Wikipedia

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8

< Talk:Richard Dawkins
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Masterpiece2000 in topic FAC has made the article much worse
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

FAC action items

Latest comment: 16 years ago97 comments5 people in discussion

Trying to put it all here in a consistent format to keep track of what is being done, feel free to edit each action bullet. Let's comment always with two bullets "**" to keep the structure consistent, the point is to see what anyone is working on, and what people think still needs to be done. Use {{fixed}} and {{wontfix}} to indicate as if voting, whether you think it is fixed (by yourself or someone else) or shouldn't be fixed at all. For FA purposes, it is naturally up to the reviewer to strike out his comment on the FAC page, and when that happens we simply remove it from here. It would help if each person only comment once about each point, this way, if there are very many {{wontfix}}, then you know, which objections editors here feel should be ignored.

I have no idea, if this is useful, or simply duplicates the FA page. But it might help sorting out more subjective objections that should not be addressed, etc. --Merzul (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Section 1

  • "Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and completed his education at the University of Oxford." - <Sniff> I wish was so smart that I could have graduated when I was eight years old.
  • Is that last paragraph of the lead necessary? Seems like a tacky add-on, and the stuff isn't there anywhere else in the article.
  • I find it weird that the lead introduces his theories based on the pop-sci books he had written them in. Aren't those books peripheral to his work as a scientist and researcher. Its odd that you go discuss the career and work of a scientist on the basis of the pop-sci books he had written.
  • Current ref 14, "The Atheism Tapes" is lacking publisher information. I see you give the WikiSource information on it, but the information given on them doesn't tell me how Wikisource got them?
  • You've mixed using the [[:Template:Citation]] with the templates that start with Cite such as [[:Template:Cite journal]] or [[:Template:Cite news]]. They shouldn't be mixed
  • "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study" - Is memetics a scientific field of study?
  • "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy" - We shouldn't expect all our readers to be familiar with the watchmaker analogy (or the teleological argument in general), and ones who aren't familiar with it won't understand its significance to the previous sentence about Dawkins' "views on religion". It's a minor issue, but one easily remedied if Paley's analogy was noted as an argument for the existence of God. This seems to me to be more useful in the lead than the bit "described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind watchmaker", which a vast majority of readers will either not understand (those who aren't familiar with the watchmaker analogy) or will already know about anyway (those familiar with The Blind Watchmaker).

Section 2

  • "several best-selling popular books" - As opposed to a best-selling unpopular book? Like what, Mein Kampf? Is this meant to say "popular science books"?
  • "and supporter of the Brights movement." - Is this crucial enough for the lead section? It doesn't seem to add much information necessary to understand Dawkins himself (to the extent that it's significant at all, it only reiterates the rest of the sentence: that Dawkins is a freethinker, skeptic, etc.), and there are surely more influential and well-known organizations that Dawkins supports.
  • "creationism and intelligent design" - This phrasing is used twice in the lead section. Is it the opinion of the Richard Dawkins article, or of Wikipedia generally, that intelligent design is not (a subtype of) creationism?
    •   Won't fix. Wikipedia cannot make the statement that Creationism and Intelligent design are the same thing. That is an opinion; one which is refuted by the Intelligent Design movement. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean refuted or rejected? They are two very different words - to refute something means not merely to reject it but to disprove it. Autarch (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "the English-language version had sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been translated into 31 languages" - The English-language version had been translated into 31 languages? Assuming there are 32 total languages The God Delusion has been written in, what other version could have been translated? It's just a very strange way to put it: at the very least, what about "31 other languages" for clarity?
  • I agree with an above comment that the "Darwin's rottweiler" paragraph seems strangely tacked-on and out-of-place in the lead section; it doesn't really add any vital information. If it's meant to convey the notion that Dawkins is often seen as a particularly vociferous or fierce advocate of evolutionary theory, then it does so too coyly and with too much of a historical bent.
    • Comment This text has been incorporated into the preceding paragraph. However, I do not believe that user consensus is to remove it altogether. It succintly defines Dawkins' public persona; both in the eyes of supporters and the opposition. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Richard Dawkins was born on March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya, and named Clinton Richard Dawkins." - So was it Richard Dawkins who was born, or was it Clinton Richard Dawkins? Very strange sequencing here. The more conventional approach would be "Richard Dawkins, born Clinton Richard Dawkins..." or the like.
  • "When he better understood evolution, at age 16," - What made him better understand it? Did he misunderstand it earlier in his life? This section is too general in general.
  • "his religious position again changed because he felt that evolution could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, and thus a designer was not necessary." - "and thus a designer was not necessary" makes it sound like Wikipedia is affirming the lack of necessity for such an entity. ", rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary" or the like would avoid this trap.
  • "there was a lot of unrest and demonstration" - "a lot of" is colloquial. "significant" or "substantial" or the like is more professional, though being more concrete and specific is, as always, preferable.

