Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 3

message: Lots of the references refer to specific pages in the editor's copy of the God Delusion - shouldn't the edition and publisher be mentioned? (or the ISBN, so that edition can be found again). MrBeast 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I just happened to look through a few pages of this and found a major error. He attacks religious groups for claiming Beethoven was deaf. In fact, Beethoven was deaf. The author mentions Beethoven many times in the book as if he's a big fan, but he doesn't have basic knowledge of the man. Worse, he skips over the bigger argument, about eugenics and how deaf and disabled people have sometimes been targeted by birth control advocates. He seems to be saying deaf people have never accomplished anything so there is no arguement. In fact, in recent years the US, France and Canada have all had leaders with significant hearing loss. Other famous individuals considered deaf include Thomas Edison, who invented audio recording. Just reading this section I can see that the book basically follows whatever is in the author's head without bothering to check basic facts. How did he ever graduate from college?
:To be fair to Dawkins he does know Beethoven was deaf but disputes the suggestion that he was the 5th child of a syphilitic father and a turburculous mother, and that modern doctors might therefore have recommended an abortion. (I'm unable to find my Beethoven biography, what is clear is that there were a total of seven children, of whom only three survived infancy) As to "how did he graduate?" the answer is "with a second-class degree" NBeale 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the sentence (p299) is very poorly written "He [Beethoven] was the eldest - strictly the number two, but his elder sibling died in infancy, as was common in those days, and was not, so far as is known, blind or deaf or metally retarded" so you could read the 3rd "was" as applying to Beethoven but actually I'm sure that all three "was"s apply to different things and the 3rd one applies to B's elder sibling. (It seems from  that "An elder brother, Ludwig Maria, died at one week old. Ludwig's two brothers - Caspar Carl and Nikolaus Johann - were followed by two more children - Georg and Margherita - both of whom died in infancy." I think your wider points are spot-on. Why not get yourself a WikiPedia ID and contribute more fully? NBeale 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is this poorly written? In this paragraph and those nearby, Dawkins never asserts that Beethoven wasn't deaf.  He doesn't come close.  Our anonymous critic's far-flung accusations here are entirely baseless.--Barte 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to start focusing this discussion on the Wikipedia article. (There are great sites like convinceme.net for online debate). This talk page is for discussing the article, so do you have any suggestions on how to improve it?  --Merzul 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of improving articles, I'd like to invite interested editors to have a look at a related article, The Dawkins Delusion?. The reason? It is one of the most blatantly POV articles I've come across, in urgent need of some neutrality. Thanks all. -Neural 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather focus on improving this article, and while I agree that neutrality is a good thing, I don't want editors to leave this page just yet! See below... --Merzul 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Beethoven Fallacy

message: Are we happy with the current structure, and will we just maintain and improve small things here and there; or are there any suggestions about what is needed to improve the article more substantially? We have limited this to the contents, while Feature Articles on books, such as The Brothers Karamazov or Night (book), generally include a lot more. There is at least some things to say about the context, publishing and all the supporting talks and interviews that he has given after the books publishing. This would be a good opportunity to add some pictures :) --Merzul 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's next? 

message: The entire synopsis uses the book alone as a source, unless I missed a source. It would be preferable to include some other sources - reviews written by others. I'll start looking over reviews myself, any help would be appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line of thinking was that if there are any bits within the synopsis which make statements about what Dawkin's aims and methodology were, in other words, minor speculation, those should be sourced. Upon more careful reading of the synopsis, however, I don't see any questionable speculation, so feel free to strike my concern. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sourcing

