Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3

message: Not that this is overly important, but... the 1st sentence currently reads: 
"Clinton Richard Dawkins DSc, FRS, FRSL (known as Richard Dawkins; born March 261941) is an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University"
Now, if the article is called "Richard Dawkins" & he is a very well known public figure, is it really necessary for the "known as Richard Dawkins" bit? I, for one, don't think so... Secondly, though this is aesthetic, I really don't like "DSc, FRS, FRSL". Such honorifics strike me as somehow out of place on Wikipedia (unless, of course, we're talking about royalty). Thoughts? Lastly, should we really link to Charles Simonyi? Were it notable enough for an article, I wouldn't hesitate to link to Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science but I don't think just plain Charles Simonyi should be linked. (Doesn't really accord with WP:CONTEXT IMO). Anyhow, just my three cents worth... Mikker (...) 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say the opening sentence troubles me in any way, but please alter it if you wish. Laurence Boyce 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty... anyone else have a problem with changing it? Mikker (...) 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference would be for (Clinton) Richard Dawkins, which is more or less the way the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does it (MacNeice, (Frederick) Louis, for example), but I don't think that fits in with the Wikipedia manual of style (can't find any definite policy, but it's certainly common practice to give the full name and then "usually known as", even when the usual name just involves dropping the first forename).  Lose the DSc (show me a prominent academic who doesn't have a doctorate) and move the rest down to the "Awards and recognition" section, I say.  --ajn (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're looking for WP:NAME... Must say I don't like the bracket thingy, on purely arbitrary aesthetic grounds of course... (And, again, it's not necessary for someone as well known as Dawkins). Mikker (...) 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, compare Margaret Thatcher and see WP:NCP. Mikker (...) 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He's not described just as an eminent ethologist, but as "an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer" - which seems to me entirely appropariate. (1) He is eminent. (2) He works/has worked in these fields. I see no problem. In fact, I think it reads very well and accurately reflects who he is and what he does. Snalwibma 08:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well on that basis Margaret Thatcher and John Browne are eminent british scientists because (1) they are eminent (2) They have worked as scientists. NBeale 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: NBeale, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Mikker (...) 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence... 

message: Pinched mainly from Butterflies and Wheels:
# Terry Eagleton in the LRB.
# Jim Holt in the NYT (requires registration).
# P Z Myers in Seed (Science mag I'd previously not heard of).
# Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times (reproduced on RD's own website).
# Andrew Brown in Prospect.
# Marek Kohn in the Independent.
# Crispin Tickell in the Financial Times.
# Joan Bakewell in the Guardian (again, reproduced on RD's website).
# Anonymous in the Economist.
Should be plenty there for a review of the reviews.  --ajn (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that's a highly tendentious summary which certainly has no place in this article, and probably has no place in The God Delusion article either. Sorry to be so negative about everything you do! Laurence Boyce 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Soory I wasn't being clear enough - do people think this is a fair summary  of the principal allegations made by Dawkins' (serious) critics?  Of course I don't expect pro-Dawkins people to agree that these criticisms are correct - indeed my suggestion on The God Delusion talk page is that we might have a balanced pair of "Principal Criticisms" and "Principal Rebuttals" sections. NBeale 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea; I haven't read all the criticism. But I am not sure that you are going about this in the right way. I do not think that a pair of sections is a good idea at all; it risks turning the article into a battleground of ideas, which I suspect is what you want. Much better would be a single balanced criticism section: on the one hand so-and-so said this, on the other hand so-and-so said that. It should merely report what people have said, not discuss the ideas themselves. You have to accept that principally this article is about Dawkins, and that article is about his latest book. It is therefore unavoidable in my view that a greater prominence will naturally be lent to Dawkins's own ideas. Laurence Boyce 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Krauss himself described his review as "more positive than negative" here. Laurence Boyce 18:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was a slightly different one.  There was good data readily available, but either he didn't bother to look or he did, found that it contradicted his point, and ignored it. NBeale 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bias is showing again.  The document you cite says "32% identify as having no religion".  "No religion" does not equal "atheist". Note stats do show there are, in fact, very few atheists in prison (less than 1% by most counts).   I suggest you google it yourself as I doubt anything I state here will convince you otherwise. Spark* 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews of ''The God Delusion'' 

message: This got reported on 3RR... I blocked MM (apologies; a bit hasty; but *please* stick to 3RR) but looking closer have unblocked, due to the use of socks. To try to stop that I've semi'd the article. Discuss... William M. Connolley 14:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Let's block anonymous users, single shot users, and any users called Beale. Laurence Boyce 14:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or indeed anyone who wants to have links to any Criticism of Dawkins. Really guys, can you try to assume good faith and instead of censorship have some constructive debate and criticism. There are no "socks" here and does 3RR only apply to some users?  NBeale 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain what it will take to make you understand that this is not censorship in the way you're using the word.  The issues raised regarding your contributions are valid.  Your actions did constitute a violation of 3RR as well, simply editing a small section and resubmitting the majority of the text doesn't make it any less a revert.  I haven't reported it, but if you continue with the puppetry (whether sock or meat, it's clear puppetry), I will.  Try to work with the editors here.  Thanks. *Sparkhead 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constructive contributions rather than reverts and name calling would certainly helpNBeale 09:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi protected 

