Jump to content

Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

another RfC alas

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is the edit was not proper. AlbinoFerret 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Was this edit [1] to this BLP proper? 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This material has been discussed in the past, and so far only one editor seems to require it in the BLP. Query: Does the edit violate any part whatsoever of WP:BLP in whole or part? Does it violate WP:MOS in any way whatsoever with regard to use of quotes and blockquotes? Does it violate in any way whatsoever the non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV? Is the edit summary

Restore sourced material deleted in WP:GAMING revert, will fix punctuation and refcite errors, let me know where they are if I miss any. (

indicative of a collegial desire for WP:CONSENSUS? Collect (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The section Political appears particularly problematic. Firstly, as I tried to outline in the article before, primary sourced material shouldn't really be present in any significant amount, particularly considering the vast array of sources on Harris. Secondly, only the most inflamatory comments about Harris appear to have been chosen rather than any fair analysis. If someone read the section, all they come away with is the impression that a lot of opinion pieces don't like Harris's but it's rather thin on actual facts about Harris's positions and actions etc whether they be reflect well or badly on Harris. Here is an example: "Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists". That's just lazy. What are the specific arguments missed? Why not state them fairly rather than word it this way as though it were a fact that some things were overlooked? The reader is none the wiser after reading that sentence. Second Quantization (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Politics" is a vague word which encompasses an endless amount of topics including religion which often overlaps with politics; this section seems less interested in presenting Harris' views than it does piling additional criticism of his views on Islam. The massive amount of criticism is clearly UNDUE and violates NPOV. The presentation of the quotes without summarization is an WP:IMPARTIAL vio. A big chunk of the information is general criticism of the beliefs of New Atheist leaders and has already been pasted in full at New Atheism#Criticisms, where it is better suited than this BLP. This version put an end to the vagueness; "Social and economic politics" is more precise and Harris' views in regards to religion are contained in their correct positions.LM2000 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
LM2000, I agree. These are exactly the points I have tried to make above, but you have may stated them a bit more succinctly than I did. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Second Quantization just paraphrased problem #7 listed in the section just above. I have watched this editor repeatedly insert opinions from Lears, Sayeed, Greenwald, etc., and I wondered what Harris had to say about all these; I found this (which mentions many of the detractors Ubikwit is determined to showcase) - Wrestling the Troll. Having encyclopedically handled criticism, point of view and unflattering information can be a good thing, and no one wants to see this article become an extension-mouthpiece for the views of the subject. But I find some of what he says in his own defense near the end of that column compelling:
Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims. [...] None of us know what our online lives will look like in five years. But we know that the Internet does not forget. And every day I confront the evidence of harm done to my reputation, and to the reputations of others, by people who seem accountable to no one apart from a growing army of trolls.
Wikipedia should be a little more accountable. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Second Quantization: What is the relation to your assertion about primary sources to the material in the Political section? Can you be more specific? Two of the books are by academics, and the "lazy" quote you mention comes from a peer-reviewed book that supports professor Lears statements. I could add more, and maybe I will, but I'd rather read the entire book, first--same goes for Battie, but at least I have her book. Some points made in that book would overlap other statements, and since I don't have the book, the sentence I added to show that Lears statements have support in peer-reviewed secondary sources, and shows that Harris' statements misrepresent/deny history in a manner that has political implications. The book itself is called "NA Denial of History".
@Second Quantization: Incidentally, self proclaimed was picked up from the source that was deleted from the refcites Atheists for Cheney, which actually says "self-professed" (my mistake there)

There's nothing like an apostate Democrat to gladden the heart of a Republican. From David Horowitz to Zell Miller, the I-was-blind-but-now-I-can-see caucus has given plenty of ammo to the right to demonize the left. But I wonder whether self-professed liberal Sam Harris's new attack -- "liberals are soft on terrorism" -- will make it into the RNC's I-told-you-so talking points.

