Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 2

message: The common misuse of this word is mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid.  You might want to check it out.  I'm not sure what word or expression would be better to use here: "narrow-minded believer", "literalist", or what.  Steve Dufour 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Steve. The word is used three times so I'm sure we can change it if we must. The Wikipedia guideline states that "the word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists," and I can see the point of that. However, in this article the term is deployed in a general way which I would have thought would be acceptable. Laurence Boyce 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it is generally used is what WP is telling us to avoid.  But you are right that it is not pointing to any person or group specifically so no harm is really done.  Steve Dufour 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist

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

message: As I understand it, there is no such thing as an "undergraduate degree" or a "graduate degree." Rather, the correct terminology is that one studies for a degree while one is an undergraduate, eventually leading to a final examination, whereupon one graduates and becomes a graduate of whichever university. Laurence Boyce 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laurence, This might be a difference in U.S. versus British academic terminology.  In the States, an "undergraduate degree" is a Bachelors degree (B.A. or B.S.) while a "graduate degree" is a Masters (M.A. or M.S.) or a Doctorate (Ph.D.).  In England, as I understand it, students that have completed their standard studies are called post-graduate students, while in the States, they are referred to as graduate students.  So, at least in the U.S. there is a perfectly coherent thing as an undergraduate degree.  It's a bachelors degree.  One is then a graduate of a particular univeristy, but can also go on to do graduate studies, but not necessarily at the place that one is a graduate of... I'm an American academic currently working in London, and I am still trying to work this all out.  Edhubbard 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Don't we have any information on Harris' early life (family, ethnicity, birthplace, family's/parents religion [if any], etc.)?  Judging from the way he looks (among other factors), it's likely that Mr. Harris is ethnically Jewish (even though he obviously doesn't follow Judaism) because Harris is a very common last name amongst Jews. --172.161.156.48 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information we have regarding Harris's early life is very patchy. The reason is that Harris has security concerns for himself and his family, and so has released the bare minimum of information into the public domain. Rather than include such a patchy section, it is probably best to respect those concerns and just omit his background from the article altogether. Laurence Boyce 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If a person wishes to publish incendiary material under their own name in a public setting, then right or wrong, the security issue is their own problem. Insofar as Wikipedia is a reference work, its information must be as comprehensive as possible. Dicksonlaprade 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that logic, I should be able to post what information I find about user Dicksonlaprade on his profile page because he has in fact published things under his own name (wikipedia user page, blogger page, amazon reviews, et al). All of which provide fuel for further research into his personal life and history. But I gander Mr. Dickson-Laprade would not appreciate that, and that seems good enough reason for me not do it in this case... --Ikyork 03:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also if Harris is a Jewish name (I don't know enough about Jewish namesakes to know or not), logically it does not mean he's a Jew. It would mean his father was Jewish, or father's father was Jewish etc., being in Judaism you have to be born from a Jewish woman to actually be a Jew. Yada yada... --Ikyork 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP, people, BLP. We are not here to endanger living persons, or to dig up dirt. We're here to consolidate what is already on the public record in reliable, accessible sources. Metamagician3000 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be best of all to include a succinct, well-cited description of the "security concerns" Harris has for himself and his family?  Surely, statements of his explaining these concerns must be available in sources of sufficient reliability to satisfy WP:BLP.  Anville 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be best to draw as little attention as possible to the issue. Laurence Boyce 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are security concerns, obviously. The Salaman Rushdie [sic] effect was not totally distant from my imagination as I was writing the book, but at a certain point you just have to speak honestly about these things, and I've taken reasonable steps to ensure my security. [...] I don't make my whereabouts particularly well known and I have security whenever I do an event—bodyguards and other precautions that are probably best not publicized. [...] I've had some reasonably scary e-mails, but nothing that has risen to the level of a death threat. 
This interview is also linked from the bio page of Harris's own website.  Anville 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In the most recent issue of Newsweek, and reprinted online at msnbc.com is an extended story and debate (10 pages of debate and 6 pages of introduction and background) on the question of Religion: Is God Real?  The participants in the debate are Sam Harris, and Rick Warren author of A Purpose Driven Life.  Obviously, these two individuals are among the current voices of their respective groups.  
The story begins here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889147/site/newsweek/ and the abridged text of the discussion is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/.  I think that these are useful additions to the atheism page, because they show the contemporary state of the debate.  They are not necessarily authoritative, and clearly reflect the two participant's particular POVs, but they do reflect the ongoing, and rising, discussion of faith and atheism in the United States.  I have also copied this to Atheism talk page.  Thoughts?  Edhubbard 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. It looks good. Laurence Boyce 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add links to Newsweek/MNSBC story?

