User talk:Xenophrenic/sandbox3

Response[edit]

If the other side only wants to follow this up by digging in their heels and withdrawing from the discussion for five days and counting, they are welcome to withdraw from maintaining the article as well. - Cal Engime

Writing just for myself, and not the whole "other side", I didn't withdraw from the discussion, I merely stepped off the hamster wheel for a while. You weren't saying anything new, and the discussion wasn't advancing. As for a five day pause in a discussion that has been ongoing for millennia, I can only suggest: don't panic. I'm going to skip over your comments about present consensus as a non-starter issue; on one side I see several editors persuasively explaining why the broadest definition should be conveyed first, then several more editors expressing agreement, and then even more editors reverting attempts to contravene that agreement — and on the other side, I see ... you. Of course consensus can change, which is what you appear to be arguing. So, I'll step back on the hamster wheel long enough to re-address some specific assertions made above.

I, at least, remain open to hearing any reasons why the order of the opening should not reflect the balance of the sources. - Cal Engime

The order already does reflect the sources. The reason you face such overwhelming disagreement here is because you are drawing from a narrow subset of sources from the discipline of philosophy, while everyone else is drawing from the totality of reliable sources. When this fact was raised before, you insisted that we should base our decision just on your philosophical sources: surely it is agreed that philosophy is the relevant field, and that the history of atheism is the history of a philosophical position.... Your fellow editors, and Wikipedia policy on sources, disagree with you.

You mention Bullivant as contradicting McCormick, Rowe, and Flew ... Smart, and Baggini ... Cliteur, and Eller

look at the Featured Article version, not that it states "Philosophy" in the lead? And the order wasn't "established" by consensus, wasn't even argued, more by default

To my astonishment, you introduced non-philosopher/theologian sources presumably in support of your position. Dawkins? A YouTube video of deGrass Tyson?

Dawkins' ... narrow definition of atheism still shows that it is in common use. - Cal Engime

I understand that you believe that; he certainly includes that narrow "Strong atheist" definition on his 7-point scale among his other categories of non-belief and belief, which by your logic would show that they are all "in common use". But what you keep overlooking is that Dawkins then immediately clarifies that he is not in that narrow category, and most importantly, he doesn't think many people are in that category but he included it anyway just for symmetry. Nobody is disagreeing that the narrow definitions have a degree of common usage, especially in the field of philosophy. More germane to this discussion, however, is the larger point that the broader definition has greater application and prevalence.

Bullivant ... says that this is not the authentic meaning of the Classical Greek root - Cal Engime

Not really. What he's saying is that the Greek root literally does translate to "without belief in god", and scholars "frequently" appeal to that fact, but notes that it wasn't used that way "historically" in classical Greece - which is correct. It was a derogatory put-down of someone as immoral and godless. I find it interesting that he mentions the etymological fallacy, which simply acknowledges that the meaning of words can change from their origins over time; something that seems completely forgotten in this discussion.

You could hardly have consulted Flew 1976 without reading... - Cal Engime

Hold just a minute. Are we talking, by chance, about a professor of philosophy, in a philosophy department, who published a philosophy work on atheism four decades ago? In that context, we already agree he is likely to consider the narrow definitions as common. That's no surprise and not really in dispute in this discussion. This discussion is about the consensus decision to mention the broadest definition first because it has the widest overall currency, rather than list narrow definitions which may be more common in specific academic disciplines, like Philosophy of Religion.

...no reason not to follow the sources in saying that affirmation of non-existence is what atheism is commonly understood to mean (per Bullivant, Rowe, McCormick, Flew) and that the "lack of belief" definition is unlikely to be adopted by the public (per Harvey). - Cal Engime

Are we talking, by chance, about four professors of philosophy, in philosophy departments, who published philosophy works on atheism? In that context, we already agree they are likely to consider the narrow definitions as common. That's no surprise and not really in dispute in this discussion. This discussion is about the consensus to mention the broadest definition first because it has the widest overall currency, rather than list narrow definitions which may be more common in specific academic disciplines. And by the way, Professor Harvey in that enc. of Philosophy work did not

