Talk:Daniel Pipes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Pipes article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2



Contents

[edit] Character Assassination on Campus

I do not think the issue of character assassination of groups and individuals critical of Neo-conservatives policies has been fully discussed, didn't Mr Pipes publish a monograph or carry on an attack on certain sectors of the Academic Establishment? It is called Campus Watch and it polices disagreement through Blacklisting.Wrong No?

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong yes. Andyvphil (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues

This article has major WP:BLP issues, and as such, I will be removing much of the unsourced content from this page.--SefringleTalk 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof by assertion doesn't cut it. You appear to be removing plenty of sourced criticisms of Pipes from the article. Catchpole 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Allegedly sourced criticisms which cannot be verified. If you have sources for the criticisms which can be verified, I wouldn't remove them.--SefringleTalk 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think that a quote from a particular edition of the Washington Post cannot be verified. Catchpole 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it cannot be proven that the Washington Post actually said these things. WP:BLP states the following: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space"--SefringleTalk 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it can be proven, you just need to get access to the appropriate archive, now you are just being silly. Catchpole 08:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding BLP. BLP is in place to remove assertions which are not true, or are unsourced. It has nothing to do with quotes that a person has said or written themselves or that appear on their own website. Those can easily be verified. I do not agree with all the information you summarily removed from the article; the University of Toronto incident, for one, didn't make sense after you took out the explanation of the protests by the professors and students. I don't think that all these quotes should just be listed, so I'm listing them here for discussion. When I first read this article, I didn't understand why exactly everyone was getting in a fuss over this guy-- until I saw some of these quotes. At least a few should be in the article. Here are some quotes Sefringle took out, from the "On Muslims" section:--Gloriamarie 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And per the quote I provided above, I am removing the quotes from the talk page. WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source states the following:
Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
  • it is relevant to the subject's notability;
  • it is not contentious;'
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources like any other, because they are not self-published.
A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.
The quotes were obviously contentious; meant to give the reader a certian view about the author. It is very selective quotefarming meant to prove a point. They do involve claims about third parties, notably muslims, and the point of them seems to try to push the POV that Pipes is somehow prejudice against muslims.--SefringleTalk 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The quotes that you removed are not self-published. They may come from Pipe's website but they were originally published elsewhere. Catchpole 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In February 2007 I tried to alert Wikipedia to the problems of poor sourcing [and lack of "full citations"] in this article about a living person (currently categorized as a problematic BLP[--see "Category:Disputed biographies of living persons"]), following WP:BLP. [... Another editor deleted my point of view on the article and the work on source references that I provided from the current talk page, re-factoring it and creating archive 1.] The information that I had worked on and provided has been archived in my own talk page archive since [Feb./March 2007]: for those who want to develop "full citations" for this article and to check and verify that the sources are presented in a neutral manner and are reliable sources to include in a biography of a living person, I provide the link to that information: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2. --NYScholar 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [Corrected & updated. --NYScholar 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]

[Note: After another editor refactored the current talk page, deleting my content-related comments, I moved my previously-deleted comments about then still-current matters (which are currently discussed in this section) to Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2 in March 2007. One may still find them archived there. --NYScholar 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]
[Note: My view is that providing "full citations"--names of author[s], titles of articles and/or books, publication information (places of publication actually accessed; if reprinted, original places of publication and their sites of reprintings), dates of publication, access dates--will improve this article. If it turns out that "full citations" to actual sources used demonstrate that some of those sources are not "reliable and verifiable" or otherwise appropriate sources to use in this biography of a living person, then editors can work on correcting those problems by deleting the statements taken from those sources and the citations (external links to) those sources. For more information about the policy pertaining to external links in biographies of living persons, please see both WP:BLP#Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (where related matters are currently in dispute), and WP:EL (ditto). Thank you. (I am not engaging in editing this article and do not plan to do so, or to discuss this matter further on this current talk page, but I thought it important to point people discussing these matters to this prior related information.) --NYScholar 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Sudden Jihad Syndrome redirects to this article, but no mention of it is given. This should be included, or the redirect changed. Ideally, it should be something easily found with a Ctrl+F search. 137.222.221.112 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that SJS should not redirect here. It deserves its own article. Although Pipes may have coined the phrase, the SJS concept has grown far beyond Pipes. A Google search yields 44,600 hits for SJS![1] Clearly, it's a noteworthy concept that deserves its own article.((unsigned))

