Talk:Marian Dawkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Women scientists (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scientific Criticism[edit]

About the criticism on this page:

Jim Robertson, the author of 'Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport' wrote "This new and unwelcomed project makes me wonder if she's (Dawkins is) not actually an emotional automaton programmed to react to stimuli but lacking the ability to think and feel"

This criticism above is particular scientific, it makes the case for human emotions as watertight as possible and thereby to strengthen it.

The news sources "Huffington post" added in the article is notoriously unreliable. (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazon reviews online[edit]

The reviews: She is skeptical about consciousness of nonhuman animals. In her book Why Animals Matter: Animal Consciousness, Animal Welfare, and Human Well-being (2012) she wrote "there is no proof either way about animal consciousness and that it does not serve animals well to claim that there is". Many have criticised this position. Evolutionary biologist Marc Bekoff vigorously criticized Dawkins for denying a large body of solid scientific data[1]. Jennifer O'Connor considered the book 'appears to be nothing more than a defense for those who want to continue to use, abuse and exploit animals'. Jim Robertson wrote "This new and unwelcomed project makes me wonder if she's (Dawkins is) not actually an emotional automaton programmed to react to stimuli but lacking the ability to think and feel". The book is rated 1.5 out of total 5 stars on[2] She was also criticized for unprofessional academic conducts such as personal attack and misrepresentation of the opinions of the academic opponents.[1]

Amazon reviews online are not acceptable sources for a BLP. I am One of Many (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

