Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 6

Non-neutral language
Sorry I've been absent from the disputes involving, among other things, edits I made to this page. I hadn't logged in in a while. First of all - i must reaffirm that I am not anyone else - I am me. Every editor I disagree with seems to accuse me of being some sort of decoy account, since I'm a relatively new account. It's false.

There is a significant amount of non-neutral language in the second paragraph of this article:

-Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism", and has singled out Islam for particular criticism. He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[5] His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have called Harris's forceful criticisms aggressive and intolerant, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society, which has resulted in death threats and outraged commentators equating his criticism with Islamophobia. Harris and others have ridiculed the misuse of the term and say such labeling is an attempt to silence criticism.[6] In 2015, Harris and Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim, began collaborating on a book titled Islam and the Future of Tolerance; a discussion of opposing viewpoints on "a topic of great importance."-

For example: referring to his criticisms as "forceful" is the opinion of the writer. The phrase "which has resulted in death threats and outraged commentators equating his criticism with Islamophobia" is enormously problematic. first of all, criticisms of his work which have been made in very placid channels, through publication and reasoned debate, are paralleled with death threats - this is clearly an effort to de-legitimize them. Furthermore, calling these commentators "outraged" implies that their criticism is a function of emotion, not reasoned debate. Finally, "equating his criticism with Islamophobia" is a dreadful thing for an honest editor to write - it implies that these commentators equate any criticism of islam with islamophobia - it is clear from reading their work that that is not the case. That, rather, is the position of Harris and his defenders, and should be identified as such, not adopted by this article, who's guiding principle is neutrality. The phrasing of the next sentence, "the misuse of the term", again adopts the position of harris in the voice of the article. The editor is saying that the term islamophobia is being misused by Harris' critics.

Finally, let's all ask ourselves a question: why is the last sentence present in the summary of this article? It appears in the body of the article because it constitutes Harris' I-have-a-muslim-friend defense against accusations of Islamophobia. Whether or not we consider such a defense dubious, including this detail in the summary, and placing it where it is here placed, is clearly an effort to adopt this defense in the voice of the article.

I have suggested the following changes:

Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism", and has singled out Islam for particular criticism. He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[5] His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have called Harris's criticisms biased and intolerant, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society. Many critics view his focus on the religion and his advocacy of policies such as ethnic profiling and torture of muslims as instances of Islamophobia. Harris and others have ridiculed such labeling as an attempt to silence criticism.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonotrain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You may have somewhat valid concerns regarding some of the wording, but I would caution you against applying replacement wording that just recreates the same issues in the opposite direction. Descriptions of Harris' work as "forceful" or aggressive, polemic, fearless, defiant, unapologetic, etc., are well founded in reliable sources, and is in fact one of the defining trademark descriptions (at least as far as media reports go) of the "New Atheists". So while strong wording may be "non-neutral" in some cases, when that wording is prevalent in reliable sources it would be a violation of NPOV policy to not convey what the sources say, or to dilute salient descriptions. As for your opinion on the text regarding death threats and outraged commentators, I think it too simplistic a rebuttal to claim criticisms of Harris have been "placid". To the contrary, most criticism comes from apologists for one religion or another, and more often than not degenerate into hyperbolic accusations coupled with attempted character assassination. Yes, "outraged" does indeed imply emotion over reason; but what would be your argument for removal? You are correct that the text is juxtaposed against criticisms of Harris, but you are incorrect that they exist to "de-legitimize" the critics. Both sides of the story need to be presented and summarized.
 * At the same time, he shows little patience for religious Christian leaders like Rick Warren, who Harris eviscerated in a public debate, or for Islamists, whose religion Harris regularly maligns in a way that has led both to outraged accusations of bigotry and actual death threats.
 * How would you propose summarizing that? Certainly not with the wording you have proposed. Remember my caution about overcorrecting in the opposite direction? I see "commentators" has now become "many critics"; Harris is now criticized as "biased" (something not appearing in the body of the article); "instances of Islamophobia?" (I don't think any of the handful of writers who dared use that pejorative did so that euphemistically); his advocacy of ... torture of Muslims? Did you seriously just add that? Let's give this rewrite another shot. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the changes in one paragraph (I preserved the other edits) while we discuss how to improve it. Regarding this sentence:
 * In 2015, Harris and Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim, began collaborating on a book titled Islam and the Future of Tolerance; a discussion of opposing viewpoints on "a topic of great importance."
 * Of course it is in that paragraph because it relates to his position on Islam. And of course the factual information is presented in Wikipedia's voice. Are you suggesting it should be removed because it serves to further inform the reader, and a reader might infer something from that information? That seems odd to me.  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: my proposed edits definitely do not overcorrect in the opposite direction - if you would like to reach a compromise im happy to do that, but restoring the old text is not going to achieve that. As to your concerns: first, you don't understand the difference between sourcing material and placing it in the voice of the article. If opinions are stated in many of the sources, that does not mean that the voice of the article should repeat those opinions without sourcing them, which is what your edits do. If many commentators say harris is "forceful" or "aggressive", etc. the correct way to mention that in the article is to say, "many commentators find Harris to be X..." not to say, "Harris is X..." I am not proposing that we dilute or distort what the sources say, i am suggesting that we cite the sources, rather than expressing opinions in the voice of the article. What your edits have done is to distort his critics, and to place opinions of his supporters in the voice of the article.

