Talk:God Is Not Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Atheism
God Is Not Great is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →

Contents

[edit] Inconsistency in book title

title is capitalized wrong: "god is not Great". it should at least be marked that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.10.104 (talk • contribs)

I have altered it to match the title on the book cover. We need to reach some agreement here as to consistency in titling this book. It has been changed numerous times in the main Hitchens article. My understanding is that "God" in the article title has to have a capital "G" because of Wikipedia formatting. Is this correct? Even if this is the case, "is" and "not" could be changed, though this would require a page move. I would like to hear some other opinions on this matter. Thanks. ---Cathal 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to reflect the lower case first 3 words; the Hitchens article is slowly reaching that conclusion, I think. I think Wikipedia now also finally allows lower case articles. See eBay, iPod, etc. --Allstar86 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am entirely in favor of a move. The title of the article, and the phrasing of the title within both articles, should match the title on the book. I very much believe that Hitch titled the book in that manner quite consciously. ---Cathal 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the lack of opposition, I recommend we proceed with the page move. ---Cathal 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. ---Cathal 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this, having just found this article for the first time. Wikipedia guidelines on trademark usage follows most other style guides by saying to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". And I'm not even particularly convinced that the owner "encourages special treatment", when the main argument on Talk:Christopher Hitchens seems to be that we should be echoing a cover design decision merely because it's apposite.
And while I'm being a devil's advocate, do we really need the subtitle in the article title, when the God Is Not Great page isn't being used by anything else? --McGeddon 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The decapitilisation of the 'G' to: 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" as per Mssr. Hitchin's exact title of his book, is interesting & indeed something to reflect upon.

The small 'g' is by comon consensus indicating an indefinate 'god' ie one of many 'gods' in a polytheistic belief system.. for eg in Hinduism: monkey god, elephant god etc

It is not the letter or the meaning used, for eg. in the Arabic, الله "Al Lah" (lit:'The' God) a definate noun denoting only one, accented by the definate article "ال" 'the'.

As such, Mr. Hitchens, very amuzingly & by 'coincidence' as some would call it, is denoting by this letter & word, unwittingly, another 'god' in his exact title. Even though that I'm sure was not quite his intention, given that he refers, by implication, to the 'The God' of the monotheistic Jews, Christians & Muslims, within the book's content.

Since that is the title published & that the wiki article refers to the book of the same name: there indeed should be no difference.

(restraining a giggle) : It is, thus, the perfectly correct title!

Enthogenesis 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From the article itself "His attacks focus mostly on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although other religions such as Hinduism do not completely escape the book." So, while the Abrahamic god is the main focus, he seems to target gods in general. Syrion 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the UK edition cover, whose title is entirely capitalised, and as has been commented on Talk:Christopher Hitchens (and is easily confirmable by a glance at Amazon.com), the copyright page of the book capitalises the first letter. Until someone can produce a strong argument for MoS:TM being ignored, I'm going to be bold and revert the page title to use a capitalised first letter. --McGeddon 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-argument. McGeddon is correct with regard to the consensus of style guides on formatting and capitalization; moreover, a plethora of sources ranging from Amazon.com ([1]) to the New York Times review of the book ([2]) to the Christopher Hitchens Web itself ([3]) all display the title of the book as God is Not Great. Case closed.Cak58 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears as the Wikipedia (at least a particular audience) has been poisoned as well...the Wiki article should reflect the title of the book "god is not Great" as Hitchens intended, otherwise this particular Wiki article is simply not accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.48.22 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Please take a moment to read the MoS:TM Wikipedia style guide that's already been referenced on this matter. Wikipedia articles should "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". --McGeddon 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title in UK?

Can someone confirm that the book "God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion" by Christopher Hitchens, published in the UK, is the same book (god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) just retitled? The amazon.co.uk link is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Not-Great-Against-Religion/dp/1843545861/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-1762460-7508437?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180580200&sr=8-1 If it is, the article should be updated to include this information, and the page "God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion" should be a forwarding page to this one.

redirect page made. Have not yet added information about UK title to main page yet. Michaeln36 14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If the book has different subtitles in different countries, I'm not sure we should be using either of them in the article title. --McGeddon 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

The paragraph

While some would argue that commentators such as Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, in their contempt for religion in the secular age, miss the point of faith and spirituality, others would argue that their particular, respective brands of atheism deserve as much respect as any other position.

is full of weasal words. If people have criticism of the style of the text, put it under the subheading criticism, and not in the main part of the body. In the main page for 'the bible' me writing 'some, like xxxxx would argue that the bible is a document filled with bigotry, hatred, and chauvinistic tendencies, others argue that it is relevant to our society' etcetc..

Hi, don't forget to sign your posts with the tildes. I agree with the weasel wording. The term "others" needs clarification of whom exactly these "others" are. ResurgamII 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

The following must be cited, as it is a direct quote, before it can be included.

Stephen Prothero of The Washington Post concludes "Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep." Significantly, the substantial points that Hitchens makes are not contradicted.

