Talk:Darwin's Angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Balancing the Reviews of Darwin's Angel ?

It reads like Christopher Howse is attempting to paint Dawkins as a antisemitic and The Times review by Salley Vickers I feel is misfiled in the "non-Fiction section". Remember Darwin's Angel is about letters from an imaginary angel of Darwin who now watches over Dawkins !. Both reviews use the Darwin's Angel book as a soapbox for their own thinly veiled attacks against Dawkins. These reviews are partisan as they are unbalanced. Ttiotsw 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Telegraph article by Howse is not really a review of Cornwell's book at all. (I haven't looked at the Vickers one.) But why does this book need an article in Wikipedia? We do not need an article about every non-notable book published. Of course, it is here because it provides another opportunity for some Dawkins-bashing. Once I find the energy I will file an AfD. Snalwibma 07:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, NBeale still has a lot of work to do! You'd better find some new source of energy :) --Merzul 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins responding to this book?

Well, this might add some notability... --Merzul 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, now Wikipedia is an extension of my blog too... --Merzul 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, I don't know why I wasted my time on this... I would support deleting the entire article. At least I'm glad I now have some insight into the quality of these rebuttals. The Dostoyevski bit is especially embarrassing... --Merzul 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Dawkins's response takes the form of debatable quibbles at four or five minor points that Cornwell makes, eg where Dawkins says his words were meant ironically and Cornwell takes them literally. And as for complaining that one suggestion of Cornwell's is "offensive", (and his "why be sarcastic")- that's a bit rich coming from Dawkins! NBeale 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, are talk pages exempt from the soapbox rules? Sorry, I thought they were strictly about how to improve the article. Well, given that I was mistaken, I'll respond to you: whether Dawkins is ironic or literal is pretty damn important! So is "offensive" - it's the equivalent in the real world of Wikipedia's NPA principle. His point is it's allow a load of quote-mining/straw-men attacking. However, I digress - I've just remembered talk pages are just for how to improve the article. My bad. Yours too though. Snalwibma was right - you did make this article with some soapboxing on mind, whether or not you were planning on having it just on the talk page. Actually, come to think of it, aren't comments on stuff besides improving the article okay to just remove? Hm. Maybe I should do that. 85.92.173.186 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anon. No we don't remove material from talk pages except in the most extreme circumstances. Do sign in and get yourself a name though - it'd be great to talk to you and address your concerns. NBeale 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay, that red-hand template that makes a big deal over it I understand doesn't imply anything about counter-action. I'll think about getting a name. 85.92.173.186 07:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do get a username, you don't even need a valid e-mail to register and the IP makes you less anonymous than if you had a name. It's much easier to talk with you when you have a name.
About the comment, well NBeale is actually right, we don't remove such comments, but we should also try very hard to not feed the Beals. This is naturally very difficult, but one should try one's best to avoid responding to such trolling, perhaps ask "what is the relevance to the current article?" or something like that.
Thus, one should try to stay polite and patient, something I almost always fail at when facing the methods employed by NBeale. --Merzul 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah right. That's very informative. Thanks. 85.92.173.186 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NBeale's contributions to talk pages are like his contributions to articles. -- 71.102.136.107 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the detailed summary

Splendid work by NBeale to summarise the book. But now I think it's time to delete all this detailed chapter-by-chapter summary. It's way too much. Way over the top. Quite unnecessary. This should be an encyclopedia article about the book, not a series of extracts and personal points by one wikipedia editor designed to twist the anti-Dawkins knife at every opportunity. Ending it all with a footnote providing a link to the text of George Herbert's terrific but irrelevant sonnet is especially telling, revealing that the summary is more of a sermon by NBeale than an honest attempt to describe the book and place it in an encyclopedic context. Replace the lot with a three-line summary. Snalwibma 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The book ends with the sonnet, quoted in full, and the full quote from Lee S. You may think the book is a sermon from John Cornwell (after all TGD was described in Nature as a "sermon") but it is certainly not a sermon from me! I have actually left out 90% of the digs at Dawkins that Cornwell makes (eg "I am now the Guardian Angel of that brilliant expositor of popular zoology, Richard Dawkins, whom I strive to take as seriously as he does himself"). NBeale 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, trimming it down would be doing the book a favour. As the article currently stands, spelling out the book's central arguments (or, at least, one interpretation of them) doesn't do it any favours at all. Or was that the idea? Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of attempts to summarise books in this way for Wikipedia - there's just too much scope for inserting a POV. Especially where a book doesn't achieve a wide audience and balancing edits are unlikely (which may/may not apply to this title; it's too early to tell). As an aside, only one of the external "reviews/commentary" actually discusses the book at any length - the other two are more or less opinion pieces/blogs that merely shuffle in Cornwell briefly. Presumably there'll be more detailed reviews/discussions in the pipeline? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow - if we can't hide the book from WikiPedians by getting the article deleted (without notifying the originator of the article BTW) let's at least make sure that they can't find out what the book actually says. If they were exposed to the arguments actually used, perhaps their faith in The Great Dawkins would be shaken. And that will never do. While we're at it shall we reduce The God Delusion summary to 3 lines as well?? Alternatively we could keep the carefully refrenced facts in, and let people make up their own minds. NBeale 09:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we discuss this, instead of just trading insults? I am trying to express a sense of unease about the way the article is structured, and about its tone and the impression of POV-pushing. I thought a couple of days ago (and in essence I still feel, though I am open to persuasion - which is why I filed the AfD) that the book is too trivial to require an article all to itself. Given the way things are going on the AfD debate, and the likelihood of it ending with a "keep", I want to do my best to help towards a reasonable article, in proportion to the subject's importance. I don't know what is best, but I do know that I find the present article unsatisfactory, for the reasons I have tried to express. It's not about hiding anything, or anything resembling alleged Dawkins-worship, but about producing balanced, well-written, accurate and fair encyclopedia artcles. And yes, I do think reducing the article about The God Delusion to a three-line summary and brief review of critical reception would be a good idea! Let's have fewer "well-referenced facts" and more balanced reporting. Snalwibma 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No NBeale can't discuss anything without including insults -- he's on a mission from god. -- 71.102.136.107 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) Actually, I think that The God Delusion was where things began to go wrong. What on earth does a summary of a 400 page book achieve? When I look at NBeale's brave attempt at a summary here, I just get the impression that Cornwell has no clue what he is talking about. Probably, neither NBeale nor Cornwell is to blame for this, rather it is the very idea of summarizing a book with one sentence per chapter that is at fault. If NBeale really thinks this style is good, and serves a Greater Good, then perhaps he can have it... In any case, it is hard for any of us to complain about this article when the mother article is just as bad. It's actually even worse with all the reviews.

I would suggest we go back to the God Delusion, and focus on making it an encyclopaedic article, talking a lot less about the content (which everyone should read for themselves) and a lot more about the cultural impact that it has had. It has even had severe spiritual implications for the internet and Wikipedia, as it seems to have Awoken the Cybernauts within notable members of British high society!

