Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 10

Milkshake attacks
I simply want the article to include a simple line on Harris's views on milkshaking to the effect of, "In May 2018, Harris said that milkshaking is a mock assassination." Both a primary and a secondary citation were provided to show that he said this, and that his statement has been widely discussed. Because his position has both been criticized and supported by many different people a sentence on it belongs there. I see no valid reason to prevent this information from being shared in this encyclopedia in a single sentence. I don't think I am dealing with good faith actors, (I see both Jweiss11 and Springee keep reverting edits on related topics to defend Andy Ngo), but I'll give you a quick chance to justify why you are preventing any edits to Harris's new views on this wikipedia page. --Where be me spice (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this particular statement of Harris is notable in comparison to the many other times his statements have made the news. There seems to be a common pattern to the criticism of Harris, and the left-wing RationalWiki reports that he has been called "Slippery Sam", but I don't see good sourcing.  Current Affairs  here may describe similar statements.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I initially reverted the addition of the content because it was sourced only to Harris's own tweet, which can't provide it's own notability. When it was re-added with third-party sourcing, I was prepared to leave it alone for the time being.  After Springee challenged it and removed it for being undue, and his reversion was reverted, I reverted it again because it should be discussed before being added.  The content also strikes me as undue and lacking context. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with others - this seems WP:UNDUE and out of place as written. I could maybe see it being warranted if there were broader coverage of his views on protest issue, but this seems more like "hey look at this dumb tweet" than anything substantive.  Nblund talk 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As added it is both undue and just poor editing as it was appended to an unrelated paragraph fragment. I'm open to arguments for inclusion but not as edited. Springee (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Harris's Milkshake views have been talked about a lot, and have even gaining attention in multiple articles from the reputable source the Atlantic, and have been referenced in Arc Digital and a lot of smaller online outlets I haven't heard of. I believe that the encyclopedia would be lacking not to mention it, and I can only think it's dishonest to leave it out. A single sentence is not a paragraph, so the claims that "undue weight" is being given are BS on the face of it. In a world of honest actors we wouldn't even have to debate it, but there are people who are pretending to want neutrality while not wanting a simple sentence. The most reasonable place to have the sentence is where it was right after a sentence about his views in 2018, as it chronologically describes his recent views which were debated by newspapers. However, if you want to argue it belongs at another part of the article, or to rewrite it I would be open to that, but say where it belongs or offer suggestions instead of making excuses to just delete it. --Where be me spice (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you see the Current Affairs article I referenced?. Among the controversial statements Harris has made, the milkshake tweet does not appear to stand out among critics.  You might want to start with other statements.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not every article is going to talk about everything Sam Harris said, but the Atlantic has on several occasions and so did Arc Digital, and dozens of blogs. I'm open to a real discussion, but not having you try to exhaust me. If I want to add "other criticisms," from Current Affairs or elsewhere then I would have, and perhaps someone should. But I want you to stay on topic and focus on milkshaking now. --Where be me spice (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Self published blogs don't really have any bearing on whether or not something is WP:DUE for inclusion. The Atlantic briefly references the tweet, but the claim that this is essential information is undermined by the fact that very few reliable secondary sources are mentioning it. You're getting a real discussion here, and you need to WP:AGF. You're actually getting a fairly diverse array of editors telling you the same thing here.  Nblund talk 18:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am not at all opposed to the inclusion of the milkshake topic due to its content; the issue you are up against is Wikipedia policy.  I suggest you familiarize yourself with Reliable Sources and Undue Weight.  We include content when reliable sources have established weight.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The media has nearly stopped talking about Sam Harris in general. It's not reasonable to expect a lot of articles talking only about a single tweet by Sam Harris, but even a single article can be enough to warrant including it in this encyclopedia. If Harris said he were against gay marriage and only one article mentioned it, it might still be worth mentioning under his political views. I think the significance of milkshaking would be clearer if I expanded the scope to include the criticism he received. How about this: "In May 2018, Dan Kaszeta criticized Harris for suggesting that milkshaking could lead to actual assassinations as being far-fetched." --Where be me spice (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wherebemespice, please indent your responses using colons.
 * Searching just the most recent Atlantic pieces that mention Harris, the milkshake mention is the seventh article published between now and May. However, maybe this could be given weight if there were a new section about his thoughts on leftists, SJWs, political correctness, identity politics, and free speech.  The milkshake incident Harris commented on appears to have been committed by a leftist who was protesting Nigel Farage's "racism".  (Although it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to make the connection between Harris' tweet and Farage without a source.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove section on his views on atheism?
I see that a lot has been trimmed from this page in the past several days, which seems positive overall given the poor quality of the underlying sources. I think the "On atheism" should also be removed but wanted to check with other editors first. There are two main reasons for me thinking this: Any objections? If not I'll go ahead and delete it. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The only two sources it cites are his blog and his podcast. Thus, the section is contributing to the observed problem that the "Views" section relies too heavily on sources closely associated with the subject.
 * His quibbles over using the term "atheism" or identifying as an "atheist" are a fairly marginal part of his thought compared to other things that haven't been included in this article, e.g., his reasons for thinking faith, religions, and scriptures are irrational. Those things could easily be included instead if we were allowing the quality of sources seen here.

