Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 3

There are no serious critiques of Harris' sophomoric thought. There are softball objections to his absurd beliefs and then detailed repudiations. The effect is that the article comes off like Harris or his wife wrote it. Harris deserves the criticism he offers to religion. He has no significant achievements in his life, his thought is deeply flawed and juvenile, and this article makes him out to be some kind of great thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt has a section titled: Criticism, can anyone -at least consider doing -collect or find some similar or otherwise critical assessment or review of Sam Harris' works, ideas etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.138.60 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to phase out criticism sections, but I agree that there's to much room given to Harris' responses to criticisms of him and even further, others responses to his responses. I have not seen responses to responses to responses usually brought up in other articles..... Feel free to give it a go if you would like, I'm fairly busy so you might get to it before me.YshuDS (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Harris rarely pronounces himself that crudely about islam. He may be a critic, but in this matter, it makes him sound like he is extremely verbal against islam. I consider the article too colored. Perhaps there are some changes to be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.61.141 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This person is totally irrelevant to Sam Harris. Wikipedia is not a news source, and we do not need to present opposing viewpoints on biography pages. The same applies to adding Harris' name to Tippett's page. Paisan30 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Has Sam Harris commented in writing on the Catholic practice of declaring people "saints" based on miracles that are claimed after the death of the prospective saint? An example would the current case on the discussion page of Father Damien at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77373 cat lick 48295 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is taken out of context and means something completely different. I believe a clarification is in order for the Critisism section. I'm a bad writer so I can't seem to insert a clarification without messing everything up.

He means that for people who believe in these religions, this can be ethically true. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.254 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What we think he meant is pretty much irrelevant here. Rightly or wrongly, he's been criticized on the basis of that statement. The text quotes the criticisms verbatim. If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well. We don't need to be deciding who's right here, and arguing on Harris' behalf - he's a big boy, and can take care of himself when debating these issues. EastTN (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well"

Did you not read the link just posted above(not by me, btw)? He clearly gives a response to that criticism: "My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pages 52-53 of The End of Faith):

The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any I have written:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous. "--72.188.156.191 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I followed the link and took a quick look. My personal preference would be to have a published source, but this does look like a reliable source for what Mr. Harris has to say. I'd support adding it to the end of the paragraph with text along the lines of:

Harris has said in response that the passage has been misconstrued by his critics. Specifically, he says that "[s]ome critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. . . . I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous."

The website should be used as the citation. This would allow readers to decide for themselves whether his statements are inappropriate, or if he's being inappropriately vilified. I do not think it's appropriate to drop the criticism and his response entirely. EastTN (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps allowing the reader to understand the extent of the critics' intellectual dishonesty where it comes to quoting out of context will dissuade critics from doing it in the future. Ninahexan (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

by what definition and credentials is Harris a philosopher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

