Talk:The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance 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

Contents 1 WP:NPOV tags 2 TOC of book 3 VfD 4 Criticism 5 Islamophobia 6 Ibn Warraq &al. 7 "contents" section needs explanation

[edit] WP:NPOV tags

In this collection of documents Robert Spencer provides a detailled debunking of the myths of Islamic tolerance propagated by Islamist propagandists today. - You will have to explain to me how that is anything other than inherently POV before I will allow the tags to be removed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I will not ask your permission. By the way, why didn't you make it neutral yourself? Be bold. It was not so hard. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. If you can do something useful, just do it, don't wave your fists. mikka (t) 01:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOC of book

This deletion is unjustified. It is fairly common to see critical essays that write:

• in Ch. 1 "Blablabla" the author writes...
• in Ch. 2 "Blublublu" the author insinuates...

And it would be very strange to declare copyvio here, not to say about 100% fair use of pretty liberal quotations from books. mikka (t) 20:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 01:04 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Removed:

One obvious problem with this argument is that the Jewish communities in Cordoba, Granada, and elsewhere in Spain were destroyed by the Christians, not the Muslims, when they were expelled in the late 15th century.

Removal for two reasons:

• first, logical: this fact says only that Christians became even more intolerant at these times, but does not prove that muslim were tolerant.
• Second, formal: this is your opinion, dear wikipedia editor. However you may quote an opinion of a respectable critic of the book. Wikipedia is not a discussion board. You may only report facts, keeping in mind that an opinion of a notable person is a valid fact, i.e., my deletion does not mean that I am opposing the criticism of the book. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Let us look at the whole sentence: "Robert Spencer argues that Islamic advocates have promulgated a myth of Islamic tolerance that can be dispelled by examining the historical events that led to the destruction of the Zoroastrians in Iran; the Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; and the Jews in Morocco, Cordoba, Granada , Marrakesh and Baghdad".

The more I look at this sentence the more problems I see with it. However one major problem is that it does imply that the Jewish communities in Cordoba and Granada were destroyed by the Muslims, which they were not, what Mikkalai says about these issues may be true but is beside the point in relation to the accuracy of this sentence. Also, Mikkalai's arguments raise problems about the Wikipedia project. If e.g. somebody wrote an article about a book claiming that the Earth is flat, would we be not allowed to say "all scientists agree that the Earth is round" or even "scientist X says the Earth is round", we would have to dig up a reputable scientist saying this about this particular book. This could encourage people to just delete articles about controversial books. PatGallacher 15:19, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Whether or not Spencer is correct, that is what he argues. As for the rest, you are arguing that original research should be allowed because obvious facts have no sources. However, obvious facts do indeed have sources, usually thousands of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand the position of PatGallacher, who does not want false or erroneous statements sit here unrefuted. But, as it may happen with each controversial topic, there is a danger to turn an encyclopedic article into a chain of mutial rebuttals, kind of "spencer said".."critics dismiss"..."spencerists refute the dismissal"... "anti-spencerists dismiss the refutal"... Sometimes it cannot be avoided; e.g., looking i the history of the "Creationism" article.

But if one wants to go this way, one must start with exact quotes of statements to be refuted. I did not read the book, and I am not going to, but the sentence in question does not look like the original Spencer quotation. Even if it does, the proposed refutal still means nothing. I am repeating and emphacizing my argument: the fact that Chistians finalized the destruction of the Jews in Cordoba does not imply that Muslim let the Jews flourish. The valid refutal should go like this: ["contrary to Spencer's position that Muslim rule led to destruction of Jews, Jewish communities in Cordoba grew and flourished"] <disclaimer: I know zilch on the issue, and the statement in square brackets may be false>. mikka (t) 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That would only be a valid rebuttal if some critic had stated it, and then it would have to be attributed. Otherwise it's original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Classifying trivial conclusions as OrRes would be an overstretch of the policy IMO. If Spencer says that the Earth is flat, then writing that his statement contradicts the Earth article, is perfectly legal IMO. Although I would agree that sometimes it is difficult to draw a line here.mikka (t) 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Final refutation: Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain says that Jews were expelled from Grenada in 1066, by arabs, and their Golden Age in Spain soon ended since then. Case closed, unless you prove that this article is wrong. mikka (t) 22:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, on reflection quoting published reviews of a book makes a better article than Wikipedians just diving in and making their own comments. I hesitate to say that the latter is always ruled out in principle, we can discuss whether this is quite what is meant by "no original research". I would ask people to note the context in which I made my comments. This was that the article was under a vote for deletion, I voted to keep, but the article had problems in that it was an uncritical summation of a controversial book, adding a few critical comments improved the chances of the article being kept. I still think this was reasonable at that stage. PatGallacher 18:55, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Removed:

Critics argue that the book is further evidence of the growing problem of Islamophobia in Western society.

Source please? (Removal by user:Jayjg). mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)

O.K., now it was changed to "Critics, such as Wendy Campbell, argue that the book is further evidence of the growing problem of Islamophobia in Western society." Who is Wendy Campbell, why is she relevant, what did she say, who are these other un-named "critics", and could we please have some proper citations for all this? You know, like a web-link or something. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Even with a citation, she's not a credible source. I've just looked her up. See here [1] and here url.com/axrno particularly the section headed "Zionists are re-building third temple off-site in Israel," where Campbell writes: "The Zionists are waiting for the right moment to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, which is the third most holy site of the Muslim world, and then re-locate the temple they are currently building off-site." The aim, she argues, is for Jerusalem to become the capital of the New World Order. She was told this by a businessman during a trip to Syria.

Actually, there is a small centre in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem with plans for the Third Temple on public display, including a model of the proposed temple and pamphlets for sale. I realise they do not represent the majority of Israelis. PatGallacher 15:19, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

My concern about this page, and several others written by the same user, is that, as originally written and if you look at all his/her edits together, the motive seems to be Islam-bashing, rather than to produce encyclopedic articles about books. That's why I'd be keen to see some reputable criticism included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 1, 2005 08:14 (UTC)

It seems to me that labeling his views as Islamophobia is a way of dismissing his criticism.--Sefringle 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reputable criticism would be great. Unsourced POV is not welcome, nor is POV from non-notables/cranks. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Warraq &al.

The following authors each in turn document historical events...: what this section is about? Relevance? Are these authors detailed in the book in question or are they listed here simply as a support of the book? In the latter case the section is of dubious relevance: the article must describe a book, not its critical essay, supporting or repealing. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

I think they're some of the authors whose essays are featured in the book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 1, 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Research reveals that Slim is right. The book is a collection of essays by various authors, and those listed are some of the authors and essays in the book. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

[edit] "contents" section needs explanation

It would be nice to have the contents expanded, like, say, The Sword of the Prophet does. Not necessarily in-depth, a line or two would do, but otherwise a chapter listing is useless other than to show the reader the "incendiary" chapter names. Garrett^Talk 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)