Section 3

  • "As an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution" - Does this mean that all ethologists subscribe to the gene-centered view of evolution?
  • "resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors" - If new memes can be either more efficient or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, then why is the "more" aspect given more prominence (by relegating "less" to a parenthetical note)—indeed, for that matter, why bring up replicative efficiency at all if that's the case?
  • "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations published by the American Humanist Association." - Confusing grammar. Is a comma missing?
  • "According to Dawkins, faith, being belief that is not based on evidence, is one of the world's great evils and is thus analogous to the smallpox virus, though more difficult to eradicate." - Awkward and not particularly enlightening or useful. Doesn't explain why something being "belief that is not based on evidence" is therefore "one of the world's great evils", why being one of the world's great evils makes something specifically analogous to smallpox (as opposed to, say, malaria, war, or starvation), and the "though more difficult to eradicate" seems tacked-on and snarky. (And snarkiness should only be tolerated in quotes.) Surely there are better ways to summarize the substance of Dawkins' article.
  • "Dawkins argues that being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about" - A pun? One should avoid alternate uses of the term "apologetic" in theological discussions. This wording is also rather awkward (a poor attempt at formalizing the colloquial "nothing to be sorry about"). A better word here than "apologetic" is "ashamed" (following "nothing one should be", not "nothing to be"), though a complete rewrite of this sentence may be warranted instead.
  • "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Unacceptable overgeneralization and bias for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage. Atheism, as atheists themselves often define it, never indicates either "a healthy indepence of mind" or "a healthy mind" (the implication being that the religious mind is not only delusional, but diseased?)
  • "Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in making us feel embarrassed" - "Us"? Which "us"? The article's editors? All known sentient beings? A majority of 21st-century upper-middle-class English-speakers? Academia?
  • The way the discussion of "religious children" follows, rather than precedes, the argumentation and context Dawkins uses to support his view, makes Wikipedia seem like it is advocating that view rather than merely providing information on it. This is also suggested by the way the view seems like a tacked-on non-sequitur in context: one might assume, before reading the last couple of sentences, that they would be about "the fight against certain stereotypes", rather than about group identification and labeling.

Section 4

  • "The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)" - Comma goes after the parentheses. Also, Dawkins had no say whatsoever, or he was just overruled? Also, it should be obvious to any neutral reader that this parenthetical digression seems exceedingly tacked-on and argumentative; it comes across as a polemical attempt to preempt a possible criticism, rather than as a neutral encyclopedic report on the facts. How significant is the title and the story surrounding that title to the Richard Dawkins article? And even if it is important to know that he disliked the title, couldn't we find a better way to explain that than with unprofessional and hasty-looking parentheses?
  • The sentence about McGrath and Harries' segments seems out-of-sequence and awkward in its current context. Are McGrath and Harries meant to be examples of "religious moderates"? And why is this sentence not in the same paragraph as the one actually discussing McGrath?
    • Comment I don't think it should be moved to the McGrath paragraph. It was filmed for the ROAE? documentary and the sentence also mentions the interview with Harries, which would itself be definitely out-of-place in the paragraph on McGrath. I made this point to the user who brought this issue up, but he/she has not yet replied with a suggestion as requested. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The way most of this section is presented suggests significant bias. For example, note the use of the pejorative/dismissive verb "claims" for McGrath's comment and for critics of Dawkins generally, whereas Dawkins' comments are characterized by humbly well-informed verbs like "notes", "suggests", or "avers". When Wikipedia uses wording like "Dawkins also criticised McGrath for providing no argument to support his own beliefs", it is essentially agreeing with the substance of Dawkins' criticism (in that case, that McGrath had no argument for his beliefs); whereas the bias is more subtle in other ways, such as in that Dawkins' critics are usually heavily paraphrased, whereas Dawkins' rebuttals and arguments are frequently quoted in part or full.
  • "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has also come" - Is Is Religious Dangerous? a criticism of The God Delusion, or just of certain ideas which happen to have appeared in The God Delusion?
  • "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that the critics misunderstand his real point" - All of his defenders claim that all of his critics misunderstand his "real" point?
  • "Dawkins does not contend that religion is the source of all that is wrong in the world" - Again, do any of Dawkins' high-profile critics (much less all of his critics) actually accuse Dawkins of blaming religion for "all that is wrong in the world"? One can believe that Dawkins is overstating the dangers of religion, for example, without believing that Dawkins attributes "all that is wrong in the world" to religion. We shouldn't let words be put either in Dawkins' mouth or in the mouths of his critics without extreme care, lest that be the only word said on the subject to our readers.
  • "Dawkins himself has said that his objection to religion is not solely that it causes wars and violence, but also that it gives people an excuse to hold beliefs that are not based upon evidence." - Why is this phrased as a rebuttal to a criticism? Who claimed that Dawkins doesn't object to religion's use of faith to justify evidence-lacking beliefs?
  • "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection--an unconscious, automatic, blind, yet essentially non-random process--has no purpose in mind and, if it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is that of the blind watchmaker." - Malformed emdashes. Strange way of providing Dawkins' response. The crux of Dawkins' argument isn't "natural selection is blind", it's "natural selection is a sufficient 'watchmaker'"; a wording like "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and nonrandom complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, "blind" watchmaker." is clearer.
  • "Dawkins suggested that the deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience." - Those things contain more beauty and wonder than they contain myths and pseudoscience, or those things contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience do? (Also, the use of "myths and pseudoscience" here, outside of specific context or quotations, is suggestive of polemic. Encyclopedias should avoid the pejorative use of "myth" to avoid confusion with the neutral use of "myth" in history and sociology.)