VanTucky 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following:

The "problem with Hitchens’ thesis that religion poisons everything is how to explain those who use it to do good" writes Michael Skapinker in The Financial Times. "How does Hitchens account for Martin Luther King? Here’s how: King was not really a Christian. Really? Well, at no point did King suggest that those who reviled him would be punished in this world or the next. ”In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.” Let’s leave aside the possibility that King’s lack of interest in revenge came from the Gospels … What of godless people who do evil? … Hitchens says that Stalin understood his people’s religious superstitions and mimicked them. So King wasn’t really religious and Stalin was. If that sort of intellectual and moral shabbiness is to your taste, this book should be too." [Thanks to Ronz below]
Suggesting that Hitchens' references to "Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky" in order to promote the atheist lifestyle ignores, deliberately or otherwise, the content of the writings of these "Christian authors", one religious critic has concluded that "Best-selling atheist authors are riding a wave of ignorance and illiteracy." As for Dennis Prager, he points out that the Hitchens book misrepresents his argument about "Bible class" in favor of the Christian faith. Asteriks 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's very poorly written for an encyclopaedia.--Svetovid 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What is it that is "very poorly written for an encyclopaedia", Svetovid? Since most of what I added are quotes, I am not sure whether the writing you consider irremediably poor is that of myself or of people such as Michael Skapinker of The Financial Times (unless, of course, you are discussing an entirely different section of the article)… How about Michael Medved? Do you not like his writing either? ('Similarly, Michael Medved called the book "a maddening combination of stimulation and sloppiness, erudition and ignorance, provocation and puerility", concluding that the "sly distortions and grotesque errors that appear in every chapter of his work demonstrate the author’s carelessness and arrogance" and that, "Beyond its factual errors and obvious misstatements," Hitchens' book "provides a frequently primitive and juvenile characterization of religious belief."') Asteriks 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few potential sources

--Ronz 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Although I've thoroughly enjoyed the book so far, I think he has the Bhagwan's story wrong in the chapter, There Is No "Eastern" Solution". Shree Rashneesh's attempt to flee U.S. law enforcement by jet has been omitted by implying he was already dead at the time. The Bhagwan was tried, and found gulity of some sort of immigration violation, and sent packing back to India, where although his popularity suffered he soldiered on until 1985 when he truly packed it in. I wonder how Chris missed this bit? I found this attempted flight from law enforcement far more interesting than O.J.'s slo-mo run. The Bhagwan went totally Harris Ford in his attempt to get awayNorris99 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rename - removing subtitle

I can't find any particular precedent for having a book's entire subtitle in the name of its Wikipedia article - given that Hitchens' book was published with a different subtitle in the UK ("God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion"), does anyone have a good argument against simply moving this article to God Is Not Great? --McGeddon 13:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles only recommends including subtitles for short titles, for disambiguation purposes. I'll go ahead and make the change in the next day or two, if nobody gives a strong objection. --McGeddon 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved. --McGeddon 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article move

I have moved this article from God is not Great to God Is Not Great, in accordance with MoS:TM. Mushroom (Talk) 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some minor errors

Some factual errors in the book: 1. The Hindu God Kirshna was the eighth child of Devaki. The birth is not described anywhere as virgin birth. 2. The circle in the middle of the Indian flag represents "dharma chakra" not the spinning wheel of Mahatma Gandhi. 3. The Tamil Tigers assassinated an ex-prime minister of India, Raiv Gandhi, not ex-President of India.

These are minor errors and do not take away anything from the main thesis of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.50.33 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To try to explain why your editing was deleted, what you wrote may well be correct, but Wikipedia is not supposed to show facts that you say are correct, Wikipedia is supposed to show facts that someone else has said are correct. The "someone else" should preferably be a reputable source. This is necessary to avoid Wikipedia being a battlefield where everyone can post whatever they think is correct.
Your participation at Wikipedia is otherwise welcome, especially if you get yourself a username. Good luck. --RenniePet 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The three facts I have given are well known. It is well known and reported widely that it was Rajiv Gandhi, the ex-Prime Minister of India who was assassinated by LTTE terrorists. Also, the chakra is dhrama chakra and not Gandhi's wheel is availble in the Wikipedia itself. Also, it is well known. If someone claims there are 55 stars in the US flag right now should I have to give justification to point out there are only 50. Same with the birth legend of Krishna. Your lack of knowledge about these basic and well known facts is not a reason to delete my contribution repeatedly. If you delete my addition once again I will have to report you for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.140.143 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If these mistakes of Hitchens are significant enough to have been written about by notable commentators, then by all means write that up in the article, but if they're just minor errata where he got a few details wrong, then an encyclopaedia is not the place to publish them.
And regarding "well known" statements, please take a look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --McGeddon 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is like arguing with a blind man about the beauty of color. I give up. However, let me state, just because you are western-centric and unaware of even the most widely known facts does not mean the facts I have stated are not well known. The "notable commentators" are all western and probably have even less knowledge about these facts than Hitchens. Hitchens is a brilliant polemic, but he has betrayed a lack of knowledge of even some basic facts very well known (for which you keep asking for references -- just Google these facts and you will get tons of references, all verifiable). If it was my opinion that I wanted to share there were a few, such as my opinion that it would have been much better for Hitchens not mentioning Hinduism at all than to mention it and not criticize it for the most egregious blot of untouchability and to add insult to injury mention erroneous facts that can be used by apologists to dismiss his main claim with which I agree. And the title, by saying "God is" in the title Hitchens concedes the existence of a god benevolent or malevolent. But I digress. Have it your way. Keep this out of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.140.143 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"This is like arguing with a blind man about the beauty of color." Yes, I know exactly how you feel. :-)
I think the problem is that you misunderstand the basic idea of Wikipedia. You are very welcome to provide new information, but you need to find some other web site that backs you up, and include references to that web site as part of your contribution. Or provide the links here, and someone else will do the necessary linking/referencing work for you. Thanks. --RenniePet 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, some other web site may not be specific. You need a source which meets WP:RS.  :) --Yamla 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, if these are well-known facts, you will find it trivial to provide a reasonable citation for them. It's when the facts are not particularly well known that citations can be difficult. --Yamla 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you to make your opinions public. Have you ever written book reviews for Amazon.com? I used to do that a lot, and there you can write what you want, as long as it's not illegal. --RenniePet 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you want verifiable references for widely known facts even for elementary school children in India, here you go. I found these in just 10 minutes.

