Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Controversy section needed. Dawkins is a controversial figure

In 2016, Rice University reported: Most British scientists cited in study feel Richard Dawkins’ work misrepresents science

In 2011, the New Statesman reporter David Allen Green wrote after his Elevatorgate controversy involving atheist, feminist Rebecca Watson: "Can Richard Dawkins still credibly pose as a champion of rational thinking and an evidence-based approach? In my opinion, he certainly cannot, at least not in the way he did before."[1]

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the New Statesman: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."[2]

By 2015, The Guardian (a secular leftist leaning newspaper) published the article Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?.

By 2015, his public reputation had dropped so low that The Telegraph reported: "Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that Islamists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way. After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor."[3]

There are a large number of mainstream, reliable sources from major publications indicating that Dawkins' public reputation has greatly been diminished after his entrance into politics relating to feminism/Islam. Google trends shows that searches for his name has plummeted after feminists and other secular leftists have publicly criticized him.[4]

Don't these matters warrant a controversy section being created in the article?Knox490 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Knox490, isn't it time you toned down your attacks on new atheists? If you have really found the one True God, then surely it is enough to relax into His bosom and be happy, knowing He is in charge now and will, without needing your vigilance and exposés, lovingly smite down and maybe torture for eternity these vile non-believers.

The Rice University report you mention refers to "a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries" from which 48 scientists mentioned Dawkins "during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists". That is, 38 scientists out of over 20,000 expressed a negative view of Dawkins. That means 499 out of 500 scientists didn't feel they needed to mention anything negative about Dawkins.

Your other examples include personal opinions expressed by non-notable persons or persons with obvious axes to grind, such as God worshippers. An exception is the Guardian article, which contains an interesting interview with Dawkins and includes commentary on how people other than the writer of the article see Dawkins. In my view this could be reasonably cited in the article, though not necessarily as a "controversy". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't have said it better myself.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Epipelagic, I have cited numerous reliable sources on this talk page of criticisms of Richard Dawkins from both the atheist/agnostic side of the aisle to the theistic side of the aisle.

As far as your false claim that the people I cited either being non-notable or theists with axes to grind, that is an easy enough claim to debunk. For example, David Allen Green who I cited in this section has a Wikipedia article on him. If he is non-notable, then how did he manage to have a Wikipedia article since December of 2010?[5] Green publishes in a wide variety of mainstream publications. And David Allen Green is not a believer in God, he is a skeptic. David Allen Green founded the organization Westminister Skeptics.[6]

You complain about people with axes to grind, yet you made a false accusation and you used a genetic fallacy in order to attempt to disqualify people who worship God. And because atheists/agnostics are very much in the minority in the world that certainly adds weight to the proposition that a controversy section is not out of line. Atheism/agnosticism are not mainstream views.

And a controversy section is easily shown to be appropriate. For example, Dawkins said, "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[7] After all the blood that was spilled to defeat the brutal dictator Adolf Hitler and after all the blood that Hitler was responsible for spilling, Dawkins has the gall to make an outrageous statement like that. The Dawkins article absolutely merits having a controversy section.

Another example is Dawkins' madcap plan to defeat Iranian Islamacists by filling the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses, gin and photos of "hot guys making out".[8] Dawkins was mocked for this nutty idea and he was so embarrassed by his crazy plan that he deleted his tweet. Was The Telegraph right in labeling Dawkins as being "nutty"? If not, why is this the case? The fact is that Dawkins is often nutty and he frequently spouts comments which make him a controversial figure. Knox490 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

David Green is a lawyer with a minor notoriety coming from his continual attempts at whipping up public controvery in any way that will get him attention. As for, "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right?", I would agree with Dawkin that that is a "genuinely difficult question". If you don't think so you haven't thought it through, and it needs to be thought through. I very much doubt atheists/agnostics are a minority at all among the intellectually competent who are responsible for the content of most of the world's reliable sources.

It seems you are now slandering Dawkins. Please provide the link where Dawkins claims he can "defeat Iranian Islamacists by filling the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses, gin and photos of 'hot guys making out'". (this nutty fantasy wouldn't belong to a fellow Dawkin detractor, would it?) --Epipelagic (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me very strange to diminish someone's defense of their opinion as "axe to grind" when they are responding to someone who are criticizing their views. How can anyone defend anything if that is the attitude. 155.192.180.10 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You claimed non-notability regarding David Allen Green. If you sincerely believe this matter, then by all means flag his Wikipedia article for deletion based on him being non-notable. We both know that you are not going to do that because he is notable.

As far as the Iranian/Islam comment, I should have been more precise about the quote I gave above as it was merely a daft attack plan cooked up by Dawkins. It definitely was a nutty attack plan and Dawkins deleted the tweet after he was mocked for it. Dawkins was clearly embarrassed by his tweet otherwise he would not have quickly deleted it. If you disagree with the people who mocked Dawkins, then I suggest you raise money to bombard the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses, gin and "photos of hot guys making out". You don't have to be Dwight D. Eisenhower to recognize the foolishness of Dawkins' daft idea.

