Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New Controversy Section: Repeated Comments on Pedophilia and Rape

Issue

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

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

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

The proposed Controversy section would read:

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Edit

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

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

The controversies referenced are very select and as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Richard Dawkins actually a humanist?

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

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

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

Controversy section revisted

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

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

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

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

Certainly @Anupmehra:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Abruptly opens door] Sorry to interrupt, guys, but I think that, regardless of how it is structured, the controversial things Dawkins has said (not just tweeted) and the reaction thereby provoked do deserve inclusion. For instance, Dawkins' statement that "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see." [4] provoked a great deal of controversy. [5] [6] [7] Perhaps this should be worked into the "advocacy of atheism" section, since the reason he made the remark in the first place was to show that groups of religious people can gain influence, so atheists should be able to too. Jinkinson talk to me 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hilo48, I understand it may be difficult to understand how an article can be neutral whilst including criticism of its subject. In fact, I would assert that it is one of the most common misunderstandings of the NPOV policy. An article may include fair, measured and balanced criticism of the subject where said criticism adds to the holistic quality and depth of the article. Failing to balance successes with criticisms/controversies tends to unreasonably pedestal the subject – such is ultra vires to the mission of Wikipedia. How can it be done? Very carefully. Might I suggest you use the search feature to search for the text “Controversies”. You will find numerous articles and BLPs that successfully include such sections without NPOV concerns. An exemplar of this being done would be the Enid Blyton article (rated as FA) which includes a section titled “Critical backlash”. This should be demonstrative of what is possible. Though I must admit I am finding your obsession with “Dawkins haters” to be unhelpful to the development of the article. Just because people may not agree with Dawkins or may otherwise find some of his remarks notably controversial – does not mean they are simply “Dawkins haters” who’s views should be disregarded. Such an assertion breaches WP:AGF. I hope that any further comments on this talk page are made with an open mind. Finally, I reject the notion that adding a controversies section would “provide a stage for Dawkins haters to play” – As the addition of such a section (and the content thereof) would still be subject to consensus and flagged revs.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External Links

There are two External Links in the Selected Writings section that do not work: Viruses of the Mind (1993) – Religion as a mental virus. The Emptiness of Theology at RDFRS.(1998) – A critical view of theology.

Currently, this article has 23 external links. Wikipedia likes one external link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links

Surely links to newspapers such as The Guardian and The New York Times are unnecessary? The same is also true of the Huffington Post articles. A link to the IMDB movie database is of little worth. Really, I venture that there are far too many external links and that the present number is against WP guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Please can we start to trim the present number of links? Little is gained by having so many- there are internet search engines. I can't see that this makes for a concise and unbiased article. Some very worthy articles have no external links- why should this be any different? Richard Nowell (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed two dead links and link to IMDB. The 'Selected Writings' set of links seems removable- who selected them and why?Richard Nowell (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed one link to 'main website'; there is already one in the infobox so no need to duplicate. Removed another one which linked to the 'Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science'; this is already a wikilink within this article to the RDFRS article, which has it own set of external links (two of them). This leaves 18 external links. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed audio link and Huffington Post articles link. Added external links box.Richard Nowell (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff, but the EL box should be removed. Not all topics are equal, and the number of external links for an article like this may well exceed the norm. It's fine if someone wants to examine a particular link and remove it per WP:EL, but a tag is not necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed EL box as requested. "Not all topics are equal"... hmmm. This article still has 17 ELs and I suggest could function as well if just the external video links remained. Do you agree? Some editors would just have deleted the whole section! Richard Nowell (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins is an important and much talked-about topic, so there may be good reason that this article has many external links. However, what's needed is to examine the links:

General

1. Works by or about Richard Dawkins/Archive 22 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
2. Richard Dawkins/Archive 22 collected news and commentary at The Guardian
3. Richard Dawkins/Archive 22 collected news and commentary at The New York Times
4. Collection of Richard Dawkins Quotes

Video

5. National Geographic Interviews – A series of video interviews with National Geographic Channel with Richard Dawkins on Darwin, Evolution and God.
6. Appearances on C-SPAN
7. {{Charlie Rose view|840}}
8. Richard Dawkins/Archive 22 at TED
9. Video interview with Riz Khan for Al Jazeera English
10. Video interview at Big Think
11. An Appetite for Wonder: Richard Dawkins in Conversation at the Royal Institution

Selected writings

12. The Real Romance in the Stars (1995) – A critical view of astrology.
13. Snake Oil and Holy Water (1999) – suggests that there is no convergence occurring between science and theism.
14. What Use is Religion? (2004) – suggests that religion may have no survival value other than to itself.
15. Race and Creation (2004) – On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved.
16. The giant tortoise's tale, The turtle's tale and The lava lizard's tale (2005) – A series of three articles written after a visit to the Galápagos Islands.

General: I'm ambivalent about #1. If Dawkins were a less important figure I would favor removing #1, but if someone wants to keep it, that's fine. I do not see any value in #2, #3, #4—per WP:EL a link should be to something specifically helpful about the subject, not an aggregation.

Video: These are a problem as they do not really give information about the subject, although it could be argued that for Dawkins what counts is his ideas, not his height or the circumstances of his birth. Perhaps #5 is valuable? {{Charlie Rose}} displays nothing; remove #7. Undecided about #6 and #8. I would normally avoid youtube, but #9 is a keep. #10 might be dubious. If I were patient enough to view #11 it might also be a keep.

