Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Philosopher, yet again

I know this has been brought up before, but I really don't think it's appropriate to call Harris a philosopher on this page - it's misleading as to what his actual output is. His formal qualifications in the field are limited to a BA, and out of his book-length works the only one which remotely approaches being a philosophical text is The Moral Landscape. Even within that, there's a now-notorious footnote which explains that he deliberately avoids discussing philosophy because it's "boring".

He's written a few other pieces on things like lying and free will, but they're extremely short and have had no impact in the field whatsoever - I think they're more properly considered opinion pieces rather than philosophical texts per se. He goes on podcasts and discusses things to do with ethics, which leaves us where, exactly? Does everybody who writes short treatises (which get poorly-reviewed by established figures) and appears on podcasts get to qualify as a philosopher now?

I'll just finish by adding that Harris himself doesn't refer to himself as a philosopher on his twitter page. It just says "Author. Neuroscientist." There's nothing wrong with that - so can we remove the bit in the introduction that implies he's a professional philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.55.86 (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been two weeks and there were no objections, I've removed the part of the introduction and the occupation which refer to Harris as a philosopher. If people have significant objections to this subsequent to the removal, might I suggest that we include a separate section on the page such as we have for "Views", "Organisational Affiliations" and "Neuroscience" that is titled "Philosophy" and which deals with his contributions and their reception amongst academic philosophers?

You are correct: "this has been brought up before". Perhaps that is why you received no agreement or objection, or any comment whatsoever, when you raised the issue again. (Besides, I think subsequent reverts of the attempts to purge references to philosophy from the page qualify as "objection".) I've reviewed your comments, and here is how I would summarize them (please correct me if I have misinterpreted):

• You agree that Harris is educated and degreed in Philosophy; just not advanced enough to your personal liking
• You agree that Harris is published in the field, including "book-length works"; just not enough "output" to meet your personal satisfaction
• You agree that Harris writes, lectures and appears on podcast discussions on philosophical topics; then you wonder out loud what "podcasts" have to do with qualifying as a philosopher (huh?!?)
• You cite the 2-word profile on the Harris twitter page which doesn't mention philosophy as somehow relevant, while failing to note that he has self-identified as a philosopher elsewhere (Twitter? Seriously?)
• You make a vague reference to a "now-notorious footnote" quote which does not exist as somehow relevant; (The actual quote you are looking for, in which he never says he is not a philosopheror or says philosophy is "boring", is: "I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics’, ‘deontology’, ‘noncognitivism’, ‘antirealism’, ‘emotivism’, etc., directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe. My goal, both in speaking at conferences like TED and in writing this book, is to start a conversation that a wider audience can engage with and find helpful. Few things would make this goal harder to achieve than for me to speak and write like an academic philosopher."

There are a great many reliable sources which describe Harris as a philosopher, which is why the description is in our Wikipedia article, and I see nothing in your above comments which refute the reliable sources. As for your suggestion to add a "Philosophy" subsection to our article, I don't immediately see anything wrong with that suggestion on its face, but I also haven't given it a lot of thought. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need for such a combative tone - my point was that unless there is a section written on the article which can detail his contributions in philosophy, it should not be listed as his profession. It's a standard which would be upheld for just about anyone else's wiki page, so I don't see why there should be an exception made for Harris. I get the impression, however, that fans of Harris want him to be called a philosopher because of the prestige that comes with it.

• You agree that Harris is educated and degreed in Philosophy; just not advanced enough to your personal liking

- It's not about personal liking, it's about what standards are used to evaluate whether someone is a member of a given profession. Chris Martin from Coldplay has a degree in history and he is not listed as a historian on his Wikipedia page.

• You agree that Harris is published in the field, including "book-length works"; just not enough "output" to meet your personal satisfaction

- Not personal satisfaction, consistency. Christopher Hitchens had far more output relating to historical matters (including a book-length biography of Thomas Jefferson) and his wikipedia page does not list him as a historian - because he is not.

• You agree that Harris writes, lectures and appears on podcast discussions on philosophical topics; then you wonder out loud what "podcasts" have to do with qualifying as a philosopher (huh?!?)

- Yeah that's right - I regard significant output within a profession as grounds for whether or not someone is a member of it. Richard Dawkins has written an awful lot about religion and biblical scripture, is invited for lectures and does podcasts, yet is not listed as a theologian, because his output is not evaluated within that field (or when it is, it is rejected as being hugely ill-informed). If Ann Coulter gives a lecture on abortion, does that make her an ethicist?

• You cite the 2-word profile on the Harris twitter page which doesn't mention philosophy as somehow relevant, while failing to note that he has self-identified as a philosopher elsewhere (Twitter? Seriously?)

- Now you're just nitpicking. It was a demonstration that, if anything, he doesn't personally consider the label massively appropriate.

• You make a vague reference to a "now-notorious footnote" quote which does not exist as somehow relevant; (The actual quote you are looking for, in which he never says he is not a philosopheror or says philosophy is "boring", is: "I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics’, ‘deontology’, ‘noncognitivism’, ‘antirealism’, ‘emotivism’, etc., directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe. My goal, both in speaking at conferences like TED and in writing this book, is to start a conversation that a wider audience can engage with and find helpful. Few things would make this goal harder to achieve than for me to speak and write like an academic philosopher."