no, it is RS. verifiable, third party, published...
Search Marian Stamp Dawkins in Google, the Amazon page with all the criticisms are on the first page.
That is not published researched. Those are just reviews that anyone can write. They are considered unpublished and unreliable. I am One of Many (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you are hijacking Wikipedia policy, they are published and are reliable, they meet NPOV, V, NOR
There are so many nonsense in your comments
1)I did not edit pain in fish, can you provide evidences to justify your defamation against me?
2)You have now made three reverts on this page within 24 hours, see here, here and here your behaviour here and on animal welfare science has now become disruptive, you are eligible to be sanctioned for edit warring
3)What I am trying to do is adding balance to the articles. People have conflict of interests trying to remove criticism of Marian Dawkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a person. It is not about other people who do not like that person, or who do not like what they think she said. Experienced editors see this kind of thing all the time—well-intentioned people try to use BLP articles to right great wrongs by highlighting criticisms of the subject. Imagine how Barack Obama would look if the views of all those who have criticized him were displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The criticism I added were from (academic/professional) peers of MD. They are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are not academic/professional publications. Those are reviews written by anyone on the web. There are two things you need to keep in mind. First, Wikipedia has policies about what counts as reliable sources. Second, the sources you are citing could be by anyone. I could write a review of the book on Amazon and call myself Prof. Extremely Famous, but it would mean nothing. I am One of Many (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I am adding more criticism, see POV section below. (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Current version does not have enough criticism. See this version for other criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should there be criticism? If anything, it seems to me that you are pushing the POV here unless you have reliable sources to back it up. I am One of Many (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Criticism is important for a balanced article. Are you new to Wikpedia? many articles have it. It seems to me that you are pushing the POV. I add more criticism below
The criticism by Dr Karen Davis has direct author info (email address included) on amazon: "KAREN DAVIS, PhD is the founder and president of United Poultry Concerns, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl"
Dr Karen Davis wrote: "Dawkins's stance does not elevate science; instead it belittles the behavioral science she adheres to as a sterile endeavor, hostile to kinship and blind to reality." (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
What is your objection to creating an account like the rest of us? It is inconsiderate expecting the rest of us to try and relate to you through your slippery sequence of ever changing IP addresses. Secondly, I do not doubt you have concerns for animal welfare and that you think Marian Dawkins is an opponent to your concern, maybe an instrument of the devil. It seems to me, partially because of an over enthusiastic critique by Bekoff, that a number of people including you have got the wrong end of the stick here. I invite you to examine the many papers she has written on animal welfare, and then listen respectfully to what Dawkins herself says on her critics in the video here. Then perhaps you will realise the extent of the injustice you are trying to wreak on her. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
1)It's not your business if I use an account
2)You do not know me. Stop assume things. Many things you said about me above are completely wrong. Anyway it's off the point. I agree with Dawkins that we should make science water tight, therefore the criticism is important (for academic scrutiny and freedom of speech). Your propaganda is heavy, but, let's talk about the policies seriously. I provided valid sources, now you try to use lame emotional tricks to exclude them. Where is NPOV? (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Epipelagic and, I would add, that it is POV to focus on one statement made in one book and only attempt to include criticism of it. Any such criticism is better placed in an article on the book or on animal welfare or animal intelligence. I think that picking out one aspect of her work is non-neutral and the entire paragraph should be removed. I can only see retaining it in the context of a much larger article that covers all of her notable work neutrally. I'm not up to expanding the article, so to remove the POV, the second paragraph should be deleted and it can remain a short stub until someone is up to writing a proper article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
1)this is a major issue. Many peers commented on it, their opinions should be heard.
2)I agree it is a good idea to ALSO add the criticism in other articles, for example in animal conciousness.
3)You got it wrong, if you think there is information missing, general practise for things like this on Wikipedia is expanding, not reducing existing content.
4)I saw an article, 'The Decline of Wikipedia': "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. ...Jimmy Wales, say the project needs to attract a new crowd to make progress. “The biggest issue is editor diversity, says Wales. He hopes to grow the number of editors in topics that need work...Whether that can happen depends on whether enough people still believe in the notion of online collaboration for the greater good—the ideal that propelled Wikipedia in the beginning." Go read the article:
Your cliques are damaging Wikipedia. (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
First, while notable views should be expressed, they do not belong in an article about a living person. Second, I agree that this kind of criticism is more appropriate for articles on the topic, but only if they come from notable sources and are placed in appropriate context. Third, there are many problems with Wikipedia, but one thing that will not improve it is adding unsourced opinion, opinion based on unreliable sources, points of view, and original research. Fourth, I do not know the other two editors who have commented here, but we do share one thing in common. We have taken the time to learn and understand policies of Wikipedia. The reason we agree is not because we are a "clique" but because we basically agree on the interpretation of policy. Finally, I have seen nothing written here that could be considered abrasive or that has created an abrasive atmosphere. Instead, I see editors patiently trying to explain policies of Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
1)There is no way you can dispute the sources I provided only if you are biased:
Davis and Beckoff Why they can not be included?
Dr Karen Davis wrote: "Dawkins's stance does not elevate science; instead it belittles the behavioral science she adheres to as a sterile endeavor, hostile to kinship and blind to reality." Beckoff criticized Dawkins for personal attack and misrepresentation of his opinions.
2)No rule says you cannot criticise a living person.
3)I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. I am not a new user. I linked the article partly because it shows how you drive away valuable contributions.
I've removed the POV tag added to the article by the IP. The only POV issues discussed here have originated with the IP who behaves as if s/he has competency issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
1)The tag cannot be removed. The dispute is not resolved, The article has POV problem.
2)As documented here, it is obvious that I am more competent and responsible than Epipelagic in doing research: Epipelagic don't even look into the source before spitting out his opinions.
3)Epipelagic's interaction with me on multiple pages, such as his removal of POV tag and edits in pain in animals display a hostile attitude. He used defamation multiple times
4)I am adding more criticisms
5)I like this phrase: What goes around comes around (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this article on a living person is not the place for criticism of just one of many extremely notable works by Dawkins. An article on the book should be created and then verififiable, reliable sources used to develop the article - including criticism where it exists. The article on Marc Bekoff is, in my opinion, a good example of a neutral article on a living person working in a similar area. Some people disagree strongly with Bekoff's approach, but that criticism is not on the page.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No, criticism of Beckoff should be added too.
DrChrissy has been spamming Marian Dawkins work in many inappropriate places without sufficient evidence of notability/relevance. She has conflict of interests of this discussion. (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain what my conflict of interest is.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

CI (Conflict of Interest) Records of DrChrissy[edit]

As requested, I list some of DrChrissy's promotion of MD's work below:

  • on animal welfare, she added original research to promote MD.
  • she created animal welfare science, added this sentence "Several books on animal welfare science have been written, for example by Professor Marian Dawkins." She only mention MD's book without provide sufficient evidence of notability. Infact there are numerous books about animal welfare science (search animal welfare in Google book). A more recent revision have a list of notable works on the topic
  • just several paragraphs above, she advocated the creation of an article for MD's notorious book: 'An article on the book should be created'.
  • she is also active removing/opposing any edit that decreasing the exposure of MD's work. See recent editing history and talk pages of animal welfare science, pain in animals, animal welfare and this article for more information. (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not in the slightest a conflict of interest. You are describing (in an extremely selective way) the actions of an editor believing that some relevant work should be included in articles on Wikipedia and making edits to support that belief. Yes, I am including MD's work, but only because it is amongst the best in the world in this subject matter (in terms of academic thinking and readability), but you have not described any conflict of interest on my part. Please explain your personal attacks or stop this uncivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talkcontribs) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'amongst the best in the world in this subject matter', This is your propaganda. You did not provide any evidence to support the claim. The evidence I find is against your claim: the MD's book DrChrissy keeps adding ranks outside 200 for Google book keywords 'animal welfare'. Wkipedia is build on reliable sources as many editors keep pointing out.
  • All my statements are supported by sources. Yeah, I am familiar with the politics of DrChrissy: whenever you lose an academic debate, you began to lie and defame your opponents. This is the same kind of thing that Marian Dawkin did to Marc Bekoff. Can you do something more creative? (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I can indeed - Just 60 seconds ago I created a page for Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Can you claim to be as creative? __DrChrissy (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Talking about creating content for Wikipedia: I tried to add balanced and extend contents multiple times. But you and some other editors who cares about politics control more than science stopped my efforts. You know what happened. (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Back to the main issue. You started this section and have publicly stated in the title and elsewhere, that I have a conflict of interest. Please explain how you think I have a conflict of interest. You have not done that yet.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I already provided the evidences above. I wrote the section for other editor. I obviously don't need/care to convince you, because you are the one who have CI. (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@IP (, There is absolutely no hint of a conflict of interest in DrChrissy's edits. I suggest you read WP:CONFLICT so that you know what the concept means before you continue to throw it around here. Also, your comments clearly express no knowledge of the relevant academic fields of animal behavior, otherwise you would know that Marian Dawkins is the leading academic figure in the sub discipline of animal welfare. My suggestion to you is give it a rest and think about how you can contribute constructively to Wikipedia in these and other areas. I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • no, you do not understand the policy.
  • Please, the relationship of animal behaviour and animal welfare is not subset. An accurate description is they are overlapping on some aspects. There are much more things about animal welfare that is nothing to do with animal behaviour: Just look at animal welfare. How much is animal behaviour? Don't pretend you know relevant academic fields. (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Your comments in this thread, IP, indicate you do not grasp what a conflict of interest is on Wikipedia. Additionally, your comments on sources here and elsewhere show you do not grasp the guidelines on reliable sources. Nor do you appear to understand what a number of patient editors have tried explaining to you, but you continue making wild and unreasoned attacks. Your confusion, your anger, and your attacks do not belong here, and I suggest you take the advice just offered to you above. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you made many false assumptions of me. Is this how you do research: assuming a lot? That's horrible. If you do this on purposes, stop you defamation. I enjoy this debate and I am delighted, because I love good science, this is how we advance science always. Don't assume me with your way of thinking. We are apparent different on many aspects.
This is far from a debate! You are making wild and unfounded accusations about me and other editors and then refusing to answer simple and direct questions such as ...what is my conflict of interest?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As documented at the beginning of the section. The comment above is another case of lying. (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
How is this a lie?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
IP, you may be detecting a point of view you disagree with but, as others have explained, there is no evidence here of a conflict of interest. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anthnoyhcole, did you read this yet? The Decline of Wikipedia. You contributed to the decline. You have not apologised for calling my RS as spam on the noticeboard earlier. Do you still make comments so irresponsible? (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have read that article - but it was worth reading again. Thanks. I'm pretty sure I haven't called anyone's edits spam recently. You may be confusing me with someone else. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I sent you the link that will help you remember. (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The IP is a classic and boring troll, contributing nothing of value, attending to what is said only so s/he can continue the attacks. Interesting only to the troll but a tedious waste of energy for the rest of us. I suggest editors here should no longer feed the troll, and if it continues the pages under attack should be protected. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Untrue, I contributed a lot. For example, animal welfare and animal rights had major structure changes after my involvement. Because I added lots of balance124.168.28.54 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Epipelagic says I am having lots of fun now. He said I was angry. Does he usually know/care what he is a talking about?
Please, protect more pages(censorship), I am always happy about that. That just help me advertise the lack of neutrality of the content. It is my main point. (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