Anyway, once The God Delusion is encyclopaedic, one can come back and look at these flea articles, and Beale willing bring them up to the same standard. --Merzul 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. While I agree about TGD's article, you're made of much sterner stuff than me to even propose to fix its flaws. Surely a plan for getting your head bitten off (repeatedly) by "both sides" over there! I suspect the best way forwards could be to create a trimmed-down version of that article in someone's user-space, and then invite interested parties over for comments via TGD's talkpage. Before you head off in this direction, I'd just caution that the article on TGD wasn't born bloated and unwieldy, it became that way much as any article about a complex and interesting subject is liable to. Balancing the POVs of an author and his critics while trying to convey something of the book is a recipe for bloat without a very stern hand on the tiller. Anyway, by the time TGD is sorted out (as t → \infty; don't underestimate this), there should be a wider base of reviews, commentary, etc., of Darwin's Angel that this article can draw more fruitfully on. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A little thought: I am struck by the contrast between the book itself, which has been described in terms like "featherlight footwork ... deliciously wise, witty and intellectually sharp" and this bloated, overweight, clumping hob-nail-booted article about it! If only the article could reflect more of the book's spirit, it might do it a much better service. Snalwibma 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I just can't help imagining how lengthy the Wikipedia entry will be for Red versus Green: Two Philosophers, One God? ;) --Merzul 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries of chapters

Once again, I must express my opinion that summarizing each paragraph is inappropriate. It is unencyclopedic and violates WP:NOT#TEXT. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes. --Evb-wiki 15:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that there are no guidelines on what is encyclopaedic when it comes to books. See for example Night (book), which is a Featured Article, and it contains a large bit of primary source summary of the plot. So when it comes to non-narrative, argumentative books, I guess the equivalence would be to brush out the major themes?
Currently all similar books, such God Is Not Great and The Dawkins Delusion?, are summary of content type articles. --Merzul 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can't just insert an NPOV tag - you have to explain what the NPOV problem is in the talk page.

Hi Svetovid. I'm not sure you understand what NPOV means. An article about a very POV book (like TGD or DA) is NPOV if it: (a) fairly reports what the book says whilst not endorsing or otherwise the positions the book takes (eg X suggests Y rather X proves Y) and (b) fairly reports the notable comments about the book, even if these comments are POV, provided again that it does not take a positon on whether these comments are valid. You certainly don't seem to understand the policy on NPOV tags which requires that you explain specifically on the talk page why you think there is a POV problem before you insert one. NBeale 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole reason why this book is supposed to be notable are those favourable reviews, which are just basically rants with no importance or actual relevance showed. Being from mainstream newspapers may make them noteworthy but not really reliable. The chosen quotes are pure POV from your side, NBeale.
It would not be encyclopaedic and neutral to add all those well picked quotes from the back of TGD into its article. And those quotes are also from notable media and people.--Svetovid 03:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Svetovid. I don't think you understand the POV policy. It makes no difference whether the reviews are favourable or unfavourable, biased or unbiased. The fact that the book is reviewed in mentioned in Reliable Sources is what matters. The questions are: (i) does the article correctly state what the Reliable Sources say (ii) Does the article endorse, rather than report, controversial opinions. Do you dispute either (i) or (ii) and if so can you give a specific example please? NBeale 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, being published in the well-established media does not make you automatically reliable. They often publish opinions and writings from various people.--Svetovid 09:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a misunderstanding of what WP:RS is about. It doesn't say that the opinions expressed are reliable, merely that the fact that the opinions are expressed is reliably recorded. This article consistently says X "suggests" Y and does not endorse X's position at all. Accordingly it is WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.10.161 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see why you reacted thus, NBeale, but I think I agree with Svetovid. I'm not entirely sure (and underlying my uncertainty is a general one about the best way to do an article about a controversial book - see current discussion at Talk:The God Delusion), but I think the structure of the article generates an inherent POV. The article is biased in the way it uncritically repeats a selection of one-liners and hand-picked arguments from Cornwell's book, and (other than those reviews-which-aren't-really-reviews and some rather petty-sounding objections from Dawkins) does nothing to place it in context. That's why I object to the Herbert-sonnet ending, too. It's as if the reader is invited to nod approvingly to every one of Cornwell's points, and to end by singing the praises of the almighty by intoning the poem... It looks like an article whose main point is to end "Amen", not like an article describing and discussing a book. But I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on how an article like this, on a controversial book, should be structured. Snalwibma 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed complete restructuring

The problem with the article in its present form is that it is shaped so as to present a riposte to Dawkins, line by line, with apparent uncritical approval from Wikipedia. The take-home message is "Dawkins is wrong". Or maybe (taking on board the replies from Dawkins quoted a bit lower down) "Dawkins is right". But that misses the point entirely. Whatever about the quality of Cornwell's arguments, and whether Dawkins is right or wrong, the book is interesting from an encyclopedia point of view (if it is, which I still doubt, but never mind ...) not because it disproves Dawkins, but because it is part of a social phenomenon that includes a rush to publish all sorts of "ripostes" and "answers" to TGD. Not to place it in that context, and not to mention that it's one of a host of "parasite" books, is disingenuous, failing one of the key responsibilities of an encyclopedia. I suggest a radical rewrite of the article, along the lines of:

  1. DA was published in 2007, one of a number of books written by religious commentators in reply to TGD. Others include ...
  2. DA differs from some of the others in that ... [what, exactly? lightness of tone? "angel" device?]
  3. The key arguments of DA are ... [briefly!]
  4. Critical response has consisted of newspaper reviews by a number of commentators, who ...
  5. Dawkins responded with ...

Just a suggestion! Snalwibma 06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not keen on this. The "differs from" would inevitably be OR. There could be some value in a category of "criticisms of TGD". BTW The reason there are so many ripostes/responses/negative reviews is because TGD is about the same quality at The Davinci Code. Almost no serious commentators have endorsed the book as a whole. NBeale 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Trying to describe what makes DA different from the other TGD parasites would be OR. Drop that bit. But the context the book belongs to is everything, and I have inserted a couple of sentences in an attempt to place it in that context. I still have serious misgivings about the chapter-by-chapter summary. Apart from anything else, I don't think it does Cornwell any favours. BTW, if TGD is so bad, why do so many religious commentators apparently see it as such a threat, and feel the need to rush into print to condemn it? Snalwibma 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many responses to TGD because it is widely read and full of holes. Most Christians believe that, once people start thinking seriously about God, they are led to Christ. But not if they are misled by "Book of British Birds" style "philosophising". NBeale 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll eat my Sunday hat if even the most hesitant of half-believers is mislead... --Merzul 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed modification

I know; crappy title. Anyway ... I suggest that one of the following courses of action be taken:

(1) The section giving positive reviews be amended to explain that these were throwaway references to the book in longer criticisms of Dawkins rather than actual reviews. (2) Alternatively, delete it altogether.

The article has been proposed for deletion for being a soapbox about a non-notable book. I don't think the chapter summaries soapbox, so I think following one of the two actions above will destroy that concern. As for notability of the book, that wouldn't be my call. 85.92.173.186 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to avoid POV.--Svetovid 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Even better than what i came up with (nearly 2 in practice, dealing with 1 by saying too little in the title to imply inaccurate stuff). Good. 85.92.173.186 21:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No we need to let this simmer. The Anthony Kenny review is a heavyweight, far from un-critical. When there are a few more we may be able to synthesise, whilst avoiding OR. At present, within the considerable limitations of an article, it does the job required which is to give people some idea (a) what the book says (b) what reliable sources say about the book. Whether any Editor agrees with the book is irrelevant. NBeale 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there mostly, but I have something to say about the last sentence. I wish you'd stop making out that our objection is that these people are in our opinions wrong. (Maybe you thought that was the reason; I'm not sure.) Our concern was that these comments, whether they be positive or otherwise, were not of the significance accorded to them by the suggestion that they were fully fledged reviews specific to the book. Fortunately, the section in its most recent form doesn't have that problem, although you sadly have to read a comment in the history to work out which of the five quoted commentators have actually reviewed it in detail. The next step is, as you say, to find even more quotations, although I suppose when we have enough of them "comments" should either be removed or clearly demarcated. i certainly think Anthony Kenny's "far from uncritical" account should be exploited more, if we can't find anything else o balance the thumbs up that got this article nominated for deletion in the first place (besides the book being argued then to be non-notable). There is one other thing I want to pick up on. When you say we may be able to synthesis without violating OR, do you have any idea you could give us as to how that could work? (It's just that WP:SYNTH seems to trip us up.) 85.92.173.186 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I will explain my view on WP:SYNTH. You violate policy, when you combine sources to advocate a view that is not attributable to the original authors that you are citing. For example

Insane people are known to hallucinate.[1] Religious people often see visions.[2]

If you put these individually well-cited bits next to each other, you are hinting at a conclusion that the author of neither study have put their names under. However, it is perfectly fine to say something like:

Peter, John, and Paul believe that Cornwell's book is a masterpiece.[1][2][3].