no response from anyone, since Harris only has an undergrad in philosophy, I am removing the reference that he is a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He has written about metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy. He has also written about ethics and logic, and I am sure I am missing something. He has some education in philosophy, but he has contributed to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding (and hopefully promote discussion of this issue if need be), I am again posting on the issue of using the word "philosopher" in Harris' bio. Harris has no academic credentials above an undergraduate degree in philosophy, he does not and has not contributed to any philosophy journals, nor is he pursuing any advanced degree in philosophy. Even if one is to go down to Borders or Barns and Noble, Harris' two works are not kept in the philosophy section, and are not categorized in this way by these two organizations. I see no indication that he is, or is even considered by anyone to be a philosopher. Because of these reasons, I move to exclude referring to Harris as a philosopher in his bio. Dantedanti (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal academic qualifications are not required to define anyone as a philospher. Philosophy is simply the pursuit of knowledge. We are all Philosophers to some extent. I find formal curricula for philosophy to be quite frankly a contradiction in terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.169.17 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree that Philosophy is simply "the pursuit of knowledge", or else all fields of human activity which pursue knowledge would be philosophy instead of just having philosophical baggage. Though common people can and often do ask philosophical questions, they are not pursuing a career or vocation as a philosopher. I am not sure what you mean or what you are getting at when you say that the formal curricula is a contradiction in terms. Dantedanti (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that he is highly engaged with philospohical concepts and debates and contributes to philosophical discourse. My dictionary says nothing about having to have a post-grad degree or any formal degree for that matter to be defined as a philosopher. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't get us any closer to identifying him as a philosopher. He engages primarily with political topics, and very rarely with philosophical questions. Since no authoritative sources identify him as a philosopher, and as far as I can tell, no professional philosophers identify him as a philosopher, we should leave the article as is. Dantedanti (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To comply with the rest of the article, and with previous discussions, I am removing the reference that Harris deals with "philosophy of mind". This is not consistent with descriptions and reviews of his work. Dantedanti (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Harris is definitely a philosopher. First, he calls himself a philosopher. His work in neuroscience is specifically directed at answering philosophical questions. In one interview, he compared himself to Patricia Churchland, a neurophilosopher. He made the excellent point that these distinctions between fields are superficial, and we create them. Churchland and Harris do almost identical work in neuroscience. How can you say that one is a philosopher and one is not? Second, Harris has done extensive practice in Eastern philosophy. Are you to be so chauvinistic as to deny the Eastern world of the word "philosophy"? Harris does admit that this is more accurately called "the Eastern contemplative tradition", but again, where do you draw the line? I would argue that this still qualifies as philosophy. Don't be too narrow with your definitions. Harris is a neurophilosopher and an expert in Eastern philosophy. Therefore, Sam Harris is a philosopher. You are short-changing him and his expertise by merely calling him an "author." Many people are authors, and most of them do not have the expertise that Harris does. User:ArcadianGenesis

I agree, he has a degree in philosophy (even if that's just an undergrad) and identifies as such. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But as long as he has detractors, people will argue endlessly to "short-change" him. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Harris is not identified as a philosopher by anyone other than himself, and having an undergrad in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. His books are not kept in the philosophy section of the major book retailers and his work is not comparable to the Churchlands. We've already been through this; Harris' own opinions on the term philosophy are moderately irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantedanti (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say that his degree in philosophy is irrelevant. Look at the article on neurophilosophy, and you should instantly understand that Sam Harris is a neurophilosopher. If you still disagree with this new assertion, please provide new reasons. Otherwise, don't edit the article. User:ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.241.55 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Harris's work is not categorized as neurophilosophy. If you think he's a neurophilosopher, support your assertion with your reasons. Do not edit the article until a reasonable discussion has been had. Dantedanti (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can honestly read this article, even as written, and say that one can be a professional author dealing with morality and ethics and how one ought to reason, and NOT be a philosopher...I would be surprised. You don't need to have a degree to be a philosopher, thats an extremely absurd proposition. And he does have a degree, besides. I don't really understand in the slightest why a few editors would insist he's not a philosopher, these are all philosophical ideas. Simply because they cross over into politics doesn't make them not philosophical. 71.195.86.253 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you mean philosopher in the more general or common way; in which case, my grandmother is a philosopher every Thursday night at the dinner table when she rants about reason and ethics. As has been gone over many times, Harris is not a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.225.97 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a philosopher because a reliable third party source describes him that way --71.85.212.80 (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A term like philosopher is much broader than medical doctor. With "medical doctor", it's quite clear that someone is expected to have completed the highest form of certification and training. Someone can practice medicine, of course, and not be a doctor (person administering CPR, for example). Philosophy is different; it's a field where pedigree isn't supposed to matter, and people advance to prominence because of their reasoning. Harris is one such person. Though to be fair, I think he would rather be called a "neuroscientist" or "neurophilosopher" as he is completing his PhD in neuroscience and studying morality by evaluating brain states. PalindromeKitty (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an online *encyclopedia* it should use such terms as "philosopher" in the academic sense. To those who posit such notions that the term is of a broader meaning than that of other words is considering the laymen's meaning of the word. This isn't ancient Greece where a person may justifiably be labeled a philosopher due to their wisdom. With that said, Sam Harris is not considered an academic philosopher by the field of philosophy. Rather, he is considered a public intellectual, a leading figure in the New Atheist movement, and now recently a neuroscientist. Merely that he has written a handful of articles on ethics and metaphysics does not qualify him as such. If he were to hold some type of position within a philosophy department at the university level, then this would be a completely different tale. Note that in science you can be considered a professional scientist regardless of whether you teach at a university (e.g. working in research labs, for the government, etc. still qualifies you as such) while in philosophy there are very few examples of an academic philosopher never having worked in its academic field. One more point is to the above who mentioned neurophilosophy. While a good point, neurophilosophy deals primarily in modularity of the brain and whether or not there is a distinction between the mind and the brain or whether it is one in the same (i.e. monism vs. dualism as general terms). If there is a time where Sam Harris begins research in these areas, then the above point may be strong justification for him being a termed a philosopher. For now, however, I will remove the label "philosopher" from his introductory sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.149.125 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Numerous reliable sources, both academic and journalistic, describe him as a philosopher, so per Wikipedia policy his Wikipedia article describes him as such. If equally reliable sources are produced that adequately refute that description, then the matter may be revisited. I have yet to see an RS dispute that description. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not disputing that one of CNN's articles described Sam has a philosopher, I think we can do better than using a news media outlet to verify someone's credentials. Furthermore, I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher. These are specialized professions. I think it would be better to split the current lede sentence into two sentences, with the second sentence describing him as having academic credentials in neuroscience and philosophy, which is true and more accurate. Thoughts. danielkueh (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

