Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 12

John Maynard Smith as influence
It is my impression that John Maynard Smith was a influence on RD but I am not an expert. I added him as an influence but I now have some doubts because of that BBC 2003 profile. JMS bothers to deprecate the notion of the "selfish gene" in the BBC profile. This is a ticklish question: was he an ally or opponent of RD? By that I mean: were his objections to RD's ideas substantial? I updated my cross-reference, but now I want more evidence and a more clarification in the body of the text. Perhaps JMS is an influence but "has reservations" in the style of Gould. Is that fair? Does anyone involved here know?--Livingrm (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins wrote the foreward to JMS' 1993 2nd edition of his book The Theory of Evolution. That is more of a "peer" relationship than an "influence."--Livingrm (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But hey, Jamie is now gone and is in RD's thoughts, so I will leave it in as an "honorary" influence. I do not think that DickyD will have a problem with that.--Livingrm (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The atheism section and the quotes...
I am going to try to re-work the atheism section and do without those specific quotes. My reasoning is that they focus in on minor matters of RD's overall views on atheism. They are an abrupt change of subject and they help to make the section large and choppy and I want to try to get it to read better and appear as a better-organized arrangement of the information. The short quote I added was, I thought, the best isolated example of RD's "Rottwieler" reputation where he only gets a few minutes in that BBC documentary. I will try to find a better way to introduce those quotes (to put them in a sensible context), but I am inclined to cut them to a brief reference using our own prose.--Livingrm (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs...
So.... now the article is composed of paragraphs and they have lead sentences that introduce the subject of the paragraph. Please ensure that if you feel the need to associate cites back to individual sentences that you leave it go at that. In particular, if you examine User:AndyZ/PR/footspace will be reminded to "keep inline citation tags right after the punctuation mark, without a space". Let me suggest that the punctuation mark should almost invariably be the period ("."). Let us also try to ensure that any other quotations be *entire sentences* that In particular, on that last point: quotations should mesh with the nearby text. Quotes derived from Q/A interviews should be avoided unless it is clear that Dawkins is trying to summarize a complex point. I expect the article to slowly decay back into something a little less organized, not so quickly that we will fail to reach FA this time.--Livingrm (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * clearly summarize an important aspect of the subject in a way they cannot be done as succinctly with our own prose
 * are clearly intended by the speaker to be such a summary
 * that follow logically from the text


 * I finally noticed some collaboration. It was a delete of a sentence in the lead with the comment "Remove nonsense and speculation. I am concerned about the ongoing degradation of style and substance in this article." I do not mind it if you trim away *lightly* at the text and snip out the weaker sentences but your overarching condemnation is silly. Several sections of the article from few weeks ago were drivel. Their structure was driven by articles rather than by themes. Because some of you seem to be still missing the point, let me make a few more suggestions:

Now, *that* is a story that is organized by the continuing themes of this man's mind; a lot of what was there before was dribble, factoid and isolated quote. The isolated nature of the Oktar thing is a good example: Yes, it is an isolated incident, but now is it *organized* as part of the resistance. Why should the reader have to go through an otherwise unorganized list of isolated events? We *could* list every event sorted by date, but then it would suck.--Livingrm (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The God Delusion book should not be handled all in one paragraph. It covers way too much ground and it has its own WP article; mention pieces of it with the appropriate paragraph.
 * Please continue to look at the development of the paragraphs as a narrative line. The "Atheism and rationalism" now follows this structure:
 * 1) Detailed assertion of RD as world-class, influential atheist/rational/whatever who is well-connected with the appropriate organizations
 * 2) Focused review of his long-term basis of his atheism with a change after 9/11 to include the notion that "religion is not just wrong; the wrong should now be corrected in our world forever"
 * 3) Outline of how RD is going to go after the public and "the children" to get his point across via "consciousness raising" and secure what might be his desired legacy
 * 4) Resistance to RD's thrust
 * 5) Demonstrating how RD is properly coordinating his thrust with the other big players of the planet and is almost becoming a brand
 * 6) Example of significant recent street-level effort to continue the thrust


 * It is true that the edit summary you mention above ("remove nonsense and speculation") was a little blunt, but what the edit did was to remove the following text recently-added to the lead:
 * While 9/11 and post-Bush stimulated him to an intense anti-religion phase, he has claimed this phase over and he plans a children's book designed to provide an accessible explanation for rationalism and to provide rational explanations for selected, often religion-based, fairy tales.
 * Of course everyone is civil and assumes good faith, and your work is commendable, however editors have to get to the point quickly, and avoid leaving doubt with euphemistic language. Accordingly, I believe that the above edit summary is an extremely reasonable remark given the nature of the text that was removed.
 * I do not know about other editors, but I have decided to skip watching your frequent changes for a while. I am waiting until you pause for a few days, and will then compare the article with its earlier state. If you believe the "While 9/11..." text should be in the article, there may also be a significant difference of opinion with regard to other changes. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Johnuniq. I am the guilty part in relation to the edit summary you mention. Apologies for the bluntness of it - I simply do not have time to go through the whole thing right now and give a more considered judgement point by point, but I felt I had to say something about what seemed to me a particularly bad addition. I am delighted to see someone working so hard on the article, but I am concerned about some general trends. Looking at the changes over the last few weeks, I see (1) an increased tendency to dramatise and speculate and a reduction in the encyclopaedic tone, (2) increased attention paid to the "human interest" angles and a reduction in the scientific content, (3) a move towards assessing and judging (mostly praising) and away from recording simple verifiable facts. I also find some of the language cheap and nasty, and some of it badly written and clumsy. The previous broadsheet article has become sadly tabloid in places. Concern for consistency and WP:ENGVAR also seems to have gone out of the window. The sheer number of small edits (something like 300 since mid September) makes it impossible to keep track of what is going on - but I too would like to stand back and review it at some future date, once the present round of editing by Livingrm is finished. I strongly suspect that some things were done better in the mid-September version, and that in due course we will want to revert a few sections of the article to the way they were then. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can put my oar in too, I'd completely agree with Johnuniq and Snalwibma. Livingrm — it's really great that you're taking such an interest in this article (and other RD topics), but: (a) some of the edits are making the article considerably less encyclopaedic in tone and content; (b) several of your talkpage statements strongly suggest that there are some misunderstandings about what a WP is and what it's for; and (c) you are making huge numbers of small edits that are making it very difficult for other editors to follow the article's evolution.  On the latter point, that many of your edits are good is undone by the fact that some (e.g. the tendency to elevate Dawkins; your synthesis of material to tell a coherent, if questionable, story) are deleterious.  While it's possible to pick through edits undoing some and retaining others, it's extremely laborious to do this when 30+ small edits have appeared overnight.  Is there any way that you could do fewer, more substantial edits?  Finally, to be honest, I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish with the article.  While, as with all articles, the mid-September version was flawed, I've not a coherent picture of how it's now "improved".  But sorry if my reversions appear brusque — that's certainly not my intention.  --P LUMBAGO  08:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Career in academia vs. career as a popular science author
This split does not work. The former section ends with a comment about Dawkins as "the third most successful science writer ever", which surely belongs in the latter section. If the split is to be maintained, the latter section needs a subsection on evolution, to which the final paragraph of the present "academia" section should be moved. But I'm not sure the split is helpful, in any case. Or is it just that I don't like the word "academia"? Maybe "Academic career" would make me happier! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference positioning
What's happened to the reference positioning in the article? While some references coincide with the information they relate to, there are a number of places in the article where the references seem to be getting "stored up" and then dumped in long lines. As well as being ugly, this creates paragraphs which at first appear unsourced. Then, when you work out that the sources may be listed in that long line of numbers, you've got the joyous task of working out which citation supports which statement earlier in the paragraph. This is absurd.

