Wikipedia

Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 6

< Talk:The God Delusion
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Johnuniq in topic An obscure YouTube channel as a source
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Table of contents of the book

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Hello everyone. The article contains the table of contents of the book as a hidden table in the article. As someone deleted it, I would like to express here the fact that this is useful information to get a comprehensive idea of the content and structure of the book which the whole article is about. And the fact that is is actually hidden and use only one line of space should make it acceptable for everyone. What do you think? Latheae smitherii (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

We don't need a copy paste of the TOC. Plus, please read WP:BRD. This is new content, it has been reverted, there is no consensus for its addition, please do not re add it without consensus. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Should I recommend you to read WP:ROWN and ask you to tell me where is the consensus for deletion? I do not understand why this single line of useful content is so hard to accept for you... Latheae smitherii (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC).
Please don't edit war. The content has just been added and has been reverted by more than one editor. There is no consensus to add it. It can be tough to learn how things work around here as you have been here for a bit over an hour I realize it can be a bit intimidating, it was for me too. Don't take people changing stuff personally. Yes aware of the link you have provided. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that adding the book's exact TOC, hidden or not, violates WP:NFC: it appears to be an "excessively long copyrighted excerpt" that is better handled as a summary. Which the entry already does. Barte (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think that the table of contents is something that is typically open-access even when the book is not? It is often freely available on-line even when other parts of the book are not. In this case, it is (see the editor, Google books and this link). Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Updated at 21:06.

I don't think there's a copyright issue with the table of contents, but there's a stylistic question. In my experience adding a table of contents in its entirety falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That it is "useful" does not mean it's encyclopedic. Some articles end up talking about each and every chapter just because the book is so notable there exist multiple sources about each part. That said, I cannot seem to find any guideline (from the mos or otherwise) which specifically addresses this. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The TOC is part of the book's copyrighted content and therefore is subject to Wikipedia's rigorous fair use practices. Note the note on the TOC page linked above: "Pages displayed by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt." Followed by a copyright notice. Barte (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not it is copyrighted Wikipedia is not a guide. It is not needed and having an entire collapsed section is stylistically unattractive.Charles (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The rules of our encyclopaedia do allow this kind of lists (WP:5P, WP:L, etc.) and I do not think that there is a copyright issue here. The only question is that not everyone think it is very useful. I do think that this is interesting for many people. Some of you do not think that it looks so good; I would agree it it were uncollapsed, however a collapsed list does not use excessive space. If the issue is its colour, we can change it to something lighter. What do you think? Latheae smitherii (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
A list of chapters probably isn't copyrightable, since it's a simple list of information; a detailed list like this might well be. It's not obviously not copyrightable. Get consensus at WP:NFCR first, then try to convince people here that it's worth including. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This material has been added [1] very recently. We need consensus to add stuff, not for deleting it. It should be deleted until there is consensus to add it, per WP:BRD, not, as stated in the edit summary for re adding it [2] keep it until there is consensus to remove it. Latheae smitten, I would appreciate it if you self reverted. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say that a consensus is necessary to add this? There is nothing controversial here, no violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, no copyright issue or significant part of the article affected... It is only a little useful information that takes no space but provides a useful summary of the book. Why do you fight this? Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
Per my comment above, I do suspect that there are copyright issues. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
About the use, if you personally need this information, you should simply not expand the hidden table and continue to read the article noramlly, I do not see any issue here. About the copyright, ask advice of experts if you think it is useful. I do think that it is legal. And it is certainly not the first complete table of contents of a book included in our encyclopaedia (e.g. The World Until Yesterday). Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
The onus is on the person adding the content - i.e., you. I have provided you a link to the correct place for that discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I posted a message on the page you recommended. Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
'Why do you say that a consensus is necessary to add this?' See WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I did not indent my comments for a reason, please don't do that again, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's an administrator reply to the the NFCR query. Based on that, I think the TOC, with subchapters or without, should be omitted. Yes it's additional information. But no, it's not crucial here, given the amount of summary material the article already contains. Barte (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so intolerant? Don't you think that a much shorter table of contents, without subtitles, would be a good compromise in order to take in accounts all opinions expressed here? Latheae smitherii (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
I fail to see any intolerance. I do see a case of WP:IDHT though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not intolerance. As above, consensus and playing it safe regarding copyright are two basic Wikipedia principles. Given that 5-6 (depending on whether we count the noticeboard) have objected and only one supports it, there seems to be pretty clear consensus to remove it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI a major participant in this thread, Latheae smitherii, was blocked at SPI. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article needs a book quote. I say go big, what do you say ?

