Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sam Harris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Happy new year everybody!

I begin 2007 by reverting 16 edits by User:Betamod. I trust this is not a sign of things to come! Just a few problems off the top of my head:

Excessive and lazy use made of direct quotations.
Unnecessary re-ordering of sections. Previous ordering was well thought out.
In fact you have shown a general lack of respect for the existing style of the article.
Personally I don't feel we need draw attention to Harris's views on torture here which are not central to his main argument.
Harris has made some strong remarks about Islam, but how you managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said must remain a mystery.
I could go on . . .

Please come to talk before making substantial changes. We can discuss everything and add new sections if they really contribute something, though in my view the article is quite long enough for the time being.

Laurence Boyce 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually intended to come back and clean up the style of the article today, so I freely admit that my style needs improvement. You are therefore fairly entitled to edit my contributions for said style. However, I have no obligation to respect the arbitrary style of a given article simply because it predates my contribution to it and certainly not if that prohibits the addition of information that is relevant to the subject of said article, namely, Sam Harris and his ideas.

To be clear, every single contribution I made sited the relevant source and included direct quotes from Harris' writing. So if for instance you do not understand how I "managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said" then you obviously were not paying attention to the quotations nor the links I included. However my contributions were irrefutably factual, and came straight from the houses mouth.

I can see why, if one supports all Harris' ideas, it might be inconvenient to draw attention to the fact that Harris advocates ethnic profiling of Muslims and torture while at the same time claiming the moral high ground over religion. However, what you feel personally to be most relevant to Harris' arguments, without putting forward a logical justification for why, should not be the determining factor for what is relevant in a peer reviewed open content Wikipedia article.

I personally think that Harris' critique of religious belief is important and insightful, to a point, but I am deeply disturbed by where he takes these arguments and with his simplistic characterizations of diverse religious beliefs, especially as it pertains to present US foreign policy. In fact, Harris and his ideas on religion have had no small role in shaping the popular discourse on said policies, as you should know. So how else might we evaluate Harris' claims regarding the the relative ethical superiority of his brand of atheism re that of religion if not by examining the application of his views to ethical issues of the day, especially since he has taken great pains to express said opinions in print?

Again, I am happy to be edited for style (go hog wild), but I will not accept your arbitrary deletion of relevant information which I have contributed in good faith to this article. So I really hope we can come to a reasonable compromise here. I think if you are genuinely interested in compromise, you should attempt to include the information that I contributed with what adjustments to style and structure you deem to be minimally unnecessary.

In the interim, I am going to revert the article to the previous version.

--Betamod 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Betamod, and thank you for coming to talk. Tonight I just have time to pick you up on a few points.

I have no obligation to respect the arbitrary style of a given article simply because it predates my contribution to it.

Well I certainly think it helps to respect the existing style and, perhaps more importantly, the existing structure of an article. By not doing so, the danger is that one may make an article unbalanced. Which, of course, is exactly what you have done.

If for instance you do not understand how I "managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said" then you obviously were not paying attention to the quotations nor the links I included.

I can assure you that I have read every word Harris has written. Yes, the HuffPo piece does mention ethnic profiling, but to turn that into a whole section of this article, indeed a section which does nothing but quote from the said piece, amounts, in my view, to a gross distortion and misrepresentation.

I can see why, if one supports all Harris' ideas, it might be inconvenient to draw attention to the fact that Harris advocates ethnic profiling of Muslims and torture while at the same time claiming the moral high ground over religion.

Not at all. The article for The End of Faith mentions Harris's views on torture. The difference is that it gives it the space it deserves. For Harris's argument on torture occupies all of seven pages in that book (out of 217 pages in total, or 281 pages if you include the endnotes). By contrast, your section on torture is way over the top. It is also unreadable.

I am happy to be edited for style (go hog wild), but I will not accept your arbitrary deletion of relevant information which I have contributed in good faith to this article.

I don't call making slapdash edits which are plainly going to require clean up from other editors, to be acting in good faith. I just call it tiresome and unconstructive.

In the interim, I am going to revert the article to the previous version.

Not a smart move I would say, but let's hear what the others think. In my view, what you have done is clearly unbalanced and merits outright rejection. I would be quite happy to incorporate your points into the article, but frankly it would amount to no more than a few lines of text within the relevant sections.

Laurence Boyce 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert your changes just yet, but seeing as an anonymous editor (172.131.67.225) has removed the sections on torture and ethnic profiling, I have now reverted again to a version with the sections logically ordered etc. Laurence Boyce 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is rather curious that the "editor" who reverted the page was anonymous.

The article for The End of Faith mentions Harris's views on torture. The difference is that it gives it the space it deserves. For Harris's argument on torture occupies all of seven pages in that book (out of 217 pages in total, or 281 pages if you include the endnotes). By contrast, your section on torture is way over the top. It is also unreadable.

Though it contextualizes it within its place in Harris' book, The End of Faith article has exactly one line mentioning Harris' argument for torture, which is appropriate, since this is an article about his book, not a list of notable ideas and positions that the Author has taken. In contrast, this article is about Harris the public intellectual and author. Therefore, his advocacy for torture and ethnic profiling is relevant to an overall assessment of his ideas. The reader has the references to the source material if he wishes to delve further.

If you refer at the style guide for Wikipedia, it clearly does not in any way prohibit the use of lengthy quotations. It merely suggests that these be indented:

Long quotations (more than four lines) may be rendered as block quotations, without quotation marks or italics. A long quotation is indented by using <blockquote> </blockquote> notation, which indents both left and right margins (see #Quotations).[1]

The stylistic prejudice against lengthy quotations is your own. My use of quotes conforms to Wikipedia's own guidelines.