message: In the interests of moving forward: why don't we have a short para which explains, using Dawkins' own words, his differences from people he considers "good scientists" and specifically refers to who either (a) say that Science can not pronounce on the existence of God (eg Gould, Rees, NAS) or that science and Christianity are compatible (eg Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Stannard and Dyson). NBeale 09:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres an idea, why not create Richard Dawkins/Sandbox to work on this issue, instead of constantly inserting contested detail into the article proper which is then reverted ad nauseum?  If/when consensus is reached it can then be inserted into the Richard Dawkins. --KaptKos 10:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NBeale, you should create User:NBeale/Richard Dawkins and work on your changes there. Keep in WP:BLP when doing so. *Sparkhead 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As something of an aside, the list of critics above consists solely of Christians, while Dawkins' views are directed broadly at religions in general.  Furthermore, I think that it's POV to suggest that science and (specifically) Christianity are compatible.  It would be better (although perhaps not accurate given the particular list of names used) to suggest that science and religion are compatible (or, better still, not incompatible).  There's certainly nothing special about Christianity that places it on a pedestal above other religions when it comes to science.  Finally, one needs to be very careful when referencing Christianity in the context of science; while Polkinghorne et al. represent a side of Christianity that is "not incompatible" with science, there are plenty of sides of Christianity (cf. creationism) that are radically incompatible with science.  On this point, calling Polkinghorne et al. "mainstream" can depend strongly on one's geographical disposition.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could debate "nothing special" ;-)  Certainly Dawkins seems to single out Christians in this way.  However by citing scientists that Dawkins himself cites and regards as "good scientists" we can avoid such difficulties NBeale 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We could debate nothing special": let's not, and just quit while we're ahead.  Regarding Dawkins' specifically singling out Christians, that's almost certainly a function of him a) speaking English, and b) living in the West.  It's also likely to be related to the outspoken nature of Christian Creationism - other religions are creationist too, but are typically "off the radar" in the English-speaking West.  --Plumbago 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The para I want to insert is in the  sandbox suggested by KaptKos (with refs) the text reads: Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" [14]. He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NonOverlapping MAgisteria (NOMA) and with similar ideas expressed by Martin Rees [15] Of "good scientists who are sincerely religious" he mentions Arthur Peacocke, Russel Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins and says "I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion" [16]  Please improve/comment NBeale 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a sandbox, that's an article in mainspace.  Per WP:SUBPAGE I've moved it into your userspace as User:NBeale/Richard Dawkins.  We can all still see it, edit it, comment, etc.  *Sparkhead 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sparkhead: thank you (I just did as KaptKos suggested). You and Laurence have both edited that page and don't seem to have made any changes. I've corrected the typo in Stannard's name. Shall we "be bold" and put that para (NB not of course the longer disputed first para but the shorter 2nd one)? NBeale 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's still mostly just a list of names, and the statements made aren't in essence about Dawkins, they're about NOMA and scientific and religious belief.  *Sparkhead 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I really haven't got time for this. These are statements  by Dawkins about his views, which are central to his world-view.  Please improve if you can, please don't revert ;'cos you have done rather a lot of that. NBeale 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You (and by that I mean you and that group of "new editors") have been independently reverted by no less than seven established editors somewhere in the realm of twenty times in the past few days.  There's a valid reason. You might want to give your sample page more than a few hours existence before adding it. We have editors from all over the world here, their schedules might not sync with yours regarding when they can review content.  A day or two is not too long to ask regarding a review.  You're not being bold, you're being disruptive.  Why rush to push questionable content? I'm asking you to self-revert your last addition and let other editors comment. *Sparkhead 22:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward - using Dawkins' own words 

