Talk:Bat Ye'or

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Hack job in the controversy section

I have just taken a look at the controversy section and it looks like someone has been busy collecting all sorts of negative material to attempt to discredit Bat Ye'or, much of which borders on a violation of WP:BLP because the material is presented in a fashion to maximize the damage by using sentence fragments without any context such as the rest of the sentence or the story. --CltFn 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is Jason Burke's comment innaplicable? BhaiSaab talk 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Because he is saying that she is the favorite on Right wing web-sites, which is unsubstantiated and misleading and an unwarranted characterization since her writings make no mention of right wing political ideas . She writes about the history of Dhimmitude which has nothing to do with right or left wing politics. .--CltFn 05:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That just means right wing web-sites like her. It doesn't necessarily mean her writings are of the same subject material. I think the quote is fine. BhaiSaab talk 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well many different types of websites use her articles and Jason Burke's comment is a general statement which omits to specify which web sites and why are they characterized as right wing and how does he determine that she is a favorite. Its just not good encyclopedic material. The only use I can see for Burke's comment would be to malign her in his own mind.--CltFn 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Controversy section is full of broken citations and has been that way for months. These need to be fixed , or the paragraphs they refer to may be deleted as uncited.--CltFn 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historian

Bat Ye'or is a researcher. It is NPOV and I think Bat Ye'or does consider herself as a researcher. But saying she is a historian is not NPOV. John Esposito criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. Esther Benbassa stated that Bat Ye'or is not a professional historian. --Aminz 11:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a credible citation that states that she is a historian. Like it or not, what you state is your own opinion, and your repeated attempt at removing the title of historian is making it look like you are only trying to discredit her for personal reasons. If you read any of her books , you will see that she is a historian , and she meets the highest academic standards in her writings as everything is cited with volumes of primary sources.--CltFn 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
She is not a historian because she has no academic qualifications in history, has never taught history in an institution of higher learning, indeed, has never held an academic post. I accept that she does provide voluminous references for points, but so do many other writers whose work is classified in Wikipedia as "pseudohistory". Itsmejudith 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The source used for historian shows clear bias for her work (it's an op-ed). Can you cite "historian" from something more authoritative? BhaiSaab talk 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
She has never been a historian . People make her look like one, mainly because of her politically correct inflammatroy conclsions . She is a researcher creating lots of footnotes . Thats it . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
She is a historian and she is she is called a historian in the Washington Times [1] if you need a source. The wikipedia article on historian defines historian as "A historian is someone who writes history, and history is a written accounting of the past. If events precede recorded history, the term is prehistory.Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline."
The Washington Times, which is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unifiction Church, is not a reputable source.
Requiring a formal graduate degree to the title is an arbitrary qualification , but not a must. It should be noted that neither Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, al-Tabari nor Ibn Khaldun had any academic credentials , and they would not be called historians per the standard some editors are demanding for Bat Ye'or.--CltFn 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The people you cited seem all to be from circa 1000 CE. If we are to apply today's standards to that time, probably every notable politician and military leader would be a war criminal. In the context of circa 1000 CE, these people were historians, much as their contemporaries who knew nothing formal about empirical methods or experimental design were scientists simply because they tried interesting things and recorded their results.
If her work was accepted by most historians as being a valid contribution to the discipline then perhaps the word "historian" would apply, although even then "amateur historian" would probably be more applicable. But it isn't, so she shouldn't have the description. The four examples you gave above are all from the Middle Ages, mostly from the early Middle Ages. Those authors were in fact engaged in scholarship of the highest order. They were members of large scholarly communities, studied in the best schools that existed in their times, or with the best authorities, and their work remained valid for centuries afterwards. To say they had no academic credentials is either deliberate anachronism or just plain wrong. Itsmejudith 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well so has Bat Ye'or , she studied at the Institute of Archeology (University of London) and University of Geneva . She has 8 published books , and is considered a major authority in the history of the dhimmi and dhimmitudte. I do not know about you but when I read her books ,there is absolutely no doubt that she is her work reflects "scholarship of the highest order". Robert Spencer described Bat Ye’or on C-SPAN as :
Bat Ye’or is the pioneering scholar of dhimmitude, of the institutionalized discrimination and harassment of non-Muslims under Islamic law. She is the first person to study this as her field and to make it into a field of academic study. Her books are highly recommended and are full – most of them are almost half primary source documents so that one can see the veracity of what she is saying from very ancient texts. And so this is something that she has opened up that the Middle East studies establishment was afraid or indifferent or unwilling to look at. And she has opened up this study which is a very important field of study particularly in light of the ongoing Islamization (ph) of the societies of Europe nowadays. [2] --CltFn 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone should save Spencer himself. Who is Spencer?? Bat Ye'or is more credible than the Islamophobe Spencer. And that is not my Original Research, I just quoted Prof. Carl Ernst. --Aminz 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No one cares about Professor Carl Ernst. Arrow740 09:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing inherently wrong with being an islamophobe, its all a matter of point of view. Many authors are routinely accused of islamophobia by people who object to their writings and who themselves might be labelled "apologists" and "revisionists". I personally have a far higher respect for writers who have the intellectual courage to continue to write about what they have observed regardless of attempted censorship. So whats you point , the topic of this section is the title of historian.--CltFn 23:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Simple question: is Noam Chomsky a historian? He is a professor, and he writes foot-noted chronologies of historical events, and a lot of (non-historians) cite his historical work. I don't think he is, and neither is Bat Ye'or, at least not based on the evidence provided so far.
This all comes down (as far as I can see) to a simple question of whether someone without academic credentials can be described as a "historian". My feeling is that in Bat Ye'or's case it's not unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with her conclusions, she's still notable for researching and writing about history. You can be a dentist without graduating from medical school. Whether you are practicing dentistry competently and with the approval of those who regulate dentists is an important but separate question. If you're known for your dental work, you're a "dentist" (even if you wind up in jail for practicing without a license) --Lee Hunter 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So you think Noam Chomsky is a historian? How about Gore Vidal? Would you at least go for calling her an "author of historical writings" or "writer of histories" or some such? Can you at least see that calling someone a historian implies a lot of things that are not true in Bat Ye'or's, or Noam Chomsky's, or Gore Vidal's cases? How about Holocaust deniers? A very, very few of them probably are, by most reckonings, historians, but what about the cottage industry of writers of very selective histories that are mostly read only by like-mindless people? Aren't some of these writers "notable for researching and writing about history," which you hold out as the criterion for being called a historian? (By the way, dentists normally go to dental school, not medical school, as any physician will be very quick to tell you ;) ). -- DLH

I note that in the only peer review that I have found of Bat Ye'or's work, a review of one of her books by Prof. Sidney Griffith of Catholic University, who also reviewed previously a prior version of the book, the "lack" and "want" of "historical method" in her work is twice noted. -- DLH

Merriam Webster defines it here and [[Oxford English Dictionarydefines it here, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it here. Thus by "modern day usage" as supported by mainstream dictionaries Bat Ye'Or is a historian.--CltFn 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that the 1421 hypothesis is cited below as a notorious example of pseudohistory but Gavin Menzies is categorized as a British historian rather than a British writer. Mind you, the actual article text does not describe him as a historian and of course, WP, is not a reliable source for anything. It just seems a bit inconsistent in that Bat Ye'Or would seem to be a stronger case. --Lee Hunter 23:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My look showed Menzies only described as "author" or "writer." Anyway, I agree with you that he should not be called a historian, and that Bat Ye'or has a stronger claim to the appelation than he does. To be clear, though, I don't think either of them are properly called "historian." -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.16 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thomas Jones Review

The title of his review is "How to concoct a conspiracy theory." It is not "Short Cuts", which is a name of a section of the journal. See the latest edition of the journal, for example, which also has a "Short Cuts." [3] Tidaress 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tidaress is right, the Table of Contents in the issue title it as such.--Kitrus 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If its not in the article , its not the title. Many magazines have wordings on their covers that do not correspond to the title of their articles.--CltFn 11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So the magazine publisher decides to put some words as the topic header that seem like a title, but you're saying it's not a title. I do believe it is indeed "How to concoct a conspiracy theory." You'll notice that other articles have appropriate titles in the index as well. Tidaress 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If "How to concoct a conspiracy theory" is the title then why is it not written above the article? On the other hand "Short Cuts" is what is written above the article. So not only are you willfully misrepresenting "How to concoct a conspiracy theory" as the title but you are also removing the actual title "Short Cuts" from the reference. --CltFn 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The table of contents for that issue [4] clearly shows that "How to concoct a conspiracy theory" is the actual title of the article. Short Cuts is a section or department title. Seems pretty much self-evident to me. --Lee Hunter 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually , "How to concoct a conspiracy theory" is the editor's description of the article. It is NOT the title of the article , The article is untitled. At Wikipedia we title references exactly according to what can be seen to be the visible title above the article itself. We do not title the article according to what an editor has summarized elsewhere , that would be called the editor's description , and not the title. --CltFn 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you then explain why "Short Cuts" would be the title of hundreds or thousands of their articles? If you click on other articles in the index, you'll see that the title is omitted and the section name is used. Tidaress 20:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"At Wikipedia we title references exactly according to what can be seen to be the visible title above the article itself." Can you show a policy statement that states the same? Thank you. Tidaress 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As I just said , the article is untitled. and as far as a policy check Wikipedia:Verifiability--CltFn 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article quite clearly has a title and Wikipedia:Verifiability does not appear to have any guidance that is relevant to this discussion. --Lee Hunter 22:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gisele Littman (born Orebi)

Bat Ye'or, is the pen name of Gisele Littman (born Orebi), as per this page of peer-reviewed journal paper: [5]. --70.51.230.151 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Presumption in favor of privacy "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Littman is unquestionably a public figure - she has gone out of her way to seek the limelight - so there's no reason to not mention her real name if it is documented in other reliable sources. Furthermore the spirit of the guideline is to simply protect the privacy of people who might find themselves thrust into the spotlight, not people who are jumping in front of the tv cameras to flog their books and ideas. --Lee Hunter 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Her real name is neither an allegation nor an incident. Now stop flogging your ideas. Arrow740 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A person's real name is an essential part of a biography. Furthermore it's a matter of public record and it's not some irrelevant bit of personal information like an address or phone number. --Lee Hunter 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What are the cites? <<-armon->> 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Here [6] --Lee Hunter 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks pretty good but is that the only one? <<-armon->> 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The only one on the web that specifically says "Gisele Littman". There are many that note that she is the wife of David Littman [7]. --Lee Hunter 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of those results are cruft, but here (Washington Times), and here, David Littman is named as her husband -and he's also listed as a translator of her books. So I'm going to suggest we put that info in, and wait until we have a corroborating source for her "real name". If there were more sources for it, I'd side with Lee. <<-armon->> 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind -source is good. Her name should be in. <<-armon->> 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
She also published under the name "Y. Masriya" [8] -don't know if it's notable or where it should go. <<-armon->> 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The source isn't the issue. The issue is her desire for privacy. Arrow740 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Coming here from the RFC. In my view the real name should be given. The sources for it are reliable, and the name is also available in other sources outside Wikipedia. It doesn't help readers to remove this information. Subjects of biography articles can't be given a veto on what they say. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Fys here. Given the manner in which this individual is known publically and the statements she's making it can only benefit the article to facilitate access to her real name for those who are inclined to want to research who she is to better understand her views. (→Netscott) 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also coming from RFC. The relevant question is whether she is a public or non-public figure. If she is a public figure, then we clearly should state her name. (This wouldn't be enough reason to add truly private details such as how to contact her.) If she is a non-public figure then, to quote WP:BLP "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." I don't see a real name as relevant to notability, so if non=public the name should be out. (But I'd still leave the redirect in place; only editors, as opposed to readers, will see it.) That said, my review of the talk page here plus some of the citations make me believe that she is a public figure. I would omit her maiden name; that is an irrelevant level of detail and infringes even further on her privacy. GRBerry 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Another coming from RFC. I strongly believe her real name should also be noted. That's fairly standard biographical practice for encyclopedias. Wbroun 04:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is one more RFC guy. Insofar as her real name has appeared in peer-reviewed journals (in addition to the link above, I remember seeing her real and maiden names disclosed in another book review), there are probably no good reasons to hide it. Her marriage to David Littman is well-documented, too. What I am more concerned about is the quote farm in the "views" section, which seems to have gathered every single opinion on her that the editors have been able to unearth, including claims by two non-notable students. Beit Or 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity in the intro?