An Editor recently moved Marian Stamp Dawkins to Marian Dawkins on the basis that the University web-site uses the name Marian Dawkins. This is correct, however, on that page it states "My personal webpage..." which links to [1]. On the personal webpage, the name Marian Stamp Dawkins is used. There may be reasons why the University website uses only Marian Dawkins. I noticed that her most recent book is authored by "Marian Stamp Dawkins".__DrChrissy (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, up to now she has used Marian Stamp Dawkins for her publications. "Stamp" was her maiden name. However, since she recieved her CBE two days ago she has been using the name Marian Ellina Dawkins Still, the editor who made the name change should have discussed it here first. At the moment most readers will know her as Marian Stamp Dawkins, and the article should reflect that somewhere. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The CBE reference is broken. Not an valid citation. (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Epipelagic said '"Stamp" was her maiden name.' How does he know so much about her? He is not connected with MD? He has been following DrChrissy's move on multiple pages (see editing history of animal welfare, animal welfare science, pain in animals and this page). And the main page he is managing Animal consciousness‎ (almost like OWNed by him) is a field of study of MD. Does he connect to MD and DrChrissy? Or something else can explain? (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add this yesterday. Epipelagic has also been attacking me using lies and defamation because I want to add criticism to MD. (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that Marian Dawkins' maiden name is Stamp. Those people who know anything about animal behaviour or animal welfare would know that. Try a simple search on Amazon [2]. I think you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge about animal welfare...again.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you lied, DrChrissy, 1)Your link doesn't show stamp is her maiden name. 2)This kind of personal knowledge is nothing to do with academic work. (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic continues his defamation and lies against two editors who reported DrChrissy. (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic accused other editors for time-wasting because the editors think it's important to take the disputes to formal channels. He is self-conscious do not like public scrutiny. (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Including in The Times, where it was announced: (Wednesday, Aug 23, 1967; pg. 8; Issue 57027; col A). Still not mentioned in the article though. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The MOS says that in biographies, the most commonly recognised name should be used as the title of the article. In my opinion, and obviously mine is only one of many, I believe she is most commonly known as Marian Dawkins, followed by Marian Stamp Dawkins. I offer no evidence to substantiate this - it is simply my opinion - having worked in animal welfare for 25 years.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal welfare[edit]

I placed the controversy about animal consciousness in a new section on animal welfare. The aim is to place this more in the context of her work and a biography of a living person. I have added a couple more scientific references to place this on firmer grounds. One other point, Beckoff's overall view of the book is closer to neutral than has been suggested. Below is a quote from the Psychology Today blog article he wrote:

"So, do I recommend this book? Well, yes and no. Surely, to be fair to the people whom she takes to task, it's essential for students and others to know more about existing data and alternative views that are indeed based on solid science. When I put Dawkins' combative style aside I can see her skepticism helping to keep the discussion going for a while, but it shouldn't be at the expense of my and other's professional reputations (including renowned scientists Donald Griffin, Michel Cabanac, Jaak Panksepp, and Joseph LeDoux; however, she is a fan of Temple Grandin) and/or by offering misleading views on our attitudes toward science, and surely not by ignoring solid research."[3]

I am One of Many (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is because he is nice and professional, separating personal issues and academic work.
In contrast, Dawkins attack people she does not agree or threatening her status like warrior. DrChrissy share the same behaviour pattern. Your text just added weight to my argument. We should not let some tyrant like characters manipulate the POV of wikipedia. (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You say in your section that "Central to her view on animal welfare is skepticism about animal consciousness... ". That may imply she doubts that many animals are conscious. I don't think she has indicated that anywhere. Listening to the recent talk she gave here I think it is more accurate to say that she thinks the hard problem of consciousness has not yet been resolved scientifically, and in that sense it is not possible to say scientifically that animals are conscious. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'll see if I can incorporate her view more accurately. I am One of Many (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You lack of common sense. Academics change their views from time to time, that is called research! Have you done any quality research at all? Views in a recent talk does not equal to her view in the book. She may force to change the view because so many peers/people criticised her. You must separate the view of the video and the book. (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If you read the sources cited in the article, you will find that that is her view. In addition, I strongly suggest that you carefully read WP:CIVIL. First, the way you talk to people is eventually going to get you blocked. Second, and more importantly, showing respect for others helps to facilitate cooperation and you might actually find Wikipedia to be a pleasant experience overall. I am One of Many (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
1)The paragraph was most directed to Epipelagic who mention the video, but you agreed with him so I appended after you.
2)I was very nice initially when deal with propagandist like DrChrissy. They taught me, by their lies and defamation, what is proper way to deal with them. What comes around goes around. See animal welfare editing history and talk page for more information.
3)There are many nice/fair editors on Wikipedia. But they don't express their views much. Thanks for you input on this matter124.168.28.54 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of Bekoff's criticism[edit]

