Talk:Islam: What the West Needs to Know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam: What the West Needs to Know 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 was nominated for deletion on 10/3/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

1 NPOV
2 The word "claims"
3 Two weeks old
4 Totally Disputed Tag
5 Movie is STILL not notable or verifiable
6 Tagline
7 Book making same points
8 Six points from web site
9 Request
10 Download

[edit] NPOV

Right now this sounds more like an advertisement for the film than an encyclopedia article. The sentence about the film taking "an unflinching, sober look at Islamism" is clearly problematic. And considering that this is a highly controversial film, where is the explanation of the controversy? Kaldari 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked on the web for a critique of the movie, but I haven't really found anything good yet. I was hoping some notable Islamic scholar would have excoriated it by now. Nortonew 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, really, someone, anyone else other than a neoconservative. It doesn't have to be a notable Islamic scholar, and it doesn't even have to be a Muslim. Huh. Any way anyone else can get this movie? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 08:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

let's get this straight: 1) none of you have seen the movie. 2) some of you doubt the film actually even exists, yet 3) you know that you hate the film, and have come here to smear it. you in fact want to hunt the movie down so you can attack it. in light of this, i vote that the funniest line of the day goes to kaldari, who was first to this fray and is eager to delete this entry untill there is a formal excoriating of its content which can be posted in lieu of an encyclopedic article. he alleges that copying and pasting the film's synopsys constitutes advocacy of the film, and heatedly disputes the word "controversy": "considering that this is a highly controversial film, where is the explanation of the controversy?" lollers!14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the version of the article from when I posted that, it was clearly advocating the film. The language the article uses now is far more neutral. And I don't understand what you are trying to say about the film's controversy. In this video clip, the subjects (who are promoting the film) spend half the interview talking about the controversy surrounding the film, yet this article mentions nothing about any controversy. Do you think it's funny that I would suggest adding such content? Why? Kaldari 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a controversial topic[1]

it seemed to me that you felt the desciption of the film as "controversial" was one of those words you considered to be meant as advertising or an enticement, and so your reaction was to contradict, questioning whether there in fact was any controversy surrounding the film. this would be funny because you yourself are completely bent out of shape over the film in advance of having seen it, or even anyone aside fom maybe 100 people at an obscure film fest held a year ago having seen it.

if your question was really meant to inquire whether the controversy of whether there aren't irreconcilable differences between the west and islam should be included in this article, then i don't think i'll be alone in reminding you that there's a whole article on this already for you to take your rebuttles of spenser and shoebat's points to and deal with encyclopedicly.[[2]] 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the film can be accurately characterized as controversial. My main problem with this article isn't its content (which is now adequately NPOV), but rather the notability, verifiability, and encyclopedicness of the subject. Most articles on films this obcsure have been deleted with little discussion, but this article has defied precedent despite its continued lack of publicity, no doubt due to political sympathies. That's fine with me, however. If the community wants to keep the article, I'm not going to defy that (although as an administrator I could theoretically delete the article myself). I find it strange however that you come into the discussion long after it has run its course and choose to jump in at the beginning rather than the end of the discussion. But maybe your comments weren't really meant to be constructive. I also find it ironic that you're assumptions about my political opinions are completely off base. Unlike yourself I'm not a Wikipedia tourist who comes here to inject partisan opinions and squabble over ideological turf. My interest here is in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Kaldari 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

please reference whatever assumptions you believe i made about your politics. the reason i was looking the film up is because it's in limited distribution now and i had just attended a screening. i clicke over here expecting to see a dispoportionately long and contentious dispute on the talk page. when i saw that i was correct, i registered my thoughts at the top of the page. makes sense, no? i find it interesting that you apparently have some flashing red phone in your apartment which goes off whenever somebody comments on this allegedly obscure an irrelivant item. don't you?66.209.214.23 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah that's about accurate :) Actually it's a flashing red phone that goes off for any of 225 articles. Your assumptions about the protracted debate are certainly true, although it has a lot more to do with whether or not the film is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article than whether or not we "hate the film". Now that the movie is finally getting a broader screening, hopefully the problems with the film's notability will be a moot point. Where did you see the film? Do you know if any reviews were written? Kaldari 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

its advertised on their site. i cought it in chicago. the tribune slagged it sloppily, the sun-times gave it mixed reviews. the big, legacy alternative weekly said simply, "This 2006 " documentary " contends that Islam is a violent religion bent on world domination."

i think it was a smart decision on their part to keep it clean and avoid artiness. from my reading of the reviews, the staid presentation focused the audience on the content, and the content was compelling. i'm not altogether unfamiliar with shoebat's and spencer's writings, and i felt i had walked away with new information.

