Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3

Extended phenotype
I realised last night that I completely forgot to include one of Dawkins's most important contributions to evolutionary theory: viz, the concept of the extended phenotype... This really does need to go in before FAC. Will work on it now... Mi kk er ... 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A biologist friend was scornful about the idea that The Extended Phenotpye was "a major contribution to the science of evolution". I am not Dawkins's greatest fan (!) but I do want to be fair, so I checked, and was astonished to find that not a single google hit that describes it thus other than the article (out of over 95,000 that mention the book). Since it is obviously to a large extent PoV to say that something is "major" I don't think we should say so unless there is pretty well overwhelming evidence that this is a generally held view. NBeale 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that any single book that gets more than 500 cites on the Web of Knowledge is a major contribution to science.  Considering that most publications are lucky to get a single (non-self) citation, this is quite something.  I'm going to revert your change.  --Plumbago 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I expect "The Selfish Gene" gets lots of citations as well. Wouldn't suprise me if Finnegan's Wake does (for quarks). We can perhaps say that it's a "widely cited" contribtion and give the evidence you adduce, but "major" is PoV. NBeale 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) PS In fact if you google "the Extended Phenotype" and "contribution to science" you only get about 40 hits which are mostly quotes from Dawkins and blog posts.


 * Try googling "dawkins contribution to science" and you get this from the New York Academy of Sciences "Richard Dawkins is known internationally for his contributions to Darwinian evolutionary theory as described in his book The Extended Phenotype, and for penning the earlier bestselling popular science book The Selfish Gene." Theres plenty more but is that good enough for you? --KaptKos 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely (although this is a comment by a journalist who edits their webzine, a considered position of the NYAS. I think that wording is perfect NBeale 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, cites on the Web of Knowledge are cites in scientific publications (so don't give me your Google nonsense). It would be hard to construe this level of citation as indicating anything other than a major work.  Anyway, if nothing else, it's certainly a more useful and pertinent piece of information than anything from one of your "biologist friends".  --Plumbago 11:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why dispute the fact that it's considered a major contribution? You can't establish the impact of certain ideas on science, just by Googling the title and saying: "Oh, but this returns just 40 hits". "The Selfish Gene" and "Extended Phenotype" are unquestionably major contributions to the theory of evolution, even people who dislike Darwin and his theories must admit that his ideas have become widely adopted, although they may not believe in it. If the article read that the ideas of the extended phenotype, or memetics or selfish genes are absolutely fantastic and abolish all religious theories on the origin of life than it would be POV. "Widely cited" discredits the impact of the theories, saying it's a major contribution to science is neutral enough. I mean, nobody would argue that Cervantes "Don Quichote" is a major contribution to the "evolution" of novel writing. mensch • t 12:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that some people consider it a "major contribution" but there is no evidence that any authoritative source (other than WikiPedia) does so. And if even one authoritative source called it a "major contribution" that would still not necessarily be a consensus. NBeale 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, so a science work being cited extensively in the primary scientific literature does not qualify as a "major contribution". Right.  And on the subject of consensus, note the progression of this discussion.  The consensus is currently 3:1 (if we exclude Mikkerpikker's early contribution).  --Plumbago 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. How many citations are there for The Selfish Gene and Finnegans Wake? Last week's Nature had a big article on insects and  citation 3 is for  The Biology of the Honey Bee. All major contributions are widely cited but not all widely cited books are major contributions.  Indeed ITRW of science major contributions are made by papers not books. That's for PopSci NBeale 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you're getting good at saying what's not a major contribution, but aside from things like The Origin of Species and Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, how does something get to be a major contribution? On the say-so of one of your "biologist friends"?  (Who, let's not forget, name-droppingly include Bob May, etc. ...)  --Plumbago 13:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see any clear criteria, other than pretty well universal acknowledgement by people in the field. Which rather proves the point that it's a matter of opinion AKA PoV. And here we have no evidence that anyone has ever thus described it, other than in WikiPedia. Indeed it is the only(!) "major contribution to the science of evolution" I can find on the web. NBeale 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha. So, by this definition there appears to be no such thing as a major contribution.  Everything is relative.  Except, that is, if there's universal agreement.  Why didn't you say that at the start?  Leaving aside such an unworkable "solution", I suggest that if order 500 scientists (an overestimate here) are sufficiently impressed by a source that they cite it in the primary literature, that it's pretty clear, it's a significant/major/notable/important source.  Otherwise we'll wind up with everything described in indistinguishable shades of grey.  Anyway, this chain of "argument" is causing me to lose the will to live here, so I'll stop.  --Plumbago 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(<-left shift)
 * It seems most of NBeale's arguments here tend to progress in that direction. Editing by attrition.  *Sparkhead  14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The search for truth can be iterative. Bit like Natural Selection. There are about 5,000 citations in Google Scholar of The Selfish Gene so if a mere 500 citations of The extended phenotype (of which only 278 are in life/bio/enviro sciences) makes it the only "major contribution to the science of evolution" on the WWW how should we describe the Selfish Gene?  And Finnegan's Wake has 3,500 citations.NBeale 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And The Biology of the Honey Bee has 312 citations in life/bio/enviro sciences, rather more than The Extended Phenotype So that's "a major contriubtion" as well? NBeale 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What would qualify as a major contribution in your mind? *Sparkhead  16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Robert May's Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (1,620 Citations) perhaps? The problem is that the article as written is asserts that the only thing on the web described as "a major contribution to the science of evolution" is The Extended Phenotype (and only by this article).  Which is absurd NBeale 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain Darwin's work is considered "a major contribution". Which part of this exchange am I misunderstanding:


 * Try googling "dawkins contribution to science" and you get this from the New York Academy of Sciences "Richard Dawkins is known internationally for his contributions to Darwinian evolutionary theory as described in his book The Extended Phenotype, and for penning the earlier bestselling popular science book The Selfish Gene." Theres plenty more but is that good enough for you? --KaptKos 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely (although this is a comment by a journalist who edits their webzine, a considered position of the NYAS. I think that wording is perfect NBeale 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You agreed it's major. Now you're saying it isn't? *Sparkhead  18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I said I'd given up, but just for the record ... (ISI) Web of Knowledge claims ~3000 The Selfish Gene cites (mostly for the 1976 edition). However, TSG describes itself as work of "popular science", while TEP is a technical work aimed at working scientists.  --Plumbago 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We just had an edit conflict there. I was posting this: Since when was Google Scholar the standard for citation analysis? If you have a look at ISI Web of Knowledge, you can search for citations in the literature across the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index, and there you find no citations at all of Winston's Biology of the Honey Bee, 3,378 citations of the Selfish Gene, and 572 citations of Extended Phenotype. More analysis is possible, obviously, but this is already a more reliable measure in terms of academic impact than a search of Google Scholar. --Dannyno 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * and, significantly, if we restrict the citation search just to the Science Citation Index, you find 419 citations of Extended Phenotype, and 1798 of Selfish Gene. So Extended Phenotype is robust in terms of citations in the science literature. --Dannyno 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Google scholar certainly isn't the standard, I was simply looking for another venue for showing that it's considered a major contribution. Throw things at the wall (what an apt analogy) and seeing if anything sticks.  Is there a way for an unregistered user to search these sites you mention?  Can a reference be provided?  *Sparkhead  17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Oops, another edit conflict) Thanks Dannyno! I hadn't thought to exclude arts and social sciences (or ASS, as the faculty was named at my alma mater).  And I completely agree re: Google Scholar - it's useful but it's got a long way to go before it's as widely used as ISI.  --Plumbago 17:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (another conflict!) Sparkhead: Yes, I was responding to Nbeale rather than you. I've used Science Citation Index, which is part of ISI Web of Knowledge, and I've done a very rough search. Quite how you cite that for Wiki purposes is another question. Maybe someone has written an article giving citation analysis figures for Dawkins? By the way, Finnegans Wake gets 26 citations in Science Citation Index. --Dannyno 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a relevant reference: Classic publications on complex, evolving systems: a citation-based survey, by Francis Heylighen. published in Complexity Vol 2 (5), 1997, p.31-36