The atheist community does generally agree that the term includes everyone "without belief in deities". That community should be the one which matters. As put elsewhere, religion articles don't define their subject by their negation to other religions, but instead to their internal identification with their faith. Atheism, therefore, should be largely defined by consensus drawn from notable atheists, with less emphasis placed on definitions used in other communities. This use goes back for centuries:
1. Paul Baron D'Holbach, Good Sense (1772): "All children are born Atheists; They have no idea of God" Referred to by John Meslier as "the strongest atheistical work". Google Books, pg 26
2. Charles Bradlaugh, The Freethinker's Textbook (1876): "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God... I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception"
3. Chapman Cohen Deity and Design (1912): "If one believes in a god, one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist — he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God." and "Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist."
4. George Smith Atheism: The Case Against God (1976): "Atheism, properly considered, is simply the absence or lack of theistic belief. In other words, to the question, "Do you believe in God?", if you answer, "No," for whatever reason, you are an atheist. You will often hear it said that an atheist actually denies the existence of a god or gods. This is true; many atheists do but not all. This kind of overt denial of the existence of a god or gods is a sub-category of a broader kind of approach which should in a general sense be known as atheism." Link to speech
5. More George Smith: "The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.
  Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,” or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

1. Richard Carrier What is Atheism Really All About? (1996): "An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist."
2. Michael Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006): "An atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist."
Regardless of adoption, absence is the broadest sense of the definition. It makes sense (and there appears to be precedent elsewhere) that the article should lead with the most inclusive definition, and then further refine schools of thought therein.
1. Theism begins with the broadest definition, and further refines to monotheism, despite it being the most prevalent.
2. Christianity begins with the overarching view of Jesus, regardless of widely held beliefs regarding the trinity or other widely adopted figures.
3. According to WikiProject Atheism: Importance Scale, top level importance articles should be left in mostly generic terms, partitioning technical definitions and distinctions to more specialized areas. I take this to mean that the article should be clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand for the average uninformed reader, particularly within the first section of the lead. The simplest way to do this is to specify what atheism means for everyone, and then further detail more specialized positions therein. The current lead attacks multiple positions in no clear order, leaving ambiguity with respect to a comprehensive definition.
4. Simply put, it makes the most sense to espouse the initial definition which includes every atheist, and then further refine to individual positions. The first definition should not be one which excludes those (and I would contend many of those) who label themselves or others in this way.
Contrary to implications made in the previous discussion, there does appear to be a general consensus among scholars and prominent atheists, and even some philosophers and theologians, that absence is at least one definition suited to atheism. While some may not hold this position themselves, or even actively argue against it, this should not be confused for lack of adoption of the term; The fact that they reference it at all should be indication enough of its prominence.
1. Robert Flint Anti-Theistic Theories (1883): "Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God"
2. Robert Flint Agnosticism (1903): "The word atheist ... means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less."
3. Investigatingatheism.info "Negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief... This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism."
4. The absence definition is even discussed (albeit attacked) by major apologists, including William Lane Craig, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and so forth, predominantly during debate.
The Latin root, origin, and history of the term all point to absence of belief. While this alone doesn't signify absence as a primary definition, it does heavily oppose the notion that the definition is not prominent enough to begin the article.
1. G.W. Foote What is Agnosticism (1902): "Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the "A" before "Theist" really means."
2. Michael Martin Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1990): "If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
3. George Smith Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1990): "Prominent atheists have defended for many years the view that an atheist is a person who lacks theistic belief." A discussion of the Latin roots and general acceptance of the term
The absence def gets enough exposure elsewhere, regardless of all of the above, to warrant prominent placement in the lead.
1. Butch Baily Atheism is the absence of belief (2007): "Theism is an active belief in a god(s), so the lack of this belief is "a-theism." It requires no active belief, neither affirmative nor negative. It is simply the absence of a belief." Full Article originally appeared in hattiesburgamerican
2. Austin Cline What is the definition of Atheism: "The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist." Full Article at About.com

...openly disparage the definition with the strongest support of the sources for personal (and apologetical) reasons unrelated to anything found in reliable sources... - Cal Engime

Seriously? When you are advised that your ad hominem are unwarranted, you double-down with yet another? "religionists" isn't my word, it is from our cited sources - everything I say is a paraphrase of reliable sources, please remember that - yes, you made a personal attack.

Atheists of America (www.atheists.org) states [1]:

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods." ...