message: From the article:
Oxford theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of Christian theology and mischaracterising religious people generally.  McGrath asserts that Dawkins has become better known for his rhetoric than for his reasoning, and that there is no clear basis for Dawkins' hostility towards religion.  In response Dawkins states that his position is that Christian theology is vacuous, and that the only area of theology which might command his attention would be the claim to be able to demonstrate God's existence. Dawkins criticises McGrath for providing no argument to support his beliefs, other than the fact that they cannot be falsified.Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005-04-25.
Why is this guy given a whole paragraph? He is not well enough known to feature so prominently and his views on Dawkins are not notable. As the quote shows Dawkins rightly dismisses his arguments as McGrath does not seem to understand that being ignorant of the details of any proofless superstition in no way negates the strength of Dawkins argument. I think it should go - any thoughts?  Sophia 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's given a paragraph because he went to the trouble of writing a whole book contra Dawkins, which was endorsed by Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris among others. I think that justifies the space accorded to him. Laurence Boyce 10:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he is also given an entire Wikipedia article for this book, roughly half of which consists solely of the above quote.  So we should either yank this quote from the Dawkins article, or yank the McGrath book article completely. I'm not a Wiki expert but something doesn't seem right about copying half of one article and pasting it in another.  That smacks of cheating. Astrobayes 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't quite know what you mean. The above text is not a quote, except insofar as it is a quote from the Richard Dawkins article. We should obviously keep the book article. Laurence Boyce 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As is his habit, Laurence is right. We do need npov criticism of Dawkins from a religious perspective and since McGrath has written a whole book, I see no problem in including it here. Perhaps the paragraph can be trimmed a bit (go ahead and try if you like) but I don't think it ought to go completely. Mikker (...) 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are too kind. Laurence Boyce 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough but we have to be careful with lending authority to people who's only claim to fame is having written a book that discredits someone genuinely famous.  Sophia 15:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know McGrath, but, according to our article on him, he's published a whole lot of books about other subjects. I doubt his "only claim to fame is having written a book that discredits someone genuinely famous". Mikker (...) 19:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think McGrath's work on atheism is very poor, and his criticism of Dawkins rather misconceived in its main thrust.  However, it is clearly false to say that his "only claim to fame" is criticising Dawkins. The guy is the *subject* of books discussing his theology, and can claim to be eminent in his field. His criticism of Dawkins and atheism may have given him some prominence outside theology, but he can be taken as a leading expert in theology. --Dannyno 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that there are seats available, I might be able to tell you what he's like come Friday - he's giving a seminar at my university this Thursday evening.  It's been organised by a local Christian group, but an open invitation went round the university.  --Plumbago 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now seen him talk, I've revised my view of him somewhat.  While it's probably worth retaining some sort of mention of his work, his critique of Dawkins (at least in terms of what I saw)  is a flimsy, disingenuous attack, which rather selectively reads Dawkins' work, and misrepresents some of it.  What he does have that's concrete is that science doesn't really offer support to  atheism.  That's hardly new, but science also offers nothing to theism (neither McGrath's nor its many other flavours).  And on the subject of theism, while McGrath spoke of theism and religion in general, his slides identified Christianity, a rather telling detail I thought.  Still, his talk appeared well-received by a large part of the audience (750+ people), so his views appeal and probably should remain in the article.  How best to deal with them, however, is another matter.  I'll certainly be taking a dimmer view of edits promoting McGrath now (once my eyes have stopped rolling from hearing him speak).  --Plumbago 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I was trying to make is that by noting his criticisms of Dawkins prominently we effectively endorse him as a leading critic of Dawkins - whatever his other books he's pretty obscure to the general public so he shouldn't be given such weight.  Sophia 12:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alister McGrath]]

message: Lot of discussion of motivations of people who want to criticise Dawkins in various other threads - I'll move it here NBeale 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW: I think Dawkins is mistaken in being an Atheist (but entitled to his opinion of course) but is seriously misleading in suggesting that "Science shows that there almost certainly is no God". The cartoon in the Nature review is, in my view, spot on. You should see/hear what some leading FRS's actually say about him.  I also know that he was elected an FRS as part of an attempt to broaden the Fellowship, mainly on the basis of his popular science writing. Beyond question his Professorship is not "Science" but "Public Understanding of Science."  And I agree with Terry Eagleton about his grasp of philosophical and theological issues.  I fully accept that other editors of this article take an different view, and my goal is to get balance so that the article is not uncritical adulation, but provides readers with the resources to explore his supporters and critics and get a balanced view.  Together I think we can achieve this. Is this OK with you? NBeale 23:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NBeale, I'd be much more comfortable with your input if you revealed your true issues with Dawkins.  Per WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, your comment "It has been quite an "experience" getting this in, Dawkins is protected by a ring of Acolytes. Ah well." could be considered such an attack and goes to show you do not seem to be assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors and erodes any such assumptions of good faith other editors may have for you.   Spark* 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By Acolyte I meant [] "devoted follower" - if anyone who has been reverting the criticism etc.. considers this an attack I'm astonished, and apologise. I think followers of Dawkins are mistaken, you probably think followers of Christianity are, but I have no reason to doubt your good faith.  By working together to improve each others contributions (as opposed to deleting them) we have already made this article better and can continue to do so. And I don't quite see what "true issues" I haven't revealed. NBeale 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If anyone...considers this an attack I'm astonished" Of course its an attack, its highly patronising, and if you are so concerned with working together and imporving the article, BTW I don't thinks its improved - at best its is as good as it was before you started "contributing" -I've never witnessed so much effort for such little progress, then why have you ignored this   the fact that you have continued to edit the main article and didn't bother to comment , for good or ill, on this or "improve" it shows you are not interested in working with other editors or reaching consensus, all you are interested in  pushing your own POV--KaptKos 11:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't mean to be patronising at all. Are you not a devoted follower? POV is OK is one's blog. Please try to assume good faith. I had no idea about the change you noted (is there a way I can tell?) will try to look and comment. Thanks. NBeale 12:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not a devoted follower of Dawkins. I wasn't talking about your blog. I have tried to assume good faith. Use your watchlist, like everyone else --KaptKos 12:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah - the concept of the acolytes, the "followers of Dawkins", is the key to all this, I think. Jesus and Mohamed may have "followers" in this sense, but not Dawkins. I am not a follower of Dawkins, and certainly not a devoted follower. I just happen to think he explains certain things about evolution etc very clearly, and deserves to have his views summarised fairly in an encyclopaedia such as this. To describe people like me as "followers" is completely mistaken. It leads to the sort of "you're either pro-Dawkins or anti-Dawkins" assumption that so badly marred the now-deleted criticism section of the article. Religions may insist on a binary choice - total devotion or ouright rejection - but the same is not true of biology/ethology/evolutionary theory. If you agree with some of what Dawkins says that does not make you an unquestioning Dawkins believer. If you disagree with some of what Dawkins says that does not mean that your criticism by definition lends support to the idea that religion can explain the natural world with a creationist myth. [sorry - wandered off topic of "the first sentence" a bit there...] Snalwibma 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just it - I'm not a "follower of Dawkins" and to state such in any terms is assuming bad faith in an editor's actions in the article.  NBeale, essentially what you're saying is not that other editors are reverting your changes because of WP guidelines and policies, but rather because of the subject of the article.  I don't believe the article has improved since you began contributing.  Regarding your initial edits which led to you being blocked: "A clique of Dawkins fans wouldn't have any of it, kept reverting the changes with no rationale and then had me blocked. Ah well."   Do you still see "no rationale" in other editors' reversions of some of your edits? Spark* 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations of Critics 