Criticism of Dawkins' views on religion
Is there any reasonable (i.e. non-creationist) criticism of Dawkins' views on religion? I'm an atheist, but I find some of Dawkins' statements on religion to be positively embarrasing. Looks like he's turning into the modern equivalent of Madalyn Murray O'Hare, someone who I don't admire, simply because of her extremism. And what about the Brights nonsense? Autarch 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Allegedly Finding Dawkins' God does, but I haven't read it, and the person I know who is currently reading it has never read Dawkins, so I can't confirm that it does a good job. Joe D (t) 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I may have to read it myself! In the meantime, I bought Richard Dawkins: how a scientist changed the way we think today, so I may have more to contribute sooner than I thought Autarch 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the first part of your argument is ad hominem. The fact that you consider him an embarrasment cannot detract from the validity of his arguments. In regards to a reasonable criticism of Dawkin's view; by non-creationist did you mean non-religious? - Andy 17:21, 26 November 2006

I don't know about formal published cricitism but I personally find his views to be highly offensive. I am a strong proponent of evolution and a strong critic of creationism as well...however Dawkins is offensive because he carries his views on science too far. He also mischaracterizes religion--acting as if all Christianity is right-wing Christianity, dismissing the more moderate Christians and religious folk, who, in my opinion are in the majority. If I find some balanced criticism I will gladly include it. I will go searching. Cazort 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been some really detailed criticisms of The God Delusion, by Andrew Brown and Terry Eagleton amongst others - not coming from an evangelical Christian viewpoint, but criticising Dawkins's extremely weak grasp of philosophy and contemporary theology. I'll find some references (Eagleton's is in the London Review of Books, I think).  --ajn (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Eagletons' review and Browns review Autarch 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And Sean Carroll's excellent response to Eagleton's criticism, as well as some criticisms of The God Delusion itself. Worth reading. Inoculatedcities 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I definetly think that Criticism of Dawkins needs to be tidied up. At present it is spread out all over the page. Also, you can use Robert Winston as a critic of Dawkins. Dawkins was interviewed by Winston in the last episode of his series "The Story of God,"(strangely Dawkins did not do the same in "The Root of All Evil?" Winston claims that Dawkins'(and others like him) ideas certainty in proclaiming that evolution disproves the existance(or need) of a God have lead to the emerging and strengthening of the Creationist movement. I don't know where you can find a copy of this documentary online... unfortunately while "The Root of All Evil?" is easy to find, this is not.


 * On another note, Yousef Al-Khattab in a video he posted on Youtube alleges that Dawkins severely edited the interview with him, in such a way that the order in which he was asked questions was changed - Khattab claims the first question asked was "What do you think of 9/11" which is not the first question in the documentary. He also claims that his responses were changed so that Dawkins asked one thing and Khattab responded with something totally irrelevant. Thirdly Khattab claims that certain words he used were edited out. - Olockers User talk:Olockers

Reasons for strength of views on religion
Listening to Susan Blackmore at PopTech timestamp 21:50, she talks of the Roman Catholic church and that the reason Dawkins is so strongly against is that after his seperation his daughter was schooled in a roman catholic convent against his wishes. Wondered if this is worthy of inclusion? Jamesmorrison 13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. It is incorrect to pretend that Dawkins is somehow against the RCC in particular: as his various writings and broadcasts make abundantly clear, what he opposes is "the process of non-thinking called 'faith'", and therefore he opposes Islam, Anglicanism and Judaism just as much as Catholicism.


 * It is, furthermore, a disgraceful tactic for someone to assert or imply that only something 'personal' could lie behind a rational person's dislike of an institution which, preferring ancient, self-refuting superstition over coherent thought and knowledge, and praising counter-factual 'faith' over evidence, plainly despises rationality. Pfistermeister 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said, sir. Mortene 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, according to Susan Blackmore, he was strongly against roman catholicism and tried to prevent his daughter to go into a convent school and failure to do so made him strongly against roman catholicism. Does anyone else notice a slight logical problem with this speculation? Also, his daughter is from his second marriage and post-dates his already open criticism of religious thinking. There does not seem to be a causal relationship at all. Coder Keitaro 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that link James. It's an interesting revelation, but I don't think we should discuss Dawkins' family over and above the basic facts mentioned in the "personal life" section. If Dawkins were to talk about this himself, then that might be a different matter. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus it states speculation about Dawkins' motivation rather than verifiable fact. Autarch 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First sentence...
Not that this is overly important, but... the 1st sentence currently reads:

"Clinton Richard Dawkins DSc, FRS, FRSL (known as Richard Dawkins; born March 261941) is an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University"