Philosopher
Per this edit of yours, the question of whether Sam Harris is a philosopher has been discussed in the past, and the consensus is that yes, he is, because much his notable professional work is philosophy and because reliable sources refer to Harris as such. His BA in philosophy is irrelevant here. As for the categories you removed, I agree that many of them are probably excessive and not supported by the content of the article, but I don't think you're taking the right approach. Category:Critics of Mother Teresa strikes me too specific and not-defining enough to even be a category. I know Christopher Hitchens wrote a book criticizing Mother Teresa, but this category is no less inappropriate for Harris, than it is for Dan Dennett, whose article never mentions Mother Teresa. The solution here seems to be a CfD of the category. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically this. Also, we are removing Category:Critics of Christianity? Do we really need to have a debate as to why one of the "four horsemen" of New Atheism is in this category?  G M G  talk  02:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:GreenMeansGo, I don't know who "we" is, but if you think that "Critics of Christianity" is warranted by secondary sources, restore it. I'm not going to fight over that. Now, all those (ridiculously detailed) philosophy categories, those are not coming back, for a few reasons: a. he's not a philosopher; b. his books are not philosophy books (not until real sources prove it); c. he cannot possibly be a philosopher in every single discipline in the world: the very thought is ridiculous. Now, that this guy has "notable professional work" in philosophy, I don't buy it--the first thing I removed here was a list of peer-reviewed publications (this isn't a resume, and such lists are not OK), and NONE of them were in any way philosophical or published in philosophical journals. That some hip reviewers and podcasters or whatever use the term philosopher loosely is irrelevant: this guy, as far as I can tell, is as much a philosopher as Sean Spicer is a ballroom dancer and Donald Trump is a philanthropist. I mean, surely, this is excessive to anyone: Categories:1967 births20th-century American philosophers20th-century atheists21st-century American essayists21st-century American philosophers21st-century atheistsAction theoristsActivists from CaliforniaAmerican atheism activistsAmerican atheistsAmerican bloggersAmerican ethicistsAmerican logiciansAmerican male bloggersAmerican neuroscientistsAmerican nonprofit chief executivesAmerican people of Jewish descentAmerican podcastersAmerican political philosophersAmerican practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsuAmerican science writersAmerican secularistsAmerican skepticsAmerican social commentatorsAmerican social sciences writersAmerican social scientistsAmerican spiritual writersAnalytic philosophersAntitheistsAtheism activistsAtheist philosophersAtheist writersCognitive neuroscientistsConsciousness researchers and theoristsContemporary philosophersCritics of alternative medicineCritics of ChristianityCritics of conspiracy theoriesCritics of creationismCritics of IslamismCritics of JudaismCritics of Mother TeresaCritics of neoconservatismCritics of new religious movementsCritics of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)Critics of postmodernismCultural criticsDeterministsEpistemologistsEthicistsFreethought writersJewish atheistsJewish philosophersLiving peopleLogiciansMale YouTubersMetaphysiciansMixed martial arts peopleMoral philosophersOntologistsPhilosophers from CaliforniaPhilosophers of culturePhilosophers of educationPhilosophers of ethics and moralityPhilosophers of historyPhilosophers of literaturePhilosophers of logicPhilosophers of lovePhilosophers of mindPhilosophers of religionPhilosophers of sciencePhilosophers of social sciencePhilosophers of technologyPolitical philosophersPsychedelic drug advocatesReligious skepticsScience activistsScience bloggersSocial commentatorsSocial criticsSocial philosophersStanford University alumniStudents of U PanditaTheorists on Western civilizationUniversity of California, Los Angeles alumniWriters from Los Angeles. Remember, the guy is on YouTube and has published a handful of books for a popular audience. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Freeknowledgecreator, we're on the talk page, if you want to come by. You have to bring your own milkshake, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is obviously no good reason to include a Category such as Category:Critics of Mother Teresa if Mother Teresa is not even mentioned in the article. Same remark applies to Category:Critics of Objectivism, given the absence of any mention of Objectivism. By the way, this edit by GreenMeansGo, which includes an edit summary accusing me of not following WP:BRD, itself does not follow WP:BRD. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should remove Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni, or are you just posting all this text for dramatic effect?
 * Also I think you need to re-read BRD. Drmies made a bold edit, and it was reverted, and now the two of you are edit warring rather than discussing.   G M G  talk  02:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You've missed the point of the guideline utterly: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again." Reverting again after being reverted is exactly what you did, and what I did not do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems it would be more productive to actually talk about the content. Drmies certainly threw out a lot of bathwater in his edits, this disputed one in particular, but I think he got some babies too. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The philosopher bit has been discussed numerous times including an RfC. So the onus is on those in favor of overturning it to establish a new consensus. "I don't give a flip because my opinion" is not a particularly effective way of going about that. Nor is using one category as a justification for reverting out a half page of text.  G M G  talk  03:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would I want to remove some alumni category? Is he an alumnus? Then that category is valid. But "Mixed martial artist" is simply not valid, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at all the the archives. Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_8 does not establish a consensus and casts more doubt than certainty on the status as "philosopher". Editors say "there are reliable sources" but don't actually cite any. This, Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_3, does claim there's one--but it's an opinion piece on CNN, not exactly impressive, to put it mildly. This is just a mention. This and this say "philosophers"--mentioned on a website and in a newspaper review, so not, that doesn't amount to much. And I did finally find the RfC--Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_3, from 2014; it does not impress me, with all its "yes per sources". I'm not going to ping everyone in that discussion, but maybe it is time to revisit this. The longest discussion I found was this, Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_8, which isn't an RfC and has no conclusion. The most valuable thing in there, besides a ton of editors saying "he's not a philosopher", is this link, Talk:Sam_Harris/Archive_3, a section by, who has been invested in this for a long time. I am not impressed by the list: they are almost all either not worth discussing (like this and this--though that last link has the benefit of indicating that calling him "philosopher" is worth something in the market place), or they are trivial mentions (even this, in a reliable source, but the article is essentially an op-ed bloggy piece). No one who wants to be taken seriously should cite keynotes.org or stuff like this. The one reliable and acceptable source in there is this one, from the OUP's Handbook on Atheism. It still begs the question of what he is supposed to be a philosopher of, and that is really the entire problem here. As long as someone does not have philosophy credentials like an academic position, or philosophical publications in peer-reviewed journals dedicated to philosophy, or a set of books that can legitimately be called philosophical works (like this), "philosopher" is just a broad, vague term that just about anyone can adopt. The fact that only one legitimate source was given in all these years of fighting is indicative of that. I'm a bit saddened, having been a philosophy student, that the term is used so loosely--and, on top of that, used to add him to a dozen or more categories that involve "philosopher" one way or another. I hope that at the very least that BLP-violating, promotional, and ridiculous over-categorization won't be reinstated. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had added a source and reference to the RfC a few months ago supporting the decision to call him a philosopher, but I'm not attached to it. . Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure that's enough. To my mind, those descriptions should apply in the lead when they are clear and consistent across a diverse array of sources. neuroscientist and podcaster seem to fit the bill, but "philosopher" is less common. Richard Dawkins, who is frequently associated with Harris and has similar popular publications, is not described as a philosopher either. Daniel Dennett is, but his connection to the field is far more straightforward - he's got a PhD and a bunch of peer reviewed publications in that field. Nblund talk 18:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked through this page's history and saw that the talk page was repeatedly wiped of 10 years of non-stop criticism of him being labeled as a philosopher by either archive bots or maybe fanboys. See here. I don't think that Sam Harris qualifies as a "philosopher," but is a regular political pundit. My views appears to have been the ordinary consensus by most Wikipedians for the last 10 years of this talk page. A Google search also found philosophy forums tend to agree (see here), and he hasn't published anything in any philosophy journals or magazines. He is at best a pop philosopher like Stefan Molyneux with a vanity degree, though fanboys can be expected to keep reverting the edits. --Where be me spice (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , "the talk page was repeatedly wiped..."? Can you explain what you mean here? Are you saying comments were deleted from the talk page? 22:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , User:Jweiss11 reverted my reversion of his reversion from two weeks ago that I just noticed.  I'm not sure how many editors should be pinged to revisit this?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

