![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- PLUMBAGO 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As properly documented at Paragraph#Body 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 Wikipedia: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)
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 - contribs ) 07:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Can someone fix the typos please? -- 23:16, 25 October 2009 88.167.71.127
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Name one thing I said that is untrue.
Savagedjeff ( talk) 03:34, 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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Editors may want to review the changes I have made to the infobox and categories, as below.
[[Category:Richard Dawkins| ]]
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)
I understand the desire to use the most up-to-date image available, but the current image looks like absolute crap compared to previous versions like this one: [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- PLUMBAGO 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As properly documented at Paragraph#Body 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 Wikipedia: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)
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 - contribs ) 07:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Can someone fix the typos please? -- 23:16, 25 October 2009 88.167.71.127
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Name one thing I said that is untrue.
Savagedjeff ( talk) 03:34, 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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Editors may want to review the changes I have made to the infobox and categories, as below.
[[Category:Richard Dawkins| ]]
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)
I understand the desire to use the most up-to-date image available, but the current image looks like absolute crap compared to previous versions like this one: [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)