1. Hindu god Krishna was the eighth child of Devaki. The birth was not claimed to be a virgin birth. I cannot prove a negative :-).

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/festkrishna.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Birth

http://www.aryabhatt.com/fast_fair_festival/Festivals/Sri%20Krishna%20Jayanti%20or%20Krishnaastami.htm

2. The circle in the middle of the Indian flag represents the Ahoka Dhara Chakra, not the spinning wheel of Mahatma Gandhi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_Chakra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_India

http://www.iloveindia.com/national-symbols/national-flag.html

http://hubpages.com/hub/national_flag_of_india

3. The Tamil terrorist group LTTE assassinated ex-Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi, not ex-President of India.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E5DF1430F93BA15755C0A9609C8B63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Tigers#Assassinations

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1503/15030170.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2360099,prtpage-1.cms

If I want to express my opinion I will go elsewhere like Amazon. But these are not my opinion. These are well known facts. The story of Krishna is told and retold starting even when an Indian child is still in its mother's womb. Asking for a verifiable reference for this is just silly. Well, you asked for it and I am giving you three. One of them is from Channel 4. Hope this is verifiable enough.

As regards assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, it happened so long ago I am unable to provide contemporaneous newspaper references. However, I have given references from two leading Indian newspapers and one American newspaper with somewhat sullied reputation with its reporting leading up to the Iraq war.

Finally, regarding the dharma chakra in the Indian flag. Before independence the flag of Indian National Congress used to have the spinning wheel in the center. After independence the spinning wheel was replaced by the Ashoka Dharma Chakra. Once again this fact is well known to everyone in India starting from elementary school children. Since you asked for it I have given references that I hope you will find verifiable.

These errors show that not everything written by Hitchens is accurate. I do accept and appreciate his book. My disappointment is that he did not take on Hinduism for untouchability and caste system. I am sure Hitchens' main target was the three so called monotheistic religions. But by giving false facts about Hindu religion Hitchens has inadvertently offered shelter to the fundamentalists.

From a brief search on the web it seems the book contains many other erroneous facts. Therefore, I think it is important for a Wiki user to be alerted about these in this page. So, I ask you reinstate the edits I made.


-- Dileepan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.27.98 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You may in fact be correct with all these criticisms. But without presenting a reliable secondary source that makes these points, then it is your own original research, which Wikipedia is not a publisher of. Please also remember that this page is not for general discussion of the topic, only for conversation aimed at making direct improvements to the article. Thank you, VanTucky Talk 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


VanTucky, you now want "reliable secondary source" -- you are hilarious. What a cabal .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.27.98 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)



The greater issue here is whether these errors are important to an encyclopaedia article. Many, many books have factual mistakes in them, but it isn't an encyclopaedia's job to publish errata for them. If there was a significant news story about somebody reacting to one of these mistakes, then it would be of encyclopaedic interest, but as it stands, there's no reason for the mistakes themselves to be catalogued in the article. Wikipedia would not benefit from every single book article listing any factual mistakes the author had made. --McGeddon 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
But those are trivial mistakes. The best thing would be to sum them all up by saying something like "The book contains several factual errors" and provide a reputable source, which would list them, for this statement.--Svetovid 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're missing the point. No one is disagreeing with you that he made errors, but you can't publish original research. You need to find a reliable source which states your opinion, otherwise it cannot be mentioned on the page. Please see: WP:No Original Research.
BTW, I think its interesting that he misrepresented eastern religion and culture because he made quite a few errors about biblical texts and Christian historical figures as well. Kraftlos (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)