I notice that SlimVirgin has just removed the "Jewish" descriptor from the intro. Considering the angle Gisèle Littman (Bat Ye'or) is taking relative to Islam and Muslims I think what her ethnicity is relative to that is a fairly imporant aspect for the article. No? (→Netscott) 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that the connection between her writing and ethnicity is so central to what she does that it needs to be in the lead. It's in the next section for anyone who wants to know about it. It looks as though we're saying she could only write this if she were a Jew, or something similar, which would be nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is interesting on article dealing with critics of Islam , certain editors go around trying to emphasize ethnic/religious roots , particularly if they are Jewish , but for people who might be construed to be sympathetic to the causes of Muslims like Noan Chomsky, or Kofi Annan there seems to be little interest in their ethnic roots.--CltFn 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Race or religion should never be mentioned in the lead paragraph unless it is somehow central to the person's notability. The fact that Ye'or is a Jew writing about Islam is part of her story but it has nothing to do with why she's notable (or notorious, depending on your POV). --Lee Hunter 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Will the last three commentators please explain whether they think "British" should be left in? I think the intro should note somehow that she is an Egyptian Jewish woman who now lives in Great Britain: that she is an Egyptian Jewish woman is the main thing that makes her perspective interesting, isn't it? She writes about dhimmitude having been a dhimmi, after all. That's different from just having an academic interest in it, and not just because the reader might read in that she is biased (can't you give Wikipedia readers a little credit?). -- DLH

Actually, I believe she lives in Switzerland now. I agree that her background is a relevant part of the article as it no doubt informs her writing, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that she became known because of it or that her background gives her any special authority. By pushing it up into the lead, we would be implying that her background is special. I'd rather let the readers decide for themselves. For example, in the lead paragraph for Alex Haley we don't mention that he's black even though he's very well known for writing about African-Americans.--Lee Hunter 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
How can readers decide what to think about it if they don't even know? An introduction, I think, ought to give a very quick overview of the subject that includes all the salient facts that might be of further interest. Many readers might not go beyond the intro, particularly if matters of direct interest are not indicated in it. I think the fact that Bat Ye'or is an Egyptian Jewish woman is such a matter, and apparently she agrees, else why would she have chosen the Hebrew for "daughter of the Nile" as her pen name? Her background IS special, at least as related to her main writing subject. Do you deny that, Lee? And I frankly think that Alex Haley's intro ought to indicate fairly directly that he is African-American, even if only by noting that his most famous work is a chronicle of his family's history from Africa through American slavery through recent times. -- DLH
I think everyone's background is special for some reason or another. The policy at WP and most other publications that I'm aware of, is to focus on a person's achievements rather than their race or religion. We shouldn't hide the fact that she's Jewish and we shouldn't present it as being more significant. She's only significant for what she has written about others, not for the details of her life story. I also think most editors would disagree about Haley as well. Shakespeare wrote about white people but I'm sure (without even checking) that the lead paragraph to his article doesn't mention his race. --Lee Hunter 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is she not significant for the authority and perspective with which she writes what she writes? And does it not matter than Alex Haley wrote "Roots" based mostly on the oral traditions of his family rather than distantly removed research? Does Shakespeare's article mention that he's English? It really, really should if it doesn't. -- DLH
I would always state people's nationality right in the first line of a bio. Even in "XXX is a American baseball player". The main reason for this is to counter the systemic bias towards an American point of view in the encyclopedia, a bias that creeps in because so much of the web is US-created. Next point that needs to be considered in every bio, to be consistent, is that many notable people have migrated between countries during their lives and this also should be considered. A bio of a living person should generally describe these facts in a way that the subject would approve of. In Bat Ye'or's case she has made much of her birth in Egypt and the circumstances of her leaving, so that would seem to constitute a good argument for including her Jewish faith in the lead, as well as her moving to Britain as a refugee and her current residence in Switzerland.Itsmejudith 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nationality and/or citizenship should certainly be mentioned in the intro. That's customary. On the other hand, her place of residence is a bit of trivia which is barely worth mentioning anywhere. I certainly can't see any reason for including it in the lead. I did a quick scan of bios in WP and found very few that mentioned the religion of the subject in the lead paragraph and in each of those cases there were compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps if you could show me examples of other articles where a writer's religion or race is mentioned in the lead paragraph I would find it easier to understand your point. --Lee Hunter 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being an Egyptian Jewish woman is so much her race/religion as her national origin. We have Edward Said identified as "Palestinian-American," George Soros indicated as having been born in Hungary, Karl Popper identified as being "Austrian and British" (?), Ludwig Wittgenstein called "Austrian," Arnold Schwarzenegger noted as being born in Austria -- it seems that it is typical for trans-national people to have their original nationalities noted in the introduction, one way or another, even when it is largely irrelevant to whatever they are notable for. -- DLH

Albert Einstein is noted in his intro as having been "born to a family of Jewish ancestry in Ulm, Württemberg, Germany," and his later American citizenship is not stated at all. -- DLH

Sure there's a case for describing her as being born in Egypt. Actually it's customary in WP that the date and place of birth appears in the first sentence, but why "Jewish"? We don't introduce Edward Said as Christian, Soros as Jewish, or Wittgenstein as Catholic. I must say that Einstein is a surprise. I can't see any reason for mentioning his religion in the first paragraph. Looking at the talk page I see that this sentence has been disputed for a long time. --Lee Hunter 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Was her nationality at birth Egyptian, though, or Jewish Egyptian? I expect that if you asked her, she would say that she was most distinctly not Egyptian, being a dhimmi. I don't see any reason not to mention Einstein's religion; while he was famous for his physics, there were many aspects of his public life for which his religion was relevant -- leaving Germany, for example. Don't concede this point to me, though, before considering why Bat Ye'or left Egypt. ;) -- DLH
It was certainly an important part of her life story but her life story is not the reason why there is an article about her in Wikipedia. Einstein's life story, on the other hand, is more relevant (although I still don't think it justifies making an exception). Religion also played a part in the life stories of Soros, Said, Wittgenstein, but we don't introduce them by their religion. In the same way you wouldn't introduce someone at a party by proclaiming their religion or race. You'll find this is very consistent throughout Wikipedia. Einstein is an exception but there is an ongoing debate over the question even there. --Lee Hunter 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Umm, being born in Egypt wouldn't necessarily make her Egyptian! Lots of Jews born in Egypt, like Eric Hobsbawm, were most definitely not Egyptian ...

[edit] John Esposito is a shill for the Saudis

John Esposito, heads the International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University which is a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia [9]. He has clear ties to Saudi lobbying interests and this should be mentioned to put his criticism in the proper context.--CltFn 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is simply inappropriate and original research. He's a distinguished academic at a respectable university (from his article: member of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy from 1999 to 2004.[1] He is editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present. He is the founding director of Georgetown’s Prince Waleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and has served as president of MESA and of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies.) There is no more reason to imply that his opinion is tainted by Saudi money than there is to suggest that other academics who take a positive view of Israel have been influenced by donations to their universities from Jews or from the Israeli government. --Lee Hunter 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
OK then I mentioned this fact without making any conclusions about it.--CltFn 15:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on the relevance of mentioning this information (or of removing the fact that Esposito is a professor), but I would like to point out that if it is included it should be included accurately, as in how it is presented here, and not in the false claim that John Esposito himself is the recipient of funds as it was presented here.PelleSmith 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


How about this as a compromise? John Esposito, a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies a director at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University which is a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia [10] has criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. [1]

--CltFn 17:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that what you have presented is, in any way, a compromise (other than restoring his real job title which should be in there regardless). Like I said above, when a university professor makes a positive statement about Israel we don't add a notation about however many millions the university received from an Israeli company, from a Jewish businessperson or from the Israeli government. It's an absurd edit which is clearly inappropriate. Frankly, I don't see any room for a "compromise". --Lee Hunter 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


So you genuinely think that Esposito' criticism is in no way related to the Saudi lobby group that has financed him over the past decades?--CltFn 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What I think and what you think are not important. We're editors only, not mind readers or armchair pundits. If you believe that Esposito was influenced by the Saudi's, that is your opinion and speculation. It is not a fact and has no place in this context. --Lee Hunter 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is original research?

To LeeHamilton: How is "Born to a Jewish family in Egypt, she personally experienced living as a dhimmi in the early years of her life" original research? Which part of the sentence do you think is my addition to the facts available? If you want to call it irrelevant, I can accept that your perspective is different from mine, but to call it "original research" is just flat out wrong, Lee. -- DLH

  • The part I objected to was "she personally experienced living as a dhimmi". This goes beyond a factual statement of her life story to an interpretation of what it was about. If she has described her life that way, we can certainly quote her. I think it's debatable whether, at the time she left, Egypt was an Islamic state (the socialist military dictator Nasser was in power). Dhimmi refers specifically to a person's status under Sharia. --Lee Hunter 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, I'll change it too "she personally experienced living as a religious minority in a predominantly Muslim country." -- DLH

[edit] Is a reference from "JihadWatch," which is directed by Robert Spencer, "poorly sourced," as CltFn claims?

CltFn removed "her work has also been described as "too polemical" by Princeton University Near Eastern Studies professor Bernard Lewis.[11]" with the comment, "and clean the other poorly sourced statement." Yet in the same sentence, CltFn keeps a comment attributed to Robert Spencer, who runs the media outlet that CltFn calls a poor source. Should all references to Robert Spencer's comments be removed, or should the comment noted on his media outlet be accepted as a proper source, or is this article just a heap of hypocrisy? -- DLH

"DLH " Please get a user account at Wikipedia instead of posting anonymously , otherwise one might be prone to believe that you are actually a banned user trying to evade his blocks in wikipedia --CltFn 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Posting anonymously?" I'm guessing that CltFn is not your real name ... Anyway, I'm not hiding that my edits are by me. I just don't see what utility there is to me to get a user account, other than to avoid semi-protects as at Zionism. -- DLH

[edit] Spencer quotes

CltFN, would you please pay attention to what you're doing? Look at the Bat Ye'or#References section! There's now a honking big quote in there which doesn't belong. Secondly, why are we quoting Robert Spencer so extensively in this article. Spencer is not an academic figure, he's a guy who's written some books on terrorism and is clearly playing on the same team as Ye'or. There's no excuse for quoting him (especially without naming him!) about how thoroughly Ye'or researches her books when Spencer himself has no special authority in the field (other than a masters degree). --Lee Hunter 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I beg to differ , Robert Spencer is a notable source, and a recognized authority on this area as evidenced by his appearances on C-SPAN [12] and many other national media outlets. Yes he has a masters in religion and his books are extremely academic from the perspective of having everything cited to historical sources.
I happen to have read many of Ye'or's book and all I have to do is open them , say the The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam , a book of 405 pages which starts at page 161 with the documents section of original sources for the next 244 pages listing original primary sources documents. Can we write an article here and state facts without the anti Ye'or camps tearing down everything they can ? Seems to me that some of the editors here have long since abandoned the idea of writing an article but are instead trying to prevent one from being written.--CltFn 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point completely. Certainly, as the author of a few popular (i.e. non-academic) books, Robert Spencer is notable in his own way, but he has absolutely no qualifications for judging the academic quality of Bat Ye'Or research. Furthermore, Spencer and Ye'or are part of the same inbred clique of pseudo-historians making their living entirely through selling the idea of Islam as enemy. We already quote him in two places in the article. You are attempting to insert a third quote. This is way over the top. --Lee Hunter 19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
CltFn is about to be blocked (likely for a very long time) for 3RR. See this. (→Netscott) 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not commited any 3RRs. The ones you list are false claims. --CltFn 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you've made at least 7 reverts to this article today. Probably several more. -- DLH
He's blocked for 48 hours. --Lee Hunter 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Pseudo-Historians ??? as opposed to what? A historian is one who writes about the history of events of the past. And that is what they are. You many not agree with their account of historical events , or the conclusions to be drawn from thereof but that does not change the verifiable primary sources in their books. Please tell me that you have read a least one book by Bat Ye'or. Have you????--CltFn 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't leap up and down please, CltFn. Wikipedia has a rigorous view of what is history and what is pseudohistory. If you look at the 1421 hypothesis book, for example, you will find that it is very heavily referenced, but it is still considered here to be a prime example of pseudohistory. Perhaps we need to consider head-on which category Bat Ye'or falls into, but we will need to do so by reference to criteria. Quoting masses of primary sources, for example, is not in itself evidence of good historical research.Itsmejudith 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would certainly agree you on the 1421 hypothesis. But the main point is can we write an article on this person or not? For instance can we say that half her books are primary sources or is that taboo?? I have the book in front of me to confirm it.--CltFn 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We can definitely write an article. It is a biography of a living person so we have guidelines to help us. And we have consensus on a structure: 1. who is she, 2, what has she done, 3. achievements/praise/accolades, 4. criticism. I would support the point being made briefly that she refers copiously to primary sources - go ahead and add it. I remember somewhere on a talk page saying that at least she cites her sources properly so editors have what you could call an "audit-trail" for the facts. Everyone's got some good points! (It's nearly Christmas and I'm getting in the festive spirit, season of goodwill and all that. Good thing I'm not a Christian or I could get carried away.) Itsmejudith 21:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Nick Griffin/British National Party praise

Armon in this edit removed praise from a BNP leader because he claimed it wasn't a reputable source, his edit summary was "gimme a break -not even close to a RS."

She has also been praised by Nick Griffin, the leader of the far right British National Party, who said: "Bat Ye’or is 100 per cent right... For us, the closely linked threats of mass Third World immigration and Islamification outweigh all other considerations." [2]

Such praise though is notable and is regularly included in similar articles. A good example where such praise from notorious groups is widely considered fair game for inclusion is the article on Israel Shahak, see this section: Israel_Shahak#Use_by_Neo-Nazis_and_Holocaust_deniers. --70.51.232.12 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much with Nick Griffin, it's finding him quoted in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source like a book, magazine or newspaper. The whatnextjournal appears to be more of a fringe website. There are also quite a few bloggers that claim Griffin is a big fan of Ye'Or, but I couldn't find a reliable source that made the same claim. --Lee Hunter 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Reprint from the Jewish Chronicle issue of November 10 2006 hosted on Melanie Phillips' blog:
In the Communist Party’s Morning Star newspaper last September, Geoff Brown cited both the BNP’s support for Israel against Hezbollah, and chairman Nick Griffin’s support for the Jewish writer Bat Ye’or who has warned of an Islamist takeover of Europe, as evidence of a Jewish/fascist axis. [13]
2) Reprint of the Morning Star article referenced above:
And, for Griffin, the most important of these "real struggles" is against Muslims. In an article posted on the BNP website earlier this year, Griffin stated emphatically: "To even hint of making common cause with Islam – or put ourselves in a position when opponents can suggest to the masses that this is the case – is political insanity." He rejected the arguments of "those 'hardliners' who would rather attack the Jews than the Muslims," condemning them as "people whose one-track concern about 'the Jews' is blinding them to the clear and present danger of resurgent Islam." Griffin argued that, rather than attacking the Jewish community, "We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. Significantly, Griffin has justified his party's anti-Muslim policy by referring approvingly to the writer Bat Ye'or, whom the New York Times has described as one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right." [14]
3) A BNP webpage citing Bat Ye'or in a positive fashion (although the author appears to be "Lee Barnes", not Nick Griffin):
But Bat Ye'or, in her work which makes use of many of those scholars, but goes far beyond a work of synthesis, relying as well on the testimony of non-Muslims -- dhimmis themselves (the chronicle of Arakel of Tabriz, for example), and Western diplomats, and the historical record is filled out -- so that the scandalous scanting of Muslim intolerance, Muslim aggression toward all non-Muslims, Muslim indifference to all pre-Islamic or non-Islamic civilizations. For an explanation of the concept of Dhimmitude visit the Dhimmitude website. [15]
HTH. --70.51.232.12 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK Ben, so you've got one RS if the Philips piece is not a blog post. However, the quote you selected obscures her point:
Despite the manifest absurdity of the BNP’s attempt to cosy up to the Jews, however, the left has seized on its manoeuvrings in order to smear Jews and Zionists as being the neo-fascists’ natural allies.
Please explain how this sideshow on the fringes of the right and left improves the article. <<-armon->> 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of referring to authors