News media outlets, in general, describe him as a philosopher. Not just CNN; , , , , etc. "Professions", as a general rule, are specialized ... indeed. They require some level of education, and active engagement in the field. Point? Harris self-identifies as such; news sources describe him as such. Doctors of Philosophy refer to the "philosopher Sam Harris" in Philosophy periodicals and journals , . He is described as such in peer-reviewed academic journals as well (just search Humanity & Society; Independent Review; The Philosophers' Magazine; etc.). As I asked above, is there any reliably sourced refutation to the reliably sourced descriptions? I know there are plenty of Wikipedia editor-generated refutations, as the guy obviously has critics, but Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk)

Xenophrenic, first of all, you need to assume good faith (wp:agf). The editors who dispute this description are not necessarily critics of Sam Harris. They are just concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person and so we have to be careful about how we portray or describe them wp:blp. As one tongue-in-cheek commentator said, there is no strong consensus for what a philosopher is . Second, please don't play this game of wikilawyering (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). It is tiring and quite patronizing. Granted, I'm citing rules here because I wish to demonstrate to you that I'm well aware of them and I'm not by any a stretch of the imagination an anti-Sam Harris critic. Quite the opposite. Now I wish to make some points:

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it, then we would have to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist (e.g., ). If you include one without the other, then that would be POV pushing (wp:advocacy).
• Philosophy Now is just a magazine. It is no better than newspaper articles. I am willing to grant you the reference from "The Philosophers' Magazine." So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.
• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies" himself as a philosopher.
• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website . In it, he is described as an author as well as a cofounder and CEO of Project Reason. His website also states he that "a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA." No where does his website calls him a neuroscientist or a philosopher.
• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website, which is the best source for now. Just as the description of Richard Dawkins's professions should come from Oxford University . Thus, I would like to reemphasize my suggestion of splitting the current lede sentence into two as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author and co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. He has a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA and a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Stanford University.

I believe this is most accurate without making judgments about Sam's profession. It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas. If people wish to call him a philosopher because of his writings or his degree, then that is up to them. Not wikipedia. I would like to invite other editors to weigh in on this and hopefully reach a consensus. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Danielkueh, your arguments and proposed solution for the lead are sensible. But Xenophrenic has also made strong arguments on the other side; i.e. that entities like CNN, NPR, and the BBC refer to Harris as a "philosopher" should carry some weight. What is unfair is your accusation of wikilawyering and assumption of bad faith on the part of Xenophrenic. We have proof of bad faith by some other parties involved in the editing of this article. See the contribution history of 90.202.202.24 and the comment that IP user talk page made by User:Anti-spammm, an apparently new user who surfaced only today. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it...

