Talk:The Demon-Haunted World

NPOV?

I don't think the article as it is shows much NPOV. I read the book and it seemed there was more much dogma about science than actually explaining to anyone how to use the scientific method. He also makes several criticisms of particular pseudoscience which are in fact, not correct and attacks the validity of Near Death Experiences using faulty analogies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundhati bakshi (talk • contribs)

The article, as it stands, prefaces much with "Sagan states", "Sagan claims", and "he believes", so I think that's perfectly NPOV, since it's factual. If there are aspects of the book that you can add to the article in an NPOV manner, please do so. --Ds13 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your talk-page comments. Thanks! RobertAustin 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the book as well and while I actually agree with much of your opinion, you could easily include some of this in the article. However, you would have to be able to back it up with good reasoning and facts. Otherwise, it would lean the article heavily into a POV of someone who just didn't 'agree' with the book. Romperroom

Why does the opinion of any of you boobs matter here, anyway? If you want this book to have your own special "NPOV", then write your own retarded book. This is an encyclopedia and this is an entry for a book. This entry is NOT a review. No one gives a shit if YOU like the book or not and it has no bearing on this article whatsoever. Go write a review on your own blog about it, but keep it to yourself here. "dogma about science"? LOL, go crawl back into your Jesus hole. Cowicide (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Dogma about science" what? It would be nice to read some examples of your claims, Arundhati bakshi. I have read the book, and I definitely disagree with you. Please enlighten me. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote to the article that has to do with this -starting with "Is it fair to...". I think Sagan makes a good point. However, in 'fairness' every scientific 'cure' I can think of is simply helping the body use its own ability to cure itself as well. "Faith healing" often involves installing thoughts and beliefs in someone that they didn't have before which then can produce a profound effect. When it works, this is no less of a 'miraculous' intervention than taking a pill when it works. Many medications (e.g. Prozac) have been shown to be mostly a catalyst for the placebo effect (a person feels an 'effect' of the pill, then believes 'it must be working' and then the body's chemistry responds powerfully). In other words, in any medication you can think of, it's not the medication that does the healing, it's the body's *response* to the medication. A person's chemistry responds powerfully to new beliefs as well. Romperroom 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Now go write your own book or place your review in a Jesus magazine. Your POV editing doesn't belong here. Cowicide (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg

Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Just curious, are sources not cited because everything in this article can be found in the book? (Never worked on a book review before.) I only ask because every article I have worked on that has to do with religion has been plagued by demands for more and more sources, usually by people like the one above using all caps. :) Greenw47 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, actually... this is NOT a book review. Despite what those dogmatic boobs up there would have you believe, this is an encyclopedia entry about a book and should be treated accordingly. Otherwise, I've got quite a bit to say about the Bible in its entry if we are going to start pushing our own opinions on works of fiction or otherwise in these articles. Cowicide (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

I'd like to see a section on the critical reception of this book and by critical, I mean by book critics people - not critical as in opposed to. This is a fairly important work of on the status Skeptical thinking at the time of it's writing. It would be interesting to read what the book critics had to say about it, and especially any reviews by fellow skeptics or by religious figures who may have taken issue with the books various assertions.LiPollis (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)