Section 5

  • His first book was very controversial, and I wonder if we have dug into that enough here?
    • Comment I don't think it was very controversial. Just because a set of ideas is considered to be an original way of looking at a subject doesn't automatically render it "very controversial". Does the person making this claim have sources to this effect? Right now, the book, its ideas, and the climate in which it was written are all covered in the article. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, there were a lot of rumors about how he obtained his chaired position. Were those explored fully?
    •   Won't fix. Nonsense; any such rumours were presented on the message boards and non-notable websites of creationists and religious apologetics. No serious allegations were ever made. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "not attended to Dawkins, thinking it unnecessary to "break a butterfly upon a wheel" -- something's wrong. the first quote doesn't end, and quotes within quotes are in 'single quotes'.
  • "[89][90][14][91][92][93]" and "[94][95][96]"-- yuck, why do you need so many? For the first statement. place a ref after every comma, and for the second, that's hardly controversial--after all, it is him speaking about his own work--so why 3 refs? More later,
  • Education and academic career. This section is really short, and quite superficial in its content. For example, list of lecture. Honestly, I don't think anybody would read a big list of names like this, and would just the skip the paragraph. All the useful information in that para can be condensed to "Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures" and add a note that names all the lectures. The section simply contains too little information overall. Here is a man with a forty year academic career, and all Wikipedia can offer is a few disjointed sentences.
    • Comment I disagree, as per my comments on the FAC page. Again, would like consensus. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think this point has some merit, the list of lectures is boring and I also skipped it when reading. I have an idea what to do about it, which may or may not work. I will try it; but it will take a little time, I will look into these speeches and see, if I can expand on a few of them and maybe we move the rest to the notes. --Merzul (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Below "Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.", the section becomes a bunch of short stubby paragraphs that go, "he was judge on this, an editor on that and was on this panel." This would be a good place to describe chronologically the work he's done as a researcher (although he's not famous for that).
    • Comment I have incorporated the text a bit more into a couple of larger paragraphs, and attempted to improve the flow of it. However, I fail to see how a chronological listing of his research papers would be in any way appropriate for this article. Does anyone else seriously agree with this? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, include what kind of work did he do in his various capacities and at Oxford. I reckon all his work (except his theories and beliefs in his books which are detailed later). Also, try to club ideas to form bigger paragraphs, they are much nicer than short stubby paragraphs.
    • Comment As per my above reply, I disagree with these sentiments. Take a look at the pages of other scientists, you will not find such listings of papers. Anything of note is already mentioned. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Publications This section is a mess, plain and simple; it is very ugly and difficult to read. A table for his books seems a little unnecessary, esp. the ISBN for the audio versions, release years of second and thrid editions etc; just list the books out.
  • External should only be in the external links sections and "See also: Papers and commentary by Richard Dawkins (no longer maintained) and Dawkins' Huffington Post articles." feels like something I would find on a Geocities fansite.
  • "See also: List of books by and about Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins Bibliography at the Richard Dawkins University of Oxford website." should be in the External links section (which BTW could be cleaned up a little bit). If needed a separate List of works by Richard Dawkins article could be created.

