Jump to content

Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Primary sourced section

There is clearly an issue that this section: Sam_Harris_(author)#Views lacks secondary sources, Second Quantization (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

Is there a WP:CONSENSUS for either of the following edits:

[1] (edit summary: Stop removing sourced material - last warning) adding substantially to the BLP or is

[2] supported by consensus of the editors here? 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


I find the added material to add nothing of value to the WP:BLP, and thus suggest we find a consensus based on that second edit. Collect (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The largest section of disputed or problematic text reflected in the Diffs you provided appears to be the newly added "Political" views subsection. One objection, with which I agree, is that most of that content is just a re-hash of the Islam view criticism. I find the reimagining of Harris' criticisms of Islam into "political views" by a couple commentators (Sayeed, Greenwald, etc.), just because "neocons" agree with the criticisms, to be unpersuasive. In addition, the "Political" views section only contained opinions, speculation and criticisms on what views Harris might hold, instead of political views Harris has actually acknowledged having.
An additional area of contention appears to be between attempts to insert as many hyperbolic criticism quotations (with blockquote highlighting, no less) as possible versus an impartial summary coverage of significant and valid criticisms. The second diff shows a more policy-compliant version. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of Islamophobia, etc.

A one-sentence summary of extensive condemnation in three sources has been revert-warred out without discussion or explantion, and it is readily evident that the sources support the sentence, as shown by the following excerpts from two of them.
The author of the following Salon article, Nathan Lean, is the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media and the author of three books, including the award-winning "The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims."

The New Atheists, they are called, offer a departure from the theologically based arguments of the past, which claimed that science wasn’t all that important in disproving the existence of God. Instead, Dawkins and other public intellectuals like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens suffocate their opponents with scientific hypotheses, statistics and data about the physical universe — their weapons of choice in a battle to settle the scores in a debate that has raged since the days of Aristotle. They’re atheists with attitudes, as polemical as they are passionate, brash as they are brainy…The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason. “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death,” writes Harris, whose nonprofit foundation Project Reason ironically aims to “erode the influence of bigotry in our world.”
For Harris, the ankle-biter version of the Rottweiler Dawkins, suicide bombers and terrorists are not aberrations. They are the norm. They have not distorted their faith by interpreting it wrongly. They have lived out their faith by understanding it rightly. “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” he writes in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
That may sound like the psychobabble of Pamela Geller. But Harris’s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.”
How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. [3]

Contrary to the assumptions under which some Harris defenders are laboring, the fact that someone is a scientist, an intellectual, and a convincing and valuable exponent of atheism by no means precludes irrational bigotry as a driving force in their worldview. In this case, Harris' own words, as demonstrated below, are his indictment.
…Harris defenders such as the neoconservative David Frumwant to pretend that criticisms of Harris consist of nothing more than the claim that…"it's OK to be an atheist, so long as you omit Islam from your list of the religions to which you object." That's a wildly dishonest summary of the criticisms of Harris
Harris… has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." 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."
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."
As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics": because his atheism invariably serves - explicitly so - as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That's why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying "sensible" things about Islam is significant: not because it means he's a European fascist, but because it's unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, albeit with a more intellectualized expression.[4]

Meanwhile, "racism" is not the issue directly addressed, as far as I can tell, but Islamophobia, so I've deleted "racism". The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis.

Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.[5]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Ubikwit, if you'll check the edit summaries, you'll find the explanation for the revert of your problematic text. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
(looked for a "summary" and didn't find it here; only context-less accusations, one side of the story)
Since you've reintroduced your half-summary, one side of the story, and requested that I "Take it to Talk", I'll do just that ... here it is:
His writings on atheism have been criticized by various commentators, with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia. (Cited to Guardian opinion piece by Greenwald, Salon opinion piece by Nathan Lean, Al Jazeera opinion piece by Murtaza Hussain)
You do realize, I hope, that content in the WP:LEAD must summarize what is in the body of the article, right? You must also adhere to WP:BLP, for which you are showing a considerable lack of concern. Harris has responded extensively to these three jokers, some of which is in the body of the article - but it seems that half of your "summary" got lost somewhere. The explanation of the criticisms also got lost. (And no, Hussain never accuses Harris of Islamophobia...etc.) We don't do half-descriptions like that, Ubikwit, you should know that by know. Per WP:BRD and your request, I've taken your bold addition to the lede to the Talk page. Let's figure out what it is you are trying to do first. Then we'll do it right. And then we'll carry it over to the lead. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(As a side note, regarding the mess you inserted in the body of the article, what exactly are "criticisms of the Harris"? Why is there underlined text in a Wikipedia article? I'm too tired at the moment to decipher what it is you are trying to do there, but I'll get around to it.) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I expanded the text with relevant material, and more could be added, as shown by the quotes posted above. I don't see how you can challenge the "Islamophobia" allegation; in fact, there is material on the page of Harris responding to the allegations, as you say, the allegations by "these jokers" as you call them, have been whitetwashed out. It seems that the article has Harris responding to claims that the article doesn't set forth--so I fixed that, somewhat. In fact, the very next sentence after the quote from Lean quoting Chomsky starts, "Harris wrote a response to this controversy". Greenwald's statements are only quoted with respect to the Hussain's, apparently, when Greenwald addresses Islamophobia in much more direct terms. And Greenwald expliicitly states

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.