the actual criticism was removed, why?. (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors are unlikely to take the time to read an external website, then work out what you are talking about, then consider why such material might be added, then provide an explanation as to why something was removed. That is doubly so given the stridency of comments made earlier on this page (someone has a COI, someone is lying, something is censorship). Please take a couple of days off to give everyone a break, then start from the beginning while assuming we are all here to help the encyclopedia. The WP:HELPDESK can provide how-to advice, and you might find someone there willing to comment on the general approach to adding "criticism" to WP:BLPs. However, what I said earlier applies, and while this may seem unusual to you, it is an everyday occurrence on Wikipedia because there is always someone wanting to add negative opinions to an article. Does Beckoff have an article here? That would be a good place for his opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
this sentence was removed by 'I am one of many': "Evolutionary biologist, Marc Bekoff, vigorously criticised Dawkins for denying a large body of scientific data.[3]" The edits watered down Bekoff's critisim. (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In the same source, Bekoff also criticised MD for other unprofessional academic conducts such as personal attack and misinterpretation of his opinions. (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Article talk pages are for discussion of article content. See WP:AN permalink Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See how much propaganda she added into the article. I already notice a original research she added to promote MD "These techniques are now used widely in animal welfare science." The citation is from MD's own work from 1985. No, an 1985 publication from the subject cannot provide information of the current recognition. It has to come from recent publication of other authors. (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy did a very nice job cleaning up this article. Please take sometime and read all of the links that have been provided to you about Wikipedia policy. It is clear that you do not understand the concepts of neutrality, conflict of interest, and ownership on Wikipedia. Also, consider this a warning that your behavior at this article talk page is WP:INCIVIL and that you are behaving disruptively. Please take some time to read and consider how Wikipedia works and then participate. I'm more than willing (as are others) to give you advice and help, you need to cooperate with us by learning policy and treat others with respect. I am One of Many (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I want to say for now is, your position is obviously biased. I pointed out an original research in her edits, which is used to prompt MD, and you are blind to it. (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed another original research DrChrissy added. She claims MD is known for animal welfare. 1) this piece of information are not supported by references 2)CBE is a political title, not opinion from an academic/peer source. Quality of scientific research are usually based on peer opinions 3)she is know for work in animal behaviour. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

User:AslanEntropy is in the process of report the OWN problem of DrChrissy on animal welfare. Please see talk page of animal welfare (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

AslanEntropy appears to have dropped his/her concern.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Is it not better to add blue links which are relevant rather than red links which although relevant, are not yet created?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to answer without concrete examples. What change are you proposing? --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of a reversion to what the links were before. Seems to me to be better to direct readers to something that is related (but perhaps not exactly what might be expected) rather than directing them into ether obscurity (red links). I'm being guarded in my comments and editing here as you may have seen there has been some fuss on here in the recent past - so your input is very welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't let the recent nonsense with the IP hopper intimidate you – just change the links to what you think is right. It's true blocking admins are allowed to leap forward and block you if you revert something, but if we roll over and give up in the face of such lunacy then Wikipedia is finished. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit (not the IP) changed Marian Dawkins#Awards from the first of the following to the second.
The two blue links in question are a little dubious and I can understand an effort to "improve" them, but I have to agree that it would be better to have the working blue links. While not ideal targets, it's hardly a case of WP:EGG, and I think it would be an improvement if the changes were reversed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:REDLINKS go to articles not yet created. I think that with sufficient sourcing Niko Tinbergen Prize is probably notable and deserves an article. Similar situation for the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. The option is either to have these blanked (no links at all), or redlinked. The option of adding misleading blue-links to subjects that are at best merely tangentially related, is just not how Wikipedia internal links work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
As usual the best response to underwear-knotting regarding redlinks is to create appropriate content. Well it turns out that the Tinbergen thing is a bit of a cross between the Tinbergen Lecture and ASAB Medal - she's been awarded both. Anyone want to do Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)