Jump to content

Talk:The God Delusion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gpkh (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 10 March 2008 (More biologist than atheist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeThe God Delusion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed


Reviews section: time for radical action?

It really is unreadable. The article is swamped by a massive collection of quote-mined recentist extracts from reviews, most of which raise suspicions of a POV-pushing agenda. OK, the book has provoked a lot of comment, but do we need all this stuff? How on earth does it help the reader understand the book and what it is about and how it was received? Compare (for example) the articles on other controversial books such as Stupid White Men or the Kinsey Reports. Criticism is there but it is summarised, not listed ad nauseam and used as a means of cramming the article with a load of "well-referenced" ripostes and counter-ripostes. I don't care how well referenced they are - if they don't help achieve a balanced account of the book they don't belong. Time to grow up, smell the coffee, take the bull by the horns and sweep the whole lot away? Maybe that would be the best solution. Snalwibma 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "quote creep" could be reversed (or at least hindered) if the reviews were sorted thematically rather than by author. Any particular comment can be attributed to the most notable persons claiming it, and responses from Dawkins or his supporters can be integrated into the same paragraph or section on the subject. The decision of whether or not to include a particular critic of Dawkins should depend not only on their personal notability but the novelty of their criticism. So if yet another widely-read columnist says Dawkins is ignorant of most theology, it might not warrant as much article space as, say, an obscure neuroscientist who says Dawkins misrepresented something about God and the brain (fictional example). This more desirable balance of attention would result naturally from arranging criticism by theme, as repetitive comments would lump together and become easier targets for summarization. The arrangement could even eventually extend to include the book summary itself, so that objections and discussion of the book's claims are presented in-line with their exposition as part of the book. But this is obviously a much more Herculean task than just fixing the review section. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, making the inclusion criteria "novelty" rather than notability won't address the issues of quote mining and recentism. Nonetheless you're right in suggesting summaries by theme. I think the best approach here is to hack it all out, then nut out on a case by case basis, those criticisms that are most notable, and summarise them with references to their sources. ornis (t) 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reoccuring themes I can find in the commentaries, just going by what's in the article now, are:

  • Whether religious beliefs are actually harmful, independent of whether they're true (Brown, Robinson, Shermer, Dennett)
  • Whether Dawkins wrongly ignores academic theology and philosophy in favor of popular beliefs (Robinson, Eagleton, Cornwell, Williams)
  • Whether The God Delusion is effective or overly polemical (Krauss, Shermer, Kirk, Orr, Wakefield, Malik, McGrath)
  • Whether TGD succeeds in diminishing respect for fundamentalism (Eagleton, Skapinker, Williams)

These categories don't include all of the commentators, either because their comments are relatively unique (Plantiga, Kenny) or because they're not elaborated on in the article (Swinburne, Blackford). What does everyone think of these as possible subsection topics for the reviews section (which perhaps should be renamed)? -- Schaefer (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent way to start, one could add "Philosophical objections" for those who object to Dawkins's argument about God's non-existence, but this should be an extremely short section because there is already an equally bloated Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. --Merzul 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete restart??

Could it be easier to almost completely blank the page the way I did here, and then go forward from there? Obviously, this current version is always accessible from the history. Perhaps it is easier to move towards a real encyclopaedia article about the book, if we start from almost zero?

The reason for such a drastic measure is that I believe it is not only the reviews that are the problem, this entire article is more about the content of the book than about the book itself. To put it another way, this article is currently more about God, the delusion, than The God Delusion. --Merzul 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Merzul - Your final comment (God, the delusion, versus The God Delusion) is a very interesting way of expressing it, and I think you've put your finger on something. We need to consider - To what extent is it appropriate for an article about a book (especially a recently published controversial one) to summarise the content of the book? How can this be done fairly and without bias? How can it be achieved without inviting fact-stuffing and content-creep? What is the right balance between summarising the content and describing the critical response? Interested parties might care to take a look at a similar discussion under way at Talk:Darwin's Angel. Snalwibma 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzul - Your prototype revise was indeed "radical," but I think a radical approach is appropriate here because it forces editors to think in terms of higher "levels" of summary. And agree that both the summary and the critical response section have combined to become a morass. The aim here is to think not in terms of chapters, but in terms of RD's broader themes. And to think not of individual reviews, pro and con, but rather of the general critical response--pro and con. That's easier to do now that the book is a year old. I also think the external link section should be culled, but if the body were shorter, a longer link section would be more tolerable. Barte 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A less radical approach would be to restructure the article, i.e., remove the chapter subsections and basically put the new structure in place, but not blank the current material, which could be trimmed down more gradually perhaps? --Merzul 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, before giving up and writing a little rant in frustration, I had tried for a very long time to move stuff around in the criticism section following the categories that had been suggested, but it was really really difficult, and I can't really pull it off. I think actually the radical approach of starting from zero would be a lot easier. I'm taking a break now to let other people think about what to do. --Merzul 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Merzul I don't think your big restructurings help at all, and the remove much useful and closely-argued consensus material. What exactly are the problems you are trying to fix? NBeale 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to fix is the WP:NOT#PLOT equivalent for non-fiction. We are not here to summarize every single line of the book, especially in such a way that trivializes the arguments. This is obviously what you want, but it is not something I'm willing to allow. Feel free to do so with Darwin's Angel. But here, if we don't have the space to do justice to it, we are not going to use your one-liners to trivialize the book. --Merzul 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB! Please let's this discussion below. --Merzul 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of criticism

This summary is a good source for the different lines of Dawkins criticism. If you look at the original post at The Valve, the author actually linked to our review section... :) --Merzul 08:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to specify criteria that a review, response and/or a book has to fulfil to be mentioned. Most responses should be mentioned in external links at most.--Svetovid 09:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review this edit....