Is there anything violating BLP in that?

The underlined text is the title of a book (not standard formatting?) that was published by one of those "jokers", working on second post-grad degree (and journalist)[6], an received this award.
You claim that Hussain doesn't allege Islamophobia, and you may be right; the text is somewhat convoluted insofar as he defends the freedom of religion of atheists and their right to critique Islam, and appears not to want such critique to be mislabled.
On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like

What Harris and those like him represent is the time-honoured tradition of weaponised racism in the guise of disinterested scientific observation.
what is being pursued today by individuals such as Harris and others under the guise of disinterested observation is something far more insidious. By resurrecting the worst excesses of scientific racism and its violent corollaries, Harris is heir to one of the most disreputable intellectual lineages in modern history.
While those individuals who have provided the intellectual ammunition for the excesses of the present era will inevitably find themselves as dishonoured as their racist predecessors, in the present they should nonetheless be recognised as the dangerous ideologues which they are.
Just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalise their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note the coverage under the Criticisms section of the New Atheism article[7], to which I've just added a brief statement of the Lean material from the Salon news piece.

Sources

  1. Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash

    Hussain reserved particular ire for Sam Harris, a neuroscientist by trade whose atheist tracts “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” have made him one of the leading anti-religious polemicists of his age.

  2. Unholy war: Atheists and the politics of Muslim-baiting
  3. Modernization, Identity and Integration: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Islam in Europe
  4. The New Atheism and Islam

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you can challenge the "Islamophobia" allegation
It's not our job to challenge or defend allegations. As an outspoken atheist, it goes without saying that he will garner many critics, especially among the world's "believers". What are those criticisms, and are they, according to reliable sources, significant enough to appear in this BLP? Yet instead of convey that as required by policy, you place this uninformative, vague wording in the lead, "His writings on atheism have been criticized by various commentators...". Not only does that not summarize whatever criticism may exist, but it conveys zero information to the reader. It also appears to be simply a flimsy vehicle used to insert the rest of your wording, "with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia", which according to the body of our article are just polemics and attacks from a small handful of islamophobia writers. (That description is echoed in the article from the Independent you just cited, too.)
Is there anything violating BLP in that?
Putting anything in the lead that isn't supported by multiple high-quality sources (not opinion screeds), or isn't first properly detailed in the body of the article, or isn't of sufficient significance in reliable sources to take up real estate in the article, or any combination thereof. Book titles are not underlined in Wikipedia articles (see MoS). Also, block quotes should be used sparingly in articles, and not as part of lengthy "he said"-"she said" transcripts.
do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back ...
Oh sure; we can also add that he ties tin cans to the tails of cats, and makes sculptures out of his own feces, just because someone claimed it in an article they wrote. I can't believe you asked that. Where are the multiple high-quality sources required by WP:BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ubikwit and Xenophrenic, I agree with everything ubikwit has said about the appropriateness of the changes he made to this page, and his criticism of Xenophrenic's objections. There is a section of this article about criticism, so the information is not out of place in the summary. Furthermore, I first heard of Harris because of the significant amount of dialogue online about these criticisms of his work, and did my best to cite examples of that dialogue. I think that if this is such a prominent feature of the discourse about this figure, it should be reflected in the summary of this article. -jonotrain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonotrain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to agree or disagree with Ubikwit. As for me, I agree with Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. I guess that means you and I will have to agree to disagree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong. Even opinion pieces can be used in BLPs, as evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above, and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent.

He added: “Citing “Muslims” as a solid monolith of violent evil - whilst neglecting to include the countless Muslims who have lost their lives peacefully protesting the occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland - Harris engages in a nuanced version of the same racism which his predecessors in scientific racism practiced in their discussion of the blanket characteristics of “Negroes”.”[8]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am wrong about what? I never said opinion pieces can't be used in BLPs. Did you read what I did say? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If what you mean is that my re-wording of the sentence was inadequate, vis-a-vis atheism, then suggest an alternative. Note the following statements from the article in the Independent

...and Sam Harris are on the receiving end of stinging criticism from fellow liberal non-believers who say their particular brand of atheism has swung from being a scientifically rigorous attack on all religions to a populist and crude hatred of Islam.
In the last fortnight a series of columns have been written denouncing the so-called New Atheist movement for, in one writer’s words, lending a “veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry.”