Therefore, the only remaining question is whether my contributions are relevant to the subject of this article, and clearly they are. I have attempted to fit my contributions within the existing structure, which is basically a list of Harris' ideas. If you don't like the structure, you can change it to something that works better, but my contributions were not unreadable. Discarding relevant content for the sake of structure or style is puts the cart before the horse.

If Sam Harris has the guts to argue in print for unpopular positions re the US lead war on terror, torture and ethnic profiling then you aught to have the intellectual honesty to allow reference to said arguments in a Wikipedia article about him and his views. --Betamod 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my edits and made further modifications in conformity with Wikipedia's style guidelines and in an attempt to find some kind of compromise. If you still have a problem with either the style or the structure, by all means improve on my contribution as you see fit. --Betamod 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again I merely have time to pick you up on a few points.

It is rather curious that the "editor" who reverted the page was anonymous.

It's not curious at all. There have been loads of anonymous edits to this article.

The stylistic prejudice against lengthy quotations is your own. My use of quotes conforms to Wikipedia's own guidelines.

I have nothing against quotations, indeed this article used to contain a number of quotations, mostly added by me. They were removed by common consent.

The only remaining question is whether my contributions are relevant to the subject of this article, and clearly they are.

No, that is not the only remaining question. The present question is clearly one of context and balance. Shall we have a whole paragraph devoted to Harris's pet dog? No, obviously not. But in a book on Harris, say, that might not be unreasonable. Get it? Oh never mind . . .

If Sam Harris has the guts to argue in print for unpopular positions re the US lead war on terror, torture and ethnic profiling then you aught to have the intellectual honesty to allow reference to said arguments in a Wikipedia article about him and his views.

I have already stated clearly that I am happy to incorporate your points into the article in a balanced fashion. But your edits are so far from being a balanced and neutral contribution as to be laughable.

I have restored my edits and made further modifications . . .

May I also suggest that you familiarise yourself with the talk archive. While you are under no obligation to respect what has gone before, ignoring history altogether is a sure way to put everyone's backs up. This article was of a very high quality before you showed up. Your current behaviour is frankly embarrassing.

Laurence Boyce 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I am not embarrassed. You are clearly intent on sitting on this page.

This article is about Harris' views and his significance. It is written about him, not on his behalf. And as far as bias goes, this article, previous to my edits, was fr more biased. It left the impression that the only controversy surrounding his views was due to his critique of religion, rather than the political agenda (whether a major or minor part of Harris' concerns) of which that critique is a part. Harris would not be nearly as significant as he is were it not for the context of his arguments against religion, which in themselves are nothing new, but rather, he is significant for political implications of said views as they pertain to issues of the day, namely the war on terror and clash between Western and Islamic civilizations, of which Harris has been a proponent, and to which he has explicitly applied his critique concerning religion, as you well know.

But I suppose by your logic, for instance, you would claim that an article about Martin Heidegger should not include mention of his membership in the Nazi party because this was not a primary topic of his philosophy? --Betamod 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more points:

You are clearly intent on sitting on this page.

Incorrect. There is no question that I have been the most active editor on this article, but, if you peruse the talk archive, you will see that I have engaged with everyone constructively. This is the first serious difficulty I have encountered in 14 months.

Harris would not be nearly as significant as he is were it not for the context of his arguments against religion, which in themselves are nothing new . . .

I disagree. I think that both the content and style of Harris's critique are new.

. . . but rather, he is significant for political implications of said views as they pertain to issues of the day, namely the war on terror and clash between Western and Islamic civilizations.

And that was covered in the "Islam" section.

I suppose by your logic, for instance, you would claim that an article about Martin Heidegger should not include mention of his membership in the Nazi party because this was not a primary topic of his philosophy?

Don't know much about Heidegger I'm afraid. Once again, let me state that I am happy to incorporate the points you raise in a balanced and neutral manner. But you have not done this. Instead you have created two new section headings which effectively scream out, "Harris is pro-torture and wants ethnic profiling of Muslims." That is not encyclopedic writing; it is tabloid journalism.

So I propose to progress the article in two stages. Stage one is to incorporate the points you made into the existing sections. This is relatively straightforward and I will endeavour to do this before long.

The second stage which will take a little longer is to add two new sections to the article. The first section would cover the issues you raise in more detail. It would be entitled "Political views" or some such. Certainly the word "torture" would appear nowhere in the section title. The second section, I suggest, should cover what Harris has said concerning what he sees as the zero-sum contest between faith and science. I have been meaning to write this section for some time, and in my view this is possibly the more striking omission, seeing as his politics is covered (albeit to a lesser extent than you would like) both here and in the article for The End of Faith.

I trust this proposal will prove acceptable to all.

Laurence Boyce 13:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your recent addition of "see also religious intolerance" is once again plainly tendentious. That article has absolutely nothing to do with the "conversational intolerance" that Harris is advocating, rather it is all about state sponsored persecution and blasphemy laws etc. Laurence Boyce 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am glad we seem to be moving forward on a comprise. I do not agree that my additions are biased but clearly you do and I am eager to find a mutually satisfactory compromise. However, I think that Harris' specific views regarding well defined political issues such as torture and ethnic/racial profiling deserve specific headings within any section on his "Political views". I also think mention of his belief in the notion of there being an inevitable clash of civilizations between the West and Islam aught to have its own heading here, as this is also a well defined political issue in the public discourse and a major motivation behind Harris reception. Similarly, his critique of the role of Christianity in US politics should be dealt with here. Essentially, we would be separating his general philosophical themes from their political applications to issues of the day which provide the context for his significance and public reception. I suppose this is OK, but also has its potential flaws.