I have two problems with this edit here [1]. One I've addressed with the editor directly and the other is that what he's reverted it to is to say....."in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents." and yet the source provided only uses the word disturbing in the sentence, "Dawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for religious believers.". The word "precedents" is uniquely used in the source as, ...".... the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century." and this is why I wrote my version which used "innocuous precedents" in it. I'll go with whatever consensus is chosen though it isn't what it currently is. Ttiotsw 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the whole entry because it was just a statement that John Cornwell didn't like the book. That does not improve or add to the article at all.
Are we gonna have a list of all people who don't like the book, especially the ones that don't like it automatically because of their background?--Svetovid 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we obviously need to think of what to do with the criticism section in general, so that it serves not just as a source for people who want to write a parody of the reviews, although I'm glad we could be of service, but to actually give an encyclopaedic overview of the critique (and praise). Reverting this addition will do little to solve the general problem. --Merzul 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe all those (notable) critiques and responses should be only mentioned in see also and external links only.--Svetovid 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis is easier to fix...

Well, I couldn't do anything about the criticism, but I think I've made some progress with the synopsis. The main point should be to focus on what are the essential themes, what is the core of what he argues, and try to present that as clearly as possible. The section on the "Existence of God" was previously a long list of one-line descriptions of what he did with every argument, let's avoid such trivializations at all cost. When summarizing a point, either we try to express it in such a way that the original author would have been satisfied with our representation, or we should simply leave it out. In most cases, it is probably wiser to just leave it out. --Merzul 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, so I'm going to stay back now for a few days. I did perhaps too many things at the same time, but I believe the general direction is a correct one. I will no longer interfere, and perhaps NBeale is right that this was too brutal a cut down. (I mean the synopsis, the review section still needs to be very brutally cut). --Merzul 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Merzul (continuing the discussion in the earlier sections here as requested). 38 edits from one editor in a single day, drastically reshaping an article that has been heavily discussed by (probably) over 70 editors, and has been independently assessed as B-Class is just too much too fast. Only 3-4 editors have called for this radical restructuring, and I honestly don't see the point. The original article, for all its faults, did allow people a reasonable chance of understanding what the book said and what the main reviewers said. And that's a really useful service. Hiding much of this information is a retrograde step in my view. NBeale 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NBeale, I find Merzul's version to be better written than the current one, which does in fact read like a "plot summary". I applaud Merzul for being bold and doing a lot of work to improve the article, and I see no good reason to revert it. Don't be afraid of change -- this is a Wiki, after all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Merzul's edit is a great start toward a more coherent article. Barte 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This version is no good and is against wikipedia policy, you can not shunk off criticisms to other articles. Hardyplants 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start toward something much more manageable . The problem with earlier versions was that it was overburdened with recentist list cruft. ornis (t) 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't like the way criticisms of TGD are being interwoven into the account of what the book says. I think the arguments of the book should be briefly outlined, without comment or criticism, and only then should the critics be given their say. Interweaving them obscures the article, making it hard to see what Dawkins said and then what his critics said. But I think Merzul's approach is the right one. Snalwibma 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be added after the intro (which still needs a lot of work) and the body should include more detailed arguments and the responses they have generated.

Intro:

the books auther.
an over view of the books purpose and subject.
its reception and resulting 'effects'.

The next part should include a more detailsed synopis of the subject matter coverd.

including main argumnets.

Then on to what we currently have. Hardyplants 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snalwibma that critical discussion should be kept separate, so I removed Plantinga's objection again. But not just because it was in the wrong section, but why on earth do we have an article on the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, if all those objections are going to be listed here too??? We could move up the philosophical objection section so it is more prominent, but I think it is against the spirit of summary style to repeat the philosophical objections here again. --Merzul 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason is that you can't hide major criticism in other articles, this is against wikipedia guidelines. Hardyplants 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once a clear summery of the book is generated, then the criticism section should be summarized too. Hardyplants 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! We don't need more content, we need more context!

This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for literary analysis. The synopsis should just outline the essentials of Dawkins's main points as sympathetic as we can. Then we try to represent the criticism as fairly and as strongly as we can represent them, and we briefly include Dawkins' response (too much space is given to the response). In my opinion, there should be about two paragraphs of criticism and one short paragraph of response, for each of the lines of criticism, except philosophical ones that has its own article.

What really needs beefing up is the material about the book. How it was published, the public readings of the book, the interviews, and public debates that Dawkins was involved in. This is first and foremost an article about the book, and it's real world impact, not a forum for debate about the Existence of God. It is much more important to mention that it was published on October 18, 2006, than quoting sections of the book!

