Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 11

2 obvious errors in your post
You have posted 2 errors within one sentence:

"Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, the religious belief that humanity, life and the universe were created by a deity, without recourse to evolution."

Error #1: defining creationism as a religious belief. This is incorrect. Creationism is a scientific theory of origins - if you do not understand this then you do not have the depth of knowledge to attempt to define it. You could say that Dawkins believes creationism to be a religious belief since it goes against his religion. That would be accurate. What you have written is an error.

Error #2: the phrase "without recourse to evolution" is an incorrect description of the creationist position. Again, you could say that this is Dawkins religious opinion, but no creationist today disputes the observable fact that organisms change. Actually most creation science depends upon rapid speciation, which accounts for the large variety of species within a "Family/Kind" that we see today (I use the term "Family/Kind" because our existing taxonomic system does not classify organisms exactly to their Kind, but "Family" is the closest designation). Speciation would be considered evolution in the sense that organisms change and new species can spring from different species, because the DNA for a Family/Kind contains all the genetic information it needs for many different species. For example, a zebra and a donkey are just different species of the same Family/Kind; a few thousand years ago they were the same horse-like creatures. They are so similar that they can still breed today!

Please remove your opinion from the article. You can either define creationism accurately, or attribute your existing definition to the opinion of Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.218.41.192 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you're picking up your definition of creationism but it is in no way a "scientific theory". A look at Scientific_theory might be illuminating.  Also, from Creationism:

In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth. In Christian sects such creationism is usually based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 but other religions have deity-led creation myths which are quite different.
 * This view is not falsifiable or testable. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  00:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Realization
It says "By his mid-teens he realised Darwinism was a better explanation..." Now, before you start making assumptions about me, you should know that I DO believe the Theory of Evolution. However, I still feel it's a bit POV to use the term "realized" (or "realised" in the British English). Perhaps he "came to believe" would be more appropriate.

Imagine this was a page about some creationist, and a pro-creatianism contributor wrote "By his mid-teens, he realized that creationism was a better explination." As supporters of the Evolutionary Theory, we would find this to be absurd, but to a creationist there is nothing to discuss, for a creationist would feel that anyone who believes in creationism "realized" that this argument is correct. As a believe and supporter of the Theory of Evolution, however, I don't want to play that game. It's weasle-like to phrase it in this manner, even if I agree with Dawkins's 'realization.' Anyone agree?

By the way, why is this page locked? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There do seem to be a lot of rampant stylistic problems. I've copy-edited that paragraph, using clearer grammar and more neutral word choice. (However, I should note that your equivalence is false; Wikipedia can affirm that it is correct and unbiased to say "Johnny realized that the earth is round" without needing to affirm that it is correct or unbiased to say "Johnny realized that the earth is flat". The consensus of reliable sources introduces an asymmetry. The reason "he realized the truth of..." or "he realized the better explanation..." is unencyclopedic isn't because it's necessarily biased or inaccurate; it's because it seems too informal. "Better" is simply vague, and encyclopedias tend to avoid the language of value-judgments even when they officially and explicitly do make the value-judgment in their actual articles. It's the same reason we try to avoid saying "X is true" or "X is a fact" when possible, even when we're treating things as (verified, RS-affirmed) truths and facts; it sounds either arrogant or defensive, whereas the proper tone is a matter-of-fact monotone. But I digress.)
 * Maybe I'll copy-edit the whole article, if the editors here desire some new eyes. -Silence (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia for a living, but I have some thoughts about the paragraph in question. I think it was written poorly and I think the following is much more suitable (the formatting might be wrong but you get the idea):

Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing", and though he had doubts about the existence of God when he was as young as nine years old he remained convinced by the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction in nature. Some time in his mid-teens the theory of evolution by natural selection persuaded him to become an Atheist.[18]

Notes: Reworded the first sentence, smoother now, still maintains neutral PoV and encyclopaedic tone I think. I reworded the summary of the "argument from design" to match the one from the page itself, as it was before the last edit, although the links added in that edit were a good idea and I've kept. In the article cited for this paragraph Dawkins specifically says "Darwinism" persuaded him, and Darwinism is NOT the "theory of evolution" but, crucially, the theory of evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. This is an important distinction to maintain. I'm not sure about the wording at the end, but someone else could improve that if they like.

Pluvialis (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I think maybe at the end "Some time in his mid-teens he came to believe rather that the theory of evolution by natural selection was a more satisfactory explanation than God, and became an Atheist." -Pluvialis (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia makes no attempt to suggest there is some other explanation for life on earth than Evolution. If you have a problem with it being presented as a definite fact, discuss it at the Evolution article. Any attempts at political correctness regarding this subject is rather pointless. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misunderstood what I was arguing for. Dawkins was persuaded by the theory of evolution by natural selection - referred to in the source as Darwinism. Natural selection is a theory for how evolution occurs, and it was this specifically which convinced Dawkins to become an atheist. Pluvialis (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Dawkins Delusion ? Wot is Dawkins’ scientific achievement, if any ?
This article fails to mention whether Dawkins’ has any scientific achievements to his credit. Unlike Crick & Watson, he has no Nobel Prize, for example. Or has all Dawkins’ theorizing perhaps been speculative pseudoscience that fails to predict any novel facts or advance scientific knowledge of evolution in any respect ? The Dawkins Delusion ? Surely we should be told ! --Logicus (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look through the awards and recognition section? DP 76764  (Talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)You did notice that he is a FRS, a Fellow of New College, and that Oxford gave him a Doctor of Science degree (no, that's not your average Ph.D.)? Nobel's are not the only recognition a scientist can get. All this is in the article already. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using Nobel Prizes as a scale for scientific achievement, you'd have to exclude quite a few of the most prominent scientists from... well, prominence. Paul Ehrenfest, Lise Meitner were both gigants in the world of physics, yet none recieved a Nobel prize.--Nwinther (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be removed as soapboxing. Bluetd (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins has been awarded the Deschner prize by Deschner, in the German army from 1942 to 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.220.166 (talk • contribs)
 * The Deschner Award is not a price for scientific achievements, and it's awarded by the Giordano Bruno Foundation, not by Karlheinz Deschner personally (although it was physically handed over by Deschner, I think). Given that approximately all German men born in 1924 were in the German Army 1942-1945, I fail to see why that is particularly relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a separate section for criticism
In an entry about such a controversial public figure there should be more focused reference to the substantial criticism he has attracted. For example http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1264152.ece, or the attack by Terry Eagleton, etc...both of which were quite widely read (just google them to see how much attention they received.)