I don't think the tow sections in question should be removed until the new section on Harris' political views is added with the above headings.

If we can agree to these terms then you are welcome to make the first stab at a rewrite and I will hang back and see what you come up with.

Agreed?

By the way, I did not include the link to religious intolerance because of his stance on conversational intolerance, though it obviously contributes to my reasons. Rather, it was because of his stance regarding ethnic profiling of Muslims and defense of torture, the implications of which is implicitly a concern of Harris' critics, since if Harris' political views were reflected in law, it is at the very least arguable that this would amount to state sponsored targeted persecution of Muslims. --Betamod 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More replies:

First let me say that I am glad we seem to be moving forward on a comprise.

I wish I could be so optimistic!

I do not agree that my additions are biased but clearly you do.

Principally, I think that they are unbalanced, and therefore in consequence, biased.

I think that Harris' specific views regarding well defined political issues such as torture and ethnic/racial profiling deserve specific headings within any section on his "Political views".

No, absolutely not. In an article ten times as long, maybe. But in this article, no. You continue to signal your intention to unbalance the article. Specifically, to turn one phrase – "ethnic profiling" – into a whole section, is so tendentious as to give the game away.

I also think mention of his belief in the notion of there being an inevitable clash of civilizations between the West and Islam aught to have its own heading here, as this is also a well defined political issue in the public discourse and a major motivation behind Harris reception.

That sentence became a little incoherent towards to the end, but you seem to be implying that we should be driven to some extent by Harris's public reception. We should not. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We should simply be describing Harris's views in a neutral and balanced fashion, while also mentioning any significant criticism in the designated section.

Similarly, his critique of the role of Christianity in US politics should be dealt with here.

This has essentially been covered in the sections entitled "Religious America" and "Morality and ethics." Have you actually read the article?

I don't think the tow sections in question should be removed until the new section on Harris' political views is added with the above headings.

I am certainly going to remove your contributions before long. The present state of the article is plainly unacceptable.

If we can agree to these terms then you are welcome to make the first stab at a rewrite and I will hang back and see what you come up with.

The only thing I am agreeing on for now, is two additional sections. One entitled "Political views," the other entitled "Faith versus science." They will be comparable in size and style to the existing sections: neutral descriptions of Harris's views complete with footnote references. And it won't necessarily happen soon.

If Harris' political views were reflected in law, it is at the very least arguable that this would amount to state sponsored targeted persecution of Muslims.

It might be "arguable," but it certainly wouldn't be true. Harris wants conversation, not legislation.

Laurence Boyce 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how it is that you think that you are the arbiter of balance here. Plainly you intend to sit on this page and impose your arbitrary POV under the cover of "style" and "balance".

Harris explicitly advocates that Muslims accept ethnic profiling and is in favor of legalized torture. That is not my opinion. It's what he wrote. I can only therefore assume that it is what he believes.

Your only argument against the sections in question are that he has not devoted as much time to these issues as to his arguments concerning religion, but clearly much of the context for his arguments concerning religion are for political ends, otherwise he would not be so concerned with religious ideology and its role in politics. He is arguing for alternative political positions to those held by certain religious groups, some of which, for instance, pertain to the the use of state violence, namely war and torture. In the case of his advocacy for torture and ethnic/racial profiling, he is arguing for the legalization of policies that are currently unconstitutional in most secular Western democracies and which violate international law. One of the justifications for the the legalization of said policies is the alleged threat that religion, namely Islam, poses to the West.

It is therefore highly disingenuous of you to suggest that he is merely interested in conversation rather than legislation.

Finally, neither you nor me are in fact privy to Harris' intent, unless you are suggesting that you have some special psychic knowledge. I am merely addressing what he has written.

The page is not in any way illegible as is, so there is no need to rush in there and change it. However, I will be back in a a week or so to see what has happened to this article and know I am not going to let you delete all mention of Harris' public political positions.

On that note, I think that the section on Harris' ideas on secular/non religious spirituality and its relation to Hindu/Budhist traditions is far too short. Also, there aught to be at least a short biography section. --Betamod 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More replies:

Plainly you intend to sit on this page and impose your arbitrary POV under the cover of "style" and "balance".

For the umpteenth time, I am happy to incorporate all your points in a neutral and balanced fashion.

Clearly much of the context for his arguments concerning religion are for political ends . . .

I think that is very far from clear.

It is therefore highly disingenuous of you to suggest that he is merely interested in conversation rather than legislation.

Not at all. Harris is constantly arguing for a public conversation about religion, one which he believes is being stifled by the unwarranted respect religion still enjoys. When it comes to legislation, Harris will have one vote like everyone else.

Neither you nor me are in fact privy to Harris' intent, unless you are suggesting that you have some special psychic knowledge.

True, though I am just beginning to suspect that I may have studied Harris a little closer than you have.

The page is not in any way illegible as is, so there is no need to rush in there and change it.

I am going to tidy up the article this weekend which will implement the first stage of what I have proposed. We may then work offline on additional sections.

Laurence Boyce 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

The common misuse of this word is mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. You might want to check it out. I'm not sure what word or expression would be better to use here: "narrow-minded believer", "literalist", or what. Steve Dufour 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. I don't agree with Harris's opinions but it was quite interesting reading about them.