consensus last time this was discussed, at Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 9, held that Harris was a philosopher. That should hold again until a new consensus can be established. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't read that as consensus to call him a philosopher.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I, and the consensus of editors at the time did, and the article reflected that consensus for a considerable amount of time. It's fair to establish a new consensus now, but in the interim, the article should reflect that existing consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this, but I don't see how that's anything other than an unresolved discussion that went stale. There's a discussion from Dec 30 - Jan 1, then a response on Jan 11, and responses to those on Jan 16. There's no conclusions, no resolution. Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * then check the earlier discussions about it. This issue has be broached numerous times. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You said the consensus of editors at the time did, and the article reflected that consensus for a considerable amount of time. I'm just saying that's incorrect. There's no consensus there. And when you make claims like that, you come across as if you aren't arguing in good faith. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you're not, just that it seems that way to an outsider. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article has surely reflected a consensus that Harris is a philosopher, as the article as stated in the lead and elsewhere for a considerable amount of time. And if there's no consensus there, in the discussion from Archive 9, then the earlier consensus from Archives 3 and 8 would hold. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking back at previous discussions we have found that only one reliable source, the Oxford University Press' Handbook on Atheism, calls him a philosopher. This is not enough.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A myriad of reliable sources call Harris a philosopher:, , , , , , , ,  .  The list goes on and on. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice that apparently none of those sources are written by philosophers or authoritative sources on philosophy. The first source provided is a popular science magazine. The second is a radio show. The third is BBC news. The fourth appears to be a blog website. The fifth is a Washington Post article. I could go on, but you get the idea. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources are mainstream news outlets. One could find hundreds more like them. Why do we need sources written by philosophers or authoritative sources from within the house of philosophy here?  Do we need sources written by musicians to verify someone being a musician?  Do we need sources written by chemists to verify someone being a chemist?  Were are not trying to verify a fine or difficulty to understand piece of philosophy, for which we might need a high level of expertise.  We are merely trying to identify a person as a philosopher.  This entire line of reasoning there is an illegitimate manipulation of the principle of reliable sourcing engineered to produce a desired, illegitimate result that contravenes an obvious "sky is blue" reality. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are mainstream news outlets, not written by philosophers and not authoritative on matters of philosophy. If newspapers described a particular person as a musician, but sources considered authoritative on matters of music almost never described that person that way, I wouldn't consider it appropriate for Wikipedia to describe that person as a musician. At most, one might say that they have been described as a musician by newspaper writers. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If newspapers described a particular person as a musician, but sources considered authoritative on matters of music almost never described that person that way, I would think something funny was going on with the in-house gate-keeping of those authoritative sources and would defer the more third-party mainstream sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism wiped
It sounds like in the past the opinion was that this article contained too much criticism, but it appears that today there is very little criticism. Today there is a large quote from Harris in response to controversy over his criticism of Islam, but the actual criticism isn't given equal weight. Harris' responses to criticism by Glenn Greenwald and Ben Affleck are included, but Greenwald's quoted criticism is vague, and Ben Affleck's is absent. I can understand from the current article that his critics accuse him of "Islamophobia", but why they do I would not know. Here is some criticism which appeared in the article in September 2016:"Anthropologist Scott Atran has criticized Harris for what he believes is an unscientific highlighting of the role of belief in the psychology of suicide bombers. Atran later followed up his comments in an online discussion for Edge, in which he criticized Harris and others for combating religious dogmatism and faith in a way that Atran believes is 'scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share'"And this text:"From [Harris] 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."And a longer quote from Greenwald:"'The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening … Yes, he criticizes Christianity, but he reserves the most intense attacks and superlative condemnations for Islam, as well as unique policy proscriptions of aggression, violence and rights abridgments aimed only at Muslims." I don't necessarily support restoring this particular text, but I think something should be added.  In the "Social and political views" section there is no content describing the criticism of Harris.  I also don't see anything in the article about his views on identity politics, SJWs/tribalism, free speech and political correctness.  I am personally more interested in the criticism of his style rather than the criticism of his content.  I have heard criticism that he has a pattern of discounting historical context in his analysis of religion and race.  But generally criticisms of him are unclear because he feels he is often taken out of context. I guess I'm looking for a better sense of how he is generally criticized across topics, and how he criticizes his critics. More criticism had been added in April 2017. I have not thoroughly researched the article history. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I did read that Sam Harris felt that "there are now whole websites—Salon, The Guardian, Alternet, The Intercept, etc.—that seem to have made it a policy to maliciously distort my views." So..what is the pattern of criticism? And how do these critics respond to his characterization of their criticism? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to even bother to write anything new because I think the Iron law of oligarchy is at work at this article, and the same people will summon sympathetic moderators to ban editors on technicalities. I think the fanboys have banded together and agreed to revert edit anything that Sam Harris hasn't officially writen on his blog. Otherwise there would already be criticism of him here, which you would expect when a pundit has made his living by saying outrageous things and manufacturing little controversies every time the media began to forget about him. If you would just summarize the link you shared, you could test for yourself whether the fanboys would block any progress on improving the neutrality of this article, but I expect nothing but wiki-lawyering about how the source somehow couldn't be used, or how it's irrelevant. And then when you address their concerns, they'll just shift the goal posts and unilaterally revert it anyway, (which happened when I tried to add a note about milkshakes.) https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable --Where be me spice (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