message: I removed the category added by . I'm not too pleased with his list of contributions, but with respect to this particular edit I explained in the edit summary why I object to that category, please respond here if anybody disagrees. --Merzul 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. It is a criticism of fundamentalism. It is also a criticism of moderate religion. I just re-added Letter to a Christian Nation before I noticed your comment here. I'll take that book back out for the moment; I had not realized the fact that this category was just created. It might not be particularly useful. I'm open on this; we could CFD it, if we don't I'm leaning toward putting these books in that category. — coelacan talk — 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I have serious concerns about the user who created this category, and I am assuming bad faith here, but look at the guys talk page...  so he has created a category "criticism of fundamentalism" and added books by atheists and religious authors that in his opinion criticise fundamentalism; it's not just a neutral and helpful category, it's very much arguing that Dawkins and Harris have focused excessively on religious fundamentalism. While "criticism of religion" is a neutral category, both :Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism and :Category:Criticisms of Moderate Religion would be loaded with one side's POV. --Merzul 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just thought I would add something because I'm going to sleep now... I mainly removed the tags because of the way these things have been added without any discussion. I have no problem putting them back if after a reasonable discussion you find that my above argumentation above is not persuasive. --Merzul 05:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the category certainly wasn't created under stellar conditions. I also think that while there are certainly such things as fundamentalism and moderate religion, the separation between them is much more of a spectrum than a plain line. Categories don't have room for ambiguity though, they're binary; an article is either in or out. So I'm thinking a CFD is probably a good idea. I'll remove American Fascists too, since I put it in, and if nobody else objects soon I'll try to remember to open a CFD tomorrow. — coelacan talk — 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In my mind, this category is no different from Iraq liberation opposition, because I'm quite convinced calling this book a "criticism of fundamentalism" is one-sided. This is, of course, just my opinion; and you are welcome to discuss it here. I don't know what you mean by higher-level issue, like any change that is reverted, it requires discussion and consensus. Now, you say it doesn't matter that much, then why add them at all?--Merzul 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted category "criticism of fundamentalism" 

message: I see that in the Sunday Times bestseller lists TGD comes just under The Book of General Ignorance. I have a feeling that both D's admirers and critics would agree that this was appropriate, but for different reasons :-) NBeale 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about those of us who are both admirers and critics of RD? Or do you not admit that such a category could exist? I suspect, in fact, that is a large part of your problem! ;-) Snalwibma 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you might doubly agree. After all pretty well every qualified reviewer of whatever persuasion, however much they admire RD, has been critical of TDG. I wonder if sales of his (alleged) source have picked up at all ;-) NBeale 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. There you go with your POV again. FT, Guardian, Economist are all positive and amazon customers give it 4/5. In fact there is a good review of the reviews at  that presents a much more neutral overview than the selective choice quotes (many inserted by nbeale) given here. Poujeaux 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of our selections here do misrepresent the reviewers, and it is slightly tilted towards the negative. Marek Kohn (The Independent) concludes in a positive vein, yet our summary has focused entirely on his objections. --Merzul 10:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something we can all agree on? 

message: Hey - take a look at Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Three months after being deleted, or rather turned into a redirect to The God Delusion, it's back, flying once more over people's heads in a revived POV-pushing and original blog-like essay! Chocks away! Snalwibma 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Boeing 747 flies again!

message: The article currently says: "This awe of nature's complexity is the core of what he calls “Einsteinian religion”, referring to Einstein's use of the word “God” as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe. However, he regrets that many scientists use the word "God" in this pantheistic and poetic sense[7] because of the confusion it causes."
This may be correct about the book, but it is wrong with respect to Einstein.  Spinoza's belief (which Einstein claimed for himself) that God is Nature is not the same thing as saying that one is a metaphor for the other, and in fact that isn't what was meant (basically as I understand it God is an ontological substrate for all beings and is an immanent force that is constantly active in constituting/maintaining them).  Retaining the idea of God was not casual or incidental for Einstein, which if anything is underscored by his rejection of an Abrahamic God.  I'm gonna modify the quoted part of the article.
:I'll echo you there. Many theologians have argued that Pantheism is arguably compatable with Theism. However Dawkins, in order to make his point about Einstein being an Atheist, simply describes Pantheism as "sexed up atheism" or something like that. He doesn't even examine who Spinoza was or look at Pantheism in greater detail. Rather he coines a new term "Einsteinian Religion" which doesn't make much sense when you consider Pantheism.Olockers
: Is this article about the book or about how accurate the book is? 90.152.12.130 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The former.  But it is hard to stifle the inner-pundit.-Barte 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Second this.  I very well written, balanced, informative article.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein and God 