There is nothing strange about it at all, because a number of RS have associated him with a-liberal political factions and policies. His self-representation of his 'liberal bona fides' in primary sources like the LA Times article are not what matter most.
Here are a couple of other quotes from Lears

The politics of Harris’s argument are rooted in the Manichaean moralism of Samuel Huntington’s 1993 article in Foreign Affairs about the “clash of civilizations” between the West and an emerging “Islamic-Confucian” civilization.
Harris’s tunnel vision leads him to overlook the roots of radical Islam, including the delusion of a revived caliphate, in the twentieth-century politics of imperial rivalries and anti-imperial resistance.
Harris is oblivious to this moral crisis. His self-confidence is surpassed only by his ignorance, and his writings are the best argument against a scientific morality—or at least one based on his positivist version of science and ex cathedra pronouncements on politics, ethics and the future of humanity.
The description fits Harris all too aptly, as he wanders from neuroscience into ethics and politics. He may well be a fine neuroscientist. He might consider spending more time in his lab.

@LM2000: Statements about "right-wing neoconservative views" "imperialism", the "national-security state", the clash of civilizations", etc. are outside the narrowly confined scope of "Social and economic politics". Those statements are sourced to multiple RS, with some making the same claims.
Criticism of Harris is widespread, coming from experts in various academic disciplines from theology to politics as well as public intellectuals and news sources--not directly from me. There is nothing that is UNDUE or violates NPOV, because all of the criticisms are well-sourced, and not one of the people commenting in this thread has produced a singe counter argument from RS. That in and of itself borders on being tendentious, because we edit according to reliably published statements.
If you read the Lears piece, for example, you'll find that my presentation of the gist of his statements is efficient and not presented in an impartial tone, as can be seen from Lears more scathing statements about Harris posted above, which I have not included.
@Xenophrenic: You'll note that I excluded the Sayeed sentence from the latest version, because it isn't necessary and there wasn't, not because it isn't RS. Are you trying to assert that Jackson Lears is a troll?
In the overtly and excessively self-serving self-published source from which you quote, I suggest you read a little further down the page for Harris' response (more accurately, lack thereof) to Lears, despite Harris being harangued by some of his followers.

So, the same response to Jackson Leer’s [sic] deconstruction of your work. What, precisely, was “too idiotic to merit a response?” It seemed like a very fair and factual attack on your work, although I must admit it’s been sometime [sic] since I read The End Of Faith.