Now, if the article is called "Richard Dawkins" & he is a very well known public figure, is it really necessary for the "known as Richard Dawkins" bit? I, for one, don't think so... Secondly, though this is aesthetic, I really don't like "DSc, FRS, FRSL". Such honorifics strike me as somehow out of place on Wikipedia (unless, of course, we're talking about royalty). Thoughts? Lastly, should we really link to Charles Simonyi? Were it notable enough for an article, I wouldn't hesitate to link to Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science but I don't think just plain Charles Simonyi should be linked. (Doesn't really accord with WP:CONTEXT IMO). Anyhow, just my three cents worth... Mi kk er (...) 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't say the opening sentence troubles me in any way, but please alter it if you wish. Laurence Boyce 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alrighty... anyone else have a problem with changing it? Mi kk er (...) 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My preference would be for (Clinton) Richard Dawkins, which is more or less the way the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does it (MacNeice, (Frederick) Louis, for example), but I don't think that fits in with the Wikipedia manual of style (can't find any definite policy, but it's certainly common practice to give the full name and then "usually known as", even when the usual name just involves dropping the first forename). Lose the DSc (show me a prominent academic who doesn't have a doctorate) and move the rest down to the "Awards and recognition" section, I say.  --ajn (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking for WP:NAME... Must say I don't like the bracket thingy, on purely arbitrary aesthetic grounds of course... (And, again, it's not necessary for someone as well known as Dawkins). Mi kk er (...) 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, compare Margaret Thatcher and see WP:NCP. Mi kk er (...) 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't really describe Dawkins as an eminent ethologist. Although he did his PhD in Ethology in the 1960s if you look at his pdf CV you will see that of about 120 publications listed only 2 are labelled "ethology" (and the 1995 one is "what is an organism?" which is evolutionary theory) and only 8 (dating from the 60s and 70s) which appear from their titles to be about Ethology. His awards and recognitions come from his PopSci and evolutionary theory (to a lesser extent), and his professorship is in PopSci. NBeale 05:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He's not described just as an eminent ethologist, but as "an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer" - which seems to me entirely appropariate. (1) He is eminent. (2) He works/has worked in these fields. I see no problem. In fact, I think it reads very well and accurately reflects who he is and what he does. Snalwibma 08:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * well on that basis Margaret Thatcher and John Browne are eminent british scientists because (1) they are eminent (2) They have worked as scientists. NBeale 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I think it is now fair to describe Dawkins as a "militant" atheist rather than merely "outspoken". It is perfectly possible to be very outspoken about your view that God does not exist without asserting that anyone who believes in God is deluded (and should probably be considered insane) and that if they teach their children that God exists they should be considered child abusers. NBeale 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NBeale, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Mi kk er (...) 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Eminent
I am not sure as an academic in either his original field of evolution or in his new field of "public understanding of science" he could fairly be called eminent (unless you call all Oxford professors eminent which I suppose could be argued). He is famous, certainly, best-selling yes, and an impressiven communicator but standing above others on academic merit? Not clear to me. He has not for example been knighted (which the more eminent professors have) or got any particular prizes etc. Does he even have an FRS? --BozMo talk 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dawkins is eminent in a number of ways:
 * As an evolutionary biologist with his original contribution – the theory of the Extended Phenotype.
 * As a writer of popular science where he is a leading name.
 * As the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair.
 * As a leading writer on Humanism/Secularism.
 * He has won loads of prizes . ..
 * . . . and yes, he has an FRS.
 * If many eminent professors have been knighted, I can only point out that so have a vast number of tossers.
 * Laurence Boyce 12:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is eminent. Concur with Boyce. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the first couple of pages returned by google for "Richard Dawkins eminent" you get | New York Academy of Sciences, | Secular.org, | Intelligent Design advocates Access Research Network and bookstores | Barnes & Noble, | Amazon and | Harvard Book Store. I could quote more but that'll do.  This edit is ridiculous --KaptKos 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup... eminent should stay IMO. Mi kk er (...) 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll concede it as a democrat but someone should add eminent to Gould, Pinker, Polkinghorne etc who are significantly more recognised as scientists rather than popularists. --BozMo talk 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW where does this Kelvin Medal come from? According to http://www.iop.org/Our_Activities/Awards/Senior_Awards/The_Kelvin_Medal_and_Prize/page_1787.html Dawkins has never won it. Some other Kelvin Medal perhaps? NBeale 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Bicentennial Kelvin Medal, Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow" --JWSchmidt 17:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I've made this clear in the awards, but it's not a Notable Prize in my view, only 9 hits on Google for this, nothing on the Society's website and the Society only rates a stub in Wikipedia which does not mention the medal. NBeale 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let the facts speak for themselves. See this bit from the Manual Of Style on avoiding peacock terms: Avoid_peacock_terms. --Dannyno 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Dawkins is certainly eminent, but saying so adds nothing to the article. If the fact that he is a best-selling author and holds a chair at Oxford makes him eminent, then what is added to the first sentence by describing him as eminent? To distinguish him from all those other run-of-the-mill, unimportant best-selling authors who hold Oxford chairs? I'm also in favor of removing the numerous other peacock terms that appear throughout the article, including:
 * "...made a major contribution to the science of evolutionary theory..."
 * "...is a prominent member of the Brights movement."
 * "In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in..."
 * "...Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism..."
 * "Dawkins continues to be a prominent figure in contemporary public debate..."
 * "Dawkins is well known for his contempt for religious extremism..."
 * -- Schaefer (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your post makes it apparent you do not fully understand WP:Peacock. Otherwise, you'd see the absurdity in claiming "Dawkins is well known for his contempt for religious extremism" can be described as a peacock term. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:Peacock: "These terms do not help establish the importance of an article. Let the facts speak for themselves. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing." How does this not apply? What new information is conveyed to the reader by saying that Dawkins is well known for his contempt of religious extremism instead of simply saying that he is contemptuous of religious extremism, or, even better, citing a specific work that indicates his contempt? -- Schaefer (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced the other cases are peacockery but eminent is. The article seems fine without it. JoshuaZ 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that WP:Peacock urges against (e.g.) "he is a well-known explorer" but not against "he is well known as an explorer of Cloud-Cuckoo Land". The latter - or, in this case, "Dawkins is well known for his contempt..." - is a statement of simple fact. It makes no claims of eminence for Dawkins. It indicates a particular thing for which he is well known, and helps the baic purpose of the article, which is to explain the subject. I think the same is true of most of the occurrences of "prominent" in the article. But I do agree that "eminent" can be deleted from the opening paragraph. Please let's not react, knee-jerk fashion, against a list of words. Let's consider meanings. Snalwibma 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with regard to phrase "well known for his contempt", but the wording of that particular sentence is of so little importance (irony unintended) that I'm willing to ignore it. Such careful attention to wording is most needed in the introduction. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Political craziness in this talk page
This is not important enough to make a big fuss about, but it bothers me. I removed the word "eminent" from the first paragraph, citing WP:PEACOCK. The change was reverted with the comment "eminent is accurate; the greatest ever is peacock. He is a best selling author and holds a chair at Oxford; he is eminent. Sheesh."

The word "eminent" is specifically listed as a peacock word on WP:PEACOCK, and the discussion on that page clearly applies to uses exactly like this one. Furthermore I think that everything that WP:PEACOCK says is correct; this isn't about slavish adherence to the rules.

Looking at this talk page I see an incredible amount of discord. Most of the discussion seems to be about whether Dawkins is a good guy or a bad guy. That has no relevance to this Wikipedia article, which is just supposed to be a collection of verifiable facts about the guy's life. If you forget about all of the idiotic politics on and off Wikipedia, and just look at the article from a disinterested perspective, it should be obvious to everyone, regardless of "side", that the word "eminent" shouldn't be there.

I have no particular desire to reinstate my changes, or indeed to edit the article ever again, but I would appreciate it if someone would respond here in favor of what I wrote above. In case it isn't obvious yet, I'm looking for agreement from people who want to improve Wikipedia in general, not from people who dislike Dawkins. -- BenRG 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The word eminent must go. I've moved your comments under the existing talk section for this topic to avoid a fork. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with BenRG, JoshuaZ and Schaefer that the word "eminent" isn't necessary in the intro paragraph, it is also explicitly listed on the policy page. The word is not part of an official title or anything and the fact that he may or may not be eminent can be derived from the rest of the article. Maybe it's good to have some sort of poll? mensch • t 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that "eminent" is unnecessary (it is explicitly mentioned at WP:Peacock, too) and of the phrases that Schaefer listed, most of those can go too. I'd like to focus on two of them that need to stay in some form, but perhaps reworded:
 * "...made a major contribution to the science of evolutionary theory..."
 * "In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in..."
 * First, it is not obvious to the layperseon what is major and minor in new scientific ideas. If The Extended Phenotype really was a major contribution, then there's nothing wrong with discussing this, indeed we should take more space to explain why and what the aftereffects have been. I think that WP:Peacock does not apply here because the topic is not obvious and does not blatantly speak for itself.
 * Second, the Dawkins and Gould mention has really been a feature of modern popular science discussion. Perhaps what needs to be emphasized is that D&G were the "go-to guys" for the media for evolutionary science and debate until Gould died. "Prominent" is perhaps an unnecessary word, but the theme here needs to remain in some form.
 * And, BenRG, the "good guy or bad guy" stuff isn't the fault of the serious editors here. The majority of us are concerned with making a good article. There are just two angry editors who are obsessed with stirring up crap constantly on this talk page. I'd invite you to please stay, and simply ignore them as much as you can, and continue to make whatever useful changes you can in spite of the ruckus. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think part of the difficulty here is that WP:Peacock is trying to avoid excessive use of these types of words, to the point where they become meaningless. However, on the same page suggests that we should not hide important facts.  In that spirit, I agree with Coelacan that we can try to find ways to keep the important content, while perhaps avoiding empty words.  But, let's not go to the other extreme of eliminating anything that says that Dawkins is important, well-known, even prominent, hell, even eminent.  The important thing is to remember what we hope to convey with these words, and if a more precise informative one is available, then not to use empty ones.  Edhubbard 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that Dawkins is eminent, and also that this is the wrong word for an encyclopedia. His eminence can be communicated by the attention he receives in the media, the other scientists who cite and expand upon his work, his chair position, his work's effects on the public science paradigm (as that book How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think discusses), etc. When this content is adequately covered, his eminence is apparent and does not need to be explicitly stated. If the article feels like it still needs "eminent", then the content of the article has not yet been adequately expounded. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is eminent. If consensus is that word should not be in the intro, I will not war or quibble over it. Edhubbard seems to have put it well. That said, someone still needs to explain how "Dawkins is well known for his contempt for religious extremism" can be described as a peacock term, or is that particular claim, upon reflection, being discarded? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KC, to me the issue here is not that the statement is peacockery per se, but that as it currently stands, it is mostly empty. The reader has no way of knowing in what ways he is well known for this, by whom, when, where, etc. Consider an alternative: "Dawkins's outspoken contempt for religious extremism, from Islamic terrorism to Christian fundamentalism, has aroused media attention, such as the BBC production's of his feature The Root of All Evil? and public interviews as with Huw Edwards. He has also argued ..." That's just an example, but it gets specific and explains what we actually meant by "well known." I'll say the same thing as I said about "eminent": If the article feels like it still needs "well known", then the content of the article has not yet been adequately expounded. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A side note on that paragraph: I'm removing the phrase "including many who might otherwise champion his science and fight creationism alongside him," as these folks do champion his science and fight creationism alongside him. I just grabbed Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, chose a Dawkins entry from the index, and found this: "If a gene produces altruistic behaviors that are directed towards close relatives, there is a good chance (fifty percent in the case of parent and offspring) that the gene is actually helping a copy of itself to survive. The implications of this simple statement, which were wonderfully explored in Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene, are profound." So this "who might otherwise" stuff is nonsense. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews of The God Delusion
Pinched mainly from Butterflies and Wheels:
 * 1) Terry Eagleton in the LRB.
 * 2) Jim Holt in the NYT (requires registration).
 * 3) P Z Myers in Seed (Science mag I'd previously not heard of).
 * 4) Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times (reproduced on RD's own website).
 * 5) Andrew Brown in Prospect.
 * 6) Marek Kohn in the Independent.
 * 7) Crispin Tickell in the Financial Times.
 * 8) Joan Bakewell in the Guardian (again, reproduced on RD's website).
 * 9) Anonymous in the Economist.