Germans are thoroughly convinced Hitler was wrong. If Hitler being wrong is not a difficult issue then please tell me the probability of neo-nazis gaining a notable amount of votes in future German elections. And please give me the name of a single contemporary moral philosopher in the world who argues that Adolf Hitler may have been right. Knox490 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

These disorganised and dilapidated comments have very little to do with Dawkins or anything else to the point here. I'm done with this now – go troll elsewhere. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that it was British-style satire, not an actual plan (claiming that it was falls in the conspiracy theory domain). Satire can offend some, sure. Some resort to death threats because of a representation of the prophet, satire or not. Speculating on reasons for the post deletion is also not Wikipedia's business. Hitler is just off-topic. —PaleoNeonate – 05:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, Dawkins has decided to wade into politics. For example, Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.[9]

And unfortunately, Dawkins has displayed an ineptness when it comes to political/historical commentary. For example, WWII was one of the seminal political/military events of the 20th century. And Richard Dawkins said, "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." [10] This statement is pure madness given the tens of millions of deaths Adolf Hitler caused, the gruesome experiments of Joseph Mengele and the various other barbarities of the Nazis. There is no controversy among historians about Adolf Hitler being a brutal dictator. And I have asked the person who complained about me bringing the Hitler matter up to name a single contemporary moral philosopher who argues that Hitler may have been right and not a single moral philosophers name was offered. A controversy section is certainly warranted for Dawkins given far less controversial figures have controversy sections in their Wikipedia articles. Knox490 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If your understanding of the situation is correct then the underlying logic behind moral reasoning is clear to you but beyond what Dawkins can follow. In that case, I wonder how Dawkins managed to write all those highly cited publications. Either someone like Bill Ayers wrote the books for Dawkins, or your understanding of the situation is flawed. At any rate, this page is for actionable proposals to improve the article, so it is time to make a proposal or for this forum discussion to close. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion indicates that philosophers were highly critical of Dawkins' book The God Delusion.[11] Routledge is a very prominent and respected publisher when it comes to philosophy and its Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is well-respected among philosophers in terms of it being a quality reference work.

Dawkins has shown gross incompetence when it comes to matters of philosophy/politics/history.

Now I will grant you that Dawkins sold a lot of copies of the book The God Delusion and received many criticisms (and therefore citations), but that does not mean that Dawkins is not controversial nor does it mean that he is competent when it comes to political/historical/philosophical commentary. Madonna has sold a lot of albums and generated a lot of criticism, but that does not put her in the same league as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In this particular situation, you are confusing notoriety with competence.Knox490 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You are never going to convince anyone by completely misreading and misinterpreting sources. For example, you repeatedly bring up Dawkin's asking "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right?" I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[12]. If you cannot read the source and understand the context of that question, then you lack the competence to be editing articles here.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The original source of the article which Wikiquote cited indicated that he was utterly shocked that Dawkins made the statement he did about Adolf Hitler. So I certainly understand the context. The original source says about Dawkins' comment about Adolf Hitler, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments."[13]

Dawkins' fans and new atheists have been accused of exhibiting cultish behavior and this has been noted by prominent publications.[14][15]. The New Atheism movement was called a cult by the agnostic, journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 New Statesman article in which he describes the unreasonable/abusive behavior of New Atheists.[16] And there are innumerable prominent publications which associate New Atheism with militant atheism/fundamentalist atheism such as Salon, The Guardian, etc.[17][18] Cultish behavior and militant atheism are controversial. Dawkins is a controversial figure.

I understand that Dawkins has ardent fans. I also understand that many of them have a poor understanding of philosophy/history/politics. Students are often not better than their teachers. Nevertheless, Dawkins is most certainly a controversial figure who displays incompetence in matters he has very little understanding of.Knox490 (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"I certainly understand the context." Even if you do, anybody who only reads the quote will not. You made sure of that by cutting off the parts that would have helped them.

Dawkins' writing style is difficult to follow for people with short attention spans. You often have to remember what he wrote pages ago to understand the meaning of a sentence in context. This is the root of the problems many of his detractors have with him. Quoting single sentences and claiming to know what they mean will often fail gloriously. Looking at the "difficult question" sentence alone, I have no idea what he could have meant when he said that.

Looking at the link provided by I am One of Many, looking at the question he was answering, it becomes clear immediately. It was an interview, and he was talking about morality in general, when asked about Muslim extremists. Did he mean his own Hitler question when he said "that is a difficult question", or this type of question in general? If the second, he is right: moral questions are not as easy a Bible thumpers say they are. Is taking this Dawkins quote out of context moral? Pretending he meant one thing when the actual senetence was ambiguous? I think it is despicable. You do not seem to have any qualms about it. Your low moral standards notwithstanding, this is not how we do it on Wikipedia because distorting sources by quoting out of context leads to unreliable articles. So, please do that somewhere else.

Your endless tirades about Dawkins fans and their alleged incompetence has no place here either. Read Genetic fallacy. Reasoning does not become bad because of who uses it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you wrote: "Dawkins' writing style is difficult to follow for people with short attention spans". Dawkins many prominent and notable critics are not suffering from short attention spans. And I hope you are not stooping to a personal attack when it comes to myself. I know for a fact that I have an excellent attention span as I have used software similar to Lumosity designed by cognitive scientists and know for a fact that my attention span is above average. And I would remind that ad hominem attacks are not only illogical, but there are often a sign of individuals who lack valid arguments.

There are no prominent philosophers, historians or political scientists who praise Dawkins' commentary then it comes to philosophy, history or politics. But there are plenty of philosophers and other commentators who criticize Dawkins on these topics. You might not like the fact that Dawkins displays incompetence in these areas, nevertheless it is true that he has.

There are many critics from prominent publications which note Dawkins' fans unreasonable behavior. For example, a Slate article indicates: "His tweets are frequently retweeted by hundreds of others, and people who criticize him are sometimes flooded with vitriolic responses from Dawkins’ fans, who defend everything he says. (I suspect I’ll hear from them in the comments and on Twitter.)".[19] Dawkins' fans are known for their tirades and vitriolic behavior. I regret to say that your tirade accusation was a matter of you engaging in projection.Knox490 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there an actionable proposal? That is, specific text that should be added to the article or removed from it? If not, this forum debate must end. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course there is an actionable proposal. A controversies section and a "Political views of Richard Dawkins" section should be incorporated into the article. Since 2006 (The publication year of the book The God Delusion) Dawkins frequently comments on matters of politics/history/philosophy/religion and and as a result he has become a highly controversial figure. These sections should note his most prominent critics. Dawkins has no shortage of prominent critics. Dawkins most prominent and vocal critics tend to be feminists (for example, see the Rebecca Watson article), leftists who take exception to Dawkins' comments on Islam, Christians, Islamacists and various conservative/right-wing figures.

