Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2

message: Similar to the discussion of the "Williams revolution" above, I'm concerned that Dawkins' Law of Differential Survival is a neologism.  Is there a history for the use of the term outside of Wikipedia? Pete.Hurd 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feeding it to Google, this was the only site it came up with, other than this page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Malthus_Evolution.htm, and it contains nothing but a direct quote from the book. - Samsara contrib talk 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research.  Looks like OR that needs removal, no? Alienus 03:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Samsara, that page you found seems to be written by the same person that added the text in question to the Dawkins page. Pete.Hurd 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say more neologism than OR, but my feeling is that it should go. Pete.Hurd 04:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dawkins' law"

message: Written by someone who isn't a nutjob, in response to Dawkins' very good TV programme:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01133
Keith Ward - professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London, and Regius Professor of Divinity Emeritus, University of Oxford.
Good criticism like this should be encouraged, it's a good article, I'll add a link.
~Mal
Well, he's not a nut-job, but that's all the faint praise I can come up with. Alienus 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you should only give them up if you hold them simply because you think there are "no reasons for believing in God".  The question is, are the reasons sufficient, and if you have considered them (and not the caractaures put forward by Dawkins) and considered them insufficient then intellectually it's OK to hold on to them, as it is for believers to hold on to their faith. NBeale 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's try to refrain from letting our POVs get too obvious, eh.  If we could focus on *constructive* criticism, rather than baiting the trolls... Pete.Hurd 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational response to Dawkins 

message: Barbara Shack 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Why do you say Dawkins' in this article? I think it should be Dawkins's. Please see my subpage on the apostrophe if you're interested.—Laurence Boyce 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, my personal taste is also Dawkins's but if you read WP:STYLE it says: "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel"." Mikkerpikker ... 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So far as I'm aware, British English syntax drops the second "s" in such instances. I've just tried saying "Dawkins' book is about..." and "Dawkins's book is about..." to myself; saying the repeating the "s" in the latter ("Daw-kin-ses") feels unnecessary. I grant, though, that there is then no distinction between saying [Dawkin's] and [Dawkins'], but I suppose context would clarify which is meant. End of muse, David Kernow 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fowler/Gowers says the opposite - the possessive should retain the second "s".  My observation is that dropping it is far more common in US usage, though the Chicago Manual of Style website says the same as Fowler.  In fact it says that given the choice between "Dickens' novel" and "Dickens's novel" the latter is to be preferred - almost the same as "Dawkins's".  --ajn (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual Chicago Manual says that the second s is preferred but that leaving it off is acceptable as long as you are consistent. -- 67.183.218.185 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been extensive debate about this at the talk page of WP:STYLE. I suggest you peruse those & make suggestions for changes to the guideline accordingly. (BTW: no consensus has ever been reached on this; which is why we say the s can be included or excluded. Compromise is a good thing, especially when the subject is not all that important! :). Mikkerpikker ... 13:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The actual pronunciation isn't contentious. With a few lingering exceptions for some famous historical people (e.g. see Possessive of Jesus), both American and British English apply the extra possessive syllable only when the word ends in a voiceless s. Thus, a car owned by Ross is "Ross-ez car" but a car owned by Higgins is just "Higginz car". The sound at the end of Dawkins is a z, not an s, and thus is not pronounced Dawkinziz. I've always shared your intuition that whether to use 's or ' should be determined by which suffix is used orally, but this is not a universal opinion. -- Schaefer (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedants corner 

message: I don't think this should have been removed on grounds of POV, though it might not be notable:
:In a video called "From a Frog to a Prince" (1998) produced by the Answers in Genesis organisation, the interview asked Dawkins the question, "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?". After a long pause he was unable to answer the question.
Instead it could be expanded to include the fact that the video was dishonestly edited and the producers were dishonest about the purpose of the documentary.  The long pause was because Dawkins was shocked at the stupidity of the question, and because he realised who he was talking to. Joe D (not logging in from shared work computer) 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... seems both nn & pov to me. Perhaps it could be expanded as you suggest (and then it might be npov), but it would still be nn. Who cares about some random doccy he did in 1998? I'm sure there are lots and lots of other appearances that are more notable... Mikkerpikker ... 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is definitely POV and should not be in the article because it is presented (sensationally) in the manner of an accusation by creationists ("Even Richard Dawkins doesn't understand evolution! We GOT him!"). Dawkins himself has explained his silence in this well-known clip as occurring due to his sudden realization that the interviewers deceived him about their intentions in interviewing him: they were propagandists for creationism making a hit piece, not journalists interested in  reporting on evolutionary biology. His silence was an expression of his surprise at the fact he had been duped by a couple of zealous propagandists. Inoculatedcities 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIG Video 