--Where be me spice (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

NetScape2000 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Bias within the article could be minimized by moving criticisms to its own section, rather than keeping it embedded within his views (specifically on Islam).

Can we please not call Harris a philosopher?
Harris is not a philosopher. He's a pseudo-intellectual charlatan who took some philosophy classes in college. To be a legitimate philosopher in the modern era, you need to either have a PhD in philosophy, have taught philosophy professionally, or have published peer-reviewed philosophical works. Harris doesn't meet any of these standards. He's no more a philosopher than I am - we both took some philosophy classes in college. Calling him a philosopher would be like calling Bill Clinton a musician...yes, Clinton plays saxophone, but not at a professional level, and not as his career. Similarly, Harris does very amateurish philosophy, and it is not his career (blogger, pseudo-intellectual, and podcaster would be better terms for him). PopesTouch (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PopesTouch, this has been much discussed before. Harris has a PhD in neuroscience and is published in peer-review journals in that domain, which is related to the branches of philosophy about which he has written and spoken substantially, particularly philosophy and mind, free will, and ethics. Furthermore, a myriad of reliable sources refer to him  as a philosopher. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Math is relevant to music theory, too, but we don't classify professional mathematicians who have dappled in music journalism "music theorists". Nothing Harris has published in philosophy has been peer-reviewed, and it's unlikely that a philosophy professor would give him a good grade if he turned it in as an assignment. Just because someone tried something unsuccessfully doesn't make them a practitioner of that discipline. There is nothing of value in any of Harris's writings from a philosophical standpoint. I also question whether he could be truly called a neuroscientist...his PhD experiment was mostly done by other people, he just wrote the summary (which he later turned into a book that was published through a non-academic publisher). The only reason people listen to him is because he bought himself a PhD with his rich Hollywood mother's money, and because he is what a dumb person thinks an intelligent person sounds like. PopesTouch (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a consensus to call him a philosopher, as can be seen in the discussion two sections above. Sometimes he is called a philosopher, and sometimes he is not.  We might compare this to the question of whether Julian Assange is a journalist.  It might simply be that he is a philosopher, but a "bad philosopher", as r/AskPhilosophyFAQ explains:  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to the view that the article should not describe Harris as a philosopher. However, per WP:NPOV, the article can't describe Harris as a "bad philosopher", even if that is what some of us think. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly not in Wikivoice! Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kolya, why are we considering a reddit post that also alleges he is a racist? What is surely true is that Harris is a philosopher that many people, including many philosophers, don't like. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You will notice that Aron Ralston is not listed as a surgeon on his page, even though his attempt at surgery was more successful than any of Harris's attempts at philosophy. PopesTouch (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we look to people who allege he is a racist? He's regularly accused of Islamophobia, which many connect to racism.    r/askphilosophy is moderated by professional philosophers who have discussed Sam Harris; they may lead us to citable sources.  Saying "many people, including  many philosophers, don't like" Sam Harris is like saying many people, including many professional boxers, don't like Mike Tyson; it's irrelevant.  I am discussing whether philosophers respect him as a philosopher.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mike Tyson is still a boxer. QED. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tyson has boxed professionally. Harris has not done professional work in philosophy, nor has he done substantive work in neuroscience. Read this article, which exposes Harris for the snake oil salesman he is. He's no more intellectually respectable than Richard B. Spencer is, in fact he may even be less intellectually respectable, albeit less bigoted (though equally dogmatic and closed minded). PopesTouch (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I first said, "It might simply be that he is a philosopher, but a 'bad philosopher'". Or it also might be that he's not; we lack consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article PopesTouch links to above is from a blog. We cannot use it as a source. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot use it as a source, but it's still a good thing for this discussion page. This article is very biased in favor of Harris. It says a lot about Harris's "philosophy" when even his own friend, Dan Dennett, thinks it's error-laden garbage. PopesTouch (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can safely file the impetus for this discussion as NOTHERE and move on. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Harris's fan base is very active on the internet, and so they have slanted this article in his favor. Your FB page has a Dawkins quote, and Dawkins and Harris are both leaders of the New Atheist movement, so you are hardly impartial yourself. I'm fine with including things about Harris's success with his books, but it has to be tempered with real philosopher's opinions, and the article can't call him a philosopher because he's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopesTouch (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , a better critique of Harris is in Current Affairs. You might also find commentary by Ben Burgis.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . A lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Loksmythe (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

