Talk:Letter to a Christian Nation

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.)

	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.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 External links 2 HPV 3 Critical link re-inserted 4 Morality from the Old Testament 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Letter to a Christian Nation.jpg

[edit] External links

I saw that a minor link I added was removed, I am very new to wikipedia and therefore I am sorry if I have done something against the general wikiquette. I read up on the rules, but I have yet to stumble on a sufficient reason for the removal of the link. I linked to a piece critical of Sam Harris book 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. It is the case that critiques of the book exists, this is a simple fact and one could amply put in the responses to the book from the ones that he addresses. It is not a matter of viewpoint that these responses exists. So my questions are these, exactly what is a personal opinion piece? Should responses to the book be included in this article? If yes, then how can the responses to the book be included in this article? 84.238.16.24 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your query. The link you provided is essentially a private website. It is therefore liable to be insufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable, or accountable. Laurence Boyce 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, I will remember this in the future and I understand why it was removed. 84.238.16.24 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HPV

iirc harris doesn't argue that there is no "development of a vaccine for the human papilloma virus" but that there is a usable vaccine which isn't used. 217.172.178.94 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical link re-inserted

I re-inserted the link to a detailed critique of this book by a well known Internet apologist. As it stands, there is no balance to the article. I also note the double standards of people whinging that an article on a Christian apologist is POV unless it has an extensive Criticism section, but then removing any criticism of atheist apologists. 60.242.13.87 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your link is inappropriate for the reasons outlined above. Laurence Boyce 10:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. It is a link to the website of a tax-exempt apologetics ministry. And you have not demonstrated any actual mistakes in the critique, but the critique certainly shows up the atrocious arguments of Harris. NPOV requires that criticism be included if the subject is controversial.60.242.13.87 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use the same criteria I use for other sites when there is little completion to pick from; if the critical site basically starts with ad hominum attacks or tries to belittle the contribution e.g. "For you see, it is my policy as a defender of the Christian faith to ignore those who show little or no interest in presenting a fair, accurate, and above all informed critique of Christianity." (Quoting the site linked at [1] then I feel that it is only fair to take them at their word and also show little interest.

Find a better link that shows more interest. Ttiotsw 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This link shows from scholarly sources how Harris no expertise in what he is writing about, with factual reasons to do with history and exegesis. E.g.

large text dump deleted (possible copyvio, definite irrelevancy) --Quiddity 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But censoring criticisms of misotheists is par for the course. 60.242.13.87 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The arguments aren't in question. The problem is, it's vitriolic and non-notable. If every private website with an angry opinion got to link their site at a wikipedia article, they'd overwhelm the article text.

If the angry rant is ever (non-vanity) published, or even just referred to at length in a notable place, then it can be mentioned and/or linked to. Until then, it's just a series of angry, unanswered letters, at a private website. --Quiddity 02:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The aforementioned site "tektonics.org" as well as other sites like it currently appear in the external links of Jesus as myth. Shawnc 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morality from the Old Testament

I haven't read Harris's book, but from what I know, it's a broad response to several letters he's received from Christians to a previous book he wrote. The example of morality from the Old Testament is a little ambiguous to me; is Harris actually arguing that the Old Testament is advocating the stoning of non virgin brides in modern times (which it doesn't), or is he saying that he has received letters from Christians that believe this? The quote is unclear, and I'd love it if somebody who has the book can provide a little more context around the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.124.2 (talk) 24 September 2007

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Letter to a Christian Nation.jpg

Image:Letter to a Christian Nation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done--Svetovid (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)