I am against including the full academic credentials inline of everyone who has written about Bat Ye'or (or about anyone in a bio). To my mind it makes for clunky reading and leaves the way open to point-scoring about which authority sounds most eminent. If they're worth citing, and especially if they have their own WP entry, then they are worth citing. Readers can follow the links if they need to. Itsmejudith 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I mostly agree with that. I don't think Professor at Harvard is problematic but Laurence A. Tisch professor is getting rather wordy... and it's not that it isn't useful to know that they are paid by endowment and not just another professor... but, professors like that tend to have their own pages. I am more worried about context for quotes produced on the back of the book, however. (or any other quotes that we only have a snippet of). gren グレン 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's important to tell readers who we're quoting, in part as a courtesy so people don't have to move back and forth between articles, and in part because it's relevant to Bat Ye'or's reputation that she has full professors at top universities either praising or criticizing her.
Gren, why would the issue of context matter? We never know the context within which material was published; these quotes were published, and we reproduce parts of them. It would be absurd to omit that she's been praised by Sir Martin Gilbert, an historian with an extremely good reputation. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem of systemic bias in that the concept of "full professor" does not exist in the UK or European context. In the UK the mainstream academic staff are called "lecturers", and I have had tiresome arguments with those who have tried to say that those staff are not worth quoting, and the equivalents of US "full professors" are called simply "professors". They are less likely in the US to be the "Fred Bloggs Professor". In France the situation is different again. As for quotes from the back of books are concerned, I don't think they're appropriate. Publishers are always going to take the best bits. The full reviews should be sourced. Itsmejudith 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If the reviews were written for the publisher and only those parts were published, then that's all we have.
As for the professor thing, I don't follow your argument about systemic bias. There are full professors in Europe — people who hold chairs. That's why I included the full title — to make it clear we're not dealing with some assistant professor. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what Mark Cohen actually says in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, p. 198? We have him as saying that Bat Ye'or "exaggerates the acts of Islamic persecution selectively," which doesn't actually mean anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* two replies destroyed by edit conflicts since IE doesn't save inputs when you press back. Summary: 1) I don't particularly care about the professors since I see the point with both of you. 2) I think we need to take the book cover issues up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I think it is clear that they are biased but it's also clear that the reviewers are important. Hopefully we can find full reviews. Cohen's quote means that Bat Ye'or takes certain acts out of context to make it seem like more persecution than there is? I don't understand how it doesn't actually mean anything"... As to the context around the quote it should be cleared up and make sure that it is the main point of his review... and a complete bibliographic entry should be made. Alsom, no reason to have surname, prenom since it's not an alphabetical list. gren グレン 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Cohen thing is poor writing, so it's almost certainly not what he actually wrote, or else it's been lifted out of another sentence. Exaggerates "the" acts of Islamic persecution — which acts? All the pro and anti comments we use are biased, Gren, in the sense of being someone's opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right... which is why I thought you removed the distinction between "positive" and "negative" in the responses section so that the quotes would represent the reviews. And what you say about Cohen is correct. Whoever has access to the page should quote it so that we can see and fix it up. gren グレン 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In reality, Cohen is talking about the "myth of interfaith utopia" and, mostly as an aside, contrasts it with the "counter-myth of Islamic persecution"; it's a complicated argument and point that's mostly about the folly and historical anachronism of "constructing Jewish history around the idea of Islamic tolerance". Perhaps unsurprisingly, Cohen's point has been misrepresented, and used as a crude club to misleadingly bash Bat Ye'or. Jayjg (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that means you remove his commentary... you just fix it... Can you either re-add relevant portions or, since you seem to have the book available, make the relevant area avaiable? I think this is a very similar situation to using quotes from the back of the book... they don't give you enough context and they turn into a bashing or praise-fest which... doesn't really help. gren グレン 02:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In the quoted passage, there was nothing worth keeping: it just wasn't about Bat Ye'or. Please keep this article a biogrpahy instead of making it a debate on the life of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Beit Or 08:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or has been indeed criticized for her controversial Dhimmitude thesis. That is quite relevant. --Aminz 08:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Dhimmitude" is a neologism, not a thesis, and it has its own article where all relevant criticism may be included. Beit Or 08:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or is well known for her ideas about Dhimmitude. These scholars are criticizing her works not herself. --Aminz 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or is well-known for her works. Some reviews of works are included in the article. Please keep general scholarly debates out of here. Beit Or 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why this should be included:"British historian Sir Martin Gilbert writes of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis that it "presents a wide range of historical and contemporary documents and facts to tell the story of how the European Union is being subverted by Islamic hostility to the very ethics and values of Europe itself...."
It is a review, isn't it? Same goes with views on Dhimmitude. --Aminz 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a review of Bat Ye'or's book and thus citable. Discussions of "the two myths" are not reviews of her works and thus not citable unless her works are specifically mentioned. Beit Or 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW it was I who removed the distinction between the +ve and the -ve. I was forgetting, Slim, that you know the UK HE system well. The point is simply that you can be a distinguished prof in the UK without being "the XXX prof". It is cumbersome to quote all of this. Itsmejudith 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any other obvious way to make clear that they actually hold chairs. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to go to library for the full quote of Cohen, but as far as I remember it says that Bat Ye'or through selectively exaggerating acts of Islamic persecution made anti-myth of Islamic persecution, something like that.
And what clarification Esposito's criticism needs?--Aminz 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly did he say? She is not entirely unqualified. Arrow740 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I remember the source just says she was criticized for that. --Aminz 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, do you have any source for qualifications she might hold? As the article stands it reads like she started programs of study but didn't complete them. This is misleading if she does actually have a degree. Itsmejudith 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
She has had her work published in peer-reviewed academic journals. That is some qualification. We should point out that the state of Islamic Studies departments has been such that it would be hard for someone as critical as her to get a PhD despite the high level of scholarship. Arrow740 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have left a break between these. Any papers she has in peer-reviewed academic journals should be cited here - they aren't at the moment. All I found from a search of the main journal database was some letters to journals. Please note that she wouldn't necessarily have had to get a PhD from an Islamic Studies department - are they of identical politics in all Western countries? In Eurabia she is addresses the history of the European Union so could have enrolled in a European Studies department. Or for her other interests perhaps in a history department. Itsmejudith 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cohen doesn't even refer directly to Bat Yeor, but merely references her 1985 work The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam in a parenthetical aside, not even citing a page number. This out-of-context and dubious original research should not be included here. Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Myth of Islamic intolerance was clearly what he is referring to and you can see that in his other works. --Aminz 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph was lengthy, and not about Bat Ye'or. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will find quotes connecting Bat Ye'or to anti-myth of Islamic persecution. That's not hard. --Aminz 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, don't. That's original research, and you're merely looking for ways to condemn her, which is against WP:BLP. The article should flow naturally out of notable commentary on her work, rather than being a place where Wikipedia editors can scare up any criticism they can Google on the web, as you have been doing. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Bat Ye'or's idea of Dhimmitude was one of her most controversial works. Mark Cohen says he is remained convinced that such a view distorts the past as equally as saying Dhimmis were living in a peaceful heaven. So, to me it seems important and I think the article should touch that point. --Aminz 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not clear that Cohen (as you reported through secondary sources ... for Mark Cohen's views) referred to Bat Ye'or. This is just what Jayzg warned you against. Arrow740 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, Please see [16] The section title is "THE NEO-LACHRYMOSE CONCEPTION OF JEWISH-ARAB HISTORY". Cheers, --Aminz 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Cover quotes

I have brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.

But, in the meantime I came across references to:

  • Niall Ferguson, 'Eurabia?', New York Times (4 April 2004).
  • Niall Ferguson, 'The end of Europe?', American Enterprise Institute Bradley Lecture (1 March 2004).

They might give us a more complete look into Ferguson's viewss instead of only having one line to work with. The article that cited them mentioned Gilbert Martin but gave no source. I'm not sure what he exactly says about Bat Ye'or but I'd assume part of it is about her. gren 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re a point made by Slim in an earlier section: can it be the case that book reviews are written only for a publisher? I have never heard of this. I think publishers read the reviews and pick out sentences that reflect well on the book. Even good publishers seem to have no compunction about cherry-picking in this way. I have found an internet link to a comment by Martin Gilbert about Eurabia that seems to be a different extract from the same review - it is from a book distributor so not really a reliable source - but it would seem to indicate that a longer piece was originally written. Itsmejudith 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Publishers have been known to solicit comments. More seriously, it may be assumed that any quotation on a book jacket is taken out of context; it should be found and checked before use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment was published, and we use material that has been published. We never enquire as to whether more of it was published elsewhere, so I don't know why we'd want to do it in this case. Also, publishers do elicit comments, and sometimes people will write to the publisher spontaneously after reading a first edition or a manuscript. It's smacking a little of original research to be trying to track down the origin and context of the reviews. If the comments were negative, would we still be doing that, I wonder. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't like we're using "The Clash of Civilizations" article but could learn more from The Clash of Civilizations book. And original research? I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. It would seem to me that it would only make an article better to actually contextualize specific points of praise and it seems ludicrous to me that you think this could be negative in any way. I was not inspired by the urge to remove all positive comments--nor have I asked that it be done. I reacted when I saw a citation saying "Review reproduced on the back cover of Eurabia" thinking it was a troll. I have no problem keeping that or other praising quotes if it represents the author's view. I have no problem if you believe that it is okay to use quotes from book covers--I disagree, but these things happen. I do have a problem that you would make it seem like I want to promote original research and an attempt to pan the book. gren グレン 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Gren, I have a lot of respect for your editing, as I hope you know. But I've been concerned about what's been happening on this article for a long time — nothing to do with you, I should add. As a community, we have an unfortunate tendency to create attack pages about living persons, and this page has seen some really poor editing, and even some spiteful editing. So when I see positive comments being scrutinized, but not negative ones, I wonder why.
As to the reviews, there's no way that a review by Sir Martin Gilbert or any of the others would be used inappropriately by a responsible publisher, and we have no reason to believe that Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is anything but responsible. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I agree with you and I haven't really been present for all the debates of this article. Can we agree on this, at least: if there is a full review it is always to be preferred over book cover quotes? And, it's not that I think Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is taking his argument from thin air, but, you almost never find such simplistic reviews and I think our whole method of "Author X likes Bat Ye'or; Author Y doesn't" is providing a relatively uninformative laundry list to people. gren グレン 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with both your points: that full reviews are to be preferred, and that laundry lists are not good. The only reason I added to the list was that there were positive reviews by notable people that weren't included, and the negative had to be balanced by them, but I totally agree with your point below about the importance of nuance, and that it would be preferable to write an intelligent article about her views, interspersed with criticism or support from authoritative commentators. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book reviews

There have been several other reviews of Bat Ye'or's books in academic journals and the serious/literary press. Does anyone have any objections if I begin to include them? I promise to reflect them in a completely even-handed way irrespective of whether they are favourable, unfavourable or mixed. I will add all the views that I can find so long as the source is reliable in WP terms. The individual authors are not necessarily going to be "notable". I don't want to do this if the work is going to be reverted. Thanks. Itsmejudith 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded of the need to keep adding review comments. It's fair enough if the author is notable and knowledgeable, but I'm unclear about the value of including random comments from unknown reviewers. I suppose if the comment itself is particularly interesting, that might make a difference. Perhaps you could let us know in advance what you'd like to include? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against it, per se, but I think we need to evaluate how we do reviews. Right now it's a laundry list of who generally supports her idea and who doesn't which serves no real purpose. I think it should be a discussion of her thesis and criticism of it that represents a discussion (based on the reviews) of what parts of her methodology come into question and which parts generally hold up. Presenting arguments about her as a dichotomous good or bad serves to do nothing and I would assume that scholars who generally support her or disagree will have nuance to their argument which can help us to understand which of her arguments come under the most criticism and which seem to stand up. But, this is a distant dream... We could do a bibliography of reviews from notable publications / people at the end, maybe, so people can know where to find reviews... but that may better be done on the book pages instead of hers. gren グレン 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Something like what is done at Edward Said and his thesis. Makes sense. --Aminz 09:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
SH Griffith (in Speculum and the International Journal for Middle East Studies) criticises some of Bat Ye'or's work rather extensively. so too does D. Thomas in the British Journal for Middle Eastern Studies. apart from Sells, there is very little in terms of other academic critique made upon Ye'or in the article. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slim that there is no point in multiplying comments unless we are working systematically. Scholarly reviews will naturally be nuanced and that creates an onus on all of us to be honest and not cherry-pick. This is the full list of academic reviews from 1980 onwards. I have only accessed a few of them so far. All of them are good candidates for RS; they are the outcome of serious consideration and may yield many insights not only for this article but for others too.