The issue of Dawkins being a controversial figure is not going away. If anything it will increase. For example, the mayor of London is a Muslim and Muslims appear to be gaining political power in Britain and not losing it. And Dawkins is a very vocal critic of Islam. Dawkins called Islam the most evil religion in the world.[20] Knox490 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And you want to include your out-of-context quotes and your peacocking and your broad accusations against New Atheists in that section? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The present article lacks NPOV. Dawkins most notable critics are not named and are squelched by Dawkins' fans.

In addition, the atheist movement has now entered a post-Dawkian phase which is less intemperate among many quarters of the atheist population (but not all quarters). Theo Hobson noted this matter in his Spectator article Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists.[21] But other notable figures have noted that the popularity of New Atheism has greatly waned (or is dead) as well. On November 6, 2015, the New Republic published an article entitled, Is the New Atheism dead?[22] The atheist and evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson wrote, "The world appears to be tiring of the New Atheism movement.."[23]

I do realize the Dawkian atheists might not like the fact that the atheism movement has entered into a post-Dawkian phase. Many people hate change. But this should not cause the article to be less informative than it should be. Knox490 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please work out how to correctly indent comments. Some of them are good but others are arbitrarily placed.

An actionable proposal concerns specific text—what text do you propose should be added? Saying there should be a controversies section is not helpful because such a section would need text—what text? Please stick to one thing at a time and discuss a political views section later. Please pause the soapboxing while a proposal is discussed—unless you propose including text with "Dawkian atheists", don't use that term. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

<edit conflict> If you want to change the article,

• tell us what the article should contain.
• tell us what the article should not contain.
• Do not tell us what you think the reason is for the fact that the article is not the way you want it. Nobody is interested in your ascribing weaknesses, vices, and attitudes to people you disagree with or in your fantasies about how those things ended up shaping the article.
• Do not tell us who is dead in your opinion and who is in what phase. Nobody is interested in your remote diagnoses or remote autopsies.

Every article about pseudosciences and their critics gets regular visits from people like you who want to incorporate their pro-pseudoscience and anti-critic POV. Most of them whine about the articles not agreeing with NPOV, by which they mean their own POV. You are just the last in a long line. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I realize that Richard Dawkins does have his critics about his commentary on the physical sciences - namely biology. For example, the Harvard University evolutionary biologist has commented on Dawkins' "vulgarizations of Darwinism”.[24]

But since 2006, the most persistent, vociferous and high profile criticisms of Dawkins in prominent publications have been outside his commentary on biology.

As far as what the article should NOT contain, I would say that since Dawkins is a very controversial figure who is a criticism magnet, I would argue against citing criticisms of Dawkins from non-notable people and from unreliable and non-notable sources which is standard fare at Wikipedia.

As far as what the article should contain in matters outside of biology, it should contain citations and content related to his most prominent critics in areas where he has attracted the most criticism. For example, among feminists the atheist PZ Myers was cited by The Guardian related to Dawkins and feminism/women matters. [25]. And certainly Myers has been one of the atheists leading the charge that women/feminists need to be treated better within the atheist movement. But there are other feminist critics of Dawkins as well and these can be briefly cited/mentioned and some of these are cited/mentioned in the Political views of Richard Dawkins article (see: Feminists and Richard Dawkins).

Since Dawkins has waded into politics and social commentary in a significant manner, the Richard Dawkins should have a decent size section on the politics and political controversies that Dawkins has waded into. The section can be labeled "Political views of Richard Dawkins" and link to this section Political views of Richard Dawkins.

I will briefly say that matters related to feminism/Islam have attracted the most criticism against Dawkins in the last 5-6 years. In addition, atheists/agnostics are a notable size population when one looks at the West as a whole (Europe, America, etc.) and there have been notable critics among atheists related to Dawkins and the atheist movement. I would stick to the most notable of these critics among atheists/agnostics and/or secular organizations.

On the religion front, since Christianity/Islam have been the religions that Dawkins has focused his criticism upon and since these religions are the two largest religions on the planet, his most prominent critics can be briefly mentioned/cited in the section of the article dealing with religion/Dawkins. Right now the words "Islam" or "Islamic" aren't even in the article which is odd given the amount of flack that Dawkins has received concerning the topic of Islam in recent years. Right now, as far as Islam, there is just a mention that Dawkins does not believe the terms "Catholic child" and "Muslim child" are socially acceptable and that children should have more freedom to decide their own ideological/religious beliefs.

As far as a controversy section and/or mentioning Dawkins' controversies outside of topical areas where he receives the most criticism, I would limit it to the controversies which have been most high profile. For example, certainly his controversial commentary on Down Syndrome babies and his repeated comments about the victims of pedophilia attracted much criticism and have been cited by mainstream news sources.[26][27]

The Richard Dawkins article should have a "Political views of Richard Dawkins" and/or controversies section. Right now, it has neither.Knox490 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Until now, I have able to extract little sense from your ranting. But what you just said is not unreasonable. In alignment with that I have split the section titled "Other fields and political views" into two sections, one titled "Political views" and the other "Other fields". However, with interests as wide ranging as Dawkins it is no more appropriate for the article to mention every negative opinion that has ever been expressed about him in the press, than it would be to mention every positive opinion that has ever been expressed about him. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Another area of the article which is underrepresented is that New Atheism is largely seen as a reaction to: the resurgence/growth of religion in the world as a whole (see: Growth of religion); growing religious fundamentalism in the world, the power of the religious right and worries that the secularization thesis is incorrect.[28][29][30] In addition, the Richard Dawkins article should briefly note that the New Atheism movement has very significantly waned in terms of its influence and I provided sources related to this matter on this talk page. This is appropriate since Dawkins was a founder of this movement and the movement played a significant role in his life for a period of time. For example, the New Atheism movement played a significant role in propelling his book The God Delusion to be his biggest selling book. Knox490 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Epipelagic, the article still read like a PR puff piece as it still does not cite the abundant criticism he has received from notable individuals/organizations related to the philosopher, feminist, leftist, Islamic, and Christian communities.