I think my opinion is clear, and now I'm really leaving it up for other people to decide. Thanks for reading my rant, Merzul 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What really needs beefing up is the material about the book. How it was published, the public readings of the book, the interviews, and public debates that Dawkins was involved in" I can agree to that, will come back to the issue after this has been formulated and merged into the current article. Hardyplants 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article is not going to be improved by trying to merge more things into it. I don't know why you want the article to remain a "summary", but that's precisely what articles shouldn't be. I see no reason to throw out Merzul's work toward making this a stylistically better article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying it does not need more content like "interviews, and public debates". Hardyplants 10:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Critical reception' section is ATM ridiculous. Too much information from too many (unreliable and irrelevant) sources written in suspicious manner and often not encyclopaedic manner.
Unless it can be substantially improved, it should be just summarized into external links and a section similar to Letter to a Christian Nation#Response--Svetovid 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the critical reception area in particular has become a forum by proxy. Not sure we need to get it down to just two paragraphs, but something like that. And yes, this will "hide" information in the sense that any summation does. But that's the nature of an encyclopedia. Would only add that the general critical reception of the book was.....critical. That's been noted over and over here, and we shouldn't lose that in the summary.Barte 13:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant two paragraphs for each type of criticism. So we identify 4-5 main lines of attack, and then we have for example two paragraphs about Dawkins' lack of scholarship, two paragraphs about his inability to distinguish moderate and fundamentalist religion, and so on. I would also suggest roughly a 3:1 ratio for Criticism:Response in the critique section. --Merzul 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Would only add that the general critical reception of the book was.....critical." That is just your POV. If you avoid opinions of people who don't like the book contents by default, the picture is very different.--Svetovid 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my observation based on readings here and elsewhere. (For the record, I <heart> RD). And while I take your point (if I understand it) that some reviewers came to the book with their minds already made up, is that an exclusionary criteria we can validly impose here? Barte 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Barte. Even if we exclude the more obviously biased (e.g. by cutting out reviews published in obviously religious magazines). Still, we have people like H. Allen Orr, himself a big fighter against intelligent design, and Krauss's review in Nature... These guys clearly don't fit the category of "people who don't like the book's content by default." --Merzul 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing critique

So how would one go about doing this? I'm fairly confident most critique can be grouped in to 4-5 rough categories:

  1. Scholarship and style of the book.
  2. Effect of the book on society.
  3. Assessment of his arguments about The Existence of God.
  4. Assessment of his portrayal of religion (and science and atheism).

But are we satisfied that we have even gathered the most important points from most of the relevant reviews? Perhaps, we need to read through the reviews one more time, and then see what are some of the broader themes... so ironically, we perhaps need to expand this section a bit before starting to summarize it, although this is better done on a talk sup-page, so we can freely dump quotations. --Merzul 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a reviews dumping ground: /reviews. --Merzul 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking some time off to think about how to do this. It seems very very difficult, as so many people have said so many things, so I'm not sure exactly what to do. I don't like the current style, not just because it is bloated, but it doesn't even do the reviewers justice. Take Eagleton's response, there are actually some very profound ideas in that review, but our summaries just picks out "cool sounding" bits...
Any ideas on how we should go about doing this thing? --Merzul 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult, which is why I'm applauding from the sidelines. Two thoughts: (1) this is a wiki, which is IMO the most collaborative medium ever invented for text. That means you don't have to chart out an entire schema ahead of making any changes. You don't have to envision the end before trying your hand at a beginning. You don't--and will never get--full consensus on any one approach, because people need to see something before they can react. So, revamp a section, something small, see how it flies, see what changes others make, see what changes subsequently occur to you, and go from there. (2) The current article may simply be good enough. There is no canonical template for a book entry in Wikipedia, so while this one may be overgrown and weedy, it is.....what it is. Barte 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support on this. About the second point, I agree, it could very well be good enough, although I'm sort of hoping that perhaps one could push this one for FA, it would be really nice to have this article on the main page about one year (and one month after the release). I believe September 18 was the release date, but even October 18 is a very optimistic date, still it would be awesome. It would require solving the structural problems very soon. Then we should add the missing contextual material, and find some nice images, so that it is "feature-complete" by the end of this month. And then a week of copy-editing, getting a peer-review, and then finally pushing for FAC by October 12th, hoping 18th is free on the main-page.
Anyway, to come back to reality, about the first point, well, that's the approach I normally take, I make bold and extreme changes, and then look for what people think, but right now, I can't even think of something small to begin with... Currently, I haven't reached consensus with myself on how to fairly represent the criticism. --Merzul 16:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have some ideas about how to do this... but unfortunately I have to cut down my Wikipedia time to just one or two well-thought edits per day, or else I will lose my job very soon... Perhaps, it is actually better to not rush these things. --Merzul 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images...

I'm not at all sure these are the appropriate images naturally, but in case we have people here, who are into that (I mean people who are good at illustrating articles), please start looking for appropriate images. Thanks! --Merzul 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I reverted those images, although I wish there were appropriate images for this article, I don't think it was a very good start. I still hope we can find some nice pics for this one. --Merzul 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Critical reception of the God Delusion?

Well done to Merzul for reorganising this section. It is so large that perhaps it ought to be split into its own article, with a mere summary here? BillMasen 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the re-organization was a very very rough beginning, a lot of work is still needed, but I actually also thought about the idea that perhaps this material is perhaps worthy of a sub-article. Although, I'm not at all so sure that we are doing anyone a service by providing these summaries. (Except perhaps people who want to parody these reviews). At least when I read Eagleton's review again, I felt we somehow have picked out the less relevant bits... but then summarizing deeper objections is difficult and there is not room for that in one paragraph, so I'm afraid we end up with a rather superficial picture. --Merzul 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be trimmed down in the first place. Particular editors keep adding all negative "reviews" and comments on the book, often from unreliable and irrelevant people.--Svetovid 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section is flawed since it's supposed to imply that the only critique the book received was criticism.--Svetovid 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sales and publishers