If it redirects here, it used to be here. And if it's important, and he coined it,[2][3][4] it should at least be mentioned here. And it's not. Sheesh. Every time I look at a new (to me) article I find some clown has been trashing the content other editors have added. Andyvphil (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I eliminated a number of phrases that violate the NPOV regarding Campus Watch such as "controversy" etc. These are not appropriate under Wiki standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.222.110 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is completely acceptable to use the word controversy as long as it is cited, which in this case it was. I have no idea who this guy is but I have altered a few of your edits, and left others which were appropriate.
I fixed the Wiki-link for David Horowitz. There is no disambig at all in his article's name.
I reinstated the text about attacking academic freedom. Like it or not he was criticised for that, but you removed that text and changed what it said completely- but you actually left in the reference about the criticism lol.
Added a citation needed tag for his languages.
Put back the 'but he is nothing if not extreme in his own views' in the title of a reference. Did you even realise what you were doing or just removing anything critical of this guy? You don't just remove half a reference's title because you don't agree with it. It isn't article text, it is a reference title.
Changed the bit about his Peace Institute appointment from "Some mulsims..." to "Some defended the appointment, including Muslims".
NPOV doesn't mean you remove anything critical of someone, but that all criticisms are just and cited. Cheers, Rothery 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Major rewrite

Can the material be added here first and discussed? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

IronDuke 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting proper formatting edits and removing information about Pipes' views on Arabs; they are reliable sourced. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are they? Including the derogatory stuff with {{Fact}} tags on it? What source do the {{Fact}} tags represent? IronDuke 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The sources I added have no fact tags and they are not derogatory. They are from reliable sources cited using <REF> tags. I have no clue what you are referring to. What BLP violation are you referring to here?
The section entitled "On Muslims." You did manage to weakly source some polemical stuff elsewhere, but it doesn't even come close to being okay for a sensitive bio. IronDuke 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I see now. I didn't mean to revert the "On Muslims" sections, it is obviously OR and should be removed; however, there is nothing wrong with my others edits. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with edits to this article.

Problem with your recent edits to this article:

  1. You added back in text I deleted because it has no source and is origional research: He considers CAIR to be an apologist for Islamist terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Robert Spencer described the campaign against Pipes on the CAIR website as a "lynching." Citation was added, so this is not an issue.
  2. You deleted: pro-Israel[1] neoconservative[2] from lead (intro) section
  3. You deleted: According to writer Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."[3] from the Views and positions section
  4. You deleted: Pipes has angered many American Muslims because he suggested that Muslims in government and military positions should be given special attention as security risks and has claimed mosques are breeding grounds for militants.[4] from the American Muslims section.
  5. You are adding unnecessary bullets, resulting in strange looking formatting under the On Iran section.

[edit] References

[edit] Sources

Thanks for coming to talk, Chris.