As an example of your bias, let me point out your statement: "most criticism comes from apologists for one religion or another, and more often than not degenerate into hyperbolic accusations coupled with attempted character assassination" - even if this were true (I suggest you take another look at Greenwald's article - as i said, it is a reasoned debate with Harris' arguments - do you understand what character assassination is? that would be if Greenwald said, dont listen to so-and-so because he cheats on his wife, or because he steals from the church collection plate - no one is doing that - his critics respond to his writings with reasoned argument) - but even if this were true, you would at least need to summarize those criticisms in a neutral tone, and cite someone else responding to them, rather than doing that in your own voice.

You say "Both sides of the story need to be presented and summarized." This is exactly what you are not doing. youve barely even presented one side of the story - most of this paragraph is your opinion piece. Again, if you would like to present the counter-criticism to Harri's critics, the correct way to do that is exactly what Ive been trying to do since i began editing this article - present harris views faithfully and in their own terms, present his critics' views faithfully and in their own terms, and then present the counter-criticisms.

What you have done is to present Harris' critics pre-digested with counter-criticism. this is unacceptable for wikipedia's discourse. "bias" does appear in the body of the article - islamophobia is a form of bias. When Greenwald accuses Harris of a double-standard - this is what it means to be biased - to judge someone's actions differently based on their race, religion, etc.

The comments I added regarding torture are a faithful reflection of what is in the body of the article (unless you've removed that as well) and in the sources referenced. Here is the quotation, from the Greenwald article: "Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary");"

The passage goes on to mention ethnic profiling: to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries ("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah"); to anti-Muslim profiling ("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"); to state violence ("On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are").Jonotrain (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain

As for the sentence on his book on Islam - this sentence summarizes a comment that Harris made which is in the body of the text. That comment is Harris' defense against accusations of islamophobia. His defense is: I co-authored a book with a muslim. This sentence has been placed at the conclusion of a summary of the debate surrounding islamophobia in Harris' work. therefore, according to the way logic & grammar work, it is implicitly adopting this argument - a)accusers say Harris is islamophobic, but b)in conclusion, we see that he has written a book with a muslim. My objection is not to including this information in the article - it belongs in the body of the article, where it is part of Harris' defense - it should not be placed in the summary, where the argument enters the voice of the editor. but really - this sentence is one of your lesser offenses - i would be happy to compromise on this one if we can restore some balance to the paragraph overall Jonotrain (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain
 * if you would like to reach a compromise im happy to do that, but restoring the old text is not going to achieve that.
 * Awesome. Per BRD, I've reverted your (B)old edit while we discuss your concerns and proposed changes.
 * If many commentators say harris is "forceful" or "aggressive", etc. the correct way to mention that...
 * Those descriptions weren't from commentators.
 * "bias" does appear in the body of the article - islamophobia is a form of bias."
 * No, it's bigotry, but regardless, Islamophobia is already in the lead.
 * the correct way to do that is exactly what Ive been trying to do since i began editing this article - present harris views faithfully and in their own terms, present his critics' views faithfully and in their own terms, and then present the counter-criticisms.
 * Not really. The lead is only suitable for an overview, not a detailed play-by-play of every argument, accusation and counter argument.
 * his book on Islam ... That comment is Harris' defense against accusations of islamophobia.
 * No, it isn't. It's part of his response to questions about his statements about Islam. (Check the source, pleaae.) That is also exactly what part of this paragraph is summarizing.
 * a faithful reflection of what is in the body of the article (unless you've removed that as well)
 * If you aren't sure if something is in the article, then you can't be sure you are faithfully summarizing it. You entered text which states in Wikipedia's voice that Harris advocates torture. He doesn't. And it will take more than a lead paragraph to accurately explain his position on Torture. You also reinserted "many critics"; based on what?


 * (Present): His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have called Harris's forceful criticisms aggressive and intolerant, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society, which has resulted in death threats and outraged commentators equating his criticism with Islamophobia. Harris and others have ridiculed the misuse of the term and say such labeling is an attempt to silence criticism. In 2015, Harris and Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim, began collaborating on a book titled Islam and the Future of Tolerance; a discussion of opposing viewpoints on "a topic of great importance."


 * (Proposed): His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have called Harris's criticisms biased and intolerant, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society, which has resulted in death threats. Many critics view his focus on Islam and his advocacy of policies such as ethnic profiling of muslims and torture as instances of Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.


 * Let's see if we can address the many issues with your proposal. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Draft proposal, small step:
 * (Proposed-2): His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have called Harris's criticisms aggressive and intolerant, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society, which has resulted in death threats and outraged commentators equating his criticism with Islamophobia.(insert citation linked above) Harris and others have ridiculed the term, say it has been misused and say such labeling is an attempt to silence criticism. In 2015, Harris and Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim, began collaborating on a book titled Islam and the Future of Tolerance; a discussion of opposing viewpoints on "a topic of great importance."
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since editing resumed without objection to the above suggested changes, I implemented some of them. My edit also included the return of the book mention, as there was no reason given for its deletion, and I also replaced the 9/11 text with "In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam", since sources say Harris' increased focus on the Islamic religion is due to a lot more than just the 9/11 attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

break

 * I see that a number of other editors have had a go at the article, including the paragraph we're discussing, today. here's how it reads at the time of my writing:


 * Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism", and has singled out Islam for particular criticism. He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[5] His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged. Some commentators have asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice[6] and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Harris broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats. Some critics equate aspects of his criticism of Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims with Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.[7]


 * I'm happy with this, and it seems that perhaps there's some consensus about it, since other editors have taken a look. I'd love to hear from them.


 * a few responses:
 * If many commentators say harris is "forceful" or "aggressive", etc. the correct way to mention that...
 * Those descriptions weren't from commentators.


 * That's my point. you are expressing your opinion by inserting these evaluations into the article. that is not how neutral point of view works. First, I criticized this by saying it was your opinion. you responded that it was a consensus view. i said then it should be attributed as such. now you're saying its your opinion.


 * "bias" does appear in the body of the article - islamophobia is a form of bias."
 * No, it's bigotry, but regardless, Islamophobia is already in the lead.


 * synonyms are a way to avoid redundancy within a paragraph. right now "prejudice" is there. it works for me.


 * the correct way to do that is exactly what Ive been trying to do since i began editing this article - present harris views faithfully and in their own terms, present his critics' views faithfully and in their own terms, and then present the counter-criticisms.
 * Not really. The lead is only suitable for an overview, not a detailed play-by-play of every argument, accusation and counter argument.