- That's the single most charitable interpretation of that footnote I think I've ever seen. How can you interpret him saying that consideration of academic philosophy would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe" as him saying that it isn't boring? The Moral Landscape is the only book-length work that could seriously be called a piece of philosophical output from Harris, and in it he says that he thinks it's boring and that he's going to make an effort to not sound like an academic philosopher. I think you have to do a fair amount of mental gymnastics there to think that he's positioning himself as someone deeply interested in philosophy and in identifying himself as a philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.225.127 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a great many reliable sources which describe Harris as a philosopher, which is why the description is in our Wikipedia article, and I see nothing in your above comments which refute the reliable sources. (Small sample of sources.) Moving on to your concerns about other articles, if there are numerous high-quality reliable sources which describe Chris Martin as a historian, we should certainly fix the article on him. Likewise with the Hitchens article. If there are numerous high-quality reliable sources which describe Dawkins as a theologian, we should fix the article on him. If there are numerous high-quality reliable sources which describe Coulter as an ethicist, we should fix the article on her. As for your Twitter logic, I see no mention of religion or Harris' atheism on his 2-word Twitter bio, so he doesn't personally consider those to be of interest either.

How can you interpret him saying that consideration of academic philosophy would...

Whoa. Stop. He doesn't say that; those are your words, not his. Please re-read the footnote, more carefully this time, and you'll see that at no time does he call academic philosophy boring. He is simply explaining how he avoids boring his target wider audience by not using technical jargon specific to the field.

he says that he thinks it's boring and that he's going to make an effort to not sound like an academic philosopher.

Again, no he did not. He says his goal is to not bore his target wider audience, and writing like an academic philosopher would make that goal hard to achieve. Talk about "mental gymnastics", your misrepresentation of what he wrote has completely fallen off the beam. (It is also extremely nonsensical to suggest that Harris gives talks and writes books about the philosophical concepts of human values or free will because he finds it boring.)

fans of Harris want him to be called a philosopher because of the prestige that comes with it

That is an interesting personal opinion. Equally interesting would be the corollary that detractors of Harris do not want him to be called a philosopher. Fortunately for us, Wikipedia conveys factual descriptions based on reliable sources, rather than fans and detractors. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris is not a philosopher.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

He also doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps we should make one for him/her? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some editors are arguing that reliable sources describe Harris as a philosopher. Can someone cite one non-editorial source from a reasonable website which describes him as such? His work is at best "pop-philosophy" not taken seriously by academics. It should be noted that writing a book on morality, regardless of how popular it may be, is not sufficient to be described as a philosopher. He is best described as a public intellectual. In general, only in extraordinary circumstances are individuals without doctorates in a certain field described as "-ists" or, in this case, "-ers" with respect to that field. SomePseudonym (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources describing him as such, as you'll see at the link already provided just above. Now in return, can you provide reliable sources which say "only in extraordinary circumstances are individuals without doctorates in a certain field described as "-ists" or, in this case, "-ers" with respect to that field"? Most philosophers have been "without doctorates". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Only two of those meet the conditions of being "non-editorial" and from "reasonable" sources, namely the BBC Radio and the Oxford source. This is unconvincing, particularly considering the plethora of sources which don't describe him as a philosopher. You're citing, for example, book reviews. Indeed, with such mendacious and obviously deliberate selectivity, one could find "reliable" sources describing Deepak Chopra as a philosopher. If you want to describe an individual as x in the lead sentence, is it really sufficient to dig up the odd source describing an individual as x? No, it is not; rather than belaboring over individual sources, you need to look at the issue more holistically. Regarding the last claim, I should have qualified my statement: most philosophers of the twentieth and twenty-first century are with doctorates. Of course, Aristotle never had one, for they did not exist during his time. This is a principal almost universally followed, which is why Ehud Barak, for example, is not described as a mathematician notwithstanding the fact he has a bachelor's degree in mathematics. The fact of the matter is simple: Sam Harris does not have a graduate degree in philosophy. His work has had zero impact in the field of philosophy; indeed, his books' theses have been dismissed by most academics. He has expressed disdain for serious philosophical work, describing it as "[increasing] the the amount of boredom in the universe" and has explicitly in the very same sentence disassociated himself from academic philosophers. What more do we need? SomePseudonym (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You asked for reliable sources; I pointed you to a short list, and you agree that (by no means exhaustive) list has reliable sources describing Harris as a philosopher. (By the way, your personal opinion that a couple sources in that list don't qualify because they are "editorials" by staff journalists at top tier news organizations, or "book reviews" by specialists in works of philosophy, or somehow not "reasonable" (Chronical of Higher Education?), is just your incorrect opinion; not factors in determining reliable sources.) In return, I've asked you to provide reliable sources to back up your assertion that one needs a doctorate to be described as a philosopher; you have decided not to, so I must consider that to be just more incorrect opinion. (Even after back-peddling your opinion to "most 21st century philosophers have a doctorate", you haven't made a case as to why the reliably sourced descriptions of Harris as a philosopher are in any way incorrect -- you have just given me your personal opinion.) Now I see you have doubled-down with the personal opinion ("... zero impact in the field of philosophy ... dismissed by most academics ...), which is not only unsubstantiated by you, but unpersuasive as well. Oh, and the tired "expressed disdain for serious philosophical work" meme has already been thoroughly debunked above, and at no time has Harris ever "disassociated himself from academic philosophers". I get it; I'm being trolled. Good show, you got me, my bad for not catching on sooner. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You did not in any way debunk the idea that he's expressed disdain for serious philosophical work - you just refused to take the very obvious meaning of him saying that using academic terms would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe" as showing disdain for academic philosophy. The jargon he makes reference to - deontology, consequentialism, whatnot are foundational concepts in philosophy. If someone wrote a book on genetics and said they would refuse to use terms such as "DNA" or "genes" because readers would get bored, it's not a great leap of logic to deduce that a) the author finds the topic boring / lacks understanding in it and b) has contempt for the field as demonstrated by refusing to engage in foundational concepts. The important thing, ultimately is context - it would in principle be fine for him to not use such terminology if his work nonetheless showed a consideration of the relevant serious academic work, but The Moral Landscape does not, and in fact seems to go out of its way to actively ignore actual philosophical discussion, lest it get in the way of Harris being able to write as he pleases. He later even admits as much himself when he says that whilst Aristotle might be relevant to the discussion, he deliberately doesn't include any consideration of his work because he doesn't want to become "beholden" to the "quirks" of his philosophy. If an active philosopher wrote a work which was a serious consideration of a philosophical issue which demonstrated an understanding of the literature, but included a footnote stating academic jargon was eschewed in order to make the work more accessible, then you'd have a point. Harris' work is not that - he makes a snark at academic philosophy, because he thinks his readers would find such a discussion boring, and then proceeds to engage in a discussion which shows no consideration of it whatsoever.