I think part of the problem is that unlike other articles of this type there is not a separate heading for criticism. See for example the entry on Eagleton, which has a spot for criticism to be assembled.

NuevoRico (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

edit: My apologies, I somehow missed the discussion of this above. I do think it would solve some of the issues of vandalism, etc... to try to present a controversial figure in a way that gives more of a sense of the controversy itself, rather than just presenting Dawkins' views roughly as is. Context is key if we want to give an adequate assessment of Dawkins' influence and importance as a cultural flashpoint.


 * Criticism sections are discouraged, but having (balanced) criticism throughout the article is encouraged. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * discouraged, yes. Forbidden, no though.  Might I offer the suggestion of inserting a criticism section and then having the regular editors working the different tidbits into the article over time.  It seems to have worked great for many articles that have done it this way.Farsight001 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are just bad writing and tend to create imbalance. Its a bad idea.--Woland (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Criticism sections tend to do little more than to add to controversy.  Best to keep any descriptions of criticism specific and in-line. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. The article already contains in-line criticism in a number of places.  It would make far more sense for editors to either suggest here what sort of specific criticism is missing, or edit this criticism into existing sections.  Adding a specific section would also logically require stripping existing criticism out of current in-line positions and shunting to to new section.  --P LUMBAGO  20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors at wikipedia are always leftist academics or those people who dream of being academics. They don't put criticism sections on the pages of people they like because they know that if the criticism is diffused throughout the article and each shred of criticism immediately followed by a glowing point of honor about his life, the criticism will seem frivolous. Funny how criticism sections are a good idea when it happens to be some Christian who threatens the beliefs of fundamentalist leftist fanatics--like the ones who live off of our American welfare system and then spend all their time murdering any possibility of Wikipedia being a respected source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.151.197 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please focus on content and not on people. Even if it were true that "the editors at wikipedia are always leftist academics", then so what?  As you probably don't know, Terry Eagleton himself is a self-avowed Marxist, and so giving less prominence to his opinions is hardly an example of left wing bias.  Many of Dawkins other critics, including Madeleine Bunting, are also left wing.
 * Furthermore (slightly weird insults aside), User:Plumbago and User:h2g2bob are both British, and so are unlikely to be drains on the American welfare system.
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with the need for a section on criticism merely for the fact that this would better present the reality of Dawkins. Dawkins in his very essence is controversial being such a "militant atheist" as even the article says. Think of it this way, far more than half the world is still in some form religious and most are theists which means that by default he would be outrightly attacking billions of people's beloved beliefs. Yet, as if that were not enough even scientists have said that Dawkins' use of science to attack religion has only further polarized what religious people think about science and they don't like that he has done this (if you want specific citations I could give you some). And even among atheists he is not always applauded in his militancy and anti-theism. All of this is merely facts about the reality of who Dawkins is.

Now honestly examine and consider this question: If you were a student 300 years from now and knew nothing about Dawkins and the only information you had was this article what would you learn about Dawkins? Would you see how controversial and radical of a figure he was in his time? I know there is no way I would get that out of this article. Reading this article would make one think that Dawkins is bascially the accepted prophet of our time and is a highly accomplised individual who has even been awarded for his contributions to society, awarded by a world that is so grateful for his ministry. I just have a very hard time seeing how this is a neutral article and to be frank it is one of the weakest and unneutral POV articles on Wiki. It simply does not meet up to standards. And what is even more scarry is that if you look at the discussion page people have said many things like what I am saying. Dozens have shown concern with the article not being neutral and yet we are all rejected as I guess simply uninformed "Brights". Perhpas just maybe we at least have a valid concern and there should at least be some minor editing, if not even a major renovation. I speak in concern and am not trying to simply argue. It would be extremely refreshing if one editor who disagrees would at least be humble enough to say that there is a valid concern here.--Ic2705 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the article?
 * Or are you assuming that this "student 300 years from now" is a congenital idiot?
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or are you assuming that this "student 300 years from now" is a congenital idiot?
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or are you assuming that this "student 300 years from now" is a congenital idiot?
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, these meek, scattered comments followed by Dawkins' "ingenious" comebacks are hardly a picture of the reality of how controversial of a figure he is. These scattered comments which appear here and there in the midst of the praise and acheivements of Dawkins are hardly reflections of how polarizing of a figure Dawkins is. They're almost afterthoughts: "Oh yeah, and by the way not everyone likes the guy's opinions, but he always answers those foolish attacks..." When the reality is actually quite the opposite. The reality is that most people whether Christians or Muslims (over half the world), other scientists or even other athiests actually don't adhere to his opinions or anti-religious writings. Dawkins' has a following among people who agree with him and though they may be a fairly large number in Europe and pockets of America he is no way the celebrated figure this article makes him out to be. It simply does not give the reality of who Dawkins' is in his historical context. The entire tone of the article needs changing to conform to who he really is, but this section is merely speaking about whether or not there should be a criticism section and I say that if any individual deserves a criticism section it's Dawkins. You would have to be brainwashed by his teachings to believe he is the figure laid out in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's nonsense. "Most people" probably have never heard of Dawkins, let alone have an informed opinion on him and his writings. He's certainly not famous in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What I was suggesting was that since most people are theists they would obviously be highly offended by Dawkins who is an anti-theist. And I think you make a good point that he is not even as famous as made out to be. The whole point is that there needs to be a criticism section to balance out the article because if you read this article you would think he was hailed by the world as this great genius and mind, when yet only secular academia of Europe and pockets of America give his anti-religious thoughts any credence. The job of Wiki is to present reality not make it up. The reality is that Dawkins attacks "most peoples'" worldview and religious beliefs, and his attacks have been met by many authors, theologican, scientists and the like, and that needs to be obvious in the article. I mean come on, there isn't even hardly any comments by religious figures, and this is a balanced article? That's nonsense.--Ic2705 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ic2705, what you are suggesting isn't following Wikipedia's policies, the obvious ones have been described earlier in this section. The concept of "balance" is not something that WP follows.  WP:BLP is the overriding policy with regards to how we edit articles like this one.  If you have reliable sources, then propose where they need to go - rather than arguing for a separate criticism section - which is something that WP doesn't do.  Shot info (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, perhaps I used the wrong term in saying "criticisms." I meant a section that concentrated on how controversial of a figure he is. Go to Billy Graham's page and see what I'm talking about. Wheter you want to label it controverial or criticism or whatever, WP surely does this and I'm unsure what you mean by saying it doesn't. If u look at Graham's page you see mediocre quotes of some fringe or lone persons opinions of Graham and yet no seprate section for Dawkins when many books have been written criticizing is anti-religious works. WP is about presenting reality and it is for balance in that neutrality is balanced and not biased with scale tipping one way.

