Talk:Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concern

My serious concern with the RDF is the point that the RDF will fund psychology research. It should be about education only. I believe that Dawkins is ignorant about the research that has already been done and did not profoundly search the NIH databases or track down the papers in that regard.Slicky 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, Dawkins is anything but ignorant. He is one of the few enlightened people that see religion for what it is. --203.30.68.49 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping some 3rd party sources

Hi, just dumping them here, I'm in a hurry, and can't complete it now:

Have to go, Merzul (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those were not so useful.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Merzul (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

I removed the "Lawsuits" section which has recently been greatly expanded by an IP. The original text is visible in this permalink. There is far too much detail, and an article should not be used to continue a dispute. Some mention of the legal issues may be relevant if significant mention were available in secondary sources. Day-to-day reporting like "well known X has been involved in legal issues with Y" is not suitable as such space-fillers are just reporting the current turmoil, and have no regard for long-term significance. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Their website has been criticised for spreading islamophobia."

I removed the line stating "Their website has been criticised for spreading islamophobia."

The source makes no such criticism and in fact doesn't talk about the website at all. It refers to comments people left on the site and even provides a link to the second page of a comment section. If that's someone criticizing a website for spreading islamophobia, think of all the horrible hateful -phobias YouTube, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Slashdot, and every other website with an active comments section helps to spread (to no encyclopedic consequence). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV changes

Stems from the above on Islamophobia. I see it was just part of some recent POV additions.

First, Edit summary "adding balance" - to section of Dawkins complaining about tax exempt status. Adds "However, some religions have had more difficulty getting tax-free status in the UK than the RDFRS" followed by purely original research and primary sources.

Second, Adding two paragraphs of criticisms - to the Activism (?) section.

Generally speaking, it would be hard to argue these aren't WP:UNDUE, giving each individual's published criticism its own paragraph and a generalization of how the Foundation "has been criticized" as though it weren't just that person? Regardless...
The first one about defining Christianity is about what Dawkins said in a debate, not something the Foundation did. It says that in the source.
The second one does appear to be an embarrassing episode for the Foundation, where whoever operates their official FaceBook reposted a bogus story. As this is clearly connected to the Foundation itself, it seems more fit for inclusion, but does need additional sources beyond a blog post at "Catholic Virtue."

Third, the Islamophobia addition above.

I'm going to remove the OR and the first criticism (which would be more relevant, though still likely tenuous, at the [{Richard Dawkins]] article). Leaving the FaceBook incident in there, but urging the addition of more sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I revised the part about the facebook/newslo incident to be a bit more specific and cite a better source (Catholic Virtue appears to have lifted the story verbatim from Catholic Answers). Another source would still be good, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this. No sources have been added and it doesn't appear the story persisted past this one. I was forced to re-read it when someone removed it without comment. Taking it back out as WP:UNDUE, but it's open for discussion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

years

I split the years into sub-headers for the activism-part. Otherwise it would read a bit too much as an And then… and then…-paragraph. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]