Thanks Steve. The word is used three times so I'm sure we can change it if we must. The Wikipedia guideline states that "the word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists," and I can see the point of that. However, in this article the term is deployed in a general way which I would have thought would be acceptable. Laurence Boyce 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it is generally used is what WP is telling us to avoid. But you are right that it is not pointing to any person or group specifically so no harm is really done. Steve Dufour 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidy up

As promised, I have tidied up the article and have incorporated the recent additions on ethnic profiling, torture, and Gorenfeld's critique. Please may I call upon all editors to respect the structure of the existing article, which has been the work of many editors, before contemplating any radical alterations. Laurence Boyce 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Graduate versus undergraduate degree

As I understand it, there is no such thing as an "undergraduate degree" or a "graduate degree." Rather, the correct terminology is that one studies for a degree while one is an undergraduate, eventually leading to a final examination, whereupon one graduates and becomes a graduate of whichever university. Laurence Boyce 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference. A graduate degree is either a M.A. or a PH.D. or its equivalent. Why not be more informative of what degree he actually got? It is accurate. It is correct to say he is a graduate of Stanford, but not to say he got a graduate degree. The edit was to clarify this. I have a feeling you are sitting on this page too much, editing out even accurate and unbiased information. Please don't obsessively prevent all changes, even informative, to this page.Kanibd 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Laurence, This might be a difference in U.S. versus British academic terminology. In the States, an "undergraduate degree" is a Bachelors degree (B.A. or B.S.) while a "graduate degree" is a Masters (M.A. or M.S.) or a Doctorate (Ph.D.). In England, as I understand it, students that have completed their standard studies are called post-graduate students, while in the States, they are referred to as graduate students. So, at least in the U.S. there is a perfectly coherent thing as an undergraduate degree. It's a bachelors degree. One is then a graduate of a particular univeristy, but can also go on to do graduate studies, but not necessarily at the place that one is a graduate of... I'm an American academic currently working in London, and I am still trying to work this all out. Edhubbard 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. The article simply states that he is a graduate of Stanford University which is plainly correct on both sides of the pond, and is also how Harris has described himself. Laurence Boyce 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

However, this is confusing for people in the United States. Many people, including myself, erroneously thought that he had a Ph.D. from Stanford. I was disabused of this by a colleague of mine, who showed me that he only got a Bachelor's. Please look at this newsweek article which clearly states he got a Bachelor's degree from there. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/from/ET/ While it may not pose any problem for UK citizens, it is really confusing for people in the United States. Because Stanford is located in the United States, I think it's only fair to include this very basic information. Also, Sam Harris himself even included this article on his page, but removed it. Here is the cache of the site: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=slv1-&p=sam+harris+undergraduate&u=www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-new-naysayers-newsweek-magazine-september-11-2006/&w=sam+harris+undergraduate&d=Bf7S7exsOF7O&icp=1&.intl=us I am getting suspicious of whether he's trying to conceal this fact. Kanibd 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't think this is in the least bit confusing for anyone. It is possible that the reason you thought he had a PhD is that he is currently studying for a doctorate. There really is nothing to hide, and the article you cite is still available on his website for all to see. Laurence Boyce 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I read the statement on his website and thought he got his Ph.D. at Stanford in addition to pursuing a Ph.D. in Neuroscience. There are more people who are confused by this than you think. It is not a matter of intelligence but of confusing terminology. I don't see any reason why you would censor very basic information such as the fact that he got his Bachelor's at Stanford. I was wrong about the link, but that is minor. If you ask any neutral third party, they would know that it is better to be more specific the degree he acquired at Stanford. I will now change the information to be more specific. I don't think it's fair for you to constantly delete this information even though it is very accurate and helps clarification. It is not controversial in any way. I also cited it.Kanibd 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again... I don't think that "graduate of Stanford University" is inherently confusing in the vast majority of cases, but because I know that Harris is studying for his doctorate in neuroscience, I also misread it the first time I saw the entry. In this case, it might be that too much information is confusing in cases where it normally wouldn't be. Nobody would be confused if I said that Dubya was a graduate of Yale, because nobody ever accused him of getting anywhere near a graduate degree, but in Harrris' case, it can require a little more careful reading. Personally, I find the reworded version somewhat awkward. Consider the parallel example I gave before, about Dubya: "Bush attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts and, following in his father's footsteps, was accepted into Yale University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968". Perhaps, if had the year, we could use the same structure for Harris?... I am curious about where he's getting his doctorate from, though, having recieved mine in CA (UC San Diego) I know he isn't around San Diego. Edhubbard 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The graduate school he is attending can be found on the internet. However, I wanted to respect his wish that it not be made widely known because he fears for his safety. I'm not sure when he graduated from Stanford. I am all for making the wording less awkward, but I do think the clarification is justified. If anyone wants to make the wording more fluid, go ahead.Kanibd 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Who would have thought that simple phrase, "a philosophy graduate from Stanford University," could generate so much heat? Harris sure is a controversial guy! I mean he's only written two best-selling books – don't you think we should really include his school results here? Laurence Boyce 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

More Info?

