Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 2

Happy new year everybody!

I begin 2007 by reverting 16 edits by User:Betamod. I trust this is not a sign of things to come! Just a few problems off the top of my head:

1. Excessive and lazy use made of direct quotations.
2. Unnecessary re-ordering of sections. Previous ordering was well thought out.
3. In fact you have shown a general lack of respect for the existing style of the article.
4. Personally I don't feel we need draw attention to Harris's views on torture here which are not central to his main argument.
5. Harris has made some strong remarks about Islam, but how you managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said must remain a mystery.
6. I could go on . . .

Please come to talk before making substantial changes. We can discuss everything and add new sections if they really contribute something, though in my view the article is quite long enough for the time being.

Laurence Boyce 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually intended to come back and clean up the style of the article today, so I freely admit that my style needs improvement. You are therefore fairly entitled to edit my contributions for said style. However, I have no obligation to respect the arbitrary style of a given article simply because it predates my contribution to it and certainly not if that prohibits the addition of information that is relevant to the subject of said article, namely, Sam Harris and his ideas.

To be clear, every single contribution I made sited the relevant source and included direct quotes from Harris' writing. So if for instance you do not understand how I "managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said" then you obviously were not paying attention to the quotations nor the links I included. However my contributions were irrefutably factual, and came straight from the houses mouth.

I can see why, if one supports all Harris' ideas, it might be inconvenient to draw attention to the fact that Harris advocates ethnic profiling of Muslims and torture while at the same time claiming the moral high ground over religion. However, what you feel personally to be most relevant to Harris' arguments, without putting forward a logical justification for why, should not be the determining factor for what is relevant in a peer reviewed open content Wikipedia article.

I personally think that Harris' critique of religious belief is important and insightful, to a point, but I am deeply disturbed by where he takes these arguments and with his simplistic characterizations of diverse religious beliefs, especially as it pertains to present US foreign policy. In fact, Harris and his ideas on religion have had no small role in shaping the popular discourse on said policies, as you should know. So how else might we evaluate Harris' claims regarding the the relative ethical superiority of his brand of atheism re that of religion if not by examining the application of his views to ethical issues of the day, especially since he has taken great pains to express said opinions in print?

Again, I am happy to be edited for style (go hog wild), but I will not accept your arbitrary deletion of relevant information which I have contributed in good faith to this article. So I really hope we can come to a reasonable compromise here. I think if you are genuinely interested in compromise, you should attempt to include the information that I contributed with what adjustments to style and structure you deem to be minimally unnecessary.

In the interim, I am going to revert the article to the previous version.

--Betamod 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Betamod, and thank you for coming to talk. Tonight I just have time to pick you up on a few points.

I have no obligation to respect the arbitrary style of a given article simply because it predates my contribution to it.

Well I certainly think it helps to respect the existing style and, perhaps more importantly, the existing structure of an article. By not doing so, the danger is that one may make an article unbalanced. Which, of course, is exactly what you have done.

If for instance you do not understand how I "managed to get "advocacy for ethnic profiling of Muslims" out of what he has said" then you obviously were not paying attention to the quotations nor the links I included.

I can assure you that I have read every word Harris has written. Yes, the HuffPo piece does mention ethnic profiling, but to turn that into a whole section of this article, indeed a section which does nothing but quote from the said piece, amounts, in my view, to a gross distortion and misrepresentation.

I can see why, if one supports all Harris' ideas, it might be inconvenient to draw attention to the fact that Harris advocates ethnic profiling of Muslims and torture while at the same time claiming the moral high ground over religion.

Not at all. The article for The End of Faith mentions Harris's views on torture. The difference is that it gives it the space it deserves. For Harris's argument on torture occupies all of seven pages in that book (out of 217 pages in total, or 281 pages if you include the endnotes). By contrast, your section on torture is way over the top. It is also unreadable.

I am happy to be edited for style (go hog wild), but I will not accept your arbitrary deletion of relevant information which I have contributed in good faith to this article.

I don't call making slapdash edits which are plainly going to require clean up from other editors, to be acting in good faith. I just call it tiresome and unconstructive.

In the interim, I am going to revert the article to the previous version.

Not a smart move I would say, but let's hear what the others think. In my view, what you have done is clearly unbalanced and merits outright rejection. I would be quite happy to incorporate your points into the article, but frankly it would amount to no more than a few lines of text within the relevant sections.