I, and the sources, disagree, but I thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

In a related fashion, to call someone a scientist, when they are not working in an academic or independent science facility, and have not pulbished a scientific article in years is the same thing as calling him a philosopher, when he does not publish in academic philosophy journals, nor is in any way associated with any department of philosophy. Harris could be best described as a promoter of science, not a scientist. Same way as Richard Dawkins, for that matter. These definitions mean something to the people who actually ARE scientists or philosophers by profession, and not just education. In fact, the most accurate description of Harris would really be Author/Journalist. He does neither science nor philosophy in any professional capacity, and I'm sure Harris himself would agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:178E:7D00:C930:2185:6D41:A958 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to call Harris a philosopher unless there is evidence that he is deemed to be such by a recognized work of reference dealing with philosophy, or evidence that he is recognized as a philosopher by the philosophical profession. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

He is recognized as a philosopher by reliable sources (including those dealing specifically with Philosophy), as previously shown. Our Wikipedia article conveys what reliable sources convey. I don't see where anyone has argued that he is a "Professional Philosopher" (eg; employed as one by academia), so I'm not sure where you are going with that argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors need to employ judgment when using sources, as previously pointed out to you. "Philosopher" is a specific term that shouldn't be used to describe just anyone. If someone has no recognition as a philosopher, then identifying them as one is wrong, as the term (presented without qualification) does imply professional philosopher. If you agree that Harris is not a professional philosopher, then would you want the article to call him an "amateur philosopher"? The article could be rewritten to include "amateur" to prevent confusion, but it would be best not to call him one at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

PS, in reply to your edit comment here, under WP:BRD, it is you who should have stopped reverting. The IP and I agree that Harris should not be called a philosopher; you should not have reverted us both. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please point out to me the reliable source(s) which describe Harris as an "amateur philosopher"? Please understand that Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources convey, not on our personal preferences. Of course we need to employ judgement when using sources; but that doesn't give us license to ignore numerous reliable sources in favor of our own unsourced personal opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to postscript: The long-standing, reliably sourced content in our article describes Harris as reliable sources do; as an author, philosopher, neuroscientist, atheist. With perennial regularity, editors have attempted to remove this particular description, always citing their own personal interpretations of what can or cannot be described as a philosopher, and always without citing equally weighty reliable sources explaining why he is not a philosopher. Those bold deletions of content invariably get reverted, per BRD, pending discussion resolution in favor of removing the reliably sourced content. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, ignoring the point I made. Describing someone as a "philosopher", without qualification, implies that he is a professional philosopher, which is not the case here. Without any qualification the description is misleading, and using sources to try to impose a misleading description is misusing those sources. I note that many of the sources used in previous debates - such as this article in the New York Times - are not works of reference dealing with philosophy, which would be the ideal sources to use; that particular source does not even call Harris a philosopher, rather it says, "Harris was a philosophy major at Stanford" - hardly the same thing. In any case, I don't believe it's true that Harris should be called a philosopher simply because you can find one or two sources that might describe him that way - is this what sources discussing Harris usually call him? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Describing someone as a "philosopher", without qualification, implies that he is a professional philosopher