, please abide by WP:BLP policy and strike your remarks calling Harris a "pseudo-intellectual charlatan." BLP applies not only on the mainspace but also on talk pages. Loksmythe (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not, since I have merely expressed my opinion on Harris and his work, and not made any defamatory allegations. If I called Harris a pedophile or a murderer, that would violate BLP, but merely stating that I think he's a pseudo-intellectual snake oil salesman is not slanderous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopesTouch (talk • contribs) 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New material in Reception section
Some material was recently added to the "Reception" section and I'm not certain it all belongs there, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to say for sure. Two main questions:


 * For biography articles of authors who have separate articles for their books, is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline for the extent to which the books should be covered on the author's page? And, more specifically, whether the reception of the books should be covered under the author's reception? If it should be included, I'm going to make the book review coverage more holistic and well-rounded rather than just selectively including two of the worst reviews. If not, I'll take them out.
 * Are YouTube videos by academic sources considered WP:RS even though they haven't been peer-reviewed?

Input from more experienced editors would be much appreciated. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Youtube is a self publishing mechanism. You need an actual publisher for content. See WP:SPS, and WP: BLP. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Kolya Butternut, thanks for the prompt response. I removed self-published sources accordingly. Do you know of any guideline regarding putting reception of an author's books on the author's page? For other author pages I've looked at, reception of the books is usually not there (placed instead on those books' pages), but I'm not sure if that reflects an actual WP policy or guideline. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, at least one of those videos was Al Jazeera, so it probably could have been replaced with a link to the video on their site, or a story about the interview.  I'm not sure about the second question.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point, I added it with a better source. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Views on Islam
I'm not sure why this was removed. It seems relevant to Sam Harris' views on Islam.VR talk 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem sufficiently sourced to include. One critical book doesn't justify such a controversial claim about a subject. Plus as the reverting editor said, if it goes anywhere, it should be reception, not views. It may be relevant to his views, but it's not a view or about his view: it's about his level of expertise. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is his level of expertise on Islam not relevant to his views on Islam? And why do you think it is not "sufficiently sourced"? The source is published by Oxford University Press, which qualifies as a WP:RS.VR talk 01:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal life
The citation for "Harris has been reluctant to discuss personal details such as where he now lives, citing security reasons" is outdated. Harris lives in Los Angeles, which he has mentioned a couple times on the Making Sense podcast (such as ep. #178 & #189). I'm new to editing, so I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Twedt 03:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtwedt (talk • contribs)
 * Harris has never concealed the fact that he lives in LA. I think that passage is referring to Harris not publicizing specifically where he lives in LA, as in even the neighborhood. Perhaps that could be written better. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FixedTwedt (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Neuroscientist?
I don't think he is a real neuroscientist. Jweiss11 has posted a link to a couple of studies Sam Harris helped work on while he was pursuing his degree, but that doesn't mean anything. He never worked as a scientist after he got his degree, or wrote anything that neuroscientists respect. I have a degree in biochemistry and had to write a thesis just like Sam Harris, but I am not a chemist and it's insulting to real neuroscientists to say that he is one.

That is resume padding and it should be removed. It lets ideologues link the credulous to his Wikipedia article as an authority, and say he's a neuroscientist or else Wikipedia wouldn't say it. And I don't think we should let Jweis11's motivated reasoning control this article when his Facebook is covered in Richard Dawkins quotes and he has edited this article repeatedly to undo criticism going back 10 years.

47.145.108.23 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * For others' reference, Harris has published a total of four peer-reviewed studies. These were published in Annals of Neurology (2008), PLoS One (2009), NeuroImage (2011), and Nature Scientific Reports (2016), and they have each been cited 198, 216, 85, and 111 times, respectively. It is true that this would not be enough to maintain a tenure-track position at an R1 or R2 research institution. For perspective, a typical researcher at an R1 university may publish 20-40 articles in a year, and most of those articles will reach 10 citations within a year, while only one of those will surpass 100 citations within five years. However, publishing a peer-reviewed article in a journal by Nature (as Harris did) is extremely competitive, and it is a much more impressive accomplishment than obtaining an equivalent number of citations in a different journal.