There are no BLP violations, and you have falsely accused me of that again, despite my having asked you politely on numerous occasions to specifically identify any such violation. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed you stopped pushing the Sayeed stuff. Yay? Yes, the Harris blog I quoted from is self-published and serves himself and his readers — why would it be anything but? No, you did not quote Harris' response, and no, it was not to Lears - read it again, more carefully this time? Thanks for the note, but I do not see that you have made a point. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Above, you said "There is nothing that is UNDUE or violates NPOV, because all of the criticisms are well-sourced..." - No. "Well sourced" has nothing to do with UNDUE WEIGHT or NPOV. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What Xenophrenic said above is one of the many reoccurring problems we're seeing with Ubikwit's defense. RS does not trump NPOV and DUE, these polices and others work together to form a well-rounded encyclopedia. Notice how on the BLP/N thread even when JBH thought the Sayeed source met RS he opposed its inclusion because it would be UNDUE. Ubikwit's edits are far from well-rounded. From the very start of this discussion he said: "there is almost no coverage of Harris'critique of Islam that I've seen, except for negative." This was quickly proven to be untrue when Jweiss11 provided a positive critique of Harris within 24 hours of when Ubikwit made that statement. I then found an additional seven commentators who had endorsed Harris and it did not require a combing of the entire internet to cultivate these sources. In less than a minute I was just able to find another one from the Washington Post from just a month ago. As Florian Blaschke mentioned earlier, there are some who condemn Harris on some issues while support him on others. The edits we've over seen the past few days are devoid of any such nuance. Ubikwit has sought out the comments of those most fervently opposed to Harris and has pasted their most critical quotes into the BLP. The result is an unbalanced mess of an already bloated article which violates the policies previously mentioned. Harris has been criticized by some commentators from reliable sources but he has also received some support. It's our job to get this right and to tell the whole story, we do can this more succinctly and by complying with policy.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing I will give Ubikwit credit for is not reverting my additions of Harris supporter's comments, he actually encouraged me to post even more of them. I agree with Ubikwit that this would certainly solve the NPOV problem but it would give commentary on his views even more UNDUE weight. I don't recall ever seeing a BLP where any RS that ever commented on a figure had their comments included in an article.LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@LM2000: There is a difference between a simple statement to the effect that "his critics are trying to silence him" and a thoroughgoing analysis of the statements he is criticized for making. Florian Blaschke provided a couple of links, some of which I've looked at, and the piece by Myers, for example, addresses some specific points. None of the pieces that JKweiss11 posted do so; they are responses of supporters, nothing more (nothing less). When I post statements from academics analyzing specific statements and stances Harris has adopted in his published writings, those require specific responses, not cheerleader generalizations to the effect that "you can't silence our friend, one of the few true liberals, by criticizing him". There is a high-level debate about Harris' work, and that needs to be reflected in this article, which is very promotional and includes far too many vacuous statements (bloat) and primary sources.
I'm not trying to silence you, Harris, or any of his supporters, just to make sure that the Wikipedia article accurately presents the state of affairs in public discourse about his popular writings related to history, religion, politics, morality. Neuroscience, the only field he has been published in peer-reviewed publications, receives scant coverage in the article because Harris is, as Lears states, a "prolific pundit on websites...and the author of three popular books".
While you acknowledge that there was nothing wrong with the Sayeed quote aside from the probability of UNDUE, others seem to want to attack Sayeed on different grounds.
@LM2000: Aside from the fact that this is a non-neutrally worded RfC and that all of those alleging BLP violations refuse to raise such issues at the relevant notice board, reverting content out of the article because you don't like it is not editing in a neutral manner. Almost every version I add includes compromise text and improved sourcing. No one arguing to keep criticism out of the article has produced RS supporting their editorial bias against the academic sources, for example.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Then let's discuss. First, what is it that you think needs to be discussed? Is this the proper forum/thread?
You have just engaged in a revert without contributing a single byte of content to this article as far as I can tell, and you have reverted out material sourced to scholarly RS.
Let me put that another way, none of the editors reverting the RS out of the article have been discussing or editing in good faith here, because they are attempting to ignore or denigrate high-quality sources because they don't like what the sources say.
Refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You know the drill—AGF; respond to issues raised; establish consensus before repeating contested edits; there is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Might you or someone kindly close the prior RfC? No one has demurred on what appears to be the result there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"What is the relation to your assertion about primary sources to the material in the Political section" I was referring specifically to the paragraphs which only use material cited to Harris.
" the "lazy" quote you mention comes from a peer-reviewed book that supports professor Lears statements" I didn't comment on the book, I was commenting on the style of paraphrasing the conclusion while providing none of the reasoning why they came to that statement. If you want to include material, you need to have something other than just pretty harsh conclusions but without any context for the reader. It would be like a statement in a pseudoscience article that something is bullshit, without actually showing why it is bullshit; it adds nothing of substance. It perhaps has its place, but it should be seen in the article to be justified by the facts. I haven't read the book, but the summary is not good if there are specific claims they make. Further, what is your evidence that the book is in any way peer reviewed? From flicking through it, this is not an academic book. It's not for an academic audience and it's also written by a priest. That he's a priest rebutting is also a basic fact which should be pointed out and from a skim, the book appears to be more confusing ignorance of history with denial of history. The book is also uncited. These are some basic red flags with the source.
"Incidentally, self proclaimed was picked up from the source". That sounds like you are getting dangerously close to the sources in terms of paraphrasing. We use an neutral tone on wikipedia, even if the sources don't. Second Quantization (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Second Quantization: Fair enough, I don't argue that the text can't be improved. The book is a peer-reviewed monograph[3], and the fact that the author is some sort of Episcopalian lay priest does not appear to be relevant; he's a career academic in the field of history with a focus on religion. The book has only been out for a couple of months, so it's not unusual that there aren't any cites yet. I did expand the statement by adding the following material after your suggestion.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists. Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

and then states that

…his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.

I don't know whether you've read the Lears piece, but here are a couple more quotes for added context.

