# Talk:Richard Dawkins

Is it relevant to mention Dawkins transphobia? It seem to be a prominent controversy of the figure.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html
https://religionnews.com/2023/08/01/richard-dawkins-has-abandoned-science-to-justify-his-transphobia/ Antoniokf5 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Antoniokf5 Someone who disagrees with you doesn't have to be an enemy, it's just that they see things differently. 150.143.238.28 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see transphobia there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything about him being an enemy or a friend. I'm just saying we should include this information in his page. It's a relevant issue and as an encyclopedia we should strive to inform. Antoniokf5 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Inform about what? Do you want to suggest some wording for the article? I recommend you check the article Transphobia first before you use that word  too freely. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
The topic is already covered (in Political views, para beginning In April 2021, Dawkins ...). That is adequate and anything more would be disproportionate and thus WP:UNDUE. See also WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Thi, apologies I should’ve started a discussion rather than reverting. Your characterisation of either the sources or my edits as a smear campaign is disingenuous. Two of those sources are academic sources and the third is news story of what an academic said. Of course they know what fundamentalism means. This is a necessary POV to include in order for the article to achieve WP:NPOV. It also summarises the body per WP:Lead. The wording is neutral, and tbh I doubt Dawkins would even be minded to reject the characterisation. The article also doesn’t mention the decline of New Atheism Kowal2701 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