message: What's happened to the photos? I think they should be vaguely relevant to the sections they are in. Could we go back to having a relevant photo in the religion section and removing the two later additions? Also there's no need to attribute the photographer; if they are on Commons, then we can use them any way we like. Laurence Boyce 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... relevant photos would be good. But I think several of the originals were fair use and the current ones are released under CC. Maybe that's why someone came in and changed them. (It was some user I don't know - looks like he/she has a project to replace fair use images with free ones). Mikker (...) 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Just removed this from the evolutionary biology section of the article.  Other than referencing TSG, I don't know what it was doing there.
:Dawkins was mortified to read that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling and that he derived inspiration of a Social Darwinist character from it. Dawkins has tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in his new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition  The God Delusion p213. "I was mortified to read...that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling ... and that he derived inspiration of a Social Darwinist character from it. The Guardian ... gives a good explanation of the misunderstanding . I have tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in my new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition..." 
--Plumbago 09:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It obviously doesn't belong here.  *Spark* 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Dawkins thought it important enough to change the preface of The Selfish Gene. But I don't feel very stongly - I think his concern makes him look good. NBeale 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone reading, say, even the first few pages of the book would know that Dawkins is emphatically not advocating a morality based on selfishness.  Adding the above serves only to confuse this (especially when it's completely misplaced in the article).  Regarding Skilling, he can only have read the title - still, he's going to have plenty of time on his hands soon, so may manage the rest of the book.  --Plumbago 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff Skilling 

message: I have cited three notable sources criticizing Richard Dawkins work.  Every notable source had a Wikipedia article written on him/it (Answers in Genesis, Dallas Willard, and Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal  It is apparent to me that Richard Dawkins's works are the "sacred cows" of atheism and the macroevolution position and that his ardent supporters will not countenance a "Criticism of Richard Dawkins works" section.  ken 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, notability is not enough. The section itself is not good enough, because it just lists critics without any details and only critiques on very specific subjects. I can write a whole article citing notable persons and still write a bad article. Also, stop the name calling... please. Dawkins is not by any means a "sacred cow". I don't worship him, don't see him as the one true god with all the answers. Yes I do not believe in god, nor am I religious, I enjoy reading Dawkins agree with a lot of his ideas (also his work on atheism and religion) and think the idea of biological evolution is highly possible. I think that can be sais for any of the authors of this articles, whom you brand as being "disciples of Dawkins". When I read the Dawkins article I read a balanced and quite neutral article. At this point, what is the non neutral content in the article, could you point that out for me? Making an article more NPOV isn't just about adding a criticism section of people who say the opposite of the person in question. mensch • t 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Me thinks the KillerChihuahua protests too much. All three notable sources had articles written on them by Wikipedia as I demonstated. ken 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Techie point: it's "methinks"...any idea what it means?  •Jim62sch• 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means "it seems to me", do I get a cookie? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Doggie Biscuit.  ;) •Jim62sch• 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Southpark" was yanked from this article for exactly the same reason your additions were: Southpark is notable (more notable than AiG) and had an entire episode on Dawkins, yet it is not germane to this article because it is about Southpark not Dawkins. AiG is against atheism, what a surprise. I would not object to a well-written bit which cites any one of your sources, if germane and if it isn't, as pointed out above, a one or two liner which is basically "so-and-so (wikilinked) critcized Dawkins, quote." KillerChihuahua?!? 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mensch, thank you for your straw man.  I never said Dawkins was a "sacred cow".   I said Richard Dawkins's works are "sacred cows" to his rabid fans at Wikipedia who cannot stand it if a "criticism of Richard Dawkins's works" section is created. ken 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man? You called other authors "militant fans of Dawkins", "Dawkins militant atheists fans" and accused them of censorship. I don't see how this changes my original argument. mensch • t 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither does anyone but the buffalo.  •Jim62sch• 00:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ken, I will try to repeat what I already said. People are not opposed to a criticism section. In fact, a number of editors have given you some good sources to start with. Everyone is saying "Good scientific criticism would make this article better". Ken, you are not adding "good scientific criticism", you are adding criticism from off topic, barely notable groups and people. So the Skeptics didn't like the name Bright in one article, so what? So some creationists disagree with an evolutionary biologist, who cares? Why not read through the people that other editors suggested would be good sources for good scientific criticism. Finally, just because something has a wikipedia article does not mean that their opinions are relevent in other articles. You should know this, you try to remove the Jesus myth information from the main Jesus page weekly, right? You feel that fringe, off topic views are not relevent in some top tier articles. That is all everyone is saying. No one is saying Dawkins is above criticism. Just that he is above fringe, off topic criticism. Make sense? And please try to refrain from calling other editors names, such as hypocrite.--Andrew c 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sacred cows" and Dawkins's works