Laurence Boyce 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert your changes just yet, but seeing as an anonymous editor (172.131.67.225) has removed the sections on torture and ethnic profiling, I have now reverted again to a version with the sections logically ordered etc. Laurence Boyce 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is rather curious that the "editor" who reverted the page was anonymous.

The article for The End of Faith mentions Harris's views on torture. The difference is that it gives it the space it deserves. For Harris's argument on torture occupies all of seven pages in that book (out of 217 pages in total, or 281 pages if you include the endnotes). By contrast, your section on torture is way over the top. It is also unreadable.

Though it contextualizes it within its place in Harris' book, The End of Faith article has exactly one line mentioning Harris' argument for torture, which is appropriate, since this is an article about his book, not a list of notable ideas and positions that the Author has taken. In contrast, this article is about Harris the public intellectual and author. Therefore, his advocacy for torture and ethnic profiling is relevant to an overall assessment of his ideas. The reader has the references to the source material if he wishes to delve further.

If you refer at the style guide for Wikipedia, it clearly does not in any way prohibit the use of lengthy quotations. It merely suggests that these be indented:

Long quotations (more than four lines) may be rendered as block quotations, without quotation marks or italics. A long quotation is indented by using <blockquote> </blockquote> notation, which indents both left and right margins (see #Quotations).[1]

The stylistic prejudice against lengthy quotations is your own. My use of quotes conforms to Wikipedia's own guidelines.

Therefore, the only remaining question is whether my contributions are relevant to the subject of this article, and clearly they are. I have attempted to fit my contributions within the existing structure, which is basically a list of Harris' ideas. If you don't like the structure, you can change it to something that works better, but my contributions were not unreadable. Discarding relevant content for the sake of structure or style is puts the cart before the horse.

If Sam Harris has the guts to argue in print for unpopular positions re the US lead war on terror, torture and ethnic profiling then you aught to have the intellectual honesty to allow reference to said arguments in a Wikipedia article about him and his views. --Betamod 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my edits and made further modifications in conformity with Wikipedia's style guidelines and in an attempt to find some kind of compromise. If you still have a problem with either the style or the structure, by all means improve on my contribution as you see fit. --Betamod 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again I merely have time to pick you up on a few points.

It is rather curious that the "editor" who reverted the page was anonymous.

It's not curious at all. There have been loads of anonymous edits to this article.

The stylistic prejudice against lengthy quotations is your own. My use of quotes conforms to Wikipedia's own guidelines.

I have nothing against quotations, indeed this article used to contain a number of quotations, mostly added by me. They were removed by common consent.

The only remaining question is whether my contributions are relevant to the subject of this article, and clearly they are.

No, that is not the only remaining question. The present question is clearly one of context and balance. Shall we have a whole paragraph devoted to Harris's pet dog? No, obviously not. But in a book on Harris, say, that might not be unreasonable. Get it? Oh never mind . . .

If Sam Harris has the guts to argue in print for unpopular positions re the US lead war on terror, torture and ethnic profiling then you aught to have the intellectual honesty to allow reference to said arguments in a Wikipedia article about him and his views.

I have already stated clearly that I am happy to incorporate your points into the article in a balanced fashion. But your edits are so far from being a balanced and neutral contribution as to be laughable.

I have restored my edits and made further modifications . . .

May I also suggest that you familiarise yourself with the talk archive. While you are under no obligation to respect what has gone before, ignoring history altogether is a sure way to put everyone's backs up. This article was of a very high quality before you showed up. Your current behaviour is frankly embarrassing.

Laurence Boyce 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I am not embarrassed. You are clearly intent on sitting on this page.

This article is about Harris' views and his significance. It is written about him, not on his behalf. And as far as bias goes, this article, previous to my edits, was fr more biased. It left the impression that the only controversy surrounding his views was due to his critique of religion, rather than the political agenda (whether a major or minor part of Harris' concerns) of which that critique is a part. Harris would not be nearly as significant as he is were it not for the context of his arguments against religion, which in themselves are nothing new, but rather, he is significant for political implications of said views as they pertain to issues of the day, namely the war on terror and clash between Western and Islamic civilizations, of which Harris has been a proponent, and to which he has explicitly applied his critique concerning religion, as you well know.