Hames, C. “ Dhimmi - a Profile of the Oppressed in the Orient and North-Africa since the Arab Conquest “ Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions, 25 (50): 240-241 1980

Fenton, P. “ Dhimmi - a Profile of Oppression in the Orient and North-Africa after the Arab Conquest”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (2): 201-202 1981

Nahon, G. “The Dhimmi - A Study on the Oppression of Minorities in the Middle-East and North-Africa since the Arab Conquest”, Revue des Etudes Juives, 144 (1-3): 268-269 Jan-Sep 1985

[Anon] “ The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, Orbis - a Journal of World Affairs, 29 (3): 643-644 Fall 1985

Nemoy, L.” Bat-Ye’or’s The 'Dhimmi'”. Jewish Quarterly Review, 76 (2): 162-164 OCT 1985

Brinner, W. M. “The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, Middle East Review, 18 (2): 62-64 Winter 1985

Kochan, L., “ The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, International Affairs, 62 (3): 549-550 Summer 1986

Cutler, A.H.; Cutler, H.E., “ The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, Speculum - A Journal of Medieval Studies, 62 (3): 648-649 July 1987

Waines, D. “ The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, History, 72 (234): 95-96 Feb 1987

Nahon, G. “Eastern Christendoms between Jihad and Dhimmitude 7th-20th-Century”, Revue des Etudes Juives, 151 (3-4): 379-381 July-December 1992

Watt, W. M. “Eastern Christianity between Jihad and the Dhimmi”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 38 (1): 166-167 Spring 1993

Griffith, S. H. “Eastern Christianity under Islamic Law - between Jihad and So-called Dhimmitude – 7th-20th-Centuries”, Speculum-a Journal of Medieval Studies, 69 (2): 419-420 April 1994

Biechler, J.E. “ The Dhimmi - Jews and Christians under Islam”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 25 (1): 104-105 Winter 1988

Simonian, H. H. “ The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From jihad to dhimmitude, seventh-twentieth century.”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 7: 441-442 Part 3 November 1997

Betts, R. B., The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude - Yeor,B Middle East Policy, 5 (3): 200-203 September 1997

Biechler, J. E., “ The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, from the 7th- to the 20th-century”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 35 (1): 127-127 Winter 1998

Griffith, SH, “The decline of eastern Christianity under Islam: From jihad to dhimmitude”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30 (4): 619-621 November 1998

Preissler, H.; Littmann, D., “The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From jihad to dhimmitude. Seventh to twentieth century”, Islam-Zeitschrift fur Gesichte und Kultur des Islamischen Orients, 78 (2): 351-352 2001

Moreen, V. B., “Dhimmis and others: Jews and Christians and the world of classical Islam”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 121 (2): 331-332 April-June 2001

Irwin, R. “ Islam and Dhimmitude: Where civilizations collide”, Middle Eastern Studies, 38 (4): 213-215 October 2002

Pulcini, T. “Islam and dhimmitude: Where civilizations collide”, Middle East Journal, 56 (4): 736-738 Fall 2002

Itsmejudith 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new section

"many scholars are more naunced and careful in their judgments than Bat Ye'or." is going to have to go because it's blatant, unscholarly bias. Someone please remove it. Arrow740 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very interesting to know that "her views have been widely accepted by scholars" and that her books are published by university presses. I'm going to start using her as a source. Aminz, it would save us both time if you would tell me why I shouldn't do that now. Arrow740 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, her books were published by *a* university press, which is not a mainstream academic imprint. It is only one opinion that her views have been widely accepted by scholars. So far we have no indication that she holds any qualifications at all and she has never held an academic post. I personally don't believe she meets WP criteria as a source for history articles. It would be useful to have a judgement from on high to settle this question and perhaps at the same time the similar questionmark over Koenraad Elst. Itsmejudith 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, what about all those reviews in scholarly journals, then? Thanks for the selection above, even though I must say it's incomplete. And what do you mean "a judgment from on high"? These are us, Wikipedia editors, who make the judgment. Beit Or 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe we'll judge when we've read all the reviews and see what they say about her scholarship. It will also be interesting to see whether they change over time, i.e. whether her latest books have been received differently from her earlier ones. I certainly didn't mean to present an incomplete selection of reviews: these are all those turned up by a systematic search of the journals under the keywords "Bat Ye'or" and "dhimmi" in one of the main scholarly databases. Please add any more you can find. Of course there are also the literary magazines and others that are not listed as scholarly journals but are good sources. As for "a judgement from on high", I'm musing really, but it would be good to have a ruling following thorough discussion by people not directly involved in this particular case. Without the possibility of getting further opinions in, these arguments drag on so long. I always tend to the view that WP disputes are best resolved by looking to the sources: is it reliable, is it quoted fairly, is there no undue weight. Problem should be solved - would it were so simple in reality though. Itsmejudith 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig R. Smith

Craig R. Smith in a New York Times article referred to her as one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right." Who is this Craig R. Smith and why his views are notable? Beit Or 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Smith has written in a prominent newspaper.
Literary criticism is the study, discussion, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Thus it can include hostility as well as praise.Bless sins 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, who is Craig R. Smith, what makes him qualified to comment on Bat Yeor's work, and what do you think you will gain from violating WP:BLP? Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the parts of WP:BLP that says we can't quote him.Bless sins 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Critics Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence in the section you quote is "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
The views are relevent, they are about Ye'or's most notable books. The way we have written this does not attempt to side with any of the critics, nor does it overwhelm the article.Bless sins 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't answered who is this guy and what has he done other than opine, once, on Ye'or? Nandesuka 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Does WP:BLP require me to answer that question? Also, answering "what has he done other than opine on Ye'or" is pointless - WP:NOR tells us not to put in info that is not in relation to the topic of the article. Bless sins 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you don't know who he is? Nandesuka 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A google search gives me a rough idea of who he is, but I'm not an expert on him.Bless sins 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV and common sense require that an opinion must be sufficiently notable to be included. Nothing has been produced to demonstrate that Mr. Smith meets this criterion. Beit Or 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
He has written in the New York Times, what more notablility do you want?Bless sins 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is he? Please answer, without evasions. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Craig R. Smith is an author, commentator and popular media guest because he instantly engages audiences with his common-sense analysis of local, national or global trends. But his work was published by New York Times, which is a notable newspaper.Bless sins 17:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What is his expertise in this particular area, and are you sure that you have the correct Craig R. Smith? There appear to be several. Please don't restore, per WP:BLP, until this is cleared up. Keep in mind that I can revert as often as I like, protect the article in question, and even ban persistent abusers of WP:BLP. If in doubt, keep it out. Jayjg (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
He is an analyst on trends in current media. Bat Yeor's work qualify as that. Also, his work is published by the New York Times, which is a "mainstream newspapers", thus a reliable source[17].Bless sins 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
An analyst on "trends in current media" is not a reliable source on Islamic history or historians. And, in fact, the Smith you're referring to is actually the CEO of an investment firm. In addition, you're not sure it's even the same Craig R. Smith; are you sure it's not this Craig R. Smith? How about this Craig R. Smith? Or this one? This one? one? This one? There are many more. Enough B.S., B.s. A passing quotation of a non-expert (whose identity you're not even sure of), even in a reliable source, doesn't satisfy WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the fact that his views were published by a mainstream newspaper, i.e. New York Times, not enough?Bless sins 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion was severly affected by an orginal typo. The man, whose views I'm trying to insert, is called "CRAIG S. SMITH", as opposed to "CRAIG R. SMITH". I'll find some info, with the correct name.Bless sins 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources says " In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers..." (emphasis added).

New York times would be a "mainstream newspaper". The source I am trying to add was published by the New York Times. In addition, Craig S Smith has written many articles for NYT. His articles are on topics realted to Islam, terrorism[18], Muslims in Europe [19][20] and Arab-European relations [21]. All of these topics are relevent to the ones Ye'or writes on. His articles show that he is not a biased writer and balances his views.Bless sins 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So now it's a different Craig Smith? Could you make up your mind which one it is first, and prove it? Then we'll discuss it. And please don't repeat that he was quoted in the New York Times; the New York Times quotes a million people, it's not enough to satisfy WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think with judith's latest addition (of a scholarly book review) we have enough critical material in terms of article text percentage. - Merzbow 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg: I'm not the one who introduced the typo. It was Beit Or. Your comments are not helpful to the discussion. I never said that Smith was "quoted" by NYT, but that he is a regular writer. Infact, he has written hundreds of articles for the New York Times.[22] Are there really "a million people" who have written for New york Times (let alone hundreds of articles)? It appears that you don't know what you are talking about.Bless sins 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But last week you thought it was someone else though, didn't you? The phrase "an author, commentator and popular media guest" that you used comes directly from CraigRSmith.com So who doesn't know what they are talking about? It is apparent that you simply want the criticism there, regardless of who said it. That's isn't helpful for the article, and violates WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to Beit Or's question original question regarding Craig R. Smith. Why don't you just respond to my arguments, and stop assuming bad faith?Bless sins 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. You were insisting that the Craig Smith stuff be retained and you yourself though it was "Craig R Smith", even though you had no idea who that was; it's only in the past 24 hours that you realized it was a different Craig Smith. Please make truthful statements on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So now you claim to know what was going inside my head. In any case why are you evading the real argument here? Please respond to the argument about Smith and Ahmed. Thanks.Bless sins 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I know what you put on the Talk: page. And this issue must be cleared up, because if you won't use the Talk: pages in good faith, then there's no point in continuing. If I know that you will admit you didn't know who Craig Smith was, and will be truthful going forward, then there's a possibility we will come to agreement on all sorts of things. However, if you continue to make false statements on the Talk: page then I can't trust anything you do, and will simply have to revert it regardless. As with the Islam and antisemitism page, you have a choice; you can edit truthfully, and within policy, and then we can work together. Or, you can choose the opposite path, and be reverted instantly in everything you do. I urge you to take the first option. "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg I suggest you keep religion out of this. If you were faithful to any religion (including Judaism) you would not attempt to portray Islam as racist and anti-semitic (Judaism doesn't teach Israelites to hate their Ishmaelite brothers does it?). Sure I was confused by Craig Smith, but that was due to a typo on Beit Or's part. Clearly I shouldv'e known better than to assume that Biet Or had presented the name correctly. What I don't understand is why you will "revert instantly in everything [I] do" because of a typo? Please respond to the argument I've made and stop making a HUGE deal out of a typo.Bless sins 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You liked the fact that it was criticism, and didn't care who made it. Then when you were challenged on who made the criticism, you dodged and twisted for several days. Then you finally found out it was a different Craig Smith than you thought, and pretended that you had it right all the time, but were merely responding to Beit Or's question. And by the way, the article has always referred to him as "Craig R. Smith", for at least 6 months now, so it's not Beit Or's fault.
You've wasted an awful lot of our time here, and have been untruthful. It's very hard to work with someone who does that. The huge deal isn't the "typo", it's all the rest of it, as you know. You continue to act this way on other pages as well; at first insisting that all references on an article must refer to "antisemitism", then when the tables are turned and it is pointed out that the references you have brought don't refer to antisemitism, play dumb for 2 weeks, edit-warring and wasting huge amounts of time. I need to know that you'll stop doing this from now on; no weaseling, no nonsense. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that every single one of your edits is made under false pretenses or in violation of policy. This is really getting close to the end here, Bless sins. You have a chance now; I really suggest you admit your errors and move on. After that I'll respond to the arguments you've made, but only after that. And if you don't; well, it's hard to edit when your edits can't be trusted, and therefore must be reverted. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary I find your continous accusations agianst me to be unacceptable. In this short period you have accused me of many things, violating WP:Uncivil many times over. I suggest you calm down a bit - bieng "ruthless" will not help anyone. Instead of discussing me, why not discuss my arguments? Bless sins 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Falsehoods aren't arguments, they're just falsehoods. I'm not wasting more time, I've wasted too much already. You know what you need to do. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you show how my arguments are "falsehoods". I understand that by making a typo, a misrepresented Craig Smith. But that was just a typo. Please get over it. Your words are increasing uncivil.Bless sins 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is "Imad Ahmad"

Who is "Imad Ahmad" and what in WP:BLP would you lead you to believe he can be quoted here? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't think there is anything in BLP guidelines that make him non-usable. He is the the head of a Muslim organization criticizing the work of Bat Ye'or. Look, I have no problem if he is not used. He doesn't appear to be a scholar on this subject or someone so well known that their opinions on it are important. But I think it's very... wrong to say that the reason he shouldn't be used is because it violates BLP, because I can't see how it does in any way. gren グレン 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is that some editors are trying to insert into the article every extant negative comment on Bat Ye'or, even if completely irrelevant to her notability. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. Beit Or 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this briefly with SlimVirgin before and I don't disagree... but I feel Jayjg and you(?) are using this as an excuse to remove the content as if it were vandalism or simple policy violation instead of a neutrality dispute. The content is not particularly malicious. It's very critical of her work--yes--but this should be solved by discussing what is the most neutral, not using BLP to blanket label it as against policy to post it. Looking at the edit in question I believe that the right hand side is more better; however, that does not mean that I support the logic that we have to support that version because of BLP. We should support it because it's more neutral. The bias BLP is talking about is in our writing not that we can't use sources that dislike the person in question. The policy is not an excuse for us to question if our (reliable) sources are biased... but to make sure our writing isn't. gren グレン 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Commenting on Ye'or's works and literature is definetly notable to her.Bless sins 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't make assertions, make arguments. If Imad Ahmad is not notable, then he can't be quoted, per WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Ahmed is the President and director of Minaret of Freedom Insitute. He is a senior lecturer at the University of Maryland where he teaches courses on religion and progress and on religion, science and freedom. He also teaches a course on Islam, Science and Development at Georgetown University for the Center on Muslim-Christian Understanding.Bless sins 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What is his expertise in this particular area, and how is he qualified to comment? Please don't restore, per WP:BLP, until this is cleared up. Keep in mind that I can revert as often as I like, protect the article in question, and even ban persistent abusers of WP:BLP. If in doubt, keep it out. Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source in WP terms does not have to be a notable person, as you know well Jayjg. The publication counts as much as the author. Itsmejudith 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly; WP:BLP has very strict standards. Are you claiming www.minaret.org is a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you asking me to repeat information? Ahmed's area of expertise are: religion and progress, religion and freedom, Islam, Muslim-Christian Understanding. All of these are relevent to Bat Yeor's major works.Bless sins 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to something which outlines Ahmed's expertise? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think critical material from the Ahmad article meets standards. First, the review was published in the "American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences", which seems to be a refereed (albeit little-known) journal that is included in all of the major journal indexes and repositories I can see. Second, although Dr. Ahmad is not a professor, neither is Bat Ye'or, and he is a lecturer at a major university. Third, if the quote being used from the review right now isn't appropriate, there are better ones from that article. I'm not saying this in agreement or disagreement with the criticism, but I will stand up for the right for appropriate criticism to appear in any Wikipedia article. - Merzbow 04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's important to note that being published by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences is a highly partisan source. Ahmad is no conceivable way an expert on the history of non-Muslims under the Muslim rule, which is the subject of Bat Ye'or; academically, he is a very minor figure. He is a Muslim and a social scientist, which qualifies him to publish in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, which is precisely a forum for people like him. The article already includes criticism by notable people, and per WP:BLP, I strongly oppose including any criticism by random individuals that can be unearthed. Beit Or 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet again I have to step in to to defend the place of academic comment in Wikipedia. Please see academic journal for why trying to apply the epithet "highly partisan" to the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences tells us more about you as an editor than it does about that journal. It is a reliable source. The author is an academic and it is spurious to bring up his religion, which in any case we do not know for sure. Itsmejudith 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NPA as to why editors should comment on content, not on other editors. Your comment above says exactly nothing on content, nor does it contain any arguments on why an article by non-notable person in a fringe (and, yes, partisan) magazine is an example of notable criticism, worthy being included in the article. Beit Or 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it's *not* a magazine, it's an *academic journal*. There is still such a thing as scholarship, still, thank goodness. Itsmejudith 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat unusual that the home page for an academic journal should begin by saying, "In the name of Allah, the compassionte, the merciful."Proabivouac 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