Though they often softened their claims with Christian rhetoric, positivists assumed that science was also the only sure guide to morality, and the only firm basis for civilization. As their critics began to realize, positivists had abandoned the provisionality of science’s experimental outlook by transforming science from a method into a metaphysic, a source of absolute certainty.
Sociologists of knowledge, along with historians and philosophers of science (including Karl Mannheim, Peter Berger and Thomas Kuhn), all emphasized the provisionality of scientific truth, its dependence on a shifting expert consensus that could change or even dissolve outright in light of new evidence. Reality—or at least our apprehension of it—could be said to be socially constructed. This meant that our understanding of the physical world is contingent on the very things—the methods of measurement, the interests of the observer—required to apprehend it.
His books display a stunning ignorance of history, including the history of science. For a man supposedly committed to the rational defense of science, Harris is remarkably casual about putting a thumb on the scale in his arguments.
Harris endorses Huntington’s argument uncritically, with characteristic indifference to historical evidence: “One need only read the Koran to know” he tells us, that Huntington was right.

I haven't read Painters book, so I don't have further details, but the gist is clear, especially in light of the opening quote and statement from the Intro. And he quotes from the Lears piece in a manner that clarifies that gist.
Regarding the characterization of "self-professed", there are conflicting statements in RS regarding Harris' political disposition and "liberalness". I pointed out a contradiction (Harris is a "true liberal", but his "critics are "liberal critics") in the "supports" paragraph in the On Islam" section, and then there is the fact that two sources describe Harris as having neoconservative (right-wing) views on the Middle East. It seems to me that the primary source LA Times interview would be unduly self-serving if used w/o countervailing POV from secondary source.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:51, 22 February; 14:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
While I'm at it, here is the context of the Beattie statement, which is made with two specific passages cited from Harris' books.

Hitchens and Harris really do represent an attitude as extreme as any to be found among the most militant Islamic or Christian religionists. Harris stands out as someone who makes no attempt at all to mask his contempt, not only for radical Islamism but for Muslims in general, and who is willing to justify any violence, however extreme, to fight the threat which he thinks they represent. For Harris, Muslims represent a world-view which is opposed to modern ideas of progress and reason, and which leads them to unite against America. According to Harris,

This negative evaluation of Islam leads Harris to conclude that the killing must continue, even if it means ‘an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.’31 This blood-letting includes torture and the bombing of women and children, for ‘Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary.’ A little later in his book, he writes:

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The book is a peer-reviewed monograph. It's not. As I said, I skimmed over it. It certainly isn't a monograph and doesn't pretend it is. It's clearly aimed at a popular audience. Also, it is clearly relevant that he's a priest, after all he states it in the very first sentence of the book. If it wasn't relevant he wouldn't be saying it. Further, as I said, the book is still uncited and just released. You aren't finding a well established book and using it in the article, you are finding a new book that agrees with your angle (and has a nice controversial title) and wish to include it. Second Quantization (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand the term monograph?

A monograph is a specialist work of writing on a single subject or an aspect of a subject, usually by a single author.

Are you insinuating that I have to call Palgrave Macmillan to confirm that the book is a perr-reviewed monograph because of your assertion that, "It's clearly aimed at a popular audience"?
Remember, competence is required to edit Wikipedia.
You have now blatantly attempted to denigrate a source without a basis in policy simply because you disagree with what it says.
From the copyright page of the book