But I suppose by your logic, for instance, you would claim that an article about Martin Heidegger should not include mention of his membership in the Nazi party because this was not a primary topic of his philosophy? --Betamod 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more points:

You are clearly intent on sitting on this page.

Incorrect. There is no question that I have been the most active editor on this article, but, if you peruse the talk archive, you will see that I have engaged with everyone constructively. This is the first serious difficulty I have encountered in 14 months.

Harris would not be nearly as significant as he is were it not for the context of his arguments against religion, which in themselves are nothing new . . .

I disagree. I think that both the content and style of Harris's critique are new.

. . . but rather, he is significant for political implications of said views as they pertain to issues of the day, namely the war on terror and clash between Western and Islamic civilizations.

And that was covered in the "Islam" section.

I suppose by your logic, for instance, you would claim that an article about Martin Heidegger should not include mention of his membership in the Nazi party because this was not a primary topic of his philosophy?

Don't know much about Heidegger I'm afraid. Once again, let me state that I am happy to incorporate the points you raise in a balanced and neutral manner. But you have not done this. Instead you have created two new section headings which effectively scream out, "Harris is pro-torture and wants ethnic profiling of Muslims." That is not encyclopedic writing; it is tabloid journalism.

So I propose to progress the article in two stages. Stage one is to incorporate the points you made into the existing sections. This is relatively straightforward and I will endeavour to do this before long.

The second stage which will take a little longer is to add two new sections to the article. The first section would cover the issues you raise in more detail. It would be entitled "Political views" or some such. Certainly the word "torture" would appear nowhere in the section title. The second section, I suggest, should cover what Harris has said concerning what he sees as the zero-sum contest between faith and science. I have been meaning to write this section for some time, and in my view this is possibly the more striking omission, seeing as his politics is covered (albeit to a lesser extent than you would like) both here and in the article for The End of Faith.

I trust this proposal will prove acceptable to all.

Laurence Boyce 13:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your recent addition of "see also religious intolerance" is once again plainly tendentious. That article has absolutely nothing to do with the "conversational intolerance" that Harris is advocating, rather it is all about state sponsored persecution and blasphemy laws etc. Laurence Boyce 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am glad we seem to be moving forward on a comprise. I do not agree that my additions are biased but clearly you do and I am eager to find a mutually satisfactory compromise. However, I think that Harris' specific views regarding well defined political issues such as torture and ethnic/racial profiling deserve specific headings within any section on his "Political views". I also think mention of his belief in the notion of there being an inevitable clash of civilizations between the West and Islam aught to have its own heading here, as this is also a well defined political issue in the public discourse and a major motivation behind Harris reception. Similarly, his critique of the role of Christianity in US politics should be dealt with here. Essentially, we would be separating his general philosophical themes from their political applications to issues of the day which provide the context for his significance and public reception. I suppose this is OK, but also has its potential flaws.

I don't think the tow sections in question should be removed until the new section on Harris' political views is added with the above headings.

If we can agree to these terms then you are welcome to make the first stab at a rewrite and I will hang back and see what you come up with.

Agreed?

By the way, I did not include the link to religious intolerance because of his stance on conversational intolerance, though it obviously contributes to my reasons. Rather, it was because of his stance regarding ethnic profiling of Muslims and defense of torture, the implications of which is implicitly a concern of Harris' critics, since if Harris' political views were reflected in law, it is at the very least arguable that this would amount to state sponsored targeted persecution of Muslims. --Betamod 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More replies:

First let me say that I am glad we seem to be moving forward on a comprise.

I wish I could be so optimistic!

I do not agree that my additions are biased but clearly you do.

Principally, I think that they are unbalanced, and therefore in consequence, biased.

I think that Harris' specific views regarding well defined political issues such as torture and ethnic/racial profiling deserve specific headings within any section on his "Political views".

No, absolutely not. In an article ten times as long, maybe. But in this article, no. You continue to signal your intention to unbalance the article. Specifically, to turn one phrase – "ethnic profiling" – into a whole section, is so tendentious as to give the game away.

I also think mention of his belief in the notion of there being an inevitable clash of civilizations between the West and Islam aught to have its own heading here, as this is also a well defined political issue in the public discourse and a major motivation behind Harris reception.