I can't see any one edit (or set of edits) that has created this situation, so am tempted to revert wholesale again (cf. earlier discussion above). Unless someone would like to unpick these? --P LUMBAGO 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was progress when we got to a lead that has no cites. I advocate that we continue to move in the direction of a compositional style that stresses organizing the information into paragraphs with proper (and uncited) lead sentences. We are almost to the point where the inappropriateness of some of the more banal pieces of sourced information are becoming more obvious, now that such trivia is imprisoned within the appropriate paragraph and juxtaposed with somewhat more brilliant prose. One source of friendly and constructive collaboration I have experienced at Wikipedia recently was with that "automated peer review" I mention above. It does not seem to mind if the cites are at the end of the sentence or the paragraph and it seems to know how to help get the article to FA. To help make you more joyous, I will be re-associating some more of the cites back to the individual sentences. It is a rather easy and I will proceed to do so now &mdash; using the latest version and in a collaborative spirit.--Livingrm (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article currently lists 155 references. Working out what reference applies to what is a gigantic job. There must be verifiability. In addition, common sense dictates that the reader who is seriously interested can readily follow a reference. I agree that there is often no need to put a reference at the immediate clause where it applies, but it must be at the end of the applicable sentence. Unfortunately, as noted above, I have been ignoring this article while waiting for the editing to pause. Thanks to Plumbago's comment I have just looked and the references are not acceptable.
 * The situation is quite difficult because Livingrm has done a lot of work, and we have stood back while that was in progress. However, I do not see how we can hope to restore the correct positioning of the references without a total reversion. I am not going to check 155 references, and I am not inclined to accept that someone else is going to do it either.
 * I am still not going to take the time to evaluate the article as it currently stands because significant changes are likely (particularly in view of the references situation). However, a very quick look makes me think that the language may be inappropriate: "Dawkins is one of Britain's best-known academics", "continues to enjoy success", and more. I may agree with the obvious truth of many of the points in the article, but we just do not write like that on Wikipedia, particularly when describing a scientist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the atheism section alone has 65 of those citations and was the main reason why this article could never make it to FA. I am confident that I am more of a godless materialist than Dawkins but I care that this article be the result of design of some mind or set of minds. I care about the citations and I am examining all of them and at times repairing them. I am moving some around so that they find their canonical place within the design of the article. You would think that with 150 or so references, that we would not add material that is only supported by a single article because perhaps it is not germane to the BLP. How can you possibly hope to recognize such if you cannot get your mind and your attention span to transcend the goosestep of sentence-cite-sentence-cite? If you think that the purpose of paragraph #2 in the lead is otherwise, then please replace its lead sentence with something more acceptable and that better reflects its purpose.--Livingrm (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you are correctly judging the general direction of the conversation here. Wikipedia is one place where a fait accompli does not necessarily stick because any of us can quite easily revert the article back to what we believe is a stable state. Particularly for an article like this, consensus will overcome enthusiasm. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP has quite a reputation for allowing some to build Sand Castles of Knowledge and then have someone else joyously kick them over. I would guess that the goosestep tyranny I mentioned above is in order to sacrifice of all other considerations to the ease of fact-checking by amateurs. The professional fact-checker that Stacy Schiff used did not detect Essjay's "persona" as merely a pseudonym... In the mixed language of Eric S. Raymond and E. O. Wilson: what do you want for this BLP: to be more like a cathedral or a termite hill? Let's keep trying to find a healthy compromise, OK? I am working on the cites and intend to tie most of them back to their individual sentences. Then...let the terminate have at the results.--Livingrm (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing sentences...
As properly documented at Paragraph, closing sentences also matter. IMO, the paragraph, when properly composed, should be as poetry and worth reading out loud in order to celebrate the beauty of the coherency and clarity of the train of thought. If that is asking too much, then we could at least try to make the recording for WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia a pleasure, with each paragraph started like colostrum, continue nourishing our minds and then properly completing the package of information before moving on.--Livingrm (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to revert to mid-September version
I am growing increasingly unhappy with the current wholesale rewriting and cheapening and enfeebling of the article. And the way it is being done, in hundreds of small changes, makes it impossible to keep track. I vote to revert to the way it was in about mid September, and then to use that as the basis for a discussion on how to improve the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reverting back. I cleaned up a lot of problems with this article and your "unhappiness" about it is vague. I have done real work and you have hit the revert button. Let us try this approach: please enumerate exactly what new information you have added to the article in the past six months. I have avoided the adjective "controversial" for RD because, despite his impeccable credentials, it makes him sound like crackpot. For instance, this Sept. 2009 radio transcript starts out with "Richard Dawkins is one of the best-known and most controversial scientists in the world." But that is not what we want. Why I changed the lead to, at first blush be a little more vague to prepare the reader for exactly the correct scope of him. You have to give the reader a heads-up that RD's work is in ethology and evolutionary biology and that it will somehow segue over to atheism. I said "life and culture" and that is too vague, and the collaborative results are better. For the non-biologist reader: most of the ideas of RD cannot be proven with scientific experiment (despite what that ScienceDaily article said and which was deservedly requested yanked by the original researcher). I finally found my template: Edward Witten. I think that it is not a coincidence that they both show up on Charles Simonyi with Simonyi professorships. It is perhaps because they are hard to pin down and their results cannot simply be proven. Physicists fret how string theory implies no testable predictions. (I have not yet found the clip from the Elegant Universe, but I will put it here when I find it). Please look at the first two minutes of the 2003 BBC profile. What I am trying to fit in is what JMS says: "I have very little sympathy with that view . I don't think that "selfish gene" ever confused a biologist; it only confuses philosophers." I think we can point that out to the reader and that it will be helpful as they try to sort out and understand the sentences in the "self gene" section. I am not doing OR and it is not cheapening the article; I am trying to forewarn the reader of the scope of the material that follows.--Livingrm (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Livingrm: Thank you for your work. However, your recent replies indicate that you do not accept the reservations that three editors have expressed. Above, I have given several examples of text that should not be in the article, the most recent being "While 9/11...", and I have not seen any specific response. Your comment just above is not appropriate. First, you should give other editors a chance to review Snalwibma's proposal and not do another barrage of edits. Second, it's not up to you to revert back or whatever because no one owns this article. Third, you have used a lot of words but they are off-topic for this section which is to discuss a proposal to revert to a mid-September version. Please stop making edits and allow at least 48 hours for other editors to catch up. From the time of Livingrm's first edit in this article (13:54, 8 October 2009), there have been 282 edits (13.4 edits/day); 238 of the edits (84%) were by Livingrm.


