Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Controversies, Conflict, and let's be honest not a neutral point of view.

OK let's start again. Look guys I like Dawkins I agree a lot with him however this article is clearly written in a biased way, comments made about women and rape have been shoved into political issues, while his 'nicer' comments have been left. When it to comes those who criticise his work its smushed together in one paragraph not giving fair exposure. We have to stop trying to use wikipedia to get across our ideology, it's unethical and wrong. We can admire his work without trying to hide his dodgy bits

So how about this. We remove political views altogether and just have the link to his political views or we do the logical thing and we but a brief summary of some dodgy stuff balanced out with the good stuff he's said, this is what Wikipedia guidelines say to do - Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

We also then give space for the major criticism of his work to be stated in a format that doesn't just stick them all together.

Please can we just all take a step back and realise that there is an element of covering up his comments and actions here.

All the best Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)).

Permareperwiki1664, have you read WP:CRITICISM? I'm not the first person to have drawn it to your attention. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit I have and that's why I said we leave space, please read what I have put. Instead of just squishing it all together in an unorganised paragraph it should be properly set out Permareperwiki1664 —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, please don't use my signature in lieu of a ping - to ping someone, just type {{u|TheirUsername}}. Note however that a notification will not be sent if you forget to sign your post.

I don't think that a section on criticism would be an improvement - it looks to me like the article is structured appropriately as it is. For example in the section on his work on evolutionary biology, there is some discussion of criticism of his ideas. That generally seems to me to be the better way to address this, discussing criticism of his work in the same place we discuss the work itself; what we don't want is a separate section, broken down into 'nice things people have said about him' and 'mean things people have said about him'. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit ok fair enough but can you see how especially in the politcal views section it is hugely one sided, for example it says he's a feminist but does not mention what many consider to be rape apologetics. The problem is all together 5 million people have viewed this page while only 100,000 have viewed the politics page, people are not getting the full story in fact its worse they are getting a one sided story. This is why we need a culture of belief because there is an obvious tendancy to hide any sort views that don't make him look good. WIkipedia should be leading the way for openess and equality, it should not be part of the problem.

Therefore how about after the feminist comment I include, with references, he has come underifre for some comments made about rape and harrasment. Something like that? then the individual can the see the political views. Please lets not try and hide this.--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, first up - pings can't be fixed, if you make a mistake you need to insert a whole new one, and re-sign. Also take a look at WP:THREAD.

Now that's cleared up - I guess a discussion could be had about what is, and is not, DUE in that section. I don't think the numbers are as big a deal as you think though - most people who read this article probably just look at the lead. Anyone interested in his political views can click on the link to find out more.  GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We must fight, as rational people, against the privilege that allow comments to be hidden

It doesn't really make a difference whatever I edit to bring this into public view people will it strike down. Dawkins privilege shines through While I praise his work his comments come dangerously close to serious bigotry and depending on how you look at some of them they have crossed that line. We as editors should be shining a light on his comments about the disabled, minorities and women who are victims of rape. He has made some disgusting comments and to shove them to the side in order to protect the ideology we share is the same as what religions have done for centuries. We should be fighting for the oppressed not hiding the comments of those who pander to them. I love Dawkins work, but we have to be critical of his comments.

If you are reading this, all I ask is that you become part of the solution and not the problem. We should be fighting for equality for all, this article hides comments by putting them under another article titled 'political views'. . Come on guys, they will not let me edit this, I need more help to make sure that the beauty of Dawkins' work is heard but also his comments are known and not hidden. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.-Desmond Tutu (yes i choose a quote of a bishop but surely his message shines through his superstition)

Let's fight for a better world one small action at a time, things like this erode the privilege of old straight white men who believe they can say what they want because of there status. This should not be right, as I've said I love Dawkins' work but his comments need a light shone on.

Will you help me fight Girth Summit ?

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, this is classic WP:SOAPBOX. You're not going to persuade anybody this way. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, what are we supposed to make of this diatribe? It sounds like something you'd hear at Speaker's Corner on a particularly slow weekday. Guy (help!) 19:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit ok I understand, I have given you reasons we should. These are his words no one elses. I have said that it is our responcibility, you rejected that. I am trying to tell you why, not to present propoganda. All I'm saying is we have an obligation, would you not agree? --19:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Permareperwiki1664 (talk)

I propose that until we can agree on other content, his comments about rape and the obvious clash with his feminist views should be included. I will keep it short and sweet. something like He has however made comments that have cause many feminists to object to. this will be after him identifying as a feminist comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a few comments. Permareperwiki1664 you should wait until other editors respond before adding anything back into the article. I would suggest writing what you want to add back in in this talk page and let editors respond. I have been reading through the 'Political Views' article and checking the sources on the 'controversial' comments by Dawkins. It would seem to me that any addition to the main article should be limited to the feminist controversies (if any) where it is clearer his comments can be seen as misjudged or at odds with his professed feminism. A single sentence would suffice. Whereas criticism of his supposed Islamaphobia should remain in the additional article only. Robynthehode (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

yes please get consensus before adding material. I may have said this a few times above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to see how this situation falls under WP:RGW Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that way yes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 It does not as it is already well documented, it is just being hidden to save his reputation.