The book has sold half a million just in the UK[2] Sources for overall sales are difficult to come by; generally the author is the best source, as the sales figures are often not released by publishers, and the books are published by different publishers in different countries and different formats. I note our article lists Bantam as the publisher, but it was published by Transworld Publishers Ltd in the UK, and Houghton Mifflin in the US (which is the edition located by the ISBN in the infobox). Amazon shows Mariner Books for paperback publisher in the US, an audio version is out by Tantor Media. None of these have released sales figures taht I can find, am I being incredibly dense or looking in the wrong place? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sales figures for the book are current on the web as yet, I found some from spring. The problem is that Dawkins website should not be used as a source for sales figures- especially when its only listed as a sales promo for another product. When the book does sell a million copies there will be many reports from other neutral sources. What we have now does not say if the sales are world wide, or just English or what. It might only even be published books and not those sold- so it's premature to pluck it up on wikipedia when we do not know if its verifiable. I am sure its going to reach 1 million in sales some time in the next year. but we are taking a premature stand now with out collaborating data. Hardyplants 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sold 700,000 more than 6 months ago and before the new paperback, and the source will ultimately always be the publishers or Dawkins.--Svetovid 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional source for the figure from the BBC.[3] ornis (t) 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment on why we have "Bantam" rather than "Houghton Mifflin" as publisher? What's the rationale on that? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is confusing, is Bantam the UK publisher? But it seems Houghton Mifflin also published it in the UK? In any case, here are the amazon links: Houghton Mifflin, Bantam, and Black Swan. --Merzul 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The enthusiastic statements about amazon.com turn out to be about Amazon.co.uk which is much less significant. (The source Amy Worth is at .co.uk see eg here NBeale (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dedication

The dedication of this book to Douglas Adams should be displayed. It appears in the source text for the info box but not on the actual page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironbellynorton (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take this up at the template talk page. --Merzul 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception, is it worth it?

The question is if the time required for what I'm doing is worth it... I really don't have that much time, but if we take it easy, and gradually work through reviews and decide on how and whether to use them... (I hope others will also discuss the various reviews on /reviews sub-page)... perhaps, at some point we could reach an encyclopedic summary of the critical reception. --Merzul 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of meaningless squabble injected presumably by Christards

He questions whether Dawkins has read or heard of Christian thinkers like Eriugena, Rahner or Moltmann.

I question whether any random 1 out of 1000 Christians has heard of them, and therefore question the relevance of the question. --75.58.66.29 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you might not want to call Christians - Christards. Kind of hurts any affect you are attempting to have. The Rypcord. 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't read the most cutting edge physics or evolutionary biology, but I would be deeply annoyed if someone criticized these theories based on their amateur reading of say Darwin. The criticism is that Dawkins is not an expert on the topic, yet makes very strong claims on the topic. But there are also rebuttals that we mention (by PZ Myers, Dawkins and Weinberg). In any case, this is certainly a line of criticism that should be discussed in the article from both an athist and christard perspective. --Merzul 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to such claims from Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them--Svetovid 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant or not, it was a comment made in a review of the book, and one of the aims of the article is to provide a fair and balanced (!) summary of how the book was received and reviewed. So your presonal opinion on the validity of the argument is probably irrelevant here! Sorry. Snalwibma 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced should mean that we don't include everybody who mentioned the book in their writings.--Svetovid 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Svetovid, you are absolutely right! We don't need to repeat ten reviewers saying the same thing; but note that Eagleton's is the most important representation of this particular line of criticism. Why? Because Dawkins responded using Eagleton's named philosophers, so it was obvious Dawkins was aware of this particular review. That makes it notable in my opinion. Also, PZ Myers is specifically addressing H. Allen Orr, so it makes sense to give Orr a small mention in this section.
Would you say The God Delusion#Dawkins' scholarship as it currently stands is a fair and balanced summary of the situation, or is it still too negative? As time permits, I would hope to summarize all sections in this way. If you find it too negative you are of course welcome to change the summaries, it is a Wiki after all... :) --Merzul 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that God exists!

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1599,The-God-Delusion-One-Year-Countdown,RichardDawkinsnet