 * Snalwibma: I have resisted following this suggestion in the hope that Livingrm's edits would naturally come to an end so we could make an assessment then. However, I am now inclining to the view that we may not be able to avoid a dispute, so we may as well have it now rather than going another month and having a dispute after even more edits. I can see the virtue of reverting back. Then we could look at each section in turn, by making one or two large edits to the section. That would allow a reasonable "before" and "after" comparison for some consensus to emerge. Repeat for all sections. Do another pass for rearranging sections. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty-much done. I have done lots of picky little improvements, but I guess I would have done better to take a copy of the article and work on it under my own userpage for a few weeks and then incorporate a few weeks worth of your work, but I really was helped when you guys pointed out where I was drifting off the mark. Thanks.--Livingrm (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No more big cite clumps
I have re-meshed the cites so that there are none larger than four-in-a-row anywhere, most of such being at the end of the paragraph. I think that the fact-checkers have a manageable task. I have tried to help by adding many subtitles so that you can see/recall what the scope of the web cite was about. I do not feel that this is an excessive burden because only a few years ago, the style was to just have a "further reading" and a "external links" section at the bottom of the page. The balance now is pretty good and I think that we agree that it is progress that there are no inside-a-sentence refs.--Livingrm (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. The references are generally better at the end of a sentence than within the sentence (unless clarity demands that they are within the sentence), but they really need to be attached to the relevant sentence, not dumped at the end of the paragraph where it is impossible to tell which reference supports which statement. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm more agnostic on the in-sentence / end-sentence distinction, but Snalwibma's right: the main thing is that a source is at least tied to the end of the sentence that refers to it. I think that if a sentence contains a number of long, separate clauses (e.g. "This is known to be caused by reagent X, process Y,  and reaction Z.   "), then in-sentence references may be preferable.  But willy-nilly insertion (e.g. "She travelled on Tuesday from London to Paris on the Chunnel ") should definitely be avoided.  Still, it's at least much easier to deal with this sort of referencing problem than the one we had before.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Poorly worded statement about Church of England
"A Church of England spokesman asserted that Christian belief is not about worrying or not enjoying life, but rather the opposite."

This statement, part of the wiki article, should be removed or re-worded.

First, it is a religious comment on the bus campaign against religion, and as such seems as out of place in this article as an atheist comment would be in an article on Francis of Assisi (I checked, there are none).

Second, taken literally, its meaning is possibly contrary to what is intended by the writer, since the literal opposite of the Christian belief is not about [worrying or not enjoying] life is the Christian belief is about worrying or not enjoying life (the opposite of 'not... not' is 'not'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corylus n (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed! A month ago that statement read A Church of England spokesman said: "we would defend the right of any group representing a religious or philosophical position to be able to promote that view through appropriate channels. However, Christian belief is not about worrying or not enjoying life. Quite the opposite -- our faith liberates us to put this life into a proper perspective." - which at least makes sense, even if its relevance is still questionable (and the reference for the statement was actually alongside the statement, rather than dumped with a lot of other unrelated references at the end of the paragraph). This, I'm afraid, is another example of the sort of scrambling that the article has suffered from in its recent editing - and another example of why we should probably revert to the mid-September version. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the fuller version of the quote. However, I do not see why a religious comment on a campaign against religion is "out of place", and no more would I regard quoting an atheist comment on Francis of Assisi as out of place. Wikipedia is supposed to give a balanced coverage of all viewpoints; it is true that it does not tend to do so in articles on religious topics, but the answer to that is to improve those articles, not to use it as a justification for similar bias in other articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Dawkins
I am pro-atheist and pro-Dawkins but I want this article to have some balance. It may be that there is no room for any other criticism of Dawkins except a list of ISBN-bearing books, but I ran across
 * Darwin’s Rottweiler and the Public Understanding of Scientism (2003) by Peter S. Williams