No, it doesn't. I am curious as to what makes you say so. He is not an academic philosopher, but I don't see anyone suggesting that we describe him as such. He certainly writes and lectures on major philosophical topics. As for "just because you can find one or two sources..."; are you being serious? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does. The primary meaning of "philosopher" is that of a professional philosopher - someone who teaches philosophy, publishes in philosophical journals, and in particular, is recognized as a philosopher by others. Someone who does not meet those criteria would have to be judged an "amateur philosopher", as distinct from an actual philosopher. Calling Harris a philosopher, without qualification, is thus totally misleading and inappropriate, and I believe that sources have been misused to establish a false basis for the label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Harris's The Moral Landscape has been used as a text in philosophy courses at Portland State University taught by Peter Boghossian. See here and here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that someone must be a philosopher simply because a book he wrote is used as a text in a philosophy course. The important question is, does Harris have any professional standing or recognition as a philosopher? I suspect that the answer is no. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Wikipedia does not generally label "professional" or "amateur" in ledes, but Sam Harris is a professional philosopher: He is paid to espouse philosophy in public settings, and many notable people regard him as a philosopher. Your remarks about philosophers' needing to be in an academic setting are odd. Anyone can be a philosopher, so long as they know a thing or two about philosophy, just as people can be ice skaters, assuming they occasionally strap on ice skates and skate on an ice rink. If they were to be paid as an ice skater, they would be professional ice skaters. I hope this analogy hits its mark, but I am not the best with analogies. Fdssdf (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter what "many notable people" may think if they are not themselves philosophers. The only relevant issue is whether Harris is regarded as a professional philosopher by members of the philosophical profession. That Harris is paid for espousing something he calls philosophy in public settings is an irrelevance. Many people may be paid for espousing things that they call philosophy that recognized philosophers would not grant that title to. "Anyone can be a philosopher" may be a common idea, but that certainly doesn't make it true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia, why should professional philosophers, specifically and in preference to other notable figures and sources, get to define who is a philosopher. Do we do that with any other sort of profession or descriptor? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Professional philosophers get to define who is a philosopher because the alternative is to let any tom, dick, or harry who is able to get someone to call him a philosopher be labelled as such, which would destroy any credibility Wikipedia might have in discussing philosophy. It is important to remember that sources vary in terms of how reliable they are. You might be able to find a source such as a newspaper that would call Harris a philosopher, but for the purpose of determining who qualifies as a philosopher a newspaper is not as reliable as an encyclopedia or dictionary of philosophy. My view remains that Harris should be identified as a philosopher in his article only if a recognized work of reference on philosophy describes him as one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't quite answer my question. Do we let the residents of any other domain define who is a member? Is philosophy a special case, and, if so, why? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see that this page describes Harris as a philosopher. In the long discussion above I see nothing at all that justifies the claim. I feel that if an individual editor feels so strongly about it, despite all the opposition above, then they should be prepared to back it up with some of the following: A description of Harris's achievements in the field of philosophy. A list of his published articles in philosophy journals. Some evidence that his work is cited by philosophers (there should be a lot of this if he is really a philosopher.) Evidence that he has any standing among philosophers (reviews of his books by philosophers tend to agree that he is not all that well read in philosophy, and that he makes amateurish mistakes.) Evidence that he has ever held an academic post in the philosophy department of a university.

In my view, if Harris is a philosopher, then the word doesn't really mean anything. Any reference to his bachelor degree is way off the mark. Otherwise I am a philosopher and Colin Powell is a geologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfoxy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my view... --Bbfoxy

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for sharing your personal views. Wikipedia articles, however, convey what reliable sources say, rather than an editor's personal opinions. Reliable sources convey that Sam Harris is an author, philosopher and neuroscientist. (Ex. "... the American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris" Pg. 246; "Dawkins is a biologist, Dennett a philosopher, Harris a philosopher and neuroscientist, Hitchens a journalist and a cultural critic." Pg.255; The Oxford Handbook of Atheism; edited by Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse; Oxford University Press 2013). Your edit to the article has been reverted. If you'd like to discuss article improvements based on high quality, reliable sources (rather than personal point of view), that would be most welcome. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The cited source is not an authority on who is or is not a philosopher. As was argued above, the source should be a dictionary of philosophy, and not a throw away remark that has no supporting evidence. I feel the points I made above are valid and you have not responded to them. If you look at the wikipedia page listing 21st century philosophers, you will find that all of the listed philosophers' Wikipedia entries highlight that person's achievements in philosophy, academic positions held etc. If Sam Harris is a philosopher, then he is in a special category all on his own, reserved for philosophers who are unpublished in the field, have never held an academic position, and have no reputation as a philosopher. Bbfoxy (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)90.200.83.123 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other high quality sources that describe Harris as a philosopher? The present source may be presenting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint which may not represent the consensus of the philosophical community. Sizeofint (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just scan read the article in question. Although the author Thomas Zenk (who is a bona fide academic with a background in philosophy)attaches the word 'philosopher' to Harris on two occasions, there is nothing more about it in the article. The article isn't even about philosophy, it is about the rise of so called 'New Atheism". There is no discussion of any work by Harris that could be described as philosophy. The bibliography has two Harris entries: 'The End of Faith...' 2004, and 'The problem with atheism' 2007. Neither of these are philosophical works. There is no realistic possibility that the author intends his article to be evidence that Harris is a philosopher. The citing of this article as evidence that Harris is a philosopher is extremely misleading. I must reiterate that if an individual editor wished to assert that Harris is a philosopher, then they should write a section focusing on the areas I have highlighted above. Bbfoxy (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bbfoxy: Please stop removing reliably sourced information from the article, especially while discussion about your concerns is ongoing. Thanks. You should review WP:BRD. Reliable sources describe Sam Harris as a philosopher, and you've provided zero reliable sources which contradict that.

the source should be a dictionary of philosophy

You are welcome to your opinion, but Wikipedia has policies which say otherwise. According to Wikipedia policy, the content must be attributed to a reliable, published source, not a "dictionary of philosophy". If you have concerns about any reliable sources, you need to raise your concerns at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

@Sizeofint: Which "present source" are you talking about, and which "philosophical community" determines what an online encyclopedia can convey regarding philosophical subjects? Sources, please.

any other high quality sources that describe Harris as a philosopher?

Plenty of other sources. There was also an RfC on this matter in which other sources were discussed. I would be very interested in knowing why you suggest that a peer-reviewed academic resource published by Oxford University Press and edited by philosopher Michael Ruse would be a "fringe viewpoint".

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you answered my question. I just want to make sure we're not stating this based off a single source. More in general, I was inquiring about the possibility that a small handful of reliable sources consider Harris a philosopher but the majority of reliable sources do not do not. Sizeofint (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was inquiring about the possibility...