There is still a difficult issue here, because in some sense, every synthesis involves a new and unsourced observation. Here, it is the claim that three people have said similar things, this is not always obvious, so when are we crossing the border between a fair summary based on different sources, and synthesis a "serving to advance a position"? I have only two heuristics for this, so when using a source, I ask myself:

  1. Would any of the cited sources (assuming it were a person) object to how I have used it?
  2. Would any other editor, say they have an opposing POV, object to my use of these sources?

In the end, it is not a clear-cut issue, so the talk pages are here for precisely this reason, to sort out these borderline cases. --Merzul 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new section to the article

While we have a legitimate section on how Dawkins responded to Cornwell, it occurred to me it should be okay also to have a section of counterarguments to Cornwell Dawkins gave before Darwin's Angel was written - after all, we're already including ones from after. Darwin's Angel is typical in "responding" to Dawkins in part by repeating arguments he's already answered without discussing what he said on the matter. I've kept it as neutral as possible by using "addressed" rather "answered" etc. I'm not very good with citing things because i haven't got the hang of the code, but I pointed to specific parts of Dawkins's written work where I could; furthermore, I can give anyone links on request to sites we can cite on the makes-people-satisfied bits and for the Galapagos bit (Youtube for the latter sadly), and I hope this section will be allowed to stay. I sincerely believe it is consistent with the cardinal pillars. 85.92.173.186 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon. I'm sorry this whole section is WP:OR and un-refed (and alas rather confused as well, but that's a separate issue. You really should get an ID and demonstrate some understanding of WP policies before you start editing articles. NBeale 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with NBeale. Sorry, but it's a clear breach of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and probably WP:SYNTH as well. Its sole purpose seems to be to push the anti-Cornwell and pro-Dawkins line. No more legitimate than including a section in the article on The God Delusion consisting of selected quotations from the Bible which appear to contradict and thereby "disprove" various comments by Dawkins. Snalwibma 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Since what I'm about to say may be unwelcome enough as it is, in volume as much as anything, I'll break it up bit by bit to be helpful.

(1)I'd love to know how it's confused. No, really, I would. I can imagine that being true of a point or two, but enough to justify deleting the article? You'll need to fill me in on that one.

(2)Please stop asking me to get an ID at every opportunity - it really doesn't have anything to do with this.

(3)I do not agree with either of you on this. If you think I lack the understanding of policies needed to edit articles, could you at least wait until I state my reasons for thinking what i did fits them before you insist I "don't understand" (i.e. you're right I'm wrong)? I notice you also ask for demonstration. well, I can only demonstrate the way I get them, e.g. by telling you said logic. I'll do that now if that's okay, because what's "clearly" the case to Snalwibma is not clear to me.

(4)It is a demonstrable fact that the arguments I referred to described in the chapter summaries really are ones Dawkins mentions and gives his own answers to in TGD. Although I didn't include web-citations or quotations to prove this, I told you where in the book it is, and if you'd like specific page/paragraph/line numbers then I could go to those lengths. Therefore, it doesn't violate OR or citation rules.

(5)As for NPOV, why is stating facts about how Dawkins responded to these arguments BEFORE Cornwell used them wrong, when it's okay to state facts about how he responded AFTER? It doesn't violate NPOV to say "Dawkins has heard that argument before, here's what he says". If I'd said he "answered" these arguments rather than saying he "addressed" them, that WOULD be pro-Dawkins, but I didn't.

(6)As for WP:SYNTH, what you must mean is that I'm describing relationships between a book and a response issued to it, and that seems about as unable to violate WP:SYNTH as it can get, because it's perfectly okay to say which arguments Cornwell responds to, so it should be okay to do it the other way round.

(7)I understand the "sole purpose seems to be" comment, but I sincerely deny that that impression is accurate. My aim was to show where Cornwell has or has not said something to which Dawkins has failed to muster a reply.

(8) Your bible comparison is unfair. The Bible, if it anticipates anything, anticipates assertions, not attempts to analyse how well arguments hold together. On the other hand, the bible stuff you suggested is effectively already done wherever we say what Dawkins disagrees with in the Bible - because disagreement is by definition mutual. On the other hand, whether X responds to Y is NOT a reversible relationship between disagreeing positions/arguments.

That's why I don't accept your arguments yet. Maybe that can change. For one thing, maybe by wikilawyering you can persuade me that these policies have clauses I'd not considered, e.g. "oh btw it's not okay to put two works together even to show that one makes a counterargument to an argument the other later uses, even though you can say X makes a counterargument to Y that came before it". Or, perhaps a less facetious example: "Explicit reference to a work is necessary in anything cited as giving a counterargument rather than explicit reference to an argument itself, so TGD can't reply to anything published after it". if anything like these, or something else that makes my edits illegal, then I suppose rules are rules, "ignore all rules" notwithstanding. Oh btw while we're on this, I understand NBeale not only believing i haven't read pillar articles but also believing i should before performing edits, but Wikipedia itself says that's unnecessary. You know - bold edits, learn as you go along et al.

Oh - this might not be the time to bring it up, but for those who are worried about my Gödel stuff being unverifiable, I as an expert on the incompleteness theorems as well as their proofs could try looking up a citation about the whole relative vs absolute thing, if that would help to allow me to put it back up without another revert.