This is an credentialed academic Christian who has made some effort to study Dawkins' work and provide some criticism. Williams writes in a careful style and leads off his Conclusion section with "The fact that Dawkins routinely employs fallacious arguments does not mean that his conclusions are wrong." I happen to think that his criticisms are more points of style than of substantance, but I would hope that we could include this, if for nothing else that to demonstrate NPOV balance on our part as we move this article towards FA status.--Livingrm (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unclear where that essay might be used. Are you suggesting the dreaded "criticism" section? Skimming the page makes me think that Williams is fundamentally objecting to Dawkins' statements re God, but there is already quite a queue of such objectors mentioned in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right in that it should not be a section. But I think it deserves a sentence in the flow of the text, placed in it chronologically because RD has done a lot since 2003.--Livingrm (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fellow atheist here (and leftist as well actually), but I do agree that we sould have a criticism section, as I've heard a lot of criticisms regarding Dr. Dawkin's approach (which I personally give 2 thumbs up btw). What I think we can do is sub-divide the criticism section into subsections, such as "Criticism by Evangelical Christians", "Criticism by Fellow Scientists", etc. It's only fair. But having the subsection title will give us an idea of how to take the criticisms that's going to be listed. For example, when I see section title such as "Criticism by Evangelical Christians", I'm thinking: here we go, more bullsh*t about Dr. Dawkins not trying to teach the controversy or something like that....Children of the dragon (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with in-line inclusion of critical material as is the case now? WP:BLP and the related WP:COATRACK give some guidance here.  Having a specific criticism in a BLP is asking for trouble (my POV).  It makes more sense for an article to focus on those aspects that makes its subject notable, and to note where these aspects attract criticism in the same place.  A disconnected grab-bag of criticism is unlikely to improve the article, and instead is liable to draw in "has-also-been-criticised-by" trolls.  That said, there's no formal prohibition of such sections, so this can be discussed further in specific cases.  However, at the moment, this article is under heavy revision, and may even revert to an earlier state depending upon discussions here.  For this reason, I'd definitely suggest avoiding adding such a section in the near future.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  10:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing to bear in mind is that it is (or should be!) Dawkins' specific ideas and statements that attract the criticism, not the man himself. Creating a separate "criticism" section would weaken the specific nature of the criticism (what precisely is being criticised), and tend towards a rag-bag of "I don't like Dawkins" trash. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.arn.org/authors/williams.html here is the bio of the subject, credentialed yes, notable no, ID "researcher" and after reading the article you cite i put in doubt the expertise or bias of the subject, "Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called ‘positivism’)" is quite telling. --190.159.165.12 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Next book
I added information on the next book a couple of weeks back (click), only to come back and see that it's been deleted. Despite coverage on Dawkins' official site of the new book there's now not a single reference to it in the article. Can anyone explain to me why this isn't worthy of inclusion? If not, I'm reinserting it. AC+79 3888 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it was deleted, but coverage on Dawkins's site scarcely qualifies as independent coverage, so in the absence of anything else it fails WP:Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been mentioned elsewhere too, for example this article from the Guardian. MFlet1 (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, JamesBWatson clearly didn't bother to look at the references I inserted in the link given above. I'm putting the information back into the article. AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

anti-relition
Can someone fix the typos please? -- 23:16, 25 October 2009 88.167.71.127
 * Done. Somebody fixed the two typos.--Livingrm (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't work out where to post this comment, so I'm doing it here!

In the biography box, Dawlkins is said to be an atheist, whereas in The God Delusion he cleary states that he is an antitheist. This is an important distinction, especially in relation to the development of Dawkins theories and personal take on religions. Could it be amended please? Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.111.100 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard Dawkins does not believe in the existence of God: he is an atheist. He may well also be regarded as an antitheist, but this does not mean that he is not an atheist. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
This article was recently put up for peer review; I responded but it evidently didn't grace the eyes or furtive fingers of too many of you. If you're curious, my thoughts are here. Seegoon (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Title Foto
The most upper foto of Dawkins doesn't seem to be very nice (on purpose?) Why not use one like this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23images/dawkinsRichard.jpg The current version is like using http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/media/13398/Obama_440.jpg as the title foto of an article about Obama. --84.177.203.84 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one there. I don't think it's un-nice. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording of 'lead sentence'
Having read the talk page, I understand the logic of starting each paragraph with a 'lead sentence', and I think that it generally helps to structure a complex article. However, this sentence:


 * "Dawkins has a large set of reasons for his anti-religious stance."

doesn't read well to me; it doesn't strike a suitable tone for an encyclopedia. I hesitate to make a change in what seems to have been a rather over-edited article, but what about changing it to something like "Dawkins has put forward many reasons for his anti-religious stance."? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds much better.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New honorary doctorate
Richard Dawkins recently received an honorary doctorate in science (DSc) from the University of Aberdeen, which is not included in the article. Source: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/details-4924.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcados (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
please add this new interview (One on One with Riz Khan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euMi5Akf8Kc

to Selected media section.

Done YouTube video is from Al Jazeera English; Khan's show is on their network, so copyright is not an issue. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins vs Craig
I believe it would be intersting to mention, in a small section, about de debates that Dawkins made, like with Alistair McGraith and John Lennox, and also put that Dawkins is running away from William Lane Craig to debate him (of course, not in this words...). Momergil (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already quite a lot about debates in the article (e.g. a reference to his "prominence in public debates about science and religion" in the Atheism and rationalism section). If there are other notable figures whom he has notably engaged in debate, maybe that section should be edited – though (a) it must be notable, and (b) Lennox is already mentioned (excessively, IMHO) at The God Delusion. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Said
It is said in the article that Clinton John Dawkins was in the King's African Rifles. I have not seen a proof of this, apart from Dawkins' own blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in The Ancestor's Tale, which is a reliable source. It'd be nice to have a more independent one, but I think given the uncontroversial level of the claim - and that it's not actually by CJD himself - it's relatively acceptable. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems biased
Why is there little or no criticism of Dawkins? Certainly some credible people have some issues with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. How many threads have we had on this topic so far?  Can't we add the "blah blah Criticism Section blah blah" matter to the resolved issues list, or to an FAQ? &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anonymous IP why don't you try to find some credible criticism and contribute on improving the article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that 69.211.150.99 was asking before doing. If there is no Criticism section by now, it seems that there is some reason why not. He's asking. --Dan Kuck (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As Dawkins is a fairly controversial figure, there definitely ought to be some sort of "Criticism" section. As much of the controversy surrounds his book The God Delusion, we could probably use many of the links provided on that page.95.146.236.165 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on/criticism of The God Delusion belongs at The God Delusion. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I don't think that there is much valid criticism to be made. Despite Dawkins being unfailingly polite and soft-spoken, he is criticised for being shrill and strident.  This criticism, while widespread, is unfounded, and really reflects the discomfort with his forthright dismissal of religion, rather than a valid criticism of Dawkins or his work.Trishm (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. --Dan Kuck (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think they are asking whether Dawkins is a nice guy or not or whether he is polite. By criticism, they mean critique.  For example, Trishm, you mention that many are uncomfortable with his forthright dismissal or religion.  If someone were to write write a book evaluating Dawkins' arguments, he would be called a critic.  If the book were noteworthy, it might be worth mentioning it.  This does not mean though that we need to hunt up a critic for every one of Dawkins' views.Chappell (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He is often intolerant of other people's opinions opposite to his even in science ( See Jay Gould criticism ), uses argumentation not short of phallacies ( see the straw man argumant often used his books , just for starters ).