Selected writings: These are also a problem. Removing #13, #14, #15 would be fine by me. I suspect that #12 and #16 are worthwhile using an WP:IAR interpretation of WP:EL because if I were to read all of them there would be interesting information there, but it's not really the purpose of an EL section. I'm ambivalent. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

These are good suggestions and I think that the article will loose very little if the ELs are reduced somewhat. There is no shortage of information on RD in this article and, more generally, the web. So I venture that it is best that the article conforms to WP's likes, otherwise it might appear to be taking advantage. President Barack Obama has 10 ELs in his WP article if that is any sort of guide... Richard Nowell (talk) 16:39,29 September 2014 (UTC)

Have removed approx 10 ELs using above as guideline, and we are now left with 8, which seems OK. Certainly an improvement on the original 23 ELs.Richard Nowell (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Elevatorgate/Dear Muslima

1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement#hzt45n
2. http://www.thenation.com/article/181736/atheists-show-their-sexist-side
3. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name
4. http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/
5. http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/skepchick-banned-dragon-con-indiegogo/

Of all the controversies surrounding Mr. Dawkins, the Dear Muslima debate appears to be one of the most significant. Why don't we dicuss proposed wording for a short paragraph on the controversy for this article? Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have invited WikiProject Feminism to participate. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please have read of the POV tag thread above to get an idea of why this won't be included. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that it isn't possible to word the proposed paragraph in a neutral fashion. If we work together, there is no reason at all the addition to this article on this issue can't be phrased in neutral prose. Anyone else have a proposed wording before I weigh in with my suggestion? Cla68 (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't express that opinion, so I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with. This kind of content is simply undue. It's just not an important part of why Dawkins has an article here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sourcing above, I don't agree that this is a minor dispute. Other opinions are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a paragraph in a neutral fashion, please do so and make your case for why it is appropriate. Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

While the tweet cited in the first sentence is a valid source for Dawkins' self-identification as English, is it a valid basis for Wikipedia stating in its own language that Dawkins is English? His birth in Kenya during the British colonial period does make him a British (not English) citizen. His self-identification as English doesn't seem to belong in the lede. If he is to be considered English, it can be based on his residence in England. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RD lives in Oxford (Guardian 2013). Perhaps the 'English' word and ref could be transferred to the section 'Background', and then made to read something like: "Richard Dawkins self-identifies with being English and lives in England, although having been born in Kenya he is officially a British Overseas Citizen." using the Twitter and Guardian refs?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/15/richard-dawkins-interview-appetite-wonder Richard Nowell (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

He should only be identified as a current British overseas citizen if he hasn't registered or naturalized. As the article states, British overseas citizenship is peculiar. He has resided in England for a long time, and is probably now a British citizen. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

He is clearly a British citizen because he was born of British parents when Kenya was a British colony. His status is not complicated or peculiar. His father was serving in Kenya. Richard was born there. His parents took him back home. No problem. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bduke is correct. British women living in the neighbouring protectorate of Tanganika, now Tanzania, would go to Nairobi to give birth so that the child would have full British citizenship.Charles (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Edited article, removing 'English' from first sentence, then added a sentence to the section 'Background': "Dawkins self-identifies as being English and currently lives in Oxford, England, but having been born in Kenya, he is a British citizen."Richard Nowell (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-identification is usually taken into account on Wikipedia. Describing himself as English is hardly some whim - nor is it controversial in the slightest. His birth in Kenya is moot. The removal makes little sense to me...--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More work

More work is needed on the careers of Dawkins and A.C.Grayling. Both were born in Africa. Both are noted atheists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.163.5 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article

I would like to add this article in the link attached https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/ with the sentence Dawkins caused controversy with remarks he made about abortion of down syndrome children?--Smokeyfire (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

It has already been discussed. The answer is no. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not regardless of if it has been discussed in the past? --Smokeyfire (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Please search this talk page and possibly the archives to see what the previous discussion involved. If you have a new suggestion that overcomes issues discussed in the past, please explain. You might like to look at WP:TP to see how indenting works. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

Reads more like a fan page and any controversial comments made by Dawkins which are added to the article are deleted. Therefore, the article is POV.Boone jenner (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed tag until you list what comments you want added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been a lot of news items about Dawkins comments on Down Syndrome fetuses and what parent should do (abort them). I think we need a "criticisms of" section for Dawkins which could eventually become a full fledged article. There were also his comments about pedophilia which are notable because of the attention they received in numerous newspapers and media outlets. I would say we should at least acknowledge these controversial comments. Otherwise this is just a vanity article. I'm re-adding the POV tag. People have attempted to add these comments and have been struck down. I suspect it's because a lot of Wikipedians are also fans of Dawkins and don't want to see his name disparaged. That's definitely POV.Boone jenner (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the archives of this page, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking "ah Dawkins has said another controversial thing, let's go to see wikipedia and see some of the others" and lo and behold, there is none. Most times he has made the news in the last few years it's because of something controversial he has said that the press has picked up on. I have read the above but still feel the article is missing out a great deal of the publicly-revealed character of the man. It seems odd to have a "awards & recognitions" section (containing purely positive words) without a corresponding negative section. Going by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies perhaps the section could be renamed "reception" and include both positive and negative interactions he has had with the public. I still don't understand what is so bad about having a controversy section when he has been involved in so many of them though. See Frankie Boyle's page for example, or Gene Simmons (the first two other peopel I could think of who have been involved in controversies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.34.132 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a wealth of difference between something that is controversial, and something that a tabloid newspaper source has reported as being controversial. WP, however, must remain neutral. As such, we decide if a 'criticism' is noteworthy or if it is not. Until such a time as Dawkins does something that we can unanimously determine as noteworthy, there is no requirement for a criticism section.Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC

Use of term "tabloid" by yourself and others is POV/incorrect, avoids the issue and is an ad hominem attack. Please be more constructive. You basically ignored almost everything I said. If you want more evidence of its controversialness/noteworthyness, how about the fact he has today issued an apology of sorts? [[8]] 86.20.34.132 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The POV tag definitely belongs if his comments on Down Syndrome are left out. I challenge anybody to find a British news outlet that hasn't reported it. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. I have no idea what he said. How about you report it here, with sourcing? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the onus is on yourself to provide citations, not to 'challenge' others to do so. Also, as a Brit, you may need to be aware that you might have difficulty finding tabloid sources that are considered reputable. Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently The Independent is a "tabloid" now. You can just smell the POV coming through on these comments by people who don't want any kind of 'controversies' section added. They're probably fanboys of Dawkins. For the record there are About 1,780 results on Google News for "Richard Dawkins down syndrome". I guess those are all "tabloids" too and untrustworthy? I would say 1780 news articles is definitely noteworthy. [9] Boone jenner (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please attempt to retain and remember WP standards of civility as discussed at Wikipedia:Civility.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Justin, perhaps it would have been better to post this reminder on the user's talk page rather than here as it bears no relevance to the article in question. I would also note that asserting that the user wasn't even attempting to be civil is a violation of WP:AGF.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We should probably have an article on Social and political views of Richard Dawkins, given that he is such an opinionated figure. See this article for an example of what such an article would look like. Any criticism Dawkins has received over some of his opinions (such as on pedophilia, abortion, etc.) could go into that article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html

The Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html

Sky News - http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659

2.102.185.204 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I support he needs criticism sections for his bigot comments.--Yacatisma (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Right! Criticism sections are inferior to the practice of folding criticism into the biography as appropriate, either thematically or chronologically. And in any case we do not need a POV tag to uglify the article when the worst that can be said about the article is that it needs more text. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite being a strident atheist, a proud homosexual and a regular reader of Richard Dawkins published works; I cannot help but agree that there are many things that Richard Dawkins asserts which are notably controversial. Recent comments such are those made on the topics of Down Syndrome (suggesting it’s immoral not to abort) and Muslims (suggesting the last time they did any good was during the middle ages) ARE controversial and abrasive. It would be ignorant to suggest otherwise. The coverage in the media (a small fraction of which is already linked above) combined with Richard Dawkins’ published apologies (which in themselves suggest that he offended a significant number of people) should provide sufficient grounds for inclusion. A quick peruse on Google News reveals that Richard Dawkins has a track record of making controversial and or offensive assertions on his Twitter account – which is one of his primary methods of publishing (aside from his books and public speaking). I genuinely believe it would be a violation of NPOV not to include some mention of these more controversial assertions – as they part of who Richard Dawkins is. He is in the business of being controversial – and quite frankly all the more power to him. But, you cannot have a balanced article whilst completely ignoring his abrasive assertions in preference for the more palatable ones.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So write an article about the topic: Comments on the Internet that other people have found to be offensive. In a biography about the life and work of Dawkins, the fact that something he said about Downs Syndrome caused a passing storm has very little significance. An article at Wikipedia is not available as a coatrack where the views of very minor critics can be amplified—if someone has done significant work on rebutting claims made by Dawkins, put it in an article on the person making the rebuttal. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that statement tops the list for fanboy defence. Any public figure that receives significant controversy and criticism over a statement is going to get a mention of it in their article. It occurs on thousands of biographies on Wikipedia and you're arguing that Dawkins should be the exception. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is this: what text would go in the article, and where? Would you seriously suggest saying that a bunch of twitter followers were upset with a tweet? Has anything happened as a result of the "controversy"? Has any notable peson (that is, someone with an article at Wikipedia) made a direct criticism of Dawkins regarding this incident? Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources show there has been a response beyond Twitter followers. Also, that's not even a requirement. I see articles all the time that just mention statement X caused controversy. From what I've seen that's actually the norm and only sometimes will a criticism of the statement be noted. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are often poorly enforced. When several editors are in dispute, the rules come under the magnifying glass. What we must do here is use WP:SECONDARY sources to make certain that a Dawkins statement is important to his life and career. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some editors here tell me that Dawkins is often in the news for his controversial statements. Well, maybe he is in the UK, but not where I live. He is globally known for his academic work and his books. Local tabloid dramas obviously remain that, local. For a global article on an academic writer, those events are trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It may help to define the use of the term "controversial" here. This would help to ensure that anything discussed is genuinely a cause of controversy, and not "something that someone said that others disagree with". That is the bedrock of establishing the basis of whether something can be considered to be controversial or not. So perhaps people who are arguing in favour of the inclusion of this could define it for us? Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Local tabloid dramas" - It isn't very local when a previous vice-presidential candidate of another country personally lambasts you for your remarks. I would also suggest that it isn't "local tabloid dramas" when the source of controversy was a written statement issued to in excess of a million people around the globe.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help laughing out loud when I saw that you had linked to some concerns from that failed vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. I agree she is not a local tabloid drama. She is, sadly, a global one. Given her incredibly bigoted starting point, her views on Dawkins cannot be taken seriously for this article. That you think her views count for anything here says a lot more about you than it does about Dawkins. I suspect she disagrees on principle with almost everything he has ever written or said. But who cares? Seriously. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That was good for a chuckle. A politician's blather, pandering to her/his base constituency is less reliable or notable than tabloid dramatics. Both are designed to sell a product and reality is irrelevant. Vsmith (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