The book stayed 51 weeks on the NY Times best-seller list... God, omnipotent as he is, pulled it down at the very last moment. Even for weaker souls, this should be evidence beyond doubt that God exists. As soon as I find a source for this argument, I will add it to the article. :) --Merzul 18:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you cant honestly be serious? Even if there was a source to prove that, it would be in no way credible. Where is the proof? For an organisation that talks about blasphemy Id say that your pretty badly uninformed.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.183.146 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have faith that one of the many Gods did this. We're not suggesting that the Christian god did it out of spite for the recent storm-in-a-teacup as we suspect it would have been delegated to a member of a minor pantheon.Ttiotsw 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it was Baal, jealous of all the attention Yahweh's been getting. Even in the heavens, there's no such thing as bad PR.Barte 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Baal, Thor, and even the Juju on the top of the mountain have received their fair share of attention. Compared to old-fashioned philosophers, Dawkins is remarkably fair and respectful of religious diversity. Contrast that to Graham Oppy, who in his otherwise very thorough Arguing about Gods completely fails to address any Juju-specific arguments.
It was a mainstream deity, and I will find a source for it! --Merzul 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may be expert in evolutionary biology though I have slight doubt as to how good a scientist he is given that his field (e.g. meme, selfish gene, etc) seems to be bit on the soft side of science (i.e. lack of chemistry or physics, or for that matter, experimental result). Anyway, his philosophical argument for non existence of God is pitiful. If you want a far better book making case for atheism, I recommend "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction". It is shorter/concise and cheaper too.Vapour (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
>Anyway, his philosophical argument for non existence of God is pitiful.
Philosophical argument? I thought Dawkins used scientific arguments. Even more important, Dawkins does not claim that God does not exist, he says it is not possible scientifically to prove or disprove the existence of God.
What Dawkins does say is that a god is very, very unlikely. And what riles the Christians (and Muslims and Jews) is that Dawkins makes a very strong case for the non-existence of their particular God, and does a pretty good job of ridiculing those who do believe in that particular God.
What seems to be going on here is, "ha, ha, Dawkins fails in disproving the existence of a god", and then a fantastic leap to, "therefore my belief in my God is safe! (Thank heavens, otherwise I'd have to reassess everything I believe in, and, oh dear, oh dear...)". --RenniePet (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His arguments are hardly scientific. The reason why Dawkins does not outrightly deny the existence of God is because he values his academic integrity more than the integrity of his intellectual honesty. It is a convention among academics not to outrightly "prove" or "disprove" a theory because, according to the philosophy of Karl Popper, the possibility always exists that evidence may arise that overturns a strongly-held assertion (and thus bring embarrassment in some cases). It is clearly obvious that Dawkins dos not believe in the existence of a God, but he will never outrightly state it because of this academic convention. Ekantik talk 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I disagree. My understanding, and what I think Dawkins says (I don't have the book here with me) is that in using the scientific method it is possible to prove various things, but certain things can not be disproven. In other words, it may someday be possible to prove the existence of a god, but it will never be possible to scientifically disprove the existence of a god.
But to a large extent this is a red herring. What most of The God Delusion is about is not at all the subject of whether a god exists or not, it's about how crazy it is to believe in the particular God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in. How ridiculous the Bible is and how parents do their children a disservice by indoctrinating them with their religion. How nonsensical and dangerous in particular the fundamentalist American Christians and ditto Muslims are. That is the main message of the book, but those who feel targeted prefer to focus on the "does a god exist" business, thinking that gets them off the hook, despite the fact that Dawkins never claims that no god exists. --RenniePet (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder. This is not a forum on the book or Dawkins, but a place to discuss edits to the article. Thanks. Barte (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right of course. But it irritates me that 90% (my estimate) of the editing and re-editing of this article concerns the specious controversy, "did Dawkins succeed in disproving the existence of a god?" - "no he didn't, this and this and this world-famous and widely respected scientist, philosopher, religious specialist, etc. has shot Dawkins' argument full of holes" - "no, that person is not world-famous and respected" - "yes, he is" - "no, he isn't".
It's all an exercise in avoiding the real issues. 90% of the book (my estimate again) has nothing to do with the existence of a god, it's a criticism of people's belief in one particular God (well, three, counting the Jewish and Muslim versions). So why are almost all the editing controversies about the non-issue (Dawkins never even claims there is no god), while nobody talks about the real issues, like Dawkins' claim that it is child abuse when parents indoctrinate their children in their religion? --RenniePet (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we are established editors and know the rules. :) I agree with much of what RenniePet has to say as regards the article (child indoctrination etc) and these points should receive greater emphasis IMHO. I was only making the point that, as an academic, Dawkins would find it impossible to state outrightly that God does not exist (despite holding this opinion in various of his newspaper editorials). I know this because this is what I was taught to do when studying for my degree i.e. we shouldn't claim to have "proven" or "disproven" any theory because our so-called evidence can always be overturned by future research. The proper thing to say would be along the lines of "the evidence strongly/weakly supports the theory" which, overall, are a form of weasel words but has to be carried out in that way nevertheless. This explains why Dawkins frequently refers to and emphasises the "improbability" of God's existence while intellectually admitting the possibility of God's existence being proved one day, it's really a form of scientific weasel-wording. Unfortunately we cannot make this point in the article because it would count as original research. But on the whole I agree with RenniePet's points that the book covers much more than the issue of God's existence.
Don't get me wrong, I read the book but wasn't much impressed by the overall quality of the arguments. This is probably why he has been criticised by religionists and atheists alike, as the criticism section shows. This section is important to remain in the article I think. Ekantik talk 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plantinga's rebuttal

A sentence here reads: "Dawkins does not present support this assertion [that God has to be complex] and Plantinga finds it probable that Dawkins is assuming materialism." Does this mean that (a) Plantiga is claiming that Dawkins does not support the assumption at present, or that (b) Dawkins does not present support for this assertion?

In either sense this would be wrong. In sense (a), this article is discussing the book, and Dawkins's current beliefs are parenthetical. If (b), the arguments for complexity are there in the same chapter (chapter four in my edition, page 149), although Plantinga does write that he was looking in chapter three, and also appear in the "Arguments for God's existence" (chapter three, pages 80-84). Checking the supplied footnote, it seems that Plantinga intends (b).

Old Moonraker 07:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now reworded for sense (b)—thanks Ilkali. The fact remains that Plantinga seems to be ignoring Dawkins's (admittedly sometimes satirical rather than scientific) justification of his assumption that God is complex.

--Old Moonraker 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag is much justified

I'm now trying to focus on getting this review section done. I have downloaded all the reviews on my laptop and have read a few of them many times. In the long run, we should aim for a more coherent presentation, but there is something more urgent.

The NPOV tag is far more justified than I thought! In particular, the summaries of David Baltimore, Kenan Malik, and Michael Shermer suffered from more or less serious NPOV issues. Our summaries tend to focus more on extreme quotations rather than conveying the main point of the reviewers.