message: I'm new to this debate and have read the previous comments with interest. The problem I have with introducing criticism is that what we are criticising is his ideas, not the man himself. To crticise the man, one would want to look at his character. Is he a wife-basher? a thief? a bigot? It strikes me the proper place to criticise his ideas is in articles about the ideas themselves, or perhaps in the articles about the books he wrote on these ideas. I have looked at some of the articles on the "critics" and note that they don't have criticism sections. Are their ideas beyond criticism? Or are we to expect every biographical article to have a long list of those who support them, those who support them sometimes, but not others, and those who oppose them always? Wikipedia is not a popularity poll. The proper place to discuss ideas is in articles on the ideas, not in articles on those who support or oppose them. --Michael Johnson 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks you raise a good point.  •Jim62sch• 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur; he is notable as a scientist first and foremost. We should research criticisms of his scientific approach and include that; there has been considerable criticism also that his advocacy of atheism has tended to encourage the conflation of evolution with atheism, which is widely considered Not a Good Thing for science in general and biology in particular. We may be able to incorporate some of that into the article as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Christianity, the largest worldview in the world, is in danger of dying off despite the fact that it is surging in China and Africa and the Bible is the most translated book in the world.   Give me a break. ken 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to piss on your parade, but the fastest growing religion is Islam.  As a percentage, Christianity is declining.  Reality bites.  •Jim62sch• 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you should address criticism of ideas to the pages relating to the ideas themselves. Otherwise biography pages will just bloat out criticism and counter criticism --Michael Johnson 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of ideas is fine.  For criticism of a living person, we need to abide by WP:BIO. •Jim62sch• 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be clear that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as a Policy is to be followed – in particular "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." Another question is whether "criticism" should in a separate section: the article at present quite rightly cites notable critics of Dawkins, and looking at their biographies I've not found any with a "criticism" section. It makes more sense to relate the criticism and counter-criticism directly to the relevant parts of the biography. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dave, I think you're perfectly correct. Criticism should (of course) be included, but a criticism section is a REALLY, REALLY bad idea. See this on WIAFA talk. Mikker (...) 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My problem with this criticism idea 

message: There was a recent correction to the debate results from 198 to 115 to 198 to 15.  Laurence Boyce reverted this, explaining that "the web link is corrupted."  I had no problem accessing the page, but my laboratory has a subscription to Science so it may not be that the link is corrupted, but just that it is available only to subscribers.   
In any case, I copy the entire relevant paragrah here to support correcting the results from 198 to 115 to the correct number of 198 to 15:
There is a great deal of historical irony in this event. For it was in the Oxford University Museum, and as long ago as 1860, that Charles Darwin's young supporter Thomas Henry Huxley clashed with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce over the very same question. On that occasion, less than a year after the publication of the Origin of Species, Huxley condemned the Bishop of Oxford for attempting to defeat Darwinism with nothing more than ignorant contempt. 126 years later, Oxford University's undergraduate body finally gave its verdict on the issue. After due consideration, it came down cautiously on Huxley's side: on 14 February 1986, the motion "That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution" was defeated by 198 votes to l5.
Edhubbard 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see from the context that 15 can't be right – "came down cautiously" does not describe 198 to 15. But I agree it would be good to get to the bottom of this. Laurence Boyce 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't tell if that was an editorial comment included when writing about the original 198 to 115 number, or if that was the thing that most accurately reflected the debate.  I'll keep looking around and see if there is anything reliable on the web, but I think that the AAAS site probably contains a typo and we shouldn't rely on that.  Edhubbard 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The figure on the website is obviously wrong,as 15 makes no sense given what Durant is saying.  The question is whether it should be 115 or 150.  There is a lobby who insist that the figure is 150, though having listened to a recording of the votes being reported at the event, I disagree.  However, what someone needs to do is to get hold of the book from which Durant's article is taken and see what it actually says. This is the book,as cited on the AAAS websote: DURANT, JOHN. "A CRITICAL-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND CREATION," *in* EVOLUTION AND CREATION: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE, SVEND ANDERSON AND ARTHUR PEACOCKE, EDS. AARHUS, DENMARK: AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS, PP. 12-26.  Somebody must have access to it. --Dannyno 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxford Debate

message: Was Paradody? on South Park 11-7-2006
Yes, a Richard Dawkins character was on the South Park episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII." Apparently someone editing this article didn't like that, because it was already written in the article even minutes after the first part of the episode aired. --Vyran 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read further down on this talk page, where the reasons for deleting the South Park trivia are listed (link). mensch • t 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Farther up, now that this newer post has been moved to the end of the page per talk page guidelines. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus is not to include trivial appearance in South Park at all - see discussion (here). Snalwibma 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "South Park"