That sentence became a little incoherent towards to the end, but you seem to be implying that we should be driven to some extent by Harris's public reception. We should not. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We should simply be describing Harris's views in a neutral and balanced fashion, while also mentioning any significant criticism in the designated section.

Similarly, his critique of the role of Christianity in US politics should be dealt with here.

This has essentially been covered in the sections entitled "Religious America" and "Morality and ethics." Have you actually read the article?

I don't think the tow sections in question should be removed until the new section on Harris' political views is added with the above headings.

I am certainly going to remove your contributions before long. The present state of the article is plainly unacceptable.

If we can agree to these terms then you are welcome to make the first stab at a rewrite and I will hang back and see what you come up with.

The only thing I am agreeing on for now, is two additional sections. One entitled "Political views," the other entitled "Faith versus science." They will be comparable in size and style to the existing sections: neutral descriptions of Harris's views complete with footnote references. And it won't necessarily happen soon.

If Harris' political views were reflected in law, it is at the very least arguable that this would amount to state sponsored targeted persecution of Muslims.

It might be "arguable," but it certainly wouldn't be true. Harris wants conversation, not legislation.

Laurence Boyce 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how it is that you think that you are the arbiter of balance here. Plainly you intend to sit on this page and impose your arbitrary POV under the cover of "style" and "balance".

Harris explicitly advocates that Muslims accept ethnic profiling and is in favor of legalized torture. That is not my opinion. It's what he wrote. I can only therefore assume that it is what he believes.

Your only argument against the sections in question are that he has not devoted as much time to these issues as to his arguments concerning religion, but clearly much of the context for his arguments concerning religion are for political ends, otherwise he would not be so concerned with religious ideology and its role in politics. He is arguing for alternative political positions to those held by certain religious groups, some of which, for instance, pertain to the the use of state violence, namely war and torture. In the case of his advocacy for torture and ethnic/racial profiling, he is arguing for the legalization of policies that are currently unconstitutional in most secular Western democracies and which violate international law. One of the justifications for the the legalization of said policies is the alleged threat that religion, namely Islam, poses to the West.

It is therefore highly disingenuous of you to suggest that he is merely interested in conversation rather than legislation.

Finally, neither you nor me are in fact privy to Harris' intent, unless you are suggesting that you have some special psychic knowledge. I am merely addressing what he has written.

The page is not in any way illegible as is, so there is no need to rush in there and change it. However, I will be back in a a week or so to see what has happened to this article and know I am not going to let you delete all mention of Harris' public political positions.

On that note, I think that the section on Harris' ideas on secular/non religious spirituality and its relation to Hindu/Budhist traditions is far too short. Also, there aught to be at least a short biography section. --Betamod 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More replies:

Plainly you intend to sit on this page and impose your arbitrary POV under the cover of "style" and "balance".

For the umpteenth time, I am happy to incorporate all your points in a neutral and balanced fashion.

Clearly much of the context for his arguments concerning religion are for political ends . . .

I think that is very far from clear.

It is therefore highly disingenuous of you to suggest that he is merely interested in conversation rather than legislation.

Not at all. Harris is constantly arguing for a public conversation about religion, one which he believes is being stifled by the unwarranted respect religion still enjoys. When it comes to legislation, Harris will have one vote like everyone else.

Neither you nor me are in fact privy to Harris' intent, unless you are suggesting that you have some special psychic knowledge.

True, though I am just beginning to suspect that I may have studied Harris a little closer than you have.

The page is not in any way illegible as is, so there is no need to rush in there and change it.

I am going to tidy up the article this weekend which will implement the first stage of what I have proposed. We may then work offline on additional sections.

Laurence Boyce 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

The common misuse of this word is mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. You might want to check it out. I'm not sure what word or expression would be better to use here: "narrow-minded believer", "literalist", or what. Steve Dufour 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. I don't agree with Harris's opinions but it was quite interesting reading about them.