Dawkins remaining ardent fans like to label any reference to negative commentary about Dawkins as "rants" and other derogatory terms. Nevertheless, I have cited many notable individuals/sources related to criticisms of Dawkins. The sources have included both notable atheists/agnostics and notable theists. Dawkins has a broad spectrum of notable critics.

Dawkins status as a controversial figure is not going way. His leftist and atheist critics are relentless. Dawkins has said about himself "I’m not much of a diplomat."[31] And Dawkins continues to comment on political affairs despite his past ineptness when it comes to public commentary about political/historical/philosophical/religious matters. Knox490 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of balance. The controversies you keep obsessively hovering over are not weighty counter positions to Dawkins, as you seem to believe. They are more reactive tabloid-style emotional outbursts by people personally upset by something Dawkins said – ephemeral fluff which largely blows away in the wind that accompanies it. It's true Dawkins sometimes lays himself open to these side shows, but that has little relevance to his long term legacy. If a Dawkins detractor has a Wikipedia article about them, it might be you could mention in their article that they are upset at some view Dawkins has expressed. Their upset or difference in viewpoint is about them. But unless they have published academic counter-views with genuine substance then their upset or difference in viewpoint doesn't belong so much in the article on Dawkins. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

When Dawkins chose to step outside of biology and significantly wade into matters like religion/philosophy/politics/history, he was bound to become a controversial figure - especially since he does not have extensive training/knowledge in these areas. And the tabloid comment is unwarranted. Reliable sources and prominent publications/books/journals have commented on Dawkins on these matters. I would agree with you, however, that some of his detractors are overly emotional.

As far as Dawkins' legacy, Dawkins has many hero worshippers associated with his status of being a celebrity atheist/agnostic. In addition, Dawkins has publicly commented on controversial matters (that people often have strong opinions on) that are outside the bounds of empirical science. And as a result, many of this supporters are overly concerned about negative estimations of Dawkins being expressed in his Wikipedia article. Dawkins is a man and subject to making mistakes due to human frailty. His Wikipedia article should reflect this matter. It should not be a Dawkins monument. Knox490 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you can work with determined diligence stripping people like Dawkins down to the fallible human being we all are at base. It's not unfashionable to bring this aspect to the foreground so the rest of us can feel more cheerful about ourselves. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Atheists don't need to workship anything; they can also use critical thinking to evaluate what to accept or reject, on an individual basis, also accepting the responsibility for their choices and actions. This is true for Dawkins as well as those who consider his work valuable. I'm saying this as someone who is agnostic more than atheist (if a spiritual, or outside-of-the-universe force is involved, it cannot be an anthropomorphic being or person, unless we live in a simulated universe created by people who don't interfere in the experiment but launched it; or unless it's all the work of a deceptive demiurge who enjoys confusing humans with contradictive evidence to make them suffer unjustly as a result of their random particular circumstances). It is better to live one's life (which could be the only one) informed, than indoctrinated and restrained for reasons perceived as absurd. Dawkin's main work is also to inform about science as well as denounce the absurd, often sarcasticly. Without such people (no need to mention other notable names) we would still be stuck with a geocentric iron-age view of the world. I admit that this post does not help to improve the article, but the thread is already in forum territory at this point... —PaleoNeonate – 04:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Opposes teaching creationism in schools"