message: Several people have recently worked on the article and to me it seems good enough for a try at FAC. (tho we should do a peer review first...) Thoughts? Mikker ... 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking exactly the same thing, and was considering opening a PR a couple of days ago.  I'm not sure it's quite comprehensive yet (we could still say a little more about academic disputes re gene centric view, memetics, etc), but opening a PR would certainly help get us there.  Joe D (t) 21:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, comprehensiveness is my main worry too - we prob need another 500 words or so on the academic side of things. I'll see what I can do... Mikker ... 22:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review then FAC? 

message: Anyone else think this section should be prose with a few sentences describing the subject and structure of each book? Joe D (t) 22:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer a list at the end; leaving the main body text to explain the ideas contained in the books. That said, I'm not staunchly opposed either... Mikker ... 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books by Dawkins 

message: Keith Ward says:
:The other reason is that a creator would be as improbable or complex as the complexity he was supposed to explain, so would not really be an explanation. This is more interesting, for it introduces a discussion about what an “explanation” is. A theist claims that scientific explanation, in terms of general laws and initial states, is not the only sort of explanation. There is also “personal explanation”, in terms of purposes and values. This is the sort of explanation used by historians, novelists, anthropologists, critics of the arts and ethicists. It is a perfectly familiar form of explanation. The question “Could there be a personal explanation for the universe?” is one on which there is rational discussion, and on which different views are held. It does no service to clear thinking to say that if anyone thinks there is such an explanation – for instance, that the universe exists because God chooses it – they are irrational, non-thinking, and have suspended their critical faculties. This is abuse, not argument.
I wanted to include maybe one or two sentences in the religion section on Ward's criticism, but I personally can find nothing in this paragraph that resembles sanity.  Since Dawkins does indeed use the "who created the creator" argument often, can anybody translate all of the unique definitions of words into anything that could make a concise, notable and rational contribution to the article? Joe D (t) 03:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is a tough one because Ward is so clearly full of it.  I'm at a loss, frankly. Alienus 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly found it amusing that he chose this paragraph to accuse Dawkins of doing a disservice to "clear thinking". Joe D (t) 04:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know who Ward is, but he seems, erm, lacking in basic mental skills. Nothing salvageable in that para. Mikker (...) 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we delete such unsigned nonsense? Ward has a PhD in Biology and is a Prof at Oxford.  It's perfectly clear that "scientific explanation" is not the only kind of "explanation." I'll try to suggest a tightening up of the Ward section of the article.  I also think that Dawkins is mistaken in his complexity point, because he is confusing the complexity of a concept with the complexity of its implications. The Einstein Equation the Dirac Equation and the definition of the Mandelbrot Set are all (relatively) simple but have immensely complex implications.  Similarly the concept of an Ultimate Creator Revealed in Jesus (a reasonable philosophical approximation to what Christians believe in)is relatively simple, even though the full implications of the existence of such an entity are immense. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that such an entity does, or does not, exist, and pretty well everyone including Dawkins seems to agree that scientific arguments, however suggestive they may be, cannot conclusively demonstrate this one way or another. But surely everyone knows that "There exists a UCRJ" is a pretty strong and specific claim(?) NBeale 12:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "Ward section"? There isn't one. This article is principally about Dawkins. I fear you may have picked the wrong forum to attempt to undermine his arguments. Laurence Boyce 12:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please explain what's "simple" about the existence of a hypothetical being who is all-powerful and all-loving but takes human form in the guise of a baby born to a homeless virgin, allows his body to die then come back to life, and rises up to Heaven, all in the name of absorbing the sins which are inherent to humanity?  When you say "Ultimate Creator Revealed in Jesus", that implies a rationality that the actual belief doesn't have.  I'm not talking about any implications yet, I'm just saying the bare facts: This is the "Creator" that Christians believe in, correct?  It seems like quite a complex series of unproven assumptions to me, very very far from simple.  But maybe I just don't understand it. ThatGuamGuy 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ward's criticism 

