Talk:The God Delusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The God Delusion article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Good article The God Delusion was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
January 8, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Contents

[edit] '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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
For what it's worth, I agree. Dawkins', not Dawkins's. --RenniePet (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, will fix. WLU (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Much better! Done. The three occurrences of "sic" are now turned into hidden comments. Snalwibma (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
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
[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)
[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)

(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
The plaintiff said that he's going to appeal against the decision on a procedural reason. [1] (kutukagan (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

Try WP:BOOK for more guidance. WLU (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Quality of article maintenance

I've only been watching this for a short time, but since my last edit to the article there have been several bad ones that just haven't been reverted. There's no point working on articles if people are going to do such a shitty job of maintaining them. Richard001 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've repaired the recent damage. I'd feel better if I knew someone was maintaining the article, even though I suspect a few people are informally doing so. I'd also have someone more specific to complain to. But what can you do. Richard001 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is on my watch list, but I must admit that there are so many edits, vandalism, reverting vandalism, changing things one way, disputes, changing back again, that I usually can't be bothered getting involved. Sigh. --RenniePet (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That, I think, is one of the main problems with Wikipedia. Even with the articles where a few people are actually watching them regularly, they still don't feel like they're responsible for the article, so vandalism and such still finds its way through. For an article like this you really need two or three people seriously watching it with the intent to inspect every edit and let in nothing that isn't an improvement. But as I said, what can you do? Richard001 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is precisely why we need Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions and Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions to be implemented as soon as possible. --Merzul (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translated editions

User:Dylanpack added pictures of translated editions, which can be seen in this version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_God_Delusion&oldid=200306479

I kind of liked it. But they were promptly deleted. Is there any standard for showing or not showing the covers of translated editions in Wikipedia articles about books? --RenniePet (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it before on a book page, and thought it looked awful. WP:BOOK might have guidance on the subject, but a whole set of cover images seems odd to me. The Lord of the Rings, I believe a featured article, has several examples of the same books with multiple titles, in the book infobox. That would be nicer to me, neater and more organized. However, for a counter-point, I believe Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy has several covers in the page itself, and I think it's also a FA. If others prefer it, I'm willing to be over-ruled, but I've other preferences for the use of the covers. Is it really encyclopedic in my mind, unless it's the cover for every single version on the planet. WLU (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal atheist?

See this diff. I think there's merit to making Dawkins' atheism present in the lead, I liked vocal because I thought it would be acceptable to both 'pro' and 'con' contributors. Does anyone else have any opinions on the matter? WLU (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it works. That Dawkins is an atheist is abundantly obvious from the article. His title here should match his professional credentials--the one presumably listed on his business card. Barte (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out when I reverted the original edit, I don't like it. Although I could, of course, live with it, if that's the majority opinion. To me it sounds negative, like saying RD is hysterical about his atheism. Also, being vocal doesn't make anyone's position or arguments more convincing; someone who is totally crazy can be very vocal - so what? It's the fact that he is a renowned scientist that gives his opinions more weight (although not with his detractors). --RenniePet (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA advice

The recommendation was to cut a few of the headings... let's do that. I will simplify the synopsis even more. Many reviewers, notably Krauss, split it into two parts, the stuff about God, which he didn't like, and the stuff about religion, which he agreed with. This is a fairly nice split I think. Uhm, I changed quite a bit, so I should now give it a rest. Let's revert and discuss. ;) --Merzul (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Let's see what to do about the GA review then:

  • 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.
    • Fixed. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • A few headings have been joined. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • would like "Philosophical objections" and "Dawkins' scholarship" to be merged. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • We need to think of how we want to ref TGD, some of them are easy to fix; but "ref 1" is the preface, which has a convenience link. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Hmm... Book rebuttals are indeed not mentioned here. However, it is a mistake to think books are more reliable than reviews. Anyone can write a book, and get it published. The reviews, appearing in Nature and Science, are the most reliable sources here. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Won't fix. I thought about it, and I would suggest that we do not follow this advice. Our goal is not to present here a case for or against the book. We are not concerned with whether what Dawkins wrote there is true or false. The section should be about the critical reception of the book, and news sources are the most suitable material for that. --Merzul (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Fixed. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Won't fix. I don't see why there should be any citations from these books, especially since End of Faith was written before TGD, they are mentioned to provide context. I don't see any problem with that. --Merzul (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the criticism

I really want to trim the reviews section to make it more readable. This was very difficult, because we obviously don't want to just remove criticism. I started a /reviews sub-page, but then I gave up. Maybe, we can simply make a few small changes at a time... so let's begin with the two first sections. I would like to merge them and remove Professor Plantinga for the following reasons:

  • We already mention that Plantinga has published a rebuttal.
  • Philosophical objections can not be summarized in one sentence. I don't think sentences like "Plantinga claims that Dawkins does not support this assertion and suggests that Dawkins is assuming materialism" are respectful to Plantinga at all.
  • Is there anyone here, who thinks that ad hominems, such as "many of [Dawkins'] arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.", adds any information to the article?