It's rather unbalanced to to include a discussion of the criticism of Harris's critique of Islam without first discussing exactly what his critique of Islam is. Right now the article has a mentioned of "Islamaphobia" in the lead and three more mentions in the body, yet there is no discussion of Harris's specific commentary on Islam. This is a problem of undue weight, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not how WEIGHT works. There is almost no coverage of Harris' critique of Islam that I've seen, except for negative (see above and below).
If you want to add a section on Harris's critique of Islam, feel free to make a BOLD edit, but take note, both Lean and Greenwald have directly quoted a rather offensive comment Harris made in his book "The End of Faith", which means that further criticism would probably be added in response to whatever specific points of Harris' critique are proffered.
As it stands, there appears to be a large volume of such criticism, and the text in the article represents an attempt to reflect the main points in a DUE amount, but since new sources have been introduced, they probably should be integrated in a bit of a rewrite.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a proposal for how the criticism should be properly summarized in the lead? I've removed the "Critic XXX calls Harris a [insert name calling here]" one-sided blurb, as it is not a proper summary of the issue. I've been waiting for your suggestions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one that wants the text modified, not me. You come up with the proposal.
Don't remove the Criticism section or alter the Chomsky quote in a manner such as to change and degrade its meaning. There was nothing in the Islam section other than criticism, which is misleading. I suggest you do some ground work and build a section documenting Harris' statements on Islam before titling a section "On Islam". And what was your assertion about a "copyvio" about?
Your claims about BLP violations don't seem adequate or accurate, so I suggest you take them to the BLP notice board and be specific, addressing one at a time.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one that wants the text modified...

Incorrect. You've been placing text in the lede which does not properly summarize the subject matter. (So has a new account with just a handful of edits - is that you, too?) So I have been removing it. If you would like my help in developing a balanced, NPOV summary addition for the lede, I've got no problem with that. If you'll recall, I've already asked you what information you want to convey to the reader. For the lead, specifically, what information from the body of the article do you wish to summarize? I'm fairly certain there is more to the subject than "critics have accused Harris of yada yada." What prompted the criticism, and what was his response? You left out that part of the summary, so I removed what you added.

Don't remove the Criticism section...

Too late. It's gone. I didn't remove the criticism, just the section header, per WP:CSECTION. All the criticism is still there, but now located with the stuff being criticized, as it should be.

I suggest you do some ground work and build a section documenting Harris' statements on Islam...

I was doing just that when you decided to do a blanket revert, which also wiped out spelling corrections, punctuation corrections, formatting, etc. I think we've been editing articles in common enough that you should know by now that disruptive reverts like that are ineffective against me. Please try to work more collaboratively.

...or alter the Chomsky quote in a manner such as to change and degrade its meaning

About that "Chomsky quote", only 2 words are from Chomsky, and the rest appears to be made up by Nathan Lean. Is that quote supposed to be from that YouTube clip you provided? If so, he never mentioned Dawkins. And "beliefs about secularism" is a nonsensical oxymoron; better to repeat what Chomsky actually said about secularism.

Your claims about BLP violations don't seem adequate or accurate, so I suggest you take them to the BLP notice board and be specific...

I decline, thanks. If we're going to handle this through noticeboards, I may as well raise my BLP and other editing concerns at AE, since that is where this will likely end up. It would be much better, however, to try to work together on article improvement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More quotes, from a second secondary source on the pieces by Lean, Hussain, and Greenwald

Polemical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who were dubbed the ‘The Unholy Trinity’, have openly criticised religion in their books – such as The God Delusion (Dawkins), God is not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris). But in an earlier time, much of their atheist exertions were focused on the excesses of Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Judaism.
More generally, Harris wrote that Islam, “more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”
And while there were “other ideologies with which to expunge the last vapors of reasonableness from a society's discourse,” Islam, he added, “is undoubtedly one of the best we've got.”
Writing in Salon, Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, reasons that...
The New Atheists, he writes, became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”
similar critique of the atheists’ excessive preoccupation with painting Islam as evil is offered up by Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto-based scholar of Mideast Politics. Writing in the Al Jazeera website, Hussain likens leading figures in the New Atheist movement – like Harris – to those from an earlier era who justified racism on pseudo-scientific grounds.
Where once science was trotted out to justify slavery, today it is being used to push forward the belief that Muslims as a people lack basic humanity and to justify the “wars of aggression, torture and extra-judicial killings”, he adds.
Hussain’s column has an epilogue. After Guardian’s columnist Glenn Greenwald tweeted out a link to Hussain’s column, Harris e-mailed him (here) to object to his retweeting “defamatory garbage” and to claim that there was in fact “nothing defamatory” about his criticism of Islam and that he criticised “white, western converts in precisely the same terms.”
Greenwald responded to Harris to say that he was probably “embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of atheism advocacy.” In his estimation, he added, “a bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerading in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long.”[9]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool. You've found an article, and extracted some partial quotes from it. And? Are you proposing an article improvement based on this source, and if so, what is your specific proposal? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

second arbitrary break

@Xenophrenic: I've made some adjustments to address concerns about neutrality, but you're going to have to do some work, too, if you want to make major changes that reflect the content of reliably sourced statements. BLP concerns will have to be brought to BLP/N, because I don't see the violations and you have not specifically identified any.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What are your adjustments to neutrality? Can you describe them here on the Talk page, please? As for BLP violations, I have no questions that need to be answered at the noticeboard. The policy is clear: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported," which you failed to do. And "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." C'mon, Ubikwit, you've been around a while and know this stuff — unless you are some hacker who has stolen Ubikwit's account. Propose your additions of contentious content; let's agree that they are compliant; then we'll add them to the article. Wikipedia editing 101. Or you can keep revert-warring your disputed additions into the article, and we'll see where that gets you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I reworded the statement in the lead so as to narrow its scope and be more concise. I removed the allegation of racism (Hussain) in favor of focusing on Greenwalds more narrow focus, as per the blockquote.
I moved the Chomsky quote so that Harris' denial of the allegations of Islamophobia could immediately follow the allegations as presented by Greenwald.
There are now two secondary sources recanting the claims made in the three opinion pieces, there is no BLP vio in using those sources for valid, widely-reported criticism, and the material is compliant with all of Wikipedia's policies. If you don't think so, it should be raised at BLP/N.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Ubikwit, per your response to me above, I'm quite sure I understand how "WEIGHT" works. You claim that "there is almost no coverage of Harris'critique of Islam that I've seen, except for negative." That appears to be to a function more of what you've been looking for rather than a comprehensive assessment of what's out there. Here's a a piece by Lawrence Krauss, published in just the last 24 hours, that references the distortion of Harris's positions on Islam: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-m-krauss/unc-isnt-charlie-hebdo-an_b_6681990.html. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic,

