This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following issues have been extensively discussed and there is strong consensus for the status quo. Although consensus can change, we kindly ask that you familiarize yourself with previous discussion on the following topics before raising any of these issues again.
Resolved that Atheism, which is not a religion, does not belong in the religion section of the info-box. Further, in this RfC discussion the consensus was in favor of describing Dawkins as an atheist: Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_17#RfC:_Atheist_or_agnostic.3F
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Huff, Peter A. (2021). "Dawkins, Richard". Atheism and Agnosticism: Exploring the Issues. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 64–66. ISBN978-1-4408-7083-5.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Go right ahead! –CWenger (^ • @) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 ౪99° 17:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dawkins misrepresentation of science This is very vague. What are you talking about? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 ౪99° 07:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try Independent and Ars Technica pieces. ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ౪99° 17:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, I hold a strong conviction that High Priest of New Atheism misrepresents science and scientists. ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ౪99° 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ౪99° 09:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, just say views. Bduke (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know how to put the references under references?[edit]
Any reference that is added using the <ref>..</ref> tags as instructed at WP:INCITE should automatically be collected beneath the "References" section. Everything seems to be OK in this reference list. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is done using {{reflist}}. Somebody deleted the section. I have reinstated it but I don't have time now to find out who did it and what other vandalism they committed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "somebody" was you, with this edit. What did you think you were doing? You really need to stop editing this article until you understand how to edit properly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not dishonourable to not say it was me. It would be dishonourable to leave it a mess, which I did not. I begged for someone to fix it because I didnt know how. I thought I was going to get in deep trouble, thats why I didnt say I did it. It was a mistake not done deliberately. I m not going to edit richard dawkins page anymore because good edits by me arent valued. Robinhoodph (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can somone undo my latest revision I accidentally submitted it and I dont know how to undo it[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was said on BBC Radio Four in April 2024 that Dawkins now describes himself as a cultural Christian. This means he may not accept the truth of religious doctrines, but still likes singing hymns and Christmas carols. Should this be included where this article talks about Dawkins' views on religion? 1YTKJ (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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)
Done signed, Willondon (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