So how about this Dawkins identifies as a feminist. Dawkins has said that feminism is "enormously important" and "a political movement that deserves to be supported".However Dawkins has come under fire from feminists and feminist organizations, mainly due to Several of Dawkins' tweets, such as one where he inferred that the fault of drunk rape victims lied at their feet. He also faced significant controversy with his response to the Rebecca Watson Elevator incident. Where he wrote a post titled 'dear Muslama' describing her response as an overreaction.

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The however-part amounts to wp:original research and wp:synthesis. - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

DVdm how would I improve it to avoid said things? As the sources that I obviously will provide state this

First, you mean implied, not inferred. Second, since interpretation of implication is subjective, a statement like that would need to be attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Once that is out of the way, we could discuss whether any of this is DUE. Personally, I'm not sure we should be saying that he self-describes as a feminist - does anyone else call him that? It's possible that we might be better trimming the whole issue. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit No I think it needs to be said, if describes himself as a feminist then it needs to be included. So it would be something like however many feminist groups and feminists have criticised some of his comments. The main criticism being his tweets, where some feminists, such as Amanda Marcotte of salon magazine, felt he was blaming women for rape when they are drunk. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, I don't think you can be familiar with how we generally determine things like this. We generally go by what secondary sources say, not how a subject describes themselves. I am, of course, open to others' thoughts on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit If a politician describes themself as x we include it how is this any different? As long as we state that he is self-defined surely that's ok as it his political view in a political view section.

Again with the non-signing? Where does it say that we accept politicians' self-descriptions? GirthSummit _(blether) 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summitsorry accident. Well considering it is on major politicians pages then i would think so. Even if it wasn't it is under a heading titled political views so surely as it is his political view it should be included --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Do you not think there is an element of bias on this page? Thinks are being hidden and people are cherry-picking comments. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, I don't have a strong view about it - I'm not familiar enough with the sources. I do have a strong view that we shouldn't have a criticism section, as we've discussed; for the exact content of what goes into the 'political views' stuff, not so much. I do think that anything we add would need to be written more carefully than what you put above - we shouldn't use figurative language such as 'lied at their feet', and it would have to be an attributed statement explaining who criticised him, and on what grounds, supported by secondary sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit if i included all the things you have listed above would this be suitable --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

However, Dawkins has come under fire from feminists and feminist organizations for many reasons. Several of Dawkins's posts on Twitter were controversial (multiple references here), such as one where he seemed to 'victim blame' the victims of rape when they are drunk.(multiple references here from a range of sources that I have) "If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk," he tweeted. He also created controversy when he told Rebecca Watson to 'grow a thicker skin', during the 'elevatorgate' incidnet, (reference) in a blog post titled Dear Muslima. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Permareperwiki1664, without seeing the sources, I can't form an opinion on whether this is DUE. I would say that the 'for many reasons' should be trimmed (it's vague), and I would change 'seemed to 'victim blame' the victims of rape when they are drunk...' to 'was accused of victim blaming' when he tweeted...' (less repetitive, more neutral) If we are to mention the elevator thing, we would need to include the fact that he later apologised (as described at Rebecca Watson). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This biography covers the whole of Dawkins' life and the fact that some tweets in the last few years (in his mid 70s) have been controversial is entirely insignificant in the scheme of things. At least, it's WP:UNDUE until a very significant secondary source provides an analysis of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq So in other words you want to ignore his comments, despite them being denounced by a LOT of feminists.Thid isn't remotely insignificant it is massively significant. How is this not clear evidence that those who are editing this article are biased? I don't understand how you can justify marginalising his comments, just because he is 70 odd. If we apply that logic we should also deem his work in the last ten years as insignificant as he is in his 'mid 70's'. This is what I mean when I say there is an element of bias here. People want to ignore his comments to protect his character and therefore the ideology.

