracking. As a matter of fact, the whole section is a coatrack, although I would not oppose a simple list of books with an article. Documents with a red link or no link clearly need to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And to add a book by Polkinghorne (and yourself) is not showing good faith. I have expressed very clear concerns about him which you have not addressed. He is now a man of God, not a scientist. Clearly his beliefs are driven by more than just the science. I cannot comment on your position, but I would advise against adding your own work. If someone else did it it may be better. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't he be both a "man of God" and a scientist? --Dekker451 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<:Dawkins himself lists John Polkinghorne as one of the "good scientists who are sincerely religious" in The God Delusion. If Dawkins agrees that Polkinghorne is a good scientist, I don't see why we should take the view that he is not. NBeale (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Polkinhorne can still be an excellent scientist in areas where he doesn't have to put his faith first. But surely the simple fact that he does put his faith first makes it no surprise that there will be areas where he is obliged to disagree with Dawkins. It really makes his disagreements with Dawkins non-notable to the extent that they relate to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this seems to be a confusion. It may not be surprising that Polkinghone and Dawkins disagree, but that doesn't make it non-notable. If the only notable disagreements were those that were surprising then most of history (intellectual and other) would be "non-notable". NBeale (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is simply not notable that a man of God disagrees with Dawkins on issues relating to religion. It might be important to you and Polkinghorne, but it says nothing about Dawkins. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you understand what notable means? If so can you show how anything in WP:N supports your conclusion? NBeale (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<We should def have the NTW and Noble papers, scientifically they are the most substantial cricisms to date. Removing Polkinghorne is clearly wrong in my view (even Dawkins thinks he is a "good scientist" who is sincerely religious) but as co-author someone without at WP:COI should re-add. NBeale (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The long list of critical books makes as much sense as a long list of supporting books. There is a place for that in a bibliographic work, not wikipedia. Give a short list of the criticisms: irreducible complexity, there are things science currently cannot explain, etc. We also need to clean up The_God_Delusion#Reviews_and_responses and The_God_Delusion#Responding_books. --Javaweb (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I was coming to this talk page specifically to mention this. At the moment, it just seems to be an unsourced and somewhat arbitrary lists of works- there are plenty of major works not mentioned, and some Genuine criticism (not just a list of publications) belongs in the body of the article, not in a separate section. Lists of works that happen to be critical of the subject do not really belong here. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with [User:J Milburn|J Milburn]]. There are two major classes of critics: 1. Folks like Francis Collins, the biologist who headed the Human Genome project and current NIH head. They believe in evolution and religion. He is already mentioned in the article. 2. Creationism/Intelligent Design, also mentioned in the article.

--Javaweb (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

We certainly don't have a consensus to remove the Criticism section. And it is ridiculous to consider people like Denis Noble in the simplistic categorisation above. Dawkins is a highly controversial figure who has been strongly criticised by people from all sides of the religuous divide. We have "criticism" sections of almost anyone who is notable, and certainly should have one of Dawkins. NBeale (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it sad that the emphasis of your posts is on criticising Dawkins, rather than discussing the words he says. But at least you have made it pretty clear that the criticism is religiously rather than rationally based. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that "Criticism of X" in any WP:BLP where X is a writer or thinker means "Criticism of X's writings or thoughts". Also please understand that (a) ratonal and religious are not remotely opposite. (b) Criticism of Dawkins comes from scientists, philosophers are other writers who may be Christian (eg John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath) or Atheist (eg Denis Noble, Terry Eagleton, Julian Baggini) or agnostic (eg Mary Midgley, Anthony Kenny, Madeline Bunting). Frankly it is almost impossible to find a serious thinker who fully agrees with Dawkins. Perhaps Dennett, even Pinker has his reservations: and then we descend to the likes of Hitchins, Meyers and Harris. NBeale (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NBeale, Wikipedia is not to be used as a WP:SOAP. If you have a list of books with a philosophy that you want to promote there are a billion urls out there to try. Your venom towards Dawkins for not respecting your religious beliefs is understandable but is making it impossible for you to contribute in an objective way. Your failed attempt to add an article Enemy of humanity], lumping Dawkins and Hitler together and subsequent editorial comments here on the Talk page make that clear.

--Javaweb (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Criticism section quite well established

Hi Javaweb. The Criticism section is quite well established (was added in Oct by Smokeyjoe) and it takes more than a couple of editors to remove it. My problem with Dawkins is not that he "doesn't respect my beliefs" but that his arguments are so bad. They are roundly criticised from pretty well every PoV. I know that, sadly, some people seem to treat him as a Prophet and his work as Holy Writ, but this attitude has no place in Wikipedia and we should objectively record both praise and criticism. NBeale (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Being in for under three months hardly makes it well established. These kind of lists are generally undesirable as they encourage "stamp collector" type editors to keep adding ever more trivial examples. WP should be mostly written in prose.--Charles (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to rewrite this as prose (I think it was in much earlier versions) but I certainly don't have time! But looking for "Criticism of" in Wikipedia gets over 50k hits, and if we have [Criticism section] for John Paul II as well as a whole article on that subject, I don't see why Dawkins should be exempt. NBeale (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Charles and Javaweb. The criticism points are already part of the article, there is really no need of separate criticism section with list of not-so-notable points. -Abhishikt 17:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For readers new to this discussion, it started 12,662 characters ago in the section header above this one: Should the Criticism section be deleted. This is a continuation of that discussion. Please look at the recent discussion above for context.

In WP:Criticism_sections#Quotes, there is this quote:

In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in

many cases they are not necessary.

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

— Jimbo Wales, Criticism sections on bios of living people

Browsing just the first half of the article again, I see discussion throughout on differing points of view of nonoverlapping magisteria, reductionism, gene-selection, altruism, claims he is ignorant of Christian theology...