"Your assumptions about the protracted debate are certainly true, although it has a lot more to do with whether or not the film is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article..."

well, yes. that was what was written.

[edit] The word "claims"

Why is the word "claims" not used in Wikipedia? Where does it say that? I'm just curious because I never heard anyone claim that claim cannot be used before. Nortonew 00:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See here for acceptable and unacceptable uses.--Pecher 08:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As per that reference, I'm reverting to my version that uses "claims". It is an entirely appropriate word where someone makes highly controversial assertions. --Lee Hunter 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is only your POV that the assertions are "controversial." The Wikipedia policy states that we should not imply doubt or smear a viewpoint.--Pecher 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly my POV. Read the Taqiyya and Jihad articles and you'll see that they are taking highly contentious positions. --Lee Hunter 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's original research. Anyway, we are supposed not to smear an opinion.--Pecher 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research? I'm afraid I don't understand. The Jihad WP article, in particular, has been exhaustively discussed, annotated and sourced. The link you yourself provided gives an example of acceptable use ("George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks") which is similar to what is in this article. --Lee Hunter 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the jihad article have to do with this one? If you want to use it as source, then please recall that other Wikipedia articles should not be sources. The George Bush example is about a statement by a public person; here we quote opinions of experts on a certain issue.--Pecher 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, using the term "experts" for the people in the film may be inappropriate. I looked at the Wikipages on them and none of them had a PhD in Islamic studies, history of the Middle East, or anything else as far as I could tell. One of them had a masters degree, but considering that there are plenty of PhDs in the world, it seems as if a mere masters would make him a rather poor "expert". It looked like most of them could be better described as "activists" than "experts".Nortonew 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. the Jihad article, I was drawing your attention to the fact that the opinions expressed in the film (or at least as they are described in this article) are not necessarily shared by mainstream writers, therefore using the word "claims" is certainly appropriate. --Lee Hunter 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "claim" certainly isn't appropriate, especially its irritating repetition, as if there were no other synonyms in English. You seem to be trying to make two contradictory arguments at the same time. First, you say that the usage of the word claim need not imply doubt, citing an example of George Bush's statement. And then you say that the commentators' viewpoints are out of mainstream, so it's appropriate to use the word "claim" because it implies doubt. So, may I draw your attention once again to the fatc that Wikipedia policy does not allow to smear a viewpoint by using words that imply doubt, including the word "claim".--Pecher 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two weeks old

The film only premiered 13 days ago. I suggest adding {Template:Current} while you wait for more information and reviews to become available, which they surely will soon enough. IMDB hasn't even got around to listing it yet. Anyway, another [news article] has emerged that you may be able to gather information from. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Better say... I included the above link here 'cos google says it's news, not 'cos I endorse the article. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the link , thanks.--CltFn 15:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been 3 weeks now, and this movie still hasn't garnered any real press or even a single critical review. This currently leaves us with two problems:

Verifiability: Is there enough information from reliable published sources to write an NPOV article? Right now we just have the movie's web site and a handful of right-wing blogs to go by.
Notability: Is the movie really notable enough to be encyclopedic?