message: It is a notable and insufficiently understood fact that Dawkins's militant atheism (actively attacking most forms of religion) is rare amongst leading scientists. For example:
# He is the only FRS in the 43 Honorary Associates of the National Secular Society (and there is only one other scientist). By contrast two FRSs have become ordained priests in the Church of England at at least two others (Freeman Dyson and Simon Conway Morris) are well-known Christians (there are probably more, I don't have a comprehensive list).
# Only three current FRS have written books devoted to religious questions: of these Dawkins is the only atheist (the others are Dyson and Polkinghorne)
# Following The God Delusion he was portrayed in Nature as a sandwich-board man with the slogan "RENOUNCE GOD AND BE SAVED" NBeale 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attacking religion is antitheist or anti-religious. It's not atheism but that aside obviously it could be because this is a field of expertese that he has slowly evolved over many books. I mean if we see him attacking say semiconductor research then we'd get worried and equally if we saw a semiconductor scientist attacking religion then we'd get worried too. That we see Dawkins poking holes in religion is simply that he is playing to his strengths. What exactly is your point of the stuff above that quotes the numbers of FRS ? Who did this meta-analysis ?...Surely it's not WP:OR ? Remember WP:LIVING applies here.  Ttiotsw 10:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the point of this that there are more outspoken Christians among the FRS than there are outspoken atheists?  That might be true.  But there is no shortage of atheists among past and present FRS.  Sir Martin Rees, currently President of the RS, was quoted recently (Guardian article) as describing himself as an "unbelieving anglican", who sometimes attends church out of tribal loyalty but has no theistic beliefs.  Militant atheist he aint, but atheist he certainly is. --Dannyno 10:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to me it's neither notable nor insufficiently understood that most scientists don't bother to adopt a militant stance against religion. Perhaps (like pink unicorns, tooth fairies and flying spaghetti monsters) it just doesn't concern them. They have more important things to think about. Whatever - this sort of point-scoring POV addition has no place in the article on Dawkins. Snalwibma 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is good evidence atheism non-theism is almost total among scientists, and even more pronounced among leading scientists. (source: this). Dawkins may be more vocal than most, but he certainly speaks for scientists generally. Mikker (...) 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting link, but the survey (from 1998) still found 7% believers in leading scientists, with atheism at 72.2% – hardly total. Their survey of scientists generally in 1996 found 39.3% believers. So a pretty significant minority. Can't win 'em all ;) .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I should have said "non-theistic views" rather than "atheism" - 93% of leading scientists are either atheists, agnostics or have doubts and that's pretty close to being "total", at least when we're talking about social science statistics. Mikker (...) 18:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, see our article on the Demographics of atheism for more (including stuff about the UK). Mikker (...) 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mikker. I don't know how many Academicians you know well enough to have discussed this with them - my guess from your comments is one at most. I don't think there is a single FRS or member of the NAS who has come out unequivocally in favour of The God Delusion and I assure you that many of the FRSs think he is now "bringing science into disrepute."  Almost all leading scientists recognise that, whatever their personal religious views may be, there are other leading scientists, no less well informed or intelligent, who take a different view, and that this is not a question that can be settled on scientific grounds.  This is the offical positon of the NAS and the rather flawed Larson/Witham survey (eg Deists count as Atheists, and no competent scientist would consider 72% "almost total") really doesn't alter this fact, which is why, as far as I can see, no leading scientists have cited it. NBeale 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NAS isn't stupid. The recent poll showed a significant number of American public still believe in creation myths and this is completely at odds with what the UK or the population of Europe or Japan polled at. The US was comparable to the majority-Muslim Turkey: which personally gives me doubts as to the suitability of that country for full membership to the EU. Given the need to balance science funding with religious dogma, drawing a line between faith and reason is a valid game plan for the NAS. Thus NOMA is an acceptable concept. Such a ploy need not apply to countries with less adherence to creation myths and so it need not apply to the FRS. You can't simply mingle the FRS and NAS in the same argument whilst ignoring population differences. Ttiotsw 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we go again. NBeale seems to believe that anyone who does not "come out unequivocally in favour of The God Delusion" can be enrolled in the army of those who condemn all that Dawkins (and other evolutionary biologists?) says. Of course they don't "come out unequivocally in favour" - you only do that, if you are so minded, with things like the Bible. Rational people disuss what someone has to say, agree with some bits, disagree with others, weigh up their response and come to a conclusion. Many Dawkins disciples ummm ... acolytes - er - supporters of Dawkins biologists and scientists dislike certain aspects of the book (maybe its rather strident tone, for one thing) but agree with much of what he says. Oh - and I should of course add that I've discussed this IN PERSON with my many CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS who are PROFESSORS in the BEST UNIVERSITIES and FELLOWS of the Royal Society - so there! Snalwibma 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: NBeale, seriously mate. Please don't be so condescending; your message comes close to violating the spirit of WP:NPA. (And, for the record, I know plenty of academics. In fact, I plan to be one myself one day). As for the substance of your concerns, well, I cited a letter published in Nature. You respond with a bunch of unreferenced opinions. Do you have reliable sources for your claims? (And, no sorry, I won't take your assurances; your editing record on this article is enough to militate against doing so). Mikker (...) 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins's militant atheism rare amongst leading scientists 