At no point have I personally discussed or endorsed the views of Sarah Palin. I have merely cited the existence of her comment on the matter to disprove your scientific claim that the controversy surrounding Dawkins’ latest remarks was merely “local tabloid drama”. Hence, I would very much appreciate it if you refrained for making crass assessments of me as an individual, implied or otherwise. To further disprove your claim I will simply note that I am an Australian citizen. Contrary to your apparent belief, I do not subscribe to UK tabloids or tabloids more broadly speaking. Moving on however, someone recently asked how these “controversies” are relevant to the life of Richard Dawkins and/or his career. The answer is quite simple. Dawkins has invested significant amounts of his life advocating various notions to the public. He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this. Making broad sweeping remarks such to the effect of “You’re morally incorrect if you don’t terminate Downs syndrome foetuses” and “The last time Muslims did great things was during the middle ages” will naturally offend the very public you are trying to educate as evident by responses to his Twitter account. When you make a habit of offending people it somewhat undermines your ability to advocate scientific fields as it more or less makes people stop listening to you. How many people exactly? I couldn’t say for sure. However, it’s worth noting that Muslims only make up about 23% of the world’s population. That is the relevance to the article and his career – the impact these types of poorly explained remarks have on his ability to advocate to the common person.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You got it right when you said "He is seen as a leading speaker on the topics of atheism, evolution and other scientific theories. His role as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is evidence of this." That's why we have an article on him. What else the media wants to make a fuss about has little to do with that. It doesn't change his status as a scientist, nor the truth of what he writes on those matters, and again, that's the bit about him that justifies an article. The rest is trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. I've already explained how it is relevant and you seem to have completely ignored the undeniable. I will be restoring the POV tag in the near future if consensus cannot be reached. I will do so on the grounds that enough editors have commented regarding the POV (Both here and in the archives) that it would be intellectual dishonesty to assert that the POV of this article is not currently disputed.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we still talking about a POV tag? I thought we had settled that matter as "no tag", and moved on to talking about what kinds of new text could or should be added about Dawkins' tweets, supported by what kinds of sources. Mostly, I see a measured hesitance here to add recent media controversies, since these will seem less and less worthy over time. Instead, I see a number of editors here concerned more with the long view, pausing to make certain that a media controversy is actually significant. Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. There is nothing new in the complaints about Dawkins. And certainly nothing of long term notability. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet has hit the nail on the head in some regards. This discussion should not be about whether or not the remarks were controversial, as it is more than apparent that they were. Those who are attempting to argue against that assertion are fighting a loser’s argument – seeing HiLo attempt to do so is mildly amusing. Even I will agree that there remains some room for discussion over whether or not the “twitter controversy” trend has continued long enough to warrant inclusion. I’m not fully convinced, though I do err on the side of inclusion out of an interest of maintaining a balanced article that grants appropriate weighting to recent events. I would also note that the assertions regarding Downs syndrome and Muslims are but a selection of his controversial remarks. Let not forget his choice words regarding the Jewish lobby in America – such were made a considerable time ago but caused him to be criticised at the time as well. But that in itself proves that this isn’t a “two controversial comments in one month but never again” sort of deal – rather it is systematic to the person. Finally, it is worth reminding everyone that any inclusion regarding the above need not be negative. That is, just because you say controversial things doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong – it just reflects that some people react to what you say rather strongly (either in support or rebuttal). This in itself raises a thought; perhaps controversial is the wrong word to describe what many see as a negative of Richard Dawkins. Perhaps “Polarising” is the better word.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I suggested some couple of days ago that we define the use of the term "controversial". Doing so will help give a correctly justifiable scale of which to work with. That is the best way to ensure that anything that actually IS noteworthy is noted, and anything that is simply internet drama is NOT.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To judge the real notability of this stuff, see WP:10YT. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to take essays with a grain mountain of salt as they are usually written with a particular point-of-view in mind. However, in regards to the ten-year test: I do believe that Dawkins' rabble-rousing and the impact it has on his ability to act as a public advocate for the fields of which he has dedicated his life to, will be relevant in ten years time.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've just declined a pending revision by an anon IP, who had added the POV tag -- as I don't believe there is consensus here for such an edit. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added the tag (assuming an editor approves the revision) as there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. To remove it, there needs to be a consensus for removing it, not a lack of consensus to add it. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

...And I've removed the tag once again. First: the only issues that have been raised here are easily enough satisfied by composing additional text. There is no existing text that has been identified as a problem. Second: several editors here seem to be intent on pinning a badge of shame on the biography simply because they do not like Dawkins. Wikipedia does not work like that; a well-founded and well-written article cannot be smeared indefinitely by a POV tag placed by ideological opponents. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@2.102.185.204: please have a look at the policy regarding wp:NOCONSENSUS: "... a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case the bold edit was the addition of the tag, not its removal. You need to establish a new consensus for its addition.- DVdm (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are easily satisfied by composing additional text. I've noted 7 reliable sources (and there are dozens more) reporting his opinion on down syndrome and abortion, as well as the controversy it caused. As the above shows however, there are several fanboys who don't want to add any text that reports criticism of his statements/opinions. The whole article is a problem due to neutrality issues, hence the POV tag.