message: Can somebody check through my latest additions to make sure they're not incomprehensible to the lay reader?  Other than that, the only thing I can think of is a good copyedit.  Does anyone have anything else to add, or should we go for WP:FAC?  Joe D (t) 06:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it does need a copy edit IMHO. Also, stuff definitely needs to be added about The Extended Phenotype - this is Dawkins's main contribution to evolutionary theory and, if I remember correctly, he called it his "pride and joy". I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I don't have my copy of Extended at the moment; I'll see what I can do though... Mikker (...) 12:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: Is :Image:World population evolution.png really relevant to the article? I don't really see how it helps to illustrate anything. (I know we need images for FAC but we can almost certainly add one once I've done the Extended Phenotype section - e.g. a beaver's dam, etc.) Mikker (...) 13:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... could you please help look for other images? We need 'em for FAC. And do u mind if we move the book cover to the right? Left looks so... I donno... wrong... Mikker (...) 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I put it on the left because that's what it says here, but I agree it looks a bit funny. I quite like spiders webs but none of the pictures on Commons were that good.—Laurence Boyce 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The population growth figure did illustrate that paragraph, but it was such a minor part of Dawkins' work anyway (I personally wouldn't have thought to mention population growth if somebody else hadn't added a sentence on it) that I don't have any issue with it.  I was hoping to get a screen shot of Dawkins with Ted Haggard, the weirdo headmaster bloke, or the Bishop of Oxford instead of the screenshot we have, but my computer is quite broken at the moment and won't play the video so I had to make do with looking on Google images.  On one of the awards pages there's a picture of Dawkins, but it's argued fair use to illustrate the award, since no other photo can be obtained for that page, so I doubt we'd get away with using it here. Joe D (t) 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of featured pics will, I am sure, have a number of great animal pics to choose from to illustrate the article. (Dawkins is a biologist after all...). Mikker (...) 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images... 

message: The Documentaries section either needs more details or to be deleted.  AFAIK, only one of those Documentaries listed was written by Dawkins, though IIRC he also did a Horizon episode which isn't listed, and the lecture which isn't a documentary.  The Atheism Tapes had a full 30 mins of Dawkins, but AFAIK the rest of them just featured a few comments, and Dawkins was just one of many people featured.  If that's grounds for inclusion, I can probably find loads of trivial media appearances to list.  Joe D (t) 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say delete it or trim it to those documentaries in which he plays a major role. We already have lots of info at the end, it needs to be cut down a bit. Mikker (...) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentaries 

message: I recently made this edit because it appeared that footnotes had become smaller by defualt, so 90% made them look even smaller still. Now things seem to have changed back again. I think footnotes should be smaller, but I don't really care how it's done—by default would be better I suppose. Does anyone know what's going on?—Laurence Boyce 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I changed it to this wording:
In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog," Dawkins' impassioned defence of Darwinian evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler."
I've always thought it is due to his general defence of Darwinism that he gets this epithet. I don't like the idea that it's simply in his reaction to creationism, as for one thing it seems silly to constantly define peoples views in negative terms (a-theist, anti-creationist etc.), and for another although ID is definitely mostly creationists, I'm sure he'd attack those people who hold to ID who aren't fundamentalist Christians, and defend evolution.
What does everyone else think?
~Mal
: It was actually used by Adrian Desmond in his 1994 biography of Huxley, *of* Huxley. First use in relation to Dawkins I can find is Charles Simonyi in 1996. See . I don't know if that article helps. --Dannyno 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DLH. Yesterday I removed the line you mention which may or may not have been inserted by you. I felt that it didn't add much where it was added and upset the balance of the paragraph a bit. But others may disagree. I suppose I feel that it's an interesting quote – but not that intersting! Laurence Boyce 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Laurence Boyce - Appreciate your effort to keep the flow. I think Dawkins' statement is important because it is Dawkins' authoritative self description. It appears to fit much better here next to the commentator's description of him as "Darwin's rottweiler." DLH 20:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree at all. 'Darwin's rottweiler' is much better than 'ultra-Darwanist' and, honestly, I doubt very much it is an "authoritative self description" - it is more of an excercise in rherotic, 'planting one's flag' as such. Mikker (...) 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I recall, Dawkins was being refered to as Darwin's rottweiler long before Ratzinger was being called God's rottweiler. Davorg 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Darwin's rottweiler." 

