Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Ubikwit's "Political" section

I have just placed a POV tag on the "Political" section, per Ubikwit's reinsertion of content there that he has assembled of late. This section, as stands now and as it has stood in a number of iterations over the past few days per Ubikwit's edits, fails to advance a neutral point of view about the subject, Sam Harris, and his views. Ubikwit's "Political" section presents two quotes that are largely a rehash of Harris's views on Islam and Judaism described in sections above. This is followed by a lengthy discourse of negative criticism about Harris's views. Thus, the section serves not to expand on Harris's views, but, rather to serve as a repository for criticism, some of it likely distorting and defamatory. I've already reverted a least one similar edit by Ubikwit in the last day or two. I don't wish to engage in an edit war. Can others please comment here so that we can reach a consensus? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

One approach would be to revert the article to 02:40, 9 February 2015, then see what recent edits should be re-added. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: You seem to fail to realize that the article is loaded with primary source-based passages from Harris' books and blog.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources. I note that there is the entire statement Harris provided to the WP in the "On Islam" section, for example. And about half of the "On Religion" section ("Views" in this version[1])is sourced to primary and self-published sources.

Your assertion of a "rehash" is way off the mark, and we've been through this before.

I suggest that you simply find secondary sources describing "the subject, Sam Harris, and his views" as you put it. Wikipedia is not primarily interested in what Sam Harris wants others to think about his views, but about what reliably published secondary sources have to say about "the subject, Sam Harris, and his views".

Though primary and self-published sources can be used, I suggest having a look at WP:SELFPUB.

NPOV is about presenting a balanced representation of the viewpoints published in reliable secondary sources. Harris is a public figure, and that policy applies.

The organization of the article is problematic due to the number of topics involved, many of which have political implications that have been noted and commented on. I've added some material from the writings of three academics, but that is hardly exhaustive, even of the sources used. The Lears article is available online.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you're missing point. If there are too many primary sources or too many direct quotes from primary sources, then take them out. That's a separate issue. The issue here is the "Political" section in question. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that is a basis for excluding the material included, which is obviously based on RS. If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material.

You are not producing any material based on secondary sources that I have tried to exclude based on DUE or WEIGHT, for example. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is discussion of support for Harris's views in other sections. However, your concocted "Political" section is a mirror of some of those other sections, which you've used to create a warehouse for attack on Harris under the guise of further exploration of Harris's views. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are conflating different aspects of his views and different takes on his views vis-a-vis politics and religion.

If you read the Lears piece, for example, I think you'll find that I have represented the points he makes (a couple of them) in a fair manner, without "attacking". Lears piece serves as part of the support for a peer-reviewed publication addressing the (mis)use of history by Harris and the New Atheists.

The "Political" section is not "concocted" any more than any of the others are. And the other sections were created because Xenophrenic deleted the "Criticisms" section so that he could exclude degrade and obfuscate viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like[2], starting with the Chomsky quote, and simply deleting the material altogether after I added the Political section to accommodate his removal of the Csection[3].

Just to prove that I'm not acting in bad faith, there was a response to the Lears piece by a professor from Harvard named Steve Pinker speaking in support of positivism, though he only mentions Harris once in passing.[4] And there was a rejoinder in response to Pinker's piece, here.

These are issues that scholars take seriously, and there is no basis for keeping reliably sourced statements that reflect negatively on Harris' work out of the article, and I again refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Considering that Harris' books are not peer-reviewed academic publications, he is probably going to continue to be on the receiving end of a lot of criticism for trying to deal with highly-cultivated topics in a polemic manner and in a popular idiom. You'll note that Pinker doesn't necessarily defend Harris per se, he attempts to counterpose science to the humanities in response to Lears, a historian criticizing positivism.