No, that is not my rationale. My rational for inclusion is that the description is conveyed by numerous "reliable sources as to the assertion of fact". Media pieces (like the commentary piece by a college associate prof. who also refers to other individuals as "loony" - red flag there - or a piece that calls books, not people, "polemics") do not meet Wikipedia's requirements.

• Read what you wrote again. You are simply paraphrasing what I just said. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. You want to use "media" sources that don't convey what you said they did. I, and Wikipedia, insist on using reliable sources, and conveying what they convey. Let me know if there is anything else you need clarified. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is not true. You must have overlooked The Nation article that I cited. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. I addressed your citation to the Nation commentary piece by the name-calling college associate prof. above. Let's please stick to sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. (Note: I agree Harris has written some polemics, and at times argued polemically, but unless he self-describes as such, much better sourcing is required.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point I am trying to make is lost in the details here. I am not trying to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist. Rather, I am trying to make the point that if we use the rationale that we must include all descriptions of Sam that can be sourced, then we would have to include every description of Sam Harris, some of which may not necessarily be informative, neutral, or encyclopedic. That is the problem that I foresee. Granted, the example or source I provided (polemicist) of Sam is not the best one as you correctly pointed out, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. Anyway, this is a peripheral issue now. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.

One high quality source after less than 2 minutes of casual looking. As for "notability", that is a requirement for the creation of a Wikipedia article, but has no bearing on evaluating the reliability of a source used within an article.

• By notable, I meant "well-established' or "prominent." danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies"

I haven't checked. I was merely repeating what was asserted a few paragraphs up in this same discussion. If it gets asserted in the article, it most certainly should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source.

• Then let's drop this and move on. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website

Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. His website, however, is not the sole source of information about him, nor is it necessarily "the best". Lack of information in any one source about Harris does not mean that information doesn't exist.Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is the best with respect to his credentials as it is an organization that he is directly affiliated with. Furthermore, the site is the closest thing that we have to a CV of his credentials. We can also use UCLA as well. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• As I said above, Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know you said that, and I wasn't responding to that point. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to cite the above mentioned sources; I really have no problem with that. We can have hundreds of cited sources. I don't have much interest in what source you feel is best, or prettiest, or whatever. That's subjective, and I'm sure we will disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website...

Yes, you have explained as much. I, on the other hand, feel that the description can certainly draw from his website, but should not "mirror" it when it can be more expansive and informative. Input from other editors would be a good thing.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• See my further explanations below on why I think we should keep the lede more focused and neutral. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11 and Xenophrenic, I appreciate both of you taking the time to reply to my comments. I was responding to Xenophrenic's comments about critics of Sam and editors not being RS. While I don't dispute that there are editors who do not like Sam Harris and who may vandalize this page, I think we should be avoid making comments that may cast an aspersion on the other editors in this section who have genuine concerns about the description of Sam Harris as a philosopher. By the way, Xenophrenic, since you believe strongly in WP's policies, you should review WP:AGF very carefully. It is one of the fundamental principles of WP which all editors are expected to follow. As Jweiss correctly pointed out, I too should and will assume good faith on your part.

(pardon the interruption...) I have always avoided casting aspersions on the editors in this section who have genuine concerns. Any misperceptions of aspersions that don't really exist are probably born of a lack of good faith. re: Policies; yes, I do espouse following them. As for guidelines, principles, essays and other informative pages, they have some value as well. No need for me to re-read the AGF guideline (I've even helped craft versions of it); I know it well, and I know that it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In fact, the operative instruction is to not assume malice unless there is specific evidence of malice, and that instruction comes without caveats. I do follow that advice. Unlike the "assume good faith" part, which comes with caveats, limits, exceptions and loopholes -- yet people love to quote and misrepresent. Thanks for the nod to assuming good faith on my part — barn doors & escaped horses, etc. — but we should probably just stick to discussing content and sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. danielkueh (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing that news outlets that describe as a philosopher such as the BBC, CNN, etc do exist. I have nothing against the use of media organizations. In fact, I myself rely upon them everyday. What I am saying is that the use of the label by these organizations may not necessarily be the best one, especially for a lede sentence. And the rationale provided is not that great either. Pardon my language, but suppose these new outlets describe Sam as an "asshole." That doesn't that we found a "fact" that he is an asshole does it? Should we include that description in the lede sentence? Should we not remove it until that there is counter argument from another source? Or should we include both? As you can see, I think this sort of argument is problematic and detracts from the main purpose of article, which is to provide information on the attributes of Sam that readers will find informative. Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so. I have read all of his books and writing and I know he does not describe himself as such. In fact, he doesn't like labels, such as atheist, much to the chagrin of other atheists.