message: The new image is okay, but the previous one was far better in my opinion. Please can we change it back? Photos of people with their mouths half open are generally not as good as photos taken of people who are posing for them. 81.131.72.156 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous image seems to have disappeared from Wikimedia Commons. Maybe somebody will put it back. Also, I've reverted your edit. I'm a big fan of Harris, but the paragraph was about McGrath.—Laurence Boyce 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. but I really do think we need something about Sam Harris in there. He's obviously a massive fan of his and they quote each other quite a lot, not to mention the obvious influence Harris has had on the publication of 'The God Delusion'. 213.122.105.243 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Harris never mentioned Dawkins in The End of Faith. But he then made up for it in the paperback edition by kicking off the new afterword with a Dawkins quote, and has since frequently cited Dawkins. Dawkins has applauded Harris a fair bit, but only by virtue of completely ignoring Harris's politics and mysticism. It should be interesting this autumn with a book out from each; I do hope they never fall out. Anyway, if you're interested in Harris and Dawkins, please get an account and come on board!—Laurence Boyce 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If any of you would like the older image of Dawkins, I have it here on my machine because I had cached this entry a few months ago, when the image was still up. I agree; he does look a lot better in the old image than this new one! --Insolectual 18:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image of Dawkins? 

message: The new infobox has been shortened. This is perfectly fine to do this, however if it is done too quickly it doesn't give time for people to see the longer version and reach a consensus of which fields to leave in or out. So for the purpose of discussion here is the longer one. Does anyone have any arguments for the retention or commenting out of various fields in the box for the Dawkins article? bunix 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks bunix, I shortened the info box. To be honest I'm not a great fan of info boxes at all. Is there any way to make it narrower? And Dawkins' head looks extremely large. Which some might say is appropriate!—Laurence Boyce 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think putting something about memetics in the infobox would be very good. A lot of people will hear of him as the inventor of the term so its worth putting in the infobox. It is, along with extended phenotype, one if his best original ideas IMO. Unsigned comment from:  213.122.116.226 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks bunix. I can see how that works up the chain, but not down. Surely academics have several students? I've never heard of Burk to be honest. It's an unfortunate name. Laurence Boyce 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Over a career of 35, maybe 40 years of study, an average of 2 PhD students at once each for three years, comes out at about 20 students.  They won't fit.  Wikipedia has a very simple database structure that is unsuited to anything but raw text. — Dunc|☺ 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Infobox

message: I'm not entirely happy with this edit by Mortene, so I thought I would just query it. There is already a block quote in the Religion section which is punchy and to the point, and therefore worth inclusion in my view. But I'm not sure what is gained from quoting Dawkins on McGrath directly. I preferred the factual reporting we had previously. What does everyone else think? Laurence Boyce 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred the precis - there was a link to the original article if people wanted to read RD's own words, and a shorter but accurate summary seems better to me.  --ajn (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm reverting on two to one. But please continue to discuss if you disagree. Laurence Boyce 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the previous version was much better. Mikker (...) 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit query

message: If anyone is interested, or would like to help, I've created an article for Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life - mainly because I hate red links. If anyone has any info that could improve this article, I would appreciate the input. -Neural 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Neural. Good effort. Laurence Boyce 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