message: user:kdbuffalo put a neurality disputed tag on the article saying "(biased article. praise of dawkins section, but no criticism of dawkins section. see talk page)". This was reverted and (s)he re-applied it. I entirely agree with this point. It is disputed and the tag must not be removed until there is a real consensus. Now let's discuss and try to get one. Thanks, NBeale 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a consensus.  Seems the only two objectors are yourself and ken.  You don't seem to understand the guidelines for adding information to articles.  If you don't source your latest addition, you can expect to see it removed as well. *Spark* 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, we do not need a criticism section. Valid criticisms, where they exist and are applicable, can be woven into the article. Please see this discussion at WP:WIAFA. — Coelacan | talk 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You can't just say "this is pov" and provide no justifications. When and if you come up with a convincing, well-referenced, non-OR list of POV problems with the article, the POV tag can stay until we've fixed the problem. And if your argument is "I already posted why I think it's POV before" then we have a clear consensus that you're wrong and the article doesn't need to be changed nor does it then need a pov tag. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V again. Mikker (...) 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And it ALSO says "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." You have not done this. Mikker (...) 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV_Dispute is only guidance, and as such is trumped by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is policy. Take care to comply with policy: tag vandalism is unacceptable. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, then perhaps a vote on removing the tag is in order: Those who think the article is unbiased, say yea unbiased, those who think it is biased, nay biased.  My own vote is that the article is neutral, but that Kdbuffalo and Nbeale are unhappy because it doesn't cater to their anti-Dawkins POV.  Consensus doesn't mean unanimous, just in case you hadn't checked your dictionary lately.  Yea unbiased Edhubbard 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest that since the "criticisms of Dawkins" which certain editors are so keen to have introduced, are not criticisms of Dawkins per se but rather general disputes over certain undead topics, we ought to simply introduce links like "See main article: creationism" where these "debates" are already fully addressed. There's no reason to drag the contents of those pages over here and duplicate encyclopedia pages, which is what is being attempted here IMO. — Coelacan | talk 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Disputed 

message: In order to make this article NPOV I think we need to reflect the following facts:
# Dawkins is a highly controversial figure
# Although his popular non-quantitative explanations of evolution are admired, the inferences he draws from the scientific facts are questioned.
# His reductionism is criticised by leading scientists and philosophers, as well as theologians.
# The vailidity of Mimetics as a field is disputed.
# Whilst a few philosophers praise his forays into philosophy and theology, other philosophers and scientists, and all theologians, consider them seriously ill-concieved.
# Although surveys suggest that the majority of leading scientists are not theists, no leading scientists support Dawkins's militant atheism, which is against the policy of the NAS and criticised by many leading scientists as unwarranted.
# Even those who support his general tenets criticise his style as over-aggressive and counter-productive.
# He is also severely criticised by opponents of Evolution.
Dawkins many admirers may well think that none of these points is sufficient to dent their admiration. That's fine.  But to try to hide these facts from the readers by procedural means is unwarranted, and this is why the article is not NPOV. NBeale 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If indeed these are "facts", they can be verified as WP:V remembering to take particular care to meet the standards required by WP:LIVING and added to the article in an WP:NPOV way – which doesn't necessarily mean a "criticisms" section which certainly is not standard practice in biographies. Remember to WP:CITE reliable sources as WP:RS. Look forward to seeing proper substantiation of your claims. ..dave souza, talk 00:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Spark. I've completed the sourcing as requested. If there's a consensus on NPOV we can remove the tag, it should not have been removed before consensus. NBeale 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *It shouldn't have been added in the first place.  If you read and understood the links provided above you should realize that. *Spark* 12:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Regarding your references, read them.  Read the text you added to the article.  Understand why your text is WP:OR and is not supported by the citations you provided. *Spark* 12:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, why should the policy of the National Association of Schoolmasters have anything to do with Dawkins' biography? ... dave souza, talk 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but the National Academy of Sciences might :-) NBeale 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would an American based organisation care for a British domiciled scientist ? I've already argued that the (US) NAS must play to it's audience - i.e. the US public, federal policy makers, lobbyists and pressure-groups and so moderates what it says to that environment. A similar "NAS" in say a muslim country would also have to carefully moderate what it says and similarly in the UK or Europe. Please justify why any US NAS policy or statement applies to a British citizen. Ttiotsw 11:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm genuinely curious about this policy of the NAS.  It really doesn't feel right, especially from an organisation whose membership is largely atheist or agnostic.  Do you have a link to support that?  Guettarda 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's NBeale who has said that "Although surveys suggest that the majority of leading scientists are not theists, no leading scientists support Dawkins's militant atheism, which is against the policy of the NAS and criticised by many leading scientists as unwarranted.". Ask him for this "policy" not me. I can only guess it's related to NOMA e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29 which links to http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309064066/html/R9.html The most relevant section from this link is, "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.". I can only guess this is the "policy" i.e. trying to combine science and religion but would be nice if NBeale would confirm exactly what he means and why it applies to Dawkins. Ttiotsw 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree with Snalwibma. NBeale has not said anything that s/he hasn't said before. Until the time when s/he reads WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BLP, understands these policies and sticks to them, s/he is best ignored IMO. Discussion over. Mikker (...) 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How neutrality could be improved 

message: It's worth looking at the website  - there is nothing controversial about this. The Simonyi Professorship is a Chair for the Public Understanding of Science.  The Prof "is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists" "Simonyi Professorship was set up with the express intention that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.". So I suggest, following TimRR, that we say "In 1995 he became Oxford's Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, a position endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder." NBeale 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that works fine, given you note it with that reference: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml. *Spark* 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rueful Remark. Putting the ref in again as per requested style, I see that the aims section says "it is imperative for the post holder to avoid oversimplifying ideas, and presenting exaggerated claims. The limits of current scientific knowledge should always be made clear to the public."  Perhaps we should put this in as well? NBeale 04:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include the whole of the primary goal i.e. add the bit you missed, "...Once done so, however, there is also a role for presenting speculative ideas, which can convey to non-scientists some of the excitement of doing true science." I would probably be treading on WP:AGF by searching for some logical reason for you to ignore the more exciting 2nd 1/2 of the primary goals. Given the whole of the goal I do not see how it can be called "rueful" - it is pragmatism with spin. Ttiotsw 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rueful Remark"? Care to expand? *Spark* 13:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simonyi Chair