Rather than just cite what sources say and sticking them all in the lede, I think we should focus on how best to inform our readers on who Sam Harris is and he is best known for. For example, I think we can use other featured articles such as Emily Dickinson and or Ernest Hemingway, just to name a few, as our guides. The lede descriptions in both articles are short and simple. We can do the same here by improving upon the current description of Sam by keeping the language tight and neutral. Upon further reflection, I would like to take a step back and have us all rethink the lede sentence, which I think is not as informative as it potentially could be. Sam is known primarily by his books on atheism, religion, morality, and free will. I believe we should have a lede that describes him as such. Even if he is described as a philosopher by some, that is a secondary issue. Just as whether he is male, 5 feet plus, married, etc. Thus, I would like to suggest improving the lede sentence as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I apologize for my lengthy response and I hope you will see that I am trying to improve this article by tightening up the language. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to expressing what he is versus what he is "trained in", I'll defer to reliable sources. Adding that he writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality, does not appear on its face to be problematic. It should properly summarize more detailed information in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you would agree with me that he is trained in philosophy and neuroscience as he has degrees in both fields, which can be verified by multiple reliable sources. In fact, from the man himself . People go to universities to receive training, which is verified by the degrees that they receive. Whether they continue to use their training or be identified by their degrees is a different matter. Sometimes a muddy issue I might add. danielkueh (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with you that he is trained in stuff. But as saying "he's a philosopher trained in philosophy" gets to be a bit redundant for the lede, the specifics of what "training" he went through would likely be best expounded upon in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Just to be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I believe listing his credentials and linking them to what he does will allow readers to discern who he is or what he is about very quickly. If we are to list what he is, which as you know is not my favorite choice, then it would look like this:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. As a philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

danielkueh (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence.

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author, philosopher, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Why, exactly, is your version shorter? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm fairly certain I've figured it out.Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see where this is heading. You don't want the first sentence in the lead to directly convey that Harris is a philosopher and neuroscientist. Despite numerous reliable sources ranging from news to high quality academic, you still balk at conveying what reliable sources convey. Perhaps you can better describe your reasoning. So far I'm only catching hints when you say: *"I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher..."*"concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns..."*"It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas..."*"Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so..."

Incorrect; calling him anything positive is contentious, as the above discussions have shown. He certainly has critics and detractors. However, numerous reliable sources say he is, so Wikipedia says he is. I'll ask for the 4th time: Are there reliable sources that say he is not? Looks like we're I am done here, until those sources are produced and examined. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not even review my two proposals, which included a description of Sam as a neuroscientist and a philosopher in one of them. In fact both of them are consistent with the sources. You have not even responded to the long explanation that I provided above. danielkueh (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed your latest two proposals. The concern I expressed above stands unaddressed. Perhaps others will take this opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It does address your concern. One of them explicitly so. It just happens to be in the second sentence. I am hoping other editors can comment. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My second proposal does not exclude describing Sam as a philosopher or neuroscientist. I included those two descriptors in the second sentence of my second proposal. The issue now is whether we can improve upon the lede sentence to make it more informative. Just because something is sourced, does not mean it gets front seating. danielkueh (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing more to add, really. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What problem do you have with saying Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist in the first sentence, in the lead, right up front? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a different question, which is closer to the issue at hand. I have already answered it. Please see my explanation above (which contains the proposals). If you don't mind, I am going to take a break from this and wait for others to respond. danielkueh (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. If you don't want to give me a brief answer here about this "issue at hand", that's fine. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not cutting off the conversation. It was late and I was a little tired from editing. When I get around to it, I will try to give a brief summary of my previous explanation. Plus, I really would like to hear from other editors as well. By the way, I appreciate the gesture and have followed your lead. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