message: Didn't John Cornwell also criticise the book for its limited citation of religious books? As far as I recall Dawkins only used one book on Islam, Why I Am Not a Muslim and none on Judaism. Also in the book he states that he doesn't consider Buddhism a religion but rather a kind of moral philosophy. Wasn't this picked up anywhere? It may be a non-theistic religion (sortof) but it still implies belief in the supernatural so to speak: reincarnation and enlightenment? Olockers
:In the notes he talks about how Buddhism is really not that great of a "religion" - however his points are better used criticizing Hinduism than Buddhism, as it brings up many points such as reincarnation and karma that were thrown away or at least are not universal in modern Buddhism. Buddhism, at least in its original form, threw supernaturalism out the window. Attempting to figure out what is after death is like asking what sort of arrow is in your heart before you're taken to the hospital. What matters is earthly suffering, not afterlife questions. Some sects of Buddhism do embrace reincarnation, but the others like Zen often don't give a damn. As for enlightenment: "the only difference between one who is enlightened and one who is not is that the enlightened one sees no difference" - it's not a huge spiritual thing, it's just the realization of how to cease suffering (by detachment, et al). -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly so. Just to clarify though, this wasn't intentionally biased... Dennett describes himself as "friend and ally" in the intro of that review and so it seemed neutral to report it here. Compared to how other people are described, it was clearly unfair, so thank you for fixing this. --Merzul 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dawkins said that there is an argument for seeing Buddhism as a system of moral philosophy rather than a religion; he does not explicitly take up this position.  In a footnote, he does criticise the system of stratified rebirth in Buddhism, where a disabled child is said to have done something terrible in a past life.  [Even the Dalai Lama believes that he must have been great in a past life to have his position]  With regards to lack of Muslims books, he does cite quite a few articles, and he talks about the Qur'an itself.  Epa101 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: There is now a paperback edition, including a section where he responds to critics. I have mentioned this but it could do with expanding. As noted above there are already too many negative reviews by upset christians so this might improve the balance. Poujeaux 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! We should expand this, but I haven't seen the paperback edition yet. I wonder, how lengthy is the response section in his book? Is it the same as the Times article, or is that just a synopsis? --Merzul 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I have just ordered it - half price at Waterstones this week! (As is the 'Dawkins delusion' and 'God is not great' by Christopher Hitchens). Will expand when I get it. Poujeaux 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paperback version

message: "In this section, Dawkins also defends a pro-choice moral standpoint over abortion."
I had to read the relevant chapter of TGD again after seeing the above sentence here in the article as the relevance wasn't immediately apparent.  It's actually D picking on the issue to provide examples of religious inconsistency: among others the rather extreme case of clergyman Paul Hill unrepentantly defending his right to kill doctors in order to preserve "the sanctity of human life". He also imagines a non-religious utilitarian dispassionately considering the relative suffering between a distressed pregnant woman and that of a non-sentient early-stage embryo and deciding in favor of the woman's right to choose. Although D's standpoint is obvious, he doesn't seem to be endorsing "pro choice"—he's just using it to provide examples. 
I'd like to amend along this line, or delete the sentence altogether, subject to other editor's views. Old Moonraker 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--Old Moonraker 06:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beethoven [[Talk:The God Delusion#Great Beethoven Fallacy|again]] 