POV tags don't work like that. They are added when there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. They are not added just when there is a consensus for them to be added. For them to be removed the dispute over the article's neutrality needs to be resolved or a consensus to remove the tag must take place.

There is currently a big chunk of Dawkin's biography missing. Instead of a reception section with praise and criticism of his work/opinions, we have an awards section. Until the neutrality issues are resolved, the POV tag shouldn't be removed - hell, it says that on the bloody tag itself. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:POV also says not to use the tag as a badge of shame, that it should not be used to warn readers about an article that you think is non-neutral. Your contributions here do not include any attempt to compose text for that "big chunk" of supposedly missing biography; instead you've argued for the presence of the tag. I would like to assume good faith, and you can help me by suggesting some text here on the talk page, or boldly adding text to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I've argued that his comments on down syndrome should be added and I've provided sources. Since that's been stonewalled I added the POV tag. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"POV tags don't work like that"? Everything here works like that. Without consensus you—de facto—don't get the tag. - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope nope nope. If that were true POV tags would never be added, as why would a dispute over content produce a consensus for adding a POV tag? As the people opposing the revision obviously feel the POV of the article is fine and would oppose the POV tag. The POV tag is added when there is a dispute over the neutrality of the article, full stop. It doesn't require consensus to add, as that would never be achieved and it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved (which several people here don't understand, despite it saying that in the tag). Unless this discussion produces a consensus that there is not a POV issue, then the tag belongs until the POV issue is resolved. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate that this is an article rated "Good" and a POV tag doesn't look nice for the readers. However, a multitude of sources have been provided, notability has been established, statements have been quoted and reactions have been noted. Despite this there are a few people who oppose inclusion and as such there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Establish consensus, which you have not done, and then we can talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point, IP. There is little encyclopediac value recording negative (or positive) reactions to Dawkin's views from members of the general public. These non-notable views may be useful for the press to use as pot stirrers if they have run out of real news, but they have no enduring or other value for an encyclopedia. As a parallel, consider a controversial figure with a similar profile from the past. Suppose the Wikipedia article on Bertrand Russell was padded in the way you want to pad this article, with contemporary accounts of how Deidre of the Paddington Croquet Club and Alf of the Tottingham Strong Ale Pub were upset and did not approve of this or that view as expressed by Russell. I doubt you would find those interesting additions, and the situation is the same here. If there are wider consequences and the people who disapprove (or approve) of Dawkin's views end up burning down Parliament and disembowelling their opponents, then you could try here again with a much improved chance of success. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want the standards of Wikipedia to be applied fairly and evenly. The standard is that when a public figure says something that has caused controversy, beyond "members of the general public" or Twitter followers (as Richard Dawkins has done now and multiple times before), and is covered by a mountain of reliable sources, then it gets one or two sentences in their - in this case, massive (over 5000 words) - article. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on Dawkins because of his work and writing in the area of evolutionary biology. He has no particular expertise in other areas, and doesn't claim it. That the tabloid media reports his pronouncements in other areas says a lot about that tabloid media, and the fact that they know they have a ready-made audience of bigoted Dawkins haters they can feed. It says almost nothing about Dawkins. It doesn't belong in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Information in biographies isn't restricted to the person's profession or interests. I don't think you have to be a bigot to dislike Dawkins. Here's some non-tabloid sources (which I already posted above) -

The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html

The Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html

Sky News - http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659

Note that this is just the immediate reaction and that most/all of these outlets have posted follow-up articles in the days since. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All those sources really reinforce my point. See where they're from? Dawkins is known globally for his scientific work and writing. Media in the UK, with its need to fill column inches and air time 24 hours a day, seems to report anything he says that will help gain an audience for them. (Maybe it helps sell his books too. And that helps the publishers, who are often connected with the media...) As someone resident elsewhere, I can assure you that, unlike his scientific work, such trivia rarely reaches our shores. It's not necessary in Wikipedia either. We don't have to fill column inches and airtime every day. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If the requisite for inclusion in this article is that it gets reported by every media outlet in the English-speaking world and that only being reported by every single media outlet in the United Kingdom is not notable enough, then about half the article needs to be cut. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I did forget his role as a very public atheist which, of course, overlaps with his stance against creationism. That is part of his global image. Otherwise, anything else his enemies want in the article is way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography. There is no "off-topic" if it involves the person's life. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

May I rephrase that for you? As a figure who has openly been critical of creationist causes and religious backlash to his study of his study of evolution and biology, as well as a public advocate of humanist causes, Dawkins has something of a plentiful audience of people who would applaud anything that is critical of him. The media is aware of this, and may choose to give stories relating to him undue weight. As wikipedia, we should strive be above that, and not to give undue weight in our articles. Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rephrasing! Due to his well known opposition to religion and promotion of atheism, two traits that make most young men of the western world swoon, he has many fanboys on Wikipedia (which is overwhelmingly made up of young men) and as such, despite his comments being reported in every news outlet in his home country and the wide reaction to his comments, there are people who judge that the positive or neutral about Dawkins only require a single reliable source but when it's negative, it must be all over the entire English-speaking world. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed this for years, and the idea of a 'criticism section about things I don't like about Dawkins' never goes anywhere. We really ought to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for a criticism section. I'm asking for a short sentence in this 5000 word biography that notes his comments on down syndrome and abortion. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So propose it? What sentence would you like included, and where? Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It could go in "Other fields" where his opinion on various topics are noted. I might propose the specific wording in an RfC. Am I correct in thinking that an RfC is the only way forward? 2.102.186.164 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Another option is that you could stop wasting your time and ours. I do have fun in these discussions with Dawkins haters, but really, it won't lead to the change you want in the article. Calling those who disagree with you fanboys is not a mature thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not you and a bunch of people versus me. It's several people advocating inclusion and several advocating exclusion. You're right, I apologise. "bigoted Dawkins haters" is much more mature. You're wrong about me by the way. I'm on the same front as Promethean, in that although I like Dawkins and the debates/arguments he has against religion, I don't let that change my editing. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of forum-like exchange of opinion is going on here when what is needed is engagement with my comment at 02:08, 27 August 2014 above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Dawkins himself? Clearly a very intelligent articulate & thoughtful man (with whom I do not agree) You do him a disservice arguing over these "angels on the head of a pin". He's controversial - the article should say it - it's simple. This discussion and the article is depressing - no dissent allowed - no room for a different opinion - the rise of the new fascism. The human race should beware. This is about as POV as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.223.88 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Omninational