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

Per Austin Cline: The most common misunderstanding about atheism involves the definition. Many people insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second, first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism. About.com]

from Fighting God:

Theism is consistently defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods," so atheism is therefore "the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods," which makes it a broad term that has many implications, not just absolute denial. Atheism is without that belief, not aginst it. Got it?" "Atheist is the broadest term and, again, means only "the absence of a belief in a god or gods." The reasons for the lack of belief, and the convictions behind the reasons, are irrelevant to the term's definition. Agnostics, Seculer/Humanistic Jews, Secular Humanists, Brights, some Buddhists, sone Hindus, and all "apatheists" are atheists." Page 8: Religious majority want the word confusion to persist!
In Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World pgs 7-8, he says "lack of belief" and argues against other defs [2]

More pop culture sources: Tyson explains why he's agnostic and atheist: YouTube - Tyson further explains YouTube2

Salman Rushdie, Seth McFarlane, Carl Sagan, Bill Maher, Ricky Gervaise, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Cara Santa Maria

Penn Jillette (74-78) God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales: "If you're not willing to pretend that matters of god can be certain, you're an atheist, and just say that, you fucking pussy." and on people who use the "weasel agnostic answer" to whether they believe in god, "Most "agnostics" are really just cowardly and manipulative atheists. [...] "Agnostics" are not really showing respect for religious people, they're showing condescension. They worry anyone who believes in god can't possibly respect someone else's honest lack of belief. That's not true. I meet religious people every day who don't kill people for their lack of belief."

Penn on Atheism and Agnosticism: YouTube Dawkins & Penn Jillette talk religion for an hour: More YouTube

Dan Barker in Life Driven Purpose defines Atheism thusly on page 15-17: Atheism is simply the absence of theism. Atheists do not have a religious belief; we lack a belief in God or gods, and that is the only thing that unites us. (We might possess beliefs about other things, but we don't have a belief in a gog.) But I am certain that the views I express in this book are shared to a very large degree by most atheists on the planet. I talked with thousands of them. I have read the writings of many hundreds more.

Even professors of philosophy acknowledge that the broad "absense of belief" is prevalent, as well as most inclusive, and most easily defensible. Bullivant, and Douglas E. Krueger who says in:

What is Atheism? pgs 15-24, "There are two views which are often considered atheism - the broad version (that of not assenting to the theistic view) and the narrow version (the claim that the theistic view is false)." And --- "The term "atheism" is from the Greek atheos. The prefix "a" means "without," and the Greek thros means "god," so atheism means simply being without god." Theism asserts that there is a god, so atheism is the view which does not assert that there is a god. However, there are two ways to refrain from asserting that there is a god. On the broad definition, an atheist is simply one who does not agree with the theist that there is a god. This broad definition of atheism has been historically more prevalent. [history of the word 'agnostic] Regardless of the reason, each type of agnostic would refrain from agreeing with the theist, so on this broad definition it would follow that an agnostic would be considered an atheist. The narrow, stronger version of "atheism" is that of someone who asserts that there are no gods. On this definition, an agnostic would not be considered an atheist. Although the broad use of the term "atheism" has its advantages, since it is much easier to defend, it will not be used here. [he goes on to explain how he will show that the narrow definition can be logically defended] Krueger also is a source for the view that I expressed that theists try to say atheists must "believe" or "worship" something so they don't look as silly. Pgs. 20-21

Judith Hayes - The Happy Heretic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What is an agnostic? A nonexistent person. I should know. I used to be one. I don't mean I was a nonexistent person, but I called myself agnostic. Why? The same reason people do it today - to avoid using that awful "A" word. Atheist. What ought to be a fairly simple, straightforward task - defining the word "atheist" - has turned into a philosophical nightmare requiring postgraduate courses and a thesis adviser. And it isn't just the religionists who have screwed things up so royally by heaping undeserved, malicious baggage onto that little word. (Atheist = immoral, communist scumbag.) No, we nonbelievers are wrangling over it ourselves, and the whole thing is just plain silly.

The word "agnostic" means literally "without knowledge" or, more simply, "I don't know." But it is really just a cop-out word for atheist. It is a word that society has not yet blackened with foul adjectives. It's safer to utter in mixed company. However, it's impossible not to "know" whether or not you acknowledge a deity. If you do, you know it. If you don't, you know that too. And if you don't, you are an atheist - a person without theistic beliefs.

