Talk:Sam Harris

Proponent of 'scientific racism'?

@MagicatthemovieS: This is a pretty serious charge, I suggest if we are going to categorize him as such it needs to be backed up by multiple reliable sources, and not opinion pieces. Merely talking with Charles Murray and expressing some level of agreement is not sufficient in my opinion. Remember this is a BLP and the standards for inclusion are higher. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the phrase "scientific racism" doesn't appear on the article, and obviously he's not an adherent to classic 19th-century and early 20th-century scientific racism (Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean etc). What he is accused of seems to be documented with many footnotes. AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. To my eyes, the discussion in this section is in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, and is well cited in-line. Talking about the converoversies in question and the media discussion around them in the present article doesn't compromise neutrality; I move to remove the "neutrality" tag from this section. Onlyevertoday (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

Imo, there's absolutely no need to mention this unnecessary detail. 2A02:1210:8C92:F700:B0C0:1E1C:8AD0:3F75 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Sam Harris’ connection to Edge.org and Epstein

Re: the sub-heading “Intellectual dark web” under the heading “Political views,” regardless of whether Harris identifies with the term intellectual dark web or anyone in it, the fact remains that he was and is a member of Edge.org, see https://www.edge.org/memberbio/sam_harris, to which Jeffrey Epstein was by far the largest financial donor. Presumably in this connection, Harris received an email from Epstein advising Harris to use “more charm and less argument”: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02501693.pdf

Seems relevant to update the discussion in this section accordingly. Aspotoftea (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:PSTS, WP:NOR. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sam Harris controversies

I recently added properly sourced examples of potentially inflammatory/ controversial perspectives of Sam Harris at the top info paragraph. it was swiftly removed, and the editor cited NPOV. I understand where this editor is coming from (they want to follow wikipedia policy, nothing wrong with them tbf), however, the NPOV clause has limitations:

I quote this directly from the NPOV page sublink:

NPOV: Common objections and clarifications: Being neutral:

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.

I believe in this case, the controversy should remain at the top.

Candyfancan (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which includes non-encyclopedic commentary such as "has come under fire". The ref for "promoting the Eurabia theory" does not seem to connect Harris to "Eurabia". Does the ref for "first-strike nuclear launch" verify that text? I haven't looked any further. By the way, article talk is where an editor should explain why their proposal is desirable. it is not a place to tell other editors they have misunderstood policy. What is policy is the necessity to assume that other editors are familiar with the basics. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

understood, i will look into this Candyfancan (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I find it curious that this article doesn't describe any work Harris has done in his area of specialty

"Neuroscience" is mentioned several times, but not the topic of his dissertation or any peer-reviewed articles he has written. Dubatomic (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)