Section 6

  • Need convincing how Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg satisfies Non-free image use criteria #8, namely how does a picture of the book's cover significantly aid understanding of the Richard Dawkins article? AFAIK, if you are using the cover of a book, the article must discuss the cover too. (Of course this is not true for the article on the book itself, where the book cover pic is needed for identification purposes).
    • Comment Unlike the RDFRS logo (which has been removed), I think that the cover of this book does significantly add to the surrounding text. It was the book in which two of his best-known innovations originated - those of memetics and the gene-centred view of evolution. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with AC. The image is necessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image is necessary Striking image, perhaps his most important book. Simultaneously contributed to the conceptualization of natural selection and also informed the general reader.
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png--ditto. How does its logo significantly increase understanding of the article?
  • The references need to be formatted. Newspaper articles titles should be in quotes. Publishers such as newspapers and books need to be italicised and linked the first instance of their occurrence (Note: don't link, capitalise and italicise the word "Magazine", keep it alongside the magazine name). For instance, "Discover magazine" should be "Discover magazine".
  • I think, The Blind Watchmaker is more relevant to anti-IDism and The God Delusion to atheism, and the associations in the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede can be switched; and the material reorganized in some other way to reduce the redundancy in the these paragraphs.
  • Similarly reference to the "watchmaker's analogy" may to be unwarranted. It may be better to define the main ideas of the book, without necessarily justifying or explaining the title in the lede. IMO, someone who has not read the book, will not understand the significance of the watchmaker being blind.

Section 7

  • The sentences, "In 1982 ... organisms." and "In his 1986 book ... blind watchmaker.", while grammatically correct are very hard to parse on first reading - and perhaps should be reworded. Have you analysed the article for readability ?
  • Multiple references for the same statement can be combined into a single footnote for improved readability.
  • The sale information for God delusion seems to be and example of recentism; after all the numbers are not dramatically different from, say, the Selfish Gene, which (arguably) is a more notable work.
    • Comment: the numbers for TGD may be notable (a) because they're large (especially for popular science; though I note that A Brief History of Time has clocked 9 million), (b) because they've accrued over a short period of time. TSG was published more than 30 years ago, but (rightly or wrongly) has managed only two thirds of TGD. --Plumbago (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "...the Dawkins name was described in Burke's Landed Gentry as "Dawkins of Over Norton". Would be a good idea to give some idea of the year/century. Also, isn't this just a reflection on Dawkin's father's family, rather than his parents' ?
  • The first paragraph of "Education and academic career" is very list-y. The prose and flow can be improved by some minor rephrasings; example, "... graduating in 1962. From 1962 to 1966, he was a research student at the University of Oxford. He received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." can be rewritten as "... graduating in 1962. He was a research student at the University of Oxford for the next four years and received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966."
  • Also it is not clear from the text that Tinbergen was his thesis adviser (as claimed in the infobox), which is much more important than being a tutor during the undergraduate days or even the research adviser from 1965-67.
  • "From 1967 to 1969, ... involved in such activities." Again the writing and flow can be improved and made less stilted. Example, "From 1967 to 1969, ... University of California, Berkeley. This was a period of great unrest in America due to the ongoing Vietnam war. Sentiments among the students and faculty at Berkeley were largely opposed to the war and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities". Try to make the prose more engaging as per criterion 1(a). The whole education section, currently appears to be a paraphrasing of his CV. Even if that is unavoidable, it can be a better paraphrasing.
    • Maybe fixed Vietnam protest portion. I've tried to make the text shorter and more readable on this point. Your mileage may vary, however. --Plumbago (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Section 9