I would like to weigh in on this controversy: I am not Ubikwit. I have few edits, it is true. we all have to start somewhere. It may shock you to learn this, but there's more than one person who disagrees with you in the world. I think you're correct that we should incorporate the criticism section into other sections of this article, and to incorporate accusations of islamophobia into a section of writings on islam or on "new atheism". When that is done, there is no reason that mention of this criticism should be excluded from the summary. It is not one-sided, as you claim. it mentions Harris' writings and their subject matter, then summarizes the critical discourse they've provoked. Of course, as Jweiss11 points out, commentators are not unanimous on this, but my point is that there is substantial and extensive discourse about this point (his new atheism as a front for Islamophobia) and that should be reflected in the article.

Just as an example: imagine if the article on the OJ Simpson trial didnt mention that there was some controversy surrounding the verdict. here's the relevant sentence from the summary of that article: "By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences in the assessment of Simpson's guilt between most black and white Americans.[11]" This is admirable; the reader now knows that there was disagreement, and understands that race played a major role in that. this is what we should be trying to replicate.

Ubikwit is correct that we have responded to all your specific complaints. There is no BLP violation here - the BLP says that criticisms like these should be accompanied by sources, and we have included a number of sources.

Jonotrain (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain

@Xenophrenic: The HP piece you linked to is not relevant to any of the statements being addressed. I noticed some other HP pieces, such as this[10].
I've left the one paragraph of material that you added in the major restructuring of the article along, and simply moved the Chomsky quote to a subsection on his political views. I'm even going to add a statement from his Blog, though it is a primary source (I now see that it was originally published on Truthdig), because the HP piece I linked to mentions it.
You're not going to whitewash the article of criticism, and there are more than enough RS for the quote removed from the lead to be replaced.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jonotrain: The mondoweiss piece has an interesting quote and link to an interview, and maybe the matieral would be better in the "Political" subsection, as tribalism is also addressed there-including a quote from Harris.

Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics. And from there I will begin my examination of his thought and work my way back to the question of religion for which he is better known. Harris gave a revealing interview recently to Tablet that best sums up the key themes of his political writing on the Middle East, Israel and the Western relation to Muslims

@Jonotrain:I see that he has published other pieces on Harris, too [11], and that Harris calls him a troll and basically doesn't respondhere. With the linked to interview here [12]. I'm somewhat skeptical that Sayeed would be deemed to pass RS scrutiny solely on the basis of MW contributions, but his articles may be good sources leading to other sources that may be RS.-Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:02, 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit:- its ok with me if you want to take out the sayeed quote - itll be a little while before i have the time to do more edits - consider this though - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." - we are talking about the controversy surrounding Harris' work here, and Sayeed's article appears to have citations, etc.Jonotrain (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain
@Jonotrain:I agree, and Mondoweiss is a reliable source for opinion, so I don't intend to take it out. I couldn't find any other journalistic work by him though. If someone challenges it, it might be possible to use sources he cites.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a number of edits to this page without knowing a discussion like this was going on, so I mostly reverted back to the way it was before I put my hands on it so that this discussion can continue. You can see my version here. I think that the current version gives WP:UNDUE weight to Greenwald, who takes up three paragraphs. I also merged the Politics section with On Islam as most of it has to do with criticism of his comments on Islam. Chomsky, Greenwald, and Hussain all make similar comments so I flattened that as well. The one part of my edits that remains is support for Harris' comments on Islam (unless all criticism of Harris is also wiped from the article). These are alluded to in the lede but aren't addressed in the article. Before I made my changes I believe there was an WP:NPOV issue. I don't really care to fight for any of the other changes that I made, although if anybody sees value in them then you do have my support.LM2000 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@LM2000: I like your changes - i think they improve the article and adhere to wikipedia's standards better so i have restored them. I added one more sentence of quotation from Greenwald than you had - I just want the islam section to give a fuller picture of Harris' views - if you think it is still imbalanced, perhaps we could expand that section by adding ore summary of Harris' writings on the topic Jonotrain (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain
@LM2000: As I've stated above, this article is not going to be whitewashed. Of course I have no objection to your including statements of supporters per NPOV.
@Jonotrain: I find it interesting that you would want to remove your own edits, not to mention the sudden turnabout.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: No source provided has Harris self-identify as Jewish, therefore we can not label him as Jewish per WP:BLPCAT. Also note that where a person makes a clear statement in an editorial labeling a person as having a religious bias, we should be very sure that the view is mainstream. Mondoweiss does not appear to meet WP:RS for any claims of fact, therefore we can not in any way imply that the person alleging "tribal" bias is making a statement of fact, and specifically the sideways claim that the person is Jewish and has a "tribal bias". Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) .