  1. It certainly is not OR, I think you should take another look at the OR policy. You are right, though; it did not have a source. I put one in. (And yes, Pipes' blog is a fine source for Pipes' opinions about himself.)
  2. First of all, your automatic equation of "pro-Israel" with "Israel lobby" (whatever that might be) is prima facie inaccurate and offensive. Second, can you cite the specific passage in Walt and Mearsheimer where they mention him as a member of the "Israel lobby?" Third, Walt and Mearsheimer are, to put it mildly, quite controversial themselves. They don't get to define Pipes here--we start with what Pipes himself says he is. If he says he's a neocon, fine, great, let's have it in the lead. If he doesn't, it doesn't go there. Maybe in "Controversy." And why would his being "pro-Israel" be the second thing we learn about him after the fact that he's an American? How about "scholar"? Yumpin Yiminy.
    I did not make an automatic equation of "pro-Israel" with "Israel lobby." The book states, Pipes is a "pro-Israel neoconservative", which Pipes did not dispute in his explanation of what he believed to be the books inaccurate statements. I don't know what page exactly, but it is also in a brief version of the book, published in LRB can be found here. I can find many other sources besides the book that state Pipes is pro-Israel anyways. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    You did equate pro-Israel with “Israel lobby” by writing pro-Israel. (It’s called a piped link.) Pipes denies that he is part of any such lobby. Again: inaccurate and offensive. Pipes does not specifically deny being pro-Israel, but it’s entirely irrelevant. He says he wished to keep his response brief, and it may be that he has a more nuanced view of his position than “pro-Israel.” You may well find more sources that say Pipes is pro-Israel, but he is not going to be defined in the lead by his enemies. I just want to make that super-clear: it’s not going to happen. There may be room later to discuss it in its own section, if it’s worth discussing. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. According to the Nation website, "Kristine McNeil is a writer living in Brooklyn." That's the extent of her bio. Maybe there's more. Is she a scholar? Does she have a degree... in anything? The Nation is nakedly partisan, one step up from a 'zine or a free alt-weekly. There may be some room to quote from it, if there's a reliable person writing for it, but the article can't turn into a quote farm from this one partisan "writer's" article. And the gamla stuff? Well, Ms. McNeil can try to smear Pipes with guilt by association; we have to be a bit more careful. See the history of the Rachel Marsden article for a good example of how BLP issues have been handled in the past.
    Partisan news sources are reliable sources, unless they are from extremist groups, regardless of the author; the fact that The Nation published the story, makes it reliable enough. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Kristine McNeil is not a “news source.” She is a writer living in Brooklyn who has an opinion. She’s pushing a POV, which is fine (it’s what The Nation exists for), but we’re not going to report her (AFAIK) amateur opinion as fact. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Arab News? From Saudi Arabia? Really? Is that a WP:RS? And who is Barbara Ferguson? I'm genuinely curious. The second part from NYTimes is fine.
    I didn't add any Arab News citation, but I don't believe it is an unreliable source. Why does it being based in Saudi Arabia have anything to do with it's reliability? It is available world-wide and to my knowledge is not heavily censored by the Saudi government —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Your question about Saudi Arabia is… difficult to answer. It would require you to know a great deal of background information, e.g., that there may be differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech between western countries and theocracies. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think any effort to invalidate sources from countries we may not like or for being non-Western is unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. See below about bullet points.

IronDuke 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

You are deleting information regarding Pipes anti-Arab views, which are reliable sourced. You claim the text you deleted is a BLP violation, as you claim the information is derogatory; however, this it is not derogatory, it is stating verifiable facts in a NPOV, which is consistent with Wikipedia policy and BLP. Please stop this type of disruptive behavior. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what the "please stop" stuff is about. By your own admission, you have been reinserting text that has no source, and could be said to defame Pipes, violating WP:OR. WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If you could have found a way to violate WP:NPA with that edit, you might actually have violated every WP core policy in one click of a mouse. This is after I told you you were violating BLP, but instead of taking a closer look at what you were doing, you continued to edit-war it back in.
I did not go through and, for example, make sure that all the bullet points, formatting, etc. were as pretty as possible; I felt that your edits some in particular but also taken in total violated one the few true core policies of WP and needed to be reverted instantly. If you attempt to put them back, they will be reverted again, and this is not subject to 3RR. There's plenty of room for criticism of Pipes in this article, but it's got to be placed very carefully, and sourced very well. This isn't my opinion, this is policy. IronDuke 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think The Nation article is acceptable as a source for criticism as long it's appropriately attributed in the text and not overly excerpted. The "pro-Israel/necon" characterization is probably undue weight for the first sentence of the lead however, and it's not proper to state it as fact when sourced to Pipes' enemies. - Merzbow (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the neo con label from a NYT article? Not sure if it belongs in the lead sentence. The pro Israel stuff is a strech, and even if is "true" that would be hard to defend. Chris, can you post what you want to add here in talk and then see what editors have to say? I'am staying out of editing this article but will comment here. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)ps, apologies, Chris is posting his material in here and seeking consenus. Please work it out in here and reach middle ground and both be willing to bend, please, thanks, --Tom 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Neocon isn't a negative label, it is a fact, which describes Pipes' political views. Obviously, Pipes is pro-isreal, as shown through his actions and organizations, this is also not negative, but a fact. Also, deleting Pipes' views on Arabs is not acceptable. All views should be presented fairly according to NPOV policy; they are worded in a neutral manner and are backed up by reliable sources. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, if you have a problem with having pro-Israel/Neoccon in the first sentence of the lead, where to do suggest placing it instead? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It could go in "Views and positions", something like "his political views have been described as neoconservative by XXXX", and "he has been labeled as pro-Israel by XXXX". If some writing by Pipes describing himself as either of the two is found, however, then we can obviously state it as a fact. But even then it's still more important that he's a historian and an analyst than what his political views are, so those should always come first. - Merzbow 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll add more sources, reword, and move the pro-isreal and neocon reference to the 'views and positions' section. I still see no policy violation/blp violation in having the other text I added; please address concerns about the other text I added and please be more specific to what the specific violation is, as 'BLP violation' is vague (what part of BLP is being violated?). Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen my point by point response to your point by point stuff above? IronDuke 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just now noticed and responded, but what about the New York Times article regarding American Muslims? This was not mentioned. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would err on the careful side with biographies. Slander etc are not something that should occur in encyclopedias. Good attribution is one thing, but if something is seen as derogattory, most legal systems will allow prosecution and compensation, often for big bucks. Songstrasse 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is most certainly not slander and would never result in prosecution and compensation. Your claim of slander is not a reason to remove text that may be viewed by some as negative. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it isn't slander. Libel is another question. As you can see, I responded to you above. I'll only add that I answered your point about the NYTimes; think it's a good source for this. IronDuke 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well libel can turn into slander depending upon the angle of opposition. Litigation can be the result in any case. It seems pretty clear to me that the opposite of care has been applied to some of the past edits of this article. Criticism is fine and no doubt there will be more to come, but we need to stamp out anything that will drag Wikipedia down into mud slinging - and that means all articles relating to any particular individual. Songstrasse (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific to what you believe 'will drag Wikipedia down into mud slinging'? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This article by the Nation [5] is mud slinging. The way you restored it demonstrates a lack of care over this type of dirty journalism. You would do well to seek input from other editors over its appropriateness, and, if appropriate, how to present it without dragging Wikipedia into dubious reporting. Songstrasse (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edit War

