Talk:Daniel Pipes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Pipes article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Topic? 2 Daniel Pipes, an international known journalist? 3 Misquoted? 4 Pipes on the BBC 5 Quote from Pipes article on Askariya shrine bombing 6 The "Books and policy papers" section 7 Negativity 8 Pipes and censorship 9 Influence on the Bush Administration? 10 his comment about temple mount 11 Libelous comment!!! 12 Daniel Pipes - historian 13 Daniel Pipes--WP:BLPN 13.1 Explanation of tags previously added but deleted later by administrator et al. 14 2/3 of article = POV blog

[edit] Topic?

"Pipes was also criticized by Palestinian activist Edward Said." Erm, Edward Said wasn't just an 'activist', he was renowned scholar and his work Orientalism is considered highly important in acadamia (it is also probably very relevant to this case, ie. Pipes as an orientalist). This could do with fixing and the text should be scanned for other similar 'microbiases'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

[edit] Daniel Pipes, an international known journalist?

I find this sentence amusing and i´m sure it was written by some supporter. I´m sorry to burst your bubble, but if you´d check with people on the street here in Europe they wouldn´t know who this guy is. It´s not like he is Larry King! (Unsigned comment by User:213.190.195.100)

Yes, I wouldn't think that he would be very popular outside of the US. Well it is like that here in the US too; not everyone knows him, but some internet users and people interested in politics do. What do you propose we change this wording to? a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply change it to an American journalist. Cheers Svest 22:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

He is definitely known internationally. I wouldn't call him a journalist, though, but a writer or columnist. (Unsigned comment by SlimVirgin)

He's well known in the politics circles. No doubt. The problem with denomination of international is that it seems that every American journalist is international while I'd never hear about a Japanese or Swedish journalist being called international! It is just like saying Steven Spielberg is an international film director! Cheers -- Svest 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I've changed journalist to columnist, and I got rid of the long list of American tv shows he's appeared on as it looked a bit silly, and the wikification made it hard to read anyway. Not sure I got your point, Fayssal. WP articles say that people are internationally known when they are, and not when they're not, regardless of nationality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the comment when I reverted, WP biographies do not state that. I am not against that he's not internationally known. I am just wondering about why the statement should be added for DP and not for MJ or SP, etc... Jimbo is an internationally known founder of WP! Hundreds or thousands of biography articles in WP is about well known people globally. Svest 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, I agree with Svest. I don't understand the importance of saying "internationally known"? It's almost one of those statements that try to give a very positive aspect to a person. If it isn't added for other bio articles, most of whom are more well-known than DP, then why should this article say that? a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair point, AE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It really annoys me. WP is everything but NPOV. No consistency indeed. I would never encounter such an intro in Britannica, Larousse encyclopedia or Encarta. Michael Jackson is an internationally known singer. Zineddine Zidane is a very well known internationally football player!!! And the list is very long.

Britannica, NPOV? LOL!! When was the last time you read it? And anyway, we're not trying to become, and don't want to be like, Britannica. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it is the case than people internationally know he's a Jewish. Should we include that as well following the same logic stated above by Slim?

This is an encyclopedic intro to a person that can be compared with DP; Thomas Friedman. -- Svest 03:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Thanks SlimVirgin for your understanding and action. Cheers -- Svest 03:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here, SV. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed columnist back to journalist. Why? Because journalist was right in the first place and merely calling him a columnist is a POV attempt to belittle his credentials. Kyaa the Catlord 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how being a columnist is 'belittling'. His work is that of a columnist, he writes columns. I don't recall him ever being a reporter. Correct me if I'm wrong. Amibidhrohi 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoted?

This article includes the quote: "The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be."

According to Pipes' web site, he NEVER SAID THAT: go to http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php and scroll down to "Updates". According to that page, the supposed quote is based on a talk he gave at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. This seems to seriously call into question the authenticity of the "quote".