Philosophically stateless people are called anationals. Positive philosophic anationals are called omninationals, because "a" has a negative meaning (atheist, anational, anarchist words including the negative "a") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.219.128 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Probabilisticism

In philosophy, probabilisticism is the ontological thesis that "statistically, many things are probabilistic" (even the thesis is probabilistic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.219.128 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Political views of Richard Dawkins

• Political views of Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People watching this page may like to check the above new article which in all likelihood will be used to coatrack gotcha commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Dawkins a scientist or a science journalist?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Any thoughts about this edit at Fashionable Nonsense? Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins is a scientist, that IP is dead wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think the Zoology Dept at Oxford hires science journalists, for example...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how the IP would explain away the 946 entries here? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New here, so please accept my apologies in advance and correct me if I do something different from expected. I'm the one who edited the paragraph mentioning Richard Dawkins at Fashionable Nonsense. The reason is simple: For somebody being called a "scientist" he or she needs to do science. Richard Dawkins career is built upon comments about science not on research. Being a physician and a scientist who actually do research I believe the term scientist should be reserved for people who invest their lives doing real science. Epipelagic, please review at least 10 percent of the entries in google scholar and tell us how many of them are research papers. I have reviewed Dawkins' papers on PubMed and could find only one research paper dating from the 60s, and not a very impressive one to say the less. A bigger problem arises when a person is being acclaimed as an expert in an area and really do not know his own area of expertise well. Many of his claims about evolutionary biology are wrong; his perspective about genetics is also wrong; and the misuse he does to terms like "evidence based" and "scientifically supported" is being spread around the world. So I don't care if anti-theist movements and "militants" see in Dawkins a kind of hero. That's their problem, even though their animosity and violence is dangerous and can have terrible consequences in several societies. But science should be defended. No one should be allowed of kidnapping science in favour of a political perspective, even less if that person is not a real scientist. I wouldn't even add him as a source for this article considering the review he did of the book. However anyone can use the references they want no matter how good or bad they are. Saying "Several scientists..." and then putting Dawkins as THE example is simply misleading. Prdm12 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs. In other words, you are welcome to your opinion of Dawkins, but Wikipedia is not available for its expression—you would need reliable secondary sources to change whether articles refer to Dawkins as a scientist. Someone wanting to say that Dawkins is the greatest person alive would get the response. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prdm12: If you can't discriminate which are research papers in the list I gave then perhaps this will assist you. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:That's the point. It's not "my" opinion. It's something you can reproduce yourself (or anyone else) by doing some research. Wikipedia, as somebody noted earlier in this page, is not a fan page. The way I see Wikipedia is precisely as a source of accurate information free for anyone with an internet connection. And putting Dawkins as THE example of scientists doesn't help to the accuracy of any article here. Read the comments by his colleagues at Oxford if you think my credentials are not good enough, even when they are. Even more, calling Dawkins an "Eloquent science journalist" is a phrase quoted from Dr. Wilson and Dr. Noble have done an extensive and polite analysis of Dawkins' book the selfish gene. From my perspective, the easiest things to do are: to remove Dawkins from the article and put a real scientist on the scene; to remove it from the paragraph "Several scientists..."; to remove the phrase "Several scientists..." which is nonspecific and really says nothing. That will save us time for discussing other more interesting aspects of the book. I hope your beliefs and desires do not obscure your reason. Take care Prdm12 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic:Don't know what do you mean Epipelagic. Did you double-check that bibliography? I did. One research paper among themPrdm12 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And what paper do you think that might that be? It is one thing to be a bystander while scientists of the calibre of Wilson and Dawkins squabble because they have hurt each others feelings. It is entirely another matter to think you are personally entitled to use their squabble for your own ulterior purposes. I doubt whether Wilson would come to your defence any more than Dawkins would. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Maybe you need clarification about what a research paper is. If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to explain it to you. I ask because I don't try to be disrespectful to you. On the other hand, when you put Dawkins at a so impressive level, I can recognize you are not seeing the "evidence" but are being guided by your emotions, which is totally understandable but undesirable. Let's see an example: When you talk about Gandhi you don't say "several lawyers..." and then put Gandhi among them. Yes, he went to the law school, but he failed at establishing a law practice. Same here. Dawkins has spent his life as a journalist and communicator of science. That's his merit (even when his concepts are wrong). One is what one does, and Dawkins doesn't do science, ergo he is not a scientist.Prdm12 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you're not here to talk sense but just to stir... I'll leave you to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. If a sufficient number of reliable sources say that he's a scientist, then Wikipedia says that he's a scientist. Period. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:Oh well, you maybe don't have to read Dr. Wilson's book. The quote is here:Prdm12 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