I question whether this belongs in the lede, as it seems to imply there's legitimate debate about the subject. For instance, Jimmy Carter, a Bible-believing evangelical Christian, is vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in schools, as are the overwhelming majority of folks, religious and atheist. Supporting the teaching of creationism is a fringe position, held by the Ken Hams of the world and such. It's like saying that so-and-so "believes Barack Obama was born in the United States". It's a position held by everyone who isn't bat shit crazy, and would only be notable if the reverse were true. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I'll go ahead and remove it.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a good point, at all. In the absence of evidence, nobody actually knows whether most people in the world are opposed to teaching creationism in schools, and while many people may indeed oppose it in principle, that does not mean that they actively advocate against it. If someone is known for taking stands against teaching creationism in schools, it is perfectly reasonable to mention that in the lead of an article about them, even if it is a thoroughly mainstream position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it definitely belongs in the lead. The missing word is "actively" - many people presumably vaguely and silently would possibly consider themselves in some kind of opposition to teaching creationism, were they ever to think about it. Dawkins however has repeatedly, publicly and clearly opposed it as a key part of his position. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "actively" should be added, which would be much more informative.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. If you say he opposes teaching creationism in schools, that implies that he takes active measures against it, rather than simply that he privately thinks it is a bad thing but does nothing to actually stop it (which is the sort of thing that wouldn't be even worth mentioning). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Won't die in a ditch about the word, but the statement needs to go back. We could say "actively speaks against" but the plain statement will do fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Actively" is enough of an improvement to be worth the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. The wording "He actively speaks against the teaching of creationism in schools" is dumb. Speaking against something is by definition a form of activity and so adding the word "actively" is unnecessary and bad writing. You cannot passively speak against something. I believe the restoration of that wording here is inappropriate and significantly degrades the quality of the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not dumb at all. The word "actively" in this context indicates that speaking against teaching creationism is something Dawkins is focused on, rather than being merely something he might mention casually as an aside. You have applied "actively" inappropriately to the general action of speaking, instead of to the program of speaking against the teaching of creationism in schools. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you are quite wrong. That is not how the English language works. The word "actively" has a specific meaning; it refers to performing an activity. No dictionary you could provide would state that "actively" means something that you focus on rather than something that you do casually. Nor does the context of the sentence do anything to suggest that "actively" refers to something that someone is "focused on" as opposed to its actual meaning of an engaging in an activity. An encyclopedia has to use language properly; it is not up to you or other editors to idiosyncratically try to redefine what words mean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you are making things up and pretending to legislate the English language all by yourself. It is not at all nonsense to say some person is active speaking against the teaching of creationism in schools. Nor is it nonsense to say that another person is not active speaking against the teaching of creationism in schools. You claim the word refers to "performing an activity". It can mean much more than that. It can refer to pursuing or engaging in some occupation or activity in a manner that is vigorous or frequent or alert and lively. These are all uses supported by the Oxford Dictionary, which also defines active as participating or engaged in a particular sphere or activity in a positive or spontaneous rather than a passive way.[32] --Epipelagic (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Epipelagic, I am not making things up. I am explaining the proper use of the English language to you. "Pursuing or engaging in some occupation or activity in a manner that is vigorous or frequent or alert and lively" is a derivative sense of "actively", a sense which is possible because of the primary use of the term, which means performing an activity, whether frequently or not. In the case of a sentence such as, "He actively speaks against the teaching of creationism in schools" that derivative sense of "actively" fails to apply. The word still has its basic sense, and as such it is a tautology, because speaking is by definition a form of activity. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Phew... I thought you were taking yourself seriously for a moment there. As I pointed out earlier, what Dawkins does "actively" is the manner in which he "speaks against the teaching of creationism in schools". The term is being applied to the phrase, and not just the word "speaks". It is true the phrasing could be interpreted ambiguously, as indeed you have done. That is why, below, I suggested rewording the sentence to read, "He is active in speaking against the teaching of creationism in schools".--Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"actively opposes" might work but "actively speaks" is tautology. Speaking is obviously an action.Charles (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

But "opposes" is equally an action, and you seem okay with that. Neither has to be a tautology – see above. However, it might be better if the sentence in the lead were reworded to read, "He is active in speaking against the teaching of creationism in schools". --Epipelagic (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if the sentence were removed from the lead - it's confusing, and relatively unimportant in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what "teaching creationism" means in this context. Does it mean teaching it as a fact - in which case he opposes it - or as a religious belief - which, as I understand it, he supports. In my view it would be less confusing to readers if the sentence were simply omitted from the introduction, and any necessary explanation given in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It means teaching it as a serious alternative to scientifically tenable theory and hypotheses, as far as I can tell, and anyway, I think you will find that Dawkins is opposed to teaching religion of any kind at schools. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not true - quite the reverse, in fact. Hence my point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should link to the actual statement by Dawkins, rather than a report which leaves out a lot of context (and chooses to use a misleading title, possibly as clickbait). I mention this because when I read the linked text I get the impression that Dawkins refers to education about religion, as apposed to education in religion, which is the usual meaning of religious education where I come from. In much the same way that one is educated about crime rather than educated in crime when one studies law. I would accept that he is in favour of education about religion, not that he is in favour of religious education as it is commonly interpreted, i.e. being led to believe that the tenets of any religion have any validity by authority of the religion. You may notice that in my previous comment I was careful to claim that Dawkins "is opposed to teaching religion", which is not the same thing as claiming he "is opposed to teaching about religion". Teaching about religion is a part of teaching about history, and history is part of the context of social life, as is crime. It is necessary to understand both of these things to understand society. (also obviously many other things) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins is a British academic, who was speaking at a conference in Britain about the British education system - in which religious education is teaching about religion, not the teaching of a particular religion. Clearly, the source shows that he is in favour of teaching about religion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, context issue. My personal experience of religious education was being told what to believe without the option of discussion. Quite a different matter. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this was deleted by an editor who hasn't contributed to the discussion, given that no consensus has been reached here. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the reason is unclear and there was no consensus, it should be restored as inappropriately deleted.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it should have been removed when it was, my view remains that it should not be reinstated - it is clearly confusing, and frankly not important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree quite strongly for procedural reasons. Whether or not it is later removed by consensus, or changed to a better version, it should be reinstated now because it was removed without consensus during ongoing discussion. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bible, and the history of magic and experimental science

Richard Dawkins is very illiterate when it comes to questions of ancient history and a critical knowledge of Biblical texts. He seems to know very little about the history of magic and experimental science. Miistermagico (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this related to improving the article? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Miistermagico is a sock-puppet [33]. He uses Wikipedia for personal commentary, he trolls talk-pages with his opinions that have nothing to do with improving the articles. Watcher1968 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Dawkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishbookawards.co.uk/pnbb_winners2007.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619130831/http://americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins indoctrinated with atheism by his father

At 1:37:00 you can hear Dawkins himself saying that he was indoctrinated with darwinism and atheism by his father (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0VnuhHq5m0). This must be included: indoctrination is child abuse! 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:883B:7B4D:3F33:AC3E (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Trivia. And [34] doesn't mention abuse. - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

criticism?

I'm surprised nobody has already added the criticism section in his page, but I believe it's necessary to be added. User:Ari777m 00:15 17 July, 2018 (PST)

I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither do I. His views are already fairly critiqued, as appropriate. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate, read Wikipedia:Criticism, particularly the second paragraph of the lead, and the section on Criticism sections. They are discouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, what about Donald Trump. Oh wait, Wikipedia is a Fake News site. My bad. Lockethot (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS —PaleoNeonate – 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Elevatorgate (battle with feminists) needs to be mentioned in the article

There are reliable sources related to Richard Dawkins Elevatorgate controversy (his battle with feminists).