And about giving specific citations, trust me, any editing of this article is deleted almost immediately so unless a consesus can develop among honest editors who care about presenting truth, there will not be any substantial--Ic2705 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) criticisms given about this highly polarizing figure.
 * Do you have a specific suggestion with a source? Bearing in mind that the article already has a lot of material showing the serious scientific work performed by Dawkins, my own view is that it is only helpful to include information from reliable sources and which is reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I concure with Johuniq above. Other articles don't really matter - if you have problems with that article, start discussing your proposed changes to that article on that article's talk page.  As for this article, If you have reliable sources, then propose where they need to go - rather than arguing for a separate criticism section - which is something that WP doesn't do. . I would hate to run the risk of repeating myself...again :-)  Shot info (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was using that article as a comparison to this article to show that WP does have seperate controversial sections and therefore to say they don't is simply untrue. And as I said before, I am not going to waste my time giving any reliable sources until i know that they will actually be allowed in the article. But as I can tell by the answers in this talk page there is no real discussion going on about brining neutrality to the article even though if you search the archives you'll see that dozens of people have complained about the neutrality. Any other article would at least be marked as there being a discussion of neutrality. I am merely attempting to make the article more encylopedic by opening an honest discussion concerning how to make the article truly reflect Dawkins as he is in real life, and not by his admirers.

It is true as a scientist Dawkins has many achievments and is one of the best, but as an anti-religious author he is highly controversial and the article simply does not reflect that. Therefore I continue to say there should be an obvious seperate section, bigger than the awards section, which details the controversies and I would be more than glad to contribue to that but I won't waste my time until I know that others would allow it and I have no reason to believe they will. I stand in concurrence for a seperate section detailing Controversy concerning Dawkins' anti-religious books, videos, and statemetns. Perhaps it would work better if the article had two seperate areas of his life: His scientific achievements and recognitions and his anti-religious rhetoric which is highly controversial and answered on every side by dozens of authors both religious and secular, scientist and atheist. --Ic2705 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how do you think we are supposed to even consider a criticism section if you are unwilling to provide a single reliable source?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide a list of reliable sources that you wish to include in a proposed criticism/controversy section. Naturally, such a section might be appropriate (or "notable" in more appropriate wiki terms), given Dawkins' incendiary critiques of religion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ic2705 - you need to read WP:TALK to find out what the function of these talk pages are. You keep making claims that frankly aren't substanciated - and now other editors are asking for you input.  Talk pages aren't used for pontification, they are for discussions about improving the article.  Please propose what edits you wish to make or per WP:TALK your discussions will be deleted.  Shot info (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here is some stuff from Ernst Mayr. Goes as far to call Dawkins' claims not even Darwinian:

"MAYR: Yet the funny thing is if in England, you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian."

" The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong."



Mayr again:

"On one occasion Dawkins (ref. 13, point 7) himself admits that the gene is not an object of selection: “. . . genetic replicators are selected not directly, but by proxy . . . [by] their phenotypic effects.” Precisely! Nor are combinations of genes, as for instance chromosomes, independent objects of selection; only their carriers are. "



David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist who has done actual research on the evolutionary history of religion:

"When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues"

"he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savagedjeff (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)



These are Dawkins' peers. Savagedjeff (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, is somebody going to start this criticism section or am I going to have to? I noticed it got real quiet around here.

Savagedjeff (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's criticism to be covered, work it into the rest of the article. There's no call for a separate section. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

^^the previous dialogue says otherwise. a guy who makes as many unverifiable claims as Dawkins deserves his own section. Much less controversial figures have deep sections for critique.

Savagedjeff (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a separate criticism section does have the advantage that you can reinforce your prejudices and get your talking points without actually having to deal with the subject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about Dawkins and is not the place to decide who is right and who is wrong on issues like Unit of selection or God. The article mentions plenty of notable objections to some of the points raised by Dawkins; further details belong in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone give any examples of "praise" that the article gives that is unfair? If there is a NPOV issue, the answer is not necessarily to add in more NPOV from the other side, we should look at the root of the problem. And if there isn't a NPOV problem in the first place, there's no need for a separate criticism section. Mdwh (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, even if their was a NPOV issue the solution wouldn't be to add a separate section. It would be to fix those specific problems and intersperse relevant criticisms where they belong, throughout the article. And to reference various comments above: Just because other articles are written poorly and include criticism sections doesn't mean we should muck up this article by including one. Its just bad writing, whether its an article on Dawkins, the Pope or Dick Cheney.Woland (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a good reason at to why Dawkins shouldn't have a critique section similar to Chomsky? A criticism section is just "bad writing"? Sounds like an arbitrary copout to me. I think chugging along without any relevant critique is "bad writing" so we are even.