@Johnuniq:BBC interview to Dr. Wilson . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBk2FdCWGf4 I leave the reference here again. For some reason it didn't add to the references section) IMO this is enough evidence to support the edition I did. If Dr. Wilson's interview is not a reliable source, I can't think which could be. All I can say is Wikipedia has a responsibility with the public and with the forthcoming generations. Becoming a hardcore scientist implies years and even decades of hard work. Anybody can come with an idea but the work of a scientist is to demonstrate it. Take care Prdm12 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Wilson and Dawkins disagree. Their disagreement has got somewhat heated at times and loose words have been said. Your reference is to this - 'he rather waspishly describes Dawkins, a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society and retired Oxford professor, as an “eloquent science journalist”'. Note the "rather waspishly". On its own, against all the many times Dawkins is described as a scientist, this is not a reliable source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bduke: Did you watch the video? Maybe is just me, but I didn't see any waspishness in Dr. Wilson when he said that, nor when he provided the reasons behind that assertion. By using the argument of "how many times" one can find a description about someone or something, one should then agree with all major religions in their claims. That's to say that it is not a good argument or measure of truth/reality how many times something has been said. If all we need to do for being considered as scientists is to write about science or to create hypothesis, then Deleuze can be seen as a great scientist. In fact, Deleuze understood better modern genetics in 1968 than Dawkins up to date. Fashionable nonsense complains about philosophers abuse of scientific jargon, but I can't imagine a person who has abused more the scientific language than Dawkins. Science is an activity that requires experimentation. Considering that nowadays everything is called "science" is worthy to highlight that biology is an empirical science and therefore experimentation is a must. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an activist, and if you want a politician, none of which is a derogatory term. On the contrary, those are valuable activities. Will you call a person "journalist" if he or she doesn't write or is not part of a team that communicates something? Calling a person who doesn't do science a scientist is disrespectful with the scientific community. While politics have a major influence in the academia and in academic research, I would expect a site like Wikipedia to be totally independent. Prdm12 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Dawkins is something of a journalist, although science populariser is a better descriptor as that is what he did as Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. That does not stop him also being a scientist. The idea that Dawkins is not a scientist is total nonsense. The Department of Zoology at Oxford and New College do not appoint non-scientists to the positions he jointly held in the University and New College. Oxford is also one of the top 4 universities in the world by recent rankings. That is my last word as you are unlikely to convince anyone here on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bduke:For your last word my last word. Being hired as a professor doesn't have anything to do with being or not a scientist. For becoming a professor you need two things: a title; connections. That's it and has been like this for a thousand years since the academic system was invented (well maybe less but who cares). Or will you say that a PhD in metaphysics is a scientist? No he/she is not. Philosophers are more humble in this respect as they don't see themselves as philosophers but as a philosophy historians until they really produce something new. Ask around in your academic environment and corroborate that by yourself. I recognize some lab technicians as hardcore scientists even if they don't have a PhD title, because they are scientists. People should earn their stripes, and Dawkins didn't earn his stripes as a scientist. As simple as that. He is popular... yes. He is a nice guy... some friends of mine who know him personally say he is. But he is not and probably will never be a scientist, unless he do some real science. Prdm12 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not convince anybody. "Not a scientist" remains your unfounded opinion and nothing more. People gave you good reasons why he is a scientist, and you responded with conspiracy theories and ad-hoc excuses as justifications for ignoring the reasons. You are "discussing" with people who are used to discussing with creationists. They are able to tell a sound person from a fraud who has nothing to offer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:I don't know if this is a place to take the conversation to the place you are putting it sir. I don't care about theism or anti-theism. I didn't use any kind of conspiracy theories to the best of my knowledge, and certainly my reasons are based upon research not in what others have to say. I've been asked to put a credibly source and I did it. I don't know if you are one of those anti-theist militants and really don't care. But I can tell your use of adjectives is certainly similar to that they use. If so, please educate yourself. I approached this conversation with respect and I expect the same from others. In fact, I was pointed to start this conversation in order to honour wikipedia rules. I have given my arguments but if wikipedia administrators decide they are not good enough for editing the text the way I suggested I'm nobody to contradict that. After all I'm only a guest in their house. But don't get confused sir. Keep your insults for yourself. Prdm12 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. For someone "not a scientist", Dawkins certainly has published a lot and been cited a lot.[10] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz:That's irrelevant. Take a look for example at the results for Matt Ridley, who is a journalist. . Prdm12 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

References

What is irrelevant is continuing this discussion. We operate on WP:CONSENSUS we have one, and it goes against you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck:I'm OK with that. If anyone is curious enough, I'll encourage him/her to take Dawkins papers, one by one, and double-check his literary production. At least that will give you better arguments for defending his status as a scientist or realize why he is not a scientist. Take care. Prdm12 (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Professors get their positions by connections and not by ability" is a conspiracy theory. You created it ad hoc, out of thin air, with no evidence to back it up, just as an excuse for ignoring the "Dawkins was a professor" reasoning. And your conspiracy theory is wrong, as every scientist knows (many editors here are scientists). Your speculations about theism or anti-theism are also pure invention - I did not give you reason for going there, not having mentioned the subject. It seems that you never learned how to argue legitimately, since the main "weapons" you used here are argumentum ad hominem, ad hoc hypothesis, straw man and conspiracy theory.