  • The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people not used to asking questions like: ‘Who wrote it, and when?’ ‘How did they know what to write?’ ‘Did they, in their time, really mean what we, in our time, understand them to be saying?’ ‘Were they unbiased observers, or did they have an agenda that coloured their writing?’ Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life.

or shorter;

  • Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life.

or even shorter;

  • The gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life. (Dawkins 2006, p. 118. The God Delusion)

74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not really the purpose of an encyclopedic article. A book review or a fan page may well have significant quotes, but more seems unnecessary here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't think we need them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The God Delusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The God Delusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See also

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

DVdm, there is no reason for this article to link to Atheism: The Case Against God or The Future of an Illusion. Neither book has anything to do with The God Delusion: Dawkins does not quote them in his text, or list them in his bibliography. The purpose of a see also section is not to provide links to every article about a similar topic - which would be confusing and unmanageable - simply to provide a short list of especially relevant links. If readers happen to be interested in other books arguing for atheism, then the appropriate way to direct them to those articles is through categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree if there were no articles about the books, but there are. And see also MOS:SEEALSO, which is "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles." I think these are indeed related Wikipedia articles. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong, they aren't. As I just explained, Dawkins does not cite or refer to either Smith's book or Freud's. That is why linking the books together through categories is appropriate, rather than placing items in "see also" sections on the grounds that they have some kind of extremely general resemblance to Dawkins' book. Your comment that you would agree with me "if there were no articles about the books" makes no sense whatever. It is only because there are articles about the books that they can be placed within categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that a link should not be in see also unless the work described in the article refers to the linked item? That view does not seem to be supported by WP:SEEALSO which includes "might be only indirectly related to the topic" and "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". There is no relevant rule other than what WP:SEEALSO says about editorial judgment and common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if Dawkins would have referred to the books, that could be mentioned in the article, and the books referred to by wp:wikilink. As this is not the case, the only place to mention them, is, by design, in the See also section. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, WP:ALSO states that, 'The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.' So obviously links to loosely connected subjects are permitted. That does not mean that they are obligatory, however. Whether to include them or not is ultimately an editorial decision. Although the issue isn't of crucial importance, I would not myself include either the link to Smith's book or Freud's here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but it looks like there is no consensus to remove them, "which normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." - DVdm (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Straw man for a Straw man argument (follow?)

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dawkins is accused of attacking the straw man. The author of the source is Terry Eagleton and here is quote on quote what it says: "Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right". Interestingly, the article says this: "Terry Eagleton criticised Richard Dawkins for not doing proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid". The entire book is aimed at arguing against theists. Therefore if it is "made valid" then it cannot be straw man argument. The party guilty of committing this fallacy is the critic here. The proposer asserts "God exists" and Dawkins publishes a book whereby he admits it is impossible to prove outright the existence of a superior being, but it is nonetheless unlikely on various principles. As such, neither the book nor atheism in general posits that there is no god. By stating that theists have not met their burden of proof, this is an unchallengeable fact. Given atheism by its very nature exists as a response to a suggestion that God exists in the first place (i.e. God exists, no he doesn't, that's not theistic, therefore it is atheistic), the only arguer able to make a straw man argument is the one proposing, in this case he who implies there is a god. The sceptic challenges the proposer to prove it, and when the proposer fails to do so on a sound basis, the result is books such as The God Delusion. Now given also that the alleged "straw man" arguments have not been cited in Eagleton's book, only "I agree with the theists", then we do not know a single proposal, nor that proposal's defence/detraction which is what would commit the straw man fallacy. To say that Dawkins somehow "misrepresents" theists in general is a profound absurdity and illustrates that the commentator is not familiar with the book. I believe on this note that it should be changed to "Eagleton agrees with theists that Dawkins regularly commits a straw man fallacy, but concedes that Dawkins refutes this". --Coldtrack (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The current text is straightforward and does not have weasel words such as "concedes". I don't think a change is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know 'concede' was a weasel word. If that is a problem we can work a way around it. But apart from that, it most certainly isn't good the way it is and that was the reason I posted the above comment. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"Concede" does not feature in WP:AWW yet is used unsparingly throughout the site. So it is not a weasel word. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