Just chiming in that some of these comments are not accurate " For perspective, a typical researcher at an R1 university may publish 20-40 articles in a year". Simply no. A researcher publishing a study approximately every other week simply does not happen. That would be a volume of publishing that would be astounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:1800:75E6:916C:5317:F20D:35F (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I personally do not believe Harris would be able to hold a tenure-track position, I also do not think it is unreasonable to consider him a neuroscientist, given his record. Smiiikes (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Harris is also routinely referred to as a neuroscientist in relaible third-party sources:, , , . Jweiss11 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * He is referred to as a neuroscientist largely because that is how he markets himself. A large percentage of the world's population has one or more degrees in a field, but they are generally not defined by that field unless they have relevant professional experience within it. Also to Smiiikes's comment about his publications record, there is no such journal as Nature Scientific Reports. Scientific Reports is a general science journal with no notability threshold for publication acceptance, ie. they will publish anything provided its methodology is generally sound. Although it is published by Nature group, it is in no way comparable to Nature, or the even the other journals that carry the Nature name in their titles. 2A02:8071:6BA:D500:2DF6:F410:995F:6616 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP should use the criterion of "relevant professional experience." That is WP:OR. We are not experts that can assess such experience. We need to go by what independent reliable sources say. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by IP editor
Hello, in regards to the concern raised by the IP editor, The New York Times is a highly respected sources as can be seen at WP:RSP. Bari Weiss' claim was in The New York Times, where she was then a columnist. That is just as notable and respected a source as the SPLC. It is the publication we should look at, not the individual journalist, who would not be expected to have a listing at RSP. And if for some reason we were looking at individual writers, there is no RSP for individual SPLC researcher(s) either. For these reasons it is reasonable that the SPLC's claim and Weiss' claim should be on equal footing, provided Weiss' claim is attributed to her specifically, which it always has been. If you have further concerns, please discuss here and I'm happy to work towards consensus in that way. Thank you for citing WP guidelines. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (per my life-experience, I dunno whether you would receive a notification — that's why pinging is necessitated) Hello there, first of all: Thanks for defying stereotypes by your politeness but above all, your expression of keenness to understand. To keep it concise unlike my 'very terrible' habit and without using any kind of confounding "in-words" of journalism to simply avoid prolonging confusion and cut-to-the-chase: While it's reasonable to assume that given NYT's preference for "narrative-driven journalism", with loaded-wording and all that it often becomes difficult to distinguish between facts and opinions. HOWEVER.. I don't ask or even expect you or others to analyse BUT merely look at not her columns overall but even the concerned-piece in isolation: It's clearly marked "Opinion". And per WP:NYT, the overall-consensus is clearly that a distinction must be made in terms of factuality by the publication when it comes to straight-news reports vis-à-vis straight opinion-pieces — as laid-out in WP:RSOPINION. Now if the very same had been said for WP:SPLC (to spell-out: individual≠labelling a group), I would've let it be like other _corrections_ — however that's not the case. Ergo, it's False Equivalence fallacy. Mind you, regardless of whether you understoof any of my ES or not: None of my ES could be misconstrued as saying that the attribution to SPLC must be removed as a recourse or whatever, because I've been aware of the instructions since Day 1. All I'm repeatedly trying to convey, in a simple English as I thought was needed: To make Ms Weiss' cited-piece _stating_ “falsehood” on SPLC's part be stated as nothing more than a claim (as a counter, if you will), even though not included WP:INTEXT — for better or worse. If you're still having difficulties in processing procedurally, think of it this way, with this direct-parallel: Were it about Wall Street-listed The New York Times Company's "Op Docs" and podcasts, would you've still insisted on giving them the equal-weight as textual news-reports? After all.. All are published under the very same branding! And above all, there appears to be no consensus on both of these mediums. And yet.. At least one of them clearly has an abbreviation "Op" in its very title! If the answer is that you won't give them the very same credence as NYT's textual-output, take enough of time and calm-mind to introspect why that is. Ditto for NYT vs the textual-output of The New York Times Magazine. If you and fellows are still gonna be bureaucratic on insisting that her claims be kept as is: Then I'm more than willing to welcome an RfC on the New York Times' opinion-pieces during the period of returnee Mr James Bennet's entire tenure (it was revealed after the Send In The Troops outcry that under his supervision, the publication churned at least 102 op-pieces per week on an average) vs SPLC's analyses for the very same period, assuming there's still some scope left after 19+ RfCs. What say, you and Springee? Are both of you committed enough to engage?


 * Regards —103.163.124.68 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your detailed response. Yes, I've found that while detailed discussions are time-consuming, they produce better articles and I get to learn more about the topics and WP guidelines. As I understand it, your key point is that opinion pieces are less authoritative than straight news pieces, and this should be reflected in the text... this seems reasonable to me. Would you be okay with "Bari Weiss wrote in an opinion column that the SPLC had misrepresented Harris's views."? I am not familiar with all of Wikipedia's guidelines, if there is something in the MOS about when to use "wrote" vs "stated" vs "claimed" vs "alleged", etc., could you point me to that page?


 * As for starting a new discussion at WP:RSN on NYT, that is up to you and I will abide by it if there is a change in consensus. I would be interested to read the discussion, though I haven't participated much at RSN yet and probably wouldn't know enough to add very much on the topic. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and yes please do ping me because I don't think I am notified unless you do. Gazelle55 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm in jest so apologise for any unforeseen errors — if they predictably do occur, like in my ESs. (Even though I've observed that it's commonplace in discussions across the site.) Yep, I'm mostly fine with that. But with just a little-tweak. So where I'm looking at, MOS:WORDSTOWATCH is clearly a policy to be applied with what-has-been-termed-in-another-policy as "" approach. So to put it otherwise, it's meant to be discretionary. And therefore, there ain't any concrete-rulebook on WP:CLAIM, either. You could also see over there that in literally all of the examples cited, there's a full, triple-dotted ellipsis (‘...’) also in bold-face at each-&-every end. So that's clearly meant to imply that the list/rundown is not to be regarded as exhaustive or even "high-alert". Although, that doesn't mean that it doesn't recognise the myriad of subjectivity in popular-discourse across cultures of Human Civilisation. To the contrary, it cites some pretty specific example as to which words are clearly seen as more value-laden i.e. with lesser degree of concrete-/stable-application/-usage than the ones mentioned elsewhere in the policy. Speaking of, to veer off a bit: I see that the lede mentions 'the T word' in WIKIVOICE and yet in the article, it's almost entirely his own words and yes, the proper-noun for an extremely-tendentious mission statement preferred by NATO-FVEY sources, and Uncle Sam in particular. Why's it so nakedly biased just like the articles on so-called nAtIonAl sEcUrIty pundits on cable news, when he clearly isn't widely regarded as such [by 3rd-parties]? Sounds like just-another confirmation of my observation, which I indicated in my first-ever ES here! So back to the topic: Frankly, I can't figure out what's the hang-up over a single word like “claim” when subjectivity-sample for that would be far, far, far shorter than tendentious, indescribably-incendiary terminology of information warfare in statecraft (not to patronise but to be clear, I'm denoting all of the definitions from 3rd-to-last — in top-to-bottom order).