Regarding the Dawkins papers: With the reasoning ability you exhibit here, I seriously doubt that you are able to tell if a text is a scientific paper or something else. Please go away, this is way over your head. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:In the first place, if you are going to quote me, please do it well. When you do it I'll be happy to respond and clarify if necessary. In second place you said this: "You are "discussing" with people who are used to discussing with creationists. They are able to tell a sound person from a fraud who has nothing to offer". Was that just a comment "to the air"? You started an "ad hominem" discussion. Again, I don't think this is the place for doing that. But no, I'm not a creationist, and no I won't accept you to even suggest I'm a fraud. Keep your militancy away from here. Is totally unnecessary. Prdm12 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. I omitted a bit of context here. Creationists are notorious for the huge amount of invalid reasons they give for their worldview. Creationist reasoning is one giant bluff. In that respect, you resemble them. That means: People who are used to debating creationists will have no problem with you. This is an attack on your discussion methods, not your person. I know nothing about your person (and I do not want to), only about the way you argue, and thus can only comment on the way you argue. And that is what I did. Please come back when (or if) you find a valid reason for your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I respect the rules wikipedia has. They seem to have been working all this years and I won't contradict the consensus. However, by no means that implies that my reasoning is invalid or otherwise incorrect. In fact, my reasoning is the only one here that has considered Dawkins' literary production. In science (I don't know about other areas) we have a system for evaluating the scientific production of each author. Review papers, commentaries, letters to the editor, do not count when this evaluation is performed. Case reports (in clinical research) have to be amazingly good for counting in your literary production and letters/brief reports/posters (in basic research) have to communicate the results of current research to add points to your score, but even then they are not as good as research papers. There are several bias introduced when one count the number of "papers" a scientist has published and also when considering the amount of citations a particular paper has. That's why we use a "normalization" system. My point is science is difficult. With few exceptions, scientists do not live to earn money. The only thing we have is the recognition of our work by our peers and in few cases by the public. You criticized me for talking about the role politics have in science. This is not conspiracy theory or something similar. Go and apply for a grant in Europe or USA and you'll see what I'm talking about. Why do you think Craig Venter for example left the Human Genome Project and started Celera Genomics? You can see his idea won the race and since then he became the leading scientist in the field. I can keep talking but this seems too long already. If you want to take a scientific approach to this, go and double-check the papers, go to the source. I can be wrong and I'll be happy if some one corrects me. But until then, with all due respect to wikipedia members, no one has provided a better argument than mine. Prdm12 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"However, by no means that implies that my reasoning is invalid" - That is true. Your reasoning is invalid, but not because you respect WP rules. You have your own private definition of the word "scientist" and WP uses not your definition but standard definitions, so your edit replacing "scientist" with something else was reverted. All your justifications for that edit, in your last contribution and further up, are irrelevant because they are all just attempts to convince others that your definition of "scientist" is better than standard definitions. As an encyclopedia, we do not do resaearch. We collect what reputable sources say. Go convince the scientific community that your definition of "scientist" is better than the standard ones, then get your definition published as the standard definition. Then we can use it. Not before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:From the wikipedia page Scientist "A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms." Dawkins doesn't do research (and never really did) ergo he is not a scientist. Prdm12 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is bullshit. He did do research. But you do not want that to count, so you arbitrarily define (further above) the research he did, as "not science". All your reasoning is not fact-driven, it is goal-driven. You start at the conclusion you want to reach, then knead the evidence into the shape you need for your conclusion. Just the way creationists do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:This is boring and a waste of time. You keep using Ad-Hominem attacks for defending an indefensible position. You didn't even take the effort to double-check the definition of Scientist (a definition I have used correctly from the beginning of this) before accusing me of being inventing a new one. Dawkins is not a scientist but a journalist, an eloquent one, sure, but a journalist after all. That's his merit, and he should be remembered that way. Prdm12 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your definition obviously includes the detail that you are the one who decides, using arbitrary criteria, and with an eye on the result you wish to achieve, what is research and what is not. That is a non-standard definition. Röbin Liönheart's contribution just below this says it all, the rest is your own construction. Please go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:My definition, as you call it, is well supported. In fact, people doesn't have to trust me, everyone can do his/her own research. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to change my mind on the subject. Commentaries, letters, "novels" are not science. And those are the things for which Dawkins is recognized. It should be simple even for a basic mind. Prdm12 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to improve the encyclopedia; it is not a place to debate others. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RGW. Please find some articles to improve. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a list of Dawkins's academic papers in science journals. Professor Dawkins has indeed done science, hence he's a scientist, even if he's more famous as a science popularizer. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robin Lionheart: I've repeated this several times in this thread: please double-check all that great papers and please tell us how many of them are research papers. It's all I'm asking. Prdm12 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I totally forgot that we had that article. Well done, and, case closed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck:I don't understand you. Previously you said there was a consensus. It wasn't? Prdm12 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to close this thread like 3 times now since my intention is not to be disruptive with the busy people who runs this amazing project. However, I have the right to reply and will use it every time I have to. So I'd like to ask the administrators to moderate this talk particularly for "ad hominem" attacks. They are totally unnecessary. Thanks Prdm12 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I was using 'case closed' in a colloquial fashion, I am sorry that this was misunderstood. If you think that there has been disruptive editing here feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck:No problem. I understand sometimes written communication can be misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. Take care. Prdm12 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.