The other book is by a theologian and addresses religious perspectives versus New Atheists perspectives with respect to their respective socio-political implications, etc. There's a section called "Sam Harris, Islam and Torture". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:56, 13:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you still appear to misunderstand the nature of the disagreements here. As a result, you are doing a lot of arguing for or against things which aren't in contention. Perhaps it would help if we cleared a few things up first. While Harris may be considered a "new atheist", not everything written about new atheists automatically applies to him. There is a whole separate article for generalizations about New Atheists. Likewise, when writers like Lears say that the atheist's plea to rely on science instead of religion sounds like "positivism", and then further goes on to say, "Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism ... scientific racism ... imperialism ... eugenics ... Nazis ... yada yada", you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did. And if you want to discuss positivism, there is an article for that. Using a three-step synthesis to justify inserting "racism" into an article about a living person is a violation of BLP (as well as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and others). Thirdly, you asked, "If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material." -- No. You do not get to insert "Professor QQQ said Harris beats his wife", just because you found it in a book, and then demand editors add "countervailing material" to the contentious claim. It simply does not get added to the article in the first place. You also do not get to insert the allegation into a separate section you made when other sources (or Harris himself) already refute the allegation elsewhere in the article. If you'd like to add information of legitimate encyclopedic value to the reader, propose the text and source. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: What are you talking about? Are you sure you understood the source? I assume that you are asserting that you read it. I suggest that you look at this page from the Painter book commenting about the Lears text[5] Oh, but wait, let me just quote it for everyone

[Pinker] takes offense at a passage by Lears on positivism, Social Darwinism, and "pop-evolutionary notions of progress as well as scientific racism and imperialism."

Second, don't ever speak to me with a tone of authority again.

Thirdly, keep the offensive bullshit about wife beating to yourself.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If the wife beating analogy struck a nerve, you are welcome to replace it with another suitably repulsive example. The result will be the same: You do not get to insert such material into the BLPs of living people just because you found the allegation in a source somewhere. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I sure I understood the source? You'll have to be more specific. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is a direct quote from Lears

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism.

If you want to propose an alternative paraphrasing, we could take it from there. But if you are going to malign my good faith paraphrasing, when you don't appear to grasp the import (there is another type of "positivism", for example), and attempt to dismiss the source, then I'm through talking to you, and ready to see if ArbCom wants to have a look at your conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That is fine information for the Positivism article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