@Ubikwit:-I'm just trying to make the best article and the most standards-compliant one that we can. I agree with LM2000 that the edits I made were too lengthy and gave undue weight to Greenwald, and I found that their revision kept the substance while being more compliant. My main concern is that the Islam section give an accurate portrayal of Harris' views, as well as the controversy surrounding them - and i think more space should be devoted to his own writings to do so.Jonotrain (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain

I also agree with LM2000 that the politics section is not strong at present - it doesnt give a cohesive picture of Harris' views - its more of a list of people accusing him of islamophobia - given this focus, i think it should be integrated into the On Islam section - the article doesnt become stronger if we just add more and more quotations accusing him of islamophobia - we need to actually represent his views in their specificity and let readers judge.Jonotrain (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain

：The Political section starts out with a representative quote from Harris. Feel free to expand it at will, just don't delete any DUE material. I have moved the Mondoweiss quote there, too, where it belongs.

You are the one that added the excess Greenwald quote, and then tried to say it was UNDUE, and then removed it as well as material that I added. That seems somewhat unusual to me. Meanwhile, Greenwald is at the center of several debates with Harris, including that related to Hussain, and I haven't even mentioned the neocon connection referred to by Greenwald with a quote from David Frum. There is also the questionable quote from Harris claiming that Greenwald has tried to make him his enemy, which does seem like an UNDUE quote from a primary source that is largely irrelevant to the issues being reported in RS about the debate between Harris and Greenwald.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anybody wants whitewashing to occur, we just want the material presented in the best way possible. Right now we have a serious WP:QUOTEFARM problem. Note my additions from Harris supporters and how a number of people who agree with him on the issue of Islamophobia are grouped together. Individually they used very different words to explain very similar feelings. If they were given equal weight to Greenwald, Chomsky, and Hussain their comments would each be written out individually and stretched into several paragraphs. There is no reason for this "Politics" section to exist. One of the critics in that section writes a direct response to Greenwald (who appears in the Islam section), two of them make the same argument Greenwald did about Harris masking his alleged bigotry behind rationalism. I appreciate that we have limited Greenwald's comments to one paragraph but it still mostly consists of direct quotes pasted from the source. We need to summarize and paraphrase here, per WP:QUOTEFARM, the fact that we expand so much on the quotes of his critics while conflate the comments of his supporters violates WP:NPOV.LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your assertions are not supported by the sources, and there is no quotefarm, which includes the statement.

Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text.

It would not be easier to paraphrase any of the quotes. An attempt was made on the Chomsky quote, totally obfuscating its meaning and import, for example.
The fact that there is a quote in the article that

Harris and Greenwald have clashed on numerous other occasions - Harris writes that Greenwald has "worked very hard to make himself my enemy.

is further testimony to the import and prevalence of coverage of Greenwald over any of the "supporters" to whom you refer. The coverage afforded Grenwald is minimal and concise compared to that available in RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Political" sections stays, unless you want to revert to the version when there was a "Criticisms" section in the article, the removal of which was the first attempt to whitewash it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Jonotrain, who added to your quotes, had no problem with my summarizations. Coverage of his supporters is also incredibly minimal (I have no idea how the quote from Harris on his dealings with Greenwald indicate a lack of supporters as eight supporters are listed three paragraphs below) compared to the RS available but WP:DUE weight is a must and there is simply no need to be verbose. I'll wait for others to respond to get more solid consensus before I revert back to the non-WP:QUOTEFARM version. You also demanded that the earlier "Criticisms" section remain in full but consensus seems to not be in your favor, this "Politics" section is nothing but a splinter of that under a different name. Every alteration I've seen to your additions seems to be in good faith and based on policy, your implication that there is a whitewashing agenda here isn't very WP:CIVIL.LM2000 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one that said you weren't going to fight for your changes. Ha! What a joke. Who do you think your kidding? And Jonotrain???? The SPA that agrees to the reversion of his own edits, another joke.
I suggest that you try adding material from supports instead of deleting well-sourced material, because the next stupid edit here is going to result in an AN/I filing. How's that for civil?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jonotrain and LM2000 that the summarized version is better. I also agree with the observation that the "Political" views section is basically just more Islam/Muslim/Islamophobia-related criticism. I've reinstated that version, since Ubikwit has been the only editor to voice objection. I've also preserved the edits made by Collect, as they appear to improve the article and also address policy compliance. In addition, I've implemented the following edits:

  • Changed "His writing on atheism has provoked sustained debate..." to "His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate", since he doesn't really write/talk as much about atheism as he does religion, and it is his views on religion, not atheism, which are debated. "Sustained" is an unsourced and inaccurate qualifier.
  • Fixed the chopped sentence about Catholicism under the "On Christianity" section.
  • Corrected the sentence, "Harris has ... also appeared on an aired debate hosted by The Huffington Post". He was unable to actually appear in the aired debate cited.
  • Removed Chomsky from the sentence, "Greenwald's sentiments that Harris promotes bigotry ... are held by Noam Chomsky and ... Murtaza Hussain", as unsupported by the 3 cited sources. Greenwald and Hussain charge bigotry; Chomsky, on the other hand, criticizes "new atheists" for promoting the "state religion" of imperialism and warmongering.
  • I removed the half-dozen citations inappropriately piled on to the end of a single sentence in the lead; I left one citation and moved the rest into the body of the article per WP:LEAD.
  • Moved Eskow's comment out of Islam section, as it is not specifically about Islam.
  • Copy editing, and a little content expansion.