Savagedjeff (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a controversy section in the Chomsky article then perhaps that article needs fixing not this one.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the requested edit; please only request completely and specifically-described changes that are either uncontroversial or supported by solid consensus. Thanks, Skomorokh  12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Eagleton review of The God Delusion
I suggest that it is important that Eagleton's review of "the God delusion" be referenced, as it is perhaps the most scholarly yet populist comment to have come out and has gained a lot of attention. The key issue here is that Richard Dawkins is in many ways an anti-intellectual in that he argues that disciplines he knows little about (viz philosophy and theology) are irrelevent to speculation on God and that academics are arrogant for criticising him for his ignorance. Basically he's saying "come on guys, everyone knows there's no God" which is a version of the old ad populem argument. So I suggest incluing Eagleton's comment "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." and the reference http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html Claudebernard (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the article on The God Delusion. I believe Eagleton is already referenced there (though not the quote that you use), and since his remarks are specific to this book, they would presumably be more appropriate there.  --P LUMBAGO  11:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins' Educational Background Should be Cited
Richard Dawkins has a BA in Zoology. He also has an MA and some sort of Doctorate, as well as some honorary degrees. He is not an authority in many of the areas that he writes about. He is not a biologist, he is not an Information Scientist. He is not a practicing scientist and his peer reviewed publications are few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.179.123 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Zoology is a specialization of biology, just like solid state physics or quantum mechanics are specializations of physics. A zoologist is a biologist. Dawkins has a D. Phil. degree (the Oxford equivalent to a Ph.D.) and a Doctor of Science degree, also from Oxford. All this is in our article and is sourced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Possessive form of the last name of Richard Dawkins
I've reverted your edits to Richard Dawkins after reviewing WP:MOS and Apostrophe. Specifically, I noted the following three things: Accordingly, I can see no reason to alter the spelling. If you think that the spelling should be changed to Dawkins's in the original text of the article—which would create a mixed-spelling situation because of the titles—I encourage you to open discussion on the matter at Talk:Richard Dawkins and build consensus before attempting to make the change again. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Two references that appear in the article use Dawkins' in the titles of the articles: "Richard Dawkins' Follow-Up to God Delusion Sold to Free Press for $3.5 Million" and "Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official website banned in Turkey". Per the MOS, we cannot re-render those into the other spelling form.
 * 2) The Dawkins' spelling is predominant even in the talk page. Accordingly, consensus appears to be to use Dawkins'.
 * 3) Neither the MOS nor the article on apostrophe usage note a British/American variance in treatment of possessives of names. The difference is noted to be on a writer-by-writer basis. Note that the of two articles I mentioned above, one is published in a US work, and the other in a UK work.

If the fact that the grammar is simply incorrect does not constitute reason enough then we might as well abandon any pretence to adhere to standards of language

Consensus does not necessarily indicate correctness. It merely indicates perception. If a mistaken perception is allowed to propogate then this can only lead to an umdermining of standards - and the undermining of the high standard to which the English language has attained, following centuries of evolution, must be seen as an anathema to anyone who cares about the language.

There may come a time when it becomes acceptable in encyclopedic articles to render them in text speak. That day is not yet here (and I hope to God that I will not be around to see that tragic time), but the propogation of erroneous or carelessly perceived language usage does nothing to uphold the standard of English, but rather it merely paves the way for the inevitable deterioration of the language which non-adherence to standards will lead.

Any authority whatsoever which considers that the absence of a possessive s is ever acceptable other than where the terminating s in a noun is due solely to the noun being a plural, such authority is wrong, and whatever the authority purports its authority in thereby most certainly undermines its authority in the discipline of the English language - and probably therefore fatally compromises its authority in whatever else that authority claims authority in. --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. And your authority for this is the fact that you print in bold? English is a living language, and has no central authority (unlike e.g. French). Using just an apostrophe to form the possessive for words ending in "s" for whatever reason was e.g. taught in my school (German curriculum, Scottish teacher) as correct - I was (pleasantly) surprised when Strunk&White recommended to always form it with "'s". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention Dawkins already has a saxon genitive since Dawkins comes from Dawkin having a son, called Dawkin's (Dawkin's son).Ninahexan (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

English
Can someone explain to me how or why Richard Dawkins is English? His infobox says his ethnicity is English (unsourced) and he's categorised as an Englishman. --Jza84 | Talk  23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy. In 1941, Kenya was a province/territory/whatever of England.  Plus, his parents were no doubt English.  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is sourced in the article, for instance here. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Kenya was not a territory of England, since England is only one nation in the composite known as the United Kingdom (and in the smaller composite Great Britain). Secondly, the source has Dawkins referring to both "English" and "British" (the former specifically about his father; the latter about his job in Kenya), so shouldn't really be used to favour one nationality over another.  IMHO, he should be labelled as "British" unless there is a specific source in which he describes his nationality as "Kenyan" or "English" (or whatever).  --P LUMBAGO  11:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This just supports his father was an Englishman. We have no indication of his maternal lineage. Kenya was a territory of the United Kingdom, not England. --Jza84 | Talk  22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's Rottweiller
There's a new MSNBC interview with Dawkins titled Darwin’s Rottweiler: Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God. http://www.newsweek.com/id/216206