Due to the continuous and ongoing use of non-logged-in accounts to insert extended quotes, sometimes reverting more than 4 times a day, I have semi-protected this article for a while. If you want to edit, you'll need to log in (and edit according to Wikipedia policies, including WP:3RR) Nandesuka 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

"Her historical vision has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West.[3]"

Apart from the fact that I find this statement dubious at best, I can't find any support for it in the reference cited. --ConfuciusOrnis 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was quite right to remove it. Having said that, Beinin is an important scholar in the field and an accurate summary of his view on Bat Ye'or's writing would be a useful addition to the article. Itsmejudith 09:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have checked exactly where I said it is. It is almost a verbatim quote from page 15. This from a critic of her should carry particular weight. Arrow740 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As the book is available online here, and searching for "historical vision" in the introduction yields the exact quote, I'm doing my best to AGF here. This took me less than a minute to find. Arrow740 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow is dead-on here. If anyone thinks that the quote is not representative of the scholarly community as a whole, then add "Beinin writes" or something to attribute the opinion. - Merzbow 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up, Arrow. I have now got access to the online text, which doesn't have page numbers. Although the quote was indeed a verbatim excerpt, I don't think that out of context it adequately represents Beinin's position, which I will try to summarise. Itsmejudith 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That much seems clear; any summary of Benin's position should include the vivid description "neo-lachrymose". Is it, however, a sufficient source for the isolated assertion that Bat-Ye'or's view is quite widely accepted? (If so, a citation of Benin must really include the fact that he disagrees with her.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Beinin's POV is less important than the actual information he conveys, which I represented with the excerpt. Arrow740 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, the extent to which an author's work is accepted is not a matter of fact. Relevant facts could in theory be investigated, things like volumes of book sales or citation indices. Itsmejudith 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lachrymose

Thank you Beit Or for the information that the neo-lachrymose expression goes further back. Beinin says he got it from Cohen, which may also be true. It was not my OR. Itsmejudith 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Graetz used the word without the prefix "neo-". Thanks for clarifying the source. Beit Or 12:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. Graetz says "lachrymose". Cohen identifies a contemporary current as "neo-lachrymose". Beinin uses this vivid phrase of Cohen's and adds points of his own. Itsmejudith 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Information on this topic can be found here The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history --Aminz 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internal links within quotes

There are internal links in one of the quotes. Is this good practice? To me it feels awkward, since the original author did not intend to provide links in that way. Itsmejudith 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

99% sure this is against the MoS, but too lazy to look it up. - Merzbow 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bless Sins' edits

We have talked briefly before about whether to split the responses into critical and supportive. My view is that such a division is unnecessary. It should be, and is, clear from the summaries of what has been said about the subject's views, whether the different writers are basically critical or supportive. And if there are responses that are partly critical and partly supportive, then those can easily be included without restructuring. I don't have a view about the inclusion or otherwise of the Minaret of Freedom response. Itsmejudith 11:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess, I'll stop seperating the sections. But WP:NPOV requires us to "'represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Bless sins 22:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But the how do suggest we organize the views in the section labelled "views".Bless sins 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And please stop adding that particular response as well. Isn't it clear by now there is no consensus for it? - Merzbow 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which particular response? Also, the information I'm adding is sourced and reliable. So why not add it?Bless sins 01:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Marginal reliability and undue weight (too much criticism). This has been discussed many times above. You have not changed any minds. This is bordering on tendentious editing. - Merzbow 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Marginal reliability? Please explain what you mean by that. Also, WP:NPOV says that that all significant views should be presented.
Undue weight? I am only adding 1-2 sentences. Compare that with the amount of praise that has been added to this article.Bless sins 02:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a significant view, and WP:UNDUE means unbalancing the article in any way. The addition has been opposed by four different editors now. Please re-think your "edit via non-consensual reverting" method of interacting with articles. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please top making false allegations agianst me. I would like to know why is it that adding two sentences of criticism is so bad, yet there is lots of criticism on other articles.Bless sins 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think if you ask the same question 100 times in a row, it will make the answers differ? The problems with this material have been explained many times. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not asked any question "hundred times in a row". You have not explained as to why you are removing sourced content in violation of NPOV.Bless sins 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't point me to unsourced wiki articles (unless you want me to find references for them). Alos, please be more specific about the clauses in WP:RS and WP:UNDUE that you believe I'm violating.Bless sins 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is within editorial discretion to decide what is undue weight and why this source is marginally RS. And a number of editors have made this decision, and the consensus is against you on this. I'm not trying to be a WP:DICK, I'm just presenting the facts. You may not agree with the consensus, but at some point, you have to admit that you've lost this particular argument and move on. - Merzbow 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>On what basis have the "number of editors" made this decision? Why is Imad Ahmed only "marginally reliable", after all his views were published in a journal? You guys haven't answered those questions.Bless sins 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to repeat the discussions we've been through many times already. Constantly asking the same questions over and over doesn't mean they haven't already been answered. Re-read the Talk: page and the edit comments. And don't bother asking which specific comments, read them all. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read all your comments in this section. None answer my question or quote any specific wiki policy.Bless sins 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't mean we have to. Four editors now have told you the material doesn't belong, and have given you their reasons, including citing policy. The fact that you don't agree is noted. Now accept consensus and move on. I won't be responding any more on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Nowehere has anyone cited a single sentence of policy.Bless sins 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revocation of citizenship?

The statement that Bat Ye'or's citizenship was revoked as part of Operation Suzannah is sourced to the Brussels Journal. I just checked this out and it seems to me it is not an adequate source. Firstly, the source actually says "because she was Jewish". Secondly, the Brussels Journal is described in its WP article as "a blog", so would not seem to be a reliable source for that reason. Thirdly, the author appears to be a member of an extremist organisation, the Vlaams Blok, which has adopted both racist and antisemitic policies in the past. It's ironic to be using such a source in an article about a Jewish person - yes I know he is taking a very favourable attitude towards her, but perhaps that just illustrates the opportunistic shifting and sliding of marginal political elements. In any case, do other editors agree that this statement is not currently properly sourced? Itsmejudith 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imad Ahmed

I still don't see a reason why the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences violates WP:RS. Can someone point me to the specific comment? Hornplease 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the allegation was that it also violates WP:BLP. But no one explained why. Because several users kept on opposing me (without quoting wiki policies), they achieved "consensus".Bless sins 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The journal is rated by Halle University's library as in the category of academic journal, suitable for undergraduates, postgraduates and professional users. [23] I said before I didn't have a view either way on the suitability of this reference. But I would be interested to know if anyone wants to argue that the source is not a reliable one. Itsmejudith 11:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just looked above and remembered the exchange I had with Beit Or on this very topic in March. It doesn't look much like arrival at consensus, does it? Itsmejudith 11:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't consensus. Which is why I asked for a specific reason why the journal was unacceptable. Unless one is provided, it should be returned to the article. As much scholarly scrutiny of the subject's work as is possible should be summarized; that is WP's purpose. Hornplease 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Since its inception, the AJISS has been committed to developing a well-rounded Islamic intellectualism, and to reconciling rationalism with Islamic revelation." Hardly scholarly, it's a religious publication. And this Ahmad is not a professor, he's president of some institute of little notability. I'll make my point again - we have enough criticism from much more reliable sources we can leave out marginalia like this. - Merzbow 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But Merzbow, a religious commitment is not by itself a reason to rule a journal out as scholarly. Religious studies and theology are respectable areas of academic scholarship. It does indicate a tendency towards a particular viewpoint but so long as that is made clear in the article it can still be a reliable source. I would agree with you that we have to be aware of the need for balance. While we already have a range of highly critical views, I'm not sure that adding one more would unbalance the article unduly. Itsmejudith 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) is an interdisciplinary journal published by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. AJISS publishes a wide variety of peer reviewed scholarly research on all facets of Islam and the Muslim world: politics, history, economic philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, religious law, and Islamic thought, employing both empirical and theoretical analysis. AJISS aims to provide a forum for high-quality original research and critical dialog and discussion, advancing both application of social sciences to the study of Islam and the Muslim world and an analysis of the social sciences. In addition, AJISS includes research notes, short opinion pieces, insightful reviews of published books of interest to our subscribers, as well as conference reports and research notes and abstracts of doctoral theses. Clearly a not a religious studies journal, per se. In any case, its clearly peer-reviewed, and part of major publication indices. That makes it acceptable, I would think; at least, with a wikilink, and an article detailing its mission. Hornplease 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Camill Adang

Currently at Tel Aviv U. In Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm she apparently states in a footnote: "Bat Yeor (1985:44) greatly oversimplifies matters in stating that “because the Jews refused conversion, Muhammad attacked and overwhelmed them" and later "Bat Yeor 1985 (to be used with caution)" when it is one of several references for the statement "Distinctive clothing was one of the measures taken to reduce Jews and Christians to their appointed stations." I don't know how this can be used, but I think its a wonderful illustration of exactly how doubtful historians are about Ye'or's work, even in her areas of expertise. Hornplease 06:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another wonderful quote: "..the relevant literature is extensive and includes a fair number of sophisticated case studies... for this reason, the old debate as to whether non-Muslims were generally oppressed under Muslim rule, "second-class" citizens suffering from Islamic fanaticism and oriental despotism, or whether, on the contrary, tolerance was the distinguishing feature of Islam...need not detain us long: neither the "black myth" nor the "white" one does any justice to the complexity of the historical experience, which, unsurprisingly, was characterised by various shades of grey. (Footnote) For the "black myth" see particularly Bat Yeor(1985) and Martin Gilbert (1975). Both have had a marked influence on Western perceptions of the status of Jews in Islam and and are frequently quoted as evidence of deep-rooted Islamic fanatacism, anti-Judaism, and indeed anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World: A Critical Review' Krämer, Gudrun; Die Welt des Islams, Volume 46, Number 3, 2006 , pp. 243-276(34). Useful as it is a clear scholarly acknowledgement of the use and misuse of Yeor's books. Hornplease 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed above. Attempts to dig up every possible negative quote about a person is a violation of WP:BLP. Such edits must be reverted immediately. Beit Or 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Efforts to dig up every negative quote? Please. If I find another positive quote from another academic historian about Yeor, it should be in there as well. But we need to clearly outline how her work is viewed by mainstream historians, as well as their opinion of - as I said above - the "uses and abuses" of her work. I am well aware of the constraints that WP:BLP imposes on excessive criticism. Frankly, I don't think you even read the quotes. Hornplease 22:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and it may be discussed above - which is unclear, because these are different points- but I do not see any consensus being achieved. Hornplease 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
More generally, I am concerned that writers and academics are mixed together in that section. I would prefer an "Academic reaction" and a "Political reaction" type thing so we can keep Gilbert/Beinen and Hari/Spencer separate, as they are discussing two different things, namely her historiography and her political impact. On one the former are RSes, on another the latter. We wouldn't want to quote Hari on her academic usefulness. Hornplease 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, you feel good talking to yourself. Beit Or 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why incivility seems to be the rule for you. Whatever. I will reorganise things on those lines shortly. I assume that the above statement indicates a refusal to discuss. Hornplease 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, claims that balance is a concern will not be believable, as a sensible summation of the CUA prof's views are removed, but Esposito's completely content-free complaint - not sourced to a scholarly source - is continually reinserted. Hornplease 18:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that Beit or is not interested in civilized discussion. There is no other objection. Finally, I agree with you. HTus, in this case, we have consensus.Bless sins 06:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, you keep violating WP:BLP by persistently adding every bit of negative content about Bat Ye'or. Stop doing this now; you may be blocked for that. Also, please bear in mind that reverts of WP:BLP violations are not subject to WP:3RR. Beit Or 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware that reverts of BLP violations are not subject to 3RR. These are not BLP violations. Spell out to me what part of BLP they violate. That is what discussion is. And never threaten me with being blocked again, please. I am well aware of the policies that govern our editing, and, further, believe in them. I do not think I will be blocked if I continue to do so.
'Every bit of negative content'? I have produced two other quotes that I have 'specifically' not added, as I am unsure how to. (The second, remember, directly impacts the 'two myths' theory discussed further up on this page.) I am yet to find a scholarly opinion other than those already in the article that discusses her work and methods that can be qualified as wholeheartedly positive. (Except for one from the Jewish Quarterly Review in 1985 that ended "Bat Yeor's work will not convince fanatic Muslim partisans or extreme Western leftists, to whom Israel is a racist fascist state and the Israelis are capitalistic colonizers indistinguishable from the South African champions of apartheid, but perhaps it will acquaint middle-of-the-road Westerners with the facts", which really does seem to me to be quite over the top and perhaps not be worth including, but if you wish to, go ahead.)Hornplease 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or can you quote the part of WP:BLP that you think Hornplease is violating? it'd be helpful if we knew what exactly you were talking about.Bless sins 19:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not Beit Or, but here is one: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics..." -- Karl Meier 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And how is this disproportionate? As I say above, "I am yet to find a scholarly opinion other than those already in the article that discusses her work and methods that can be qualified as wholeheartedly positive." If you find more, certainly they can be included. That is not a reason to delete this material, as is obvious. In any case, I am maintaining the proportion by removing a "negative" comment. Hornplease 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom precedent (Rachel Marsden) has made it clear that even if 90% of the coverage of a living person is negative, the article cannot be substantially negative regardless. - Merzbow 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. The Marsden ruling, which I found very useful (especially prior to WP:Coatrack) indicated that the problematic versions contained "elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information," and was "grossly unbalanced". I really don't think this applies here. It isn't quite 'substantially negative', either. The two most prominent quotes are from Gilbert and Fergusson, and are very complimentary; indeed, four out of nine quotations are very complimentary. This is hardly 'substantially negative'. These views of her work - which as I say, appear to be the overwhelming majority within mainstream academia - are, of course, an even smaller proportion of the entire article. If you saw the original Marsden hatchet-job, as I did, you will know there is absolutely no comparison.
(I continue to maintain that the best way to deal with this is to divide the section into two, with 'views from academia' and 'political reaction'; in the latter we can include several more quotes indicating her influence on some political thinking.) Hornplease 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I continue to await responses. Hornplease 04:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to oppose adding this quote, which is from a strong source. I will have to think hard about whether anything additional would unbalance things, however, and I would still oppose adding back in the Ahmad quote (which thankfully nobody is attempting to do anymore). - Merzbow 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Care to explain why? Ahmad quote was published in American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences which seems to be a peer reviewed journal.Bless sins 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth

As of this source I conclude that Mrs. Ye'or was born in 1933. Are there any objections to put that date into the article? -- Túrelio 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My removal of paragraph claiming increased use of the term "dhimmitude"

I have removed this yet again, and cannot for the life of me believe that any serious editor is going to say it should go back in. It is a prime example of original research. Sidney Griffith's article did not address - at all - the question of how or how much the term "dhimmi" is used; it just used it as a technical term. The other source was even less appropriately used. It is not a reliable source anyway, just some lecture notes, not even in sentences. It is original research, pure and simple, to pull out two references from a google search and say that this constitutes an increased use of the term. Let us not waste any more time reverting this. Itsmejudith 04:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle move to London?