I'll second that, see http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10778/Default.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.37.80 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.97.187 (talk)


 * This is a link to an excerpt from a book by Keith Ward, a clergyman who favours theistic evolution. It is subtitled "Doubting Dawkins".  From his Wikipedia biography we learn that he is a notable figure and the author of books on the relationship between science and religion.  He is also identified as a critic of Richard Dawkins' ideas.  He is not mentioned in the article Richard Dawkins.


 * Has Dawkins' been criticized by any who share his views? For example, some might consider him too strident and fear that his advocacy could backfire on them.


 * Chappell (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Theoretical Biologist"
Source on Dawkins being a theoretical biologist? What qualifies him, or anybody, as such? When did Dawkins become a theoretical biologist? Has he always been one? The wiki on theoretical biology that this is linked to is embarrasing. It says nothing, isn't cited, and is filled with original research. So, theoretical biology, according to Crick, is "a suggested point of view for an attack on a scientific problem" That's a pretty broad definition. Not to mention the fact that Crick never called this theoretical biology. From the Wiki article:

"The common use of this word throughout the biological literature[original research?] has only recently culminated in a formal definition[original research?] offered by Francis Crick and Christof Koch" The whole line is nonsense and the article probably shouldnt even exist.

So Dawkins "suggests a point a view" that is untestable/not falsfiable and he is a theoretical biologist. We should add Freud to the list of theoretical biologists. I mean, anyone with a biology background who introduces "points of view" that aren't scientific is a biological theorist, right?

Savagedjeff (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa. I can't find the phrase "theoretical biologist" anywhere in this article.  What are you referring to?  Even still, the great bulk of his professional work concerns theories of evolutionary biology, so I'm not sure why there is an affront to this phrase.  CosineKitty (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess Savagedjeff is referring to the inclusion of Dawkins in a list of theoretical biologists at Theoretical biology. Maybe this thread should be moved to Talk:Theoretical biology. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First line : "Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British biological theorist". Click on that and theoretical biology comes up.

Savagedjeff (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, now I see that. Sorry I missed the different wording.  Wow, that other article is indeed a mess.  As to this article: most of my exposure to Richard Dawkins has been by reading his books about evolutionary biology, the theory of the "selfish gene", etc.  I guess we could have a debate about whether his theories are testable or not. Because most of his work is an attempt to explain observations in biology, the fossil record, etc., it would be a real stretch to say that theoretical biologist is anything other than the most concise and accurate description of what he is most noted for.  CosineKitty (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well he is most noted for being a popular science writer that popularizes other people's ideas. There is no "selfish gene theory". There is no extended phenotype theory, and there is no meme theory. What are his biological theories? Name one. Theory has a specific meaning in science and Dawkins has produced none that I am aware of. Or has he added anything scientific to an existing theory. Not to mention that all these ideas were introduced and largely explained through pop books and not the peer review process.

Savagedjeff (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true at all, and saying such things comes dangerously close to libel.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Name one thing I said that is untrue.

Savagedjeff (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one. "Theory has a specific meaning in science and Dawkins has produced none".  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a theory has to be testable/falsifiable. So what theory has Dawkins produced? I know Dawkins' work like the back of my hand so I can't wait for your response.

Savagedjeff (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific suggestion to improve this article, because talk pages should not be used a forum per WP:TALK. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assmue the specific suggestion is the removal of the words "biological theorist". I don't see that that's a bad description, whether or not he's ever produced a piece of work which would be called "Foo Theory". He's clearly a biologist and the stuff he does is not collecting samples or labwork: he works on biological theory. I haven't looked for sources but am confident that that's what 'theorist' means as commonly used by native English speakers. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But why is Dawkins a "biological theorist"? I don't see that term on any other biologist's wiki. Including Crick, who is was misrepresented to get that article created in the first place. When has Dawkins ever been referred to as a biological theorist by himself or others? Who even uses the term? And "theory" in science is much different than theory in general discourse. People out in the field are working on biological theory too. In fact, that is where most of the theory of evolution comes from.

Savagedjeff (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Savagedjeff argues the point from several directions, so here is my take on them independently.
 * "Who even uses the term?" For what it is worth, Google search does show that the term "theoretical biologist" (32,100 hits) appears more common than "biological theorist" (6,990 hits).  To my ear, the former also sounds more familiar.  So I would have no problem changing to "theoretical biologist".
 * About Crick: I'm not familiar with that issue; you may or may not have a valid point, but I don't see how that has anything to do with improving this article.
 * The meaning of theory in science. Here is where I think the dispute seriously hinges.  To settle the issue by consensus, we would all need to agree whether Dawkins has originated a new scientific theory, or at least nontrivially enhanced or modified an existing scientific theory.  I'm open to persuasion in either direction, because I'm really not that familiar with Dawkins' work in biology.  I think we can all agree that Dawkins is a well-known exponent and popularizer of the theory of evolution.  If that is the entirety of his contribution to science, then it is not so easy to dismiss Savagedjeff's objections.
 * CosineKitty (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that those are not the entirety of his contributions; he is largely the one behind the "selfish gene" and "meme" concepts, the former of which is especially influential. I'm not a biologist either - as you know - but it appears that a major reason there is dispute about Dawkins' scientific contributions is that they are largely overshadowed by his more recent (and more controversial) work in scientific popularization and religion.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I agree that "theoretical biologist" is better than "biological theorist" for naturalness's sake. Second, I agree that his propagation of the gene's-eye view of evolution is a significant contribution to theoretical biology. Third, I still disagree that he'd need to have made such a contrbiution to qualify for the title: someone who spends their life studying biology as an academic is a biologist, regardless of how significant their impact is. If the biology they study is theoretical, thenthey're a theoretical biologist. Finally, I admit that the word theory has multiple meanings which can be confusing, but I stand by what I said above about the meaning of the word theoretical in its scientific context as most frequently used.Olaf Davis (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not arguing against the label theoretical biologist. What I literally said was that to reach consensus (i.e. to settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction, including Savagedjeff's), if we could all agree that Dawkins has provided notable theoretical work in the field of biology, then the matter would be settled.  That degree of consensus may not be possible.  The idea of the selfish gene and his list of published papers may not be persuasive to everyone as "theoretical" works.  Now that I have studied more about Dawkins' work, I am fine with the label, but of course I speak only for myself.  Here are a couple of options. The majority opinion can simply overrule the minority opinion, and we leave the wording as-is.  Or we change to "theoretical biologist" because that sounds better (my current preference).  Another possibility is to describe him as an "evolutionary biologist", a "professor of biology", or whatever term satisfies everyone and accurately describes Dawkins.