I think this might speak some to the "widespread" issue raised in an edit a couple of days ago... when MSNBC picks it up, it's probably pretty well known. Edhubbard (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Books about or dealing with Dawkins
I have a few issues with this section. 1. Shouldn't this section be titled 'Books about Dawkins' or 'Books concerning Dawkins'. 'dealing with' sounds a little weird to me and a little bit too informal for an encyclopaedia, though I could be wrong. 2. I'm not sure that a couple of those books should be there - I don't think they're notable enough. If people see a need to criticise his arguments about God then maybe more high profile books should be put there or better yet on The God Delusion 62.31.149.187 (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The listing is just from his WorldCat link which, I think, rates by "Most widely held" i.e. how many libraries have those books on their shelves.--Popovvk (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. I have now found wiki-links for most of those books and added a few more. There is one biography and a bunch of critical books. That is the NPOV truth. If those books "should not be there", then how the heck did they get an ISBN?--Livingrm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Crossreference
I took the time to sort out the "What Links Here" to the article, named this. There are about 700 other articles. I have organized the results at Talk:Richard Dawkins/Crossreference. Maybe this will help in getting the article to be a bit more complete and towards FA. I realize that some of those references are trivial and should not be included, but I left them in. I did mostly remove references that were due only to references via a Template.--Livingrm (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What purpose does the subpage have, since we already have the "What links here" link? I've never heard of such an unnecessary subpage before. Maybe you should move it to your own userspace. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * U think that for most people, 700 items is a lot to keep track of and it does take work to sort them out. Really, I want this article to be FA and comparable with the Darwin article. Funny: by complete coincidence, I am listening to KQED, a March 2009 City Arts & Lectures interview and Robert Thurman on (an American Buddhist, not any near the scholar that Dawkins is, there is a link to the interview on Thurman's BLP) and he, quoting Harvey Cox (who was reacting/review The God Delusion) and Thurman was elaborating, just gently characterized RD as the prototypical scientistic person because of his atheistic intolerance. Here is an interesting reaction which I think helps to make for a more well-rounded profile of RD, from here:
 * I should note that I had many of the same issues with Robert Thurman (i.e., playing to the crowd or playing for laughs) when he was here a couple of months ago. He dodged a tough question that I asked him about statements that he had made about appropriate Buddhist responses to the terrorist attacks in 2001 that could include violence, and he dropped the ball rather badly. So I hold my speakers to the same standards whether they represent "Science" or whether they represent "Tibetan Buddhism."
 * I am really only interested in the properly qualified critics of Dawkins, not every religious media personality. I am going on like this only because Thurman dropped the buzzword "scientistic".--Livingrm (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
I have trying to design the lead section with structure. That mean three paragraphs, each with a clear subject: Please use the talk page if you do not like it.--Livingrm (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One-sentence review of his basic career facets
 * Scientific accomplishments and his science writing
 * Anti-religion activities


 * Looks pretty good to me. One point... perhaps I'm being pedantic, but what the hell is the atheist 'agenda' (apart from a weasel word used by creationists). Cubathy (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'd second Cubathy. The use of "agenda" sounds a bit POV.  I'd suggest replacing "atheist agenda" with "atheism and freethought".  That seems to be how the Out Campaign is described in its article.  But, other than this, the lead looks OK to me.  However, given the scale of the changes to the article over the past two weeks (one of which I was off on my hols), I'm having trouble keeping track.  Incidentally, Livingrm, are you related to Popowk and Standardfact?  If so, be aware of our rules on multiple accounts.--P LUMBAGO  08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits by Livingrm generally look very helpful to me, but I noticed that Snalwibma removed some inappropriate language ("celebrated intellectual and a successful popular science author"). I'm commenting to support Snalwibma's removal of the promotional adjectives, and to suggest that the lead may need a little more toning back ("prominent and uncompromising critic", " best-selling book"; also what is a "fixed false belief", and should it be in the lead?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your input and I have implemented your suggestions.--Livingrm (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, "militant atheism"? I don't think so. That's a rather pejorative term (and is more-or-less defined as such in its own article) to be bandying around the lead. He may be described by others as promoting this, but it's definitely not a "movement" to stick him in in the article's lead. --P LUMBAGO 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted "militant atheism", and attempted to cut out some of the more convoluted and empty phrases that have crept into the lead (e.g. "he had become and remains a noted public presenter for a general audience for modern science and rationalism, particularly for his comprehensive and compelling exposition on the subject of evolution"). Like others, I am generally impressed by what Livingrm is doing, but I am somewhat concerned that some of the good material is being replaced with rather empty and repetitive phrasing. For example, I note that the word rationalism has gone, which is a pity. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Between the two of you, you just removed this sentence:
 * By the time of the publication of this second book, he had become and remains a noted public presenter for a general audience for modern science and rationalism, particularly for his comprehensive and compelling exposition on the subject of evolution.
 * Apologies for not wiki-linking (and thereby highlighting) the word "rationalism". Let me admit that I am making mistakes also and I am glad that you are here to re-balance things and I will try take it slow from here on. My point is that "something happened" after about 2000-2001 (wild guess: 9/11, which RD mentions often enough in his talks) and he ramped up his message on atheism. I am trying to present some of "the evidence" over at the bottom of List of publications by Richard Dawkins. You cannot demonstrate such a thing in one or two URLs: you have to show the timeline. BTW: In my opinion, such a list is not promotional because it points to free sources for the content. I happen to think that by the time of the TED 2002 talk which TED entitles "On militant atheism", where he commits himself to greater action on the matter pending better book sales, that his career direction changed, at least for several years. I am trying to take my lead from some of the introductions to some of his talks. For instance, look at this introduction from Liverpool 2008, skip to minute 3:00 mark. That is Prof. Kelvin Everest (University of Liverpool's Public Orator) and he seems to know what he is talking about. The lead is not suppose to me just a crazy quilt of internet confetti, lacking in continuity: it is suppose to capture the broad sweep of his career in a quality manner. I want the lead to be brilliant prose, not internet confetti.--Livingrm (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not convinced. You say above that picking 9/11 as a turning point is a "wild guess", and you use phrases like "I happen to think" - all of which suggests that you are engaged in original research. I recommend caution. Granted that the lead should have some continuity, but that continuity should not be based on one editor's speculative interpretation of the facts. Better to keep it short and simple, even at the cost of being a little disjointed, than to try and "tell a story" that is not clearly and objectively based in the facts. BTW, I removed that sentence because it seemed wordy and empty. Could be cut down to something as brief as "He is well known as a presenter of the case for rationalism and scientific thinking." But let's lose all that speculative stuff about "a noted public presenter ... particularly for his comprehensive and compelling exposition..."! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I wikified a few more of the words and expanded to "presenter and debater" because of all of the "Uncut interviews" he has done which are really dialogs with qualified people of somewhat opposing views to his.--Livingrm (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine, except that "debater" looked all wrong in the context. In any case, surely Dawkins typically refuses to "debate" with creationists and their ilk. So I have amended the sentence. SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to point out is that he has taken a one-on-one didactic approach in the style of many of his recent "uncut" interviews. He did say that he felt he was deceived by the producers of the Expelled film as to the nature of the film, but he continues to produce these dialogs and in the uncut version he does not remove anything, even when his director/producer is interrupting. May the word I am looking for is rhetoric. Another peculiar aspect is the debate style in that in many of these interviews, he and the other person are standing.--Livingrm (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Yes, it is possibly interesting that he and the person he is discussing things with are both standing in various TV discussions, and maybe it is true that he is good at rhetoric - but your comments here suggest that you are trying to find a way of putting the right form of words on what is essentially your own assessment of Dawkins. You are doing some good work on the article - don't spoil it by too much speculation and unsupported opinion. See my comments below (next heading) about personal interpretation versus the judgment of history. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The executive summary should be our own synthesis of some sort. We are getting there.--Livingrm (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Poorly prepared opponents
One of the things that is remarkable about Dawkins is his history of attracting opponents who fairly badly against him directly or afterward. I suppose I could start a new page, but please examine this three-paragraph text:

After the publication of The God Delusion and Dawkins' strong promotion of it while intensifying his criticism of religion resulted in him attracting attention to himself and more focused opposition to his message. Some events during this period that resulted in minor public relations coups for Dawkins were:
 * Ted Haggard's confrontational dialog in the God Delusion segment of The Root of All Evil? and Haggard's later resignation, both in 2006
 * In that same segment, convicted and unrepentant criminal Michael Bray fairs poorly.
 * Ben Stein's 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where an associate producer Mark Mathis blocked PZ Meyers from an early showing of the film, which Dawkins immediately created and released a follow-up video interview with Meyers.
 * Adnan Oktar's 2008 reaction to a negative review by Dawkins to his book and Oktar's later conviction of crimes in Turkey.
 * Ray Comfort becomes know as the "Banana Man" after challenging Dawkins to a debate

During the book tour and for years afterward, to questions such as the one posed by a young woman at Randolph College in 2006 "What if you are wrong?", Dawkins made a point of re-iterating a list of non-Christian religions that one might otherwise believe in such as current popular religions or in ancient gods such as Zeus, Apollo, Wotan, Thor, Baal, Mithras, Amon-Ra, Juju and others parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's teapot, suggesting that the only difference between himself and his critic was that he did not believe in any such gods and that he was merely going them "one god better" than they. This response at that even was met with thunderous applause.

In the 2009 "The Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interviews", Concerned Woman for America president Wendy Wright show weak knowledge and logic about DNA.

Ref: Wendy Wright, uncut interview 2009

I have already seen a reaction that this is OR. Any more feedback about pointing this out in the BLP?--Livingrm (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the paragraph that has just been deleted from The God Delusion. Yes, it's pretty meaningless original research and personal opinion. Basic Wikipedia policy is that an observation such as "one of the things that is remarkable about X is that ..." must be based on a reliable external source. Once it has become the judgement of history that Dawkins attracted remarkably feeble opponents, or whatever, then it has a place in an article about him. Until such time, no. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, OK. I will look around see if anyone else is keeping track of the this sort of thing. Oh, I know: the list of other gods can go over to Wikiquote.--Livingrm (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The same goes for Shmuley Boteach. Ugh!--Livingrm (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins as scientist
I would like us to discuss the nature of Dawkins' scientific legacy. He does not seem to be much of an experimentalist (i.e. make predictions or identify distinct possible outcomes and then conduct experiment in a credible fashion in the lab or the field - and I do *not* mean something like Creatures (artificial life program) because that could be a flawed emulation of reality - really, such exists more just for the purposes of pedagogy. His theories do not seem to result in any significantly new predictions. To be harsh, he merely re-applied Darwin's notions of biological fitness to genes, which had only recently been discovered and confirmed as the underlying implementation of the "traits" that Darwin was already aware of. My training is in chemistry and I would rather that he had written about the "selfish base pair", but I understand how that would have even further alienated his fellow biologists. Did he make a new equation (As Einstien said: "An equation is forever")? Did he make a theory that was authentically distinct from Darwin and was disprovable? Dawkins is a profound scholar and a world-class intellectual; he is a wonderful teacher of the public, but as a scientist, even as a biological theorist, I find that his work merely rhapsodizes about and is thus rather derivative of Darwin. Upon critical reflection, I find my mind drifts back to Amadeus (film) and I perceive a tinge in the mediocrity of Antonio Salieri in Dawkins (rather exaggerated in the film for the sake of dramatic effect). Please disabuse me of my grandiose delusions (god delusions?) of being able to be an informed critic of Dawkins. He is a world-class scholar, teacher, theorist and philosopher of science. But a scientist? A researcher? Such can be said of Watson and E. O. Wilson, but Dawkins? What is he? I tried the following but Plumbago reverted:
 * Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution, applying the ideas of Charles Darwin at the molecular level. In that work, he introduced the term meme. In 1982, he followed up on this effort with the book The Extended Phenotype, emphasizing that the biological fitness and survival of genes from generation to generation are evaluated not just by their phenotypic effects within the organism's body, but how those effects play out via biochemical and behavioural  interactions with the surrounding web of life and environment. He is well known as a presenter of the case for rationalism and scientific thinking.