I only work with what reliable sources convey, not possibilities. If you'd like to propose specific edits based on specific reliable sources, we can discuss that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing an edit. I was asking you what the sources say. You answered my question. Sizeofint (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK Xenophrenic I'm not going to edit war; I want to find consensus. I have a lot to say on this issue but will take it one step at a time. I have reviewed all of the sources you have cited. I wonder, do you genuinely feel they are all good sources, or would you like to narrow it down? I'll give you one for free, in the sense that I think The Oxford Companion to Atheism is the best. Would you drop all the others if I concede that this one at least deserves serious consideration? (I'm referring to the RFC you conducted two years ago). :)2.127.209.3 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Bbfoxy (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't recognize the source by that exact name, sorry. I also didn't conduct an RfC (although I have participated in some). If you'd like to propose specific edits based on specific reliable sources, we can discuss that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the Bbfoxy is referring to this Sizeofint (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - yes I meant The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Xenophrenic Thank you for setting the agenda - I am trying to discuss a specific edit. My question stands.Bbfoxy (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the lack of engagement with the points I have made above, I propose that we remove the description of Harris as a philosopher.

There is a strong convention in Wikipedia articles about philosophers to describe the contributions they have made to the canon of philosophy, and with most, to note the academic posts held. No attempt at this has been made in the case of Sam Harris, and the reason for this is obvious.

The source of information that describes Harris as a philosopher does so in nothing more than a passing remark. It does not discuss any philosophical work by Harris, and does not make an argument that Harris is a philosopher. The essay isn't even about philosophy. This essay is clearly not a suitable primary source for the assertion that Harris is a philosopher.

The reason there aren't any similar sources stating 'Harris is not a philosopher' is because nobody is seriously asserting that he is one, so why would there be? I plan to make the edit in few days. If there are people who are interested in this issue I'm very enthusiastic to discuss it further. I hope to make this page a bit less like a PR exercise for Sam Harris and a bit more informative.Bbfoxy (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would stick unless you get a consensus here. Obviously Harris isn't a Bertrand Russel or Ludwig Wittgenstein, but it is hard for me to say Harris is not a philosopher given the number people who describe him as such. To the lay understanding, and by any reasonable definition of the word, Harris is a philosopher. Even people who disagree with his philosophy call him a philosopher [1]. It seems to me that Harris has about as much claim to the title "philosopher" as he does to the title "scientist". Sizeofint (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been no lack of engagement. This talk page is for discussion about article improvement, and editors have engaged every relevant point to that end. I appreciate that you may be "very enthusiastic to discuss" Harris and philosophy, but this isn't the place for it. Please observe at the top of this page where it says: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. There is a reason for that notice. As for removing reliably sourced information from the article, that form of disruption won't be any more acceptable "in a few days" than it is now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources describe him as a philosopher and there's a solid WP:CONSENSUS that this material should stay. This information should not be removed.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

SizeofintMy intention is to obtain consensus. The archived talk pages are full of people who think this article is poor, and that it reads like PR exercise. See below as an example.

If you can see a difference between Harris and, say, Wittgenstein, then why can't there be a distinction. The trouble with this article is that a person wanting to get a bit of information about Sam Harris could be mislead into believing that he really is a philosopher, rather than someone who has merely been described as a philosopher by a very small number of people.

You allude to people that disagree with Harris' philosophy, but still call him a philosopher. So that I can follow up on this, could you direct me towards Harris' body of original philosophical work that these people are disagreeing with? I can't find it.

Finally, I have tried to discuss the quality of the sources that have been used in the past. Could you tell me which ones are good enough to be a primary source? There are some very poor citations indeed, including for example, an advert for Harris' services as a speaker. I would also welcome your view on the fact that most of the citations appear to be after Harris was first described as a philosopher on Wikipedia. How do we know that Wikipedia was not the primary source?Bbfoxy (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Because drawing a hard line when the issue is a matter of degree is extremely difficult. It's like saying Einstein is a scientist therefore John Nobody, the research assistant of professor Noname at Podunk University, is not a scientist because his contributions to science are so much less. I'm not comfortable calling Harris a philosopher, but I'm also not comfortable not calling him a philosopher. I was referring to [2] and [3] which appear on the first page of the Google Scholar search I linked above. I think the average lay person considers Free Will and The Moral Landscape philosophical works, though with scientific bent. This article in The Humanist called Harris a philosopher before the article identified him as such here [4]. I didn't dig beyond that initial Google Scholar query; there may be better sources.

The issue is that you have a different standard for "philosopher" and "philosophy" than the writers of the sources the article cites. I am assuming what you want is to restrict the sourcing to philosophical journals, something akin to WP:SCIRS but for philosophy. I have no problem with this. If we can obtain consensus for this sourcing restriction then we can proceed. Otherwise under normal reliable sourcing standards we're SOL. Sizeofint (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism?

Isn't it kind of strange that there is nothing about criticism of Harris and his ideas on this page? I think even Harris himself would find this strange, since he without any doubt has been critcized by numerous people over the years. If you look at the article about Richard Dawkins there is criticism, why should Harris be any different? /ee2718 94.234.170.54 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you find some reliable sources you can add this content. Sizeofint (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of specific criticism already there in relevant sections rather than one big controversy section. For example, under "Criticism of Abrahamic religions" we describe criticism by Madeleine Bunting, Theodore Dalrymple, R. J. Eskow and Catherine Keller. In the "Islam" section, we go into criticism by Scott Atran, Jackson Lears, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Affleck. Other sections have pertinent criticism as well. It's best not to go too overboard with criticism per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:CSECTION.LM2000 (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This article looks amusingly like some fluff piece managed by Harriss's publisher. All you have to do is Google is 'criticism sam harriss' to find the such. 92.30.99.237 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a fluff piece, but not necessarily managed by Harris' publisher, rather by Harris' fan base.--Santasa99 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosopher of what ? How about section on criticism ?