  • The personal life section talks about Dawkin's marriages (when did he divorce Juliet Emma Dawkins, by the way ?), but inexplicably the last sentence of the section is, "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who.[23]" Huh ?
    •   Fixed. Removed this - it was liable to cause further attempts to shoehorn in South Park material. (For reference, the removed text was "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who[1]". --Plumbago (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The gene-centred view also provides a basis for understanding altruism. ... future reciprocation." It is not clear how this is related directly to Dawkins the person since as of present the article does not say that Dawkins proposed/advocated/popularized or even supported this view.
    • Maybe fixed this. Not sure. I've tidied the text surrounding group selection and have ended this paragraph with a sentence that ties it back to Dawkins and cites one of his papers on the subject. --Plumbago (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Critics of Dawkins' ...in a population. In The Selfish Gene, ... appreciable frequency"." It is not clear how the second sentence answers, or is even related to , the first. The last two sentences of the paragraph seem to be related to this idea, but there are two intermediate sentences, which seem independent. Please check. Also note the repeated wikilinking of gene.
  • The last paragraph of the "Evolutionary biology" section has good content, but the sentences need rearranging to make the presentation cogent.
  • "He hypothesised that people could view many ..." Isn't "He posited ..." more accurate ? The explanation of the concept of meme could use a rewrite to be accessible to a general reader.
  • "... he has largely left the task of expanding upon it ..." Wow! That sounds presumptuous.
  • The lengthy last paragraph on the origins of the term meme seem undue to me for this article. The discussion rightly belongs to meme, and here a single sentence summary may be sufficient.
  • "Although, on the advice of his ..." -> "However, on the advice of his ..."
  • Is the Moyer interview the most eloquent explanation of evidence of evolution in Dawkin's writings/interviews ? I am somewhat sceptical, although I don't have a specific alternative in mind.
  • "and he plans—though the Richard Dawkins Foundation" -> "and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation
    •   Fixed. Done!
  • Should the second section "Work" be renamed "Work and views" or something else, since "Creationism" is certainly not a "work" of/by Dawkins! Alternatively would it be possible to break apart his scientific research and advocacy works, or have some alternate organizational structure for the article sections/sub-sections ?
  • I recall an article who while positive to Wikipedia chided it for trivia. We are still not free of it. Does "Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[6][7] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"" belong in lead? I think not.
  • Further, the lead needs to be rewritten to for more logical structure (merge the last two paras); the watchmaker discussion seems to detailed (does it really deserve three lines of lead? I think not)
  • Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg: how does this image assist us in understanding the topic (Dawkins himself), the book itself or the concept of meme? Why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Additionally, the license tag for book covers allows use only in "[an] article discussing the book in question". Prose referencing the book is used to discuss Dawkins and does not appear to reasonably constitute discussion of the book itself.
  • Comment The Selfish Gene is arguable the most popular book by Dawkins. He coined the term meme in that book. I think the image is important. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png: same questions as above: why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A)) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of Dawkins or the foundation? Importance to the author is not necessarily analogous to importance to our understanding. As logo is essentially only text, why could prose not adequately facilitate identification of the foundation (NFCC#1)? Why do we need additional assistance identifying an organization named after the subject of the article?

Is that useful?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm wondering if the above stuff is useful in helping clarifying what objections to take seriously and what are opinions many people disagree with and should be ignored? --Merzul (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and delete it, if you don't think it is useful, it is taking up an awfully large chunk of the talk page, and currently it only duplicates the FAC page. --Merzul (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuing my internal dialogue out loud... If only the reviewers would strike out the comments that are addressed, then clearly more than half the above list would disappear. What would remain might be the more subjective stuff and I've seen people implementing one change after another without actually checking whether other editors agree with the requests of the reviewers. But I don't know, good night, Merzul (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for your effort. I really appreciate your effort. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is. Thank you, Merzul. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, thank you, for fixing the article. Merzul (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This has been pointed out on the FAC discussion. I think it should be removed. Images can only be used under the fair use rationale when they significantly increase understanding or add to the text. Masterpiece2000 removed it, but his edit was reverted. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The image doesn't bring anything of importance to the section itself. The article on the foundation is the ideal place for it. — Kieff | Talk 08:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think that the image should be removed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lectures

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do think the list of lectures is a bit boring and one may just skip them. I would rather mention the most notable ones. Fixing this so that it fits in this section is harder than I thought. I'm still thinking about this, the basic idea would be to spell out the topic of his Tanner lectures, as this is probably one of the most prestigious lecture series in the world. Just posting some links

Not entirely sure about reliability of those links, but the first question is if we want a slight modification of that paragraph. Any opinions? Merzul (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Exponential growth?