extended content

Here is the content Ubikwit proposes to add to the article. Since it is both problematic and disputed, I've moved it here for further discussion and issue resolution: Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.[42] On his blog, Harris states I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".[60] Wade Jacoby and Hakan Yavuz assert that "a group of 'new atheists' such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens" have "invoked Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' theory to explain the current political contestation" and that this forms part of a trend toward "Islamophobia [...] in the study of Muslim societies".[81] In an article in The Nation reviewing three of Harris’ books, Jackson Lears has examined the political implications of various positions advanced by Harris. With regard to the according of exclusive domain over morality to science, Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism.[82] For Harris, pragmatism and relativism undermine the capacity “to admit that not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,” and to acknowledge our moral superiority to most of the rest of the world. By preventing us from passing judgment on others’ beliefs, no matter how irrational, “religious tolerance” has become “one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” Harris treats the recognition of legitimate moral differences as a sign of moral incompetence… Harris’s argument against relativism is muddled and inconsistent on its own terms, but it is perfectly consistent with the aims of the national security state. Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.[83] Toronto-based journalist and commentator on Mideast politics, Murtaza Hussain, has alleged that leading figures in the New Atheist movement, including Harris, “have stepped in to give a veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry".[84] In describing the exchange between Harris and Greenwald in relation to Hussain's statements, Jerome Taylor, writing in The Independent, has stated that, “Like Chomsky, who has also been a vocal critic of New Atheism, he [Glenn Greenwald] blames writers like Harris for using their particularly anti-Islamic brand of rational non-belief to justify American foreign policies over the last decade”.[85][86] Greewald states that Harris shares the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter David Frum.[48] R. J. Eskow has stated, "Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure".[46] In a Salon article addressing criticism of the New Atheists, Nathan Lean has stated Noam Chomsky is one such critic. Chomsky has said that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are “religious fanatics” and that in their quest to bludgeon society with their beliefs about secularism, they have actually adopted the state religion — one that, though void of prayers and rituals, demands that its followers blindly support the whims of politicians.[87] Tina Beattie has characterized Harris is a secularist whose attitude is “as extreme as any to be found among the most militant Islamic or Christian religionists”, and points out that “he makes no attempt at all to mask his contempt, not only for radical Islamism but for Muslims in general”. [88] Lears states that, when Harris’ arguments are evaluated “according to their resonance with public policy debates, the results are sobering…" From him we learn, among other things, that torture is just another form of collateral damage in the “war on terror”—regrettable, maybe, but a necessary price to pay in the crucial effort to save Western civilization from the threat of radical Islam… As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire. Harris dispenses with the Christian rhetoric of his imperialist predecessors but not with their rationalizations for state-sponsored violence.[82] He further points out that "Though The End of Faith includes a chapter of complaint about the Christian right and Bush’s God-intoxicated White House, Harris singles out Islam as his enemy: “Anyone who says that the doctrines of Islam have ‘nothing to do with terrorism’…is just playing a game with words.”[82] Initial observations: (1) Why is every other line blockquoted? It makes the last half of the article look like a shopping list, rather than an encyclopedic section of text. (2) Why were the preceding and following sentences removed from the "Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism" quote? Don't you think that is a bit deceptive? (3) Why did you omit the warning to the reader that what Harris was about to say is "paradoxical", and that he is still undecided on it, before you quoted him? That is absolutely deceiving the reader, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional. (4) You have incorrectly claimed "Wade Jacoby and Hakan Yavuz assert that "a group of 'new atheists' such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens" have "invoked Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' theory to explain the current political contestation" and that this forms part of a trend toward "Islamophobia [...] in the study of Muslim societies". Where did you get the "forms part of a trend toward 'Islamophobia'" verbiage? I know you didn't just craft that yourself, did you? No mention of 9/11? The author mentioned it. (5) Grammar: "Tina Beattie has characterized Harris is a secularist whose attitude is ..." Did you mean "as a secularist"? (6) Compare this text you propose: "he makes no attempt at all to mask his contempt, not only for radical Islamism but for Muslims in general" with existing text, "He emphasizes that his criticism of Islam is aimed not at Muslims as people, but at the doctrine of Islam as an ideology, acknowledging that not all Muslims subscribe to the ideas he is criticizing. 'My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences'". You don't see the contradiction? Beattie is flat out wrong that "Harris makes no attempt to mask his contempt" for a whole group of people; because he absolutely and repeatedly refutes it. In fact, he further explains that if he did have contempt or animus toward Muslims or any other whole group of people, "he is either deeply confused about what it means to think critically or suffering from some psychological disorder." Yet you insist on inserting this accusation of bigotry, divorced from Harris' actual views on the matter (and his denial of the accusation) in your own special section, because (paraphrasing you) "Gee, her opinion of him is sourced, so we should put it in the article in a special section along with other similar accusations" — did I get that right? WP:BLP says you need to stop doing that, Ubikwit. (7) What's with the sentence which says only, "Painter says that Lears 'had raised significant historical points'"? I don't think that sentence could be less informative. Was it inserted because it looks critical in some way? (8) I see some quote-spam from various personalities trying to paint Harris' criticism of Islam as merely more justification for Middle East warmongering and right-wing foreign policy disguised as science and secularism. Rather than pepper the reader with a bunch of disjointed blockquotes, have you tried to summarize this trope per WP:IMPARTIAL, including any opposing views (and Harris' position on it)? (9) When writers like Lears say that the atheist's plea to rely on science instead of religion sounds like "positivism", and then further goes on to say, "Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism ... scientific racism ... imperialism ... eugenics ... Nazis ... yada yada", you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did. And if you want to discuss positivism, there is an article for that. Using a three-step synthesis to justify inserting "racism" into an article about a living person is a violation of BLP (as well as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and others). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This article is saturated with blockquotes and extended quotations which offer little actual value to the BLP. After the current RfC is closed, I shall propose one for opinions on the amount of such material which would attain DUE weight, and not oversaturate a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

break

The Beattie quote ("he makes no attempt at all to mask his contempt, not only for radical Islamism but for Muslims in general") is certainly defamatory. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: How is that defamatory? Once again, I'm going to refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are no BLP violations in the text I've posted, Beattie is a professor of theology, and the gist of the quoted statement is repeated by other RS throughout the article. That is a public position Harris has adopted, and numerous secondary sources have addressed that position in critical terms. I note that there was an attempt by multiple editors to delete or obfuscate a related statement in the lead.