Don't we have any information on Harris' early life (family, ethnicity, birthplace, family's/parents religion [if any], etc.)? Judging from the way he looks (among other factors), it's likely that Mr. Harris is ethnically Jewish (even though he obviously doesn't follow Judaism) because Harris is a very common last name amongst Jews. --172.161.156.48 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The information we have regarding Harris's early life is very patchy. The reason is that Harris has security concerns for himself and his family, and so has released the bare minimum of information into the public domain. Rather than include such a patchy section, it is probably best to respect those concerns and just omit his background from the article altogether. Laurence Boyce 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If a person wishes to publish incendiary material under their own name in a public setting, then right or wrong, the security issue is their own problem. Insofar as Wikipedia is a reference work, its information must be as comprehensive as possible. Dicksonlaprade 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Under that logic, I should be able to post what information I find about user Dicksonlaprade on his profile page because he has in fact published things under his own name (wikipedia user page, blogger page, amazon reviews, et al). All of which provide fuel for further research into his personal life and history. But I gander Mr. Dickson-Laprade would not appreciate that, and that seems good enough reason for me not do it in this case... --Ikyork 03:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also if Harris is a Jewish name (I don't know enough about Jewish namesakes to know or not), logically it does not mean he's a Jew. It would mean his father was Jewish, or father's father was Jewish etc., being in Judaism you have to be born from a Jewish woman to actually be a Jew. Yada yada... --Ikyork 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP, people, BLP. We are not here to endanger living persons, or to dig up dirt. We're here to consolidate what is already on the public record in reliable, accessible sources. Metamagician3000 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best of all to include a succinct, well-cited description of the "security concerns" Harris has for himself and his family? Surely, statements of his explaining these concerns must be available in sources of sufficient reliability to satisfy WP:BLP. Anville 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be best to draw as little attention as possible to the issue. Laurence Boyce 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Harris has already drawn attention to the problem himself, in a well-publicized interview:

There are security concerns, obviously. The Salaman Rushdie [sic] effect was not totally distant from my imagination as I was writing the book, but at a certain point you just have to speak honestly about these things, and I've taken reasonable steps to ensure my security. [...] I don't make my whereabouts particularly well known and I have security whenever I do an event—bodyguards and other precautions that are probably best not publicized. [...] I've had some reasonably scary e-mails, but nothing that has risen to the level of a death threat. [2]

This interview is also linked from the bio page of Harris's own website. Anville 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the stuff you quote is just not very interesting. "Man who criticised Islam has security concerns." Laurence Boyce 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Add links to Newsweek/MNSBC story?

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, and reprinted online at msnbc.com is an extended story and debate (10 pages of debate and 6 pages of introduction and background) on the question of Religion: Is God Real? The participants in the debate are Sam Harris, and Rick Warren author of A Purpose Driven Life. Obviously, these two individuals are among the current voices of their respective groups.

The story begins here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889147/site/newsweek/ and the abridged text of the discussion is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/. I think that these are useful additions to the atheism page, because they show the contemporary state of the debate. They are not necessarily authoritative, and clearly reflect the two participant's particular POVs, but they do reflect the ongoing, and rising, discussion of faith and atheism in the United States. I have also copied this to Atheism talk page. Thoughts? Edhubbard 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It looks good. Laurence Boyce 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could God exist?

I have reverted your recent addition again Burntapple. I have listened to the Colbert interview, and I did not hear Harris say explicitly that God could exist. But if he did, it would be entirely unremarkable. Just about anything could exist. Laurence Boyce 10:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and watched the interview, too, and I agree. At no point does Harris say that God could exist. It's up to BurntApple to clearly state where Harris says it. Otherwise, it's potentially libelous, and immediately removable according to WP:BLP, and not subject to the WP:3RR. Edhubbard 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it. No mention at all. Treat it as vandalism. Besides, bios of living persons are not subject to the 3RR when it comes to deleting unverified claims, even if they aren't vandalism. See WP:3RR#Exceptions VanTucky 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At about 5:44 he says it. Burntapple 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see it. But even if he did say it, it doesn't belong in the Criticism and Debate section. First of all, how is admitting the mere possibility of a deity a criticism of him? He's not a theologian, all his criticism of religion is about its affect on society. Second, it is inappropriate for the section becuase the section is for the verifiable statements of notable individuals criticising Harris and his writing. It is a violation of NPOV and WP:Original research (as an original interpretation of the implications of Harris' supposed statement) to include it. Wikipedia is a collection of what other reliable published sources say, and if no sources can be found criticising Harris for saying God could exist, then it does not belong here. It is not the place of users to say in an article that something is a criticism of a writer if no published sources have criticised that writer for it. VanTucky 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can think of a better place to put it then put it there. and this isn't O.R.. Burntapple 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

O.R.? I have made an RFC in the effort more comment on this. Burntapple, once majority consensus has been reached that something violates Wikipedia policy and isn't fit for inclusion, and even may be potentially libelous, then it is the duty of all editors involved to accept that consensus. The time for assumption of good faith is over with, and continued contribution of obviously false information on a bio of a living person could be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. VanTucky 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in an attempt to definitively deal with BurntApple, I have gone and watched this segment of the video, and made a transcript of it, which I include below. It may not be perfect, but I've made every effort to get everything they say in the relevant part of the show.

Beginning transcript at about 5:23

Harris: If you take Jesus to... [unintelligible with Colbert talking over him].

Colbert: Why, why, why don’t you... I mean, you can have rational, I mean people can be rational and believe in God at the same time. I mean, I... you know, even uh, you know, some cosmologists will say, “There are ultimate questions we can’t answer, like why is there something instead of nothing?”

Harris: Right...

Colbert: Okay... well, that force, whatever caused something from nothing, you may call God, correct?

Harris: Yeah, but what, you’re, you’re redefining God out of existence, the God that most people believe in is the God...