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

In Other fields the journalistic phrase exponential growth (of population) occurs twice. Do we really need it here? It may be technically/mathematically correct; but many readers will understand it as simply meaning "very fast"—a meaning which is out of place in an article about a scientist. I've removed it, but if others feel strongly about it they can of course revert! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exponential growth does mean very fast, so why would you leave it out? Bluetd (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it doesn't mean very fast. See Exponential growth. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be put back in, perhaps with a wikilink to the exponential growth page. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles that deal with scientific or mathematical terminology must be reasonably comprehensible to the general public while also providing information for those with graduate degrees. So, it is important to say exponential growth but get across to those who don't understand the term that the growth is fast. Wikilinking is necessary but not sufficient. Finell (Talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was precisely that in scientific or mathematical usage exponential growth doesn't necessarily mean fast. The discussion in Exponential_growth#Intuition spells this out: the money in my savings account may well be growing exponentially, but it hasn't made me rich! In popular & journalistic usage exponential is just fast that has gone to college: is that a justification for using it in this sloppy way in a WP article? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You are arguing a philosophical etymological point. The meaning is clear from the context. Also the only reason you're not rich is you either have a bad savings account or live in a country with inflation, or you assume too small a deposit in such an account [another purely philosophical context-driven meaning (based on changing assumptions)]. Jok2000 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

South Park

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

the last time I came here, there was a quip about His portrayal on South Park which I felt was the funniest I had ever seen RD in my life.

but It's gone now

I wish I was important for Trey and Matt to make fun off, but Oh well I'm not, and my fellow Nairobite should feel it a badge of honour.

Therubicon (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been done to death; ain't gonna appear in the article. See the archives for discussion. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been suggested, but borderline stuff could go in a 'see also' section (as a compromise between keeping and leaving out). Plenty of other not-quite-article-worthy links to articles that discuss Dawkins (e.g. Templeton prize) could go there too. Something like

It's clear that material fits on a continuum from worthy of inclusion to not worthy of inclusion, and stuff that lies in between seems suitable for a see also section. On the other hand, I suppose you could also argue that including borderline material like this at the end doesn't improve the article. I think I prefer the former though, as the reader can easily skip such material, while it's harder to find it if not included in the article. Searching for 'Richard Dawkins' will get you a lot of irrelevant articles, and there isn't exactly a Category:Richard Dawkins either. Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive cuts to the religion section, still very long

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I went ahead and cut out almost all discussion of the content of these books and documentaries. Feel free to revert, but I think it might be better to put back only small sections that are really essential. The point is that even after I don't know how many hours of cutting stuff out, the section is still too long, in my opinion! Merzul (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add. If someone fears that I have gotten rid of too much criticism, then well yes, I cut out stuff like "Winston suggests that Dawkins brings science into disrepute", but instead there is now criticism that actually makes sense. The arguments by Kenny and Rees are at least good ones, and note that there are no rebuttals. Merzul (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I understand why this was reverted. In any case, the short version is here, and although it needs much copy-editing and other improvement, I think it is easier to progress from there than to clean up the current section gradually. We can clearly work with what is here now, but I personally prefer starting from a trimmed down version and add the most important stuff that was cut off, e.g., Alister McGrath and Keith Ward with some rebuttals, what do other people think? Merzul (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section is too long. I think the section should be organized better. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree, in any case, it is probably better to gradually cut stuff that is not needed. E.g., Winston's opinion that "Dawkins brings science into disrepute". This is an exaggeration to make his point and that formulation is a fringe opinion. Even the worst critics of The God Delusion praises his science writing. The objection that Dawkins attack on religion may harm science is much better expressed by other writers. I'm removing Winston at least. Merzul (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the religion section

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The main issue there is that so many sources are crammed in there. I'm really doubtful that we are doing justice to the sources. For example:

[Dawkins] disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) and with similar ideas proposed by English astrophysicist Martin Rees regarding the coexistence of science and religion without conflict, calling the former "a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp".[1]

The last quotation is from an interview with Dawkins, his full answer is (emphasis added):

I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.

I think cutting him off there is absurd in the highest degree. Reading the full quote, I get the impression that NOMA as a political ploy is not at all what Dawkins has a problem with, clearly he is not opposed to winning middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp, but the problem, he says, is that the concept is empty and simply wrong. Merzul (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins has a problem with it. He also think it is empty and simply wrong. I think the sentence should be expanded. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me from reading his interviews that Dawkins is well-aware of the benefits of NOMA as a political ploy. I'm sure he knows that many of the key players in the fight against intelligent design are religious scientists. He said himself in his classic TED talk that the pro-evolution lobby are nervous about him "rocking the boat". I think he would be happy to play along nicely, if only NOMA wasn't bogus and if only he didn't see his atheism as an immediate conclusion from the proper understanding of evolution. Merzul (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Books listing