Kaldari 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed Tag

This article has had some type of POV tag on it on the following days: Jan 20, Jan 23, Jan 24, Jan 25, Jan 26, Jan 27, Jan 28, Jan 30, Jan 31, and Feb 1. There is clearly something that needs to be addressed. Whoever has an issue with this article, please present them again. Whoever feels that the POV tag is innappropriate, please leave it for 48 hours, and if anyone fails to comment on it, remove it. I hope this can work as some sort of compromise. Pepsidrinka 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the points that I believe are disputed:

Disputed point: "In the second part, Walid Shoebat discusses the meaning of Jihad as holy war against the non-Muslim world to bring it under the rule of Islam."
Why it's a problem: This sentence explicitly states that Jihad has the literal meaning of subjugating the non-Muslim world. According to our own Jihad article "In much of the English speaking world, jihad is associated with the phrase "holy war"; however, the concept of jihad encompasses more than just warfare, and a more accurate translation probably would be "holy struggle", "righteous struggle" or "holy endeavour". The denotation is of a challenging or difficult, (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or resistance."
Proposed compromise: "In the second part, Walid Shoebat discusses the meaning of Jihad which, he interpets as holy war against the non-Muslim world to bring it under the rule of Islam. It should be note that for most scholars of Islam, jihad simply means "righteous struggle" or "holy endeavour". "
Disputed point: "In the fourth part, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic discuss the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, Islamic dissimulation, which the lecturers argue, enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam."
Why it's a problem I'm not an expert on Islam, let alone Taqiyya but here's what our own article says on the subject "In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger." There is such a ridiculous gulf between these two statements that it absolutely requires some kind of indication that what is being proposed is a highly unorthodox interpretation.
Proposed compromise: "In the fourth part, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic discuss the principle of Taqiyya, the Arabic word for dissimulation. The lecturers claim that Taqiyya enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam. It should be noted, however, that their view is not shared by religious scholars. Taqiyya is generally seen as a carefully limited permission to deny being a Muslim if one's life is in imminent danger.
There are probably other problems (I think the bit about Muslim expansion needs some work) and probably other editors could come up with better compromises, but at least we have something to start with. Comments? Suggestions? --Lee Hunter 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with on the disputed points. The article does not do enough to distinguish these assertions made by the film's commemtators as just that - assertions. However, I disagree with your proposed comproise. I don't think that adding what scholars of Islam say on a certain topic has any relevence to the statement. If you can find criticisms of the movie, perhaps we can add another section. But in the current section, for example in your contention with part two, I think it is neccessary to drill the point that these are the opinions of the commentators, and not the views of a significant majority of Muslims. I suggest we use a stronger term than "discusses", perhaps using the first sentence of your version, which allows the reader to understand that it is the commentator's interpretation. I suggest we wikilink jihad and taqiyya, and furthermore, we add them to a list at the bottom of the page under a "See also" section. Pepsidrinka 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute here makes no sense to me. No amount of orginal research on jihad and taqiyya provides a sufficient basis for disparaging viewpoints expressed in the film. In addition, I see no specific dispute on facts, so the "totallydisputed" tag is not appropriate here anyway.--Pecher 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for your assertion that the articles on jihad and taqiyya are pure orginal research. The jihad article, in particular, contains a massive number of quotes of recognized scholars and texts. Some of these references are hundreds of years old and have been considered authoritative for centuries. I feel LeeHunter pointed out some areas that are definitely disputable. The article really needs to note somewhere that the film's commentators are expressing ideas that are contentious. - Nortonew 14:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

These are assertions that "the film's commentators are expressing ideas that are contentious" that are orginal research.Pecher^Talk 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. There is no "original research" whatsoever. It's no more original research for me to say that the concept of Taqqiya in this article is not standard than it is for you to claim the opposite. The only difference is that you offer absolutely nothing to support your point. I've shown you the WP article which offers a radically different view. Here's another source [3] --Lee Hunter 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually claim the opposite; that's the difference. I merely insist that the views of commenters in the film must be presented without disparagement. If there is any serious criticism of the film, it can be cited; however, to say that the views expressed in the film differ from those expressed in a Wikipedia article is original research. And please read WP:CIVIL.Pecher^Talk 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear what facts are being disputed. Pecher^Talk 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that their views differ from orthodox interpretation is simply being helpful and informative (i.e. adding important context) It is in no sense disparaging.