 * But nevertheless.. As I clearly just said, it's a discretionary-application guidance so if both of you and Springee perceive as somehow far more problematic, then fine. Power in Numbers, then. (Not sure argumentum ad populum is recommended by Wikipedia guides, though. I'd wager that's how the dispute-resolution mechanism works, somehow.) And in THAT case, I would recommend that the proposed phrasing be modified a bit to:
 * (Modification emphasised)
 * If that still sounds like "too much", you should know that I was settled in for "asserted [in her opinion column]" — a weird ironically used elsewhere in the policy when not directly-referring to the same, however: Since it means that it's transparently-listed over there right in the same list with “claim”, perhaps any like-minded persona may find it too problematic to ignore, as well.


 * As for the WP:RFC, rest assured: I was unambiguously proposing it as a last-ditch effort: If it can be resolved amicably just right here, as in to the context that there won't be any heckling and bad-faith challenge of this discussion's results in the foreseeable-future — at the very least, then I don't have any interest in getting a RfC started. As far as my observations have taken me, thus far. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple, per MOS:SAID, "stated" is the correct version. "wrote... claiming" is not.  These are specific MOS examples.  Springee (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh.. So FINALLY you responded. Appreciated. Alas.. Your one-&-only (so far) & quickest-reply seems to have been rather haphazard. Per the sub-section you're referring to: "[…] stated, […] wrote, […] are almost always neutral and accurate." (Emphasis mine) So dunno whether you got the latest-aversion for “wrote”, either. Not that it was a point of the discussion. However.. Now that you've brought-it-up out of your own accord: “Almost always” unambiguously conveys the lack of an absolute. It expresses a potential where "some" (personally hate that word in the given sense!) readers are likely to find it problematic. Ergo, doesn't sound as “simple” as you inferred it. And to get back to the predominant-topic now: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Where does the sentence mandate absolute-avoidance, either? If you're genuinely interested: Urge you to invest calm-mind with enough-time to start processing the progress of whole conversation from the first-line by Gazelle55. Regards. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, may I kindly urge you to be more clear in your communications going forward, Springee? Not to offend you unnecessarily but you're coming across as overly-broad/vague at least in your [policy-]citations, from your ES to your reply right here — if not your entire statements. Perhaps it's owing to your apparent preference for brevity, but it's also my obligation to make it clear that I don't get your pointers sufficiently — leaving me in a disadvantaged-position to do even more legwork, in addition to my thoroughness in replies. I hope if you're interested in genuine-discussion, you would certainly feel obligated to keep that in your mind — when engaging with I, at the very least. 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾 —103.163.124.95 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest something similar to that phrasing, "opined in a column", but the more I look at it … ~ cygnis insignis 06:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ALSO a new-entrant to the discussion. Welcome! Do go on.. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * … the more I am reminded of the subject's exchange with Chomsky. ~ cygnis insignis 07:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