Since I live in the UK, I'm going to sleep now, so understand I won't be replying to anything you add for a while. 85.92.173.186 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon (may I call you 85?) - please don't associate me with any comments to the effect that (a) you should get an ID, (b) your arguments are confused, (c) you should study the WP policies more closely before you dare edit an article. I agree with NBeale's comment only insofar as it relates to the appropriateness of the section you added. I think it's synthesis and original research precisely because it reverses the chronology. It's fair enough to report that A specifically responded to B with points X, Y, Z. That's a simple statement of fact. But I don't think it's fair to go digging in A's pre-B writings to show how A can be interpreted as responding to B because his point X provides a counterargument to XX. I think that's what your new section amounts to, and (however much I might agree with you that Dawkins' arguments are strong and Cornwell's are weak), I think it's stretching things too far, and looks too much like POV-pushing, and is too open to attack as unverifiable editorialising. My opinion is not based on careful study of the WP policies or wikilegalising (like you, I am woefully ignorant, and I have better things to do with my time than to read all that stuff...) - I am simply reporting my gut feeling that it just doesn't look or feel right, and I feel it's "clearly" in breach of what I see as the spirit of those policies. You're right, though - my bible analogy wasn't very apt. Snalwibma 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I know which of NBeale's statements you supported. That's the nice comment herein. The rest isn't. (Sorry Snalwibma.) You haven't responded to my arguments. Given that anyone can prove by looking at the relevant sections of TGD that Dawkins has encountered certain arguments, sees them as popular and worthy of attention, and has something to say about them is enough. Let me put it like this: if one of these arguments had its own article, you could there say Dawkins said such-and-such in TGD, after which Cornwell repeated the argument in DA. On the other hand, you seem to think that an article on DA is not a place to mention that, even though DA uses them. What "feels" right is irrelevant - it shouldn't be how an encyclopaedia is written. You admit you can't actually give a reason yet - you just repeat the view I've responded to. Ironically, that's like Cornwell. It's not unverifiable editorialising. Editorialising? Saying what Dawkins said? So what? As NPOV says, let the facts speak for themselves. Unverifiable? What, do you want TGD online so you don't have to turn the pages? You may feel it's clearly in breach of the policies' spirit, but i don't, simply because the policies support inclusions such that we have a double standard in excluding my stuff. There's no "interpretation" in the section I included. Maybe the title needs work, but that's about it. The very fact that you admit the bible analogy wasn't apt is presumably because you appreciate my distinction between disagreement and responses, and if that's the case, how can you then say that it's not a clear fact that Dawkins has responded to these arguments in the past? It makes no real sense to me. 85.92.173.186 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, 85, let's try again to work it out and express why I really don't think your insertion is a good idea (feeling my way, not being dogmatic...). This is an article about DA, not about Dawkins' arguments and whether either Dawkins or Cornwell is right or wrong. The starting point for the article is the publication of a book called Darwin's Angel. Its purpose is to describe the book, its reception, etc. Whatever Dawkins or anyone else says explcitly about DA or in reaction to DA is fair enough to report, but you cannot dig back into what Dawkins or anyone else said before DA was published and present it as a counter-argument to what is said in DA. As soon as you do that you are engaging in original research, synthesising comments from sources which do not belong together in that way, in this article, about this book, and it looks as if you are trying to prove a point (POV-pushing). The arguments in TGD were made before DA was published, and therefore cannot have been made specifically about DA or its content. Yes, if any specific argument or line of reasoning had its own article devoted to it, it would be quite fair to report different approaches to that argument, regardless of when they were made. But not in this article. They are not about DA, and do not belong in an article about DA. There might be a way of building some such stuff in as "background", but I think you should then quote pre-DA stuff from Dawkins only if it is explcitly referenced by Cornwell in DA. Incidentally, it is for much the same reason that I object (above) to the inclusion of an extended quote from George Herbert in what purports to be a summary of DA. Sure, Cornwell quotes the entire poem - but I think it is misappropriated here as a prop to a one-sided POV-pushing presentation of the book's contents. Snalwibma 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd rather not be addressed by a nickname at all. Hi Snalwibma, thank you for your lack of dogmatism - maybe I can influence you.

Anyway, this article is in any functional sense about more than the book, as all articles about a book. Every "about" point you make above is harmed by that. It's about the relationships between its content and other work's content. That's why reviews get quoted, and why Dawkins gets quoted as well. I wish you would not just repeat your old "can't do that" statements without something knew. Why can't provably true statements that are blatantly relevant be included? It's relevant that certain repetitions have occurred.

It's not original research or synthesis because it really is possible to see, by looking at the places my references point to, that that's what actually happened. I'm not pushing a POV. I'm included relevant stuff.

As for your poem example, there's a difference. "Cornwell agreed with this poem; let's hear it again" redoubles Cornwell's views. "Cornwell said something Dawkins said X about (rightly or wrongly)" actually serves by contrast to give useful information about the history of certain disagreements.

Are you saying that no article should ever say why arguments are contentious except for articles about those arguments? If that made sense, saying what scientists' problem with creationists' 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics argument would be inappropriate on anything other than an article dedicated explicitly to that argument. Does that make sense? No. Your suggested compartmentalisation of topics only makes sense if an article's title is taken as the literal limits of the article's topic. If that were the case, all you could include about DA is a definition of what it is: a late 2007 book by Cornwell. But no, that's not right, we can put it in to context, fill out the details. An article on thermodynamics is "about" thermodynamics, but that doesn't mean you mustn't mention Kelvin's involvement in its development. The list is endless. The conclusion is simple. Titles only define articles to an extent.

You have still to give me an actual reason why the arguments I presented above are inaccurate portrayals of the rules or their spirit. All you've ever done is insist so, then get an argument rather than a statement back. You can understand why I would prefer things otherwise. 85.92.173.186 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to step back from this discussion, and wait to see if anyone else has anything to say on the matter! Snalwibma 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line here is (as Snalwibma says above) "This is an article about [the book], not about Dawkins' arguments and whether either Dawkins or Cornwell is right or wrong." Anything that is not about the book itself should not be included in the article. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I already explained why that kind of compartmentalisation is not consistent with how we run this encyclopaedia. Because you don't give an argument, you remind me of what Robert Green Ingersoll said about William Jennings Bryan: He talks, but he does not think. 85.92.173.186 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks suspiciously like a personal attack to me. --Evb-wiki 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about not responding for ten minutes - I was called away. Now, I admit I can understand why you took that personally. I made a similar inference about Nick mallory in the AfD discussion. I tried to give every explanation as to why the parallel was appropriate, rather than just accuse you without evidence. Besides, I prefer to assume an explanation in terms of no thought to one in terms of harsh thought - according to Wikipedia I should. Maybe in saying it I crossed a line. Maybe, maybe not. I believe I didn't, whereas it looked suspiciously to you like i did. If you went so far as to be hurt, that is regretful. However, I have one question: where's an explanation as to why my arguments don't work? I don't mind you saying I may have said something unpleasant, but it would have been nice for you to prove my suspicions to be as wrong as they were unwelcome simply by also giving a response to any of my arguments. You now look even less likely to be able to do that than you did before. This is not how discussions should be conducted. Give me an argument! 85.92.173.186 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Merely because I agree with an argument already presented, does not mean I have not, or cannot, think. You've already registered your disagreement with that argument. You have not defeated it. And I do not agree with your preception of "how we run this encyclopaedia." The articles are not academic discussions, they are presentations of factual content and should remain focussed of the individual subjects of the articles. Feel free to continue to disagree. --Evb-wiki 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, when i said it gave evidence that you weren't coming up with something, that was because i felt I *had* defeated it. Of course it's about the book enough to go in. A book about a second book has many chapters that split approximately 50-50 regarding whether or not they repeat arguments the second book attempts to take on. That's as much "about" the first book as is what arguments it makes, or what counterarguments (if any) it makes to the second book, or what a reviewer says about it, or how the author of the second book replies to a book in which he hears these arguments yet again, whether or not he points out he's heard it before. If you don't agree with me on how the encyclopaedia is in fact run, I direct you to look at all that stuff in the rules about letting the facts speak for themselves, or the fact that many of our articles (I gave an example above) rightly say how some people have reacted to certain arguments used by whatever the article's title names, be it Darwin's Angel, creationism, or whatever. The thermodynamics example is something else to discuss, but that's a tangent. If you think I've not defeated the argument, prove it by countering my counterargument. You haven't. Now, I am perfectly aware that we present facts, not academic discussions - but what I put in the article WAS fact. Every single one of them was not only a fact, but a cited fact. So, I don't disagree with your penultimate sentence. (It felt like a straw man, but I'll assume you didn't know it misrepresented my feelings.) If your last sentence referred to other stuff, you know what I have said. If I give a counterargument, you should "set me straight". Either do it or do what Snalwibma did, which is to step aside. 85.92.173.186 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking my wikibreak for the night. 85.92.173.186 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Snalwibma, particularly his point that this is an article about DA, not a forum. The problem is not that Dawkins' previous writing have been mustered to refute Cornwell. Rather it is that you are the one doing the mustering. That privilege belongs to Dawkins or a notable third-party, preferably writing in a notable publication. To be a pundit on Wikipedia, that's the price of entry.Barte 04:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how that makes any sense. It's not as if the section I wrote does more than to list citable properties of a book. Are you saying that specific collections of facts people who have read a book are aware of cannot originate on Wikipedia? That would imply that the gradual addition of various points to articles should be prohibited, because they together accumulate to an original combination. This doesn't make any sense. Either prove the citations to be illusory, or admit I was not doing anything forum-like in the article. Have you even read said section? It seems pretty irrefutable in terms of its citation backing. 85.92.173.186 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You ask "Are you saying that specific collections of facts people who have read a book are aware of cannot originate on Wikipedia?" Yup, I think that's about it - that is what is meant by WP:SYNTH. Snalwibma 07:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back to the topic, but I have one thing to add to your comment: No it's not. WP:SYNTH is more specific than that. Take a look at any Wikipedia article whatsoever on any topic where, be it due to multiple editors or otherwise, more than one source is used to obtain the facts that the article uses. That would be most if not all of those that do any citing whatsoever. Clearly WP:SYNTH isn't against that. WP:SYNTH is only against bringing together multiple comments from sources designed by their authors to serve very different purposes. That's why combining two different lawyers' comments on a matter to say something neither had twigged is the prime example on the WP:NOR page under SYNTH. It's quite clear that that has nothing to do with combining two books, one of which is a response to the other. Cornwell says this, Dawkins had a response which may or may not be good but was given, ironically enough that response was in the one book most connected to Darwin's Angel, end of. You're really not taking in to account how big the implications of our own idea about what WP:SYNTH means would be. 85.92.173.186 08:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) This will be my final comment on this matter: You say that WP:SYNTH is only against bringing together multiple comments from sources designed by their authors to serve very different purposes. Spot on. The God Delusion was not written with the purpose of arguing against Darwin's Angel. End of. Snalwibma 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but it was written with the purpose of discussing the same topic, and coming to conclusions regarding whether certain arguments - the same arguments as half of DA's chapters - made sense, and that's why it's representative of the views of Dawkins himself. Combining two lawyers' comments in the way reviewed in the SYNTH section does something very different. That's why your final comment on the matter does not prove stuff. Now Snalwibma is gone (he might never read this), maybe someone else can finish the wikilawyering he started. Showing the exact wording of the rules trips me up speaks volumes to me. Instead, we are getting nowhere here. 85.92.173.186 09:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to resolve. But do think the consensus here is that the section (yes, I read it too) violates WP:SYNTH.Barte 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barte, I agree with your assessment on the consensus here. I also agree that the proposed section violates WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, of course, because consensus is a good enough argument alone, isn't it? Sorry, too much sarcasm. Well, since you have read (so thumbs up there) it that just leaves the question as to what WP:SYNTH says. Well, here's a new argument about that. Since no-one was quoting policies to explain to me why I'm oh so wrong (sorry, too much sarcasm again), I decided to give doing it myself a try. There is one and only one to break WP:SYNTH (if you don't believe me you can look), and the following summarises it (the application of bold being mine: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." In other words, you have to infer something from two different sources. I never inferred anything. I showed that Cornwell said some stuff Dawkins had said some specific stuff about. One might infer various things from this, e.g. Cornwell should have replied, or Dawkins has some good points, but it's not like I said any of that stuff. "Dawkins has not been silent" is not an inference, or a position. People might draw positions from these facts, but they're just as free to make a pro-Cornwell conclusion by consideration of Dawkins not answering the other chapters as they are to make a pro-Dawkins conclusion by consideration of Dawkins answering these ones. Just as free, no more, no less. WP:SYNTH is very clear on this: only an attempt to advance a position is a exploitation of multiple sources. As I said before, some combining of sources has to be legitimate, because any article at all that used two different cited sources in the same section does that. Therefore, we have to base our understanding of WP:SYNTH on its actual own statement of when it forbids things. There it is for you. Where does any other understanding actually come from? 85.92.173.186 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking yet another wikibreak. I won't be back until Thursday because I figured a birthday isn't worth spending writing arguments on a talk page. No offence to anyone there. 85.92.173.186 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