First, let me just clarify that I do agree with you that there are reliable sources that describe Sam Harris as a neuroscientist and a philosopher. Let me also clarify that the main concerns raised above and below by the other editors is that these labels are usually reserved for professionals who are actively engaged in these fields (neuroscience and philosophy). There is obviously a difference in the way these terms are used among professionals in the field and by media outlets. While it is true that calling him a neuroscientist and philosopher would be consistent with the sources, it may potentially confuse our readers. You are not going to find sources that dispute these descriptions of Sam because there is no official body or licensing board that regulates the use of these terms. Much of this is convention. Furthermore, since neuroscience and to some extent, philosophy (e.g., bioethics), are part of the biomedical field, we should rely upon better sources such as scientific or peer-reviewed articles as the popular press is not necessarily the best source (as described in this section of WP:MEDRS) for this kind of information.

Second, Sam is primarily known as an author of multiple books on morality, atheism, etc. In fact, his first book, The End of Faith, was published before he received a PhD in neuroscience. In summary, my proposal identifies Sam Harris as first and foremost an author as well as a CEO of Project Reason. Since he has earned degrees in both philosophy and neuroscience, we could label him as such in the second sentence, which will also allow us to link these descriptions to his work on atheism, morality, etc. This will allow readers to make the connection between his area of expertise and the topics that he tends to write about. Plus, it makes it easier to read. The current lede sentence unnecessarily crams too many adjectives into one sentence.

Finally, I apologize if this is not brief but I am trying to take the time to get you to understand and appreciate the nuanced argument is being made here. danielkueh (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. We agree that reliable sources describe Harris as a philosopher and neuroscientist. Those reliable sources include news agencies as well as scientific and academic sources, and he has been referred to as such by others in those fields. We also agree that no reliably sourced refutations to those descriptions have been produced. He has formal education in these fields, and has conducted activity in these fields. We both agree that some folks have questioned whether Harris' level of activity in these fields warrant the use of these descriptions, but as we both acknowledge, there is no regulating body defining the use of these descriptions -- so those "concerns" don't really bear practical weight on this discussion. As your "tongue-in-cheek" article link humorously, but quite accurately, conveyed: "What is a philosopher?" is still very much an open question. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we have clear cut policy guiding us as to the use of these descriptions in BLPs.

Conclusion: Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist, per reliable sources and in the absence of anything to the contrary. Moving to your second point: We agree that Harris is most widely known as an author. That is why "Author" is listed first and foremost among his several descriptions. We agree. I disagree with you that he is equally well known as the CEO of Project Reason; I would contend that he is much more widely known for his lecturers & debates & intellectual commentaries in his various philosophical and scientific fields of specialization, with his CEO-ship of the relatively obscure Project Reason being less known. As such, I would suggest a lead sentence such as this:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author, philosopher, public intellectual, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.

Short, succint, and lists his significant descriptors in order of notability. And it avoids the obvious pitfalls of unintentionally diminishing those descriptors by using a passive voice, or burying them in subsequent sentences. It also follows the conventions set by other featured articles, like those of Emily Dickinson and Ernest Hemingway, in that it states their descriptions in the first sentence as "XXX is (or was, if deceased) an ABC and a DEF." Much easier to read. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the descriptor, "public intellectual" as well sourced as "neuroscientist" and "philosopher"? If not, I think we should omit it as it does not add anything to the introduction and it is actually quite redundant. If you want everything in one sentence and would like to keep it succinct, then I suggest grouping the labels by categories as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American philosopher and neuroscientist who works as an author and as a CEO of Project Reason.