I believe "evolutionary biologist" would likely be best; that is how he is often introduced and/or described as. Regarding "biological theorist" or "theoretical biologist", I much prefer the latter as well, if only because it is more natural (think of theoretical physicist as a parallel).  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Radical One, how about that libel charge? You gonna prove it or show one instance where I was wrong? Noticed you kind of forgot about that attack on me. So either retract it or show some evidence. And again, you show no clue about biology or the man's work. The Selfish Gene is merely a popular account of the gene centered view of evolution. Which Dawkins has adding nothing to. What is the contribution in this book? Memes is also in that book. Memes is a pseudoscience that has been abandoned by nearly all of its original supporters. I'm sure Dawkins is even embarassed be proposed such a thing and why he never talks about it and if it is brought up he says like one sentence and tries to change the subject. The gene centered view of evolution is not even right anyway. When you say he is "largely behind" the selfish gene, what does that even mean? And explain to me how it is influential. How can propagating one particular view of evolution, which most biologists dont even agree with, be considered a contribution to evolutionary theory? Are people who go out and trumpet nothing but String Theory in pop books making contributions to physics? No. I will show you what contributions to evolutionary theory actually look like:

Ernst Mayr- "His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced) based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation."

Savagedjeff (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. I used his conception of the selfish gene theory as an example.
 * Furthermore, it appears you are more interested in starting an argument with other editors than improving the article. Such intent is against Wikipedia policy, highly discouraged, and repeat behavior of this sort may result in termination of your access to Wikipedia. So watch it.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in presenting facts which is all I have done. You are intersested in threatening and silencing me. So back up your claims because as of right now this article and material seems a little over your head.

And there is no "selfish gene theory". Keep trying.

Savagedjeff (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a selfish gene theory, if not in the same etymological sense as "theory of evolution" and "theory of relativity". Need I take you through it?
 * "This article and material seems over your head". If you are going to stoop to insults, I would hope for your sake that you enjoy having warnings (like the I left you for this) leveled against you.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I also suggest you try a new style of talk page contributions - many of your comments on other pages, such as here and here, with that latter also involving another comment that appears to convey a dislike you seem to have for Dawkins and his work, are argumentative and inflammatory, and excessively critical.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, take me through it. And explain its influence. Even the wiki article on gene centered view of evolution use selfish gene interchangeably with gene centered view of evolution. As in one of the names that the gene centered view of evolution goes by. Dawkins gave it a different name that sounded cool to sell books. Just like he did with niche construction by renaming it the extended phenotype. The Selfish Gene is a POPULARIZATION of the gene centered view of evolution. It is not a theory. Theory has SPECIFIC meaning in science and you people are trampling all over it. The Selfish Gene isnt even a hypothesis. Savagedjeff (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The gene-centered view of evolution is essentially the concept of the selfish gene!
 * "Dawkins gave it a different name that sounded cool to sell books." Are you accusing him of plagiarism, and never having conceived anything of his own? THAT is libel.
 * Yes, it is not a technical "theory" in the scientific sense - I am aware of the nuances of the definitions; I have had to debate many creationists on the usage of "theory" - but most people reading Wikipedia will not know or care about minor issues of semantics.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we back up a little bit? This is getting needlessly argumentative and personal. To Savagedjeff: it is apparent you believe Richard Dawkins is overrated. That's fine. But please, try not to take things personally. Saying things like "you people" does not persuade me that you are trying to work with others; it implies that every other random person who happens to comment here is somehow in the same box, and to my ear, that you put yourself above the rest of us. Perhaps referring to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be a less offensive-sounding than libel, which to a newcomer might sound like we are ready to start calling lawyers or something. Bottom line: please talk about the article, make specific suggestions for changes. We already seem to have some consensus about changing "biological theorist" to "evolutionary biologist". Can we at least agree on that? CosineKitty (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An article about a scientist should have the term "theory" used in scientific context. I can't believe you would even be able to say otherwise. I can only attribute this to dishonesty and bias at this point with such a ridiculous statement. There is no nuance in the scientific definition, and science is what we are talking about. So stop with the red herrings. Why don't you go over to the Theory of Evolution page and tell them that most wiki readers don't care about such minor semantics. I am accusing Dawkins of being a popularizer of science and never adding to any existing theory, or conceiving a new one. Dawkins should be called a biological popularizer if anything, not a theorist. Considering he has produced many pop books and no theories. Or maybe even a biological philosopher. Dawkins is like Freud. He just talks. He proposes ideas that he even admits can't be tested. This is not science. This is not theory. This is not even hypothesis. Which is why they are written in pop books and not journals.

To cosine: My main problem is that this page is maintained by fan boys who are largely scientifically illiterate and will do anything to inflate Dawkins' credentials. Just look at the size of the article. Take the opening. It is 270 words. Compare that to other articles. Max Planck opening- 40 words. Planck is one of the best scientists of the century and on par with Einstein. Dobzhansky-63 words. A giant in evolutionary biology. etc.. etc.. The difference between Planck/Dobzhansky and Dawkins, besides the obvious disparity in scientific output, is that Dawkins has a cult of personality surrounding him.