And I have reverted it again as WP:UNDUE and disproportionate in the lead. The lead already says Dawkins is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design as well as for being a vocal atheist. That others criticise his views and how he expressed them is a second level aspect and belongs (where it is, extensively) in the body. That is enough. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:Lead, the fact it’s covered extensively in the body means it should be summarised in the lead. Currently, there are four sentences explaining his views summarising seven paragraphs in the body, and this would be one sentence of criticism summarising two paragraphs. That is nearly directly proportional. The lead needs to follow NPOV as well. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Some of his views are not far from WP:FRINGE, and at the moment we’re presenting his most controversial ones without any critique or challenge. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Second item first: his views are certainly not fringe. There is very long history of challenges to those who hold irrational beliefs (see Age of Enlightenment passim).
If we are to add anything more to the lead, it should be measured –  something like he has been criticised in turn by some of his peers for his criticism of believers. We don't need to pound the big base drum: the Peter Higgs article expresses it well: He described Richard Dawkins as having adopted a "fundamentalist" view of non-atheists but doesn't say that Dawkins is a fundamentalist. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, wp:FRINGE applies to editors who try to include extraneous material into articles, not about the views of the people profiled. Nor is it is the function of Wikipedia to critique or challenge his views but in any case the article already has a long section that does just that –  by quoting notable personalities. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
My proposal didn’t say he is a fundamentalist, just that some academics have described him as such. I think your proposal is a little too vague, it’s specifically his intolerance that people criticise which the fundamentalist POV communicates. Maybe Some of Dawkins' peers have characterised him as a “secular (or atheist) fundamentalist". to make clearer it’s a POV. Would put "Dawkins' views" but it’s also his manner and approach. How does that sound?
My point about FRINGE was more about the spirit of it, we usually wouldn’t present controversial views without including an opposing POV somewhere Kowal2701 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Who specifically has characterised him personally ... as a fundamentalist? Higgs refers to the expression of his views, not his personality. [I think we are not too far apart on this, just finding the right wording. More voices may help in the next few days.]
The article has a large section on his views of believers and of their response to that. I don't see merit in overloading the lead with any more than a brief teaser trailer sentence as we are working on. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Some sources characterise him personally, others note he's the figurehead of New Atheism and characterise that as fundamentalist. Unsure which we should go with, but it'd be nice to make it of his views/manner so it's less of an ad hominem
Kitcher 2011 defines militant modern atheism as Dawkins and his allies and says Militant modern atheism, so viewed, is itself akin to the fundamentalism it opposes: intellectually simplistic, aggressively intolerant, and dangerously polarizing.
Watson 2010, a review of the God Delusion, says [Dawkins] presents an argument against “God” that mirrors the rhetoric used by the religious fundamentalists he sets out to criticize, and Aware of the accusation that his hostility to religion marks him out as “a fundamentalist atheist,” Dawkins defends himself by delineating an overly simplified and shallow definition of “fundamentalism.” (which I assume Thi was echoing), Thus we come to Dawkins’ second rebuttal against the “secular fundamentalist” label
Romain 2008 Some accuse Dawkins of a kind of atheist fundamentalism
McAnulla 2013 When calling for faith and religion to play a bigger role in public life, Baroness Warsi (then chair of the Conservative Party) denounced forces of ‘militant secularisation’ (Warsi, 2012) and the stances of ‘secular fundamentalists’ (Squires, 2012). She clearly had Dawkins and new atheism in mind (if not exclusively so) when she criticised those who wished to see religion ‘sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere’ (Warsi, 2012). A number of prominent academic commentators have also described new atheism as a kind of ‘secular fundamentalism’, notably Grace Davie (2012) and Karen Armstrong (2009a).
Pritchard 2010 has the chapter "Is Dawkins a fundamentalist?", Richard Dawkins is a well  respected evolutionary biologist at the forefront of a very vocal and militant form of atheism often referred to as "The New Atheism"(Haught, ix)(Dawkins himself approves of the title militant atheism as he discusses in a TED talk). The emergence of this new atheist voice is one of the most recent developments in the public debate between science and religion. Often critiqued as a fundamentalist atheism, and This thesis proposes that the actual struggle informing The God Delusion is a battle of two fundamentalisms: atheist and religious.
Kowal2701 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The opinions of random people belong in their articles, if WP:DUE. Facts such as DoB, occupation and works belong in the lead. There is no definition for the meaning of "secular or atheist fundamentalist"—people using that term are giving their opinions with a vague label. Something in the lead might be appropriate if a reliable source had written about a significant event in Dawkins' life because of his being a "secular or atheist fundamentalist". However, as far as I can see, various people are just saying they don't like his style. Should the lead list people who have spoken favorably about his writing? Answer: no, they are just random opinions that don't belong in the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't call a self confessed lover of singing hymns, carols and xmas celebrations a fundie athiest. He's just an athiest. - Roxy the dog  08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, it’s about what reliable sources call him Kowal2701 (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
... and the sources in this thread don't really support such a label imho. - Roxy the dog  08:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, we shouldn’t say it in WP:Wiki voice, but it’s a due POV to include imo given these are all academic sources. It’d be nice to have some 2020s sources given his cultural Christian turn, but I don’t think that negates the points the sources make Kowal2701 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a reliable source about a made-up term such as "secular or atheist fundamentalist". Dawkins has done a lot of stuff and hundreds of people have published opinions about his views and style. Examples of "prominent controversies" would be things like being arrested or losing a significant legal case. Covering such controversies would be WP:DUE if they had an effect on the subject's life. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure you can dismiss subject matter experts as "random people" Kowal2701 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that anyone is a subject matter expert regarding who is a "secular or atheist fundamentalist"? Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I think they know what they’re talking about and that it’s a valid and common point Kowal2701 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It's impossible to be making a valid point when you don't know what your own words might mean to others. "Fundamentalist" is undefined relative to atheism, and it necessarily follows that anyone using the term "fundamentalist atheist" doesn't know what they're talking about. They may know what they mean, but they've failed to say it. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Instead, he was voiced by Kyle McCulloch. https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_Dawkins 24.69.168.156 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The Article has a "Selected Publications" section, and a "Selected Bibliography". Do we also need sections about "Selected Books" and "Selected stuff the Dude wrote"?  --84.189.91.70 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the section Rebecca Watson#"Elevatorgate", which is on the page about Rebecca Watson, but not on the page about Richard Dawkins. Why isn't it mentioned on the page about Dawkins? It's discussed before:

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 15#Elevator controversy (July 2011)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 19#Achieving balance in this article without bloat or coat-racking (August 2012)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 20#Elevatorgate controversy? (November 2012)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 22#Elevatorgate/Dear Muslima (October 2014)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 23#Richard Dawkins and progressives (July 2017)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 24#Elevatorgate (battle with feminists) needs to be mentioned in the article (December 2018)
Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 25#Controversies, Conflict, and let's be honest not a neutral point of view. (May 2020)
It seems to be well sourced and it seems to have had quite an impact on how Dawkins was perceived. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)