 * I agree with you that the summary is not the place for a blow-by-blow. thats why i would encourage reverting to the version we had two weeks ago:


 * Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism".[5] He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[6] His writing on atheism has provoked sustained debate, with critics accusing him of Islamophobia and supporters, as well as Harris himself, claiming he has been targeted merely for criticizing Islam.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Harris has written numerous articles for The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, and the journal Nature. His articles touch upon a diversity of topics including religion, morality, neuroscience, free will, terrorism, and self-defense.[13]


 * As you can see, its more concise, more readable, and avoids a blow-by-blow. the reason that a blow-by-blow is emerging in this paragraph is that you or other editors have insisted on elaborating in detail on Harris and his supporters' counter-criticism in this paragraph. it seems strange to me to have detailed counter-criticism without at least a nod towards a faithful representation of the criticism.


 * As for torture, i already offered you a citation from Harris' writings: "there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary");"
 * apparently Ubikwit has some other quotations as well. If someone advocates torture, than it is not inappropriate to say that they advocate torture. how much more faithful than a direct quote can we be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonotrain (talk • contribs)


 * See this source: Sam Harris, torture, quotation. Also, if you check the deleted Political section, you'll see that Lears also addressed the issue Lears states that, when Harris’ arguments are evaluated “according to their resonance with public policy debates, the results are sobering…" ''From him we learn, among other things, that torture is just another form of collateral damage in the “war on terror”—regrettable, maybe, but a necessary price to pay in the crucial effort to save Western civilization from the threat of radical Islam… As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire. Harris dispenses with the Christian rhetoric of his imperialist predecessors but not with their rationalizations for state-sponsored violence.