Savagedjeff (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I vote changing it to "evolutionary biologist", if for nothing else than it is more natural and more common.
 * "I am accusing Dawkins of being a popularizer of science and never adding to any existing theory, or conceiving a new one...Or maybe even a biological philosopher. Dawkins is like Freud.  He just talks...This is not science...Which is why they are written in pop books and not journals."
 * Which is why you are being accused of POV editing. Such things can NOT be in an article about a living person; they are defamatory and violate the BLP policy mentioned by CosineKitty.
 * I've had it with this sort of discussion; this has degenerated into an argument with someone who feels Dawkins' reputation is largely undeserved, and aggressive responses - often including insults, no less - to those who disagree. Therefore, I will not respond (to SavageJeff) here anymore, but I will not hesitate to revert edits and drop warnings if unconstructive edits are made to the article itself.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We should wait
The clumsy wording regarding "is a British biological theorist" was introduced by a banned editor who made many changes to the article. In an effort to diffuse the discussion above, I have restored the first paragraph to how it was in this revision (at 08:52, 25 September 2009). I strongly recommend that we do not try to fix the wording any further because it is highly likely that the whole article will be reverted to the September revision when John Vandenberg resumes removing all edits by the banned user. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the edits helpful? If so, why will they be removed?  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is best (per WP:DENY) that we do not say much about the case (and in fact I do not know much about it). However, there are a very small number of ultra-banned editors where it is standard to completely remove the contributions from their latest sockpuppet to avoid encouragement. Other editors are free to consider removed material and add it, preferably in their own words, but any large restorations would be reverted. When the changes were occurring, at least three regular editors were troubled by the direction (see archive 12 and search for "September"). If the article is wound back, I will go to a fair bit of trouble to ensure any good edits are reinstated, as will others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good to know.
 * On a side note, it seems a rather ill-conceived policy to revert even constructive edits (and thus sacrifice quality) just to wipe away one editor...this is not the place to discuss that, so I will not continue.
 *  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very rare that we do this. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_57 for a recent discussion about this same banned editor.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The revert has now happened. I have to go now, but I'll work on the article in the next two days and will try to incorporate all the good edits since that time. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping "evolutionary biologist", which is in the current version from before the banned user's edit, instead of "biological theorist" or "theoretical biologist". This has the advantage that it's dead easy to source so hopefully we don't need to argue about it. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Evolutionary biologist" was the one I preferred as well.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress
I will be doing more work, maybe soon, but definitely in the next 24 hours. To avoid confusion, it might be best if other editors wait until I've finished. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the article was reverted (09:24, 7 February 2010) to the version at 08:52, 25 September 2009.
 * In this edit (05:51, 8 February 2010), I think I have incorporated all the good edits up to the end of November 2009.
 * I have also done some minor cleaning: change double space to single space; no trailing spaces; no curly quotes; unlink dates.

Editors may want to review the changes I have made to the infobox and categories, as below.
 * The "current" version refers to this (10:02, 8 February 2010 by Anomalocaris).
 * The "previous" version refers to this (08:35, 7 February 2010 by Ttiotsw).


 * Infobox
 * Change the "citizenship" entry from British to blank, as in previous version.
 * The current "fields" entry omits sociobiologist which was in the previous version (omitting it seems correct to me).
 * Change "influences" entry from nothing to previous entry: Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton
 * Remove "religion" entry (no longer in the template).


 * Categories
 * Remove category that was in current version:
 * Category:Recent single origin hypothesis
 * Remove categories that were in previous version:
 * Category:Converts to atheism from Protestantism
 * Category:Critics of religions or philosophies
 * Add categories from previous version:
 * Category:20th-century academics
 * Category:20th-century English people
 * Category:21st-century academics
 * Category:21st-century English people
 * Change "British" to "English" in:
 * Category:British biologists
 * Category:British humanists
 * Category:British science writers
 * Sort categories with this first:

I am going to do a little more checking, and look at a couple of edits I haven't processed yet. However, I am nearly finished and the article should be correctly restored to how it was, less the banned editor's edits. Please do any fixes or improvements as wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Image
I understand the desire to use the most up-to-date image available, but the looks like absolute crap compared to previous versions like this one:   And when I say it "looks like crap", I don't just mean in terms of his personal appearance, I mean that the image isn't even properly focused. Can we go back to using one of the older images please? Bueller 007 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine as long as we don't use the one from a book signing, as the expression on his face in that photo - he was likely caught in mid-word - is deeply unflattering.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the current image is much better than the previous one you're citing. I wish to keep the current image. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the image mentioned by Bueller 007. The current image is great for a family photo album (subject caught off-guard, ha ha), but it strikes me as less than professional, although I'm not used to arguing aesthetics. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park
Shouldn't there at least be a word about his portrayal in South Park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. It appears you are referring to a television show - am I correct? - and thus there would have to be something that made this notable as opposed to the other 427856480 shows on the system.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 22:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about here. Every other article mentions it if somebody just has a 5-second cameo in whatever show, and here we have someone who is not related to tv at all being the subject of one of the most commercially succesful cartoon shows of all time. even if it wasn't a very flattering portrayal, imo it should defenitly be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed to death when the episode first aired, and is linked as a "resolved issue" in an orange box at the top of this talk page. Consensus was that it wasn't appropriate for the article, you can read through the linked archives to follow the discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's utterly ridicolous, whatever though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Listing every appearance of someone in some random TV show just to appease the fans is a detriment to the Wikipedia database.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know why I care about this at all, but I feel obliged to make this point:The reason to put it in would be that the vast vast majority of all people who ever heard about this man know him from south park, which is not a random tv show but one of the most well-known and succesful shows of the last decade, which featured him very prominently and at length for 2 episodes. i am no wiki-insider and don't know the exact rules as well as you do, but to suggest that this is completly irrellevant...makes no sense. I just keep coming back to the conclusion that the unfavorouble portrayal of him and his ideas pisses his followers of so much that they have to censor his article. I mean, I understand, as you had this discussion before and i'm pretty sure the opinion of someone whos not even registered isn't regarded that valuable at all, nevermind me (no sarcasm intended here) But i had to make this point for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a reference to south park be added under a In Popular Culture section. It cannot be denied that South Park has a huge cultural influence. South Park deeply effects everyone and everything that it mentions. Its like saying that the President speaking against Dawkins, wouldn't be note worthy. This is especially true considering Matt and Trey devoted an entire episode to Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimblorski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree in that a section "In popular culture" should include that portrayal in South Park. And McGeddon, of course you are entitled to say what you think, but I want to encourage the IPs poster to not think that because the topic was discussed and a consensus was reached it is not possible to reopen the discussion if consensus seems to have changed. I haven't seen the specific South Park but I imagine it was not very flattering but nevertheless, by neutrality, all things that constitute reliable information should be included.  franklin   20:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He never appeared per se in South Park though he has commented on the episode here... Go_God_Go. So we have it covered. It would be an appearance if he provided something to get a credit e.g. a voice, then we would bother but as we can see he's not actually in the show. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Information is not available if it is not linked. You have to know about South Park or know that he was referred there to find that article (or use the random article tool and be lucky). Another thing is that for an entry in a "In popular culture" section he doesn't need to appear in the episode, he only needs to be mentioned some how (it rest to know how and what did they say). I read the article Go, God, go and it seems to be that contrary to what he (Dawkins) commented something important is said (of course, through the distorted filter of humor and of South Park, which is sui generis in humor) they describe evolution and talk about the possibility of seeing Atheism as a human condition that can lead to war an problems as well as any other. Of course, this is done to contrast with Dawkins' position about religion, in which he attributes this qualities as something inherent of it. Finally, such an entry in a "In popular culture" section wouldn't be something defamatory, it could say something like "This and that episode of South Park alludes Richard Dawkins". And if more detail is wanted it can be said about Mrs Garrison giving that version of evolution and the thing about atheism in the future. Definitely not the sex with Mrs Garrison since that is only there because of the usual style of South Park of being gross or do humor (which ever is preferred).  franklin   03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Article doesn't need a trivia section so I don't see the point of all this. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have been over this so many times. Please review the links at the top of the page and see why the consensus is to not include it. If you can come up with a new argument feel free to express it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did and it seems to be that no such consensus exists. Even counting give a very tight consensus. Even more, it seems to be that the consensus was to create a Richard Dawkins in popular culture article, which after being created should be linked from here. I was reviewing the reasons for not including it and all turn around the good article condition of this article. It is not that I have to come up with a new argument, it is just a matter of coming up with the arguments for the inclusion and let me be counted among those who consider pertinent the inclusion. Mentioning the number of time it has been discussed only shows, the weakness of the claim of the existence of a consensus in this topic.  franklin   13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 134.93.65.136, you say that "the vast vast majority of all people who ever heard about this man know him from south park". South Park's first season had viewing figures typically at the level of a few million; Dawkins's books have sold a similar number of copies. Obviously other people have seen the SP episode since it was first broadcast, but likewise many many people will have come across Dawkins though his academic publications, numerous columns for various major news services, appearances on national television, and his being referenced by all sorts of people talking about biology, atheism and religion in print, on television and elsewhere. I very much doubt that a majority of people who heard about him did so through South Park; and I'm completely certain it's not a vast majority. Basically, this was a minor event in the life of a man who's famous for a number of other reasons: I doubt it would appear in a biography of him regardless of its negative or otherwise portrayal of his views. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's definitely nonsense, to say that Dawkins is know for South Park. first come all those publications. I agree with Olaf on this. Now, I wouldn't doubt too much about South Park not being mentioned in biographies, since it has already happened.  franklin   14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It also appears in these autobiographical notes that is the one quoted in the Go God go article.    franklin   14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair cop, I stand corrected on that. Thanks Franklin. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that South Park is not something that Dawkins did, it is a third party using his name. Richard Dawkins has been mentioned in the media tens of thousands of times, in newspapers, in magazines, on radio, on TV. There was a two page article about him in my morning paper today, for instance. Many of these mentions are in important and or popular publications or programs, that have reached not tens but hundreds of millions of people. It is up to the supporters of South Park to show why, of all these thousands of media references, the South Park program is important enough to be the only one to be mentioned in this article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. I don't think it has never been said that South Park should be the only thing to be included in a section "In popular culture". For example there is music inspired by his work, see Frameshift (band), the appearance in Stephen Colbert's show and who knows what else people can find about him. Another thing is that a section "In popular culture" isn't supposed to be only things that he did. It is true that Dawkins is mentioned in many publications but maybe those directly linked to a scientific character do not belong to a "In popular culture" section. That challenge that you pose is completely without base. Even more, unlike Frameshift (band), which is linked in the "see also section", South Park is never mentioned here. So I could ask, why is Go God Go the only one not included? A link to that article can perfectly go into the see also section. I think the thing with Colbert should also be said and it doesn't seems to be included right now. (to justify why this seems less compulsory notice the fact that Dawkins is not mentioned in Stephen Colbert's article).   franklin   07:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not just pile on popular culture. The essay at WP:IPC warns against this, and suggests that "if a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgement". Where is the secondary source supporting the notability of this South Park episode? All I ever hear is South Park fans telling us how "important" it is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all be careful not getting too close to being disrespectful. People having a different opinion as yours don't have to be "South Park fans" so, don't belittle them. Now to the point. I addressed the concerns of your previous post i.e. why it doesn't have to be something that Dawkins did, why a "In popular culture" section doesn't have to include all media reference to Dawkins, and examples why South Park is not the only one (there others not mentioned, the thing with Colbert, and others mentioned, the thing with the music band). Now. In this new post you ask for the formality of reliable secondary source. That has already been given before, but let's repeat it. Dawkins autobiographical notes in his web site. It just happens that South Park is (for good or bad) a widely seen cartoon. There is an article dedicates to each of its episodes, in particular to this one. Now that I found about Frameshift (band) in the see also section. Why a link to Go God Go can not be there? As I said before, the information is not accessible if it is not linked. This article is linked from there but there is not way of getting there from here. Is information that is being hidden.  franklin   08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't aware being a SP fan was a bad thing. But no disrespect intended. I presume it is this comment you use as a reference: Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Hardly an endorsement of it's notability, if it is hardly worth a comment. And I suspect neither the band nor the the Colbert appearance are justified here either. Are we not just creating another "List of One-Off Trivial References in Media Adding Nothing to Understanding of the Subject"? --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is precisely understanding the subject what is about. Dawkins is, beyond his scientific role, a popular figure. His coining of the word "meme" gave him a status within popular culture that goes far beyond its scientific connotation. Also his activism in defending evolution and atheism. Not every scientist gets reflected in popular culture in those ways, not even among the really notable ones. See for example the Novel prizes, how many are really known? I how many are known beyond their scientific connotation? Very different in the case of Dawkins. Take, for example the impact of memes (especially in internet). It is because of the popularity of the term "meme" that some are invented even for the sake of it. The South Park thing shows the influence in the culture around evolution, atheism and religion. Precisely because what Dawkins aims is at a cultural revolution regarding these two points. I only gave one reference before for being lazy but more can be given. Take this one for example. In general, Dawkins as a popular figure is something that should be treated better in the article since it is an aspect of Dawkins that takes an important part of his life. Most of what he does is related and aimed to the popular culture and therefore it is important to show how it gets reflected. In any case, I just noticed that my participation in this discussion is unjustified. I just noticed that I am happy with the way things were in the article. The information is indeed linked.   franklin   14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In articles in Encyclopaedia Britanica .   franklin   14:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)