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do genuinely believe this tendency to marginalise his comments, which are VERY serious is contraryWikipedia:Npov. AS there is clearly an alternative motive by some when it come to this article. I am not proposing we slander the guy as this would be wrong but we should not cherry pick points that shine a better light on him. We should be objective. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I can also give multiple sources that show it isnt undue. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But I'm guessing this will still be struck down by Johnuniq as he has done with previous comments made by Dawkins. If you go through the archives of this talk page it has been done time and time again by Johnuniq even when there was support to include his comments. To make it clear this isn't a personal attack on Johnuniq, I am trying to point out there is tendency to inlcude the nice stuff but hide the bad. We see this in the line where he calls himself a feminist but the article makes no reference to comments that have been considered by high profile feminists and groups as somewhat anti-feminist. This is well documented. Johnuniq can you explain how these comments are 'insignificant' when they caused so much high profile controversy. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just saying 'this is not a personal attack' doesn't mean it isn't. I agree with Johnuniq that this would be WP:UNDUE. Please also read WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck instead of saying this is WP:UNDUE can you please explain how it is. As i have read it, multiple times and this just reaffirms what I am saying. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I did assume could faith however there is evidence to the contrary, if you go through archives of this page we see there are continued attempts to restrict any sort of reference to appalling comments that have been made. Comments that cause high profile controversy. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Dick Dawkins" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dick Dawkins. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Dick Dawkins until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Awards section restates he received the 1996 American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award twice — the second of which is supposed to be describing the awards other than the 1996 AHA award he recieved.

47.20.177.163 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 47.20.177.163 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done And don't think the irony of you duplicating your signature is lost on me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh man I actually didn't even notice. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

1996 award speech

https://web.archive.org/web/20140810020151/https://thehumanist.com/news/hnn/from-the-aha-archives-richard-dawkins-1996-humanist-of-the-year-speech

2601:602:9200:1310:A99B:B70:F57C:EFE9 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with Citation of Post Modernism section

I'm currently doing some research, and I noticed a serious and confusing citation:

[180] Dawkins, R. Postmodernism disrobed. Nature 394, 141–143 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/28089

This is clearly a book review of "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, not a direct criticism of Guattari or Lacan. The cited article doesn't even mention that the quote is from Chaosmosis. The quote is indeed from this book, but from the Nature book review, it's very ambiguous whether or not Dawkins actually read Lacan or Guattari, or is just referencing quotations from Fashionable Nonsense as part of his review. This should be either noted in the article, sourced from something else, or be rewritten entirely, since many people reading this article may believe he is directly criticizing the source.

--67.149.10.152 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I gather this refers to the text in the article starting "We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence...". In the reference, that text is given and is followed by "This is a quotation from the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari". If there is a problem please spell it out. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply and formatting errors.

The problem is that the article cited is clearly a book review. This should be made clear to readers, because otherwise it will sound like Richard Dawkins read the source texts (which I do not believe he actually did). Considering that this has major impact on a reader's perspectives of various writers, I think that it is necessary to point out at the very least that Dawkins did not engage with the material directly. Please actually read the article, its stated to be a book review from Nature's actual source article in very visible text on the top: https://www.nature.com/articles/BF28089.pdf

Additionally, the header for the article makes it clear that this is a review of "Intellectual Imposures":

"Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998 Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont Profile: 1998. Pp. 274. £9.99 To be published in the USA by Picador as Fashionable Nonsense in November 1998"

Furthermore, these quotations regarding both Guattari and Lacan make it obvious that he is quoting Sokal's book, not theirs:

"This is a quotation from the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, one of many fashionable French ‘intellectuals’ outed by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their splendid book Intellectual Impostures, previously published in French and now released in a completely rewritten and revised English edition. Guattari goes on indefinitely in this vein and offers, in the opinion of Sokal and Bricmont,'the most brilliant mélange of scientific,pseudo-scientific and philosophical jargon that we have ever encountered'. "

"Sokal and Bricmont are professors of physics at, respectively, New York University and the University of Louvain in Belgium. They have limited their critique to those books that have ventured to invoke concepts from physics and mathematics. Here they know what they are talking about, and their verdict is unequivocal. On Jacques Lacan, for example, whose name is revered by many in humanities departments throughout US and British universities, no doubt partly because he simulates a profound under- standing of mathematics"

Not as noteworthy, but he also does not cite the books/pages of these passages. This would make sense if quoting Sokal's book as part of the review, but not if he read the actual books.

Decided to add more since I noticed it might be confusing how this relates to the article:

Even though the relationship with the books is stated in the first part of the paragraph, this wording:

"In 1998, Dawkins expressed his appreciation for two books connected with the Sokal affair, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt and Intellectual Impostures by Sokal and Jean Bricmont. These books are famous for their criticism of postmodernism in U.S. universities (namely in the departments of literary studies, anthropology, and other cultural studies)."