 * The Beattie book has a dedicated section on "Sam Harris, Islam and torture". There are many sources.
 * Note that Xenophrenic states that you made no objection to the removal of the sentence about Harris writing a book with a Muslim, because he didn't hear you.
 * That is not a sentence that belongs in the lead. In fact, I'm going to start clearing out a lot of unduly self-serving material based on Harris' self-published blog and primary sources. If the Political section were restored, describing the criticism, I don't think it would be UNDUE to note Harris' responses, however. The article is supposed to be based substantially on secondary sources, and there appear to be few that address Harris popular writings in a non-critical manner. Few have been presented, at any rate. Many editors here think Wikipedia is supposed to record Harris' views, which is not the case; that is what Harris' books and blogs do.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's my point. you are expressing your opinion...
 * No. When I said "Those descriptions weren't from commentators", that doesn't mean they are from me, obviously.  They are from reliable sources. Why would I argue to insert my personal opinions into a Wikipedia article? Be serious, please.
 * synonyms are a way to avoid redundancy within a paragraph...
 * An even better way: don't be redundant at all. One mention in the lead is sufficient; we don't re-mention it multiple times by using synonyms.
 * i would encourage reverting to the version we had two weeks ago
 * If you are seriously offering that as a proposal (and while there is some merit, I also see some problems, i.e.; he doesn't write "on atheism" so much as "on religion"; we don't stack a half-dozen cites at the end of a sentence in the lead; and saying "critics accuse him of Islamophobia" is not in any way balanced with "Sam says that's because he criticized Islam", etc.), we can discuss that.
 * As for torture, i already offered you a citation from Harris' writings...
 * Yeah, and? I know you aren't proposing to put that into the lead paragraph, right?  Are you citing his words in support of your text that says he advocates torture? It doesn't support that, when you read it in context and with his full clarifications. Also, commentary pieces like the one you linked from Brown, while interesting, are not reliable sources for the assertion of fact.
 * Note that Xenophrenic states that you made no objection to the removal of the sentence about Harris writing a book...
 * Incorrect. Here is my edit summary: (wording per cited sources, per no objections on Talk page). Don't put words in my mouth (yet again). I saw Jonotrain's question about the sentence above, and I responded to it. Then you removed the sentence without giving an objection, so I returned it. I see that you just now stated that "it doesn't belong in the lead". May I ask you to explain why? Do you object to the other book being mentioned in the following sentence, too?
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jonotrain objected, in no uncertain terms, to including the sentence in the lead("summary")."As for the sentence on his book on Islam - this sentence summarizes a comment that Harris made which is in the body of the text. That comment is Harris' defense against accusations of islamophobia. His defense is: I co-authored a book with a muslim. This sentence has been placed at the conclusion of a summary of the debate surrounding islamophobia in Harris' work. therefore, according to the way logic & grammar work, it is implicitly adopting this argument - a)accusers say Harris is islamophobic, but b)in conclusion, we see that he has written a book with a muslim. My objection is (bolding added) not to including this information in the article - it belongs in the body of the article, where it is part of Harris' defense - it should not be placed in the summary (i.e., 'lead', bolding added), where the argument enters the voice of the editor."He did not ask you a question, so you are misrepresenting his obvious statement of objection, in violation of WP:TALK. My support for the removal of that sentence is obvious from my followup edit to his, not to mention my revert of your edit re-inserting the text before your further revert claiming "no objection" in the edit summary. I don't have to echo his objection verbatim or report them directly to you.
 * And I almost forgot, you further and blatantly ignored Jonotrains comment on the version I'd modified last"I'm happy with this, and it seems that perhaps there's some consensus about it"before you made yet another revert against consensus, while claiming in your edit summary to "rvt an edit which claimed to follow a consensus".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonotrain objected, in no uncertain terms, to including the sentence in the lead...
 * Objected in no uncertain terms? Only if you leave out the rest of his sentence: "it should not be placed in the summary, where the argument enters the voice of the editor. but really - this sentence is one of your lesser offenses - i would be happy to compromise on this one if we can restore some balance to the paragraph overall". And after I addressed his objection and corrected his misunderstanding about where that text came from, and pointed him to the source, he did not post a disagreement when he next responded.
 * He did not ask you a question, so you are misrepresenting his obvious statement of objection, in violation of WP:TALK
 * Incorrect. Here, I'll quote him for you: Finally, let's all ask ourselves a question: why is the last sentence present in the summary of this article? That sounds like a question to me. I don't misrepresent what other editors say, Ubikwit; you are projecting.
 * I don't have to echo his objection verbatim or report them directly to you.
 * I suppose not. But if I address his objection, and he doesn't put forth additional concerns after that, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous of you to claim "consensus" and implement your edits without raising your concerns about that same issue here?
 * And I almost forgot, you further and blatantly ignored Jonotrains comment on the version I'd modified...
 * No. I ignored nothing. I saw where he said he was "happy" with a problematic version of text (and some of those problems are detailed above, waiting for response), and I reverted an edit that was done against consensus.  Are you denying that concerns were expressed, and not yet resolved, about text you had again re-inserted into the article? Do you have an aversion to the simple process of proposing a segment of text, modifying it to address concerns, achieving agreement on it, then implementing it?  Must every Talk page comment be accompanied by a contested article edit upon which agreement has not been reached? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

hi xenophrenic and ubikwit, just us again? the conversation has become a bit sprawling - ill do my best to respond to the points that have been raised -

--No. When I said "Those descriptions weren't from commentators", that doesn't mean they are from me, obviously. They are from reliable sources. Why would I argue to insert my personal opinions into a Wikipedia article? Be serious, please. you're going around in circles here - but let's drop it - the only phrase that is still written in your own voice is "unapologetic directness" - can we take that out or put it in a citation?

-An even better way: don't be redundant at all. One mention in the lead is sufficient; we don't re-mention it multiple times by using synonyms. I took out "aggression" because "commentators have called Harris's criticisms aggressive" is a misunderstanding or a distortion from what i can see. it makes it sound like the "commentators" are babies who get upset when someone uses an aggressive tone. that is not the case - when people reference "aggression" in Harris' writing they say that his writing encourages aggression & violence against muslims. here's a quotation: "Yes, he criticizes Christianity, but he reserves the most intense attacks and superlative condemnations for Islam, as well as unique policy prescriptions of aggression, violence and rights abridgments aimed only at Muslims." So this sentence needs to change so that it does not distort the debate it purports to characterize.