As just edited by Mr Hicks I'm happy about it standing for the time being, although it's still very poorly referenced. Itsmejudith 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IHEU material

CJCurrie, can you explain your repeated attempts to remove this material, which has been in the article for almost a month, without gaining consensus first? (And the implicit accusation that we were fibbing about its contents just because a working link was not immediately provided was not nice either; you could have easily looked it up yourself with Google, it was properly identified). It's well-sourced to a major UN-affiliated organization. - Merzbow 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, until very recently, it wasn't properly attributed. We were saying that Ye'or "is considered an expert on...", as if her claim of expertise were widely accepted. Furthermore, the document was cited as a UN document (implying something a UN agency wrote), rather than as a submission by an NGO to a UN forum.
Now, I think the IHEU is a credible and significant enough voice to be mentioned, although as someone who would normally agree with them I'm saddened to see them apparently pushing an anti-Islamic agenda in the guise of a pro-secular one. This being said, I have serious doubts about whether we are representing the world's view of Ye'or accurately and proportionately. A quick Google News archive search shows here quoted very widely in the Washington Times, the National Review, Commentary, US Jewish-community papers, and other sources in a similar vein. In more "mainstream" papers like the NYT, searches for her (pseudo) name turn up very little. The NYT has the one critical article linked already, one favorable mention in a Niall Ferguson op-ed, and a brief hostile mention in a review of a Bernard Lewis book from 1986 followed by a letter to the editor criticizing this mention. The Washington Post has nothing. The Boston Globe has nothing. In other words, Ye'or appears to be a darling of the right and pretty much unknown outside of it. However, you have to get halfway down the "Views" section torwards the bottom of this page before anything remotely unflattering to Ye'or appears (excepting the sole, weaselly reference to her being "controversial"). That doesn't seem right, somehow. Death to SineBot! <eleland/talkedits> 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What do "Washington Times, the National Review, Commentary, US Jewish-community papers" have in common so that you call them and a unnamed others "sources in a similar vein"? Beit Or 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Neoconservative ideology with a special focus on defending Israel and attacking Israel's perceived enemies. <eleland/talkedits> 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that "US Jewish-community papers" share the neo-conservative ideology? Right now, I am not talking about the journals that you mentioned by name, I am specifically interested in your designation of American Jewish papers as "neoconservative". Beit Or 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling you're insinuating something, but if you want to bait me you'll have to do better than an insinuation. Obviously, there are Jewish-community papers from all ideological viewpoints. <eleland/talkedits> 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Far from insinuating, I am only asking you to explain your own arguments. Beit Or 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Bat Yeor appears to be relied on only by sources with a neoconservative ideology and a special focus on defending Israel, yet our page seems to present her as a widely acclaimed expert who is merely "controversial" in an unspecified fashion. Thus, we need to include more criticism, more prominently, in order to conform to WP:NPOV. That's my argument. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to add an opposing quote to the lead for balance, I wouldn't object. - Merzbow 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffing up Yeor's qualifications with poor references?

Recent editing has removed reference to Yeor's controversial nature in the lede, as well as calling her a "historian" and "scholar" rather than simply a writer or author. The refs for "historian and scholar" are both partisan neo-con sources, namely Daniel Pipes and the Washington Times. Since Yeor's qualifications are disputed, it is not appropriate to state unequivocally that she is a scholar or historian based on what her allies say. Everyone agrees she is a writer, we should call her a writer and leave analysis of her qualifications to the body of the article. Also, it is inappropriate to write the lead with no reference to her highly incendiary and disputed (as in, preposterous) claims about Arabian dominance of Europe, etc etc. <eleland/talkedits> 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of your own opinion , the statements are sourced to published books and newspaper articles. Using weasel words like controversial and attempting to dismiss publications from the Washington times and Daniel Pipes as partisan and neocon is trying to poison the well. No one disputes her qualifications , she is an historian and scholar, as demonstated by the content of her books , the widespread distribution of her writings in academic circles and Universities and news media. --CltFn 23:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't imply that I'm trying to push my own opinion into this article, and don't ignore my objections by stating that you used published books and articles. We know you used published books and articles. One was in the Washington Times, an extremely conservative newspaper with a dubious editorial reputation. The other was from Daniel Pipes, a fellow neo-con and Islamophobe. It's not "poisoning the well" to discuss the POV's of sources, it's a necessary part of forming a neutral article with proper weight on various opinions. Such trite and silly claims waste everyone's time.
A great many eminent historians dismiss her central theses as factitious. For example, here's Omar Bartov (Professor of European History at Brown U, Israeli-born, leading genocide scholar) and Phyllis Mack (Professor of History, Dept. of Jewish Studies at Rutgers U): "According to [Jacques] Ellul and Bat Ye'or, Islam (as a civlization) is in its very essence based upon two essential principles: aggressive violence (jihad) and parasitic absorption (dhimmitude)...the essentialism of Ellul and Bat Ye'or has been discredited by scholars of minorities in Islam." They go on to expose Ye'or's elementary mistakes, such as claiming that Muslim rule suppressed Hebrew during a period actually known as the Golden Age of Hebrew Poetry, etc. Maya Shatzmiller, (Professor of Islamic history, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada) calls Islam and Dhimmitude a "very tendentious study" which "provides useful information on this topic if read cautiously and in light of the author's blatantly Islamophobic views". Emran Qureshi, a Harvard Law professor with expertise in human rights, says that "she cannot entertain the possibility that the Arabs of Arabia could have had any culture at all; by definition, then, they have to be parasites." The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies passingly dismisses "exaggerating [acts of Islamic oppression] selectively into a counter-myth of Islamic persecution, as recent revisionism has done, e.g Bat Ye'or 1985".
It is not disputed that Ye'or has no formal academic qualifications, although some have argued that her work is meritorious enough that this isn't relevant. The fact that you claim the opposite raises serious questions about whether you've even read this article and checked some of the references. Of course, we should accommodates praise for Ye'or in proportion to the significance of the source, but currently this article is a neo-con circle jerk. Look at the references. There's a strong preponderance of sources like the Washington Times, the New York Sun, the National Review, The American Thinker and most recently Daniel Pipes. Furthermore, these references are used to support huge blocks of text, while the critics are left with mostly one-liners. And now you want to excise even the word "controversial" from the introduction on the basis that it is "weaselly". Very troubling.
<eleland/talkedits> 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The views section is full of criticism (at least half). I don't see any balance problems. - Merzbow 10:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Eleland , Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a veiled campaign against Bat Ye'or and what you refer to as "Neo-cons". Your description of the article as a "neo con circle jerk" is innappropriate and raises questions about your agenda as an editor in this article. As far as my knowledge of the topic , I have nearly all of Bat Ye'or 's books , and I can assure you that they are quite scholarly and nearly 50 % full of primary source documentation as you can see for instance in the table of contents of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam. --CltFn 13:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Merzbow that the article as it stands is balanced. It's not particularly relevant that the subject's books look reliable and scholarly to one of our editors. Our judgements are not the point. Eleland, if you have further scholarly reviews then they should probably be added. I trawled around for all I could find and they were mainly unfavourable or mixed. These are in there now together with some favourable opinions from other reputable scholars. There is no need to fight the battles out on this page. Itsmejudith 16:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You have to get through three sections of peacock terms before you reach any criticisms. This for a writer who, while popular with non-academics in some political circles, is generally dismissed as a quack polemicist by scholars of the issues she writes on. Yes, she has found some useful primary sources, and even her critics describe her books as containing useful collections of anecdotal accounts of incidents of persecution of minorities under Islamic societies. (See the Shatzmiller quote above.) But she doesn't merely claim that minorities have been persecuted under Islam, she claims that the entire history of Islam and Arabs is one of unbroken, unrelenting aggression and assimilation, and that this is an inherent feature of Islamic theology, and that Europe is hanging precariously in the balance as a nefarious coalition of fascists, socialists, Arab nationalists and Islamists seeks to bring it under the heel of Arabian domination.
One of the problems when analysing Ye'or's acceptance among mainstream scholars is that her scholarship is so poor, and her conclusions so ludicrous, that many of them dismiss or ignore, rather than refute, her claims. Like Velikovsky or von Däniken, she is considered a heavyweight intellectual only within an almost cult-like echo chamber. But we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. (WP:UNDUE). That's what I meant by a "neo-con circle jerk", and I apologize if my rather colourful metaphor obscured the point. There's no need to speculate about anyone's agenda, we all have POVs, biases, and personal blind spots, and the way to overcome that is to have a good faith discussion based on reliable sources and policies. I'm still waiting on that. <eleland/talkedits> 17:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, you said "nobody disputes her qualifications" but for starters, Israel's leading newspaper of record states that she is a "a self-taught Jewish intellectual" and a "controversial figure, [partially because of] the fact that she is not an academic and has never taught at any university. She conducts her research independently." <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn't say "nobody disputes her qualifications". In fact the article actually cites John Esposito as disputing her qualifications! Why not add the Haaretz statement and anything further from academic reviews that you can find? As for peacock terms, maybe you could identify what you see as peacock terms here for discussion, first, thanks. Bear in mind this is a BLP.Itsmejudith 18:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether she is a historian is to be decided by academic sources, not partisan ones (like Pipes). Secondly, if note claims of scholarship in the lead, then we should also note claims of being controversial, and promoting an "ideology similar to antisemitism". My proposal is to move everything into the "views" section.Bless sins 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bliss Sins my proposal is that you quit trying to poison the well in this biographical article per WP:BLP. The statements as to sholarship are cited and meet Wikipedia standards as for Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources , thus irregardless of your opinion, her scholarship is a supported by published , verifiable and reliable sources.--CltFn 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "scholar" should be removed from the lead and replaced with "writer", which is neutral. This also minimises the need for references in the lead, which is always unattractive. I'm sure earlier versions were better on this and that "scholar" was added recently. Itsmejudith 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Scholar is a word which describes the nature of Bat Ye'or's authorship which is additionally supported by her testimonies at the United Nations , US congress ,and lectures at major universities and if you look at the image in the article you might notice that is was broadcast on C-SPAN. So can we quit the petty attempts to diminish her status OK? Her status is fully cited verifiable and reliable in published books and news media. I have fixed the display to keep it "attractive".--CltFn 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is debatable, and has in fact been debated. I do think her talks should be noted, but just think for a minute - if they are noted in the lead does it not tend to "damn her with faint praise"? If you look at articles on people whose status as a scholar is indisputable, you will find that they do not need to list one-off talks around the world. It is taken for granted that a distinguished academic will be invited to speak in many different forums. What is your problem with "writer"? It is factual and neither diminishes nor augments the subject. Itsmejudith 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree here. A scholar's notability is mostly a function of his research. Testimonies and especially talks at university are belong to the body of the article unless there add significantly to the person's notability. Beit Or 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What about the reference to her publication in "International Journal of Middle East Studies"? This doesn't make her a scholar? - Merzbow 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just added sources saying she is both a scholar and a historian. See also endnotes 6 through 9, which also call her a scholar and a historian. Beit Or 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The point here is also undue weight. If we are to mention the views that she is a "scholar", then we can also mention views that she promotes an ideology similar to antisemitism. Why are we giving one side more weight than the other (by placing it in the lead)?Bless sins 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins - Have you even read anything she has written? From what you are saying it sounds like you never have. For your information she does not promote any ideology , she simply documents history and past and current events.I recommend that you get one of her books and read it--CltFn 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
CltFn, have you even read WP:NOR? It sounds like you're saying that personal analyses of her work trumps the word of eminently reliable sources like Ha'aretz and the Journal of Middle East Studies. Ha'aretz states flatly that "she is not an academic and has never taught at any university." Bless sins is absolutely correct - if we are to describe her in positive terms in the lede, mentioning her attendance at this or that conference, than WP:UNDUE requires us to also admit the negative descriptions. <eleland/talkedits> 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
leland, you know , you editing style and comments seem a lot lot bless sins, are you editing from the same ip address?--CltFn 12:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If your best rejoinder to a policy argument is a half-baked sockpuppet allegation, you should recuse yourself. Anyway, moving on, I thought I'd point out that the Angry Arab News Service has pointed me towards this hostile review of Eurabia et al., typical of how sources without an identifiably neo-con POV treat Ye'or's ramblings. If the pay-wall deters you, try this mirror. "The Eurabia genre does not belong to the reality-based community. Rather, it exists to meet emotional needs." As, for some, does Wikipedia? <eleland/talkedits> 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, repeatedly it's been asserted that Ye'or can be prominently described as a "historian" or "scholar" on the basis that RS's say that. If that's true, then she can be also be prominently described as a "controversial non-academic" who has "never taught at any university". Can we please just keep to neutral, uncontroversial descriptions like "author and researcher"? <eleland/talkedits> 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what your agenda is Eleland but we need to adhere to WP:BLP. The words "historian" or "scholar" are not synonimous with "having taught at a university or being an academic, a historian does not equate to a history professor. A historian is one who writes about history and a scholar is a learned person or a specialist in a given branch of knowledge. She fits those definitions , not because I say so but because numerous reliable qualified sources have already been cited that state that. ---- CltFn (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please indent your comments consistently? And can you explain with specific reference to BLP what the problem is? Because currently you seem to imply that BLP forbids negative information altogether, which is false. Also, you've ignored my last point, which is that if it's valid to describe her as a "historian" or "scholar" prominently, than it's valid to describe her as a "controversial non-academic" or a "polemicist", because both views have been expressed in passing by reliable published sources. I would prefer we stick to widely agreed facts and call her a "writer and researcher" or some such. <eleland/talkedits> 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read any of her books, OK. If all you can contribute to this article is the same old broken record then your efforts might be best spent elsewhere. ---- CltFn (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, CltFn, that's not going to cut it, because it's original research from a non-neutral point of view. We cannot write her biography based solely on your personal reading of her own books! <eleland/talkedits> 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your last comment does not make any sense or reflect the existing content of the article. If you cannot find the time to read any of Bat Ye'ors work , perhaps you should at least read the wikipedia article so that you could make intelligent comments on the talk page about it.--CltFn (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developing her theses section