He's no philosopher ! Argument goes: "there are lots of reliable sources where people call him philosopher" - (one of Wikipedia editors fights for this labeling). So, he is philosopher of what ?!? Also, no section on large amount of criticism against his specific works, activism and arguments.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are Wikipedia's foundation; without them, the project would crumble. If enough reliable sources label a person, then Wikipedia can attach that label within its article on the subject (assuming it's not crude or an unverifiable opinion). Ostensibly you disagree with the sources; however, you also seem to disagree with WP:RS — Why? As for your latter question: An explicit topic does not need to be provided for someone to be deemed a philosopher. General philosophy suffices. Fdssdf (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears you are drawing conclusion from tin air - I, actually, agree with WP:RS, I am insisting on it, which brings us to the question: is this our only source ? How about some secondary sources, some tertiary ?

It also appears that a small handful of reliable sources consider Harris a philosopher while the vast majority of reliable sources do not. There is the The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, one source included in Rfc at one point - some think it's of no consequence if this is a handbook on atheism as a field of study, and not on philosophy ? Do we have some published handbook of philosophy that include Harris ?

Why don't you include some of his works in "general philosophy" as references, because only they could suffices, and not someone's word.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

There are many news articles that label him a philosopher. If you're asking for us to limit our sourcing for this statement to scholarly sources you'd have to obtain a consensus for it. I don't have a problem with this limitation. What would you consider Free Will a work of if not philosophy? Sizeofint (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is a word for his books like Harris' Free Will, that word is pseudophilosophy.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is to say the small set of reliable sources that consider him a philosopher aren't a mistake that spun out of control?

Also, Harris doesn't identify himself as a philosopher on his website. The most he says is that he writes about moral philosophy (just like he writes on religion, spirituality, violence...). Does him writing for these topics make him a participant in these topics? BabyJonas (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that call his work pseudophilosophy? In his podcast he self-identifies as a philosopher. See around 58:00 here. Sizeofint (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, most reviews of his books by philosophers convey the sense that his work is inadequate qua philosophy (see the Nahmias review in the article, for instance). They won't go so far as to call it pseudophilosophy-- that's not a term bandied about very often these days. But the sense you get from these reviews is very much that he is an outsider looking in on philosophy, rather than a philosopher doing philosophy. Notably, the content of the reviews don't go into very much philosophical detail at all. And anyone who has read his work would say, neither do his books. So I would say all of this together implies that he is a non-philosopher trying his hand at philosophy. There are also other factors suggesting this: He, like tens of thousands of people today, has a B.A. in philosophy. I don't think that's enough to make him a philosopher (at least no more than the tens of thousands of psychology undergraduates in universities today count as psychologists). Finally, as expected of someone with just a B.A. in philosophy, he hasn't had a single publication in a philosophy journal either. So altogether, I don't know that he enters the field as a philosopher in any capacity, other than the pop-culture notion of "philosopher" BabyJonas (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a chance to listen to that portion of the podcast. Interesting stuff. He acknowledges that most professional philosophers wouldn't take seriously the idea that he is a philosopher. But he has his own unique take on the issue, which is that his whole approach to academics is philosophical, and he did his PhD in neuroscience with a philosophical interest, and he writes about, for instance, moral philosophy. And he personally doesn't put a lot of stock in credentials. What all this gives us is enough grounds to conclude that Harris thinks of himself as a philosopher, not that he is a philosopher. The article wouldn't assume Sam Harris' unique take on the issue, but report, as a neutral source, that Harris considers himself a philosopher, though he acknowledges that others don't. BabyJonas (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been a few prior discussions, including an RfC on this topic, which can be read in Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 3. I think this is WP:WEIGHT issue. There are some RS that describe him as a philosopher. Sources that don't share this view unfortunately won't usually say explicitly Harris is not a philosopher but simply say silent on the matter. The meaning of this silence is ambiguous so the sources willing to call Harris a philosopher end up with more weight (possibly more than they should). I think our best bet for resolving this perennial dispute is to limit sourcing for this claim to recent (~last five years) academic/professional philosophy sources - a kind of SCIRS but for philosophy. Sizeofint (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Which sources state that Harris is not a philosopher? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

His own podcast, for one. It acknowledges that according to most people, ie most philosophers, he isn't a philosopher. But in his view, he is a philosopher, because he takes a very broad definition of philosopher that doesn't take into account degree and academic training. BabyJonas (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