This is precisely what we call original research. Pecher^Talk 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding disputed facts. Please reread the above comments. The views of the commentators are being presented as if they were based on an accepted meaning of Jihad and Taqqiya. As we've shown above, they are offering only a highly contentious interpretation and one that is not based on mainstream thinking. --Lee Hunter 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Which means that the dispute is about POV, not facts. Pecher^Talk 18:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the tag from totally disputed to POV. Pepsidrinka 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, please stop removing the POV tag. It is there because other editors are disputing the neutrality of the article. Disputes cannot be resolved by one side arbitrarily deciding that "I'm right and you're wrong". --Lee Hunter 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to dispute anything for three days. Does your recent spike in activity indicate that you have come up with some arguments? Pecher ^Talk 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether anyone has posted or not in recent days is irrelevant. Nothing has changed. The dispute still exists. I've laid out a detailed explanation of why the content is POV which could be fixed with some minor changes in wording. To this, you simply respond that by adding factual information to the article I am doing "original research". If this is original research, then 100% of the content of this encyclopedia is "original research" including every word of the existing article. Frankly, I can't see that you have made any effort to respond to these concerns. --Lee Hunter 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's the other way around: the article is NPOV now, you want to make it POV. In the process you want us to violate WP:NOR. Reading a Wikipedia article on jihad and then coming back to say that an expert's view of jihad contradicts the established view is original research. You cannot put into an article an idea that is your own, and the idea that certain views expressed in the film are marginal is your own idea. If it were not, you would be able to cite your source, e.g. "Upon viewing the film, Karen Armstrong said..." Because you cannot cite your source, your conclusions are original research. Pecher ^Talk 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a highly original conception of original research. If this article quotes someone in the film as saying "Mohamad was born in Brooklyn" another editor would rightly add that the established view is that he was born in Saudi Arabia. Adding this information isn't original research, nor is it inserting one's own viewpoint. It's simply adding authoritative context to a statement that otherwise would grossly mislead the reader. This article represents the opinions of the film's self-proclaimed "experts" as simple facts. I'm simply trying to include the entirely verifiable information that mainstream authorities (i.e. people who have actual credentials beyond running an anti-Islamic website) have a quite different view. This is not my interpretation. It's not my "original research" as you like to describe it. It is a simple fact. --Lee Hunter 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That "Mohammad was born in Saudi Arabia" is not only original, but also highly innovative research because Saudi Arabia was established only in 1927. You are not "to include the entirely verifiable information that mainstream authorities" because you're not trying to include something verifiable; you're just trying to make the wording more negative towards the views of the people interviewed in the film. Pecher ^Talk 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it more negative. I'm trying to make it more useful, accurate and informative. You, on the other hand, are trying to exclude anything that doesn't show them in the best possible light. --Lee Hunter 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, my English fails me. As a native speaker, you should distinguish the connotations better than I can, but I never thought that words "say", "describe", or "discuss" show something "the best possible light". I thought they were neutral. Pecher ^Talk 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wrote "Pecher discusses Lee Hunter's staggering ignorance" or "Pecher describes Lee Hunter's utter incompetence" it is not a neutral statement even though they're using these supposedly neutral words. On the other hand, one could write "Pecher believes that Lee Hunter is a complete moron" or "Pecher claims ..." etc and it would be a little better. Of course, a well-rounded article would have some kind of balancing opinion "...but Hunter's mother says that he's smarter than he looks". --Lee Hunter 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your example is misplaced because it uses an ad hominem attack, like "Lee Hunter is a moron". If someone writes "Pecher says that Lee Hunter incorrectly put Muhammad's birthplace in Saudi Arabia", converting this statement to "Pecher claims..." would amount to disparaging a person's viewpoint. Pecher ^Talk 08:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether its used in an ad hominem attack or not is irrelevant. The use of the word "claims" in the English language does not IN ANY WAY disparage a person's viewpoint. It DOES suggest that what the person is saying is not a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED fact. This is not disparagement. It is simply adding relevant information. In other words "This person is saying something that others would dispute". Look through Wikipedia and you'll find the word "claims" used everywhere. It is a simple, standard, neutral term. It boggles my mind that you have such a problem with it. You do need to study English a little more. --Lee Hunter 12:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the word "claim", as you say, "DOES suggest that what the person is saying is not a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED fact", then you're simply adding some negative undertones without "adding relevant information." Tell me what it is if not disparagement. Also, you contradict yourself. First, you say that the word "claim" suggests that the views espounded by the person who "claims" are disputable, and then you say that it is "a simple, standard, neutral term". A really neutral term, like "say", does not carry any additional negative semantic load. Finally, you still cannot prove that your opinion regarding the views of those interviewed in the film is not original research. Pecher ^Talk 13:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fully support the POV tag and indeed all of LeeHunter's concerns and proposed compromises. The article as it stands is a joke Dogville 11:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie is STILL not notable or verifiable