I would replace the whole plantinga paragraph with:

Alvin Plantinga,[24] Anthony Kenny,[25] Thomas Nagel,[26] and other philosophers have responded to the arguments of the book about the existence of God. Richard Swinburne has responded to parts of The God Delusion that interact with Swinburne's writings.[27] These philosophers agree to a greater or lesser extend with Plantinga's verdict that the book's argument "really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a delusion".

What are the objections? I think it is a wonderfully NPOV and accurate summary. :) --Merzul (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The final sentence looks WP:SYNTH-y to me, and I agree it's hard to do justice to philosophical objections with brevity. That ad hominem thing should be removed, even if it is a quote. Reading the section, I'd say remove the second sentence "He says that.." If Plantinga focuses on chapter 4, why not expand the discussion of that focus to include a more meaty summary of the argument, then move the scholars who agree to the bottom? Lead with Plantinga, if others are agreeing but not expanding, then we don't need to discuss those arguments in depth and a simple 'X, Y and Z echo Plantinga' would seem adequate to me. WLU (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The final sentence is indeed synthy, so let's see. On the other hand, I would not like to expand too much about the argument though, why else do we have the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit? I will think about if there is any way, something substantial about the argument can be said per as a summary. --Merzul (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. What about the first line of the section after the {{main}} being a quick summary of the UB747A (I'd just copy-paste the lead), then saying who agrees? Take out the specifics and quotes completely. WLU (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It could be, but the synopsis briefly outlines the argument already, so here I would prefer a succinct presentation of the critique. I made the "main" link more specific towards the critical assessment, do you think that's good or bad? Now, I'll go along with whatever you guys prefer. I would personally love to get this article a bit shorter, but I have no desperate need to do so of course. :) --Merzul (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cognitive science literature

The assertion that belief in God is a delusion clearly would fall under that field, but does Dawkins or his publisher classify this as cognitive science? I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other, because I wouldn't file it as cognitive science literature, but this book is not the only such book, so I've raised the question here. What do you think? --Merzul (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magick and the origin of God

Magick has been around for millions of years. Don't expect it to just roll over and die. It ain't gonna happen. Magick is very, very, powerful. That is why it has lasted. Magick presents an immediate (sometimes disguised as mystic or spiritual) solution to the mystery of the unknown that requires little or no critical research. Magick was used to empower humanity with improvement and to achieve a clearer picture of humanity's place in the cosmos, LONG BEFORE the concept of critical science. Tales of heroism, goodness and faith endure and easily become sacred within the human heart. Morality has been taught through stories. According to the popular historian Will Durant, "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." (The Durant quote DID NOT say religion was necessary for morality. It stated religion was an AID to morality. There is a difference.) Kazuba (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Has this any relation to improving the article? Remember, verification is needed with sources which discuss the book, not eminent historians whose views you think are sort of applicable – that way lies WP:OR. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC) (
eminent historians whose views you think are sort of applicable?)Kazuba (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable sources here, or discussion even remotely related to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum, so please suggest a change or improvement or cease posting. WLU (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital 'G'?

This article starts with God spelled with a lower case 'g', but for the rest of it this word is written with the first letter in upper case. An editor has justified that by definding God as an abstract concept (see history). But this is a matter of debate. Since most monotheists would defind God as a personal being (whether is actual or fictional), God should be spelled like a conventional person's name. Dawkins, unlike others (eg. Christopher Hitchens) uses the upper-case spelling, since he mainly attacks the doctrines of monotheistic religions.--79.131.96.66 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RV again, then noticed that a discussion was under way here: should have read this first, sorry. I don't deny that most monotheists would use a capital for "God", but the point is that the atheist doesn't have a belief in any of the gods of the monotheist religions (or any of the gods of pantheistic polytheistic religions for that matter). It seems unnecessarily reverential to apply a capital to an entity which, in the view of the atheist, doesn't exist. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that a person's name should start with an upper-case letter, and therefore God would fit this category even if you think of him as a fictional character. You wouldn't spell Achilles in lower case, not even Zeus. But you are right to use the lower-case spelling at this case (which means I was wrong), but for a totally different reason: there is an indefinite article (...a god), which justifies the abstract use of the term at this time.[I am the above user, but my IP varies].--87.203.95.100 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)