To say, "I am an agnostic" is to say, "I don't know whether I believe in God or not." Which is nonsense.

Even my hero, the late Carl Sagan, spoke of atheism as a position that couldn't be justified because no one can provide any "compelling evidence," as he put it, that a God does not exist. His full statement: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God." This is simply not true. This is not the definition of an atheist. Neither I nor any atheists I know make the claim of having "compelling evidence against the existence of God." Nor are we required to have such evidence! The burden of proof lies squarely with those who claim knowledge of the existence of God. If you so claim, you must prove. I do not believe in a God. That position requires no demonstration or "proof". If you claim there is a God, you are making a claim that absolutely requires demonstration. As Sagan himself used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No one can provide any "compelling evidence" that leprechauns do not exist. So what? Does that mean then that we have a-leprechaunists and agnosti-leprechaunists, with the former claiming leprechauns don't exist and the latter withholding judgment until all the evidence is in? No. You either do or you do not believe in leprechauns. So it is with gods.

But the problem lies in the hairsplitting that goes on about whether or not someone simply does not acknowledge a god, or goes further and actually claims there is no god. Atheists do not make this claim. When we atheists emphatically state that we do not believe in a god we will sometimes say, "Oh, bull! There is no god!" But what we're talking about are the human creations such as Jupiter, Thor, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, Allah, and so on- the gods we've been spoon-fed since childhood but still find thoroughly unconvincing. So we lump them all together and pronounce them all nonexistent, and here is where the confusion comes in. When we claim nonexistence for a god we mean of those so far offered as candidates.

No one can claim a god absolutely does not exist unless he can claim infinite knowledge of the universe. I have never heard any atheist make this claim either. In fact, if any atheist reading this can make the certain claim that no god does or could exist, and can back it up, I would like to hear about it. It would be fun to meet someone who possesses infinite knowledge of the universe.

To the extent that none of us can claim infinite knowledge, all atheists are "agnostics." But when you say "I don't know if there's a god or not," you obviously do not acknowledge one, which makes you an atheist. On the other hand, if an authentic winged creature suddenly filled the sky form horizon to horizon; and everyone in the whole world saw it at the same time; and it announced that it was "God"; and we all heard it in our own languages - I'm in. I'm buying it. And so would every diehard atheist I know.

If you acknowledge a deity, you are a theist. If you do not acknowledge a deity, you are an atheist. It is really so simple that all the fuss made about it is not only astonishing, but tiresome.

Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without," hence "atheism" can be concisely characterized as "without theism." The word "atheism" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "godless" or, to emphasize it more generally, "without deities." Since the "atheism" classification is not justified by claims for or against theistic or anti-theistic positions, the burden of proof is not applicable. Although it's certainly possible to have reasons for choosing atheism, it's not required. For the sake of completeness, and due to the wide-spectrum of theistic deity-dependent concepts (including supernatural agents - such as angels and demons - which don't qualify as goddesses or gods), "atheism" may also therefore be classified as "absence of belief in deities and [theistic] supernatural agents." [www.defineatheism.com Define Atheism.com]

SH-P

page 28 meaning of atheism

philo

CNN -- "the philosopher Sam Harris..."
Herald -- "In a fascinating new book, the well-known secular philosopher Sam Harris makes the case for accepting that these impulses..."
Telegraph -- "the American neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith"
NPR -- "while philosopher Sam Harris explores how science should shape human values."
BBC -- "guests include the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion..."
Los Angeles Times -- "bestselling philosopher-turned-neuroscientist ..."
Why We Need to Believe in Free Will. By: HORGAN, JOHN, Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 6/17/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 39. -- "Sam Harris--the neuroscientist, philosopher, and renowned religion-basher..."
The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview. By: ASMA, STEPHEN T., Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 1/28/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 21. -- "With tongues in cheeks, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are embracing their reputation as the "Four Horsemen." Lampooning the anxieties of evangelicals, these best-selling atheists are embracing their "dangerous" status and daring believers to match their formidable philosophical acumen."
The Oxford Handbook of Atheism -- "American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris..."
Philosophy Now -- "Dawkins' chapter on these two tyrants ends by quoting the philosopher Sam Harris in glowing terms"
The Philosophers' Magazine
Keynote Speakers -- "His degree in philosophy from Stanford University and Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California give Harris a unique perspective as both a philosopher and a scientist. As the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, an organization aimed at disseminating secular values and scientific information, Harris is well-versed and possessive of expertise in both science and religion. Harris has authored numerous New York Times bestsellers..."
SamHarris.org
Project Reason
Google Plus