message: Philosophers are evaluating the foundations of Dawkins' book. Propose adding following different viewpoint under this subheading:DLH 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article, I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that philosophers are only now evaluating the foundations of Dawkins' argument. The critics have spoken, spoken again, and spoken some more--and their arguments are already well represented here.  Has Beckwith found some clever line of reasoning that uniquely shifts the ground beneath Dawkins' feet?  Or is he just one more theologically-inclined critic in a long line of them?-Barte 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barte. I agree with you on philosophers having been discussing it. Apologies for phrasing "now" that implied that. I have gone back and deleted that. I am stating that Beckwith's argument strikes at the foundations of Dawkin's arguments. The very basis for Dawkins' criticizing others is shown to logically destroy his own credibility. Brown comments on Dawkins claiming religion is irrational. I do not see anyone described as making Beckwith's logical analysis that Dawkins' argument is itself foundationally irrational. (I have not read all the reviews themselves). Thus I believe Beckwith's review is an important viewpoint to mention here.DLH 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Beckwith is an ID supporter, which makes him an ignorant fool to say the least. His "philosophical" opinion does not bring anything new or actually interesting.--Svetovid 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Svetovid, your arguments must be logically very weak to have to resort to ad hominem attacks on Beckwith. I look forward to more constructive civil responses.DLH 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you would, considering your history of misusing the project to promote ID POV. Beckwith's opinion isn't all that notable, nor is the publication in which it was published. We have to be selective at some point and this is as good a place to start as any. Odd nature 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not ad hominem if it's true.--Svetovid 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. However, Beckwith's publications and professional reputation give no indication of being either ignorant or a fool. A highly published tenured professor can hardly be called a ignorant. His insightful arguments give no indication of being a fool. (Contrast Beckwith with Ward Churchill who was fired for plagerism etc.) You give no evidence for your accusations. Thus your accusations but reflects on yourself. Furthermore, Beckwith addresses the constitutionality of ID arguments rather than advocate ID himself. Beckwith is addressing Dawkins' irrationality here, not ID vs evolution. DLH 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The importance of Beckwith's review is that he applies Dawkins' methodology against Dawkins' own arguments. Beckwith shows that Dawkins' argument that religion is irrational logically implies that Dawkins' arguments themselves are irrational. That is a major finding that undercuts Dawkins' entire position. This is not shown in the other reviews and is thus important to add. DLH 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at where the reviews come from in the first two sections.  Prospect, Harper's, Nauture, Science, The Economist, London Review of Books; the Guardian, the Independent, The Sunday Times.  Where does First Things fit within this group?  It doesn't--it is by comparison non-notable. You call his theory a "major finding".  Major findings get widely cited.  This simply doesn't qualify as a notable critique, and I suggest, politely, that that's the consensus here.-Barte 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the opinion (at least as you describe it), the publication or Beckwith himself is particularly notable when compared with most of the critiques already represented in the article, most of which come from heavier hitters (such as McGrath), and most of which are published in far more mainstream publications. There are a few exceptions, but I'd argue that those should be trimmed, rather than adding yet another Dawkins critic with yet one more philosophical variation. This is suppose to be a fair representation of the critical response, not a comprehensive listing of every utterance.  -Barte 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Its Beckwith's logic revealing that Dawkins' arguments are themselves irrational by Dawkins' own methodology that is important.DLH 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason to include it because this perspective is missing. Dawkins directly attacks God/religion. First Things is one of the primary journal addressing issues addressing the interface between society and religion or the foundational issues in society. Since Dawkins directly attacks those foundations, it is most appropriate to hear from those focusing on these issues. Gregor Mendel published his findings on genetics in an obscure journal, yet they are the foundations of modern biochemistry and genomics. The content of a reference is critically important, not its wrapper. Because Beckwith shows that Dawson is foundationaly irrational according to his own metaphysics is why this is a critically important quotation. DLH 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beckwith only states his opinion without any logic or proof.--Svetovid 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest you analyze the logic in Beckwith's discussion rather than making another assertionDLH 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "First Things is one of the primary journal addressing issues addressing the interface between society and religion or the foundational issues in society." Could you put that into English?  As for Mendel, he might have published his findings in an obscure journal, but he would not have merited a Wikipedia article until those findings had become accepted by mainstream science. See wp:n Dawkins has done this, as have some of his critics.  Beckwith, in this instance, has not.-Barte 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick Google search shows 40 references to Francis Beckwith's review versus 32 for David Baltimore's (including multiple links to the same Wikipedia page). So it is already gaining more traction than some reviews listed.DLH 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is certainly a case for trimming.  The entire "Reviews by other commentators" section could be reduced to a paragraph summary on the grounds that publications and websites are too small to represent the book's general reception.  Also, having finally read Beckwith's article, I don't think you could call it a book review.  Rather, Beckwith takes Dawkins to task for an argument that appears in just three pages of the The God Deusion: p.284-286. To claim this is a major finding that undercuts Dawkins entire position is quite a leap.-Barte 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The importance of this is that Beckwith's identification of Dawkins' irrationality applies to every moral and teological statement Dawkins makes. i.e., the bulk of Dawkins' arguments.DLH 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom?Barte 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else notice the irony of accusing an evolutionary theorist of making teleological arguments?  How many times have Dawkins and others cautioned against making teleological arguments?  Are you referring here to Chapter 5, where Dawkins gives a review of theories, like Atran's and Boyer's, on why evolution would have evolved?  If so, then it's clearly not the whole book, but rather one chapter, and this is really more of a review/summary of other's work.  Edhubbard 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do ;) - Beckwith's fallacy of composition has little relevance to the majority of the content of The God Delusion, though it may have relevance to Dawkins' opinions on this one person, i.e. Wise. Ttiotsw 07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In First Things, philosopher Francis J. Beckwith observes that: "the intuitions that inform Dawkins’ judgment of Wise are as illusory as the design he explicitly rejects."Francis J. Beckwith, The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins, First Things, June 20, 2007 Beckwith evaluates Dawkins’ arguments versus his assumptions and finds them to be logically irrational. "So if the theist is irrational for believing in God based on what turns out to be pseudo-design, Dawkins is irrational in his judgment of Wise and other creationists . . . For Dawkins’ judgment rests on a premise that . . . only appears to be true."
DLH 02:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DLH, it's not a matter of POV so much as notability.  If Dawkins hadn't used PZ Meyers comment, it wouldn't be notable to add to the already overgrown slew of comments, reviews, and replies that are already there on the page.  Given that Dawkins himself used it, it confers notability on the source.  In addition, note that the final version of the addition takes extreme pains to keep the focus on Dawkins and his use of Meyers comments.  Meyers' comment, by itself, it not that notable... 260 hits, come on.  279 doesn't really hit notable enough either.  Edhubbard 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical and Logical Critiques