Should be plenty there for a review of the reviews. --ajn (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also inserted a review in Nature which is probably the one Dawkins will care about most Laurence Krauss. Although Krauss is a self-confessed fan, as the title "Sermons and Staw Men" suggests it's a remarkably critical review. It seems to me that the main criticisms of Dawkins that are made are:
 * 1) Over-aggressive approach. Nature depicting you as a sandwich-board man  says something, even if others say "attaboy". To some extent a matter of taste.
 * 2) The ideas he attacks are not those held by mainstream believers. Dawkins admits he is ignorant of theology, but says that's OK because God does not exist so theology. But if you don't understand what Christians mean by terms like "God" and "Faith" how can you cogently argue against them?  it is still unclear whether  'strings' or 'branes' really exist, but Peter Woit couldn't have written "Not Even Wrong" without taking the trouble to understand the maths!
 * 3) Lapses in logic and evidence. eg he says "I suspect there are few atheists in prison". Good data published in 2001 shows that 32% of prisoners are atheists vs 15% of the UK population as a whole.
 * 4) Failure to consider the overall adaptiveness of religious belief. He demonstrates that some religious people do some bad and maladaptive things. But the fact that a mutation has some harmful effects in some individuals does not make it harmful overall. The data clearly show that on balance religious belief in Western societies is good for health and wellbeing and that religious people produce more children than non-religious ones

Do people think this is a fair summary? - obviously it's very condensed. NBeale 16:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think that's a highly tendentious summary which certainly has no place in this article, and probably has no place in The God Delusion article either. Sorry to be so negative about everything you do! Laurence Boyce 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Soory I wasn't being clear enough - do people think this is a fair summary  of the principal allegations made by Dawkins' (serious) critics? Of course I don't expect pro-Dawkins people to agree that these criticisms are correct - indeed my suggestion on The God Delusion talk page is that we might have a balanced pair of "Principal Criticisms" and "Principal Rebuttals" sections. NBeale 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea; I haven't read all the criticism. But I am not sure that you are going about this in the right way. I do not think that a pair of sections is a good idea at all; it risks turning the article into a battleground of ideas, which I suspect is what you want. Much better would be a single balanced criticism section: on the one hand so-and-so said this, on the other hand so-and-so said that. It should merely report what people have said, not discuss the ideas themselves. You have to accept that principally this article is about Dawkins, and that article is about his latest book. It is therefore unavoidable in my view that a greater prominence will naturally be lent to Dawkins's own ideas. Laurence Boyce 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Nature review is rather negative, and having initally said "equivocal" I suggested re-categorising this as "somewhat negative". Sparkhead has reversed this, citing the conculsion: "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions." I don't know if he's used to reading academic language about a very powerful colleague, but what that means is "some very good examples, shame about the book" Still I don't feel that strongly about the wording - people who read the review, and see the (devastating) cartoon can judge for themseleves. If I were Dawkins I'd have been mortified! NBeale 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take off your POV glasses and actually read the review: "While I usually tend to begin a review with praise and end with reservations, the reverse order here reflects the progression of my own reading of The God Delusion." It's a mixed review. "Somewhat negative" is simply incorrect. *Sparkhead 18:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Krauss himself described his review as "more positive than negative" here. Laurence Boyce 18:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to number 3, that data does not address the real point, although, to be fair, if Dawkins phrased it that way, and only that way, as "atheists in prison", he was wrong. Yes, assuming the data was collected validly, it proves whatever number of prisoners are atheists now ... however, you're talking about depressed broken spirits living in prison. A more accurate indicator of Dawkins' point -- which is that atheism does not inherently lead to morality -- would be the number of convicted criminals who identified themselves as such at the time of their arrest.

However, even then, it's a very difficult thing to prove. You would have to show how atheism leads to bad behavior. If this is proof that atheists are somehow less moral, then the number of African Americans in prisons in America proves that African Americans are somehow less moral. But, since people recognize that that sort of thinking would be racist, they then allow for the fact that there are numerous other things which come into play, such as socio-economic factors or years of bigotry. ThatGuamGuy 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)sean


 * My point was a slightly different one. There was good data readily available, but either he didn't bother to look or he did, found that it contradicted his point, and ignored it. NBeale 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your bias is showing again. The document you cite says "32% identify as having no religion".  "No religion" does not equal "atheist". Note stats do show there are, in fact, very few atheists in prison (less than 1% by most counts).   I suggest you google it yourself as I doubt anything I state here will convince you otherwise.  Spark*  21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters
If the links to Criticisms of Dawkins are to be removed then perhaps instead we should have a balanced NPoV section pointing to notable academic critics and supporters? It might go something like this (with proper references for everything:

Dawkins views (esp about religion) are, intentionally, highly controversial and provoke much heated debate. Confining ourselves only to academics who have reached tenured Professorships at major universities and who have Wikipedia articles we have: Supporters ...(start with the contributors to the Dawkins book who qualify).. Critics Stephen Jay Gould and Martin Rees suggest that questions of religion should be left to philosophers and theologians. John Polkinghorne, Russell Stannard, Simon Conway Morris and Denis Noble suggest that science does not support Dawkins' conclusions, indeed Polkinghorne strongly defends mainstream Christianity based on modern science. Mary Midgley, Terry Eagleton, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and Alister McGrath suggest that Dawkins makes philosophical and historical errors.