I've requested temporary full protection of this page until this dispute is resolved. This is a BLP page and should not be subject to edit-warring over controversial claims. Please come to a consensus on the talk page before making edits others are likely to disagree with. AvruchTalk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On ArabNews as a source

It is preposterous to say it is not a reliable source as it is used right now on the page, as Pipes did factually make that statement about Muslims posing a danger to American Jews. See here to determine if he made such a statement. He also says that he said it on www.danielpipes.com, so it seems ArabNews is perfectly reliable and acceptable. Why or how was this one point ever even contested? I found this via the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Lawrence Cohen 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better source for the assertion, happy to have it. I am curious as to your logic... So ArabNews gets one fact right (assuming they have), this therefore means that any and all statements they present as fact are true and reliable? IronDuke —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but do you have any sourced, factual evidence of them being a bad source? Saying they're an Arab source, Saudi, or from a "theocracy". We can't exclude from non-Western sources. Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source is one that is widely recognized as such and has a reputation for quality. DO you have evidence that ArabNews has such a reputation? What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof to others ("prove ArabNews is not a reliable source"), while the burden is fully on you. This time, at least, ArabNews presented a distorted quote from Pipes since they omitted his reasoning. The full quote is: "I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership [ArabNews omitted that], that this will present true dangers to American Jews." Beit Or 19:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Related talk. Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit requested

{{editprotected}} I request that the quote from the "American Muslims" section sourced to ArabNews be replaced with the correct quote from Mr. Pipes' own website: "I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership, that this will present true dangers to American Jews."[6] As it stands, the quote is redacted and untrue and may be a WP:BLP violation. Beit Or 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put the statement in the article, in its unredacted form, as I believe it to be a WP:BLP issue. To pick out certain words from a statement, is to mislead. Woody (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request (minor)

{{edit protected}} The link to Department of Defense in the Background section is to a disambiguation page. It needs to link to United States Department of Defense. Thanks! Bleeding Blue 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain possible BLP violation

Re: 18 January 2008 diff by Addhoc.