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.[4]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:14, 14:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
"Remember, competence is required to edit Wikipedia.", oh? Clearly not, as I see you are still here. I've been editing here longer than you, and more than you and in the most controversial articles around so don't try to give me that sort of patronising crap about competence. You are intentionally and deliberately misconstruing the very basic thing I am saying. No one is saying Palgrave is not an academic imprint. Your inability to read what I am saying is part of your incompetence. You read what I say, then you say something that does not follow at all from what I have said. OUP is also an academic imprint, that doesn't mean the Selfish Gene is not a book for a popular audience. Are you unable to see that? It is exactly the same thing here. Second Quantization (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
'''WP:NPA'''--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You insinuated that I'm incompetent because I think you are misusing a source. Then you try to cite NPA. That's a bit rich. No, being passive aggressive doesn't mean you can suddenly take the high road when someone calls you up on it. Second Quantization (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the ad hominum, you simply keep asserting things that are not based on facts. Comparing an book like the Selfish Gene to Painter's book is simply off the wall. One addresses a very broad topic of interest to everyone, the other addresses a somewhat recondite topic about an ideological sub-group of the New Atheists who are scientists attacking religion with what has been called secularist fundamentalism. I haven't read the book yet(and neither have you, even assuming you could understand it), so I can't refute your assertion with specific quotes in context, but the attempt to dismiss that book in any way by claiming it is targeted at a popular audience--after finally admitting that it is a peer-reviewed monograph---is preposterous. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Eh? Why is it off the wall to compare a book like the selfish gene to Painter's book? "Aside from the ad hominum, you ..." followed by "even assuming you could understand it", what was that about ad hominems? All of your arguments to me are to try and attack me personally. It's a book for a popular audience, not arcane wizardry. "after finally admitting that it is a peer-reviewed monograph" Eh? Where did I'm curious to see where I "admitted" it was a peer reviewed monograph. I still maintain that it clearly isn't an academic book from skimming it, it's for a popular audience. I also am no concerned about the claims you make about it being peer reviewed given the work Xeno did to check. Maybe stop blabbing at me and read some of the thing before asserting what it is. It's obvious from a few pages that it's in an informal style. Second Quantization (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resemblance to Ben Stiller?

The statement "Harris bears a noted resemblance to comedian Ben Stiller." is frivolous, subjective and irrelevant. I am deleting it, despite the citations. Mal7798 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree; not encyclopedic. WP:NOTBLOG, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree, it's sourced but there's not much encyclopedic value in it.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought I already deleted it.... Well good job then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YshuDS (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC) YshuDS (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems pretty trivial to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move 16 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

– Clear primary topic, and in any case, more academic than any of the others by the same name. He's one of the Four Horsemen, so he's up there with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. The original move proposal that resulted in the current title was informally discussed back in 2006. Maybe Harris was a little less notable back then (he has since published five more books), so I excuse any ignorance, but today it is unambiguous which Harris "Sam Harris" refers to. Page views: 111,918; singer, 4830; athlete, 1240; producer, 947; footballer, 433. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support; as a participant in the great debate of our time, the author has the greatest long-term significance. bd2412 T 16:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I went to WP:RM to request the move, but it appears that the request was already made. The discussion in 2006 didn't establish a primary article (or that there shouldn't be one), it was just a brief few comments about how to create a disambiguation page. Google hits and pageviews both significantly support this as the primary topic. Thanks for bringing it up!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Support per google results - ~100,000 to ~5,000 would justify moving this to the primary topic. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Muslim Reformers"

The term "Muslim Reformer" is pov and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. It's not used by reputable news organizations( I can find it in opinion pages). The prominence of the term comes from a theory discussing a separation between between so-called moderate Muslims and so-called reformist Muslims. The theory itself is not widely accepted and highly controversial, and as such, should not be represented in Wikipedia's language.

Further, the debate over the term is also one Mr. Harris is involved in. So using it in an article about him is going into dangerous territory.


@ Second Quantitization: I deleted the source because it was only relevant to the words Muslim reformers(it referenced Asra Qumani, who is not an atheist). I put it back in since deleting a source requires a high bar and you objected. Would you mind letting me know why you believe it is necessary, otherwise I would like to re-delete it?

YshuDS (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


@ VictoriaGrayson. Sorry it took me so long to write out the response. I hope you find my response satisfactory so I can complete the edit. YshuDS (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Hi Jess, I see your point. Perhaps a cropped image would better show his facial features? I don't really like that the current image is black and white (and a bit dated). Sizeofint (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this crop ok?-- Callinus (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I just added a different one but this one looks good too. The original version on that picture has a white pixel in Harris's eye which you can see if you zoom in which is mildly annoying. Sizeofint (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Also I screwed up with the Flickr importer and didn't change the names. If anyone has the ability to mass-rename files on Commons that would be cool. All the pictures are in the same category. Sizeofint (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I like the old one better aesthetically, but your crop addresses the only more-or-less objective issue I had with the change, so I won't object to swapping it out. Thanks for putting the time into cropping it! :) See you around!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sam Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_7&oldid=1127487496"