-If you are seriously offering that as a proposal (and while there is some merit, I also see some problems, i.e.; he doesn't write "on atheism" so much as "on religion"; we don't stack a half-dozen cites at the end of a sentence in the lead; and saying "critics accuse him of Islamophobia" is not in any way balanced with "Sam says that's because he criticized Islam", etc.), we can discuss that.

It is much better than the present version. Obviously, those citations can be bundled. how is it not balanced? it is much more balanced than the distorted version you keep re-inserting

Yeah, and? I know you aren't proposing to put that into the lead paragraph, right? Are you citing his words in support of your text that says he advocates torture? It doesn't support that, when you read it in context and with his full clarifications. Also, commentary pieces like the one you linked from Brown, while interesting, are not reliable sources for the assertion of fact.

I didn't cite Brown. I gave you a quotation from Greenwald's writing, which includes a direct quotation from Harris' writing. here it is again: "Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary");"

First of all, this shows that the critical discourse surrounding Harris' work is concerned with the issue of torture. secondly, it shows that harris advocates waterboarding. you keep referring to a context in which this is untrue. what context? show me the context in which waterboarding=ethically necessary is not an endorsement of waterboarding.

And i do still object to the harris-has-a-muslim-friend sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonotrain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear - this is the most unacceptable phrase in everything you keep re-inserting: "which has resulted in death threats and outraged commentators equating his criticism with Islamophobia.[6]" - as ive said before - this is obviously an attempt to neutralize criticism against him and make it look like it is fringe and a knee-jerk reaction - I've written above in more detail about why this is and how the phrase should changeJonotrain (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)jonotrain

Second paragraph lacked sources
Hello,

"In conjunction with world events, Harris has broadened his critical focus on Islam in society, which has resulted in death threats."

This sentence was not sourced at all. The WP:ALIVE guidelines are very straightforward on what should be done with unsourced sections -have them removed. I was able to find a source for death threats from his blog, but it says he has faced death threats for many of his views on religion so I have added a sentence to his religion section. I would like some guidance on whether the WP:BLPSELFPUB guidelines allows this since we only have a self-publication as a source. I added the sentence "He has stated on his blog that he has received death threats for some of his views on religion." This seems like a fair way to include the information though it is a bit shaky under WP:BLPSELFPUB. The "in conjunction with world events" part is bias inducing and should be removed, but, more problematically, it is not sourced.

"His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate, which he has actively encouraged." There was no source here and while Sam Harris does engage in many debates he does not actively host or promote debates or arguments on his views.

"Some commentators have claimed Harris's writings encourage aggression towards and intolerance of Muslims, while others have praised his criticism as unapologetically direct and long overdue." Not sourced, but I was able to find sources for the claims in it.

YshuDS (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) edit:capitalized alive in link WP:ALIVE YshuDS (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of this stuff is sourced elsewhere so it would have been redundant to source them in the lead, see WP:LEADCITE. Your wording regarding his blog being a source for the death threats seems fine to me.LM2000 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A few edits
1. The article tends to present Harris' views, a part of his response to criticisms of his views, the criticisms, then the rest of the responses to criticisms. This isn't a great way to display information. I moved a response to criticism of his views farther down to where other responses were placed. I plan to try and organize more sections as his views, criticisms, then responses in the future.