I have made a few changes to better reflect the sentiments of the three reviewers mentioned above. This needs to be copy-edited because English is not my native language, but now they are much more faithful to the original reviewers. Based on this experience with 3 reviews, I believe we should keep the NPOV warning until the complete overhaul of the criticism is completed. Many reviewers were highly critical, but the situation is not quite as bad as our article suggests. --Merzul 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is just as good as mine, and I am a native English speaker.
Based on your changes to those three summaries of reviews I don't see a need for flagging NPOV. There was a minor shift along the negative towards positive scale, but only minor. Anyway, it's a controversial book so I don't think people will use summaries of reviews here at Wikipedia to determine whether they want to read the book or not. --RenniePet 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe I've just changed my mind, thanks to the latest edit by 72.70.79.253. Is this acceptable, pouring in line after line of sillyness stemming from someone who apparently doesn't understand what evolution is? Should there be a standard number of lines per review, and a weighted number of reviews represented that attempt to reflect the number of notable positive and negative reviews in existance? (This may already have been discussed, I haven't really studied this discussion page.) --RenniePet 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent is to summarize the book's critical reception by notable reviewers in notable publications--but there is no Wikipedia template for how that is done. Because The God Delusion has been such a lightening rod, the number of reviews is considerable, and what you now see is a kind of sedimentary layering of that history, including some publications and reviewers that are more (or less) notable than others. A few of us have felt that in so much detail, a reader no longer can see the forest for the trees and that, hence, more summarizing and trimming, not further explication, is what is needed. (Ergo 72.70.79.253's additions, whether accurate or not, don't help.) Barte 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Rennie, thank you for copy-editing! Feel free to be bold and experiment with bigger changes. Most of us are not entirely happy with this article. It is perhaps not the neutrality that is the problem, but what Barte said, I fear we have lost our readers. And while I fully agree nobody is going to change their mind about reading the book, or if they have read the book, they will not change their opinion about Dawkins. However, and this is important, I did change my mind about these reviewers based on our summaries. I will probably never read a review by Terry Eagleton :) This is why it is very important that these summaries are fair to the reviewers and not just pick out the sections that NBeale had found most useful nails "in the coffin of Dawkins' declining intellectual credibility". :) --Merzul 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time plans ...

I think now that we should have a sub-article for the criticism. I will probably create an article /Criticism of The God Delusion initially as a subpage of this talk-page, but with the intention of moving it to mainspace once it is mature enough and we're convinced that it works. Each reviewer will be given a fair summary, and reviewers will be listed in alphabetical order. We will have a strict inclusion criteria: only people with Wikipedia entries will be summarized. Once we have good summaries of the opinion of most of the notable reviewers, a shorter and more topic oriented summary can be produced here based on at most four topics:

  • The scholarship & style objections
  • Philosophical objections
  • On the influence of religion
  • Contribution to the public debate

Does this sound more or less okay?? We have too much material, and given how many notable scientists and philosophers have reviewed the book, I don't really want to just throw it away. Having a sub-article would allow a shorter summary here, and that would solve the bloat problem, while keeping some of the stuff. Then, I would like this article to cover some post-publication topics, such as the readings and the Out Campaign. Opinions?? --Merzul 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear (not critical of, just unclear) of the concept behind subpages within an article. Are they essentially independent articles that are hyperlinked within a "parent" article? Barte 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are yes fully independent in that sense, so it would look like Da_vinci_code#Literary_and_historical_criticism, except we don't have to call it "Criticism of ..." So, yes, it has to be like a real independent article. I think what I'm suggesting is more like List of reviews of the God Delusion, and this could perhaps be an acceptable encyclopedia article. --Merzul 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Following written before above response - got an edit conflict.)
I'm guessing Merzul means something like you see on many articles that grow; they spin off new articles and in the main article there is a section that starts with "Main article: link to sub-article" followed by a very brief summary. See for example Blackwater USA.
If this is done, shouldn't the sub-article be called "The God Delusion controversy" or "The God Delusion response"? I'm thinking that if the sub-article is called "criticism" that implies it can only contain negative views, and personally I'd prefer to see a page where the positive responses outnumber or outweigh (in academic notability) the negative responses. (I'm assuming that is the case, surely. Surely?) --RenniePet 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can pick a more neutral title, but I'm afraid even in terms of academic notability, the nay-sayers might have the upper hand. Many atheists don't see the point in fighting this war, even Steven Weinberg, who did support Dawkins, said "Where I think Dawkins goes wrong is that, like Henry V after Agincourt, he does not seem to realize the extent to which his side has won. Setting aside the rise of Islam in Europe, the decline of serious Christian belief among Europeans is so widely advertised that Dawkins turns to the United States for most of his examples of unregenerate religious belief..."
Then there is another thing at play, and this is something that Dawkins is well aware of. The pro-evolution lobby in the US are nervous about Dawkins' writing. The evidence against Intelligent Design that weighed a lot in the court ruling was the NOMA arguments from Christians and other religious believers, who accept evolution. But Dawkins believes that a true understanding of evolution will lead to atheism, and since atheism = evil in the US, the pro-evolution lobby fear that Dawkins is "rocking the boat".
Finally, most atheist philosophers of religion, having dedicated their lives to refuting precisely what Dawkins considers a waste of time, haven't exactly been excited about the book. And I can fully understand that they've remained silent, he didn't cite any contemporary atheist philosopher, he didn't use any of the conventional arguments, developed by Mackie, Rowe, Schellenberg, Draper, and extensively discussed by Martin, Nielsen, and Oppy. I'm not sure about Simon Blackburne and Paul Kurz, they were perhaps mentioned, but almost all atheist philosophers were left out... --Merzul 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know much, much, much more about this than I do. :-) --RenniePet 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably giving up on this whole critical reception thing. I'm fairly convinced that having a sub-article is a bad idea, because these summaries will never do justice to the reviews. What we really need is simply someone, who is bold enough to trim down and streamline the current critical reception into a balanced and coherent text. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to do this. --Merzul 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't either....at least not until I retire. But I still think that one of the joys of Wikipedia is that there is no canonical form. Consider, for example, an article on a TV show called Kid Nation that I've been contributing to (toward the bottom) and following since near its inception. The article contains a synopsis of every episode, a corresponding chart, and another chart tracking participants. Excrutiating detail, one might say. But I have yet to see anyone question whether the article is too long for its (well, I think) comparatively trivial subject. Rather, this is undoubtedly the definitive treatment of the topic by a third-party source. And here, comparisons to a standard encyclopedia treatment are meaningless, because standard encylopedias don't go there. Barte 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have tried to trim the reviews section a bit - for example where reviewers give their own view of religion, which is not relevant. I agree we don't want a sub-article for the reviews. It seems to me that the review section is now reasonably balanced, so I suggest getting rid of the 'neutrality disputed' tag. If anyone thinks the tag still belongs, please say so clearly with reasons, and which way you think it is skewed? Poujeaux 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no comments on this. I think the tag can go, though there may be still a few too many reviews from offended christians. Poujeaux 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'In Turkey, as of late November, 2007, a prosecutor has launched a probe into whether The God Delusion is "an attack on religious values".'