During the past week there have been edits by numerous users of both the article and its talk page, and the latter has gained even a new section. However, ‘’this’’ section has not been edited at all since my last two posts, suggesting that the argument given in the first of them – one which, unlike all previous arguments used by any of us, actually cited the Wikipedia policies to prove its case – has proven to be unobjectionable to the community. I waited a week to see what would happen, as I know from experience that, if you do that, it really is a good sign of consensus. Thus, I will restore the two sections. Indeed, the one on Gödel’s theorem never had a single argument for its removal given. As an expert on Gödel’s theorem, I can confirm there is no original research there. I have already demonstrated that all proposed problems with the two sections are an illusion. Thank you. 85.92.173.186 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, no - actually nobody agrees with you. The consensus is quite clear: no such additions! Snalwibma 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And (just pointing out the seemingly obvious) as you are an anonymous contributor, your claim to be an expert on Gödel’s theorem is unverifiable.Barte 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Hardyplants's edit summary for the article, when I have actually shown what OR and SYNTH really say and explained the implications words like "position" seem to have, simply saying it IS OR and SYNTH is not an argument. In any case, he creates a straw man of me: my section in no way makes claims of the form "Dawkins would say this". I merely give citations to prove that Dawkins refers to arguments Cornwell recycles in as close to half of his chapters as could be with 21 of them, which just goes to show how inconclusive a point it is. How anyone can think this overly illustrates one side is beyond me. A section saying something that at most implies some form of supremacy by one author in almost exactly of all cases by definition does not advance anything. May I ask the community why no one has yet explained what is objectionable about the Gödel's theorem section, or why they consider it objectionable? People seem to just want to remove that along with the other section while only even trying a defense of the former policy. Fact: Gödel's theorem doesn't prove there must be unexplainable truths, only that there will be unexplainable ones relative to a given context. Fact: Cornwell's misapplication is nothing new. fact: Dawkins has never even taken a position on this matter, but Cornwell says he took position X while also saying X is wrong. What's NOT a fact there? Now, Snalwibma, my reason for thinking a consensus change had occurred was because it was the most charitable explanation I could muster for why no-one had been critical in a month. If the truth is they just couldn't be bothered to defend their view further, that can either come out now or be taken on trust on the grounds that it's true of you. Maybe, now just maybe, my experientially developed methods for sensing consensus were wrong as a result of undue charitability. I'm not going to attempt a discussion on that matter: I'd rather keep on topic. Now, while we are all suddenly back here, someone please explain where my argument from the 18th fails to work its magic. Before I sign this comment, I'd like to say one last thing: arguments over numbers is only the Wikipedia priority it seems in AfD discussions. With sections for resurrection discussions, all of a sudden we substitute actually listening to what the policies say for counting heads. That's weird. 85.92.173.186 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, hold the phones - I've had a thought. People have wanted the chapter summary sledgehammered for a while, but no-one's had a bash at it. I'll try just that. It might make for an effective compromise - namely, you keep these hated sections down, but I fulfil a long-called-for rôle. While I don't think my previous contributions pushed the pro-Dawkins agenda, I would half-happily take a better balance on the amount of time dedicated to different expositions through deletion as a substitution for doing the same thing through expansion, if any effort of the latter sort will be automatically reverted by the mass. So don't bother responding to that message above - I'll shortly be showing my go at the aforementioned other job. 85.92.173.186 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