Does not convey that the quotes come from a book review of "Intellectual Impostures". Furthermore, this wording:

"Echoing many critics, Dawkins holds that postmodernism uses obscurantist language to hide its lack of meaningful content. As an example he quotes the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari: "

Explicitly makes it sound like Dawkins read and is quoting Chaosmosis directly. While he is still technically quoting Chaosmosis, I think that it is misleading to make it sound like Dawkins is criticizing Guattari directly and not quoting Sokal's criticism of Guattari.

"This is explained, Dawkins maintains, by certain intellectuals' academic ambitions. Figures like Guattari or Lacan, according to Dawkins, have nothing to say but want to reap the benefits of reputation and fame that derive from a successful academic career: "

While this section is clearly more Dawkins' direct opinion, without the context of the book review, it sounds like this opinion is from Dawkins himself reading these works rather than his response to the book review. I don't think the first paragraph is sufficient in expressing this.

--67.149.10.152 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I proposed an edit to this section, I think this both provides more information as well as makes this more clear, while preserving Dawkins' opinion. Please let me know what edits you think should be made. Also, can the citation be updated to the direct reference to Nature to make this more clear? It appears the doi.org link does not make the book review aspect clear. Thank you. --67.149.10.152 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Name

I see some back and forth on Dawkins' name. Did he legally change is name to just "Richard Dawkins", or is his full name "Clinton Richard Dawkins" but he just uses his middle name? Either way, birth name should be mentioned in the intro; I just want to make sure it's properly mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Richard Dawkins#Early life, he discarded the name "Clinton" by deed poll, which is the formal legal process in England for such things. In English law, you don't have to do this, you can just help yourself to a new name and establish it by years of custom and practice. You can even tell the passport office to use your new name. But legal documents will continue to use your legal name in the absence of a deed poll.

All that is by the by. Wikipedia policy WP:LEAD says that the lead section should have (and only have) the most essential points of the article – and the larger the article, the more strictly that has to be enforced. That he was original named Clinton Richard is a trivial detail: he never published under that name, indeed it may be that he never used it at any time of his life. So to put it in the opening sentence is not just clutter, it is distracting noise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Gerin oil" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gerin oil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Gerin oil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Geriniol" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Geriniol and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Geriniol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 20:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Controversies

This article should contain a "Controversies" section, as Dawkins has drawn significant ire and been stripped of awards, kicked out of organizations, etc. for his comments on Muslims, among other things. Thoughts? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The preferred approach is to integrate this information throughout the article instead of a standalone section, as per WP:CRIT. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. In that case, I suggest a few prominent criticisms be addressed that are not addressed anywhere in the article, such as being dropped from science events for mocking feminists and Islamists. There are numerous secondary sources for Dawkins criticisms. Do you have any issue with me adding a bit in appropriate places? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Go right ahead! –CWenger (^ • @) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit late response but I will jump in nevertheless, with a short reply (including @Pyrrho the Skeptic). Yes, only we have problem of balance, then, because we have enormous section highlighting various "recognition" of his work and contribution to whatever, but highlighting negative reactions with distinct section is somehow bad thing. I am afraid that one extremely important reaction is missing from this BLP, and most importantly it is his peer's reaction expressed as huge academic research with a result published in sci journals and noted and talked about in tertiary sources - it concerns Richard Dawkins misrepresentation of science and conveying the wrong impression that he speaks for all scientists, that he knows what norms guide most scientists in their work, and so on. But, I will write about it as soon as I find the best way to integrate that into the article. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins misrepresentation of science This is very vague. What are you talking about? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Do it yourself is the moto of the day - no, really, the best way is if you google it for yourself: try "most British scientists feel Richard Dawkins’ work misrepresents science". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Try Independent and Ars Technica pieces. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You want something in the article, you bring it. I am not your dog, fetching the sticks you throw. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I will bring it in when I decide that it's time and/or if I decide that it's relevant and worthy of trouble to write about it in the first place. Meanwhile, don't put such an offensive words in my mouth - I am not your informant, to look around Internet for whatever interest you at the moment. First you came at me with this crude "what are you talking about" and I extended you a curtesy and provided you with some hints where to look for yourself, now this - I am not sure that Wikipedia works this way either. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling is right. You can't just make a vague, unsourced assertion like "Richard Dawkins misrepresentation of science" and expect everyone to try to figure out whatever you meant. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I hold a strong conviction that High Priest of New Atheism misrepresents science and scientists. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I hold a strong conviction that the art of editing Wikipedia is in trying really hard to put your personal convictions aside and neutrally describe what reliable sources say. I am sure it is not easy, and a lot of our biases are unconscious, but we have to keep asking ourselves "do I have an axe to grind here?" or "do I have a conflict of interest?". Retimuko (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Every argument we give here (TP) comes out of personal conviction - just as you expressed yours just now, but unless our account has been hijacked by AI we will continue to argue out of our personal conviction. We are, however, obliged to leave them aside when using wikivoice in the mainspace. I don't understand your remark about COI. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Every argument here must be based on policy and sources. I am afraid we are way too far into WP:NOTFORUM territory. I invite you to be more constructive like: "let's add such and such sentence based on such and such source". Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was constructive enough, initially, when I expressed my concern saying that the article has problem with balancing existing "recognition" section with non-existing "controversies" (which is a statement based on my conviction and for which I don't need sources). Why would all subsequent participants want to rave only about my additional "vague" expression of intent to maybe, one day, I try to find a way to include research and survey conducted among scientists, which led to bacl-and-forth void of substance, is a question for them - I was just extending them curtesy of reply. However, it seems that main problem here is that any argument that includes questioning of Dawkins integrity, even "vague", is not welcomed among his followers. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Every article about something that is connected to pseudosciences and the people who criticize them regularly gets Talk page contributions about the page supposedly being "biased" or not being "balanced". See WP:YWAB for examples. They all come from people who noticed that a Wikipedia article is at odds with their opinion, and think that the Wikipedia article must therefore be wrong. None of those contributions is constructive. And when their wishes are rejected, they blame the editors and their "bias" for the article's continuing deviation from The Truth (aka the complaining editor's opinion). You are just the last in the line.