Colbert: I just defined God into existence. [Laughs]

Harris: That, that God is not getting people killed. The God that’s getting people killed is the God who thinks that... that, uh, martyrdom is a legitimate metaphysical principle; that death in the right circumstances gets you to paradise with 72 virgins and all of the rest. The God that’s getting people killed is the God that says who says that condom use is sinful, and therefore we have Catholics preaching the sinfulness of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa where literally 3-4 million people every year die of AIDS. I mean, this is genocidal stupidity. And yet we can’t call a spade a spade here because of the respect that we accord religious dogma, and that’s what I’m arguing against.

--End my transcript--

Now, If you take the one “Yeah” at the beginning of Harris’ reply, which is at about 5:44, completely out of context, then you could try to argue that Harris “admits” that God might exist. But, to do so is an act of complete and utter intellectual dishonesty and shows such desperation that it should not even constitute an argument. All you have to do to see that Harris in no way intends to suggest that it is possible that God exists is read the rest of the sentence. Edhubbard 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

Please read the WorldNetDaily article and understand that for-profit websites with an admitted conservative bias that have had serious concerns about reliability brought up many times are not "reliable published sources", especially when it comes to criticisms about liberal/atheist authors. Keeping the contribution that cites WND is potentially libelous. VanTucky 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why I can't add the previous criticism sourced from WorldNetDaily now that I've demonstrated that WorldNetDaily is a reputable published source cited by Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, The Boston Globe, Salon and The Huffington Post? Also, is there any reason the criticism sourced from AlterNet should be retained, given that it is not as reliable a source as WND? Is Sam Harris really a liberal anyhow? The contribution can't be libelous, because the criticism can be and has been independently confirmed to be accurate. (7ubuntu 09:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

WorldNetDaily, an admittedly biased news website, is not a reliable published source. The majority of the content is editorial in nature, and many "news" articles are simply used from other sources without independent verifcation. That is not reliable. VanTucky 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable published source, then I strongly suggest that the citations from AlterNet be removed. WorldNetDaily is a much more reliable source than columnist Eric Alterman's site, as is indicated by the number of citations from the aforementioned media that cite WND. (7ubuntu 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

BLP

I've sprotected this because 7ubuntu, a new single-issue account, is adding poorly sourced criticism. 7ubuntu, if you want to add material, you must find an unambiguously reliable source. Please read WP:BLP, which is policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the article properly now, I'm concerned that it's unnecessarily effusive about the subject. We explain his views in detail without sources, but it's not clear that any reliable third-party has discussed his views to this extent. I'm minded to cut it right back so that any positive or negative material is properly sourced and in proportion. We are allowed to use Harris's self-published material in his BLP (e.g. a personal website), but we shouldn't go overboard with it. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is to remove the content that simply describes his "world view", and stick to public-sphere topics directly from his published writing. Example: keep the general subjects like "conversational intolerance" (something direcy from his books) but remove most of "morality and ethics". Just because Harris is a notable author on atheism and philosophy of mind doesn't make his every opinion about morality and such notable. Effusive indeed. VanTucky 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Harris's views on morality and ethics are absolutely central to his overall philosophy. Also, the phrase "conversational intolerance" does not derive from any of his books, but was rather a line he developed during the course of various media interviews. Neither would I describe Harris as an author on atheism; in fact the word "atheist" only appears once in The End of Faith, on page 68. Laurence Boyce 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go at it. I may try to do some later too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the article was certainly quite effusive in the first instance, but over time it has gradually been sanitised and refined, and has had a criticism section added, to the point where I feel that the article is now in pretty good shape. I do not agree that the article is not properly sourced. Clearly a number of sources are provided, but I do not feel that it is either necessary or desirable to have a citation after every sentence. The principal sources are obviously Harris's books, his online writings, and media appearances. If any further clarification is required, then I can provide it.

I don't really think of the article as containing positive and negative material. The bulk of the article simply represents Harris's views, to which end I do not feel that it is necessary to have a third party report of what they are, or what somebody thinks they are. Rather, it is merely necessary to listen to Harris as he articulates his ideas. If this is seen as being too partisan, then it is balanced by a substantial criticism section. I think it would be a great pity to lose too much material from the Worldview section, which probably provides one of the best available resources for learning about Harris, short of reading the primary sources oneself.

Laurence Boyce 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the point is that the assertions about his world view are incorrect or unverified sufficiently. It's that giving so much room for his personal opinion (sometimes irrelevant to the topic for which he is notable for and which his books cover) is creating a systemic bias in favor of Harris. I qualify this by reminding you that I'm about as fervent an atheist as Harris himself, but this isn't a forum for simply laying down all of Harris' views on everything, even with subsequent criticism sections. But on a more important note: in editing several of the sections detailing Harris' views, I noticed that much of the wording looks and sounds (I've read the books) an awful lot like a direct quotation, and they weren't cited as such. Please be careful and look out for anything that even remotely looks like copy vio. Simply rewording it will suffice, but let's not get sloppy. VanTucky 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Laurence, I agree that this is one of the best resources for learning about Harris; in fact, it's probably the only one, and that is part of the problem. His views don't appear notable enough for us to spell them out in this much detail. If others have argued against them, and the views have become a notable issue, then it's fine to go into detail (Harris has argued that X, but A writes that this fails to take Y into account). But the problem here is that we discuss views in detail that, it appears, no one else has written about or responded to. BLPs should never turn into platforms for their subject's opinions, or extensions of the subject's personal website, and this article reads as though it's heading in that direction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if the deletions I made are permanentely reverted, the edits I made to wording (to prevent copy vio) need to be implemented. Also, personally, the very heading of "World view" is either a product of or part of what exacerbated this idea that we can contribute every single point Harris has ever made. It is unencyclopedic. We're not here to reiterate his entire world view. We're here to discuss the topics from his books that contribute to his notability. Also, just to comment on your edit summary in reverting my changes Laurence: two people did make a consensus when only two people were in the conversation. Try joining in to the conversation that precluded any controversial changes made before insinuating I'm violating consensus. VanTucky 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Going for dinner. Back soon! Laurence Boyce 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try cleaning up the material a little. If others can hold on for the moment, we can see if that helps. Thanks, Mackan79 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we know which university he's doing his PhD at? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't. But I just noticed...why isn't there a section about his published works and online writing? There should be a small section coming before the "assertions" part talking about that (not in detail obviously). VanTucky 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PhD is at UCLA[3] Mackan79 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky: I'm not insinuating that you're violating consensus; I'm stating it quite openly. Two people agreeing over a period of literally half an hour is not consensus; in fact it looks more like an ambush. I'm dismayed that editing is now proceeding again; I thought the idea was to have a conversation first. There are a large number of people who have contributed to this article who might just like to have a say.