Should anything be done to fix this? I'm a noob... Moxfyre 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This quote is attributed to an article in the July 2001 edition of the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, and it does indeed appear in the article (See the article). However, he's repeatedly denied having ever said this. Unless someone more knowledgeable on Daniel Pipes can provide additional evidence supporting this quote, I'm going to err away from possible slander and remove it. // Pathoschild 06:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it should be changed, here's the quote according to Pipes:

<< As the Islamic revolution approached its climax five years ago, many Western journalists in Tehran, including myself, wasted hours interviewing the wrong people [meaning the Westernized elite]. … Perhaps we would have better understood what was happening if we had access to Daniel Pipes' remarkable book, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power.

Pipes has taken on, and very nearly accomplished, a daunting task: to explain the political and social development of the Muslim peoples from their origins to the present …. Pipes, a lecturer in history at Harvard, has produced a brilliant, authoritative, but occasionally infuriating and inconsistent work which demonstrates encyclopedic knowledge of Muslim intellectual history and a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims. … Here he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them. He sometimes misstates conditions in Muslim countries, and is swayed by writings of anti-Muslim commentators less judicious than himself. But on balance these unfortunate lapses do not diminish the perceptiveness of his analysis. …

Few other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history as [a long list of phenomena] …. These points are forcefully presented and cogently argued. The book is a valuable contribution to our understanding. This makes it all the more unfortunate that it is marred by exaggeration, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject. [Lippman then lists some of these and concludes:]

A more perceptive editor might have counseled Pipes to purge these and similar passages. Without them, the book would be the definitive work of its kind." >>

obviously the biased quote was obtained from a website like CAIR's. Removed. H.J. Roding

[edit] Pipes on the BBC

I've never seen the chap - and I've been watching BBC current affairs for a while now. While I'm not an authotitative source on every foreign journalist the Beeb has ever called on a search of their web site for his name yields no hits. I think the word "frequent" is a bit of an overstatement here.

I'm also concerned by "well respected in the counter terrorist community." Who would that be exactly? And can we sho that "they" respect him? Sounds made up to me. Unbehagen 13:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Pipes article on Askariya shrine bombing

I've edited the last paragraph in the "On Muslims" section. Here's a copy of the previous version:

In Jerusalem Post Pipes is close to advocating Civil War in Iraq as "Strategic" and of Muslims killing each other: "The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy." and continues: "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one." [1]

I've deleted that tendentious lead-in strikes as POV (and arguably Original Research). I've also switched the link to Pipes's site; since he lists the New York Sun rather than the Jerusalem Post, I've done likewise. (They're both Hollinger papers, BTW.) So now we have:

"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. ... Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one." (New York Sun, February 28, 2006 [2])

Which leads to my real question: should we delete this paragraph entirely? I say yes.
— Chris Chittleborough 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

keep. A human 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

keep.

Argh. I did not mean to drop the sentence "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt". Thanks to A human for restoring it.

Another mistake: I failed to notice an earlier paragraph about the same article, in the "Policy toward Iraq" section. I've deleted it, on the grounds that (1) the para in "On Muslims" is longer and more comprehensive and (2) the article is more about Muslims than U.S. policy. Here's the deleted text:

In 2006, as sectarian violence in Iraq continued, Pipes wrote that a civil war there "would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one."[3] He argued that such a war would reduce coalition casualties in Iraq and reduce Western casualties outside Iraq.

Also, I now vote to keep the para in "On Muslims", and regard my little poll as closed. Chris Chittleborough 12:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Books and policy papers" section

I've deleted the "How Nations Learn (publication date unknown), Free Press ISBN 0029253853" from this section, because neither Amazon nor http://daniel-pipes.org/ mention it.

Also, I found this alternate bibliography in a comment. I've moved it here.
—Chris Chittleborough 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

THIS BREAKDOWN MIGHT BE PREFERRED TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO CHANGE IT BACK 
===Books concerning Islam===
* Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), ISBN 0393052044 
* The Rushdie Affair (1990) 
* In the Path of God (1983), ISBN 0765809818 
* Slave Soldiers and Islam (1981) 
===Books concerning Syria===
* Syria Beyond the Peace Process (1996) 
* Damascus Courts the West (1991) 
* Greater Syria (1990) 
===Books concerning other topics===
* The Hidden Hand (1996) 
* The Long Shadow (1989) 
* Miniatures (2003) 
* An Arabist's Guide to Colloquial Egyptian (1983)
         systematizes the grammar of Arabic as  spoken in Egypt. 
* Conspiracy (1997) discusses conspiracy theories in modern
     European and American politics.
Pipes has also edited two collections of essays, Sandstorm (1993) and
Friendly Tyrants (1991). He is the joint author of eleven books.