message: I believe it needs major clean-up. It needs shortening and needs to be approached from a different angle—why have a paragraph for each review? Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Also, there's mixed in with the notable reviews are some that are self-published and others that appear on very obscure websites. The second half of the article has turned into a Web directory.-Barte 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten Critic Section. 

message: As some will know I am not a fan of Dawkins.  But even I find it hard to believe that he can really have made some of the ludicrous claims attributed to him in this section.  For example the existence (or otherwise) of any deity is clearly completely outside the domain of evolutionary biology - you might as well say that the existence of supernovae is highly unlikely according to botany. Did he really say such things?  If so, please ref them. If not I think we'd better remove them, and give the guy a fair hearing by putting what he does actually say. NBeale 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section is based on the new preface, see this video.As always NBeale, you are stating your opinions on the talk page, and they have nothing to do with the article so stop it.--Svetovid 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: er - talk pages are precisely for stating opinions about ways in which the content of the articles can be improved.  It is not enough, when attributing frankly ludicrous statements to a prominent commentator, to link to a 24 minute video of him reading a preface.  Surely some editors have bought the paperback edition and can make these attempted paraphrases a more accurate statement of his positions. NBeale 06:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it is your personal statements about Dawkins "the person" that are embarrassing and unbecoming rather than your opinions on Dawkins "the article". We can only imagine the pride felt by some when they see "Der ewige Jude" in Christopher Howse's review ! Ttiotsw 07:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins "Response" 

message: A critique that is getting a lot of attention in the UK is Darwin's Angel. Amazingly the Dawkins Acolytes don't want Wikipedia users to know about this book. Why don't they like well referenced facts?  I wonder. NBeale 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of trying to hide material, but a question of trying to keep the article within reasonable bounds. Are you planning to add a reference to every single adverse comment you can find about the book? The article is already unreadable and more or less useless. It needs a radical overhaul. Stuffing in yet more well-referenced but repetitious comments helps no one. Snalwibma 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, look at this wonderfully fair edit by NBeale. He removes my criticism section that is strictly summarizing bits from the cited article by Dawkins, and restores his own chapter summaries, and when he is reverted by User:Evb-wiki, who is at least consistent in removing both my summarizing and NBeale's, we have this accusation! (How does NBeale even know that this guy is an atheist??) But what really amazes me is that after removing criticism and restoring his own stuff, he come here, and claim that we don't like well referenced facts... God help us. --Merzul 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's getting so much attention, prove it with sources.--Svetovid 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the AfD debate concluded with 10 Keeps and 1 Merge. NBeale 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's Angel 