If you've read Harris's books, then I'm surprised that you think that any of the material is superfluous; it's all pretty much key to his overall philosophy in my view. And if the heading "Worldview" is not ideal, then "Harris's assertions" is simply terrible. I think the article may borrow a little from Harris's use of language, but there are no direct quotations; it's all paraphrase. Also, Harris does not describe himself as an atheist.

SlimVirgin: If Harris's views are not sufficiently notable, then I wonder why he has sold half a million copies of The End of Faith and counting? I happen to think that it's all highly notable. Yes, we do know where he's studying, but I want to keep all that sort of detail out of the article, as Harris has significant security concerns to think about. That is why there's so much philosophy in the article and so little biography. Can't we all just hang on until others have had a chance to have their say?

Laurence Boyce 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An ambush? How about assuming good faith Mr. Boyce!? But I agree about not starting an edit war. Let's talk this out first. What alternative to "Harris' assertions" would you suggest? It isn't an inaccurate description. As to the "quoting", both the Gulag descriptor and the definition of conversational intolerance are a hair's breadth away from being a direct quotation. Besides, using Harris' phrasing is a rather insidious violation of NPOV. Even when speaking of his own ideas. Or perhaps especially when doing so. VanTucky 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say his views were not sufficiently notable. I said it's not clear that they are, and that's largely because the article is poorly sourced. It needs to be rewritten with sources, third-party wherever possible, and quotes, because the way it's currently written is problematic. I think there does also need to be some biography, assuming any has been published. We have two articles on his books; we don't need a third article exclusively on his views, but a bio. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you bring up a good point Slim, perhaps the original amount (not version, amount) of content about his ideas wouldn't look so egregious if more biographical information were added. Maybe the solution is more to increase, not decrease the overall amount of content. Not that the ideas section doesn't need cleanup. VanTucky 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fair to summarize his views, though, even in detail, as a total from all of his books. If you want to revamp the article that's fine with me to see what you do, but I don't think we should be losing a lot of material. Also, he's somewhat of a public intellectual, who is known almost exclusively for his views rather than any other publicity. I'm not sure if everyone here knows, but he is a very large celebrity in the freethought community, up with Dawkins, Hitchens etc., perhaps particularly notable because he was catapulted into fame out of nowhere solely through the power of his book. I think that makes it particularly important in terms of what should be included here. Mackan79 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(I'm taking a break for a bit, just so people know, since I asked people to hold on. Thanks, Mackan79 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

VanTucky: I said it looks like an ambush. You have given no time at all for others to have their say. A good 24 hours would have been preferable, and that's how long I intend to wait before making any further edits. If you want to ~~fuck over~~ modify the article in the meantime, then that's up to you. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with employing paraphrase, as long as it's made clear, which it is: "but not, as he puts it, the kind of intolerance that led to the Gulag." Laurence Boyce 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I simply don't understand your problem with sourcing; it could hardly be sourced better in my view. If the article is problematic, then why has it been stable for months? There is a big difference, in my view, between a book synopsis, and a coherent summary of Harris's philosophy. Also, there is virtually no biographical information that I would be happy to add on account of his security concerns. Inserting what we do know into the article would simply lead to a patchy and unbalanced effect.