What do people think? NBeale 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a balanced referenced criticism section is a possibility. However, at the moment there is a degree of criticism and aclaim interspersed throughout the article, so we would need to give this a bit of thought. Laurence Boyce 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Without a major re-write of the article I think we can make this proposed section focus specifically on giving pointers to wikipedia articles on notable academics who have contributed to this debate. It doesn't need to subsume all criticism/praise NBeale 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but please take care. We don't want to hear about people who have merely "contributed to this debate." We want to hear about people who have specifically praised or criticised Dawkins. Because that's who the article is about! Laurence Boyce 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK here's a stab at the Critics section:

{{divbox|gray||Stephen Jay Gould and Martin Rees  suggest that questions of religion should be left to philosophers and theologians. John Polkinghorne, Russell Stannard , Simon Conway Morris and Denis Noble suggest that science does not support Dawkins' conclusions, indeed the first three all strongly defend mainstream Christianity based on modern science. Mary Midgley, Terry Eagleton , Alvin Plantinga , Richard Swinburne and Alister McGrath suggest that Dawkins makes philosophical and historical errors. and leaving it at that. There's no reason to make discussions of reductionism's pros and cons spill over from there into this article, which is NBeale's intention. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed. Thanks once again. Could we say: Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, disagrees with Dawkins world picture, "with its questionable genetic reductionism and etiolated secular pieties" though he considers "his explanations and enthusiasm for the reality of adaption is of great value". He suggests that Dawkins' account of evolution is like a description of an oil painting which, "has explained the nature and range of pigments; how the extraordinary azure colour was obtained" but "is quite unable to account for the painting itself." If you think that's all a bit long I'd of course be happy to cut it or put more in the footnotes. NBeale 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure yet whether a deal-breaker for me, it might not be, but you're still not actually saying anything with this. What, specifically, does Morris find questionable about "genetic reductionism"? What are these "etoliated secular pieties"? Ed asked you to show why the oil painting is a good analogy, or why Morris feels this is a good analogy, and you haven't done that. This analogy is poetic but as yet devoid of any specific content. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Coelacan, you're right. Nbeale, the thing is to give the substance or the content of Morris' criticism.  We can tell here that Morris is trying to say something, but what?!  As you are the one who wants to add this text, the burden falls to you to actually provide the conent, the meat if you will, as opposed to the garnishing analogies and overblown language.  Be precise doesn't necessarily mean slavishly quote word for word, especially if those words aren't the ones that carry the most content.  Edhubbard 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ceolacan, Ed. As I understand it, this is not the place to debate whether SCM's criticisms are valid. All we need to do is note the fact that this world-class evolutionist significantly disagrees with Dawkins in this area, and then allow the interested reader to explore further (Try reading either of his books, they are really interesting). I can't reduce a world-class scientist (FRS at 39) to a sentence or so. However if you are worried about the metaphor aspects then maybe the quote: "This view of evolution is incomplete and therefore fails in its side-stepping of how information (the genetic code) gives rise to the phenotype, and by what mechanisms.  Organisms are more than the sum of their parts, and we may note in passing that the world depicted by Dawkins has lost all sense of transcendence" would be more acceptable NBeale 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does he explicitly state "I disagree"? I see he "questions", but that's a long way from disagreement.  How would your proposed text look at this point (with your above changes)?  *Spark*  22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Nbeale, I think we *are* getting to some substance. The main point of the quote that you have here is that Morris argues that Dawkins is ignoring the question of how the genetic code gives rise to the phenotype.  This is a precise complaint, which can be conveyed in an NPOV, verifiable manner.  As a matter of historical perspective (and this is where the real challenge of working on an NPOV criticism comes in) this book came out (2003) after Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype (1999).  Given this historical context, does Morris explicitly deal with this aspect of Dawkins' thinking, or is he attacking The Selfish Gene (1976)?  This is still not ruling on the correctness, or lack thereof of Morris' criticism, but, given that ideas advance, that theories change, improve and are refined with time, what is the context of Morris' criticism?  More generally it seems like the question of the proteome, and how genes lead to phenotypes, has become, with the completion of a first draft of the human genome, one of THE major scientific questions in genetics and developmental biology.  That is, is Morris' criticism one that can uniquely be laid on Dawkins, or is it something of a general criticism of the state of the field circa 2003?    Edhubbard 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed,Spark. SCM has in fact become more critical of Dawkins over time, but this level of detail is I think beyond the article. The proteome is indeed an important aspect but it's a sub-problem of Systems Biology which I think is where the cutting edge is and will remain for a long time. The more people understand about this, the clearer it is that the metaphor of "gene as a computer programme", although a reasonable guess in the 70s, is fundamentally mistaken. Of course Dawkins isn't the only person who advances the viewpoints that SCM, Noble and Bateson criticise, but he is the most prominent and the only person the criticise by name about this. To address the text question, how about: Could we say: Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, considers Dawkins explanations and enthusiasm for the reality of adaption to be of great value, but disagrees with Dawkins world picture, "with its questionable genetic reductionism and etiolated secular pieties". He suggests that Dawkins's "view of evolution is incomplete and therefore fails in its side-stepping of how information (the genetic code) gives rise to the phenotype, and by what mechanisms. Organisms are more than the sum of their parts, and we may note in passing that the world depicted by Dawkins has lost all sense of transcendence" NBeale 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is still unhelpful and (again) caricatures Dawkins' views. Classifying Dawkins' views on genes as likening them to "a computer programme" is clearly facile (and ignores the complexity of computer programs).  I'd like to see a source to back that up.  Dawkins is well aware of the complexity of gene regulation and operation; his views on the importance of genes stems from the simple fact that, more or less, they are the primary information passed between generations.  Further, what on Earth are "etiolated secular pieties"?  I can guess, but this sort of statement is sophistry.  And what's with this "side-stepping of how information (the genetic code) gives rise to the phenotype"?  It sounds impressive, but affords no information in where exactly Dawkins' is going wrong.  It seems to me that NBeale is still scrambling around, looking to find something he can stick on Dawkins that sounds slightly suspicious.  --Plumbago 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Plumbago. My own views don't matter. Nor it this the place to debate the validity of SCM's criticisms. It is a verifiable fact that SCM says these things, and I can assure you (I've read the books in detail and many of his other writings) that these are not just obiter dicta but he really does fundamentally disagree with Dawkins's worldview. I hope I have consistently used words like "suggests" so that we take a NPOV on whether these criticisms are justified.  Perhaps that is not quite clear enough in the way the quote is used, let's just fold it back into the reference. Do you have any disagreements with the following suggested text (and Ed, others, do you?), which is:


 * Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, considers Dawkins explanations and enthusiasm for the reality of adaption to be of great value, but disagrees with Dawkins world picture, and suggests that "[his] view of evolution is incomplete and therefore fails in its side-stepping of how information (the genetic code) gives rise to the phenotype, and by what mechanisms. Organisms are more than the sum of their parts, and we may note in passing that the world depicted by Dawkins has lost all sense of transcendence." NBeale 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm afraid that I still don't buy it.  SCM's views, while they may be stated as a disagreement specifically with Dawkins, are much more general than that.  As a prominent adapationist, Dawkins is clearly an obvious target to "pick on" (that he appears arrogant makes it more fun).  But, as I read SCM, the views he's articulating would better suit an entry over at the relevant article.  Further, saying that SCM "fundamentally disagrees" with Dawkins is over-egging it.  They are both working and publishing scientists; their views, on the scale of things, really aren't that different (especially when one considers the fringe craziness that evolution attracts publicly).  SCM may have other, more theologically-based reasons for attacking Dawkins, but on biology he and Dawkins are players in a larger "war" around adapatationism.


 * Regarding specific quotes, as I said before, I don't think the ones that you're supplying illuminate things. They sound clever, but the meat of the disagreement isn't there.  What, for instance, does a "sense of transcendence" have to do with biology?  This seems an entirely aesthetic judgment (and not one I would necessarily disagree with).  Similarly the painting metaphor; all that seems to add is SCM's views on, well, "transcendence" I suppose.  To this end, I don't believe that they merit entry here.