Here are a few of them:

• Richard Dawkins, check the evidence on the 'chilly climate' for women by Emily Band, The Guardian, July 24, 2011

• Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today, September 15, 2011

• Richard Dawkins and male privilege By Phil Plait, Discover Magazine, July 5, 2011

• Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists by Caitlin Dickson, The Wire, July 6, 2011

The incident is notable and definitely had an effect on Dawkins' public persona. It also had a big effect on the atheist movement and the New Atheism movement. For example, David Allen Green wrote in the New Statesman: "This is all strange stuff indeed from a man professing to be a promoter of rational thinking. He is making connections which do not exist and positing analogies which do not make any sense. From a person with his supposed intellectual reputation, this is surely a disgrace. This is more what one would expect from Richard Littlejohn than Richard Dawkins. But it seems part of a possible trend. Those who merely pose as rationalists and promoters of liberal values are being found out."[35]

Therefore, this incident should be mentioned in the main article.Knox490 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal life edit

Can I ask why the edit I made in the personal life section about Dawkins’s new girlfriend was removed? I’m new to this whole editing thing so I apologise for any mistake- it was an honest one. But I don’t think it’s trivial as it represents a continuation of the knowledge after the separation from Lalla Ward. I just happened across it in the interview and thought it was of interest. Apologies for ham-handedness if it’s not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E2B:A700:70E0:9EC6:4071:F591 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems trivial to me. If the girl friend was well known it might be interesting. --Bduke (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the addition was rather trivial. Why would we dwell on his personal life details? His personal living arrangements and "girl friend" are rather irrelevant, absent any reliable source indicating otherwise. This be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood! Thanks for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E2B:A700:70E0:9EC6:4071:F591 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins

In Conservapedia, there is an article called "Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins". Since Conservapedia is nicknamed "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", should there also be an article with this name in Wikipedia?Vorbee (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

All right, I shall admit that when I saw Conservapedia had an article with this title, it did make me laugh out loud, and I could hardly type the above question because I was laughing so much.Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

He rarely abrades anything that's not in need of the treatment. :-) 17:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Conservapedia "Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins" article: Atheist author and sociology professor Phil Zuckerman said of Richard Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."[36]

There are numerous "Is Dawkins a liability to the atheist cause?" type articles from reputable sources, fellow atheists, etc. (Washington Post, etc).[37][38][39]

Dawkins can be a cordial and charming man when he agrees with you, but if he disagrees with you, he can be an abrasive and smug man. He also has a tendency to barrel into political minefields in a reckless and ineffective manner (battles with feminists, Islamacists and others).Knox490 (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole issue of Dawkins' stridency and lack of diplomacy/tactfulness ("abrasiveness") could easily be handled by incorporating more the Political views of Richard Dawkins article into the main article on Dawkins which should have been done after he published The God Delusion and after he helped found the New Atheism movement (a movement which has recently petered out).Knox490 (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One solution could be to somehow note that Richard Dawkins lives in a time of the Growth of religion in the world and in a Me Too movement/feminist time in much of the developed world so Dawkins's foibles of lack of diplomacy and tactfulness is accentuated because he is swimming against the tide.Knox490 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop agreeing with yourself agreeing with yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

OK I think it is time to close all this. I see there are dozens of articles and essays in Conservapedia which have the name "Richard Dawkins" in them. My reason for typing the above question was simply to see how people would react to an implicit suggestion that Wikipedia should be a mirror of Conservapedia - which I know we are not. There are some pretty trivial subjects covered in Conservapedia concerning Richard Dawkins - there is even an essay entitled "Richard Dawkins and peanut butter". I do not think Conservapedia has a section "Articles for deletion" as Wikipedia has - please correct me if I am wrong. Vorbee (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Theo Hobson wrote at The Spectator: "The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure...".[40]

Dawkins mocks the religious. Dawkins publicly stated about the religious: "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."[41] There are plenty of notable instances where the religious have mocked Dawkins. The Wikipedia article should reflect these two matters.

As an aside, it's fairly obvious that the author of the article "Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins" and the essay "Richard Dawkins and peanut butter" considers Dawkins to be a joke figure. There is a clear underlying vein of mockery in the article "Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins" and the essay "Richard Dawkins and peanut butter" openly mocks Dawkins.Knox490 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We already know that imaginary-friend-in-the-sky-ologists are unhappy with what Dawkins says. There is no need to quote another one parroting the party line. Those people deserve all the mockery they can think of, and the article already has their opinion on that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Vorbee, you opened Pandora's box and now the evils are abroad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not largely a matter of theists being unhappy with Dawkins says. Post Dawkins's having a dispute with the feminist Rebecca Watson his prominence in the public sphere has dramatic plunged. Dawkins is largely off the theists' radar now. Wikipedia's New Atheism article notes individuals saying that the New Atheism movement is dead (Dawkins was one of the founders of this movement). The Richard Dawkins article should note Watson related dispute given how it affected Dawkins and the New Atheism movement.Knox490 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with Watson, if you can find good sources. I think it belongs in the article, and I am surprised it isn't.