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is there a need to have "Dawkins, Richard" before each of the books in the list? Surely it's axiomatic that he's the author. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring that up; it reads kinda stupidly. You don't have to use cite templates actually; its often easier to just type out the info in the refs...In this case, definitely. indopug (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is a problem. It is better to use templates. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't think listing out Dawkins' name nine times when it clearly says "Works by Richard Dawkins: As sole author" is just a little redundant? indopug (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You could use the template {{citation}}, where leaving the name out still gives an acceptable output, e.g.,
  • The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, 1982, ISBN 0-19-288051-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help).
I think repeating the name is redundant, but I seem to think that about many things :). Merzul (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good suggestion by Indopug! I have made necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I think this article has many problems. I think sections Richard Dawkins Foundation and Out Campaign should be merged with the section Other fields.Out Campaign cannot be considered as a major work of Dawkins. We have an article called Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. We don't need a section like Richard Dawkins Foundation.

I also feel that only the images of Dawkins should be included in the article. Other images should be removed. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree. Regarding images, if we want this to ever be featured, then at least the fair-use images must be removed. As much as I think the book cover makes the article nicer, the wider consensus on image use does not allow this. Merzul (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed it, I think we all agree that it did not comply with what Wikipedia outlines as acceptable usage. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding merging. At the very least, the Dawkins foundation and the out campaign could maybe be merged. Ultimately they both fit under the umbrella of "Atheism, humanism and rationalism"; although it would make that section even longer... Merzul (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Image:ScarletLetter.svg should be re-inserted because it is copyright-free; we do not need a fair-use rationale for it. See here. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is unnecessary. The image should be in the article Out Campaign. I have merged the section Out Campaign with the section Atheism and rationalism. However, I think the section Richard Dawkins Foundation should not be merged. RDF will be more important in future. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Christian

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dawkins says he is a cultural Christian. Look at the following:

However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian" and, in relation to Christmas traditions in the UK, says: "I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat [to] these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."[68] He suggests that "we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense", and proposes the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[69]

I think we are giving to much importance to this. I think we have to remove few lines. I would like to know what others think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, too much prominence is given throughout the article to various minutiae of Dawkins' attitude to religion, and to theists' opinions of him. A lot of this was introduced a year or so ago when the article was under sustained attack from someone who wanted to insert long lists of "well-referenced" comments that "Distinguished Professor X disagrees with RD" and "Lord Y says RD is horrible" and "Dawkins is really a Christian in spite of himself". Much was rejected, but some of this rubbish slipped through. Delete it. GNUSMAS : TALK 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess what we need is some higher quality comments from Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, then comments by Lord XYZ aren't so desperately needed. I have no opinion on the cultural Christian reference, but I'll see if I can grab hold of that book, I almost bought it a while ago. Merzul (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made necessary changes. Look at the following:
However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian",[68] and proposed the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[69]
Now, it looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Health and honors

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone else noticed that Dawkins often seems to have a cold at public appearences recently. If I remember rightly that was the case on Brigtstocke's Late Edition, the set of Doctor Who, a German "Digital age" conference and some American tv show. I'm probably reading something into nothing, but I've never noticed any other celebrity apologise for being ill on tv. Is he ill often I wonder? Luckily a cold isn't usually the manifestation of any major illness, but he is retiring this spring. perhaps laringitis or something?

On a more important note: does anyone know why Dawkins has not a single UK Royal honor. I just don't get it: is he not important enough or too controversial? On the first, admittedly his colleagues like John Maynard Smith and William Hamilton (also ethologists) don't have any awards, but surely Dawkins is more important than that just for his popularisation of science and place as Charles Simoney Professor at Oxford. I mean Robert Winston is a Lord, Jane Goodall is a Dame, David Attenborough is a Knight, Patrick Moore is a knight, James Lovelock is a CBE and Stephen Hawking is a CBE (will be made a KBE soon, I think). Dawkins isn't even an MBE! Is he just too controversial as an atheist activist to be honored? Or has he refused on honor from the "defender of the faith"? Anyone know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He is retiring in accordance with age requirements of his employer not because he is ill.D-rew (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A big gap in this article

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here:

In one of his first papers, "A threshold model of choice behaviour", he devised a model to explain the following question:

Among the problems raised by choice behaviour is that of the mechanism of decisionmaking. Given that a chick pecks more often at a red spot than at a green one, but nevertheless sometimes pecks at the green one, what mechanism determines each individual choice?[2]

While working on these questions, and inspired by Tinbergen, he gradually developed the ideas that culminated in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.[3]

Between the quote from the research paper and the 1976 book is a huge chasm. In fact, i would characterize it as a non-sequitor. Judging solely on what is in this article - the quote from the research paper and the reference to the 1976 book, I would say that in between the two Dawkins did not gradually develop a set of ideas but rather turned away from original research in ethology to popularizing the research of others, i.e. I see a break in his work, not continuity.