BabyJonas, there are many more sources that call Harris a philosopher than those that explicitly say he isn't. I am not sure what you referred to about his podcast and what people think of him. Perhaps you could provide this source. Regardless, this topic has been beaten and beaten, and how it isn't dead yet is beyond my comprehension. Fdssdf (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the podcast I linked above. Sizeofint (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, it seems like we've reached something of a tentative consensus here: That Sam Harris, in his own words, considers himself a philosopher, while acknowledging that actual philosophers would not. Is this a fair summary of what the article has to convey about his status as a philosopher? BabyJonas (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am uncertain what this declaration of a "consensus" would lead to. Do you think Harris's opinion on whether he is a philosopher or what he thinks other philosophers think about him belong in the article? That would be a curious addition, if so, because the project includes several secondary sources about his philosophy. It doesn't need his opinion about himself. Fdssdf (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It is rather awkward for Harris to be described as a "philosopher" but for the next paragraph to then leave the impression that he has made mere "forays into philosophy" that several people have criticized as "being unsatisfactory." If one makes mere forays into a field, then they aren't a professional in the field, and a lead section need not devote such attention to their efforts. One could also argue that it gives the paragraph an anti-Harris bias. Why not simply delete "philosopher" and move the "forays" sentence to a later section? AndrewOne (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Because there are reliable sources that call him a philosopher. Sizeofint (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The question of whether he is a philosopher is complicated, and leads to inevitable awkwardness. He asserts he is a philosopher (in his opinion). For everybody else, his training amounts to an undergraduate degree in philosophy, his academic contribution to the field is non-existent, and philosophers generally don't take the philosophical content of his popular level work seriously either. However, like Sizeofint says, there are reliable sources that call him a philosopher. On what basis, it's not clear.

I'm concerned that uncritically accepting only the sources that call him a philosopher, without reflecting the caveats, is deceptive to the reader, so there must be a way to reflect the idiosyncrasy of his label as a philosopher.

If there are concerns that the relevant passage reflects anti-Harris bias, maybe we can hash out an alternative way to reflect the fact that his status as a philosopher is unconventional and controversial. BabyJonas (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Before any discussion of whether he qualifies as a philosopher or not continues, please stop adding WP:BIASED sources (originally removed here) being used in order to characterise the subject of a WP:BLP. Repeatedly adding a larger array of biased sources does not make it less of a WP:BLPVIO. If there are scholars or journalists of note criticising him, they should be noted WP:INTEXT. So far, all I've seen is Alternet and Salon (or a combo of both of them reproducing each other) written by remarkably non-notable journalists. As for the tacked on sentence, "Philosophers Philip Kitcher, Eddy Nahmias, Michael Ruse, and others have criticized his forays into philosophy as being unsatisfactory."... where is the page number for Philip Kitcher's "Preludes to Pragmatism"?... plus why is the fact that Ruse has his own religious axe to grind ignored? Please don't create terrible WP:SYNTH in order to make a point. The fact is that, in the world of academia, scholars are forever criticising other scholars for lack of this; ignoring this; unsatisfactory addressing of point X (or overlooking it altogether); ad nauseam. This is at its most prominent the further one moves away from the empirical sciences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I suspect the Kitcher evaluation you're referring to is this. It's hardly a scathing criticism, nor does he discuss Harris as an individual philosopher, but as part of a group... oh, and, if you want to invoke that as a source, you will have to accept that Kitcher recognises him as being a 'philosopher' to all intents and purposes. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi Iryna Harpy. You seem to be making two charges: journalistic non-notability, and biased sources. A few comments on non-notability: (a) All journalists are, at some point, non-notable. Their opinions are nevertheless equally qualified on Wikipedia. (b) Glenn Greenwald non-notable? Really? (c) Wikipedia nowhere affirms that only notable journalists are worthy sources.

What about bias? You charge a host of outlets with bias: from Alternet to Salon to the Guardian to Jacobin, but (d) you have provided no reasons or evidence to support this charge. (e) These sources share Harris' overall social and political space; Alternet, Salon, and Jacobin are widely considered left-leaning, and sympathetic to Harris' pro-secularist views. The same is said of the Guardian. (f) Even if they were biased, WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV says they can still be used as reliable sources.

With regards to the philosophers, both Ruse and Kitcher are very notable philosophers of science. Ruse is probably the most eminent philosopher of biology alive today. Nahmias is less renowned overall, but moreso within the x-phi subcommunity for his experimental work on free will. It's also worth pointing out that Kitcher and Ruse are open critics of theism, and neither believe in God. I'm less familiar with Nahmias' views on God. So there is very little basis to call them non-notable or biased.

In sum, then, you haven't given us any reason to believe the sources are biased. There are reasons to think the sources actually favor Harris' overall views. Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't hold to your standard for non-notable journalists. So the issue is: Can you provide any adequate justification for wiping the entire passage out? I want to give you a chance to reformulate your objections in light of the problems I've raised here. Thanks for engaging. BabyJonas (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

On the two issues being discussed, Iryna Harpy stole my thunder and said most of what I was going to say. The "philosopher" descriptor issue is a non-issue; high-quality reliable sources consistently describe him as such, and that's why his Wikipedia article does as well. That his positions have been "criticized", or that some find them "unsatisfactory", or that some note he isn't a professional academic philosopher employed by an educational institution -- none of that refutes the reliably sourced description. On the "Islamophobia" characterization in the personal opinion of a couple of folks, that is already mentioned in the body of the article, and in no way qualifies as an important, defining characteristic of the subject's notability - as is required of any information highlighted in the lead. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that even mentioning that outlier personal opinion in the body of the article is undue. As a side note regarding sources, further discussion of the quality or acceptability of proposed sources should probably be handled at WP:RSN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Identification as Jewish

User:Xenophrenic, by that standard we should remove all ethnic/religious/national categories from nearly all the articles about people as non of them is "relevant to their public life or notability". oh well, if you decided to be petty, drop the categories, but the rest is completely inline with Wikipedia's guidelines and the sources obviously indicates he's a Jew no less by the words I'm a Jew or as a Jew. You also seem to agree with this from your last edit summary (the was changed from the previous about the identification), but i got the feeling this is most likely going to arbitration. Infantom (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

we should remove all ethnic/religious/national categories...