What is supposed to occur in a case like where there is a disagreement about a sourced criticism is for the disagreeing editor(s) to find other sources that support a different POV, and then add those in a manner according to WEIGHT and DUE. The lack of such a provision of countervailing sources is telling. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's defamatory because Beattle is essentially calling Harris a bigot without evidence. This is because she falsely conflates his criticism of ideas with hate of a group of people. Her professorship doesn't trump this fact, nor does the notability of anyone else who makes the same claim. I could find a few PhDs and a slew of notable figures who claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President based on a forged American citizenship. Nonetheless, that is still nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

The onus is not on me necessarily to provide countervailing sources, especially when they are already provided in the article. The onus on all of us, you included, to develop articles in a neutral fashion. That being said, this article already provides notable sources, other than Harris, who countervail claims like the ones Beattie has made. In the "On Islam" section we have: "Amongst those who have endorsed Harris' theory that the term "Islamophobia" has been used to silence critics of Islam are: Nina Burleigh,[54] Ronald A. Lindsay,[49], Lawrence M. Krauss,[55] Josh Zepps,[49] Jerry Coyne and Andrew Zak Williams of the New Statesman.[56] Writing in the New York Post, Rich Lowry defended Harris and Maher by arguing that their liberals critics are unable to "talk frankly about the illiberalism of much of the Muslim world" as "[i]t entails resisting the reflex to consider any criticism of the Third World as presumptive racism."[57]" This balances, to some degree, the criticism before from Atran and Greenwald just above. Your "Political" section is essentially a one-sided mirror of the "On Islam" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that "balances" is inaccurate, as there is a large imbalance, and the bias is readily apparent in terms of DUE and WEIGHT. Some of the statements in that paragraph attempt to preempt criticism, and they are shallow and without substance. For example, there is a statement "Gad Saad, who wrote in Psychology Today that "Sam Harris and countless other true liberals" in the paragraph to which you refer, but others question his so-called liberalness, and you deleted the refcite for that source (HP "Atheists for Cheney" by Kaplan). In WP terms, Saad's "true liberals" statement would be "puffery" or "peacocky", because "true liberals" is basically a meaningless, yet loaded term. Meanwhile, the paragraph you refer to not only calls Harris a "true liberal", it also states, "Rich Lowry defended Harris and Maher by arguing that their liberals critics are unable to "talk frankly about the illiberalism of much of the Muslim world"", asserting that the liberal critics aren't really liberal? That is a contradiction, on the one hand, and on the other, the statements identifying Harris with right-wing neocon policies have also been deleted. Sorry, not even in the NPOV ballpark, and not even clear what the POV being presented is.

A couple of those individuals seem to be adherents of a form of "scientism"/atheism, and the statements quoted are somewhat facile, and on the level of mass-media punditry compared to the in depth analysis of Harris' publications by scholars of history, theology, politics and the Middle East as well as a high-profile journalist that is constitutional and civil rights attorney.

I have steadily improved the level of sourcing, now having three academics with articulate criticisms based on analysis of Harris works, which they quote from extensively. Academic sources are generally afforded the most weight, and though I culled only one representative quote from Beattie, who is a scholar of religion. Gad Saad is a professor of marketing and consumer behavior; in other words, he is hardly an expert in the relevant field(s) (nor are any of the other people cited above: Krauss is a physicist, Burleigh a journalist, Lindsay an attorney, Zepps a "media personality", Coyne a biologist, etc.)

Moreover, you and others are trying to censure the statements of bona fide scholars in fields related to Harris' popular works, while presenting Harris as a bona fide scholar in the fields in which he has published popular works. You haven't produced a single source from an academic in history, theology, philosophy, or politics that defends any of Harris statements themselves. As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. It is not a coincidence that Jackson Lears suggested he spend more time in the lab than pontificating about things outside of his field of expertise, basically.

Lastly, Beattie's statement is attributed to her, not stated as a fact, so there is absolutely nothing defamatory in terms of Wikipedia's presentation of that statement or any of the others. Beattie is RS on Harris having published a monograph on New Atheism that includes much material, including a dedicated section, on Harris. Obviously, NPOV requires the presentation of her POV.

I've refrained from posting quotes that excerpt Harris works, because there are too many and the analysis is generally what is more important. But, the following is a sampling taken only from the Guardian article, but if you've read Lears or looked at Beattie, you'll know that there are many passages addressed, and I did post one from Painter, with the accompanying commentary.

Quotes related to Harris on Islam from Guardian article[6] (including citations)

1. In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."
2. This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed([7]) that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam."
3. He has also decreed([8]) that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
4. Yes, he criticizes Christianity, but he reserves the most intense attacks and superlative condemnations for Islam, as well as unique policy prescriptions of aggression, violence and rights abridgments aimed only at Muslims. As the atheist scholar John L Perkins wrote about Harris' 2005 anti-religion book: "Harris is particularly scathing about Islam."
5. Here's a 2008 interview with the great war journalist Chris Hedges on what he concluded after reviewing the work of "New Atheists" such as Harris and Hitchens: "I was appalled at how they essentially co-opted secular language to present the same kind of chauvinism, intolerance, and bigotry that we see in the Christian right." He adds:

   "They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.

6. Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary"); to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries ("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah"); to anti-Muslim profiling ("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"); to state violence ("On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are").

Other quotes related to Harris on Islam

The first one is from a law professor, published by Oxford University Press The Agnostic Age: Law, Religion, and the Constitution, Paul Horwitz, Oxford University Press, 2011, and the second one by a political scientist, published by Sydney University Press Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections, Philip Andrew Quadrio, Sydney University Press, 2009.

1. Harris reserves special hostility for Islam, writing that “any notion of a fundamentally peaceful Islam that has been corrupted by a wicked few is wrong, because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith”.(Harris' italics; quote is from “Letter to a Christian Nation”, p.85, 2006)
2. In a broad ranging critique Slezak, well known as an atheist, considers the way the writings of contemporary atheistic thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris seem to carry a certain prejudice, particularly towards Islam.
3. In other words, says Harris, liberals are fooling themselves if they think that Islamic extremism, and its murderous antipathy to the west, is somehow an aberration; it is part and parcel of orthodox belief in that faith. Atheists for Cheney, Marty Kaplan, HP, May 25, 2011
4. He has his reasons for shrinking from writing about the most revolutionary and hopeful changes of the modern political era, namely the great Arab Awakening that is sweeping away the US-backed tyrants in North Africa and the Middle East. It began of course last year, and in the interval, Harris has found time to devote thousands of words to ethnically profiling Muslims at airports."Sam Harris, uncovered", T. Sayeed, Mondoweiss

--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 20 February; 15:14, 23 February 2015; 14:55, 25 February (UTC)

statement is attributed to her, not stated as a fact, so there is absolutely nothing defamatory

Incorrect. Attributing a contentious statement does not magically strip it of its defamatory nature.

I have steadily improved the level of sourcing, now having three academics with articulate criticisms...

Perhaps you'll share them with us, along with your proposed wording for addition to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: The wording I've already proposed is there in the edit history. When I want to add something else, I will, according to BRD. This might just go to ArbCom before that, though, depending on the level of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI, because you have continually violated WP:BLPREMOVE. Note that said policy states.

Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

But you just keep making empty claims and reverts of very well-sourced material and falsely accused me of violating BLP.

Remember, there is an essay about competence because there are problems associated with a lack thereof, and sometimes the issue has to be raised. It is not an insult or personal attack to question someone's competence when they seem unable to comprehend the subject matter at issue in an article or the statements made in sources, particularly when the sources are by bona fide scholars for a fairly sophisticated audience, because incompetence becomes disruptive when people persistently adhere to notions that are either dispelled and disproved by the sources, or are simply a sign of unwavering bias reflected in a refusal to acknowledge and learn.

You've misrepresented at least one source in more than one way, and you have claimed that I have engaged in SYNTH and misrepresented a source that it appears you simply didn't understand. I'm going to post another quote above, directly from the Lears piece. The seventeen page book review is fairly complex and broad in scope, and was written as a comprehensive review of not one, but three books by Harris.

Allow me to further note here that you in this case, the objection has been made with respect to my paraphrasing of the material, as opposed to the use of block quotes.