So who is this Dawkins-man? What is his legacy? That is what the lead should express. That is our task and we must strive for NPOV without deference to anyone's feelings. This is a job that requires information and objectivity, no matter how much we admire Dawkins' efforts towards encyclopedic knowledge and mastery of his subject matter and his profound deference to the scientific legacy of Charles Darwin. I want the quality of the article Richard Dawkins to approach the quality of the aritlce Charles Darwin, but I need your help. As it stands (in my opinion), we are not even yet ready for peer review. Help!--Livingrm (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I reverted simply because the text implied a connection to molecular biology that does not occur in TSG.  The genes of TSG are more in the classical mould, with barely a A, C, T or G in sight.  Given that there are plenty of pop-sci books on molecular biology, it needed to be clear that TSG is not one of them — it is an evolutionary biology book, and base pairs do not come into it.


 * On the wider point about Dawkins' reputation, he was a regular scientist working in ethology who started writing pop-sci books (although both TSG and, especially, TEP are definitely at the heavier end for popular works on biology). As time passed, this role as a writer-of-books came to dominate over his job as a writer-of-papers.  I don't understand the problem that you have with the article on this score.  It's very clear that he's known as both an academic and as a writer, and the article doesn't make any huge claims on his reputation as the former (TSG is described as "popularising" the gene-centred view of evolution).  In passing, and although it is a book, TEP is actually heavily cited in the scientific literature, so he has had some impact scientifically.


 * So, IMHO, the paragraph above seems to cover it pretty well. More generally, the article's balance between scientist/writer seems accurate: Dawkins is known much more for the latter than the former, and this is reflected in the current draft (though it's possibly a little heavy on his pop-sci).  It almost sounds like your objection is more to do with Dawkins' standing as a scientist rather than anything to do with Dawkins-as-Wikipedia-article.  For our purposes here, it's irrelevant whether he's in the same scientific league as Crick or Wilson.  He is clearly notable and requires an article.  What's important is that the article is accurate.  Since it doesn't overplay his scientific reputation (it sounds like you might think that it does), it's not clear to me that it is inaccurate.  But if you think some aspect of his professional life is misrepresented, correct it.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is from his scientific legacy, his credentials and the honors bestowed him that he derives his gravitas, his right to speak.. for the Brights movement if no one else. It is paragraph #2 of the lead that defines that gravitas. It is *vital* that we assess it correctly in terms of its historical importance. He ranks high on the "Top 100 intellectuals" list but will it last beyond the span of his lifetime? That is the question that we are expected to assess now in his status of academic emeritus if we are to claim any level of perspective on the matter. I want this article to be on the WP front page for his 69th birthday, but we must earn that.--Livingrm (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, I don't think we are to assess whether he will rank in the top 100 intellectuals beyond his lifetime (though that he's currently in such lists is of interest). We're here to write a biographical article about a notable (potentially for more than one reason) individual, and which is accurately reported based on reliable and appropriate sources.  Given that your previous edit muddied the waters around TSG, I'm not certain of your definition of "correctly".  The version that I reverted to (which I did not write) was more accurate on this particular point.  And I'm still uncertain of what, exactly, you think is missing here.  If you're looking for some grand edifice of science that Dawkins has erected for eternity, well, I don't believe that he has produced the selfish gene equivalent of E = m c2.  So you may be looking in vain.  I would suggest that his writings in TSG about memes, and in TEP about genotype/phenotype relationships will probably best stand the test of time, but that's my POV.  Are you perhaps looking for sources that suggest/support a particular interpretation of his legacy?  Anyway, I think we may be at cross-purposes here.  --P LUMBAGO  13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me provide an example: New Discovery Proves 'Selfish Gene' Exists. If you have some better ability to track the Web, you would see that the content for that link went offline less than 24 hours ago. "His embarrassed reaction was: "I would totally ignore the Science Daily article. It is utter nonsense that resulted from a waaaaaaaaaaay overblown press release at my university. There's no way for me to take it down. Please, don't link it. Good luck with your up-dating." He was wrong: he followed up with some way to request to take it down and it was taken down because it was an embarrassment to sciencedaily.com . Let me remind you of the subtitle: " ScienceDaily (June 22, 2008) — A new discovery by a scientist from The University of Western Ontario provides conclusive evidence which supports decades-old evolutionary doctrines long accepted as fact." The problem is: any 12-year-old could confront us and say: "Not so fast LUMBAGO or Livingrm or whomever. I assert Copyright © 2008 ScienceDaily LLC  —  All rights reserved  —  Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com, its editorial staff and blah blah blah and I insist that so-and-so LLC or Inc. or whateven and some access date proves that the Dawkins predictions are verified as fact. Period. I win and you lose."
 * Now, back to my voice as the pseduonym Livingrm: Wikipedia can do better than that. It is not just a publisher and accessdate that proves verifiablity. It is our judgment and the better angels of our nature (who the heck do I think I am quoting Lincoln? Me, a more hard-core atheist than Dawkins can ever aspire to...?) Look: sometimes even the press gets it wrong. Now is the time for this community to collaborate and describe Dawkins as well as we can. You may think that my crossreference is waaaaaaaaaaay overblown but it has produce this demonstration. Please study what it links to and help us to get that lead right.--Livingrm (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, I don't follow what you mean re: ScienceDaily. Are you suggesting that such a story would, at least in principle, be useful here?  The ScienceDaily item is (clearly, I would argue) the end product of "Chinese whispers" that has little to do with the original source paper.  Support for Dawkins' work that could be used for illustrative purposes in this article would ideally be sourced from the primary science literature (or, perhaps better, from the associated review literature).  Press releases, such as this one, are frequently (as here) misleading and inaccurate.  Furthermore, as Dawkins has pointed out from the get-go, the "selfish gene" concept is one that he popularised rather than invented.  If anything, this source merely provides evidence that Dawkins is associated with the study of altruism in biology, even though he would argue (I'm sure) that he's a secondary figure behind the likes of John Maynard Smith or Bill Hamilton.  Anyway, I still get the feeling that I'm completely misunderstanding what you're after here.  It would certainly be great to get this article promoted to FA status, but I'm clearly reading from the wrong page.  --P LUMBAGO  17:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Again, I believe that RD is quite notable and worthy of an FA article in the near future. I made the cross-reference so that we can use the power of Wikipedia is to break him down to our language of "notable concepts" and then build up a profile of him based on his notability. If I may be so bold: since you yourself suggest that RD takes his lead from JMS and BDH, I will add them as "influences" to his infobox. I was not confident to so previously because they are his near-contemporaries, but your reference to them sets aside my concerns. It is just this kind of interaction (collaboration) that we need in order to paint the complete RD picture that we can all agree upon. If the mood takes you, revert me at will. This is exactly as it should be: hash it out, corner this man of 68 years and tie him down and thereby implicitly challenge him to surprise us again while this article remains a BLP. May he live to be 101 with his health and his mind, but for now: get it right.--Livingrm (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I am concerned about the directon this discussion is heading. Livingrm, you seem to be intent on (a) promoting the article about RD to FA status, and (b) somehow proving that RD is notable and worthy and wonderful and one of the greatest people ever. Both aims are no doubt laudable, but: I am worried about your desire (above) to "discuss the nature of Dawkins' scientific legacy", and your evident impulse to promote "his scientific legacy, his credentials ... his gravitas, his right to speak..." It looks remarkably Victorian, as if Wikipedia editors were a committee of the Great and the Good tasked with determining who is worthy of elevation to some sort of higher status, and who had a "right to speak". No - we merely report, as clearly and objectively as we can, what is alreay out there in the published sources. Try to restrain yourself from proving and promoting, and concentrate on reporting. That will result in a much better encyclopaedia article. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no connection between the two. FA status is all about how well the article is written, and how well it is sourced, and not at all about how notable the subject is.
 * 2) The notion - which becomes ever more evident in your comments here - that it is the job of a Wikipedia article to promote the subject's notability is completely wrong-headed.
 * The points are well-made. FA status has nothing to do with how notable a topic is. And, it is not the job of an article to promote (or denigrate) a subject but to report on it. It is particularly important in a BLP to be even-handed ... overly praiseworthy comes off like a press-release and turns off readers ... just a an overly critical tone would turn off readers.  Furthermore, it leads to a situation where the article flip flops from one POV to another as editors change text ... which is of course one reason why NPOV is so desired, i.e., it is a more stable article.  I think everyone here very much appreciates the hard work, but it does need to be tempered ... even if something is NPOV, it can feel as if it isn't if there is an over-inclusion of laudatory commentary (even if every comment is verifiable and true). BobKawanaka (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I sense that I am being psychoanalyzed and found wanting. I do not really mind the former, but please refrain from the latter: I am not giving you enough information for you to make such a diagnosis. I am not here to promote or denigrate: I am here is capture the essence of RD.--Livingrm (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments are based entirely on what you say yourself about your aims in editing the article. I am commenting on the article, and the shape it should take, not on you! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 11:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's Rottweiler
Dawkins did not declare "I am Darwin's Rottweiler." He earned the sobriquet. Please allow me be provide the evidence that he has earned such. Give me 24 hours. If after 24 hours, I have failed, then you are welcome to revert me. If you think I have suffering from some bias then ponder this: *I* removed the sobriquet from the lead. Give me some leeway; 24 hours on a weekend is all I ask. I am focusing on his public persona of the past three years &mdash; it may not be what you know of, but please give me a chance. After all, he is making his money from such. Watson flubbed in 2007 and Dawkins make his assertion in later 2007 (or early 2008). That is a fair assessment of "what happened".--Livingrm (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "He has been referred to in the media" is still better than the archaic "sobriquet" and it does not suggest that he declared he was it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin in the lead...
I have been collecting "the evidence" at WP for weeks that our rendition of the intellectual legacy of RD should explicitly acknowledge CD in the lead. Here is an example of a recent BBC Two broadcast Discussion on Darwin and Life's Purpose 2009-09-13:
 * "Prof. Richard Dawkin has spent his life studying and writing about evolution building about the ideas of his great hero, the 19th century Charles Darwin. I have come to his home in Oxford..."