An obscure YouTube channel as a source

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

User:DVdm reverted my change, in which I removed a reference to a YouTube channel named "Lokesh Bhaskar", apparently some personal channel with 192 subscribers. I believe that using such sources in unacceptable. This must be such a clear violation of the basic rules, so I don't even see why my removal was disputed. I don't want to engage in a war of reverts, so I would appreciate if someone else would give a second opinion and act accordingly. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It does not realy matter that the channel is obscure. It clearly shows Dawkins saying what our article writes that Dawkins says. There would be a problem if we would omit the part "According to Dawkins in a 2016 interview with Matt Dillahunty". And the interviewer seems sufficiently notable to have a surviving article here. I don't see any problem. - DVdm (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source (with some rare exceptions) for assertions of facts. It would not be acceptable to use what is known as "Wikipedia's voice" to write "the book was downloaded 3 million times". However, an interview where Dawkins says that it was downloaded 3 million times in Saudi Arabia is a perfect source for an attributed statement of WP:DUE information. The place to ask about sources is WP:RSN but please don't as there is no doubt about the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I would think that a YouTube channel of a reputable organization should be acceptable as a source. But some personal channel? Really? Possible copyright issues, possible alterations to the videos (how do you know, it is not a reputable source), just the fact that we effectively promote this channel. I still believe that it is not acceptable to use such a source. Retimuko (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, they are all possibilities but the basic rule at Wikipedia is to go for the big picture. Is anyone seriously doubting that Dawkins made the statement? Is anyone doubting it is WP:DUE? It would be a problem if there were a reason to think the video is a copyvio. At any rate, try WP:RSN if really concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure yet if this needs to be escalated, but I really don't like the idea of using such sources and promoting questionable channels seemingly violating copyright. How about a compromise? I think we can refer to more reputable sources to support this claim. How about Huffpost article and the same article on the Richard Dawkins Foundation site? Retimuko (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Check out this flow chart from WP:VIDEOLINK. In our case in question we end up on the red on the very first step. Retimuko (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Using the Huffpost article would require attributing the claim to its author, and that would be a doubtful source. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring the copyright issue that I pointed out? We must take such things very seriously. This Lokesh apparently just lifted a piece of footage from a copyrighted video, and we are referring to it as a source. This is not acceptable. I have done a little research, and here is what I found: This conversation between Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty was presented by Pangburn Philosophy, which has a YouTube channel, which is mentioned on their web site. The video in question (full conversation) is hosted there. Why don't we link to it at a particular time when Dawkins made this claim just like I did here. Retimuko (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Please relax. Above I wrote "It would be a problem if there were a reason to think the video is a copyvio" so I'm not ignoring the issue. Your removal of the source said "not a reliable source" and that is not correct. Now the issue has shifted to copyright which is an area where I make no claim of expertise. There would be a place to enquire about that—I would give WP:C a quick scan but probably just asking at WP:RSN would find people who know about youtube and such matters. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I proposed to replace the link with one to the original video, which must not have the copyright issue. How about that? Regarding "not a reliable source": I fail to see how can we trust materials from a personal channel. Any number of things can be wrong: time of the event, place of the event, just to name a few, the footage might have been edited somehow, and copyright violation among other things. Perhaps my edit summary might have been more elaborate, but in my view "not a reliable source" says it all. Anyway, how about using the original video instead? Retimuko (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good. If possible, please add some text to the reference giving the approximate start time where the comment is made. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_God_Delusion/Archive_6&oldid=1064418745"