No, it was not constructive enough, and no, do it yourself is not curtesy, and no, we are not the ones who want others to look around Internet for whatever interest you at the moment. If you believe that Dawkins does "misrepresent science", then it must be much easier for you to say about what exactly, than for us to find out what you may be talking about by going on a wild goose chase. We have lots of articles about people who misrepresent science, and each of them links reliable sources explaining what exactly the misrepresentation is. Insinuations without concrete links are not "constructive". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My first reply to you first crude question espoused in belligerent tone and focused on less immediate problem raised in my post was a curtesy - I should have ignored it all together, if I was any smarter, and all this waste of time and energy would be avoided.

Your first paragraph here is kinda overboard presumptuous about the nature of my participation so far and maybe should be aimed at someone more appropriate - except, maybe you perceived my inputs here from the start as my concern for "pseudoscience", my concern about potential resident editors' "bias", concern that something is at "odds to my opinion" and that I am already assigning "blame", and so on - I am not, so I don't think para concern me. Both you and IP in a follow up, jumped as you were bitten by a rattle to my short and insignificant, as not at all unusual for controversial subject like this (Dawkins), posting on old discussion with a belligerence, which I can only interpret as a defensive posturing from subject's devoted following. (At this point I am unsubscribing from this thread so maybe I won't answer expeditiously like before or at all. I wanted to start a whole new thread on the mentioned research and survey within scientific community in the UK, but if I am confronted with such a hostility on "first-date", I am going to pass on whole thing.)

If you want to learn how to make a link, please ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Separate Atheism from Political views

The entire first, quite long paragraph of the section headed Political views is entirely about Dawkins' views on atheism. Atheism is not politics. I propose making that paragraph a separate section titled Atheism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but in practice being an outspoken atheist is political. Not in some countries but it certainly is in the US. Also, putting pro-atheist signs on buses also sounds pretty political because it's more than just saying "I'm an atheist". Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps in the US it's political, as is currently just about everything. In Europe, and in England —the subject's home— it certainly is not, on the contrary. I strongly agree with HiLo48's proposal. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not just say "Views"? The section covers a multitude of views, some political, some not. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, just say views. Bduke (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Can somone undo my latest revision I accidentally submitted it and I dont know how to undo it

C Robinhoodph (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks still learning. Can you send me the link to where you can undo revisions of your own and others Robinhoodph (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what device or software you are using to edit Wikipedia, but there should be an option to "View History" somewhere. This will provide a list of the edits that have been made on the article. If the edit you want to revert is the most recent (current) one, it is easy to use the "undo" feature to put things back the way they were. If the edit to revert is further back, more recent edits may have muddled things enough that the software can't revert it without reverting the latest edits, too. Then it will have to be done manually. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)