Hmm... I wonder.

Of course it is an attack on religious values, and a wonderful/neccesary one at that. These book-banning nit-wits make Dawkin's case for him, anyway - a bit like the Catholic League trying to boycott The Golden Compass 'because it might lead children to read the book'. I hope Turkish people get The God Delusion, and I hope for a flourishing of atheism in a country gripped by irrationality. The Muslim countries are where reason and secularism are most needed.

Above created 17:30, 29 November 2007 by 84.13.156.36

I created that section yesterday, and now I'm wondering about a couple of things.
  • It should probably not be under "Critical reception". But where should it be? (I do think there should be something in the article about this.)
  • Also "Legal obstacles" is probably not such a good header. How about "Legal consequences"?
It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially considering that Turkey is trying to become an EU member. --RenniePet (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Turkey and I'm reading it right now.. --Armanalp (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renowned

I didn't want to make edits to the opening paragraph willy-nilly, cause i know a lot of people are working hard to get this page back on its feet. I just think that Dawkins should be called a renowned atheist and biologist, since, for the purposes of this book, it is more central that he is an atheist as opposed to a biologist.D-rew (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, by his own account, he's not *quite* an atheist, and he certainly is a biologist. He explicitly points out that he is an agnostic (page 73,74 of my paperback edition). Admittedly, only he is "agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies...". Anyhow, atheist is not strictly correct, so even if we leave it in, it should certainly not be in the first position. Gpkh (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion about Dawkins' response

I think this article would benefit more by including a summary of Dawkins' responses to criticism of this book. Simply stating that he has done so in the 2007 paperback edition is not good Wikipedia practice and sounds more like an advertisement to go out and buy the new version. So I suggest that a summary of the response would benefit the article greatly. Thanks, Ekantik talk 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has taken the time to do this, I have taken the trouble of borrowing the 2007 paperback edition from a local library since I want to blog some reviews about it anyway. As I go through the text, I will update this article accordingly. Ekantik talk 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi, I will be GA reviewing The God Delusion. I have not read the article yet so expect about two days before I write my review. Note that the article should conform to Wikipedia:Layout: it doesn't now. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article and it is reasonably good. Overall, the article could do with a good copy edit. The article is quite disjointed. For example, three paragraphs begin with "Chapter 5 explores...", "In chapter 6..." and "Dawkins devotes chapter 9..." as if this article is going to present a chapter-by-chapter analysis/critique of the book. But the article doesn't, only those chapters are referred to by name. Almost all of the sub-headings could be eliminated and the text re-organized for a much better read. Contributing editors should refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Layout, and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I think there are too many external links per Wikipedia:External links. The reference section / citations are not consistently formatted. For example, The God Delusion is used as a source in ref 1, 11 to 14, 15 to 16, and 19, yet all are formatted differently. Several books have been published about The God Delusion - they are listed in the 'See Also' - but do not seem to have been used at all in the citatons. All the sources seem to be on-line newspapers, book reviews and websites. For example, rather than reading and citing The Dawkins Delusion?, an op ed is cited - see ref 27 - and poorly cited at that as the publisher and date are not given. Likewise, no citations come from God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, or The End of Faith but are instead appear combined in a magazine article as references 8 or a blog entry in reference 9. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

The God Delusion fails the Good Article criteria: see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Specifically, it fails 1 (a) and (b). It is not well written, and does not comply with style guides. It also fails 5, as the article is not stable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'See Also' section

The 'See Also' section could be eliminated. It is functioning as a list and should become a list. The "See Also" section should conform to WP policy: see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also" section. The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

The "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. But it is not a substitute 'List'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'see also' section should be eliminated by incorporating it into the body of text or turned into a stand alone list.
Related work — sharing Dawkins' view
Related work — responding to the God Delusion
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formats

Please format citations and further reading with the proper templates: see Wikipedia:Citation templates. At least, ensure that the citation is complete with author, title, publisher, date and page number. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Review

Hi, I will be reviewing the GA review of The God Delusion. I have not yet recovered from the initial shock, but I'll be back sooner or later. Cheers! --RenniePet (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first off, thank you to Wassupwestcoast, the effort you put in is appreciated. (Really, seriously.)
Question: When you say the article fails because it's not stable, what the hell do you suggest, considering that this is a controversial subject? There are hundreds of Wikipedia editors who want to paint this book in as negative a way as possible, and hundreds others who want to praise it to the heavens (er, skies), and they will never reach consensus. Never.
Anyway, thanks for your time. Cheers! --RenniePet (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it is a bit of a catch-22 - being both stable and controversial - but some articles that seem controversial have made it all the way to FA: see Intelligent Design, Evolution and Charles Darwin. So, it is possible! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