Could whomever is interested in this article help; developing the theses section? This could be a real interesting section , outlining her various conclusions and thematic analyses of the trial and tribulations of non Muslims population living under Islamic rule.---- CltFn (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK so long as it is not at too great length. And I already had to correct English in text added in response to this. If you don't have English to native or near-native standard it would be better to post a proposal on the talk page first. Itsmejudith 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, yes and as you are most likely well read on Bat's books, would you take a stab at improving the theses section? Its well overdue and we could use your expertise on this.--CltFn (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If her conclusions are expounded upon extensively, there is the risk of this article becoming a POV fork and / or a coatrack article for issues that are much broader than Ye'or herself. Of course we should explain her theses, but not in close detail. A summary is enough. <eleland/talkedits> 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing to blurbs

Re comments made in edit summaries: I am not happy that we have kept for so long comments sourced only to blurbs on the covers of books. I'm sure per Merzbow that the publishers did not make the words up. The point is that they extracted them from longer pieces. We really ought to be able to find those full reviews and cite them directly. A while back, when in disagreement with another editor, I used a publisher's blurb to justify the use of a book I thought it was useful to quote from. When I did find the whole review it was much less favourable than it seemed from the small portion that the publisher had extracted. Luckily I had only posted the quote on the article talk page, not in mainspace. But now I feel "once bitten twice shy". It's poor practice. Itsmejudith 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think they are extracted from longer pieces? The vast majority of blurbs are solicited as such, from what I can tell. If these quotes go, then we must also trim the criticism to keep a BLP balance in this short article. - Merzbow 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I indicated some time ago, we already have a review of Ms. Ye'or where the reviewer takes some time off to gripe about his blurb quote being misinterpreted. From [24]:

At the conclusion of an earlier review of the French edition of this book, I wrote, "The author is the first writer of whom one knows to raise the issue of Dhimmitude as a social, psychological, and cultural phenomenon which deserves serious historical study, in both the medieval and the modern periods. The work still remains to be done." In a misleading way, this observation, minus the last sentence, is quoted out of context on the back of the dustcover of the hardback edition of the English translation. In the review I had complained about the lack of historical method in the book, and the misleading conclusions to which it might lead.

Given that Ye'or is considered "beyond the pale" by most academic historians, quoting living persons praising her work without a good source is itself a BLP violation.
Now, the claim that removal of praise for Ye'or necessitates removal of criticism, per WP:BLP#Criticisms and WP:UNDUE, rests on the assumption that the current article weighs criticism and praise accurately in accordance with the sources. Above, I have raised substantive questions about whether the sources justify the level of praise given in this article, questions which have not been answered (except by personal attacks from CltFn). We need to get this right, people. Vague references to policy, without explaining how the policy applies, cannot be used to justify writing an article to flatter one's own political views. <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, I think you're mistaken and blurbs are usually lifted from reviews in newspapers and magazines. Perhaps different publishers have different practices. Itsmejudith 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This interview in the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source for Gilbert's view of Bat Ye'or's work. [25]. Itsmejudith 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replace the Gilbert material. I still see no evidence Ferguson's quote was either taken from another review (certainly 30 minutes of Googling would have discovered this) or is disputed by him. - Merzbow 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see Gilbert's opinion now attributed to an eminently reliable source. I still stand on the position that Ferguson's quote must be shown to be accurate before it can be included, rather than shown to be inaccurate before it can be removed. WP:V clearly stands on that position, too. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. <eleland/talkedits> 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit to only spending 25 minutes googling and also to harbouring a suspicion that I was wasting my time. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly verifiable; you just have to go to a library and look at the back cover of the book. What you're claiming is that it's taken out of context from something larger, a theory that as yet no evidence has been presented for. - Merzbow (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Merbow, I know from my previous experience - that I mentioned above, in relation to the Dhimmi page that we were both engaging with at the time - that even a top publisher (Viking Penguin in that instance) may cherry-pick quotes out of context for their cover blurb. And we know that Bat Ye'or's publisher did exactly that with one of Sidney Griffith's reviews for one of BY's earlier books. Can't you see why I would be uncomfortable with the quality of the source? Rightly or wrongly, it's also an academic reflex. It simply does not feel right to be using the back of a book as a source for an encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
NB that Bat Ye'or's books are not widely held in UK academic libraries. Nor in public libraries either. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The burden of proof is on the editor adding the source to show that it is reliable. See WP:V#Burden of evidence. We're not "claiming that it's taken out of context", we're pointing out that we have no way of knowing whether it was in context, because we don't have the original source. The fact that an academic reviewer has taken time out to gripe about out-of-context blurb quotes from the same source is just an extra nail in the coffin; blurb quotes are a priori nonreliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Publishers of academic books are a priori reliable sources, sorry. You still have presented no evidence this quote is either taken from a longer review or taken out of context. If it's deleted again, then the compromise will be to delete one of the corresponding pieces of criticism to maintain a balance. I suggest Johann Hari, some journalist with zero academic credentials. - Merzbow (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Despite its name, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is not an academic publishing house. I am really surprised, Merzbow, to see you making a tit-for-tat argument on this. As for Hari, he is described as a journalist in the article, and that is exactly what he is - a leading UK journalistic commentator. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now added a quote by a Professor Jansen, from a full published review. - Merzbow (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If Ferguson has been misquoted, there would be some evidence of it. That's not a justification to remove it. Also, what's wrong with Irshad Manji? The deletions look arbitrary, except that they are positive. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response section

The response section should be about Bat Ye'or , not about individual books. If material is actually about one of her books then the material belongs in the book article, not in the article that about the author. Editors should thus review their entries in this section and remove material that is specifically refering her books as opposed to her as an individual.--CltFn (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

I'm not per-se against this woman being in the category, but it's best to tread cautiously on living people. So I feel like it should be discussed first before you add her.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To get more specific I did have an objection. She is in Category:Eurabia, which is listed as a subcategory for Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Islam-related controversies. That might make it enough.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are currently two critics that call her "Islamophobic". While no one is proposing that she is Islamophobic, she is certainly part of the public discourse on Islamophobia.Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't exactly made up my mind. I think Category:Eurabia and Category:Islam-related controversies are possibly sufficient here, but as she's relational to Islamophobia/anti-Muslim she might fit there too. I just feel it best to talk about it as when to include the category on living people is a matter of some dispute.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read a great deal of her work , I can conclusively state that Bat Ye'or is definitely not anti-Muslim, but rather she is anti-dhimitude and anti-intolerance. There is a sad misconception about her work by some who are not too familiar with it , who presume that because she writes about the history of oppressed minorities under Islamic hegemony that she is would be anti muslim. That could not be further from the truth. She is a vigourous defender of Muslims of good will and she objects strongly to sweeping xenophobic generalizations that paint all muslims as fanatics. Case in point her statement to Pam Geller this year in her interview:
BAT YE'OR: But what do you want people to do? Do you want people to go against Muslims? And then, what will happen? There will be xenophobic attacks there with very violent reaction, which should not be, because of course there are this Islamist policy which we see, but not everyone are responsible for that. So I know myself absolutely wonderful Muslim people. Now they look Muslim. I will be terribly ashamed if people would go after them and just say “Look what other Muslims have done, so we kill you”, and they are innocent. Because you cannot control mass movements. You have to be very careful. You have to keep the people so they don’t become crazy. You know, we have crazy people among Europeans. Not everyone is rational, and people who takes drugs, people who drink and suddenly they see because this happens in France, a groups of crazy people who saw an Arab in front of them, they don’t like Arabs , puff, and they throw him into the Seine, into the river, and he drowned. Because just they don’t like an Arab, and they don’t know who is this Arab. So government has to be -- it is their responsibility -- they have to look for social peace. They cannot say things, they have to be very careful. They cannot say things that suddenly create a racist movement violent against a whole community.

--CltFn (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy reference

It's Richard C. Martin, not David C. Martin, and he did not author the "From Dhimmis to Minorities..." introductory chapter; the book editor Maya Shatzmiller did. He edited a chapter on the Egyptian Copts. It needs to be checked whether there is a reference to Bat Ye'or in either of these chapters and at the same time double-checked that the article reflects with perfect accuracy the tone of such a reference. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bat Ye'or is not a historian

User:Bat Ye'or (should you even be editing this page? If this is not you, is it not clear that you wear your heart on your sleeve regarding the subject of this article?) claims that Bat Ye'or the author is a historian, as evidenced by several references given after the sentence that claims she is a historian. I will debunk these references one by one.

1. Review in "International Journal of Middle East Studies" by Sidney H. Griffith. Only one page is available to non-JSTOR subscribers, but it contains such illuminating information about Bat Ye'or's credentials as a "historian" as, "In the review (of the original article in French) I had complained about the lack of historical method in the work, and the misleading conclusions to which it might lead," and "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jidad and dhimmitude; as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the development of the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work ..." Griffith repeated refers to Ye'or as "author;" never as "hisotrian."

2. Washington Times reference to Ye'or as a "historian." Without even getting into the quality of the Washington Times as a newspaper, there is a difference between journalistic standards and encyclopedic standards. A newspaper journalist can talk to someone who seems to know about a subject and who has a title that indicates that me ought to know about the subject, and refer to him as an "expert," but an encyclopedia ought not to accept anyone as an expert unless he is widely regarded as such by others who are considered experts. So it is with historians; a newspaper can call someone who has researched and written a work on history a "historian," but real historians will ask, has the writer reviewed the existing literature, and clarified any discrepancies between them and his findings? Has he objectively researched the matter, without any prejudice? The gold standard for academics is, do other academics in the same field reference his work? A newspaper reference indicates popularity rather than expertise, and an encyclopedia ought to call only people with expertise experts, for which newspapers are not generally reliable.

3. Azure magazine. As with Washington Times, although kudos to Azure for accurately referring to Ye'or as a "scholar of Islam and a path-breaking researcher on 'dhim­mitude'" rather than as a "historian."

4. Jerusalem Post. As with Washington Times, although kudos for accurately referring to Ye'or as a "noted scholar of jihad ideology and Arab-European politics" rather than as a "historian."

5. Daniel Pipes. Not a historian himself, but even so he has the sense to refer to Ye'or as a "scholar" rather than as a "historian."

6. Vahakn Dadrian. Finally someone who refers to Ye'or as a "historian" and who cannot be dismissed easily! However, we can immediately question his accuracy, because he calls her an "Israeli historian," when in fact she is British, if we can believe this article. Anyway, Dadrian, while his article also incorrectly calls him a "historian" (fixed) his doctorate is in sociology, and the main academic backing given for him also comes from a sociologist (Stuart D. Stein). So, we have a sociologist who actually calls Ye'or "historian," although only in a comment in which he didn't even get her nationality right; this, so far, is the best evidence given, and it ain't much. And, incidentally, Dadrian is in a position very similar to Ye'or's: he works for an organization among the stated goals of whom is "To understand the immense impact genocide has had on the Armenian people." They are both individuals whose academic pursuits have largely been driven by the desire to promote a particular viewpoint, which is not an attitude that an academically rigorous study of history allows.

In short, your evidence is profoundly unconvincing, and may even have served to hurt your argument.