[edit] Negativity

"Pipes is both praised and criticized for his negative views on Islam and Islamism." I think the people who praise him for his views on Islam regard those views as accurate rather than negative. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Daniel_Pipes#Praise,_criticism_and_controversy confirms your assessment. Also: The modifier to "views" used to be "outspoken" rather than "negative". Since only his outspoken views are relevant to the criticism, I think "outspoken" ought to be readded. Calling Pipes' views "outspoken" neither requires a judgement call nor reflects a POV. HKT 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with 'outspoken.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes and censorship

Isn't Pipes rather well known for encouraging students to "monitor" professors who are critical of Israel? I think this certainly belongs in the introduction. Homey 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a minor kerfuffle about that in 2002, but the website stopped doing that almost immediately. It's mentioned in the body, but that kind of trivia doesn't really belong in an intro. Also, please recall WP:LIVING. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're minimising by calling it a "minor kerfuffle" and "trivia". It still generates a lot of hits on google and I believe many people who know of Pipes first heard of him because of it. Yes, he's a living person but the controversy over Pipes and Campus Watch is certainly verifiable and it is still generating heat. See, for examples, Pipes' own "Is Campus Watch Part of a Conspiracy? dated May 12, 2006 (ten days ago)Homey 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The monitoring of professors was stopped right away, so it's no longer an issue. It belongs in the body of the text as part of the history of Campus Watch, but not in the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's rather bizarre logic. Campus Watch was cited in the recent report about the so-called Israel Lobby prompting Pipes to issue a response as recently as ten days ago so, despite the fact that Pipes was forced to curtail Campus Watch's activities in 2002, it seems he has not been able to erase the damage done to his reputation. The monitoring of professors remains something he is well known for regardless of the fact that he stopped doing it three years ago and is frequently brought up. Trying to keep it out of the lead is simply a white wash. Homey 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's trivia, long since forgotten. Trying to include it is merely smearing, as is the rather bizarre inclusion of his mention in a paper by Mearsheimer and Walt. The fact that his detractors try to flog that dead horse from time to time doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be in that camp. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That is not a defining event in Pipes' notability (though perhaps a simple mention of his founding of Campus Watch would be appropriate). HKT 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As several have noted, it is certainly both defining and central to Pipe's notability. The issue of monitoring of professors is probably one of the most distinct and commented aspects of Pipes' work. to call it trivial is strange. It belongs in the lead. It is quite ironic to call it a smear when Pipes' supporters would probably react strongly to the assertion that Pipes became famous for smearing.

[edit] Influence on the Bush Administration?

I seem to recall him being filling or being considered to fill an advisory position for the Bush Administration.

What ever became of this?

the article states that he was nominated by Bush to the United States Institute of Peace, and is currently a former member. I don't know what happened though.

He was appointed, but both Republican and Demcratic Senators blocked his nomination, and President Bush recess appointed him. According to members of the Institute, his tenure was marked by his work to block their efforts.

[edit] his comment about temple mount

I think he made a famous comment about temple Mount of Jerusalem. can somebody add that comment, wherein he claimed that Islamic invasions in the past led to the destruction of native religions.--nids 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

link for a similar comment is here.--nids 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libelous comment!!!

Between "3.6 On Muslims" and "4 Books and policy papers" somebody has snuck in the following paragraph: "Daniel Pipes is part of a vile treacherous gang of hatemongers that includes Joseph Farrah, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson et al, all of whom funded by radical Israeli elements to spread hate against Muslims. This they have done successfully in a variety of ways starting off with something as simple as hate messages against Islam on internet chat rooms to a range of books containing total falsehoods that were gleefully purchased by their pro-israeli constituents and the bull crap they peddled has been hailed as scholarship among their own circles." It doesn't appear on the edit page. Someone please do something about this!!!