--Javaweb (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I have just re-read the whole article and agree that criticisms are well coverd in the text. Just because many other articles have such sections is no reason to make another one. Rather the others should in most cases be removed.--Charles (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous criticism section had no substance either just a list of books which don't really add anything to the article except as an opportunity to advertise other opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Apparently Dawkins sued/is suing his former employee and protege Josh Timonen. There seem to be lots of articles eg here, and even in The Independent. We should probably add something. NBeale (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not news? It's in at least one MSM newspaper and lots of blogosphere, incl PZ Myers? NBeale (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure this is news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Foundation rather than Dawkins himself and does not seem very relevant to his biography. It would be recentism anyway.--Charles (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we have Dawkins on the Pope's visit which was pretty much equally recent, and where Dawkins was only one of the 50+ people involved. Also Timonen is not just some random employee - he is the (sole) dedicatee of Dawkins' latest book. If the Pope had fired his Secretary of State and was suing him for embezzlement I bet you'd all be insiting this was WP:N so why should equivalent news about Dawkins be supressed? NBeale (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think the mention of the papal visit and RD's response is also trivial and should probably be deleted. Wikipedia is not a collection of recent news items, nor is it a collection of titbits designed to enable NBeale to twist the knife in his pet hate-figure. Use your own blog for that! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate Dawkins at all - I just think he is deeply misguided and vastly over-rated (a view which as far as I can see is shared by most working scientists whether or not they are atheists). He has also become something of a cult figure which is always a bad thing. People need to get a balanced picture and this article is at least 80% adulation. NBeale (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It might just be me, but how is (allegedly) being ripped off by an employee a key part of someone's biography? When people are looking for information about Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, I don't imagine that they're interested in legal actions he may be involved in. Or is there a category for "victims of white collar crime" I'm unaware of? --PLUMBAGO 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is surpressing anything here. There just seems to be a consensus about some things being sufficiently notable (like the pope thing), and other things being insufficiently so (like the Timonen thing). DVdm (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<No I think Snalwibma and I both think that the lawsuit thing and the Pope thing are equally notable/non-notable. Why don't we delete the Pope Visit thing and then if people object we can consider both on the same basis? NBeale (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A minor point, perhaps, but I did not say "equally"! The lawsuit is clearly not suitable material. The response to the papal visit is perhaps not worth including. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that what is currently present in the article about the visit is highly notable, if not essential. DVdm (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins threatens legal action against X - it has no prospect of success and no legal action is ever taken. Dawkins actually launches a legal action against Y, claiming that large sums intended for his foundation have been misappropriated. It is not obvious why the first is notable and the second not. Surely the fact that his supporters WP:LIKE the action against X and don't like the one against Y being known more widely (even I was unaware of it) can't be the reason? And if it is, it is not a good enough reason for WikiPedia NBeale (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it does not seem obvious to you why the first is notable and the second not, but it looks like there is a consensus that it is. No big deal. DVdm (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The lawsuit is brought by the Richard Dawkins Foundation which is run by five trustees including Dawkins. It is not therefore his sole doing or important to his biography.--Charles (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowak Tarnita and Wilson

Should we include Nowak Tarnita and Wilson [NTW]. The lead of the section "a number of writers have taken issue with the views expressed by Richard Dawkins" Although NTW doesn't refer to Dawkins becasuse he made no orginal contributons to the Selfish Gene/Inclusive Fitness ideas, it delivers a scientific coup de grace to them ("Hamilton's rule almost never holds") and certainly counts as taking issue with the views expressed by R.D. NBeale (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In a word, no. If the paper does not specifically mention Dawkins then it does not belong in an article about Dawkins. Pure WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. It might belong at Gene-centered view of evolution, however. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea NBeale: why don't you write this up over at Hamilton's rule itself since NTW (WP:RECENT?) seems unmentioned there? Oh, I forgot, you never miss an opportunity, however misplaced, to bash Dawkins. --PLUMBAGO 09:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, there is a short (and somewhat arcane) portion about this in said article, but given the significance ascribed to NTW above, a longer discussion would seem to be in order. --PLUMBAGO 09:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I've had a bit of a go but I'm rather to busy to do much to that article. NBeale (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plumbago replied to NBeale > "I forgot, you never miss an opportunity, however misplaced, to bash Dawkins."

For example, NBeale created the article Enemy_of_humanity, lumping Dawkins and Hitler together.--Javaweb (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Two things I noticed

Regarding this:

In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary The Root of All Evil?, addressing what he sees as the malignant influence of religion on society. The title itself is one with which Dawkins has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction.[94]

[94] # ^ "The Jeremy Vine Show". BBC Radio 2. 5 January 2006.

As far as I can see, this is ONE citation providing ONE example. So where's the proof that he "repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction"?

Also, there's a mistake in footnote 95:

[95] Jacobson, Howard (11 November 2001). "Nothing like an unimaginative scientist to get non-believers running back to God". London: The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-nothing-like-an-unimaginative-scientist-to-get-nonbelievers-running-back-to-god-523917.html. Retrieved 2007-03-27.

The date for the article should be 21 January 2006.

RavenclawStudent2011 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He originally said it here:

Dawkins, R (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Co. ISBN 9780618680009. From the start I didn't like the title and fought it hard. Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything." --Javaweb (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Fixed. Thanks, RavenclawStudent2011, for noticing.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Section was added to The God Delusion

Editors of this article will probably be interested in this new section added to The God Delusion called "Debate surrounding The God Delusion". I have not reviewed this section myself. --Javaweb (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Javaweb

I WILL DEBATE YOU ANYHOW

a MAN WITH ANY "b_ _ _ ls" cannot avoid a public DEBATE. To decline is DEFEAT, and publicly here !--Forever true (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)