Is that unfair or prejudicial? I know of no protests to such a characterization. It is merely because of his book or his book tour? If it is fair and professional, then please talk about it and consider adding such to the lead. If he later departs from Darwin, then we can update at that time.--Livingrm (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody who is studying and writing about evolution is building on the ideas of Charles Darwin. It is not notable enough for the lead. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the label of Neo-Darwinian in the lead is not sufficient. RD mentions an advocacy of Darwin's ideas (not the ruthless competitiveness but rather CD's intellectual legacy) in many, many of his public appearances and I think that such should be mentioned in the lead.--Livingrm (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine anyone asked by the BBC to present a programme in honour of Darwin's bicentenary would refer to Darwin in similar terms! It means nothing. There is no specific connection to Darwin, other than that shared by all evolutionary biologists. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead, quite accurately, refers to Dawkins as neo-Darwinian: he's a Darwinist in the sense of being a proponent of the primacy of natural selection in the modern synthesis, much to the annoyance of his Kimuranian opponents. He is not a Darwin scholar, as was all too evident in his recent C4 series (don't recall him doing any for the beeb, the clip is from the BBC documentary secular believers and is about Darwkins rather than Darwin. Oddly enough, it refers to Paley as an 18th century philosopher, when the book in question was published by Paley in 1802, but guess that was at the end of the theologian's life). . dave souza, talk 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. If there was a non-parody Darwin Awards, he would clearly make the short list, but not because of his scientific results but because of his modern-day promotion of Darwin and his encyclopedic knowledge and expounding of Darwin and his ideas. There is nothing disrespectful about that, but I want the reader of this BLP to know that if they listen/watch/read an hour's worth of RD's media presence, Darwin is likely to be mentioned. Let me ruminate for a few days to see if such can be properly indicated in the lead (i.e. without overemphasis).--Livingrm (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)