Xenophrenic (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The statements are all attributed, and you just don't like them, and are trying to detract from the noted political implications of Harris' statements.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
To which specific statements do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that you somewhat misrepresented Eskow, and removed the recite to the Independent, one of two secondary news pieces, along with the three primary source opinion pieces they discuss, and replaced them with a single refcite to an interview, two of the participants of which are not published in RS on Harris--none that are cited, at any rate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
My Eskow content, as well as its relocation, is absolutely supported by the cited sources. The previous "fostering an intolerance towards Islam" wording, which goes beyond calling Harris intolerant and further accuses him of incitement, which is not supported by the cited sources, was removed. As for the "Independent" citation, I removed the half-dozen citations inappropriately piled on to the end of a single sentence in the lead; I left one citation and moved the rest into the body of the article per WP:LEAD and WP:CITEOVERKILL. If you would prefer the 1 remaining source to be the Independent citation instead, I have no problem with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree about the "Political" subsection of "Views", that has now been removed. It was just more about Harris's views on Islam and criticism of those views. Harris has commented on many other political issues, such as a gun control, stem-cell research, and wealth inequality. If we're going to have a "Political" subsection, it should focus on those things, not rehash the topic of Islam. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, could you please pay more attention to your edits? Your recent blanket revert re-inserted false information about Harris, so I undid your edit. I see you also have not responded to my concerns about the Eskow content we've been editing. Do you understand my concerns? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: No, I do not understand your concerns about Eskow, but please do not misrepresent the source. I have fixed the error about regarding an appearance, but I didn't add that in the first place and you could have easily fixed it yourself.
@Jweiss11: Why don't you go ahead and add the material to which you refer? The section is well-sourced as is, and is not a simple "rehash", but an examination of political implications, as addressed in numerous RS, and not limited exclusively to Islam.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I or someone else could add content about those other topics, but the content in the politic section as it now stands is indeed largely a rehash of what we see in the Islam section above. The part on Israel could easily be merged into the section on Judaism. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
We should also note that most of the criticisms that made up that political section are already in New Atheism#Criticisms word-for-word. Other criticisms described throughout this article are directed mostly or entirely at Harris himself, these criticisms are aimed at New Atheism beliefs in particular. That isn't to say that we can't use them here, as they do mention Harris (often clustered in with other New Atheists), but I do not think the lengthy quotes criticizing beliefs held by the general movement are useful. A see also link to New Atheism#Criticisms may be a better alternative since this information is already there. Ubikwit is the only person to voice support for this politics section on talk; Jweiss11, Xenophrenic, Jonotrain, and I are opposed. That section needs to gain a consensus before it can return.LM2000 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jweiss11:I don't know what your background is, but in the social sciences there is a categorical difference between "views on religion" and "views on politics", even though they may overlap in places. Views on religions, such as Islam and Judaism, are not views on politics except where there is a direct connection between the religion and politics (e.g, theocracy), and views on politics related to criticism of religions should not be misleadingly placed in subsections on religious views. The Chomsky quote obviously doesn't belong under any category corresponding to religious views because it is a criticism of the political implications of Harris' views as a prominent New Atheist.
The original structure of the article included a Criticisms section which was deleted so as to obfuscate and/or remove critical content, particularly the Chomsky quote, and then the neoconservative connection. That would seem to be essentially the same thing you have suggested, and it is not in accord with NPOV.
@LM2000: Glad to see you have read of the Talk page and checked the references that you have been removing from the article. There is no basis for removing criticism from Harris' page because it is also elsewhere, as Harris is "one of the four horsemen" of New Atheism, as it were. And I posted the Chomsky quote there after posting it here. Chomsky and the other academic sources specifically name Harris. Do you have any policy-based arguments for trying to exclude sources? Remember, editing Wikipedia requires competence.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, whatever the practice may be by certain social scientists, the reality is that religions tend to be—and the three Abrahamic religions certainly are—political systems. When Harris and many others criticize religion, they place a particular focus political impact of religious belief and practice in the real world. That being said, in the context of Harris's views and how he has written about them, the "Political" section that you have concocted is indeed a rehash of Harris's views on Judaism and Islam. Both the Judaism and Political views sections are now both quoting the same blog post by Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel. The Political section is also functioning as a lighting rod for more criticism about Harris's views without expanding at all on those views themselves. The main problem with all your edits to this article of late is that you are structuring the article around the criticisms that Harris has received, not around his views or his work. It's like you are working backwards to introduce to the article every attack that has been made on Harris, no matter how legitimate or how unfounded and potentially defamatory, and building the article from that framework. I think it's pretty clear that you are not editing in a neutral fashion as you seem to have some investment in advancing the industry of Sam Harris-smearing here on Wikipedia. @Steeletrap: I see that you have reintroduced Ubikwit's "political" section. You should note that LM2000 has made a reasonable request above for consensus, which we currently don't have, before reintroducing this content. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: You have just engaged in WP:OR in a field with respect to which you apparently lack WP:COMPETENCE, and then you followed that with a string of personal attacks.
Do not assert that there are "problems" with my edits again. If you have issues with the content I have added, respond to it with source-based and policy-based arguments, not personal attacks.
If you intend to contribute to this article, I suggest you try building up the content you pontificate about instead of attacking other editors' work.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to comments that people make in talk pages. My comments are not personal attacks on you. They are assessments of your editing here on this article and they are indeed based on Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And did you just not assert that I lacked competence to participate here because of an observation I made about how Harris and others reasonably approach the subject of religion and politics? With the warning template you just placed on my talk page, your behavior is moving toward the absurd and the disruptive. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I know that you know WP:V (specifically WP:ONUS) clearly states that just because something is sourced doesn't give it some sort of exemption. To the contrary, it states that it can be totally omitted and/or preserved on another page, the latter of which I just suggested. Scroll up to the see other policies linked previously in this discussion. The behavior problems haven't gotten any better since yesterday when I noted your uncivility which caused you to take this to AN/I where Robert McClenon suggested that you receive a "strong warning" and described the scene as a "tantrum".LM2000 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, regarding specifically the Eskow quotes you've been insterting, are you aware the two sources you are citing are just a subset of a much longer back-and-forth discussion over more than a half-dozen posts? I recall further on in the discussion where Eskow concedes some of Harris' points and says, "Harris’ final paragraph offers a more moderate tone than was present in his first piece. He agrees we should “reach out to Muslims, not alienate them.” Nor can I disagree that “some ideas are worse than others.” To me, the idea of classifying 1 billion people based on the actions of a few is not one of the better ideas out there. That does not mean we need to blind ourselves to the flaws, and the risks, present in any strain of religious thought. I just hope we do so in the spirit of tolerance and open-mindedness, remembering that good as well as evil has been expressed in the name of faith." And on quoting (especially blockquoting) in general, I will remind you that WP:NPOV tells us, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Xenophrenic (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: I see four, maybe five posts returned from google. Maybe you could link to the posts to which you refer and quote? I did find the piece you quote one passage from, but there is also this passage