It's been a month now and no press has been published about this movie. No controversy, no debate, not even a critical review or a listing on IMBD. This is a movie that apparently played at a film festival and was mentioned by some bloggers. It fails every test of notability and verifiability. As WP:V says "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Show me one well-known reputable source mentioning this movie, or I'm renominating it for deletion. From the sources I've seen so far, this movie could be nothing but an internet hoax. Kaldari 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

and yet many have rushed here to kill its tiny voice and smear it. the absolutist zeal evidenced by this talk page is breathtaking66.209.214.23 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The page already survived a vote for deletion with a vote for keep less than a month ago. There are referenced links at the bottom of the page. The movie is notable as a joint project of four of the world's most well known and highly respected experts on Islam. --CltFn 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's review the listed sources:

Michnews.com: political/religious newsblog
WorldNetDaily: political/religious newsblog
andrewmarcus.com: political blog
whatthewestneedstoknow.com: the film's own site

Now let's review Wikipedia's guidelines for reputable sources:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie weblogs (blogs) which are not acceptable as sources."

Just give me one reputable source, that's all I ask. Kaldari 06:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to argue that the film's website is not a reliable source for the film itself. Pecher ^Talk 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. Fot all I know, the site could have been put up by someone as a joke. Why isn't there a trailer or even a screenshot on it? Someone could have set that entire site up in half an hour and emailed it to a bunch of Christian blogs as a prank. Assuming the site is legit, it would certainly be biased at the least. We should have at least one reputable unbiased source for this article, otherwise it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Just because something has a website doesn't mean its notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the film is a hoax. I think we can safely say that the existence of the film is verifiable. Whether it's notable or not is another question. It sounds like some sort of ultra-low budget production comprising nothing more than edited video footage from a single conference. Normally this kind of film wouldn't be considered notable, but since the speakers are notable (at least within their own domain) I would give it the benefit of the doubt. --Lee Hunter 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that there have been no published criticism of this movie due to the fact that it was only shown once, and there doesn't appear to be any way for anyone to see it again. The producers of the movie don't seem to be selling copies of it, or anything. Most reputable commentators would be hesitant to criticize a film they haven't seen. I'm beginning to think that the movie's one showing, followed by absolutely no access thereafter, may put this film in the non-notable category after all. If this film remains inaccessible to the public any longer, I'm going to be forced to vote for deletion if this article is set AfD again. -- Nortonew 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagline

Do you really believe that the tagline is part of the title? I'm certianly not going to get in an edit war over such a trivial matter, but this seems like a pretty obvious call to me. Kaldari 07:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book making same points

I'm reading a review now by Andrew McCarthy on NRO which indicates that Spencer makes pretty much the same points in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). [4]

Perhaps we should move the "points" section in the West Needs to Know into the "views" section of Robert Spencer. We could then merge the West into the author article or even reduce it to a redirect.

The main thing about Spencer, his documentary and his book is that he blames Islam itself (i.e., the religion, its scriptures, etc.) for the violence of latter-day terrorists. Now he may be wrong or me may be right, but those are his views. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not Robert Spencer documentary. It is Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly 's documentary. Thus your points are not applicable. And I fixed your link, its a superb book , have you read it?--CltFn 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six points from web site

This web page [5] looks very similar to our Wikipedia article.

Are we doing a copy vio?
Should we summarize Spencer's views? --Uncle Ed 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The movie is in six parts, that's why there is six points. Other than that, the actual content seems different enough. --Lee Hunter 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

...different enough to still remain acceptable as a promotional blurb.--Kitrus 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)