The Wikipedia community has already agreed with you, deciding that when it comes to Infobox fields and Categories, we are to remove ethnic and remove religious identifies. They are just controversy magnets, and are more trouble than they are worth. As for adding content to the body of the article, the rules are a little less strict, but there is still potential for confusion with the multi-meaning "Jew" description. That should be made very clear if it is to be added to the article. (And what's with the talk about "arbitration" after having an edit reverted? You won't see me there.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the most relevant policy is WP:CAT/GRS which states

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. In other words, avoiding to categorize by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories.

Is being Jewish a defining characteristic of Sam Harris? Sizeofint (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is being jiu-jitsu practitioner is a defining characteristic of Sam Harris? or having a Quaker father, for that matter? Not to mention categories in other articles. Harris obviously identifies as Jewish, and it seems to me a very relevant detail in his biography. Xenophrenic, the article is clear he's an atheist, so it would be very clear that he's an Atheist Jew. Given the sources that support my assertion, what else is needed? Infantom (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand WP:CATGRS, which instructs us to handle categorization of living people in the 5 sensitive areas of (gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion) with additional care, and with additional restrictions. No, "jiu-jitsu practitioner" is not a defining characteristic of the subject, but it also isn't one of the 5 category types that require it to be. Hopefully that is clearer. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated addition

This is poorly sourced and seems trivial and spammish to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did thanks (after posting the last queries). I understand why one may class it as 'trivial' and 'spamish' but I believe the contribution helps to elaborate on his character, interests and philosophies. Additionally, the positive message, raising of awareness, and tangible effects on people's behaviour of Effective Altruism and Sam's pledges, seem relevant and important. Also, by linking in Effective altruism, GiveWell etc. it can help inform people of their existence in trying to improve the world, like in my opinion, Wikipedia does (e.g. I started to donate to Wikipedia once I knew it needed it to exist). 'Poorly sourced'? Should it have specific timings of the podcast or a transcript? --Matt Wegs (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The way the addition is worded, with its efforts to "raise awareness" including appeals to GiveWell and talk of pledges, is somewhat spammish and inappropriate. But to otherwise dismiss this very penetrating discussion between Sam Harris and an Oxford professor of ethics (talking about his speciality) as "poorly sourced" and "trivial" does not seem quite right to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, the source is an interview and good interviewers make the subject seem like one of the most important things in the world. There are 44 podcasts currently in the playlist, many or most of them interviews. I'll bet you'll hear Harris being a proponent of some cause in many of them. We need a third party source to assess if this goes beyond a simple interview. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Per NeilN's observation, this comes down to an issue of no original research. We use reliable secondary sources for the purposes of analysis. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and, as such, editors do not engage in advocacy or journalism, rather we make decisions as to what content from reliable sources on the subject of any article is important in context while putting aside our personal opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia addition

Pattypious22, please discuss why you think your addition improves the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It is quite relevant, is it not? Given that a large number of people identify his work as Islamophobic.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattypious22 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You are restoring content already discussed here as being unreliable sources citing each other. Of contemporary relevance, there are a large number of people identifying Trump and Clinton as a lot of things I wouldn't want to reproduce here, but it does not make it 'relevant'. The only outstanding feature of this 'relevant' information is that it is WP:UNDUE (as well as a WP:BLPVIO). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is rife with (probably too much) criticism already. Including commentary by the subject's fiercest critics in the lede is inappropriate per WP:LEAD.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Harris's forays into "philosophy" and "religion"

Why not acknowledge the vast amount of criticism from experts in the field regarding Harris, who calls himself a philosopher and authority on religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattypious22 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This has already been thoroughly discussed a couple of sections up. Please read the talk pages (and archived talk) of articles you wish to edit to ensure that you are not simply resurrecting issues already dealt with. Given that the discussion continued until the end of August, and that no new sources have been brought to the table, it's highly unlikely that editors have changed their minds. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

3RR violation

Pattypious22, you have violated the three revert rule, as visible from the article's revision history (see especially here, here, here, here, and here). Please do not continue this behavior, or you could be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed discussions on the talk page; and there seems to be a concerted effort to silence any criticism on Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattypious22 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. You are more than welcome to write your own blog, or to post to a forum if you wish to criticise Harris. What you are not welcome to do is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Rather than bringing your personal point of view to the talk page, bring genuinely reliable sources here for evaluation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Islam Section

I made a few changes to this section and removed what I considered to be the most unbalanced and ungrounded criticisms, which I described in the POV section. I did my best to preserve the flow and style of the paragraph. If there are any problems with the edit or if you have any ideas on how this section and the article as a whole can be improved, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I undid a reversion of the changes I made to this section, which consisted mostly of deleting particularly misleading criticisms not representative of Harris' views. I'm happy to discuss these changes but please do not simply revert them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I had to undo a reversion of my edits again. Again, I'm happy to discuss the deletions and hear the reasons why (User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator) would like these criticisms included, but I believe the onus is on the person wishing to include the questionable criticism. See biography of living persons policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We probably don't need this separate section since it is pertinent to the one above. As I said there, I agree with these changes.LM2000 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'll be sure include any changes/discussions in POV section from now on. If anyone thinks this section should be archived/closed, I'm fine with that.Mylescoen12 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Mylescoen12

Videos

None of the online videos of his appearances are mentioned or linked to. How should this be rectified? Perhaps some of the most viewed ones? Don't want to be promotional, but this feels like a glaring oversight.--Elvey^(t•c) 00:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are WP:Notable ones they can be discussed in the text. Some of the more important ones could also be added to the external links section, although we also don't want this to collect cruft. Sizeofint (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)