Harris acknowledges the violent and self-contradictory nature of portions of the Bible, but suggests that Islam’s message is far less ambiguous than that of the Bible. In doing so, however, he fails to cite those Quranic passages that call for tolerance of other religions. Like the Bible, the Qu'ran appears to contradict itself in places - no more, no less. So why single out Islam? [13]

and in another piece he stated

Marty Kaplan does a fine job deconstructing Sam Harris' latest screed. Harris is now ready to pimp GOP talking points in order to make his case. My God (oops - sorry!), is there nothing this man won't say to advance himself and his fundamentalist strain of atheism?[14]

I'm not sure that you understand WP:NPOV. I note that you tried to paraphrase the Chomsky quote, for example, and rendered its meaning unintelligible; basically, that is partly due to the context of the quote and inefficieny in paraphrasing that. Meanwhile, you'll note that I have paraphrased sources, such as Eskow, for example, where possible.
I don't have anything against your adding material to the article that portrays Harris and his work in a positive manner, incidentally, but you can't take things out of context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, thank you for the permission to add content to the article. Awfully kind of you. I'll assume your previous unexplained deletion of said content was simply an oversight; I'll correct it. As for your "paraphrase of Eskow", you only added this: Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam. Two big problems with that sentence. The first part of it is totally uninformative. What misleading analysis, and about what? What inflammatory statement? The first half of your sentence says nothing more than "Mr. QQQ criticized some of Harris' stuff", and tells the reader nothing more. The last half of your sentence is inaccurate; Eskow cautioned Harris against intolerance of religion, not just Islam (and that part is already present in the article). As for the other Eskow quotes you posted, I've read all the exchanges. Were you going somewhere with that? In closing, I'm going to reiterate what NPOV tells us about quoting the hyperbole instead of the arguments of disputing sources, as you keep doing: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but it has to sink in sometime. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to repeat Islam in that Eskow quote twice, and the quote about neoconservative political views is not "hyperbole". I don't know why you insist on misrepresenting that source, but for the record, here are several relevant passages from the article.