message: Please read the WorldNetDaily article and understand that for-profit websites with an admitted conservative bias that have had serious concerns about reliability brought up many times are not "reliable published sources", especially when it comes to criticisms about liberal/atheist authors. Keeping the contribution that cites WND is potentially libelous. VanTucky 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason why I can't add the previous criticism sourced from WorldNetDaily now that I've demonstrated that WorldNetDaily is a reputable published source cited by Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, The Boston Globe, Salon and The Huffington Post?  Also, is there any reason the criticism sourced from AlterNet should be retained, given that it is not as reliable a source as WND?  Is Sam Harris really a liberal anyhow?  The contribution can't be libelous, because the criticism can be and has been independently confirmed to be accurate. (7ubuntu 09:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WorldNetDaily, an admittedly biased news website, is not a reliable published source. The majority of the content is editorial in nature, and many "news" articles are simply used from other sources without independent verifcation. That is not reliable. VanTucky 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable published source, then I strongly suggest that the citations from AlterNet be removed.  WorldNetDaily is a much more reliable source than columnist Eric Alterman's site, as is indicated by the number of citations from the aforementioned media that cite WND. (7ubuntu 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorldNetDaily 

message: I've sprotected this because 7ubuntu, a new single-issue account, is adding poorly sourced criticism. 7ubuntu, if you want to add material, you must find an unambiguously reliable source. Please read WP:BLP, which is policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the article properly now, I'm concerned that it's unnecessarily effusive about the subject. We explain his views in detail without sources, but it's not clear that any reliable third-party has discussed his views to this extent. I'm minded to cut it right back so that any positive or negative material is properly sourced and in proportion. We are allowed to use Harris's self-published material in his BLP (e.g. a personal website), but we shouldn't go overboard with it. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the solution is to remove the content that simply describes his "world view", and stick to public-sphere topics directly from his published writing. Example: keep the general subjects like "conversational intolerance" (something direcy from his books) but remove most of "morality and ethics". Just because Harris is a notable author on atheism and philosophy of mind doesn't make his every opinion about morality and such notable. Effusive indeed. VanTucky 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harris's views on morality and ethics are absolutely central to his overall philosophy. Also, the phrase "conversational intolerance" does not derive from any of his books, but was rather a line he developed during the course of various media interviews. Neither would I describe Harris as an author on atheism; in fact the word "atheist" only appears once in The End of Faith, on page 68. Laurence Boyce 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I don't think the point is that the assertions about his world view are incorrect or unverified sufficiently. It's that giving so much room for his personal opinion (sometimes irrelevant to the topic for which he is notable for and which his books cover) is creating a systemic bias in favor of Harris. I qualify this by reminding you that I'm about as fervent an atheist as Harris himself, but this isn't a forum for simply laying down all of Harris' views on everything, even with subsequent criticism sections. But on a more important note: in editing several of the sections detailing Harris' views, I noticed that much of the wording looks and sounds (I've read the books) an awful lot like a direct quotation, and they weren't cited as such. Please be careful and look out for anything that even remotely looks like copy vio. Simply rewording it will suffice, but let's not get sloppy. VanTucky 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurence, I agree that this is one of the best resources for learning about Harris; in fact, it's probably the only one, and that is part of the problem. His views don't appear notable enough for us to spell them out in this much detail. If others have argued against them, and the views have become a notable issue, then it's fine to go into detail (Harris has argued that X, but A writes that this fails to take Y into account). But the problem here is that we discuss views in detail that, it appears, no one else has written about or responded to. BLPs should never turn into platforms for their subject's opinions, or extensions of the subject's personal website, and this article reads as though it's heading in that direction. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the deletions I made are permanentely reverted, the edits I made to wording (to prevent copy vio) need to be implemented. Also, personally, the very heading of "World view" is either a product of or part of what exacerbated this idea that we can contribute every single point Harris has ever made. It is unencyclopedic. We're not here to reiterate his entire world view. We're here to discuss the topics from his books that contribute to his notability. Also, just to comment on your edit summary in reverting my changes Laurence: two people did make a consensus when only two people were in the conversation. Try joining in to the conversation that precluded any controversial changes made before insinuating I'm violating consensus. VanTucky 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Do we know which university he's doing his PhD at? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't. But I just noticed...why isn't there a section about his published works and online writing? There should be a small section coming before the "assertions" part talking about that (not in detail obviously). VanTucky 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PhD is at UCLA Mackan79 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I didn't say his views were not sufficiently notable. I said it's not clear that they are, and that's largely because the article is poorly sourced. It needs to be rewritten with sources, third-party wherever possible, and quotes, because the way it's currently written is problematic. I think there does also need to be some biography, assuming any has been published. We have two articles on his books; we don't need a third article exclusively on his views, but a bio. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you bring up a good point Slim, perhaps the original amount (not version, amount) of content about his ideas wouldn't look so egregious if more biographical information were added. Maybe the solution is more to increase, not decrease the overall amount of content. Not that the ideas section doesn't need cleanup. VanTucky 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: It's not well-sourced (two major articles were Washington Post and Newsweek, and they weren't even mentioned, so far as I can see), and there's a lot of "he feels this, and he feels that," rather than just expounding his views with citations. Regarding security concerns, that he's at UCLA has been published, and he has added at least one of the articles that includes it to his own website, so I can't see any reason for us not to publish it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt we'll be contributing information that any nut could find with the proper time and effort. We certainly won't be advertising his address and phone number, or where his family lives. VanTucky 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm well aware that the UCLA information is in the public domain. But there's a distinction to be drawn between a terrorist and then someone who is prepared to be a casual nuisance. So it's simply about not making the information too easily available. Harris specifically asked me to remove it at an early stage. Too late now. Laurence Boyce 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's put the information on his own website, so it's kind of hard to argue that we shouldn't include it here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's not in his biography. In fact Harris removed all references to UCLA from his website a while ago, but he obviously overlooked one. But it's still not that easy to find. Anyway, it's all academic now. Laurence Boyce 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it all academic now? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the cat's out of the bag on this talk page. Besides, I think that in truth most people will know by now. Laurence Boyce 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two factors at work here in whether or not to keep information about UCLA in the article. First, there is the WP:BLP admonishment to let people keep their privacy. However, the simple fact that Harris works/studies at a famous university is not really under the bounds of that guideline, especially as we don't give information as to how/where to find him at UCLA, or any other private information. Also, while I don't want to put the guy at any risk, it is A:'not his perogative to ask for any verifiable encyclopedic content to be removed from his Wikipedia bio, or to ask anyone else to do it for him. I can't stress this enough, as it threatens the independence, effectiveness and neutrality of Wikipedia. And B:finding out he's at UCLA is in fact just as easy to find as his home address and phone number for any mildly resourceful person with an internet connection. Personal info on almost anyone is also for sale widely on the net and offline. So we're not exactly aiding and abetting those wackjobs who would wish to harm/harass him in any significant sense by saying he's at UCLA. VanTucky 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurence, the material can easily be deleted from this talk page (deleted, not just removed) if we decide it ought to be, so that's not an issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter Slim – everyone knows. But Harris was perfectly entitled to ask me to remove it. I could have said no. But maybe think twice before inserting any personal information which doesn't really add anything to the article. Laurence Boyce 23:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurence, in the interest of full disclosure, can you please tell us (a) by what means Harris asked you to remove information from this Wikipedia article and (b) what your relationship with him is? I am very concerned that you are in conflict of interest.--Betamod 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh not you again. Very concerned are you? Keeping you awake at night? I have no relationship with Harris except that we have exchanged a handful of emails. This is perfectly in order. Article subjects may contact editors or contribute directly to the talk page. They just shouldn't edit the article itself. I can and will defend all my edits from first principles. Laurence Boyce 03:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, but Betamod is such a knob end really. Laurence Boyce 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "knob end"? Is that some sort of phallic reference? That would make it a blatant personal attack. VanTucky (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I suppose it is a "phallic reference" as you put it. Laurence Boyce 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, calling someone a complete cock certainly sounds like WP:NPA to me. Don't do it Laurence. VanTucky (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the complete cock. Just the helmet. Laurence Boyce 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I felt no "need" to insult you. But if you were or are implying that I am writing this article at the behest of Harris, then that is insulting to both me and  Harris. I'm more than happy to iron out the bias to which you refer. Laurence Boyce 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Lawrence, I am glad you realize that some ironing out of your POV bias is required but you had your chance to fix it before and the present article is the result. Anyway, you did in fact insult me, which by the way, whether you needed to or just wanted to, is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia . . . though the metaphor you chose says more about your anxieties about your own anatomy than it does about me. Clearly any perceived insult to you is also perceived as an insult to Harris and visa versa. Any way you measure it, you conduct yourself as if you own this page (WP:OWN) and as a result it seems systematically skewed to soften the contextual significance and relevant details of arguments involved in controversy surrounding Harris' views (WP:COI, WP:NPOV). I think it needs a lot of work but I don`t have time to engage in an a tiresome edit/revision war with you. I only hope that more folks with fresh perspective will soon weigh in on editing this page and thereby wrest it from your jealous clutches.--Betamod 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a self-important twat you are. In fact the article did undergo a substantial revision in June. I have absolutely nothing to hide concerning my connections to Harris (which are minimal) or anything else. You, on the other hand, are just an anonymous troll who goes running to teacher at the first sign of trouble. Pathetic. Laurence Boyce 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, reality check: this is not the first sign of trouble. One would have to go very far back into the history of this article and its talk page to find that, and it would start with a capital L. I must also point out to you that this Wikipedia article is not an appropriate tool for working out your your fear and loathing of the vagina or your childhood castration anxieties regarding socialization, as your latest choices of insults indicate. Please don`t project your feelings of inadequacy on me. What you call pathetic is conduct that Wikipedia relies on for quality control. Anyway, I am going to hang back from making any edits for now and see what if any third parties contribute to the article or this discussion. Meanwhile, why don`t you just just relax. --Betamod 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say "Betamod." Laurence Boyce 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

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