message: Spark wants to delete this, suggesting that the refs don't support the assertion and that Midgley has apologised to Dawkins in the past.  I've expanded the refs a bit but truly, anyone who has read them can see that they are arguing against Dawkins reductionism. NBeale 06:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem, NBeale, is that it seems quite clear that it is YOU who wants to "argue against Dawkins' reductionism". But apart from anything else, ask yourself the simple question - what are we all trying to achieve here? The object of all this discussion should be to achieve an informative and balanced wikipedia article about Richard Dawkins. Something that a newcomer to the subject can read reasonably quickly and understand, and which leaves him or her with a good impression of what Dawkins is "all about". Your energetic point-scoring crusade, in which you clearly spend hours dredging up as many critical comments as possible and trying to get them listed in the article, is not only a breach of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc, but it also damages the readability and comprehensibility of what (before you started on it a couple of weeks ago) was a good article. May I recommend a good blog as an appropriate place to record all your discoveries? Try somewhere like this, where bigoted Dawkins-bashing seems to be welcome. Snalwibma 08:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL.  Nice one Snalwibma.  But seriously, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith on the part of NBeale.  His sort of editing weakens the WP, and distracts other editors from contributing elsewhere (my POV, of course).  --Plumbago 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biologists & Philosopers who argue against his reductionism 

message: The article currently states: "Dawkins did, however, take part in the Oxford Union's 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, in which he and John Maynard Smith defeated their creationist counterparts.[33]"  
Was there qualified debate judges present who ruled that Dawkins and Smith won the debate or is the Wikipedia merely relying on one source?   I know that the Wall Street Journal reported that even a evolutionistary scientists stated that the "creationists tend to win" the creation/evolution debates in the United States.    ken 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken, it would help if you read the sources that are footnoted. Quoting from that source "After due consideration, it came down cautiously on Huxley's side: on 14 February 1986, the motion "That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution" was defeated by 198 votes to l 5." note that this as discussed early is a transcription error of the webbased version and should be 198 to 115 (or at least that is strongly suspected see earlier archived talk somewhere- this is why the exact number is not included).  It would also help if you used the preview button more rather than take 3 or 4 edits for each statement. JoshuaZ 09:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, that was Huxley's result in a earlier debate.  It tells us nothing of Dawkins's and Smith's result.  ken 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn... Go and check your facts. Snalwibma 09:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Excuse me? Do you read at all? The debate was the Huxley memorial debate. Read the article. The use of Huxley here refers to what Huxley had argued a hundred year prior (historical context and actually reading sources might be helpful. Really). JoshuaZ 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake regarding the Oxford debate.  Imagine the result if the debate had occured in the United States where even a evolutionary scientist admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the creation/evolution debates. No wonder that Gould advised Dawkins not to publically debate creationists. ken 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, yes! Imagine the result! Those stupid evolutionists wouldn't have a chance in a truly civilized nation like the U S of A. — coelacan talk — 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Dawkins and Smith win the Oxford evolution/creation public debate? 

message: It states that cartman "Accidentally transported 500 years into the future", yet the article at at Go_God_Go clearly states that cartman was frozen for 540 years. OK accepting that factual difference, on the Go_God_Go it has a response from Dawkins in a Q&A Session for the "God Delusion" and yet this isn't refered to here, in which he says that: "I would have thought they could at least have got an actor that could draw a proper British accent.". Given there is evidence that Dawkins does not support his portrayal ("I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite....") implied in the South Park show, and that this was not a cameo role (as says he would like to do with The Simpsons), I vote that this whole section is removed as a clear violation of WP:LIVING. Ttiotsw 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was added (again...) just before the article became "edit protected". Otherwise it would have been swiftly removed. It's non notable trivia and has been removed before. Hopefully it will be again as soon as the article becomes editable. mensch • t 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been removed now, and it's already been consensus that it doesn't belong here. If it comes back we'll remove it again. Anyway South Park never casts public figures in a positive light; it doesn't matter who they are. — coelacan talk — 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nishkid64 removed it, and inadvertantly also removed the protected tag. I've resored the protected tag. It is clear that all editors on this page are in agreement with the way to edit the article, if not the details, and are working incredibly well together, with the NBeale and KDB exceptions. The two editors who were actually engaging in disputed and contentious editing are not choosing to participate at all in the talk page discussion while the page is protected, and we're getting to the point where our discussion is reaching the "time to edit the article" point - some excellent ideas are forming in the The way forward section above. How long are we giving them to discuss their desired changes before we simply unprotect and move forward? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi KC. I think you haven't been looking at section 30 above, where Ed and I have been working together constructively, carefully and in some detail on the Conway Morris point, and we very nearly have a consensus text. Once this is sorted out we can apply the same process to the others, which won't be nearly so difficult (there is no controversy about Midgley, Bateson is very clear about his "affectionate disagreements" and so is Noble. But in response to your implicit request I'll try to offer by 10c worth on s29. NBeale 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, happily so - I did indeed miss the ongoing discussion in Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Nbeales.27_criticism_by_biologists_para. thanks - Glad to see this is moving forward as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors (and relevance) of South Park Go God Go reference.