message: It really is unreadable. The article is swamped by a massive collection of quote-mined recentist extracts from reviews, most of which raise suspicions of a POV-pushing agenda. OK, the book has provoked a lot of comment, but do we need all this stuff? How on earth does it help the reader understand the book and what it is about and how it was received? Compare (for example) the articles on other controversial books such as Stupid White Men or the Kinsey Reports. Criticism is there but it is summarised, not listed ad nauseam and used as a means of cramming the article with a load of "well-referenced" ripostes and counter-ripostes. I don't care how well referenced they are - if they don't help achieve a balanced account of the book they don't belong. Time to grow up, smell the coffee, take the bull by the horns and sweep the whole lot away? Maybe that would be the best solution. Snalwibma 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "quote creep" could be reversed (or at least hindered) if the reviews were sorted thematically rather than by author. Any particular comment can be attributed to the most notable persons claiming it, and responses from Dawkins or his supporters can be integrated into the same paragraph or section on the subject. The decision of whether or not to include a particular critic of Dawkins should depend not only on their personal notability but the novelty of their criticism. So if yet another widely-read columnist says Dawkins is ignorant of most theology, it might not warrant as much article space as, say, an obscure neuroscientist who says Dawkins misrepresented something about God and the brain (fictional example). This more desirable balance of attention would result naturally from arranging criticism by theme, as repetitive comments would lump together and become easier targets for summarization. The arrangement could even eventually extend to include the book summary itself, so that objections and discussion of the book's claims are presented in-line with their exposition as part of the book. But this is obviously a much more Herculean task than just fixing the review section. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, making the inclusion criteria "novelty" rather than notability won't address the issues of quote mining and recentism. Nonetheless you're right in suggesting summaries by theme. I think the best approach here is to hack it all out, then nut out on a case by case basis, those criticisms that are most notable, and summarise them with references to their sources. ornis (t) 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an excellent way to start, one could add "Philosophical objections" for those who object to Dawkins's argument about God's non-existence, but this should be an extremely short section because there is already an equally bloated Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. --Merzul 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews section: time for radical action?

message: Could it be easier to almost completely blank the page the way I did here, and then go forward from there? Obviously, this current version is always accessible from the history. Perhaps it is easier to move towards a real encyclopaedia article about the book, if we start from almost zero? 
The reason for such a drastic measure is that I believe it is not only the reviews that are the problem, this entire article is more about the content of the book than about the book itself. To put it another way, this article is currently more about God, the delusion, than The God Delusion.  --Merzul 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Merzul - Your final comment (God, the delusion, versus The God Delusion) is a very interesting way of expressing it, and I think you've put your finger on something. We need to consider - To what extent is it appropriate for an article about a book (especially a recently published controversial one) to summarise the content of the book? How can this be done fairly and without bias? How can it be achieved without inviting fact-stuffing and content-creep? What is the right balance between summarising the content and describing the critical response? Interested parties might care to take a look at a similar discussion under way at Talk:Darwin's Angel. Snalwibma 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzul - Your prototype revise was indeed "radical," but I think a radical approach is appropriate here because it forces editors to think in terms of higher "levels" of summary. And agree that both the summary and the critical response section have combined to become a morass. The aim here is to think not in terms of chapters, but in terms of RD's broader themes.  And to think not of individual reviews, pro and con, but rather of the general critical response--pro and con. That's easier to do now that the book is a year old. I also think the external link section should be culled, but if the body were shorter, a longer link section would be more tolerable. Barte 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A less radical approach would be to restructure the article, i.e., remove the chapter subsections and basically put the new structure in place, but not blank the current material, which could be trimmed down more gradually perhaps? --Merzul 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, before giving up and writing a little rant in frustration, I had tried for a very long time to move stuff around in the criticism section following the categories that had been suggested, but it was really really difficult, and I can't really pull it off. I think actually the radical approach  of starting from zero would be a lot easier. I'm taking a break now to let other people think about what to do. --Merzul 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Merzul I don't think your big restructurings help at all, and the remove much useful and closely-argued consensus material. What exactly are the problems you are trying to fix? NBeale 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I'm trying to fix is the WP:NOT#PLOT equivalent for non-fiction. We are not here to summarize every single line of the book, especially in such a way that trivializes the arguments. This is obviously what you want, but it is not something I'm willing to allow. Feel free to do so with Darwin's Angel. But here, if we don't have the space to do justice to it, we are not going to use your one-liners to trivialize the book. --Merzul 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete restart?? 