...And? (Not to sound rude or anything, I'm genuinely curious to understand the crux of your participation [in relevance to this ongoing-discussion]. But given your "L": If you're worried over contravening the (ahem!) liberally-implemented WP:BLP — then may you try to be as much commonly-metaphorical as you can, perhaps?) —103.163.124.95 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for linking to MOS:WORDSTOWATCH. Unfortunately this is a very busy week for me off-Wiki, but I hope to read it and reply soon. I saw you pinged me in two very long messages on another editor's talk page, too... I will take a look as soon as I can. If it's at all possible it would be much appreciated if you could try to be a little more concise ;) Gazelle55 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh.. Do take your time, then. The process has already stalled pretty predictably, so there are no surprises. Just do. not. forget. [and consequently, abandon this discussion] And yes, those parts on “another editor's talk page” gotten heavily-lengthy, no? Well.. I try to keep it as shortest as I could but then, in a hurry: The more-primal focus remain on 'doing (as one review put it) Dr Steven Pinker' so as to evade any reasonable-likelihood of miscommunication-potential. And above all, rest assured: Ideally, you shouldn't bother about participating in that user talk-page discussion because thus far (at the very least), it's not about dispute-resolution — it's about clarification-seeking. The reason why I "mentioned" your username in replies now is to keep you in the know, give you a Right of Reply sorta opportunity. You know, like how Wikipedia mandates for some dispute-resolution mechanisms like socking, vandalism and all? From where I'm coming from, the only need for your engagement has now been resolved by my latest-reply which corrected a factual-trivia related to your action. There's nothing else about you there. So, no obligation — unless you want to go there by your own accord. Regards —103.163.124.95 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks again for pointing me to WP:WTW, I've read the relevant section and also re-read WP:RSOPINION and WP:NYT, which you also mentioned. I agree with your point that there can be exceptions to using "wrote" rather than "asserted," but I don't see any reason this should be such an exception. Saying Bari Weiss wrote something does not imply it is true, and saying "Bari Weiss wrote in an opinion column" makes it abundantly clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion (which is all that WP:RSOPINION recommends). By contrast, it is clear in WP:WTW that writing "claimed" would imply doubt about her credibility. There is nothing in WP:WTW that says it is only talking about news or facts, rather than opinion pieces.
 * As a side note, I wasn't aware of this guideline until you and Springee brought it up, but now I see there are a few cases of "claimed" in the reception section, which I would be happy to change to "wrote" or "said." (But most opinion pieces cited in the section do use "wrote," which I think underlines the point that Weiss' piece deserves the same treatment.) Gazelle55 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're getting to run around in circles, now. Alright, to keep this short: I may make peace with that. Even though “...stated in her opinion column..” sounds like a pretty robotic and dare I add, unnecessarily-lengthy statement. Let's get the cat out of the bag: I haven't found that Ms Bari Weiss is as remotely credible as a legacy RSP like SPLC. And based on the rather strictly-applied notability criteria on her own articles — the number of citations over there, when synthesized together — speak volumes about her record. Call it my explicit-/overt-bias, if you like.
 * So while I don't care much whether you've got some kinda reverence for her, since given your acknowledgment at your user-page that you're very much capable to fight your way through your Cognitive Dissonance and I still have (ahem!) faith in you. But I would've instead went for “...opined in her column..” instead. Because let's face it, given the sheer-diversity of Wikipedia readers, “...stated in her opinion column..” makes it sound as if she had some other kind of journalistic-job at the time, as well. Because if so, which one was it? Twitter? Doesn't sound like a job, let alone de-opinionated. '''As for the rest of changes you've smartly spotted of late, I'd wager you're free to make your changes once apart from myself, you get at least one more party on your side to form a proper-consensus. Either of Springee or cygnis insignis might wanna make a comeback, at the very least?
 * Back to the predominant-topic, while I would've preferred the “...opined..” option to make it crystal-clear, since it appears to me that it neither ups her credentials nor sound unreasonably-biased against her. But I'm willing to be content with that.
 * But yeah.. Another remedy could be to: Change the terminology “...stated..” in the [immediately-]preceding SPLC-citing sentence to ‘...assessed..’ (or ‘...evaluated..’, for that matter) instead. Since it's another word which isn't listed in the WTW and thus far, sounds neutral to me. *Bonus:* It also manages to satiate GEVAL between the 2.''' Regards. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 'opine' sounds a bit naff, I thought the formulation presented at 17:09, 11 April satisfied any concerns arising from guidance and policy. ~ cygnis insignis 06:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright.. So even though you weren't exactly forthcoming, I respect your opinion. Goodbye! Have a prosperous life. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for maintaining faith in me despite your skepticism haha. I have updated it using my most recent formulation since I think opine may have the same problem as claim (see Cygnis insignis' comment also). I also adjusted three others in the section in an analogous way, though as you say that is a separate issue. Appreciate your patience. Gazelle55 (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Is that addressed to me. This is a provisional-reply because while in this 'jungle', it does sound like you're addressing my reply — however, your indentation appears rather (ahem!) 'inspiring'. Awaiting... —103.163.124.95 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In reply to the IP editor. First, please stop pinging me.  I follow this discussion though the walls of text are not helpful.  As for the SPLC vs a NYT OpEd, both are opinoins.  The SPLC is a biased, noted opinion source when it comes to claims about individuals.  There is no reason to treat their opinions as inherently more reliable than other sources which appears to be what we are being asked to do here.  Per IMPARTIAL both views should be presented equally. Springee (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes I see now that RSP has called for WP:RSOPINION for the SPLC too, so the original wording may have been fine. But I think the new wording is okay as well. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first-clause, what I said to @Sprin.. err.. my bad. I meant, "Springee". —103.163.124.95 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa.. Now frankly, that sounds 'a bit' WP:RUDE. And quite a weird take on WP:INDENT, as well. Since when did you ask me to “stop pinging” before? Anyhoo.. I'm neither gonna ping, nor directly "mention" your username here from now onwards, cool? Now to address your arguments. “The SPLC is a biased, noted opinion source..”: Yes, they're openly biased, opinionated against everything that is perennial-ethnocentrism (a broad-spectrum of traits variously referred to with ‘-ism’, ‘-ophobia’ & ‘-y’ suffixes and for those who ' might be ' prone to sophistry, ' -discrimination' and/or 'anti- bigotry' or 'anti- prejudice' or 'anti- sentiment' and tends to be preferred-terminology), in case their moniker wasn't enough of a "L". And so am I, as I indicated in one of my H:ES by pointing-out "WP:NOFASH". But against “... individuals”? When, where? If that's a reference to the RSP consensus, then I've already addressed the same. To lead you to it directly, vide my reply at 23:55 hrs on 4 April 2021 GMT. So yet a-gain, you seem to be raising pointers which have already been addressed? Frankly..
 * My replies are 'pain in your  (to still resist vulgarity, unlike the subject's compatriots)' simply because they're elaborate, and yet your replies are less-than-concise and tending to consistently try to catch trains at stations which they've already departed. And also, may you please do the hardwork of directly-quoting the stuff that you cite, this once — at the very least? (As in, even if it's out of your comfort-zone.)
 * So.. Pointing-out WP:IMPARTIAL (directly pointing out the policy than simply referring to the whole-pages: Hmmm.. I'll give ya that!) is rendered moot because yet a-gain, you seem to be interpreting it as a non-discretionary policy when in fact, that's not the case. Otherwise.. Pray tell, where's the specific “heated dispute” being referred to in this discussion, involving at least 2 distinct parties? If that policy were meant to be an absolute, then English-language Wikipedia would've already started describing UFO cults passively, if not going back to the pre-2010s era of passively condoning Big Oil-sponsored climate denialism that: The scientific consensus is not clear so far. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Self-published source in a BLP
The following source is used to verify claims of full name and date of birth:. Tracking the ISBN confirms   it was published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, a self-publishing platform of Amazon.com, which explicitly violates WP:BLPSPS. Much better sources are needed (note: many self-published sources found on Google Books lift content directly from Wikipedia, risking "citogenesis"). The body of the article cites a 2012 Current Biography article for birthdate, can anyone locate this and confirm that it verifies the claims? Other sources ostensibly providing full name and birthdate include a Winter 2019 Playboy interview (NSFW notice: link to scanned magazine on the Internet Archive: the magazine contains nudity). Note: per WP:RSPSS, Playboy is generally considered to be reliable. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)