2. Instead of describing the 2006 riots I linked to the wiki article.

General Question: Do I have to make a new section on the talk page every time I make an edit or can I reuse this one to explain my edits? YshuDS (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain edits on the talk page except when someone reverts you. Just use the edit summaries feature, Second Quantization (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Should the following be in this biography:
 *  Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."  13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No. — While a miniscule number of commentators (are we up to 5 now?) have bemoaned Harris' critical treatment of the Islam religion, even they have not gone so far as to attribute his stance to Jewish tribalism rather than to his atheism. It's a polemic screed by a nobody published on a website with no reputation for factual reliability. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By no means "miniscule; in fact, it appears to be mainstream.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No Taking that specific passage misrepresents the basic argument Sayeed makes. TFD (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No Sayeed is not notable, and his opinions in a blog are therefore also not notable.  I suggest that using a non-notable opinion from a non-notable person writing in a non-notable blog is not considered proper in a BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The BLP/N thread found (before you posted your vote) no BLP problem with the statement, but you didn't hear that, apparently.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No —This is an article about Harris, not about Sayeed. - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayeed is writing about Harris, and is cited in a secondary source (Guardian article) in relation thereto.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No We should not be using such contentious quotes in a BLP when they come from sources of such dubious reliability.LM2000 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming with this vote that the source fails to meet WP:RS, even after the BLP/N thread and discussion thread below?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No I don't see what misrepresentation TFD means, but I think the quote is accurate. In lieu of actual independent secondary sources drawing attention to this piece I don't see why we should include his opinion though. Harris often hits many newspaper columns after all. Second Quantization (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In his article, Sayeed provides a lengthy argument on why he considers Harris' views on Muslims to be wrong. Using this passage appears to imply that the key argument is that Harris is showing tribal loyalty to Israel.  TFD (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument. The "tribalism" remark was counterposed to Harris' tribalism remark in relation to ME politics so as to support the Political section. The fact that Greenwald cited/linked to the piece specifically regarding the political dimension was the primary objective. That's why this RfC is a diversion from the grand scheme of things that is actually at issue: how to integrate the amply sourced criticism of Harris' views with the respect to their political implications.
 * There are other passages that could be paraphrased, and Sayeed also discusses Chomsky in this context.

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No Sayeed does not qualify as a notable person, and the Mondoweiss blog is neither notable nor reliable. --Precision123 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
So far no source has been presented to say that Harris has self-identified as "Jewish." Is this quote from Sayeed proper where a number of opinions saying Harris may be opposed to Islam itself a valid commentary in the BLP? Is "Mondoweiss" a WP:RS? Is Theodore Sayeed a notable person whose opinions are allowed,properly cited as opinions?