But I think you will have difficulties finding any good sources for the claim that "New Atheism is dead" or that Elevatorgate contributed to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's New Atheism articles currently reads (and it cites good sources): "On 6 November 2015, the New Republic published an article entitled, Is the New Atheism dead?[17] The atheist and evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson wrote, "The world appears to be tiring of the New Atheism movement.."[18] In 2017, PZ Myers who formerly considered himself a new atheist, publicly renounced the New Atheism movement.[19]"

Second, Dawkins' had a cult of personality around him[42] and I am guessing a remnant of this cult of personality will keep on reverting any references to Rebecca Watson in the article. And if the sources for Elevatorgate and Dawkins/Watson are good enough to be used in the Rebecca Watson article, there is no reason why they are not good enough to be used in the Dawkins article.Knox490 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• All right, I may have opened a Pandora's Box, but I hope that Hope is still in the box - Hope, along with Faith and Charity, is one of the three Christian virtues mentioned by Saint Paul of Tarsus in one of his epistles to the Corinthians.Vorbee (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and Twitter/social media damaging his reputation

Much has been written in the mainstream press and leading political and social commentary websites about Richard Dawkins' poor use of Twitter and how it is damaging his reputation.[43][44][45][46]

The atheist philosopher and friend of Richard Dawkins Daniel Dennett said of Dawkins's tweets that Dawkins “could be seriously damaging his long-term legacy”.[47] Dawkins said about his tweets and people first coming to know about him through his tweets: “That is a worry. I’d rather they read my books.”[48]

And of course, the whole Elevatorgate controversy involving Dawkins was the result of a social media post of Dawkins at PZ Myers' blog.

Shouldn't Dawkins' Twitter and social media activities and the influence they have had on his reputation be included in the article? I know the Donald Trump Wikipedia article mentions his Twitter activities. In addition, Wikipedia has a Donald Trump on social media article.Knox490 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to debate William Lane Craig

Something should be on here about Richard Dawkins chickening out of a debate with William Lane Craig. It was put on billboards right throughout the UK! Richard himself even wrote a detailed response trying to give reasons for why he wanted to avoid this debate in The Guardian newspaper (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig) 132.234.228.173 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig's clownish spectacle of debating an empty chair (and in my opinion, losing) might deserve a mention in his article. But it's more of noteworthy moment in Craig's career than Dawkins'. "Chickening out" would be misleading language. That makes it sound like Dawkins backed out, but Dawkins never agreed to debate Craig in the first place. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Renaming section more neutrally. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins has a terrible track record when it comes to debate. For example, when Dawkins debated Rabbi Shmuley Boteach the student audience ruled that Boteach won the debate and then subsequently Dawkins tried to deny the videotaped debate ever occurred. [49][50][51]Knox490 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That site also has Dawkins's response to Boteach's "Shameful Attack" article: "I remembered many other Oxford debates in which Rabbi Boteach was the chairman, and I am sorry that the one debate in which he was a protagonist seems to have made no impression at all upon my memory (it was twelve years ago). My (apparently) unforgivable lapse was exacerbated by the fact that Shmuley himself stated, in the Jerusalem Post (April 13th 2008) that the debate occurred in St Catherine's College, Oxford, when in fact it was in Oxford's Law Library: a trivial lapse of memory on his part which abetted mine, but it is in any case ludicrous to describe any lapse of memory, on either side, as an 'attack.'"[52]

This error doesn't seem significant enough to warrant mention here. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You cut the quote of Dawkins short. This was the "attack" on Boteach: Dawkins said, "Which brings me to his main cry-baby complaint – that I compared his style of speaking to Hitler’s."[53]

Regardless, Dawkins' debate history and his lack of willingness to debate certain others should certainly be mentioned in the article. The Oxford professor and atheist Daniel Came wrote to Dawkins about his refusal to William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[54]Knox490 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Dawkins' debate history is mentioned in the article. Daniel Came isn't considered notable, so why do you think his personal opinion merits inclusion? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins debate history is merely partially mentioned. It doesn't mention the embarrassing facts related to Rabbi Boteach for example. Second, Dr. Came's observation regarding the Dawkins/Craig matter has been published in notable sources such The Guardian and The Telegraph.[55][56] After all is said and done, the article is not NPOV and practices biased/selective reporting.Knox490 (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Dawkins has been the center of attention for decades and naturally a lot of people have commented about him over the years. Articles do not record every factoid, and particularly do not record what a bunch of non-notable people think. If someone has an interesting opinion, write an article about them and include their opinions in it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. While Dawkins participated to such debates at times, he also made it clear that this often was useless and served to promote apologetics (happy to use this in attempt to increase their legitimacy) and that he stopped as a result. We don't really need to include rants of people who did not have this privilege. —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, commentisfree is Guardian's blog/opinion section (not reliable). —PaleoNeonate – 00:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Demographics of atheism article about 7% of the world's population are agnostics/atheists and the percentage of the world that are atheists is dropping. Pew Research indicates that 31% of the world's population is Christian.[57]

More importantly, the atheist Luke Muehlhauser admits that Craig wins nearly all his debates with atheists and the atheist Sam Harris said about Craig that he was "The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists". [58][59]

Craig and his fellow Christian apologists don't need to debate Dawkins to gain legitimacy. That is especially true since the college student audience who watched the Rabbi Boteach vs. Dawkins debate voted that Boteach won the debate.[60] Dawkins is not known for his debate prowess.Knox490 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That proves nothing about whether he is right or not. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant in relation to the proposed text. —PaleoNeonate – 10:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just came across this proposal. The biggest problem with it is demonstrated by the first word in the section's title. "Refusal" or "refused" is pure tabloid language used to denigrate someone. Nobody ever actually says "I refuse to debate...." This is a non-neutral POV proposal purely designed to say nasty things about the subject. It should be instantly dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, debate as a conflict format notoriously favours bullshitters. Winning a debate can mean that you are a quick liar, not necessarily that your reasoning ís better. Proper reasoning takes time, therefore writing is the better medium. That is the main reason smart scientists like Dawkins do not debate well-spoken enemies of science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo48 and Hob Gadling: this proposal has been floated with language evincing a strong anti-Dawkins agenda. It is no coincidence then that the proposed text would add little of encyclopedic value to Dawkins' biography, but could very easily contribute to cheap and misleading attacks against him. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:British critics of Islam

I believe that this categorisation is not appropriate. Dawkins is a critic of religious belief and particularly of religious dogma and its consequences. As a scientist, he will be well aware of the major contribution that Arab countries made to astronomy, mathematics and medicine while Europe festered for over 500 years in Christian dogmatic ignorance. He is not Islamophobic. If this category is to stay, then category:critics of Christianity, critics of Judaism, critics of Hinduism, critics of Shinto, etc etc all need to be added. For this reason, I am removing the category. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

>As a scientist, he will be well aware of the major contribution that Arab countries made to astronomy, mathematics and medicine while Europe festered for over 500 years in Christian dogmatic ignorance.