message: This summary is a good source for the different lines of Dawkins criticism. If you look at the original post at The Valve, the author actually linked to our review section... :) --Merzul 08:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to specify criteria that a review, response and/or a book has to fulfil to be mentioned. Most responses should be mentioned in external links at most.--Svetovid 09:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good summary of criticism 

message: I have two problems with this edit here . One I've addressed with the editor directly and the other is that what he's reverted it to is to say....."in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents." and yet the source provided only uses the word disturbing in the sentence, "Dawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for religious believers.". The word "precedents" is uniquely used in the source as, ...".... the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century." and this is why I wrote my version which used "innocuous precedents" in it. I'll go with whatever consensus is chosen though it isn't what it currently is. Ttiotsw 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the whole entry because it was just a statement that John Cornwell didn't like the book. That does not improve or add to the article at all.Are we gonna have a list of all people who don't like the book, especially the ones that don't like it automatically because of their background?--Svetovid 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, but we obviously need to think of what to do with the criticism section in general, so that it serves not just as a source for people who want to write a parody of the reviews, although I'm glad we could be of service, but to actually give an encyclopaedic overview of the critique (and praise). Reverting this addition will do little to solve the general problem. --Merzul 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually maybe all those (notable) critiques and responses should be only mentioned in see also and external links only.--Svetovid 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please review this edit.... 

message: This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for literary analysis. The synopsis should just outline the essentials of Dawkins's main points as sympathetic as we can. Then we try to represent the criticism as fairly and as strongly as we can represent them, and we briefly include Dawkins' response (too much space is given to the response). In my opinion, there should be about two paragraphs of criticism and one short paragraph of response, for each of the lines of criticism, except philosophical ones that has its own article.
What really needs beefing up is the material about the book. How it was published, the public readings of the book, the interviews, and public debates that Dawkins was involved in. This is first and foremost an article about the book, and it's real world impact, not a forum for debate about the Existence of God. It is much more important to mention that it was published on October 18, 2006, than quoting sections of the book!
I think my opinion is clear, and now I'm really leaving it up for other people to decide. Thanks for reading my rant, Merzul 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "What really needs beefing up is the material about the book. How it was published, the public readings of the book, the interviews, and public debates that Dawkins was involved in"  I can agree to that, will come back to the issue after this has been formulated and merged into the current article.  Hardyplants 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the article is not going to be improved by trying to merge more things into it. I don't know why you want the article to remain a "summary", but that's precisely what articles shouldn't be. I see no reason to throw out Merzul's work toward making this a stylistically better article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your saying it does not need more content like  "interviews, and public debates".  Hardyplants 10:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The 'Critical reception' section is ATM ridiculous. Too much information from too many (unreliable and irrelevant) sources written in suspicious manner and often not encyclopaedic manner.Unless it can be substantially improved, it should be just summarized into external links and a section similar to Letter to a Christian Nation#Response--Svetovid 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the critical reception area in particular has become a forum by proxy.  Not sure we need to get it down to just two paragraphs, but something like that.  And yes, this will "hide" information in the sense that any summation does.  But that's the nature of an encyclopedia.  Would only add that the general critical reception of the book was.....critical.  That's been noted over and over here, and we shouldn't lose that in the summary.Barte 13:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant two paragraphs for each type of criticism. So we identify 4-5 main lines of attack, and then we have for example two paragraphs about Dawkins' lack of scholarship, two paragraphs about his inability to distinguish moderate and fundamentalist religion, and so on. I would also suggest roughly a 3:1 ratio for Criticism:Response in the critique section.  --Merzul 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Would only add that the general critical reception of the book was.....critical." That is just your POV. If you avoid opinions of people who don't like the book contents by default, the picture is very different.--Svetovid 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my observation based on readings here and elsewhere.  (For the record, I <heart> RD).  And while I take your point (if I understand it) that some reviewers came to the book with their minds already made up, is that an exclusionary criteria we can validly impose here? Barte 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Barte. Even if we exclude the more obviously biased (e.g. by cutting out reviews published in obviously religious magazines). Still, we have people like H. Allen Orr, himself a big fighter against intelligent design, and Krauss's review in Nature... These guys clearly don't fit the category of "people who don't like the book's content by default."  --Merzul 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO! We don't need more content, we need more context! 