 * On the genotype/phenotype points, there is something there. But the quote is straight criticism without any clarification of SCM's views, or why they differ from those of Dawkins'.  One cannot tell what SCM is suggesting from it, though one might be able to infer a criticism of genetic determinism in there.  If this, then, again, this is part of a war that's much larger than either SCM or Dawkins.   To me, adding this criticism here seems simply an attempt to muddy the waters around Dawkins.  Yes, he is a lightning rod for this sort of thing, but criticising him for his (widely held) views on adapatationism and genetic determinism should be in context, and not just presented as a lynch mob of famous names.  Cheers, --Plumbago 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Plumbago. We really can't debate or second guess SCM's views. He says he disagrees (doesn't say "fundamentally") with Dawkins, we quote his explanations. We could perhaps expand on his views in his article. It's not a question of muddying the waters, and if you think the para even suggests that SCM is anti-evolution and can see a way to make this clearer (though I think "Prof of Evolutionary Paleobiology" makes it as clear as possible) then please suggest an amendment. I think it might be harder to find leading scientists who fully agreed with Dawkins - quite interesting if you could cite one or two. NBeale 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is indeed not the place to debate the validity of SCM's views, but it is indeed the place to debate the relevance of those views. Pertinent questions include: is SCM an expert? In what? Is he criticising Dawkins, or theories which Dawkins developed or espouses? If Dawkins, is it professional or personal, and in what context? If views which Dawkins supports, are they scientific views, philosophy views, other? These are germane questions to ask. KillerChihuahua{{sup|?!?}} 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi NBeale. I'm not really wishing to debate SCM's views as such.  My assertion is that, to my mind, his criticism of Dawkins relates to a much larger battle in biology around adaptationism and genetic determinism (of which there are famous big beasts on both sides).  As such, we don't even need to mention SCM by name (though it wouldn't hurt), just point out that Dawkins is on the adapatationist side of a battle within biology.  The tail end of the section on Evolutionary Biology in the article already does this, though it could perhaps be extended (slightly).  Regarding SCM and "transcendence" (which seems to be the other mode of his criticism), mentioning that in this article is much more questionable.  This appears to be an aesthetic or faith-based argument that isn't obviously relevant to Wikipedia.  That it's an argument made by a fellow scientist is interesting, but it's just another philosophical viewpoint (and appears no more notable than any other viewpoint).  Finally, regarding "muddying the waters", my concern is that adding clever-sounding but content-empty (my POV; re: transcendence) criticism from notable people can impart a misleading "flavour" to the article.  On the points of science you've raised, I think they relate to a larger tension in biology (and that dropping them at Dawkins' doorstep alone is inappropriate); on points of aesthetics, notability seems an issue.  Anyway, I hope the above clarifies.  (As an aside, this is all very entertaining; I never thought I'd ever find myself defending Dawkins!)  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KC, Plumbago. Yes Simon Conway Morris is an expert, in Evolutionary Biology. He praises and criticises Dawkins's views. As to whether they are scientific or philosophical views, this is interesting. There is no disagreement about scientific facts between Dawkins and any of his scientific critics, but it is Dawkins meta-scientific interpretations that are criticised (what I described below as meta-biology rather than meta-physics. Patrick Bateson says in his Affectionate Disagreements with Richard Dawkins: "The obvious attractions of providing simple, easily understood explanations has meant unfortunately that crucial distinctions have been fudged in the name of being strightforward and analysis has been focused on single factors in the name of clarity. Little progress is made in the end if the straightforwardness and clarity are illusions." (p 173). I'd be happy to drop the "and we may note ... transcendence" bit - it's just that Ed doesn't like partial quotes.  Yes there are larger questions swirling around this, but in all the 3 cases they criticise Dawkins by name because he is an extreme version, and it the very extremism that they criticise. Nobody denies that the gene's eye view of evolution is useful to some extent.  But nobody but Dawkins asserts/seems to assert that it's the only proper way of doing it. Let me try a revised text later on this evening, I have to go out now.  Ed, what do you think? NBeale 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lest you miss the point again, NBeale, no one here is asking you to show that Morris's objections are valid. We're asking you to show what the objections are. All you've provided so far are statements to the effect of "Morris doesn't agree with Dawkins, and thinks his worldview really isn't very pretty." I asked you a while back, What, specifically, does Morris find questionable about "genetic reductionism"? You haven't included any substance that would answer this for the reader. You should read very carefully Plumbago's objections to your quotes. You're choosing style over substance, time and again, and this is not elucidating for the reader. And if what you want to add is not elucidating for the reader, then it's going to get reverted. You've given us Morris quotes that include few specifics but a lot of scare words, like "genetic reductionism", as though this is supposed to stand alone as an indictment. I know that in some circles, it's enough to say "Dawkins is a reductionist" and it's case closed, verdict is in. But not on Wikipedia. To throw that word in without further explanation as though it's supposed to be an indictment, in and of itself, is an underhanded kind of POV-pushing. It's fine to criticize Dawkins for reductionism or anything else, but unless you show what the criticisms actually are, then it doesn't belong here. And as to your requests for other "leading scientists" who fully agree with Dawkins on gene-centrism, E. O. Wilson and John Krebs come to mind. There's one or two. Happy? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[Reset indent] Hello again. As coe l acan is so kind to point out, you're ignoring the crux of the matter. No-one is questioning SCM's expertise. No-one is disputing that he, and others, have criticised Dawkins. However, in summarising Dawkins for this article it's necessary that we be both as clear as possible, and that we distill the subject to its essentials. On the first point, the earlier quotations are certainly not clear (don't get me on "transcendence" again). That said, the quotes immediately above are fairly clear. However, as I've argued before, these latter sorts of criticisms are part of much larger discussions in biology on adaptationism and genetic determinism. As such, whether they need special treatment as "essentials" is less certain. Dawkins is certainly a vociferous and highly visible proponent of adaptationism, but these same criticisms could be made of any number of biologists (and, in the same way, the reverse criticisms go in the opposite direction back to SCM et al.). And, as I've also noted before, these criticisms already exist in the article in the evolutionary biology section. They could be expanded and SCM brought in, but to my mind there are already a number of big hitters listed there. Cheers, --Plumbago 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Plumbago, Coelacan. KC was asking about SCM's expertise, but I think we all now agree that he has it. All I want to assert is that Conway Morris, Noble and Bateson have criticised Dawkins. I think it is reasonable that the references, in addition to substantiating this point, give quotes which are a reasonable indication of the kinds of criticisms they make, but we can't reduce major books to s single soundbite, and if we did it would certainly be OR! Whether or not they might (or even should) have formulated their criticisms, not at Dawkins, but at someone/thing else, is debateable but again, I submit, beside the point. It is not up to us to second-guess what they might/should have said.  I don't disagree that E. O. Wilson and John Krebs are Leading Scientist Dawkins supporters (though I think we should quote some refs to support this - someone else might try to do this). Subject to these references I'd suggest the following text (edit to see the text of the references):