>He is not Islamophobic.

I don't see what either of these points have to do with criticism of Islam. A person can have all the respect in the world for centuries of Arab culture and hold no prejudice against Muslims as people and still yet be critical of their basic religious beliefs, whether or not as part of a critique of all such belief systems. A person can be a critic of Islam even while practicing some form of it (case in point Irshad Manji.) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment, these points are make-weight and I need not have made them. Back to the main point. The article says (with citations) that he is a critic of religion in general but there is nothing to support the view that he has picked out Islam for particular criticism. (There is a citation where he clearly denies Islamophobia.) Consequently there is no basis other than editorial POV for that category to be remain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I would still caution that there is a difference between being a (non-abusive) critic of a specific religion and being prejudiced against its body of adherents and related civilzation/culture, which is what the tern Islamophobia implies in the case of Islam. A person can be unprejudiced against a religion, even practice it themselves, while being critical of aspects of its belief and application. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I left category:critics of Islamism because that is a different question and (IMO) is probably true is cited. I also left category:critics of the Catholic Church, which seems likely to be true (but is there I haven't searched for anything in the body to support it). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Category overload

Wikipedia, to keep the category system useful, has a policy on article categorisation, and I believe that this article is not in line with it. One can make out a number of categories for any person-related article, but they are not all connected to essential points, or defining characteristics. I hope an editor with specific expertise could review and prune the category collection.

Policy: Categorize by defining characteristics - Further information: Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining - Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality, the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.... SeoR (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oversight

An edit to this article on Richard Dawkins has been over-sighted or otherwise deleted. It did not contain the telephone numbers etc. that are the sole grounds for using oversight. It seems to have been deleted for ideological reasons. No actual reason was given, of course. The edit deleted peacock verbiage in the normal way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.98.50.181 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken. No edits have been oversighted recently, and certainly not this one. Maybe what happened is that you accidentally viewed an older version of the page. You could try clearing your browser cache and restarting the browser. That should fix the issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Name source

User Arbor to SJ removed i.m.o. essential content, based on a Youtube source ([61]), requiring a better source. I undid the removal ([62]) because I think this particular source is very relevant, and, as a wp:primary source, more than sufficiently reliable in this context. Comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The YouTube source is not a reliable source because it is an unverified channel. Social media must be used with caution; one of the marks of a trustworthy channel is the "verified by YouTube" check mark, which this one lacks. Surely a better source can be obtained. Elizium23 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

But i.m.o. this is just about something a person says in a youtube film. There cannot be any doubt that the person indeed said what our article says that he said about himself. This is exactly where a wp:primary source is allowed. On the other hand, when another source can be found, we can replace it, but meanwhile I propose to keep this one in place. - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That is fine. Wasn't there a {{better source needed}} tag on it? Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, I don't recall. But, assuming that the video isn't entirely faked, I can't imagine a really better source for this . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

I understand that there is a separate page but to shove them away and put them under 'political views' just completely and utterly shove his comments about rape and other things out of the way. These aren't just 'who are voting for' things these are serious matters where he has excused rapists. Wikipedia should be a website where the truth is not hidden but set free. The only reason for trying to hide these comments I can think of for Johnuniq removing them is him allowing his subjective feelings to get in the way of what is an objective fact. Please do not try and protect rape apologists just because you agree with the things he says. I agree for crying out loud!!! but it is wrong to hide such things from everyone else by pushing them to the side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:PERSONAL. It is possible for non-villains to disagree with you about how an article should look, so you should focus on content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with a personal attack, it is about not hiding his comments. I am focussing on content, these are controversies that should not be shifted to the side for the sake of his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) So to make it clear you are saying there should not even be the slightest mention of comments that have generated controversy as it comes under the article of 'political views'. The only reason that article was created was to hide his comments, other individuals are not given the same benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted these changes, as there does not seem to be consensus to add this rather large amount of material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well no one else reverted this! I can just about get on board with his certain controversies but surely you have to include those who have criticised his standpoint as this is fairly important. The level of content has been shortened, there are many more criticisms but i have included the main ones. He has faced significant opposition people and therefore it is relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. You should try to get consensus. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, there has been no other opposition to including what is objective fact and a much more fluid article. Please remember wikipedias policy on neutrality. All the best. Permareperwiki1664

That latest edit was a rather careless - some sentences were ungrammatical, and there was a random hanging word 'evidence' with a bunch of citations after it. Also, per WP:CRITICISM, I don't think that a section of that nature is helpful. Better to have a balanced discussion of the critical reception to his work. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, Please get consensus for your edits, rather than leaving a faux edit warring message on my talk page. 'There has been no other opposition' is clearly untrue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, I think it is very clear that consensus is firmly against you. Multiple users reverted your edits - usually an edit war is between two overzealous editors, but you've taken on the rest of Wikipedia here, all alone on your side. Perhaps you should talk it out and see if you can reach a compromise version somehow. Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 Well that's what I did underneath ....😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I have put a notice on the npov notice board to see if someone who is outside can clear this up and answer if there is an element of cherry-picking going on.  

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)