This suggested lede sentence has the advantage of parsing his training and expertise (philosophy and neuroscience) from his current occupations (author and CEO), which would be informative. Plus, it transitions well to the next sentence. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation for "parsing training and expertise from his current occupations" in that way; philosophy and neuroscience are actually integral to, and the foundation of his "current occupations". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I fail to see how listing descriptors of Sam in subsequent sentences or in different tenses will diminish those descriptors. Not everything has to be squeezed into the first lede sentence. There are no WP rules or logical basis for such a concern. Since Sam has multiple roles, another example would be the article on Steve Jobs. danielkueh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice is to give a concise description of the subject in the WP:Leadsentence. The present sentence isn't overly long or cumbersome, and accurately conveys the descriptors of the subject. Why relegate selected descriptors to subsequent sentences in the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If Sam Harris is a philosopher because he writes poorly on topics covered by philosophers such as metaphysics, and because he considers himself a philosopher, I think we should add philosopher to Deepak Chopra's Wiki entry. It's only consistent.

See Talk:Sam Harris (author)#RfC:Should Sam Harris be called a philosopher? --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh good! You agree that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher. I assumed that you would. I shall make the changes. 109.156.238.136 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:V and Logic. --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any source on his specific birthdate, other than "1967"? XXL2oo 10:49 26 July 2009 (GMT+08:00) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Isn't there any more information about his early life? There's practically nothing listed.203.131.210.82 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Fascinating question re Harris's birthdate and more. Here's why. I know his uncle and I know the names of his parents as well as their very exotic, relevant professions. Thus, a few days ago I entered that specific parental information in the article. I also entered it on the existing Wiki page of Harris's mother, a prominent woman in her right. However, I have since found this entry missing from the Harris article. Perhaps that's because I did not cite a published source for the facts I inserted (since there is none as far as I know other than my own accurate personal knowledge.) However, there seems to be another reason that personal family specifics about Harris might be removed. This insight comes from an existing reference in this article--a Washington Post piece from 2006 which includes the following:

''"Harris is 39 and looks uncannily like Ben Stiller. He grew up in Los Angeles, in a home he describes as non-religious. (For the record, his mother is Jewish and his father, now deceased, was a Quaker.) Harris asked that all but the most basic biographical details be omitted from this article, even where he lives and where he studies. Nobody has threatened his life, but he thinks you can't be too careful. Plus, a movie deal is in the works that could make him the focus of a documentary about atheism. He would like to minimize his tracks sooner rather than later."''''Italic text

Question: should an objective reference entity such as Wikipedia honor Harris's--or anyone else's--desire to "minimize his tracks" by not including factual material about his parents? I guess that's fair question to discuss here. Agree?

Mwprods (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed "In the context of religion, though, such teachings need not — and cannot - be questioned." Even Harris cannot be so ignorant to suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been questioned by Christians! Indeed it is impossible to think of a single Christian doctrine that has not been questioned heavi;y. NBeale (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it not just mean that it "cannot" be questioned in certain theologies? Obviously there's nothing in any religion that "cannot" be questioned (if not within the religion, then certainly without). I read the sentence as simply noting that certain "truths" cannot be questioned within certain faith traditions (lest charges of heresy be made and/or pyres of firewood assembled). No more than that. And my understanding of transubstantiation is that it's a fairly mandatory belief in certain segments of Christianity. --PLUMBAGO 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the statement is unrefed it is hard to know whether he really says it or not. But even before the Reformation most of the Catholic doctrines were heavily questioned by Catholic philosophers - debate was a fundamental part of the university system. You were only liable to a charge of heresy if you actively proclaimed a false doctrine rather than questioning an accepted one, and even then you would only be punished if you repeatedly did this after you had been had up the first time. Anyway, unless and until there is clear evidence that he says anything so absurd and ignorant we'd better leave it out. NBeale (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything online that would support the statement, and though I still think you're reading too much into it (i.e. it's "obvious" that all faith statements are open to question; he's just talking about faith hierarchies and dogma), I don't think it's all that important a line, so it doesn't need to be added back. That said, since our interpretations are perpendicular on this point, if he did say something like it, and if someone wanted to add it back in, it needs to be absolutely clear what's meant (i.e. carefully contextualised and/or straight-quoted). It's not helpful to have statements in an article that mean two completely different things to people. --PLUMBAGO 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree (with your last 2 sentences). NBeale (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)