message: I've put a lot of effort into the links & am quite happy with them as they stand. However, I am a bit worried about the "Multimedia" subsection - thanks to our friendly local telecommunication monopolist surfing the web is slow & expensive in SA so I haven't been able to assess the quality of all the links / possible links. (I've listened to the point of inquiry interview [very good] & the TEDTalk [quite good, not exactly what we're looking for though]). I'm wondering, can someone with a better internet connection than me check out some of the other multimedia available to see whether it is good enough to link to directly? Specifically, I think we really do need a link to a video/audio file where Dawkins actually discusses his work on evolutionary biology. Mikker (...) 00:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a general issue with including links to "meta" sites, that is to say linking to a page of links. It then becomes unfeasible to verify all the links which may break over time. Maybe we should hand pick some good links, and be responsible for them, as it were. This is a reasonable link which is referred to in the article text. Laurence Boyce 09:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in general about 'meta' sites, but think this one is pretty damn useful. The same website maintains quality links for Pinker & several other "evolutionists" so I think it ought to stay. That said, please do feel free to add multimedia links you think are particularly good... (Again, it would be very useful if we could link to something where Dawkins discusses evolutionary biology instead of religion, or other topics). Mikker (...) 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we've found the solution the the "meta" pages problem under multimedia... The new Dawkins foundation website has an extensive (and, it seems, growing) archive of audio and video files here and here (respectively). Any objections to deleting the current meta site and linking directly to these? Mikker (...) 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with those video links is that there's a lot of other guys there too. Laurence Boyce 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I saw that too but, I donno, perhaps the other guys in there don't distract that much? I.e. as long as we warn users to expect it ("A large archive of videos featured Dawkins and others" or something like that). What do you think? Mikker (...) 15:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that'll be fine. Laurence Boyce 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI... I've emailed the webmaster of the foundation website and (among other things) asked him to create a separate section where only Dawkins's multimedia would be listed. I've gotten a positive response, saying he'll look into it. Mikker (...) 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links... 

message: I wonder how many readers of this saw the interview on the series Newsnight that Dawkins had with Jeremy Paxman? If this could be incorporated into this article (the interview was broadcast on September 22 2006) within fourteen days of today (September 23 2006), it would help to maintain the standard of Wikipedia as being a very up-to-date encyclopaedia. ACEO 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think specific interviews are notable enough for inclusion in the article content, though a case could be made that we should add a link to the interview under the external linls... (Tho, we have sooo many already...). Mikker (...) 12:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw the interview, and I didn't see anything particularly new and interesting about it. The interviewer just brought up common objections to atheism, and Dawkins used a lot of the replies he's used before in his other writings. -- Schaefer (Talk) 14:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsnight interview

message: In the section pertaining to memetics, one bit of info is surely misleading if not incorrect.  "The Soul of the White Ant" was a book written by Eugene Marais of South Africa.  It was plagiarized by Maeterlinck under the name of "Life of the White Ant", in 1926.  So, it may be that Maeterlinck introduced this word into his plagiarized version, or it was in the original version, but it shouldn't be written as though Maeterlinck wrote "Soul of the White Ant".  I personally am not familiar enough with the material to answer that question, but I really would like to see it reworded.  Eugene Marais was a true genius and should be given proper respect for his works. Esteedee 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Author query

message: Is Dawkins a vegetarian as a result of his anti-speciesism, or does he draw the line somewhere? 71.76.130.188 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's not vegetarian. Laurence Boyce 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speciesism 

message: He was raised as a Lutheran. His mother, Jean Mary Vyvyan Ladner, commented on his atheism, saying, "Richard is an atheist, and our family is not. I love my son, oh yes, but I just pray that he reaches for God before his death, because if he doesn't God won't reach for him when he is in eternal darkness." 
This smells funny.  Earlier in the article is a properly cited reference to Dawkins having had an Anglican upbringing, which would be in keeping with his upper-class English background.  Lutheranism is quite rare in the UK.  I simply don't believe the quote attributed to his mother (especially as it gives her maiden name).  None of this should go back in the article without a reference.  --ajn (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran 

message: OK it would be accurate to say "The gene-centered view also provides a basis for modelling some forms of altruism." would you be happy with that? NBeale 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appropriate to put it in the altruism article previously mentioned.  It isn't directly related to his bio, but may be related to the topic itself. *Sparkhead 14:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altruism 

message: It would seem saying anything about a review beyond "here it is" is judgemental and POV.  Think all commentary should be removed in that section and simply have the links? *Sparkhead 12:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rating" Reviews 

message: Are you certain that's not correct?  It's listed in the Institute's article and elsewhere, I'll see if I can dig up a better reference.  *Sparkhead 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelvin Medal