I'm going to ask you how the content I've proposed for the "Political" subsection could be integrated into the article. And in this case, I'm referring to the structure of the article, which you are by and large responsible for, having deleted the Criticisms section and moved that content to the "Views" subcategories, and having subsequently deleted the "Political" subsection and its content several times, claiming BLP violations where there are none, etc. Are you denying that there is political content to Harris' statements, as addressed and criticized in RS, including those by mainstream scholars and news commentators? Are you in agreement with LM2000 and Jweiss11 that, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between politics and religion, or however you interpret their statements?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of nonsense in those words, Ubikwit. Where to start... I've continually violated BLPREMOVE? No; not once have I claimed an exemption (and there is already a BLP/N discussion). I've accused you of violating BLP? Sometimes; what I've done is pointed out when your additions were not in compliance with WP:BLP policy, like when you wished to assert that Harris must hate Muslims because of Jewish tribalism (see related BLPN discussion). Yes, there is an essay on competence, and yes, sometimes the issue has to be raised; and you've been doing so daily, whether you realize it or not. I note that your claim "You've misrepresented at least one source in more than one way" is completely devoid of supporting evidence or example (no shock there), so I guess we move on. Regarding your various comments on the Lears book review, of course I understood his article. If you found it too "sophisticated" or "fairly complex", perhaps I can help clarify any portions you find confusing. If you are sincere when you ask my input on how to integrate content into the article, I'd like to help. Am I correct in assuming you are approaching this from your perspective of "since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate"? (I'm sure the Journal of the American Neurological Association, PLoS, PLoS ONE, and Annals of Neurology will all be amused to discover that they are no longer peer-reviewed academic journals.) Am I also correct in assuming that it is your desire to ascribe to Harris political views which were not enunciated by Harris himself, but are conjectured by these bona fide scholars? Can we start with just a single, succinct example of such a view, to keep things simple? Preferably one which is asserted by multiple reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: Your initial suggestion about going back to before the Criticisms section was deleted wasn't too bad, incidentally, but Xenophrenic cited a policed-based reason for removing that section, so I tried to accommodate that by creating the Political section. The efforts to integrate material are not making progress, and there is scarce good faith collaboration. This is going to ArbCom soon, so if you have any ideas, now's the time to suggest them. I'd be particularly interested in any other restructuring ideas.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Elsewhere on this page I said "You know the drill". Perhaps that is not true so I will mention that ArbCom will have nothing to do with this garden-variety disagreement among editors on an article talk page. You could try WP:DR but it is unlikely that many other editors would think that coatracking extreme interpretations of a subject's work was desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When you characterize the POVs of academics as "extreme", you demonstrate that you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to be commenting in this thread. Bye bye.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Sources

Four new sources, three newly cited in lead per WP:WHYCITE

1. Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections
2. I Don't Believe in Atheists, by Chris Hedges
3. Salon interview with Hedges
4. Interview with Hedges cited and quoted by Greenwald in Guardian piece
5. Sam Harris, torture, quotation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice try -- but we already refused Sayeed in the RfC above so sneaking him in does not work. Nor does using Wikipedia's voice in a BLP saying the person supports torture work. Please note that deliberately violating the clear result of an RfC may result in community sanctions. Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's another presumptuous claim; only a single statement was the subject of the Sayeed piece, and you have not claimed that the piece is not RS, or have you? Is that your claim? Even after the BLP/N thread?

OK, I see that the torture related phrasing did not attributed directly to the "Some critics." No problem, that can stay, for now, at any rate.

It is mentioned in the article four times at present, and some of the best sources aren't even included.

The entire text should not have reverted the entire text if the only objections are to the mention of torture and the Sayeed refcite, but you already know that. I'm going to restore the text without the reference to torture, and I'll even leave the Sayeed citation out.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

readability anyone?

[9] for

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism.

Gets a negative 30 score in readability, and I myself can not comprehend it and I am fairly literate. In fact The Flesch reading ease score is -30, this means that 0% of the articles on Wikipedia are harder to read than this one. On Simple Wikipedia this holds for 0% of the articles. it would be the record holder on Wikipedia entirely.

And you expect a cogent "paraphrase" for incomprehensible effluvia?

[10] assigns it a "grade level" of about 22 (or six years of post-grad study). Collect (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the text I'd inserted

With regard to the according of exclusive domain over morality to science, Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism.

This truncated version scores better and nothing is lost, insofar as the morality and science question is not directly addressed in that context

Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problematic text you proposed, and the problems with it are detailed in issue description #9 above. Collect, here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law. Ubikwit has taken Lears' two claims (the atheists are using positivism + ills of the past also involved positivism) and synthesized that into "Lears states" the atheists are using a philosophy which gave rise to racism and imperialism. I suppose it doesn't matter if the implication is factual or not, or even if a direct cause and effect is asserted, just as long as we get the contentious verbiage into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your text has a readability of 8, and all of 3% of Wikipedia articles are harder to read. And it does not even seem close to what the original wording seemed to state. Closer gloss of the original:

Empirical assumptions (slightly contradictory as positivism relies on empiricism, and rejects assumptions) give knowledge-related bases for several theories of society based on biological patterns and evolution of psychology based on genetic changes, and also for the use of science to make excuses for racism, and imperialism.