It looks like it's been taken care of already. Ford MF 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes - historian

Daniel Pipes has a Ph.D in History from Harvard University, he has written a number of historical books as can be seen here. His intro description should thus reflect the tile to Historian like this:

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American neoconservative[4] columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, scholar and historian of Middle Eastern history.

Perhaps we can condense this a bit to by gettting rid of the dubious description as a neo-conservative which may be true but unneccessarily emphasized as the first descriptive adjective after citizenship in the intro.

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of the Middle East.

--CltFn 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes--WP:BLPN

See Daniel Pipes. In relation to the repeated deletion of my comments on the content of this article from this talk page, please see tagged notices at top of this talk page; WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:Cite#Full citations, WP:AGF, and also: Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_Abuse, WP:ANOT--NYScholar 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

and WP:OWN: the article was tagged by another editor as "unreferenced"; as she has been continually doing, the administrator removed that tag, saying that it was not accurate; I added the more specific and still currently applicable tag and she removed that. See WP:Cite and tags for articles lacking proper "full citations" as defined in Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:Cite pertaining to WP:BLP. All articles on living persons require "full citations" according to WP:BLP as well. --NYScholar 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of tags previously added but deleted later by administrator et al.

I had chosen what I thought was the most relevant template from the following list of citations problems templates: Wikipedia: Template messages/Sources of articles; I had used the template tag called "Citecheck"

Other ones that still pertain to this article are:

"Moresources"

The general problem tag, added by another editor earlier, and by me before that (but continually deleted by SlimVirgin and others) as if these tags and WP:AGF and WP:OWN do not matter (even though they do):

"unreferenced"

.

In my view, and the views of other editors who have unsuccessfully tried to tag this article, all these template tags still pertain. A key word in that tag is "adequately."

As a "controversial article", this article needs to have "full citations" according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:BLP The policies are already linked in the BLP tag at the top of this talk page.

Finally, as I have said so many times before already, these tags are necessary for signalling unsuspecting readers of this article that it has problems. Though this article was tagged before I ever came to it with a "neutrality" tag, that one has been removed as well, even though the "B" rating above refers to some of these problems. (Please see the report [I didn't create it].) --NYScholar 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been the site of contentious editing disputes since its inception in 2003 (see the talk archive, though from it some comments have been totally deleted by others). The problems that I've been trying to bring attention to in this article led me to tag it as

"unbalanced"

--a tag which was also deleted by SlimVirgin et al.-- and I tagged it that way because it is really not possible to see what is being cited, who wrote the sources, where and when they were published and when they were last accessed, and whether or not the sources have indeed been fully verified as both notable and reliable. (See my earlier talk page archive page 2 comments with my earlier explanations. Please try to keep in mind WP:AGF. I have been trying to bring attention to this article in good faith. --NYScholar 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2/3 of article = POV blog

The first third of the Daniel Pipes article looks fairly encyclopedic, certainly average or better. It runs into trouble after that, descending into a blog-like dissection of other blogs, its many weaknesses including a near carpet-bombing effect of twenty or more cites of a single website and four cites of a single article.

An encyclopedia is not a pile of soapboxes: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

The article will be more encyclopedic when the "Continued friction" subsection and the entire "Opinions" section with all of its subsections are scrapped, and I mean well and truly scrapped. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view got buried there. — Athænara ✉ 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to repair this fault

I have moved the books, policy papers, interviews and documentaries above the far too lengthy and far too detailed criticism/controversy/friction/etc. sections—which are so excessive they come across as self-indulgent on the part of some editors—to give the notable output of this biographical subject the primacy it deserves in an encyclopedia article about him. — Æ. ✉ 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara, lists of books by the author belong at the end of the article, before See also. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin, that's where I usually expect to find them, too, but in this case they were made nearly invisible by massive sections of POV. That's why I called it beginning to repair. An encyclopedic biography is meant to be about the subject, not an assemblage of invective against him. — Æ. ✉ 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I do see that my edit was WP:POINTish and not a good thing. Thank you for reverting it. — Athænara ✉ 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. I agree that the article could use some improvement in the ways you suggested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)