I agree with the comments above noting that an advanced degree is not required to be a "philosopher" (a completely unreferenced Wikipedia article, mind you); our article doesn't claim he's a Professor of Philosophy or teaching it as an academic philosopher. He has studied and wrestled with the same moral philosophy questions; he has published in the discipline; he has lectured and debated in the field. I also agree that how one refers to oneself has less weight than how the vast consensus of third-party reliable sources regard an individual. Harris has been known to argue against being pigeon-holed as an "atheist" and criticized the label. Yet reliable sources still describe him as such. Likewise, Harris has eschewed the use of formal "academic philosophy" terminology and structure when he writes and speaks, yet reliable sources note that he still tackles the same philosophical subject matter. Philosophy Now calls Harris a philosopher, and The Philosophers' Magazine quotes him. Perhaps his comments in this article would prove informative. This interview with Krauss (whom ~~Harris~~ TSN describes as a physicist in Doug's link, but Wikipedia described as a "philosopher" ... go figure), touches on the Science vs Philosophy subject as well.

The Philosopher's Magazine published by Philosophy Documentation Center isn't exactly detached from academia; Philosophy Now is edited by a herd of philosophy PhDs and professors. Harris' works are starting to appear in the academic PhilPapers philosophy database (you can search for him here). The two Chronicle of Higher Education sources listed above are definitely academic sources. I can't tell if he's in this directory yet, but that's mostly for academic philosophers anyway. I recall him self-identifying as such near the end of a recent, long YouTube discussion/debate on The Young Turks. Several of those "mass media" sources are also top-tier news organizations (NPR, BBC, CNN...), and the RfC wasn't decided by "what a bunch of Wikipedia editors voted" — RfCs aren't decided by "votes" — it was decided based on the arguments presented for and against the description. (See This partial list of sources.) Categories are assigned based on reliably sourced descriptions.

NA-SP

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus; Charles C. Mann; Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2006; ISBN 0307278182, 9780307278180
Cherokee sunset: a nation betrayed : a narrative of travail and triumph, persecution and exile; Samuel Carter; Doubleday, 1976; pgs 8-10 for smallpox
The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance; M. Annette Jaimes; South End Press, 1992; ISBN 0896084248, 9780896084247
Alternative to Extinction; Robert A. Trennert; Temple University Press, 1975
In the wake of contact: biological responses to conquest; Clark Spencer Larsen, George R. Milner; Wiley-Liss, 1994
A Concise History of World Population; Massimo Livi-Bacci; John Wiley & Sons, Mar 9, 2012
Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650; Noble David Cook; Cambridge University Press, Feb 13, 1998
Encounters at the Heart of the World; Elizabeth A. Fenn; Hill and Wang, 2014
Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82
Genocide: Talking Points; R.G. Grant; Raintree Steck-Vaughn Publishers; 1999
Genocide and International Justice; Rebecca Joyce Frey; Facts on File 2009

DT

Johnny Got His Gun; Dalton Trumbo; Citadel Press, 2007; ISBN 0806528478, 9780806528472
Dalton Trumbo; Bruce Cook; Scribner Press, 1977
Trumbo; Bruce Cook; Grand Central Publishing, 2015; ISBN 1455564990, 9781455564996
Additional Dialogue: Letters of Dalton Trumbo, 1942-1962; M. Evans; distributed in association with Lippincott, 1970 - Authors, American; Original from the University of Michigan
Night of the Aurochs; Dalton Trumbo; Viking Press, 1979 - Fiction
Dalton Trumbo, Hollywood rebel: a critical survey and filmography; Peter Hanson; McFarland, 2001; ISBN 0786408723, 9780786408726
Dalton Trumbo: Blacklisted Hollywood Radical; Larry Ceplair, Christopher Trumbo; University Press of Kentucky, 2014; ISBN 081314681X, 9780813146812

BP; HN

Power to the People: The Rise and Fall of the Black Panther Party; Jim Haskins; Simon & Schuster, 1997
Black Panthers for Beginners; Herb Boyd; Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc.; 1995