Still unreadable and internally contradictory, but that happens with unreadable sentences. And "New Atheists" do not fit into any reasonable reading of the sentence. And appending material not present in the original sentence is OR at best. We ought not do such ina WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: The truncated version has a readability of 18. Readability is not the issue you are actually intent on addressing, apparently. If you can't understand the text, don't comment on it.

@Xenophrenic: It is you that have executed Godwin's law.

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked at RefDesk - and it spears the "meaning" is exceedingly unclear, as I stated. It seems to mean "A or "Variant of A or B may imply either C or D or E or F" which is remarkably useless for the claim you wish to assert it makes. What it does not say is "A implies C and D and E and F". Collect (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that complicated: The sentence could be shortened and simplified further to something like

Lears asserts that Harris has adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism.

One obvious point is that Lears research as transmitted through this multi-book review supports Hussain's POV regarding scientific racism. Lears reference to the "national-security state" also supports another of the political criticism made by another RS(or two). When presented together, the context makes it even easier for the reader to comprehend.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IOW, it does not say "Harris supports 'scientific racism' or 'imperialism'" at all. So what claim would you try to use it to support? Collect (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No offence, but when you want to stick an insinuation in an article that someone is a proponent of scientific racism or eugenics despite that not being the case, it looks a lot like you are trying to do a hatchet job. It's also clearly a serious BLP issue to stick in insinuations like that. Just because a source states something moronic and provocative doesn't mean we just thoughtlessly stick it into the article. Combine that with all negative quotes you want stuck in the article, a picture quickly builds up of a person who wants to discredit someone rather than provide a balanced account. No, an insinuation that there is a connection to imperialism, racism and eugenics is not going to get into the article because it's a dirty smear tactic. I think it shows poor judgement on your behalf that you fail to understand why. Seriously, what are you thinking? Second Quantization (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: Your bias is readily apparent, and not a problem so long as you stick to sources and policy. Please read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PUBLICFIGURE while you're reviewing the relevant policies.

Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. And a peer-reviewed publication by another academic (also a historian) supports Lears statements. It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution.

Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha. I'd love to hear what my bias is on this topic. Should be good for a laugh, Second Quantization (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I would have thought you were well familiar with the text I'd inserted regarding Lears by now.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Cup of tea time. Collect (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Arguments or unsupported statements?

I'm not sure of the rationale for changing "argues" to "says" – for instance

• "In his 2010 book The Moral Landscape, Harris argues that science can help answer moral problems ..."

changed to

• "In his 2010 book The Moral Landscape, Harris says that science can help answer moral problems ..."

You may disagree with his premises or the quality of his arguments, or you may believe that some of his arguments are not purely deductive, but I don't see the argument for claiming that he is not arguing. He writes

• "... the argument I make in this book ... rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states in the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. ... I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science."

I suppose there is an implied premise that science can help to answer questions about events in the world and/or states in the human brain", but I wouldn't have though that was disputed. He also supports his statements with examples – such as research indicating that corporal punishment leads to violence and pathology (rather than promoting well-being), thus providing a basis for decisions on when there is a moral obligation to use corporal punishment. --Boson (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt - use "say." MOS: Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate.

"Argue" is frequently les than neutral. Collect (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Argues" sounds more scientific, like he is making statements to support the hypothetical position of his statement. Even though some aspects of the proposition are obvious and non-controversial, others aren't. Accordingly, since he himself has used the term argument, I think it makes him seem less dogmatic (i.e., unscientific) if we use "argues", too. Obviously I agree with his critics that many of his statements are dogmatic, but where he is trying to be more scientific, we should reflect that in the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Argue" is fine here. Harris is making an argument in the book. He's not arguing as in yelling, or anything else that could be negative. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

""Argues" sounds more scientific". Eh? Second Quantization (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer "tries to argue". I think that's fair, it doesn't reflect on the success or not of the argument by weasel words. In fact it appears to be used by many authors themselves in printed works: link. Second Quantization (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'Argues' (or similarly 'concludes') may be more accurate where you want to imply that a process of reasoning has been presented, whereas 'states', 'says', et al lose something. For example "Hume argues [or concludes that] power and necessity are qualities of perceptions, not of objects" clearly suggests he thinks he provides support for this assertion. "Hume says ..." may sound dogmatic. shellac (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)