Talk:The Dawkins Delusion?
POV
This page appears to have been written by someone with a partisan agenda. Could a more neutral party edit it? I came here just for info but was sorely let down by the article - I had to look elsewhere for critism of the book and Dawkin's reaction to it. Those should clearly be in the article, rather than just an uncritical summary of the book and three very positive reviews of it (with no balance). 192.88.124.200 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The "Comments by notable commentators" section seems particularly POV. There are surely some negative comments that could be quoted. I find it hard to believe that every noteworthy commentator to review this book has praised it and thumbed his/her nose at Professor Dawkins... Neural 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The comments all appear to be dust jacket blurbs--which is hardly NPOV. I suggest deleting the section until actual published reviews--pro or con--can be cited in actual notable publications.--Barte 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than deleting the section, I've rewritten the header to make clear that these are blurbs, not independent reviews. I don't think they are Wikipedia-worthy (you wouldn't find them in a movie entry, for example), but it's a start. Much better would be to cite actual reviews in notable publications.--Barte 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OR
So far as I can tell, the entire Summary section is OR - a synopsis/book review using only the book itself as a reference. I can find no actual reviews or commentary online which are not blogs. Has this book even been mentioned in any press? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the summary is OR, remove it. I'll check the NYT to see if they ever reviewed it. •Jim62sch• 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The NYT never reviewed it, and not to sound snobbish, but that usually means the book was not considered worthy of a review. •Jim62sch• 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Washington Post never bothered either. •Jim62sch• 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Struck out in Bean Town. •Jim62sch• 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- An article about a book needs to start with a summary of what the book says, and the only reasonable way of doing this is to quote from the book. That is hardly OR!. It was only published in the UK a few days ago and has not been published in America yet - no doubt reviews will emerege in due course. NBeale 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- What you note is clearly OR. There are no secondary or tertiary sources available. •Jim62sch• 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- In other words, you admit it is your own summary. In other words, yes it is OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on the OR concept at it applies here. The summary of the The God Delusion entry, for example, is clearly based on the book itself, not on secondary sources. How is this different from that? Rather, I think the problem has been an overly long summary for what appears to be a non-notable book. If the book is only found in the UK, what about some UK reviews? One would have expected those ahead of publication. The publisher PR blurbs are not really an acceptable substitute.--Barte 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still looking. I have found none. I concur the book seems fairly non-notable, it may be that reviews will come in time and it may be a better solution to merge this with McGrath's article. Meanwhile, I'm off to check out The God Delusion; if the summary there is not referenced by reviews at all then it is OR also and must be sourced or removed. In that case, however, it be a NYT bestseller, I'm thinking it iwll be much easier to find sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, The God Delusion summary is truly a summary, not a full-scale review as was here - it much much shorter than NBeale's review which was here. There are numerous reviews quoted, as well as criticism. As a brief overview, I don't have as big an issue with teh book alone being used - but using the book to write a review, as was done here, is clearly OR. I would also prefer The God Delusion use some reviews where possible for the summary in that article, and will note so on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Concur with Barte that the "summary" here was far, far too long. In addition to the problems that there are no reviews to balance the book summary, the Is religion evil? section, for example, was 5979 characters (for a book with no reviews at all) compared to The God Delusion summary of 530 characters - that is over ten times as long for a nn book, which is much shorter, than for a best-selling book with numerous reviews and criticisms to balance the view. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still looking. I have found none. I concur the book seems fairly non-notable, it may be that reviews will come in time and it may be a better solution to merge this with McGrath's article. Meanwhile, I'm off to check out The God Delusion; if the summary there is not referenced by reviews at all then it is OR also and must be sourced or removed. In that case, however, it be a NYT bestseller, I'm thinking it iwll be much easier to find sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on the OR concept at it applies here. The summary of the The God Delusion entry, for example, is clearly based on the book itself, not on secondary sources. How is this different from that? Rather, I think the problem has been an overly long summary for what appears to be a non-notable book. If the book is only found in the UK, what about some UK reviews? One would have expected those ahead of publication. The publisher PR blurbs are not really an acceptable substitute.--Barte 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Not on reviewcentre, ama, publishersweekly, nowhere. I am still looking, but no one has reviewed this book so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi KC. The summary is not a review, it expresses no opinion whatsoever on whether what the McGraths say is valid, merely notes with careful references what the book says, including giving the major refs that they quote. It is not OR - that is the only way you can summarise a book - give quotes from the book with references. Barte is quite right. Trying to censor this is not helpful. Please desist! NBeale 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- NBeale, don't accuse me of censorship, ever. I take great offense at that appelation, and consider it a personal attack of the highest order. Ed Poor called me a bitch once, and I minded that about 1/100th of someone accusing me of censorship. Now, a summary should summarise. Your lenghtly essay is more like the slightly condensed version of the book, which is basically a completely non notable book with zero reviews or attention in any form of media whatsoever, outside of the sales pitch on the publisher's website. Put it on your blog, if you have one. It doesn't belong here. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed fully. Charges of censorship are just one of the canards favored by supporters of all things right-wing, followed closely by the liberal media and vast left-wing conspiracy bullshit. Removing a piece of OR is not censorship, it is following Wiki's rules. Beal, I shall tolerate no further accusations of the sort. •Jim62sch• 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi KC. If you don't practice censorship I shall of course not suggest that you do so. Perhaps it would be best not to prevent a well-sourced carefully-referenced summary of a book (NB by no stretch of the imagination is it a review or an essay because it expresses no opinion on the merit of the book) by a notable author with whom you strongly disagree from appearing in Wikipedia. If you think the book is non-notable the propose that the article is deleted, but please don't supress the arguments. Now of course I don't mind if someone reduces my summary a bit, but a 2-p summary of an 80p book is not "slightly condensed". And it's not OR. Let's work together constructively. NBeale 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As I don't, then that should be the last I hear of it from you. Unfortunately, you continue your personal attacks by accusing me of supressing information. You seem to have forgotten the rule to comment on the article, not the contributor - so please cease your pointless speculation about whether I agree or disagree with the author of the book. It doesn't matter - not to me, not to Wikipedia, and not to you. It is completely irrelevent. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Blurbs
Of course I'd rather have reviews than Blurbs but this book has only just been published, SPCK does not have the huge commercial resources of Trasnsworld, and these are notable commentators. Quick search to respond to your challenge reveals The Computational Brain, Vera (novel), Witchfinder General (book) that's three. Let's not surpress information but let readers make up their own minds. NBeale 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) PS: I knew that Dawkins had become the Dan Brown of PopSci - but I hadn't realised that they share a publisher! NBeale 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of those, the only one I see a blurb on is Vera - and that blurb is from the Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English. Witchfinder mentions and quotes the back-cover blurb, but it does not present it entire, nor does it present it in a review-like section. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- All three article examples are short stubs, with blurbs mentioned in passing. Here we've got an extensive summary that goes well beyond that given far more notable books, with no independent reviews--just publisher-solicited and selected quotes. So I conclude that Wikipedia is being used here largely to promote a book and its ideas, both of which are not getting much attention elsewhere. That order needs to be flipped.--Barte 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Authorship section
From the article: "After studying chemistry at Oxford, he researched in the field of molecular biophysics, developing new methods for investigating biological membranes. He then moved on to study Christian theology, specialising in the history of Christian thought, and especially in issues of science and religion. A prolific author, his recent publications include Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Blackwells, 2004)."
If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Alister McGrath article. What does his work on membranes, etc, have to do with this article or anything that the Dawkins Delusion book is about? Neural 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you read the full summary of the book [1] (and not the censored version that some people want to substitute) you would see that it is an important part of his argument that he started as an atheist PhD Oxford bio-scientist, the same as Dawkins. It is also very relevant to Dawkins pathetic response that McGrath has published more books than Dawkins. NBeale16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, it seems to me that RD's response is far from pathetic. Quite telling, actually. But you can't resist a childish swipe, can you? - I assume you are NBeale! But to the point - yes, a fuller summary of the book would seem reasonable - but for heaven's sake, not that full! Snalwibma 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- And not OR. As there are presently no secondary or tertiary sources, the summary shall have to wait until such sources are exist. •Jim62sch• 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Correspondence
Does McGrath actually attempt to prove that God exists, and refute Dawkins' argument that the existence of a superhuman creator is unfalsifiable? Or does he merely point out the deficiencies in Dawkins' argument?
Also, what makes him think that the God he believes in is any more real than the vindictive, jealous God of the Old Testament?
The reason why I ask all this is not only my own intellectual dissatisfaction, but also the potential dissatisfaction of others who come to this page via the God Delusion page, expecting to find a clear-cut, point-by-point rebuttal of each of Dawkins' arguments. The page, as it stands, seems to me a little evasive, pointing out the flaws in Dawkins' reasoning, but not always offering clear alternatives. If the book itself is not this evasive, then the summary of the book should be changed to reflect not only the author's criticisms of Dawkins' reasoning, but also the alternatives that he proposes. On the other hand, if the book is in fact as evasive as the article suggests, then the places where Dawkins' arguments are not directly addressed should be clearly marked. This will help greatly, not only in satisfying readers who want a full view of this book's relation to The God Delusion, but also in making this article more unbiased. --Siva 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Above where? I don't quite see where this is addressed.--Siva 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Siva. If there is consensus that we should include such points I will try to do so. At present if I do some other Editors will delete them as OR. I could try to post something off-Wiki and link to it if there was a consensus on that. NBeale 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability and article length
Is The Dawkins Delusion? notable? For me, the controversy herein boils down to that question. If it's notable, then an article summarizing the contents seems in order. It it's not, then the article itself doesn't belong here. Having reread WP:BK, I think the verdict is out. Among the "threshold standards" is that the book be cataloged in the British Library. Not yet, though many of McGrath's books are indeed found there--so perhaps that will as yet happen.
Beyond that, WP:PK provides these guidelines:
- A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
- 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
- The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
- 2. The book has won a major literary award.
- 3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
- 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
- 5. The book's author is historically significant enough for his or her works to be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.
Has the book met any of the above? Will it in time? In particular, I'm interested in whether the publisher blurbs, which really have no place here (see #1), will give way to legitimate book reviews. If so, I think this article belongs here and its appropriate length a matter of discussion. If not, then the article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Time will tell.--Barte 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm - in light of that, should we have the blurbs at all? They won't stay, once there are real reviews, and in the meantime they are little more than an advertisement for the book. Guettarda 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)