message: I'm not at all sure these are the appropriate images naturally, but in case we have people here, who are into that (I mean people who are good at illustrating articles), please start looking for appropriate images.  Thanks! --Merzul 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I reverted those images, although I wish there were appropriate images for this article, I don't think it was a very good start. I still hope we can find some nice pics for this one.  --Merzul 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images... 

message: Well done to Merzul for reorganising this section. It is so large that perhaps it ought to be split into its own article, with a mere summary here? BillMasen 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the re-organization was a very very rough beginning, a lot of work is still needed, but I actually also thought about the idea that perhaps this material is perhaps worthy of a sub-article. Although, I'm not at all so sure that we are doing anyone a service by providing these summaries. (Except perhaps people who want to parody these reviews). At least when I read Eagleton's review again, I felt we somehow have picked out the less relevant bits... but then summarizing deeper objections is difficult and there is not room for that in one paragraph, so I'm afraid we end up with a rather superficial picture. --Merzul 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It needs to be trimmed down in the first place. Particular editors keep adding all negative "reviews" and comments on the book, often from unreliable and irrelevant people.--Svetovid 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole section is flawed since it's supposed to imply that the only critique the book received was criticism.--Svetovid 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[Critical reception of the God Delusion]]? 

message: The book has sold half a million just in the UK Sources for overall sales are difficult to come by; generally the author is the best source, as the sales figures are often not released by publishers, and the books are published by different publishers in different countries and different formats. I note our article lists Bantam as the publisher, but it was published by Transworld Publishers Ltd in the UK, and Houghton Mifflin in the US (which is the edition located by the ISBN in the infobox). Amazon shows Mariner Books for paperback publisher in the US, an audio version is out by Tantor Media. None of these have released sales figures taht I can find, am I being incredibly dense or looking in the wrong place? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sales figures for the book are current on the web as yet, I found some from spring.  The problem is that Dawkins website should not be used as a source for sales figures- especially when its only listed as a sales promo for another product.  When the book does sell a million copies there will be many reports from other neutral sources.  What we have now does not say if the sales are world wide, or just English  or what. It might only even be published books and not those sold- so it's premature to pluck it up on wikipedia when we do not know if its verifiable.  I am sure its going to reach 1 million in sales some time in the next year.  but we are taking a premature stand now with out collaborating data.   Hardyplants 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sold 700,000 more than 6 months ago and before the new paperback, and the source will ultimately always be the publishers or Dawkins.--Svetovid 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an additional source for the figure from the BBC. ornis (t) 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But it is confusing, is Bantam the UK publisher? But it seems Houghton Mifflin also published it in the UK? In any case, here are the amazon links: Houghton Mifflin, Bantam, and Black Swan. --Merzul 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales and publishers

message: A sentence here reads: "Dawkins does not present support this assertion [that God has to be complex] and Plantinga finds it probable that Dawkins is assuming materialism." Does this mean that (a) Plantiga is claiming that Dawkins does not support the assumption at present, or that (b) Dawkins does not present support for this assertion?
In either sense this would be wrong. In sense (a), this article is discussing the book, and Dawkins's current beliefs are parenthetical. If (b), the arguments for complexity are there in the same chapter (chapter four in my edition, page 149), although Plantinga does write that he was looking in chapter three, and also appear in the "Arguments for God's existence"  (chapter three, pages 80-84). Checking the supplied footnote, it seems that Plantinga intends (b).
Old Moonraker 07:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alvin Plantinga|Plantinga]]'s rebuttal