Thanks Steve. The word is used three times so I'm sure we can change it if we must. The Wikipedia guideline states that "the word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists," and I can see the point of that. However, in this article the term is deployed in a general way which I would have thought would be acceptable. Laurence Boyce 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it is generally used is what WP is telling us to avoid. But you are right that it is not pointing to any person or group specifically so no harm is really done. Steve Dufour 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidy up

As promised, I have tidied up the article and have incorporated the recent additions on ethnic profiling, torture, and Gorenfeld's critique. Please may I call upon all editors to respect the structure of the existing article, which has been the work of many editors, before contemplating any radical alterations. Laurence Boyce 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Graduate versus undergraduate degree

As I understand it, there is no such thing as an "undergraduate degree" or a "graduate degree." Rather, the correct terminology is that one studies for a degree while one is an undergraduate, eventually leading to a final examination, whereupon one graduates and becomes a graduate of whichever university. Laurence Boyce 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference. A graduate degree is either a M.A. or a PH.D. or its equivalent. Why not be more informative of what degree he actually got? It is accurate. It is correct to say he is a graduate of Stanford, but not to say he got a graduate degree. The edit was to clarify this. I have a feeling you are sitting on this page too much, editing out even accurate and unbiased information. Please don't obsessively prevent all changes, even informative, to this page.Kanibd 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Laurence, This might be a difference in U.S. versus British academic terminology. In the States, an "undergraduate degree" is a Bachelors degree (B.A. or B.S.) while a "graduate degree" is a Masters (M.A. or M.S.) or a Doctorate (Ph.D.). In England, as I understand it, students that have completed their standard studies are called post-graduate students, while in the States, they are referred to as graduate students. So, at least in the U.S. there is a perfectly coherent thing as an undergraduate degree. It's a bachelors degree. One is then a graduate of a particular univeristy, but can also go on to do graduate studies, but not necessarily at the place that one is a graduate of... I'm an American academic currently working in London, and I am still trying to work this all out. Edhubbard 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. The article simply states that he is a graduate of Stanford University which is plainly correct on both sides of the pond, and is also how Harris has described himself. Laurence Boyce 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

However, this is confusing for people in the United States. Many people, including myself, erroneously thought that he had a Ph.D. from Stanford. I was disabused of this by a colleague of mine, who showed me that he only got a Bachelor's. Please look at this newsweek article which clearly states he got a Bachelor's degree from there. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/from/ET/ While it may not pose any problem for UK citizens, it is really confusing for people in the United States. Because Stanford is located in the United States, I think it's only fair to include this very basic information. Also, Sam Harris himself even included this article on his page, but removed it. Here is the cache of the site: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=slv1-&p=sam+harris+undergraduate&u=www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-new-naysayers-newsweek-magazine-september-11-2006/&w=sam+harris+undergraduate&d=Bf7S7exsOF7O&icp=1&.intl=us I am getting suspicious of whether he's trying to conceal this fact. Kanibd 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't think this is in the least bit confusing for anyone. It is possible that the reason you thought he had a PhD is that he is currently studying for a doctorate. There really is nothing to hide, and the article you cite is still available on his website for all to see. Laurence Boyce 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I read the statement on his website and thought he got his Ph.D. at Stanford in addition to pursuing a Ph.D. in Neuroscience. There are more people who are confused by this than you think. It is not a matter of intelligence but of confusing terminology. I don't see any reason why you would censor very basic information such as the fact that he got his Bachelor's at Stanford. I was wrong about the link, but that is minor. If you ask any neutral third party, they would know that it is better to be more specific the degree he acquired at Stanford. I will now change the information to be more specific. I don't think it's fair for you to constantly delete this information even though it is very accurate and helps clarification. It is not controversial in any way. I also cited it.Kanibd 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again... I don't think that "graduate of Stanford University" is inherently confusing in the vast majority of cases, but because I know that Harris is studying for his doctorate in neuroscience, I also misread it the first time I saw the entry. In this case, it might be that too much information is confusing in cases where it normally wouldn't be. Nobody would be confused if I said that Dubya was a graduate of Yale, because nobody ever accused him of getting anywhere near a graduate degree, but in Harrris' case, it can require a little more careful reading. Personally, I find the reworded version somewhat awkward. Consider the parallel example I gave before, about Dubya: "Bush attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts and, following in his father's footsteps, was accepted into Yale University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968". Perhaps, if had the year, we could use the same structure for Harris?... I am curious about where he's getting his doctorate from, though, having recieved mine in CA (UC San Diego) I know he isn't around San Diego. Edhubbard 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The graduate school he is attending can be found on the internet. However, I wanted to respect his wish that it not be made widely known because he fears for his safety. I'm not sure when he graduated from Stanford. I am all for making the wording less awkward, but I do think the clarification is justified. If anyone wants to make the wording more fluid, go ahead.Kanibd 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Who would have thought that simple phrase, "a philosophy graduate from Stanford University," could generate so much heat? Harris sure is a controversial guy! I mean he's only written two best-selling books – don't you think we should really include his school results here? Laurence Boyce 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

More Info?