If there is continuity, it needs to be spelled out because it simply is not communicated in this passage.

I am not an expert on Dawkins and thus in no position to fill the gap. But if Dawkins has explained somewhere the connection between his dissertation research and the 1976 book, we need to provide that explanation here, with the citation. Otherwise, it seems to me that his later career manifests a break frm his early career.. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any gap in the article. We are not trying to link the connection between his dissertation research and the 1976 book. "A threshold model of choice behaviour" was not his dissertation research paper. It was published in 1969. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC has made the article much worse

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

So I've been absent for a while... and I realise you guys have been reacting to complaints from FAC nitpicking but, seriously, the article is in a worse state now than before the FAC process started.

1) The lead is now far too long, disorganised, a stylistic mess, full of needless references and re-introduced the FRS stuff at the beginning which we decided ages ago shouldn't be there.

2) The external links have been gutted. I was responsible (again ages ago) for the ELs as they were a couple of months ago and in that state they provided a great way into Dawkins' work. The current ELs are badly organized, randomly selected and far from comprehensive.

3) What happened to the list of his notable essays under "publications"?

4) Finally, the entire "biography" section is now a mess. Why in the world does it go "early life", "education and career" and then "personal life"? Why is there a 2 sentence block-quote? Why are there two paragraphs consisting of only two sentences?

I'd much rather have a good non-FAC article than a horrible FAC article. Clearly, Dawkins is far too controversial for reasonable FAC reviews: some of the views expressed in the reviews are downright silly. I move to change a bunch of the stuff back. Mikker (...) 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is fine. Far too long suggests to me that you need to read WP:LS again, if you ever read it in the first place. Richard001 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Your tone suggest to me that you need to read WP:AGF again, if you ever read it in the first place. Mikker (...) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mikker. Addressing your point 4 above, I've reorganised the biography section along the lines it was organised in February. It reads better to me, but please revert as anyone sees fit. I've also removed the blockquote, which was (a) boring, and (b) seemed to add very little that was pertinent to the discussion. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, I tend to agree with Richard001 about the length of the lead - previous versions were rather terse to my mind (though the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs overlap somewhat and could be conflated to a degree). On the FRS mention, other such scientists also mention this status in their leads - it's (obviously) quite an honour. Regarding the ELs, can you point to a date for a version that I can compare with? Trawling backwards, there seem to have been even fewer ELs back as far as January!  ;-) The notable essays section may just have become subsumed into the main text, although it isn't clear to me how their notability should be decided (obviously something like Viruses of the Mind is notable enough for its own article). Anyway, good to have you back. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Plumbago. I've raised the EL issue a couple of times on talk (here is the most recent) and suggested this as a good starting point. I don't pretend that all those ELs should stay, but it's at least better than what we have currently. (See [2] for an early discussion of the ELs on talk).
As for the lead, I'm not going to insist on the length issue, it's not the current lead's most pressing problem. Again, I much prefer the previous lead, though the changes to the last paragraph - with the exception of the extra refs - are certainly an improvement. The whole bit about the blind watchmaker, for example, should go imo. My other problems with the lead are mainly stylistic, so I'm not sure I want to insist on them. Maybe I'll make some changes myself and see whether they survive peer review. :-)
The mention of FRS just seems silly to me: it's in the infobox and in the body, I see no reason for it being right in the first sentence. I can't find the discussion we had about the issue about a year and a half ago in the archives... But, again, it's probably not that important.
As for notable essays: again, I'm happy to give way if all of you disagree with me, but I think it's a useful addition to the article. Determining notability is certainly an issue but, then, we had a list of (representative?) essays for ages and no one seemed to disagree with them. Mikker (...) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mikker, it is not correct to complain about the article. Let me address some of your points. You complain about the lead. I think the lead is fine. Notable essays under "publications" was critized by many editors. People have so many issues with this article. It will be very difficult to promote this article to FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, Intelligent design got FA status in the end, long after I'd given up thinking that was possible!  :-) Anyway, if I've time this week, I'll try to look over the remaining review comments above. --Plumbago (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope this article will also achieve FA status someday! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Moreton, Cole (April 6, 2008). "Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1969). "A threshold model of choice behaviour". Animal Behaviour. 17 (1). doi:10.1016/0003-3472(69)90120-1.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shrage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_8&oldid=1190960844"