This article suffers from an inconsistency in regards to punctuation/grammar. There are various statements along the lines of "Dawkins's scholarship", "Dawkins's knowledge" and so on. These should be replaced with "Dawkins' scholarship" and "Dawkins' knowledge" respectively across the board. The reason is simple: The latter method is correct English grammar. Ekantik talk 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the Dawkins's issue. Three remain, because they are in quotations. Note that "Dawkins's" is not incorrect (either form is allowed) - but I do agree with you that the shorter version is much nicer, and that's why I have made the corrections. Snalwibma (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking apostrophe, which is where the MOS referred me on points like this, as Snalwibma says the 's is optional for possessives ending in 's' (i.e. "Dawkins' scholarship and Dawkins's scholarship" are equally acceptable, grammatically). The deciding factor is which sounds better in spoken English. In my mind, Dawkinz-z is awkward, while Dawkinz is much preferred. As it's optional, we can decide and then edit appropriately. My preference is for a single apostrophe after the 's' with no succeeding 's'. Dawkins' scholarship, Dawkins' knowledge. Looks neater too, more professional to my eye. WLU (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree. Dawkins', not Dawkins's. --RenniePet (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, will fix. WLU (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WLU has quite rightly left the Dawkins's form in place for quotations. Would it be preferable to have the [sic] comment (or some other note to editors) as hidden text? There's sometimes a sense of criticism attached to the word these days, although historically it's quite neutral. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Done. The three occurrences of "sic" are now turned into hidden comments. Snalwibma (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think we ought to use Dawkins's; it is much more common in British English (the author's native), and Dawkins himself always employs s's, right throughout The God Delusion. Also, [sic] should indicate only grammatical incorrectness, which Dawkins's certainly is not; therefore, I also propose that this addendum be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Dinan (talk • contribs) 19:15 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[sic], in my understanding, is that it's a matter of retaining original formatting in a quotation. Given the rest of the page not having the s's form, it's defensible, but I'd say having them as invisible comments is fine. To Adam, the current consensus is for the s' version, but I'd say some good sources backing your version could be convincing, particularly given WP:ENGVAR. Right now though, it looks like there's enough support for s' to leave it up. WLU (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[sic], according to http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/usage/sic?view=uk indicates a "spelling or grammatical anomaly", which the word Dawkins's is not. With regards to sources for British-English usage, I am relating to personal experience, and so I do need other users to support my claim if it is to be changed. I would, however, note that British organisation 'The Apostrophe Protection Society' (ref: http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/) advocate the use of s's Adam Dinan (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The Oxford Guide to Style (Hart's Rules) says "No single rule governs the possessive form of singular nouns that end in s. Euphony is the overriding concern." (2002 edition, page 113). I am aware (but I have no source to hand) that a common practice is to add apostrophe-s for a word ending with an unvoiced S sound, but just an apostrophe for one ending in a voiced Z sound. So bus's and miss's, but scabies' and Dawkins'. House style for several publishers certainly recommends this approach. Snalwibma (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written

I'm no scholar but this is a quality Wiki article. I have not read the book so most everything I read in the article was new to me. The criticisms are well written too and the choice(s) of critics was good too (not just people saying Dawkins leads to herpes). You get to read what the critics say and how Dawkins responded which allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. Nice work. Angry Christian (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Turkey

Has anything come of this? I updated the section with a second reference from a more recent article (December), but there has been nothing more on it since then, and it was over three months ago. Is the process, whatever that's supposed to involve, supposed to take this long? If nothing comes of it, should we even bother keeping this section? Richard001 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's still a notable controversy, perhaps if nothing ever comes of it beyond this it could be collapsed into a shorter verions. 3 months isn't usually that long for a legal issue : ) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Overview and main themes section

Would this section not be better titled as 'synopsis' (a more concise name), and perhaps rewritten in chapter by chapter style? Looking at it a bit closer it is quite similar (especially chapter 5 onwards), though it reminds me of a similar section in Darwin's Dangerous Idea ('Central concepts'), the style of which seems conducive to omissions. If we do it chapter by chapter, it's a lot harder to leave anything important out, and also doubles as a list of chapters in the book. Richard001 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:BOOK for more guidance. WLU (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm roughly familiar with that. Is there anything in particular you're referring to?
I think the 'dedication' section I added should definitely be merged into another section. Richard001 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I just know where to go : )
I've never seen the footnote used in that way by the way, I turned it into a quote but I don't think it turned out. I can see why you would want to use a footnote, but is there something else we could do instead? Otherwise the refs section interpserses actual references with quotations from the book. Could use the | quote = field in the {{cite book}} template. WLU (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not so good because one quote is by Adams at the start of the book ('In memoriam'), while the other is a quote by Dawkins in the middle of the book. Richard001 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this section with the one below now. Richard001 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm not convinced we need the quote at all actually. Just saying it is dedicated to Adams seems enough to me without the need for a verbatim section but not enough to assert my version is better than yours. I'm also unhappy with the multiple footnotes to TGD as a reference but to different pages. Perhaps the harvard system would be better but I'm not sure how to do that. WLU (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind if the footnote goes either, it's just something extra that adds a little info without overburdening the main body of the article. I don't think you can mix Harvard refs with numbered ones though, so sticking with numbers will probably be the best approach unless we want the article packed with names and dates in brackets. Richard001 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRJS

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_God_Delusion&oldid=197124182"