Sam Harris is on a mission to eradicate what he sees as the pernicious influence of religion from modern life. Now he’s written a misleading and shallow analysis of Islam and suicide bombers. His single-minded crusade has led him to a one-dimensional conclusion: It’s the religion, stupid.
Thus does Harris condemns his targeted faith with logic worthy of any fundamentalist preacher.
Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure. When Harris writes that “…the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world,” he’s repeating the words of neocons everywhere.
The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for moderate Muslims to indulge.
Here, Harris takes a page directly from the Pipes playbook. We, not you, have decided that your religion is not peaceful. We will therefore establish tests which you as a Muslim must pass before you are allowed to call yourself “civilized.”
Sam, if you claim to speak for reason over blind faith, where are your citations for these inflammatory statements?
While claiming to speak for “reason,” you make the following statement: We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.
These are harsh and divisive words. Books are sacred to many faiths, and are revered by many non-religious folk for their poetry and wisdom. In your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance. Sam, in the name of reason, please turn back.[15]

I note that you just inserted peacocky promotional material into the article, but then deleted the most offensive portionhere. Of course, material from supporters of Harris and even primary sources from his blog are useful when cited in a policy-compliant manner.
There are a high-quality per-reviewed academic sources making very incisive criticism of Harris' work, with one academic characterizing him a "pundit", and as one of the intellectuals "the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists". --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the repetition, but allow me to quote myself: I've read all the exchanges. Were you going somewhere with that? As for "inserted peacocky promotional material", that wasn't me. And the edit you linked to was a pasted paragraph from a source that was accidently left in the body of the article, but immediately removed. I often have pieces of sources pasted into the edit window so I can see them while I'm typing, so don't worry, it was never intended to be part of the Wikipedia article (that would be a blatant copyvio, if it was left in). I'm interested in these peer-reviewed sources you just mentioned. Care to be a little more descriptive? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you won't be answering my question about what all those quotes are supposed to be for. Not a problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's one[16]. In it he takes up points raised by another academic, Jackson Lears. Tina Beattie is also a professor.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay; a book by a lay-priest/ex-History teacher from a small liberal arts school. Not peer-reviewed, and it's never been cited, but that could be because it's just a few months old. What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to denigrate the professor? The Amazon page describes him as the "President Emeritus of Trinity College", and you should be aware that he has a PhD from Yale. The book is a monograph from Palgrave Macmillan[17], which is PEER-REVIEWED. Why would you say it isn't? https://books.google.co.jp/books?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of racism, scientific racism, etc

There is one source that associates Harris with scientific racism, while there are a number of sources that describe Harris as making Islamophobic statements.

First, there is a qualified difference between accusation of practicing "scientific racism" as opposed to racism. I think that more could be said, but it doesn't belong in the lead on the basis of a single source, particularly since Greenwald goes to the trouble to dissociate his own comments from an accusation of "racism", even though he states that he understands Hussain's view and characterizes it as rational.

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I've long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.
Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing, specifically, if anything? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll concede right off the bat that my following comment is only intended as exactly this, a comment, not a proposal; I merely wish to defend the inclusion of material critical of Sam Harris's stance on Islam with the following observation:
Even on RationalWiki, which is explicitly supportive of New Atheism in general and Sam Harris in particular, his comments on Islam are severely criticised by characterising them as akin to far-right theses in the article on him and further critical points are made here. I am fully aware that RW is nowhere close to a RS, and the first article does no more than contrast citations from primary sources, but the second article does cite non-primary sources and lucidly explains central problems with Harris's views.
PZ Myers, who is notably more liberal/left-leaning than the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett), also disagrees with Harris – even though he agrees that the term "Islamophobia" is often applied wrongly and considers Islam just as bad as Harris does (while the comments of his fans do not all agree with these religion-badness comparisons)! – and even accuses Harris of racism. So, it's not just his enemies who criticise Harris and accuse him of racism and irrational Islam-hate, but even his explicitly antireligious allies. That has to count for something. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sam Harris/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
== Weasel Words, POV & Lack of Context ==

Generally, the article on Sam Harris seems like a thinly vialed endorsement of his ideas.

The reasons for Harris' notability, specifically, the debates in the US re creationism and intelligent design vs. natural selection/evolution, the events of 9/11, debates about the "clash of civilizations", US empire, the subsequent "war on terror", and controversy over us foreign policy such as "preemptive war", the use of torture, and US military presence in the Mid East, which is obviously where Harris' arguments concerning religion and Islam generate the most heat among supporters and critics alike. Generally, the article is written in a a way that obscures understanding of why Harris is notable (in my opinion) in order to weasel out of discussing why he is also so controversial.

In summary, the article lacks sufficient context and could be improved by way of the following:

  • Harris' biography, specifically, something about his upbringing, the historical context, motives for and development of his ideas about religion, atheism and spirituality.
  • I also think that Harris' ideas concerning "spirituality" need more fleshing out as he poses these as an alternative to "religion" and this to is a source of much controversy, even among atheists. Many Atheists have expressed gross reservations regarding whether or not Harris can even properly be called an Atheist himself. Therefore, these ideas are worthy of greater elaboration.
  • There aught to be separate sections concerning his position re the Iraq war and occupation since what he has said about it has been a major source of criticism and to spite his claims he has held different positions on its efficacy and ethicasy over the last few years.
  • Given the special place that Islam occupies in his critique of religion, his support for a what would amount to an imperial program of military subjugation of the Islamic world and his position on "ethnic profiling" (what most would simply term "racial profiling") he has been accused of "racism" (most recently in a debate with Chris Hedges) and this serious controversy is not explicitly addressed in the article. In fact, in the "controversy section, it only mentions that Harris debated with Hedges, without any mention of what they debated. Harris himself has seen fit to refute such accusations on his own website so this issue can't be insignificant.
  • Generally, the controversy section needs to summarize the various arguments against Harris' "world views", and should be organized into subheadings.
--Betamod 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_4&oldid=1136235006"