Tegwarrior (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing here- analyzing the credentials of authors published in reliable sources, alleging mistakes in their published articles, etc.. – is called original research, and is not allowed. If reliable sources call her an historian – that’s the way we describe her on WP. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Errrr ... are you sure the standard is not that we should note that a particular source called her a "historian," while she is more typically called a "scholar?" If two "reliable sources" disagree, it would seem that your proposed standard fails. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, you need to read more carefully, Monkey. I only quoted a reliable source who condemned her methods. I don't have any direct opinion on them, nor have I expressed one. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I read very carefully. In attempting to discredit a source who called her an historian, you analyzed the credentials of Dadrian, trying to pas him off as someone who is not an historian, then proceeded to research his article alleging errors in it ("we can immediately question his accuracy, because...) - this is original research, which is not allowed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to change the article to indicate that she's Israeli, then? For she is Israeli, by your standard. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Finally, no publication in a reliable source was sited for Bet Ye'or. The review in "International Journal of Middle East Studies" was only a commentary on a book she had published. She was not published in that journal, as far as I know. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
She's a scholar and an author of books of history (e.g: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century ) published by academic presses (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press). That's really more than enough to qualify as an historian. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, no it isn't. Don't rely on Wikipedia's article on Historian for an understanding of what a historian really is. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "his·to·ri·an: a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis." Bat Ye'or was pretty specifically noted for not having produced a scholarly synthesis by Sidney H. Griffith in the most scholarly site offered on the matter of her being a historian. Tegwarrior (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So, one of her critics called her work “unscholarly”, what of it? Such criticism is very common among academics with opposing viewpoints. Efraim Karsh has written that Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris "systematically distort the archival evidence" – are we going to remove their designation as historians based on this? Do you think we should value the point of view of one of her critics more than the decision of an academic press to publish her book? Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not "one of her critics," Monkey, but the academic chosen to review her work by the only scholarly journal referenced by the article that is not associated with promoting a particular viewpoint. It's sort of like if all your friends thought your fifth grade history report was really cool, but your teacher gave you a failing grade on it. So, yes, that counts more than the decision of an academic press (how many "academic presses" do you think there are? And how many of them have truly rigorous publishing standards?) to publish one of her works. And Efraim Karsh is a polemicist more than an academic; he has about as much business commenting on historians as I do commenting on camel racing. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Back to original research, I see. It is not up to you, or any other WP editor, to question the standard of academic presses who publish academic works of people you don’t like. It is not up to you, or any other WP editor, to question the academic credentials of the heads of academic departments of prestigious universities, when you disagree with their politics. Please read this and stop your attempts to discredit your political opponents. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
How about if we call people "popular historians" when they are not regarded, academically, as historians? And please read and adhere to WP:AGF. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this will just move the debate to the question of who is 'academically' regarded as an historian. Specifically with regards to BY, I believe that someone who is a scholar (according to you, and reliable sources), and who has had multiple historical books published by an academic press is an historian. We should describe people as they are described by reliable sources, not based on our evaluation of their work. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have written before about the status of Fairleigh University Press. Despite its name it is not one of the mainstream academic publishers. Another point to consider in regard to who can be described as a historian is whether they belong in some way to the community of scholars. I don't think the subject of this article does. But I am keenly aware that this is a Biography of a Living Person, therefore we can use words like "author" and "researcher", which are neutral and cast no aspersions on the subject's capacities. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's unfortunate, but I think it's pretty easy with a little bit of money and a few connections, to manufacture an appearance of respectability. I think it's done a lot in contentious matters attached in one way or another to scholarship. I don't know too much about FDUP, but I do know that there are entire "universities" dedicated to promoting a particular way of thinking. How much easier to just slap a press onto one of these? (Some of them, allegedly, are pretty decent schools.)
I expect that there has to be a way of basically getting a "google"-type ranking of academic journals and then of academics, where iterations of seeing how many references are made to different journals and scholars, and then seeing the relative quality of the journals and scholars making the references. Tegwarrior (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, you wrote elswhere on this page that "Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is not an academic publishing house". You now assert that although it is an academic publisher, it is not a "mainstream" one. Neither of these assertions are accompanied by any sort of backing cites or refernces - perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your claims. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Most academics have their books published by academic publishing houses. These are few in number. Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Sage, Routledge are all known in the UK. In the US, University of California Press, Harvard University Press. Then there are a larger number of specialist academic publishers, Edward Elgar for economics, Falmer for education studies. It used to be that Oxford University Press would mainly publish books by Oxford academics, but that is no longer the case. Academics who work in minor universities usually aim to be published by these major publishers. Fairleigh Dickinson University, a liberal arts college, is a special case in maintaining its own press. That it publishes Gary Null should ring alarm bells. And it isn't a member of the Association of American University Presses. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was actually hoping for some reliable 3rd party sources that state that FDUP is not an academic press, not more of your personal opinions of it. I think you are quite mistaken in thinking that the US has only a "few" academic presses. You name 2 (Harvard, UC), but surely you know of Yale[26], Princeton[27], Stanford[28]? In fact, just about every major (and many minor) US university has its own press, and FDUP is far from being a special case. I think you miscategorize FDU as a "liberal arts college" - US News and world report does not list it in that category, but even looking just at LACs, Amherst has a press, Wesleyan has a press . If you meant to say FDU is not as distinguished as Oxford or Harvard (and, by extension, FDUP is not of the same caliber as Oxford Press or Harvard Press) - I would not argue that point, but that is a far cry from "FDUP is not an academic press". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hoo boy, they publish Gary Null and we're supposed to take them seriously? The guy's one of the world's leading con-artist quacks and an HIV denier to boot.
Anyway we had this fight before, and I don't recall hearing any answer to the following argument: Yes there are one or two more-or-less reliable sources calling her a "historian," but there are also many more calling her a "researcher" or an "author" or a "scholar." There are also sources of equal or better reliability calling her a "controversial non-academic" and a "polemicist." NPOV means we play it down the middle, not picking out the most or least favorable option in order to boost or lower her credibility. Come on, this is basic stuff. Call her an author or a researcher, those are both undeniably accurate terms, without the POV-baggage. <eleland/talkedits> 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fellow HIV denier Peter Duesberg has been published by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Should we now put Kluwer on our shitlist? Should we extend that to Kluwer's current owners, Springer, one of the best known and biggest academic publishers? Do you see the problem with that kind of reasoning? Now, are there any reputable 3rd party sources that say FDUP is not an academic press, or will we go by the personal opinions of Eleland and Itsmejudith? If 3rd party sources called BY a researcher, we can call her that. If other 3rd party sources called her a historian, we can call her a “researcher and historian”. If 3rd party sources disputed her scholarship, we can describe that (within the bounds permitted by WP:BLP) in a criticism section, of which this article has more that the usual amount. But we can’t use our personal views of FDUP or BY’s scholarship to strike out what reliable sources have used to describe her. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, I looked, and I can't see where FDUP publishes Null. He does appear to be actually on the faculty there though (!), but whatever, that wasn't the main part of my argument, and I really don't feel like fencing with your strawmen anyway. You're suggesting now, I think, that we're only allowed to put potentially negative information in a special "criticism" section, while we can pile on positive terms everywhere else. Um, what? This has no foundation in policy, if anything it's against policy, which usually frowns on criticism sections. You're also subtly complaining about how this article "has more than the usual amount" of criticism; as if every figure has been criticized in the same degree! Reliable sources profiling Ye'or indicate that she is HIGHLY controversial and WIDELY criticized. Are you now disputing this? FFS, why do I edit Isr-Pal articles at all... <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be several arguments going on here. All I am saying is that it is not possible to describe Bat Ye'or as a historian simply on the grounds that she is published by FDUP. IF it can be called an academic publisher it is one of the most minor in existence. In regard to Null there was previously a citation of a resume where FDUP was given as the publisher. Since it was only a resume they may now have withdrawn it from their catalogue. Going back to the original issue, I cannot see any reason NOT to call her a writer or a researcher, as these descriptions are obvious, factual, clear and neutral. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey seems to have taken it upon himself to make sure that various non-historians are called historians. Meanwhile, the fact that Daniel Pipes, who actually is a historian, is not called such did not register with CM when he edited the article yesterday. I'm not sure if this attitude is part of Wikipedia's cult of the amateur program, or what.
Anyway, it galls me that CM first has insisted on an understanding of "historian" according to which David Irving and Joan Peters should be considered historians, and second that he insists, as in this article, that if two marginally reliable sources call someone "historian," we may ignore that the rest of the world, including a lot of more reliable sources, call him only "author" or "scholar." But, that is apparently the sad state of Wikipedia.
What seems unfortunately what has to happen is that if a non-historian gets called a historian, it should be made painfully clear through clear citations of exactly what and where the non-historian has published his historical work that there is no danger of this person's writings being taught in a serious course of history.
If FDUP is essentially a vanity press for people who footnote, it would be nice to make that clear somehow, although I'm not sure what the "how" would be.
Tegwarrior (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is quite comical. After you had edited out Pipes' description as an historian from the Middle East Forum article, and I had to revert that, explaining to you that he is one, you find it appropriate to come here and complain that I didn't make the same change on his page? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited it out after looking at Pipes' article, which didn't call him a historian. As vigilant as you, who had just edited the Pipes' article, are about calling everyone a historian, I figured that meant he was not a historian. I was mistaken. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Itsmejudith, I agree that it is not possible to describe Bat Ye'or as a historian simply on the grounds that she is published by FDUP. In fact, it is precisely this kind of original research, promoted and practiced by User:Tegwarrior, that I am against. It is not up to us to research the credentials of the academic presses who publish the works of BY. It is not up to us to analyze articles by authors who describe her as an historian, searching for mistakes in order to discredit them. The standard on Wikipedia is simple and clear: If you want to state ’Person X is Y’ – you need to find a reliable source that makes that claim. Once you do that, the debate is over – we do not go looking for what other things that reliable source may have published in an attempt to discredit that source, we do not analyze the rest of the content of the article in which the claim was made in an attempt to find errors of fact there, and we do not engage in pissing matches to show that the reliable source which made the claim is not as prestigious as some other reliable source. If there are reliable sources calling BY an historian –we can make that claim in the article. It is really as simple as that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Puh-lease! You have two dodgy, marginal references that call her "historian" in the face of the overwhelming consensus of calling her "author" or "scholar." The debate is not over when the thinnest reliable sources imaginable say something that is not upheld by the mainstream. I am pretty certain that Wikipedia's standard is to go by most common consensus in accepting descriptions without qualification, and in this case the most common consensus is "scholar." Tegwarrior (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The references are neither dodgy nor marginal. "historian" and "author" or "scholar" are not mutually exclusive - I have no problem describing her as "scholar and historian" if we have references for both. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historian, pt. 2

The American Historical Association has a searchable database of English Language History Journals. I think a reasonable standard for who can be called "historian" would be anyone published in one of these recognized journals (there are a LOT of them) or who has had their work favorably reviewed (by which I mean, reviewed in a way other than to advise that the work be ignored). Tegwarrior (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(Obviously, foreign language publications would have to be looked at separatetly.) Tegwarrior (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be in line with the special RS guidelines for history articles. To reply to Canadian Monkey, the argument that that we need a source for every single epithet is overly simplistic. To call BY a writer is justified by the fact that we include a bibliography of her works. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to calling her a writer as well as an historian, as I've stated several times. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue is with professionalism. There is a profession, "historian," and I mean "profession" in the narrow sense. When someone is understood to be a historian, the expectation - built around the profession of historian, which, as every profession must, has codes of conduct and standards of practice - is that he will have endeavored to conduct his research in an objective manner, and his historical writings will have been honestly vetted by his peers, and modified or withdrawn if this process shows deficiencies in the work, before they are published.

When you have a profession that has built up a body of work and that has established a reputation for itself and for its work, it is inappropriate to allow lay people to claim the title haphazardly. With many professions, this protection is embodied in law: if you claim to be a physician or a lawyer, you'd better be licensed or you're likely going to end up in jail.

I think we all know that the most appropriate description for Bat Ye'or is "polemicist," although this wouldn't stand up to the BFLP niceties. But as a polemicist, it is clear why she, and those who hope to exploit her work for similar purposes, would want to call her a "historian," and it's not because they want to identify her with the 17th century aristocracy who dabbled in studying the past. It's because they want to identify her with the profession, so that she might - without having adhered to any code of conduct or had any honest vetting of her writings - benefit from a reputation that she has not helped to build nor worked to uphold.

It would be fair to call Bat Ye'or a "historical scholar." This accurately describes, without noting her biases, what she does: she researches the past and writes about it. The only reason I can think of that anyone would insist on calling her a historian rather than a historical scholar is in order to claim the reputation of the historian profession. But no one can honestly claim that she has adhered to any standard of practice in her work, nor that she has had her work honestly vetted, so to claim that reputation for her is dishonest.

Can anyone name a quality that adheres to the word "historian" but not to the term "historical scholar" and that is an accurate description of Bat Ye'or? Again, the only quality of "historian" that is not also in "historical scholar" is that of the profession, and that is not a quality that Bat Ye'or has.

Tegwarrior (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some professions are regulated and/or licensed, by law or by professional guilds. Others are not. Like it or not, "Historian" is in the latter category. You may think that the most appropriate description for Bat Ye'or is "polemicist", but others disagree. To overcome this issue, we have a clear and simple policy on Wikipedia: We do not use the standards favored by Tegwarrior, or those favored by Canadian Monkey, we simply describe people as reliable sources have described them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken, CM. The AHA has an official Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, a Report on Redefining Historical Scholarship, a Statement of "Best Practices, etc. It is a professional guild. Since you ignored my question, I'll repeat it: Can you name a quality that adheres to the word "historian" but not to the term "historical scholar" and that is an accurate description of Bat Ye'or? If "historical scholar" captures the essence of what you want to claim for Bat Ye'or, you should have no objection to me replacing the term "historian" with "historical scholar" in the article's description of her; if you think there is some quality to Bat Ye'or's research and writing that is captured by "historian" but not by "historical scholar," I am all ears to hear what it is. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would not be 100% happy with "scholar" because it implies membership of a community of scholars and the article subject doesn't seem to have such a membership. As with "historian" the implication is that writers regularly submit their work for review by peers. When a writer addresses their work directly to a popular audience there is no such critique. Bat Ye'or does not have the training of a historian, nor does she contribute to scholarly journals. Her books sell better than those of most academic historians though. It is just two different career roads that people can choose to follow. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess "scholar" doesn't have the same connotation for me; to me it just means "student." Possibly this is because my elementary and secondary school system used "scholar" a lot. Bat Ye'or has clearly done a lot of research, albeit probably not objectively, on her topics; is there some other term besides scholar that would reflect this? Tegwarrior (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The exchange above illustrates the problem with trying to define BY in terms other than the way reliable sources describe her. "Schoalr" has certain connotations for you, others for Itsmejudith, and still others for me. You are happy to describe her as a "history scholar" - I don't know what that term means or how it's different from "historian". That's why we have simple and clear guidlines: we describe her the way she is described by reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith, you wrote that you would not be 100% happy with "scholar" - how about 95%? I intend, given Canadian Monkey's indifference, to change the article to call her a "historical scholar." Tegwarrior (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I was indifferent, I said i don't know what the term "historical scholar" means, as opposed to "historian". Which reliable source has described her as an "historical scholar"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You wrote, "I don't know what that term means or how it's different from 'historian.'" Are you know insisting that you can make a distinction between the two? Rather wriggly of you, if you are. Several sources are noted above as describing her as a "scholar;" adding "historical" merely clarifies of what topic she is a scholar. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are for improving article content, not for commenting on other editors. Your post above is quite uncivil, and I strongly recommend that you strike your personal comments out. What I wrote is quite clear : "I don't know what that term means". I haven't seen it used anywhere, and it seems you have coined it. If I don't know what it means, I obviously can't tell how, if at all, it is different from "historian". If it means the same thing, and we have reliable sources calling her an historian, I prefer we use the less-wordy, familiar term which is backed up by sources. If it means something different, please explain what that difference is, and show which reliable sources have used it to describe BY. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can leave out "historical," if you like. It's clear that MOST reliable sources call her "scholar" and only only a very few call her "historian," so shouldn't we go with the consensus of reliable sources? Do you understand the difference between "scholar" and "historian," and why most reliable sources would consider Bat Ye'or a scholar but not a historian? What is it that makes you insistent that she be called "historian" instead of "scholar?" Would you understand what "scholar of history" or "scholar of Islamic and Middle Eastern history" mean? Is there a quality that adheres to the word "historian" and not the the term "scholar of history" and that accurately describes Bat Ye'or? I don't think we should suggest, as by using the word "historian," that Bat Ye'or submits her work for honest peer review or that she follows a formal standard of practice in her work, because by reliable source accounts, she doesn't. If you can't understand the significance of the word "historian" in this matter, maybe you should defer to the judgment of others, and leave her with a description that accurately describes every aspect of her and of her work that you would want to describe with the word "historian." Now please be civil and answer my question.

Tegwarrior (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote: we have reliable sources calling her an historian, I prefer we use the less-wordy, familiar term which is backed up by sources. She calls herself ah historian. We have reliable sources calling her an historian. She's had multiple books of history published by an academic press. She's an historian. Please don't revert again without consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My preference is for "writer" but if we carry on like this any longer we will risk being included in the list of the most petty edit wars. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)