We can remove the NPOV tag once no dispute exists. Does anyone still think the neutrality needs work? I'm a fence-sitter. Now the article has been saved from deletion, this is the next significant issue. 85.92.173.186 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...as long as the "reviews and comments" section is not full of selected quotes inserting strong POV.--Svetovid 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Svetovid, your recent removal of those quotations is at least the second time it's been done. I can't remember who did it before. It was reverted, but I don't recall a consensus on the talk page that backed said revert. I have a suspicion that, if it were discussed at length, it would actually be decided to keep that stuff out. I would second that. For one thing, if the now minimalist article maintained its current form, no-one could call the article non-neutral. I still think that letting the facts speak for themselves defends the stance I take in section 8 above, but that's another story. I'm not too sure if it's unfair to summarise NPOV as "don't make it too easy for people reading the article on trust to agree afterwards about the sociological controversy", but I think that captures the basic reason a lot of NPOV points are called. It is an argument that is always available to make - fallacious or not - whenever other "it's not neutral" arguments are. I think it's a factor in section 8. I disagree with the reasons I give therein, so I don't automatically side with such logic. On the other hand, the reason I am against these long reviews is something along the lines of the one you give in section 10 - it sells the reviews as perhaps more positive than they are. I hate quote mining enough to only make brief quotations when it seems absurd that they could be thought unrepresentative by someone who has read the whole thing. Or something like that. In other words, I'm with you, but I cannot speak for others. That might be quite cool, but I just can't. 85.92.173.186 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and comments

As written in my edit, selected "marketing" quotes are unacceptable if we want to avoid a strong POV inserted by editor(s) (so far by NBeale).
One of the many examples is quoting Peter Stanford: "In the meantime, Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective," while avoiding sentences like: "Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach. And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts. The basic premise that has dominated our world since the scientific enlightenment is that unless you can put something under a microscope and prove it is what it says it is, you can't believe in it. Religion fails utterly this test."
Anybody interested in those reviews and comments can follow the links so they won't miss anything.--Svetovid 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's try to find better short summaries of the reviews. I recommend you start with Anthony Kenny's becasue he is by far the most distinguished and his is probably the least favourable. But we have to be careful not to expand the reviews too much, and if people want the details they can click on the links. It is however ludicrous to give more space to a short letter from Dawkins to the Independent than to a review by arguably the country's leading philosopher. And I think the summaries given are pretty fair represenations of the thrust of the reviews. Remember, it is not POV to give summaries of POV reviews, provided we don't endorse them. NBeale 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for suggesting in an edit summary that you were not discussing, NBeale - a simple mis-timing! Anyway... I absolutely disgaree with you on this one. It is surely entirely appropriate to give more space to a reply from the man who is criticised in person, line by line, in Darwin's Angel, than to any review, no matter how distinguished the reviewer! My main problem with the reviews, however, is that I don't think most of them are really reviews at all. They are just opinion pieces, using the publication of DA as an opportunity to indulge in more Dawkins-bashing. I do think a summary that includes the "featherlight footwork" comment and the remark about taping DA to TGD would be good, but I don't think it's right to indulge these "reviews" with a mini-paragraph each. Snalwibma 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm won over by Snalwibma's comment on who is most significant. Now, on to the next question: how much should we quote these descriptions, of varying degrees of dubiousness as we have often noted? Erm ... I think my answer would be to use quotations only when they're really needed, which means when it's hard to summarise a review. On that basis, i would propose - hate it if you must - that we say "these guys liked it" (that's it), "this guy is ambivalent; on the one hand he says this but on the other that". Dawkins is a special case precisely because, as Snalwibma points out, anything he says about it is what he says about a personal attack on him. An article about a personal attack, on attack on person's arguments or whatever, probably warrants that guy being quoted at reasonable length on precisely why he thinks it is unfair, fair or a bit of both. I think that, since we don't want to go OTT in quoting as Snalwibma points out, that is the most sensible way of being selective in what quotations we use. 85.92.173.186 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've trimed some of the reviews but give due weight to Kenny, and tidied up Dawkins's response. We do need to give people some idea what the line is from the reviewers, and also the "Dawkins Response" was not NPOV. By all means add to it a bit if we need more. Apart from anything else, the article was extensively reviewed in the AfD debate with these reviews is, and it would be wrong to take them out afterwards. NBeale 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the AfD debate was (or should have been) concerned solely with the question of whether there should be an article on Darwin's Angel. It had nothing to do with what should be in the article, and the state of the article at the time of the debate has no bearing on how it should it develop! Having said that, the "reviews" section is looking a little more reasonable now... Snalwibma 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of reverting going on... FWIW, I think the current version, as in this edit, is about right. It has enough detail to make sense; it balances Stanford's comment with Dawkins' reply; it has Kenny being rude about both Cornwell and Dawkins! Snalwibma 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma - I agree - Though Kenny isn't exactly being rude but I know what you mean :-). And I think with that we can remove the PoV tag, since something that satisfies both of us, who come from very different PoVs on this, is probably NPOV NBeale 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, fair enough as far as I'm concerned. I still think the long chapter-by-chapter summary needs attention (to cut it down dramatically), but I'm not going to insist on a POV tag. Snalwibma 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No justification for 2nd POV tag

We reached a hard-won consenus that the POV tag be removed. It has now been inserted on the views and comments section without any stated justification. And if the whole article is NPOV I don't see how the summary of the reviews/comments in the media can be. Unless there is a proper justification for that tag it should be removed. What do people think? NBeale 06:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NBeale (though I promise not to make a habit of it!). The "reviews and comments" section is actually pretty well balanced. The "summary" section, on the other hand... Snalwibma 07:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we are going to have the POV tag up, I think it best to adjust the review to reflect the justification for the tag:
  • Anthony Kenny in The Tablet wrote that Cornwell adopts the attitude of a rooftop sniper, watching for some particularly implausible or outrageous claim made by Dawkins, like Dawkins absurd claim that Mendal only became a Monk so he had a comfortable billet to study his peas. He says that Dawkins' "memes" are mythical entities begotten of false analogies and that Dawkins "offers no argument for his claim that what is complex must be explained by something of at least equal complexity". "Cornwell scores telling points" against Dawkins.[1] Hardyplants 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-writing the summary section

