This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following issues have been extensively discussed and there is strong consensus for the status quo. Although consensus can change, we kindly ask that you familiarize yourself with previous discussion on the following topics before raising any of these issues again.
Resolved that Atheism, which is not a religion, does not belong in the religion section of the info-box. Further, in this RfC discussion the consensus was in favor of describing Dawkins as an atheist: Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_17#RfC:_Atheist_or_agnostic.3F
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Huff, Peter A. (2021). "Dawkins, Richard". Atheism and Agnosticism: Exploring the Issues. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 64–66. ISBN978-1-4408-7083-5.
Scheidt, Hannah K. (2021). "Autonomy or Authority? Ideology, Charisma, and Patriarchy". Practicing Atheism: Culture, Media, and Ritual in the Contemporary Atheist Network. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 70–97. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197536940.003.0004. ISBN978-0-19-753696-4.
Does anybody know how to put the references under references?
Any reference that is added using the <ref>..</ref> tags as instructed at WP:INCITE should automatically be collected beneath the "References" section. Everything seems to be OK in this reference list. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is done using {{reflist}}. Somebody deleted the section. I have reinstated it but I don't have time now to find out who did it and what other vandalism they committed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "somebody" was you, with this edit. What did you think you were doing? You really need to stop editing this article until you understand how to edit properly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not dishonourable to not say it was me. It would be dishonourable to leave it a mess, which I did not. I begged for someone to fix it because I didnt know how. I thought I was going to get in deep trouble, thats why I didnt say I did it. It was a mistake not done deliberately. I m not going to edit richard dawkins page anymore because good edits by me arent valued. Robinhoodph (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was said on BBC Radio Four in April 2024 that Dawkins now describes himself as a cultural Christian. This means he may not accept the truth of religious doctrines, but still likes singing hymns and Christmas carols. Should this be included where this article talks about Dawkins' views on religion? 1YTKJ (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Dawkins was born on 19/10/1944 in Zomba, in Nyasaland. She is also called Sarah Veryan Dawkins.
Jean Dawkins, Richard Dawkins and Sarah Dawkins arrived in Liverpool from South Africa on 3/3/1946.
They seem to have returned to Nyasaland soon afterwards. A3y7ds (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that an article about such a controversial figure does not include a section dedicated to the criticisms levelled against them.
Unbiased articles about influential figures should allow for a discussion that addresses the counter-arguments and opposition to their views over the years. 2001:9E8:D7C2:7100:A801:855:4A93:6B7E (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Enlightenmentpassim).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 2008Some accuse Dawkins of a kind of atheist fundamentalism
McAnulla 2013When 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wouldn't call a self confessed lover of singing hymns, carols and xmas celebrations a fundie athiest. He's just an athiest. - Roxy thedog08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