Don't we have any information on Harris' early life (family, ethnicity, birthplace, family's/parents religion [if any], etc.)? Judging from the way he looks (among other factors), it's likely that Mr. Harris is ethnically Jewish (even though he obviously doesn't follow Judaism) because Harris is a very common last name amongst Jews. --172.161.156.48 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The information we have regarding Harris's early life is very patchy. The reason is that Harris has security concerns for himself and his family, and so has released the bare minimum of information into the public domain. Rather than include such a patchy section, it is probably best to respect those concerns and just omit his background from the article altogether. Laurence Boyce 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If a person wishes to publish incendiary material under their own name in a public setting, then right or wrong, the security issue is their own problem. Insofar as Wikipedia is a reference work, its information must be as comprehensive as possible. Dicksonlaprade 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Under that logic, I should be able to post what information I find about user Dicksonlaprade on his profile page because he has in fact published things under his own name (wikipedia user page, blogger page, amazon reviews, et al). All of which provide fuel for further research into his personal life and history. But I gander Mr. Dickson-Laprade would not appreciate that, and that seems good enough reason for me not do it in this case... --Ikyork 03:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also if Harris is a Jewish name (I don't know enough about Jewish namesakes to know or not), logically it does not mean he's a Jew. It would mean his father was Jewish, or father's father was Jewish etc., being in Judaism you have to be born from a Jewish woman to actually be a Jew. Yada yada... --Ikyork 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP, people, BLP. We are not here to endanger living persons, or to dig up dirt. We're here to consolidate what is already on the public record in reliable, accessible sources. Metamagician3000 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best of all to include a succinct, well-cited description of the "security concerns" Harris has for himself and his family? Surely, statements of his explaining these concerns must be available in sources of sufficient reliability to satisfy WP:BLP. Anville 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be best to draw as little attention as possible to the issue. Laurence Boyce 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Harris has already drawn attention to the problem himself, in a well-publicized interview:

There are security concerns, obviously. The Salaman Rushdie [sic] effect was not totally distant from my imagination as I was writing the book, but at a certain point you just have to speak honestly about these things, and I've taken reasonable steps to ensure my security. [...] I don't make my whereabouts particularly well known and I have security whenever I do an event—bodyguards and other precautions that are probably best not publicized. [...] I've had some reasonably scary e-mails, but nothing that has risen to the level of a death threat. [2]

This interview is also linked from the bio page of Harris's own website. Anville 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the stuff you quote is just not very interesting. "Man who criticised Islam has security concerns." Laurence Boyce 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Add links to Newsweek/MNSBC story?

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, and reprinted online at msnbc.com is an extended story and debate (10 pages of debate and 6 pages of introduction and background) on the question of Religion: Is God Real? The participants in the debate are Sam Harris, and Rick Warren author of A Purpose Driven Life. Obviously, these two individuals are among the current voices of their respective groups.

The story begins here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889147/site/newsweek/ and the abridged text of the discussion is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/. I think that these are useful additions to the atheism page, because they show the contemporary state of the debate. They are not necessarily authoritative, and clearly reflect the two participant's particular POVs, but they do reflect the ongoing, and rising, discussion of faith and atheism in the United States. I have also copied this to Atheism talk page. Thoughts? Edhubbard 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It looks good. Laurence Boyce 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could God exist?

I have reverted your recent addition again Burntapple. I have listened to the Colbert interview, and I did not hear Harris say explicitly that God could exist. But if he did, it would be entirely unremarkable. Just about anything could exist. Laurence Boyce 10:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and watched the interview, too, and I agree. At no point does Harris say that God could exist. It's up to BurntApple to clearly state where Harris says it. Otherwise, it's potentially libelous, and immediately removable according to WP:BLP, and not subject to the WP:3RR. Edhubbard 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it. No mention at all. Treat it as vandalism. Besides, bios of living persons are not subject to the 3RR when it comes to deleting unverified claims, even if they aren't vandalism. See WP:3RR#Exceptions VanTucky 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At about 5:44 he says it. Burntapple 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)