 * Dawkins's scientific interpretations of the biological facts of evolution divide opinion amongst leading scientists . Some, like E. O. Wilson and John Krebs are very supportive; others, like Simon Conway Morris Denis Noble and Patrick Bateson, are critical.
 * What do you think (esp Ed who has been a little quite recently) NBeale 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's completely meaningless. It details nothing about what they're critical of, not to mention the amount of text in your refs is absurdly large.  *Spark*  03:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Spark. I genuinely can't see which word or phrase is even slightly difficult to understand. And I'd be happy to give as much, or as little, detail as people wanted (within reason) but it seems a bit unreasonable to say "not enough detail, but too much".  Readers should be allowed to make up their own minds, if they want to explore the matter. I think we just need to give them indications on where they might look. We already point to Dennet and Pinker, with little or no detail. But what do other people think? NBeale 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting to be a long thread. I dislike this suggestion for three reasons. The first is I don't like to see so much infomation buried in footnotes. This is not a textbook, and it strikes me this approach is inappropiate for an encyclopedia. The second is that as it stands, this is still a just a list of biologists who "like" or "dislike" Dawkins. Let me eplain. If editing the article on Adolf Hitler, I could write something like "Churchill disapproved of Hitler's actions, while Mussilini approved of them. Stalin approved of them, but changed his mind sometime in the summer of 1941, while Roosevelt was another statesman who disapproved of them". That paragraph is true and verifiable, but tells me nothing. Reading Hitler's article no-one is quoted as supporting him or opposing him. We read of his words and his deeds, and then can make up our own minds. Of course there is nothing wrong in using a quote to illistrate a point. Lastly I think that largely the quotes are interesting observations on Dawkins philosophy, and I do have some sympathy with their points of view. However this artice is about Dawkins, not about athiesm or reductionism. If we clearly state Dawkins views, then surely the reader can cast their own judgement. --Michael Johnson 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with Michael Johnson. What is it about these particular few people and what they have to say about Dawkins that merits inclusion? I fear the thin end of a wedge. We are still where we were a week ago. If these comments are included, someone will feel the need to add to, elaborate on, top, or counter them. It leads to an arms race, and mutually assured destruction of the readability of the article. Snalwibma 09:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. And I'd say again that the article already has this criticism in it:
 * "In the controversy over interpretations of evolution (the so-called Darwin Wars), one faction is often named for Dawkins and its rival for Stephen Jay Gould. This reflects the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of contesting viewpoints, rather than because either is the more substantial or extreme champion of these positions ..."
 * The paragraph this excerpt is from might benefit from explicit reference to adaptationism (it focuses a bit more on evolutionary psychology; just one aspect of it), but the conflict it describes deals with the same controversies NBeale's quotes do. Further, as the excerpt specifically states, Dawkins (and Gould for that matter) attracts the flack because he is a pre-eminent populariser of a particular viewpoint.  SCM and others may go on to attack on other flanks (as implicit in NBeale's quotations) but these criticisms appear to be aesthetic in nature, and therefore of questionable notability (for this article; SCM's article may suit better).  Anyway, can we please put this to bed?  --Plumbago 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The way forward
The page is now protected. I assume a discussion in the spirit of "let's forget all that and start afresh" is the way to go. May I start the ball rolling? Just an observation. The object of all this discussion should be to achieve a better Wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins. The basic Wikipedia policies (NPOV, BLP, NOR etc) must of course be adhered to - but my main thought at this stage is to put myself in the shoes of someone who knows little about RD and comes to Wikipedia to get a good overview. I use Wikipedia myself in this way daily, and I find it a wonderful resource. It's full of useful, reliable, accurate summaries of anything-under-the-sun. The RD article should be the same. We should not be trying to insert as many facts and opinions as possible on each side of the "argument" in the vain hope that this will somehow achieve balance and NPOV. What it would actually achieve is an article that is so stuffed full of claim and counter-claim that it is simply unreadable. Maybe we should in fact be cutting much of the detail out. What does the naive enquirer actually need? That's what should be in the article. Snalwibma 08:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion! Any biography requires certain data: place and date of birth, education, family circumstances, career. For Dawkins I think there are two main aspects to his adult career: his scientific career, and his criticism of religion as a dangerous superstition. IMHO his atheism is core to, yet a minor detail, of his criticism of religion. Which is more important to a biography of him? Should the science career have greater prominence, as it is his primary focus and reason he is notable? or the criticism, as it is that which attracts the larger portion of public interest? Or approximately the same amount of emphasis? We must ensure it is clear that he is a scientist first, and what relationship the two have to each other. Does the article achieve these things? One puppy's opinion, what do others think? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * His area of science is not mine. I will note that as a physical scientist, I read the Selfish Gene when it was first published and I was quite excited about it. My friends who were evolutionary biologists shot it down and were quite dismissive. I think that if we look carefully, we will find that even in his "science" career, he is a very controversial figure. I am not positive of this, but it is a hunch. I personally think he is a very engaging and interesting communicator, which of course is why his chair is in science communication, and not science.--ReasonIsBest 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with ReasonIsBest. Dawkins area of science being almost exactly mine, I can assure readers that the gene centerer view of biology has become a fundamental part of biology.  What needs to be stressed is that Dawkins is simply the public face behind the idea, with a vast number of researchers working with the idea.  However, I must agree that Dawkins is a science communicator first, scientists second (much like Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould).--Roland Deschain 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness we have someone who is from Dawkin's area! Maybe he was a bit controversial at first, but managed to change scientific opinion. If this is true, then this is actually a substantial achievement, and should be noted as such. A paradigm shift, even a little one, is not a minor thing. I will say that Carl Sagan did not really achieve this in science, although Gould probably did, at least in my opinion. Of course, the real history of science will be written long after our time.--ReasonIsBest 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the history of science, like all histories, is ongoing. We are our descendants history and our antecedants are our history. On topic, however: do we stress that Dawkins is a science communicator enough? I'm not sure that is made completely clear in the intro, at least. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fine discussion to have, but this conversation has nothing to do with why the page is protected. Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the edit war, we have two editors whose edits are consistently being reverted: kdbuffalo (ken) and NBeale. We need to reach consensus on whether their proposed changes merit inclusion in original or modified form, and these discussions are already ongoing in the sections above us. I don't think this section needs our attention now, although I'd like to come back to it when we have the page-protection issues resolved. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. This has nothing to do with the reason for the page being blocked. But it is something constructive to do in the meantime. I do not believe anyone besides kdbuffalo and NBeale really believes that the edits by kdbuffalo and NBeale deserve to be retained. There is a page here and another page here and even an older one here that you can visit and find out that kdbuffalo has a long history on many pages on Wikipedia of being as disruptive as he can. --ReasonIsBest 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Coelacan and Reason. I see what you mean, but the problem (as I see it) is that referring to the discussions above and hoping to reach consensus there seems doomed to failure - witness the last two weeks of discussion. I started this new thread because I thought it might be helpful to draw breath and draw back from the arms-race style of pro- and anti- points listing. Or, in other words, maybe the way of persuading NBeale and kdbuffalo not to keep adding sentences on criticism is not to appeal to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc, but simply to point out that the article becomes degraded to the point of unreadability if it is over-clogged with quotes from supporters, critics, colleagues, reviewers, etc. I thought it might be helpful, as a way of reaching a resolution of the earlier discussions, to ask "How much of any of this sort of stuff is actually useful?" Snalwibma 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the way forward is for everyone to remember the cardinal NPOV principle that "Readers are left to form their own opinions." Criticism is all to the good (as long as there isn't a whole separate section for it, see my comments above) but, obviously, the most notable criticism must be included, reffed, and left as it is. As soon as ppl stop POV pushing (no need to mention names on that front...) we can proceed as normal. Honestly, I'm regretting Dawkins ever wrote God Delusion - this page has gotten a hell of a lot worse because of it. And far more unpleasant. Mi kk er (...) 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I have wondered about before is if another page with this type of material can be created to capture it, and then linked in. This allows this material to find a venue, but not to ruin the readability of the main page. --ReasonIsBest 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These pages already exist. We should just use  etc. where appropriate. There is no reason to bring the spill-over of those discussions here, as it would just be duplication of Wikipedia's contents on more than one page. We can mention "Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins disagree about blah blah blah" and have those templates nearby and that takes care of the issue. Watch this, it takes care of ken's latest complaints:
 * &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Creationism is already linked - reductionism occurs once, in the intro, and is not linked. Punctuated equilibrium does not occur in the article. The main template is only used for child articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Creationism is already linked - reductionism occurs once, in the intro, and is not linked. Punctuated equilibrium does not occur in the article. The main template is only used for child articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've seen it used otherwise but it could have been incorrect usage (see Anarchism for example, where it's used both for child articles and peripheral topics like important people and even the Russian Revolution of 1917). There's also  and I think maybe there are some other related templates. Am I on the wrong track with this thinking? I'm trying to figure out how we can blatantly point out controversy and send the reader in the direction of exploration without dragging the fight over here and duplicating wiki content. Does anybody else think this is a good approach in general, and if so, how can it be accomplished? (Also I realize that punc eq is not in the article but Dawkins/Gould debates are mentioned and I think this was their major battlefield. I chose it because there was no article specifically devoted to Dawkins v. Gould. Sociobiology would be another well-known battle although I tend to think of Gould/Wilson there.) &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another related view: as Snawilba says, the article is about Dawkins. It should stick to facts about him. The views of one individual, such as Steven Rose, about the views of Dawkins, are irrelevant here, and should be deleted or moved to the Steven Rose article. Similarly the rambling essay on Noble and Morris etc that keeps being inserted certainly does not belong. Poujeaux 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seem to me that to understand who Dawkins is, readers need to understand that: (1) pretty well everyone agrees that when he is explaining biological facts he is one of the most gifted communicators ever in the field; The Simyoni Professorship was made for him. (2) His meta-biological views (eg reductionism, memes) are quite controversial in the scientfic community, with some strong supporters and some serious scientfic critics; (3) His philosophical/metaphysical stances are highly controversial, and although they have some strong supporters (Pinker and Dennet, though I struggle to name others, or any first-rate scientists, but I'm sure fellow-editors can oblige) his critics include first-rate scientists, serious philosophers, agnostics and atheists. (4) it is not easy from his books, or from much of the journalism, to distinguish between fact and opinion. As Mikker said, we should allow readers to form their own opinions and decide which, if any, serious criticisms are valid. NBeale 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article should reflect those 3 in proportion. The majority needs to be on his core field of biology and surrounding work, then a minority on other themes with respect to his ideas on memes (though this has become somewhat overused a term). As for his reductionism you firstly need to come clean as to what you want here. Do you feel that by simply mentioning reductionism and Dawkins you hope to associate him with greedy reductionism or do you care that what he says, in that step-by-step reductionism is the way forward for science, is in fact presented and commented on. Don't expect us to tolerate some quotes against reductionism unless it is specifically against the specific form that Dawkins proposes. As for his "philosophical/metaphysical" stances then they should be controversial else they would be simply science and thus uncontroversial. Few scientists would comment unless they are also of a philosophical mind. It is with the "philosophical/metaphysical" stance that I have a concern. Most relevant to this is that he is an atheist and his proposal now is that god is a hypothesis that is unlikely. His work in evolutionary biology was simply a precursor to this new approach and consistent with his heirachical reductionism. Unless you accept his approach that god can be reduced to an improbability and that this is in the real of science, any serious criticism of his work in what you call his "philosophical/metaphysical" stance will simply be an opinion and is neither valid nor invalid. It is simply opinion and it's weight is simply how notable the critic is. Ttiotsw 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an on-going discussion above on including something on the Simyoni Professorship having been made for Dawkins.  I mention this as it may have drifted from attention given the subsequent torrent of posts on other subjects.  TimRR 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors (and relevance) of South Park Go God Go reference.
It states that cartman "Accidentally transported 500 years into the future", yet the article at at Go_God_Go clearly states that cartman was frozen for 540 years. OK accepting that factual difference, on the Go_God_Go it has a response from Dawkins in a Q&A Session for the "God Delusion" and yet this isn't refered to here, in which he says that: "I would have thought they could at least have got an actor that could draw a proper British accent.". Given there is evidence that Dawkins does not support his portrayal ("I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite....") implied in the South Park show, and that this was not a cameo role (as says he would like to do with The Simpsons), I vote that this whole section is removed as a clear violation of WP:LIVING. Ttiotsw 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The section was added (again...) just before the article became "edit protected". Otherwise it would have been swiftly removed. It's non notable trivia and has been removed before. Hopefully it will be again as soon as the article becomes editable. mensch • t 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I have enjoyed seeing the episodes of South Park in which creationism, evolution, atheism, etc are pilloried, I am not sure that an extensive discussion of this is important on Richard Dawkin's page, especially when this was not a cameo role and fairly uncomplimentary.--ReasonIsBest 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been removed now, and it's already been consensus that it doesn't belong here. If it comes back we'll remove it again. Anyway South Park never casts public figures in a positive light; it doesn't matter who they are. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nishkid64 removed it, and inadvertantly also removed the protected tag. I've resored the protected tag. It is clear that all editors on this page are in agreement with the way to edit the article, if not the details, and are working incredibly well together, with the NBeale and KDB exceptions. The two editors who were actually engaging in disputed and contentious editing are not choosing to participate at all in the talk page discussion while the page is protected, and we're getting to the point where our discussion is reaching the "time to edit the article" point - some excellent ideas are forming in the The way forward section above. How long are we giving them to discuss their desired changes before we simply unprotect and move forward? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KC. I think you haven't been looking at section 30 above, where Ed and I have been working together constructively, carefully and in some detail on the Conway Morris point, and we very nearly have a consensus text. Once this is sorted out we can apply the same process to the others, which won't be nearly so difficult (there is no controversy about Midgley, Bateson is very clear about his "affectionate disagreements" and so is Noble. But in response to your implicit request I'll try to offer by 10c worth on s29. NBeale 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, happily so - I did indeed miss the ongoing discussion in Talk:Richard_Dawkins. thanks - Glad to see this is moving forward as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect
Shall we get the article unprotected? As I see it, the sole problem was that certain people were going against WP:CONSENSUS and pushing their POV. That's hardly a reason to keep the whole article protected; just an invitation to rv any additional pov edits. Agreed? Mi kk er (...) 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. When Ken's week long vacation expires, I worry that we'll be right back to where we were with this and related articles.  Only one way to find out.  *Spark*  22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. NBeale has been editing other articles but hasn't touched this talk page since the 23rd, so it looks like he's dropped out of the dispute-resolution process. In any case I think Plumbago and others are correct that the issues he wants to address are peripheral to this article's subject. Talks have collapsed at one end, so if others are ready to open up the page then I see no reason to postpone it. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've requested unprotection. Mi kk er (...) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh good... unprotection granted. Maybe this article will need to be sprotected until the controversy over God Delusion dies down, but we'll see about that. Mi kk er (...) 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I hope I haven't "left undone a thing that I ought to have done". If so do tell me and I'll try to make amends!  I agree that it's best unprotected, and I've made the small adjustment that we agreed on talk clarifying the Simonyi Professorship. In the meantime, as you say, I have made what I hope people feel are positive contributions to other articles (and even created a few). Together we can make wikipedia an even better resource. NBeale 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi NBeale, thanks for your constructive contribution - you'll notice I've rv-ed it (in retrospect perhaps a bit harsh) but please keep the citation style consistent. Please use cite web. (I.e. like all the other refs in the article, not a direct external link). Mi kk er (...) 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mikker, Have tried, please improve ref style if you can. Note rueful remark in the talk section. NBeale 04:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to see you here NBeale, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article. Others have commented that a criticism section is needed and I see that it is still missing.  As a newbie to Wikipedia, I do not have the capacity to help in this endeavor, but know that you do not stand alone in wishing for a more balanced article. — Petercksun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.