I'm not against this being re-written somewhat, but Anon's attempted re-write simply made it content-free. The summary should in my view give a reasonable idea of the arguments that Cornwell makes, without of course taking any position on whether they are valid or not, and should also try to cross-link to any significant people that he suggests are relevant to the discussion. One of the joys of WikiPedia is that you can move from Dawkins to George Herbert or Rahner in 3 clicks. Personally, although I think this is an interesting book, I don't think it's worth a mass of additional work on this article, which seems to me in pretty good shape unless there are some more notable reviews. But if there are changes they should be improvements that actually add to the richness of WikiPedia. NBeale 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with the summary in its present form is precisely that it does allow a move from Dawkins to Herbert in three steps! That surely constitutes OR and SYNTH. It's as if NBeale is trying (through Cornwell, and yes, I acknowledge that Cornwell does himself quote the poem in full) to put a lid on Dawkins, rather in the style of Herbert's voice of calm, by "bringing the reader back home to God", or something like that. What NBeale describes as the "joy of Wikipedia" sounds to me like a delight in the fact that you can use the encyclopedia ever-so-subtly for pushing your point of view! I agree with NBeale that "this is an interesting book", but I also agree with him when he says it's "not worth a mass of additional work on this article". The bottom line is that the summary is out of proportion. It does need to be shortened, and needs to have the calm certainty and sermonising taken out of it, reducing it to a simple summary of (three of four of?) Cornwell's main points. My problem is that I have never actually seen a copy of the book! Snalwibma 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, while my first go at this didn't meet with approval, I will try again. Before I do, however, I want to see what people actually think should be done. Perhaps the next port of call is to dispense with a go at a chapter summary, by simply mentioning a few of Cornwell's arguments/assertions (I wish there was a collective term fir them, because using one over the other may itself POV-push). The alternative seems to be rather bad, namely cutting out some of the chapters, which will just look really stupid. 85.92.173.186 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Snalwibma. What I mean is the fact that a user, if they want to, can click on a Dawkins article and get Darwin's Angel and then click on that and go to Herbert, James, Durkheim, Weil, Buber, Rahner, Steiner, Blake, Arnold, T.S. Eliot, Lewis (at least some of whom they may never have heard of) is certainly not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR! So by all means take out the "calm certainty" and "sermonising" if you don't destroy Cornwall's principal arguments and the WikiLinks. I don't personally think this is worth the effort (does it really matter if the summary is a bit too long?) but if someone wants to try I'll be happy to keep an eye on the process. Hi Anon, "suggestions" is the word you might be looking for. Have you got a copy of the book BTW? NBeale 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi NBeale, well I'm not so worried about the length of the summary as such, I believe a summary of a book should present the books at its best so to say, so I would trust your judgment on this. (Personally, I don't think these short summaries do justice to argumentative works, because the context of an argument is lost, and so it becomes much weaker than the original.) On the other hand, the certainty or sermonizing... I don't find it so annoying. It would be tedious to insert "suggests" and "argues" at each sentence, we shouldn't assume the reader doesn't understand what is Cornwall's opinion and what is The Truth ;)
Snalwibma, do you find the tone unencyclopaedic, or what is the concern? --Merzul 12:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, NBeale and Merzul. I actually find it rather hard to put my finger on precisely what bothers me here. That (and the fact that I don't have the book!) is what has prevented me from taking a hatchet to the summary previously. I think my objection is based on what I see as an attempt to list "21 reasons why you shouldn't believe what Dawkins says", with what looks like wiki-approval, as if 21 reasons is 21 times as good as one reason, seven times as convincing as three reasons, etc. And somehow the Herbert ending puts the lid on it - it's as if you/we/Cornwell/wikipedia (and it's not quite clear who is doing it, which is part of the problem) is saying "there has in fact been no advance since George Herbert, 350 years ago", and so that's that. Ignore Dawkins, ignore the substance of the argument, don't think about it, just admire this wonderful poem [and yes, it is a wonderful poem] and glorify god! I suspect Cornwell is trying some such "trick" (though I refer you to my earlier remarks about not having a copy...), and it certainly looks to me as if the wiki article is engaged in such a subterfuge. In the light of that ending, I read the whole of the chapter-by-chapter summary as a similar attempt to gently push the reader. Some of it, frankly, is utterly trite and pointless (e.g. ch 17: "there is far more to morality than the simple points discussed"), and some of it sounds merely petty (e.g. ch 11, "Dawkins relies on a single source") - and again pointless - unless of course the whole point of the article is to ram home the message, 21 times, that "Dawkins is wrong". I'm not being dogmatic about this, I am not "defending" Dawkins at all costs (I never have been, actually, though I don't expect one of you to believe this!) - I am trying to work out what makes a good wikipedia article about a book, and how it should be fairly summarised. No answers, really, but a big lingering question. Snalwibma 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand some of that, but perhaps this is the style of the book, and the summary reflects this. On the one hand, we can't really take our mission to safe-guard people, who are not thinking critically, from finding Jesus and eternal salvation. :) On the other hand, I wonder what it means to be NPOV here, some of the statements here are clearly a bit dubious, and often I fail to see how they address Dawkins at all. For example, where is Dawkins searching for a "theory of everything", what is the relevance of this to Dawkins's reasoning?
Is it perhaps the case that it still feels that Wikipedia is somehow endorsing these 21 points? --Merzul 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
NBeale wants a summary to tell us what Cornwell thinks while Snalwibma wants it to not give him such a coherent platform. One possibility is a paragraph that sumamrises his arguments by putting them in over-arching categories out of sequence. It might look a little like this (which really does cover every single chapter btw):

In this book, Cornwell adopts the persona of the Guardian Angel of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel, who is now looking after Richard Dawkins. Cornwell suggests that Dawkins regards all claims about God's existence as "the exclusive province of science and reason". He attacks this view and Dawkins’s choices of sources, his reliance and focus on literal interpretations of religious texts. Cornwell suggests Dawkins has misunderstood such factors as the relationship between religion and aesthetics, what theists and theologians believe in and hope for, the correlation between religiosity and intelligence, the origins of morality and organised religion, and the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. Thinking Dawkins’s analysis is inadequate, Cornwell points to the existence of trinitarianism studies, mysteries in science that Dawkins acknowledges and the difficulties people such as Stephen Hawking now suggest exist in explaining everything scientifically due to Gödel’s theorem. Cornwell insists that the existence of “prima facie” albeit inconclusive grounds for theism make Russell’s teapot a bad argument, but in any case stresses the view that a personal relationship based on prayer and love is more central to religiosity than factual claims. He asserts that Dawkins mistakenly attributes the nihilistic views of Ivan Karamazov to Dostoyevsky[2] , and takes exception to such metaphors as religion as child abuse and religion as a memetic virus. Cornwell conjectures that the irreligious ideologies on which dictators such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler based their regimes were scientific, and insists that, whatever Dawkins says we should tolerate moderate religion because it is not extremist. Cornwell adds that we should demarcate religion per se from creationism, as well as demarcating moderate belief from extremism. He occasionally suggests Dawkins read certain authors, mainly sociologist of religion and specific theologians and poets.

Whether anyone likes that is another matter. I think Snalwibma might, but I honestly have no idea. 85.92.173.186 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon. Some of this is rather garbled (eg "Cornwell conjectures that the irreligious ideologies on which dictators such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler based their regimes were scientific" where on earth does he say that - can you quote anything from the book which makes that argument?) but my main problems with it are:
  1. It gives little or no idea what Cornwell's arguments are, except for the rather trivial point about Dostoyevsky which Dawkins disputes.
  2. It is essentially un-refed (there are a dozen refs at present) and is probably OR
  3. It removes the WikiLinks which make WikiPedia such an interesting voyage.
Why not instead see if you can keep the substance of the Chapter summaries (including refs and WikiLinks) but turn them into say 4 paragraphs - we could lose the titles of each chapter and certainly the numbers, and it would look less bulky and apparently "authoritative"? NBeale 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The Lenin etc. point is in chapter 12. The refs point you make is a good one. I can understand that, in the light of at least your last two points, maybe we should try the idea I originally considered worse; namely, to only describe some chapters. Is that what you are calling for when you talk about decreasing the number of paragraphs, or do you just mean joining things together so we are only removing blank space? 85.92.173.186 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anon. Of course he talks about Lenin etc.. in Ch 12 but he doesn't say what you suggest as far as I can see. Can you provide a quote to the contrary? Do you in fact have a copy of the book? I think you could consider removing a lot of the padding (eg the numbers and chapter titles and some linking text) but keeping all the meat. NBeale 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah good, now I follow what you mean. Well, Cornwell says that it was a scientific ideology that drove these people. It was therefore an irreligious ideology i.e. not a religious one), a point Dawkins made in TGD when discussing these people. As far as I can make out, Cornwell brings them up to reply to what he says.85.92.173.186 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
NBeale, I just tried out the edit you suggested, but only previewed it rather than saving it. I think it would be atrocious! Take a look at this:

In this book, Cornwell adopts the persona of the Guardian Angel of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel, who is now looking after Richard Dawkins. He pens a letter to Dawkins in 21 short chapters. Cornwell suggests that Dawkins regards all claims about God's existence as "the exclusive province of science and reason", that his book is "as innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free of false modesty" with the main reliance being on self-quotes and ignoring anyone of the calibre of James, Durkheim, Weil, Buber, Rahner, and that the genre is indicated by the endorsements from writers of fantasy fiction, popular science, pop music and conjuring tricks. He next suggests that Dawkins "sounds as though he would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear" and takes things too literally, that he misunderstands the links between Beauty, Creativity and Faith, and suggests he studies George Steiner's Real Presences or others like Blake, Arnold, T.S. Eliot and Lewis. Cornwell suggests that Religion is not a set of scientific statements and that Dawkins should study Durkheim or other sociologists of religion, that his image of God is "A Great Big Science Professor in the Sky", which is not what most theists believe in, and that the idea that believers are encouraged not to understand the Trinity is refuted by the many books in Divinity Faculties trying to do this. Next, he says the comparison with celestial teapots is misplaced because there are prima facie, albeit inconclusive, grounds for believing in God, that Dawkins imagines that God is an object but this is not at all how theologians think about God, and finds it ironic that Dawkins, having declined to study theology at all, complains that theists have made no attempt to answer his objections. Cornwell then claims that Stephen Hawking and others now acknowledge the impossibility of a "Theory of Everything" because of Gödel's Theorem. He then accuses Dawkins of mistakenly attributing the nihilistic views of Ivan Karamazov to Dostoyevsky[1] and of relying on a single source [2] for his assertion that "the moral consideration for others" in Judaism and Christianity was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group, and that reading the relevant texts would disabuse him of this error[3]. Cornwell next suggests that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all used "science as an ideology combined with militant atheism"[4] and that Stalin's atheism was a crucial feature of his entire ideology, and that whereas neither science nor atheism necessarily leads to violence, nor does religion. While Cornwell then describes the term "fundamentalism2 as hard to define, he says there is an important distinction is between pluralist/democratic societies and totalitarian/fundamentalist ones that do not allow for disagreement, and that it is important to distinguish between the most tolerant forms of faith and that of the suicide bomber. He claims that "the question is not whether you accept the content of people's faith; it is whether you accept the right of people to adopt freely chosen beliefs, within the law, without insult or persecution"[5] and that it is a striking category error to confuse creationism and the "doctrine of creation"[6] Cornwell then questions whether anyone would really trade child abuse for being brought up in the religion of a child's parents, and whether it is right to ridicule the Amish when a living testimony to the advantages of frugality and simplicity could be very important, especially in the USA. He goes on to suggest that most religious believers hope for this,[7] that the atheist "philosopher's" view Dawkins quotes is not much help[8], and that Dawkins has misunderstood Yeats[9] Then, Cornwell says that scientific eminence does not guarantee sound judgement in other fields, that Dawkins and some other scientists are prejudiced against religious believers, and asks whether "by 1920 50% of all Nobel Prizewinners in the natural sciences were Germans" proves that Germans at that time were cleverer than all other nations? He then suggests that there is far more to morality than the simple points discussed in The God Delusion, and that Darwinian attempts to "explain" religion are simplistic: there is no agreed definition of religion and the idea that (eg) Cathedrals are "useless" ignores the many social functions they actually perform. Cornwell then says that, while Dawkins abhors the "bio-political" ideas of Nazi Germany, describing all religious believers as infected with a virus that is harmful to society has deplorable overtones[10], and that "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a quest for meaning and sense which Dawkins ridicules because he doesn't understand it[11][12] and that "the ludicrous anthropomorphic deity that rightly appals" Dawkins is not the God in whom most Christian theologians believe.[13] Cornwel concludes by suggesting that this is not a question of factual beliefs but a personal relationship and quest based on prayer and love, and ends by quoting George Herbert's Prayer[14] and Lee Smolin's "There may or may not be a God..."[15]

It might look better with paragraphing, but I still think the way the sentences have to be fused together is silly. I think we are going to have to either leave the chapters in or else cut out some of Cornwell's arguments. The latter seems okay to me; we don't let every TGD argument appear in its article. (For instance, we cut out the "omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience because ..." argument.) 85.92.173.186 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 10

'Dawkins objects to how this was taken completely out of context'.

Shouldn't that be 'Dawkins claims it was completely out of context'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or how about "Dawkins objects that this section has been taken out of context" - done. Snalwibma 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polkinghorne review

I have just amended the reference to this. As originally inserted, it made no mention of Cornwell or his book at all, and looked like a candidate for instant deletion as irrelevant. I have amended it so that at least it is clear that it's a comment about Cornwell's book. Still not entirely happy, though. There is a good case for mentioning Polkinghorne's review of Darwin's Angel, but I don't think it's right to use that review simply as a quote mine from which to extract a comment about Dawkins which has no obvious connection to Cornwell's book. We should include what Polkinghorne says about Darwin's Angel, not what he says about Dawkins. Snalwibma (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it. It's just another trick from NBeale.--Svetovid (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are too hasty. I assume good faith, so I have amended the reference to Polkinghorne to make it a comment on Darwin's Angel, and put it back in. Snalwibma (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't even if he does it unintentionally. Too much negative experience.--Svetovid (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Snalwimba & Svetovid. I don't quite see how Polkinghorne quoting D.A. with approval is irrelevant, but I won't press the point too hard. However I really don't see what's wrong with George Herbert or Lee Smolin - they have been in there for ages (since Sept 11) so I hope you don't mind that I have restored them. They are only a footnote and they really do add something (I read The Trouble with Physics BTW it's very good). NBeale (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello NBeale. Nice to have another discussion with you!
(1) On the Polkinghorne review - indeed JP did quote DA with approval, but as presented in its first inclusion in this article it came across as a comment about RD, with DA nowhere in sight. Which is pretty much how it was in the JP review of DA, indeed - but we don't need to allow the WP article about DA to be used as a platform for NB's views on RD, using what JP happened to say in his review of DA (if you see what I mean). This is an article about DA, not about RD, and only comments about DA belong.
(2) On the inclusion of Herbert and Smolin. I think the Herbert poem is great, and clearly Cornwell (and I guess NBeale) does too. But the problem is precisely as you put it yourself: "they really do add something (I read The Trouble with Physics BTW it's very good)." What they add is your own POV slant. This is an article about DA, not a conduit through which any editor should promote what he thinks is "very good". Yes, I grant that the book ends with quoting Herbert and Smolin. But this is an article about the book, not an opportunity to indulge in some self-indulgent me-too-ism by inviting the reader to join with you in saying "how true, how true...". That, I'm afraid, is how it looks when the summary ends with those two quotations (which are included in DA but are not about DA). I said this (or something like it) three months ago. I have seen no arguments in favour of keeping them in. I remain unpersuaded. Out they come again. Snalwibma (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi S. Nice to hear from you too. But with two books on the go my WP time is very limited. On (1) I'll have a think about whether we can find something more typical from the JP review that meets this concern. On (2) I don't think we can exclude Cornwell's quotes of H. and S. just because you think that readers might find them convincing. On that basis you'd have to remove any reports of any contentious arguments used anywhere! So long as we report what he says without endorsing it in any way it is NPOV. Also I do think the fact that they are both very fine pieces of writing should count for something. Quality is surely of value in WikiPedia NBeale (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem is not that I think readers might find them convincing, and it's certainly nothing to do with how good or "fine" the writing is! I don't care whether anyone is convinced by Herbert or by Smolin. But I think it's an underhand trick to include them here, in that way, as a sort of peroration at the end of the summary of DA. Editorial distance and the neutral point of view are compromised by the manner in which those two quotes are introduced. Including them is not a report of the content of DA, it is an abuse of the DA article as a conduit to promote a world view which - while it is apparently seconded by Cornwell - is not central to the subject matter of either the book or the article. I feel they are being included in the WP article in order to persuade, rather than in order to produce a fair and balanced report of the content of the book. This is an article about the book, not an opportunity to show off some fine writing. But I'd be interested to know what others think. Snalwibma (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible article

Manages to summarise the content as though Wikipedia itself was castigating RD. Very strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.86.199 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I suggested ages ago that the detailed adulatory chapter-by-chapter summary of the arguments put forward in the book should be cut. But I am accused of wanting to suppress "well-referenced facts". Time to revisit, and try to turn it into a balanced article? Snalwibma (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)