Laurence Boyce 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not well-sourced (two major articles were Washington Post and Newsweek, and they weren't even mentioned, so far as I can see), and there's a lot of "he feels this, and he feels that," rather than just expounding his views with citations. Regarding security concerns, that he's at UCLA has been published, and he has added at least one of the articles that includes it to his own website, so I can't see any reason for us not to publish it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we'll be contributing information that any nut could find with the proper time and effort. We certainly won't be advertising his address and phone number, or where his family lives. VanTucky 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That basically covers what I planned to do. If anyone disagrees with something, feel free to take issue. Some of the issues seem a bit difficult to explain without condescending, but I think it has a little more formal tone now which should be better. If we had a final sentence to the "worldview" paragraph that would help, otherwise it seems good to me. Mackan79 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the UCLA information is in the public domain. But there's a distinction to be drawn between a terrorist and then someone who is prepared to be a casual nuisance. So it's simply about not making the information too easily available. Harris specifically asked me to remove it at an early stage. Too late now. Laurence Boyce 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's put the information on his own website, so it's kind of hard to argue that we shouldn't include it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not in his biography. In fact Harris removed all references to UCLA from his website a while ago, but he obviously overlooked one. But it's still not that easy to find. Anyway, it's all academic now. Laurence Boyce 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it all academic now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the cat's out of the bag on this talk page. Besides, I think that in truth most people will know by now. Laurence Boyce 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two factors at work here in whether or not to keep information about UCLA in the article. First, there is the WP:BLP admonishment to let people keep their privacy. However, the simple fact that Harris works/studies at a famous university is not really under the bounds of that guideline, especially as we don't give information as to how/where to find him at UCLA, or any other private information. Also, while I don't want to put the guy at any risk, it is A:'not his perogative to ask for any verifiable encyclopedic content to be removed from his Wikipedia bio, or to ask anyone else to do it for him. I can't stress this enough, as it threatens the independence, effectiveness and neutrality of Wikipedia. And B:finding out he's at UCLA is in fact just as easy to find as his home address and phone number for any mildly resourceful person with an internet connection. Personal info on almost anyone is also for sale widely on the net and offline. So we're not exactly aiding and abetting those wackjobs who would wish to harm/harass him in any significant sense by saying he's at UCLA. VanTucky 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Laurence, the material can easily be deleted from this talk page (deleted, not just removed) if we decide it ought to be, so that's not an issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter Slim – everyone knows. But Harris was perfectly entitled to ask me to remove it. I could have said no. But maybe think twice before inserting any personal information which doesn't really add anything to the article. Laurence Boyce 23:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Laurence, in the interest of full disclosure, can you please tell us (a) by what means Harris asked you to remove information from this Wikipedia article and (b) what your relationship with him is? I am very concerned that you are in conflict of interest.--Betamod 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh not you again. Very concerned are you? Keeping you awake at night? I have no relationship with Harris except that we have exchanged a handful of emails. This is perfectly in order. Article subjects may contact editors or contribute directly to the talk page. They just shouldn't edit the article itself. I can and will defend all my edits from first principles. Laurence Boyce 03:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Laurence, I'll remind you to keep a civil tone and assume good faith. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, but Betamod is such a knob end really. Laurence Boyce 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"knob end"? Is that some sort of phallic reference? That would make it a blatant personal attack. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose it is a "phallic reference" as you put it. Laurence Boyce 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, calling someone a complete cock certainly sounds like WP:NPA to me. Don't do it Laurence. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the complete cock. Just the helmet. Laurence Boyce 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Lawrence, It is interesting that you feel the need to insult me for asking a perfectly reasonable question under the circumstances. This morning is the first time I have been here since I left my question to you, so no, I am not loosing any sleep over your pet Wikipedia article or you. I don`t have time to sit on this page. Clearly you have much more invested in this than I do.

By the way, as an example of how you have skewed this article, in the subsection on Islam, your edit to my original contribution reads as follows: “Muslims must be prepared to accept ethnic profiling as a tool in the fight against terrorism, so long as adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behavior.”

However, by removing the quotations I contributed from the The Huffington Post article that is the source here, your edit implies that it is a fact, independent of Harris’ unsupported assertion, that adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behaviour, and I would suggest that this is at the very least a matter of controversy.

Anyway, I am glad I live in a country where it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion or ethnicity and that neither you nor Sam Harris are in a position to rewrite it.--Betamod 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt no "need" to insult you. But if you were or are implying that I am writing this article at the behest of Harris, then that is insulting to both me and Harris. I'm more than happy to iron out the bias to which you refer. Laurence Boyce 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lawrence, I am glad you realize that some ironing out of your POV bias is required but you had your chance to fix it before and the present article is the result. Anyway, you did in fact insult me, which by the way, whether you needed to or just wanted to, is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia . . . though the metaphor you chose says more about your anxieties about your own anatomy than it does about me. Clearly any perceived insult to you is also perceived as an insult to Harris and visa versa. Any way you measure it, you conduct yourself as if you own this page (WP:OWN) and as a result it seems systematically skewed to soften the contextual significance and relevant details of arguments involved in controversy surrounding Harris' views (WP:COI, WP:NPOV). I think it needs a lot of work but I don`t have time to engage in an a tiresome edit/revision war with you. I only hope that more folks with fresh perspective will soon weigh in on editing this page and thereby wrest it from your jealous clutches.--Betamod 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What a self-important twat you are. In fact the article did undergo a substantial revision in June. I have absolutely nothing to hide concerning my connections to Harris (which are minimal) or anything else. You, on the other hand, are just an anonymous troll who goes running to teacher at the first sign of trouble. Pathetic. Laurence Boyce 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, reality check: this is not the first sign of trouble. One would have to go very far back into the history of this article and its talk page to find that, and it would start with a capital L. I must also point out to you that this Wikipedia article is not an appropriate tool for working out your your fear and loathing of the vagina or your childhood castration anxieties regarding socialization, as your latest choices of insults indicate. Please don`t project your feelings of inadequacy on me. What you call pathetic is conduct that Wikipedia relies on for quality control. Anyway, I am going to hang back from making any edits for now and see what if any third parties contribute to the article or this discussion. Meanwhile, why don`t you just just relax. --Betamod 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say "Betamod." Laurence Boyce 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive italics

Can we remove some of the italics in this article? They're excessive and obnoxious. Typically, italics are only used on Wikipedia for purposes of definition, not emphasis. So, in 2.1 (Conversational Intolerance), it's, in my view, appropriate to keep the words "conversational intolerance" in italics since they're quasi-definitional, but "respect" "demand" and "evidence" need to be taken out of italics; this is not, after all, an impassioned oration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.238.52 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)