I note "Mondoweiss" provides absolutely no information about Sayeed, so we have no reason to believe he is "notable" as such. Nor does he even get one mention in the NYT archives. If he is not notable, then his opinion is likely also not notable. "Mondoweiss" is described by the NYT as an "anti-Zionist" website. and does not fit into any normal category for WP:RS either. So a blog used for comments by a non-notable person seems to fail the requirements for use in any BLP. Inaddition, the apparent result would be to label a person as "Jewish" who does not so self-identify, contrary to WP:BLPCAT Collect (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mondoweiss is RS, as you are well aware, and Sayeed does not have to be "notable", as you are well aware, only article topics have to be notable. WP:TE. False consensus against policy is not WP:CONSENSUS.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mondoweiss is a Weiss & Horowitz blog; not a reliable source for the assertion of fact. If you are going to push a narrative that Harris is critical of Islam because he is allegedly Jewish, rather than because he is an atheist, you'll discover that Wikipedia policy forbids the method you are trying to employ. In addition, you've been recently introducing a great number of hyperbolic quotes from "critics"; perhaps you should revist this part of the NPOV policy and try to edit more in line with those requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed. You are WP:GAMING. See you at AN/I!-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeat all you want; Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is taking the wrong approach to the article. Instead of identifying sources and reflecting what they say, we are looking for sources to connect the subject's controversial views and his Jewishness. TFD (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sayeed is a primary source for the opinions of himself. What evidence is there of due weight from reliable secondary sources? Second Quantization (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, Sayeed has zero notability in the matter. Collect (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Guardian piece, Greenwald links to and praises that specific piece by Sayeed, stating "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".
 * The quote appears to have been made in response to a statement by Harris on Islamic tribalism in relation to the political dimension of Harris' writings on Israel, as per the first quote in the Political" section. I was never married to that statement, just the political import Sayeed's piece applies to Harris' writings, and so I replaced the quote with this"In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, 'Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics."Though Collect has not tried to delete the Political section, Zenophrenic and LM2000 have, and that is against the sources and mades imply because they don't like the sources. Xenophrenic refers to Greenwald, Hussain and Lean as "jokers", for example, while admitting Harris has "responded extensively to them".
 * There was no need for an RfC on this specific sentence, nor a BLP/N thread, but at least it has accrued some participation here.
 * My basic objective was to add support to the existence of the "Political" section, the use of Sayeed is somewhat secondary to that, as I have raised the fact that he appears to have no journalistic publications aside from Mondoweiss, though he is still RS for his opinions published in Mondoweiss. Sayeed's emphasis on the political dimension to Harris' writings has been seconded and praised by Greenwald, giving the source WEIGHT in conjuntion with the Guardian piece as well as the two news articles that have commented extensively on it and its related discussions.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I referred to some of the commentators you cited as "jokers", after you referred to the subject of this BLP as nothing more than a "PUNDIT"; are you now indicating you wish to ratchet down your rhetoric? And when editors express a concern with a source you cite, and explain their reasoning for their concern, you don't brush them off as if they simply "don't like" your source. Pay attention to what they said, and address the concerns. (And as an aside: just because one commentator agrees with the assertions of another commentator, that doesn't make the assertion accurate or the commentator notable.) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Harris is a neuroscientist that engages in publishing popular works that relate to philosophy. His has not been published in a single academic publication, not even a journal, relating to philosophy. Many commentators have characterized the political nature of his statements, with some labeling him an ideologue. I hadn't been aware of the RfC at the time I characterized him as a pundit, but my basic views haven't changed.
 * Sayeed's piece in Mondoweiss is an RS opinion piece primary source that has been linked to and praised by another, well-known commentator (notable enough to have a WP article) in a mainstream news publication that is a secondary source. As I said elsewhere, notabilty does not apply to commentators, only articles. The question asked by Second Quantization above is addressed by the reference in the Guardian piece.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your most interesting personal opinions. He is not an academic philosopher at an academic institution, and therefore would not be published as one in academic publications, you observed correctly. He is, however, repeatedly cited in academic publications (that was mentioned above). Many commentators have indeed commented on his assertions, with varying degrees of comprehension and accuracy, that is also correct. As for Sayeed and Greenwald specifically, one opinion piece agreeing with another opinion piece doesn't mean anything in this discussion about contentious assertions about a living person. Let me know if I need to start quoting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, passage and verse for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Harris is a neuroscientist", just as a note, he's neither a working neuroscientist nor a philosopher. think he had 1 or 2 publications after his thesis maybe and that's about it; nothing in years because he's not a neuroscientist, he has a PhD in neuroscience. He's an author who writes for a popular audience (not that there's anything wrong with that, all the power to him). Some people insist on calling him a philosopher and neuroscientist in the article, and I don't care enough to object. I think it makes wikipedia look stupid, but whatever, I don't care enough. On Greenwald, he is not the sort of secondary source I meant, I was looking for a detached secondary source, while Greenwald has his own agenda and is actively involved in major controversies with Harris, Second Quantization (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * NO — summoned by bot. Definitely don't think it should be in there. It's inflammatory and it's not any kind of objective evaluation of Harris. When Sayeed says "tribal instinct" you can read between the lines - he's basically saying because Harris is technically Jewish, this is influencing his opinions on Israel. I know nothing about either of these people except for the quick skim of this article, but it reflects very poorly on Sayeed. — Wikimandia (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Just piling on to say emphatically no. The source is not notable, and, given the derogatory nature of the comments, it's not fit to be included in a BLP. Macrowriter (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * refocus
 * The sentence at issue in this RfC is not really an issue.
 * I'd like the discussion to refocus on the current citation from the Sayeed piece in the restored Political section.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how RfCs work. A question was posed, and I rather think the consensus is clear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)