Please be specific to what BLP violation you believe is in violation. Everything quoted from The Nation, a reliable source, are facts and are not opinion. I do not understand how having references to Pipes' anti-Arab views is a BLP violation. Please explain and if possible, please directly quote the specific policy violation. Thank you very much. 216.73.133.49 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted with the edit summary of "BLP concerns", this was because the content was obtained by selective quoting, and the source - The Nation - isn't entirely neutral. However, if there is a consensus the content is acceptable, I won't object. Looking at the history, however, I'm not the only editor to have concerns about this. Addhoc (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, just like Fox News, The Nation is not a neutral source; however, a source does not have to be neutral to be considered a reliable source. The information cited on this article from The Nation does not include any opinions, but only facts; therefore, the fact that The Nation is a liberal news source is irreverent--this was dicussed on WP:RSN a while ago. Also, the article is not quoted, so I'm confused to what selective quoting you are referring to; please further explain because I can't see how there is any BLP violation. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 18:34, 11 March 2008 diff by IronDuke.

Can you please be more specific to what "gross violation of BLP" there is in having this text instead of reverting without discussion. You shouldn't vaguely claim BLP violation without being specific to what part of BLP is being violated--especially with prior discussion as shown in the paragraph above this, questioning what specific BLP violation... Thanks! —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated both Nation/McNeil refs into the Praise/Crit section and fixed the attribution of controversial claims so that it is clear, e.g., that the claim that GAMLA favors ethnic cleansing is hers, not a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. That looks to me like a partisan and disputed characterization of fact, rather than a fact per se. Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to questioning the basis for McNeil's characterization of GAMLA, there's also the question of whether calling Pipes a "regular contributor" is misleading. The corrected link [7] "features" "Faces of American Islam", but oddly doesn't mention that that article is normally cited to the Hoover Institution's Policy Review, August/September 2002.[8]. So, is Pipes a contributor to GAMLA in the same sense that McNeil is a "contributor" to Campus Watch?[9]. GAMLA goes unmentioned at danielpipes.org[10]. Compare FrontPage,[11] where Pipes is a regular contributor. Andyvphil (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all: stop inserting the "information" back into the article, please, at least for now. I'm highly concerned that it is a BLP violation, and let's leave it until we gets ome good second opinions on that. Second, I have already addressed this point above, on December 5th, I believe, and it was not even responded to, much less refuted. Do please read the prior discussion before asking for more justification. But to repeat: McNeil is not a reliable source. She is virtually unknown; I can find no work by her other than this one article from 6 years ago. She is not a scholar, not even a journalist, as far as I can tell. Her opinions about Pipes are non-notable. Also, absolutely absolutely absolutely no scurrilous statements with {{Fact}} tags in a BLP. I mean, for heaven's sakes. IronDuke 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
McNeil not being a scholor or not writing a lot of articles has nothing to do with the article being a reliable source or not. The fact that The Nation, a very large news organization, fact checks and reviews what they publish, makes any article (unless opinion/opt-ed) published by The Nation a reliable source. And why do you state "Her opinions about Pipes are non-notable"??? There are NO OPINIONS of hers being used on this article--ONLY FACTS. What exactly do you think is an opinion? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please try to relax, Chris. Honestly, we can work this out, I'm sure. Moving on, you can't simply smear Pipes with a partisan magazine screed written by someone with no credentials whatever. That is what they call a "poor source," and we can't have that in a BLP. Also, she takes Pipes' quotes wildly out of context, and the bit about Gamla is a complete red herring. He does not "contribute" to Gamla, they reprint his articles. I don't believe he is affiliated with them in any way. Therefore, whatever Gamla may adovacte has nothing to do with this article. If Stormfront reprinted a Pipes article, would we be trying to smear him as a Nazi? Come on. As it is, the negative stuff in here is already close to too much, and the Coles quote will probably have to come out as well, as it doesn't really relate to Pipes per se. But there's plenty of other negative stuff in here for Pipes haters. IronDuke 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appointment to US Institute of Peace - text removed

I have removed a paragraph of quotes from this section, detailing the reactions of various Muslim figures to Pipes' appointment to the Peace Institute. The quotes were entirely positive and supportive, which does not seem to me reflective of a neutral point of view. I find it hard to believe that no one, not even Muslims, raised objections to Pipes' appointment; but the article does not tell us such. It lists the senators who opposed the appointment, but without saying what exactly about him they objected to, this isn't very useful.

Ultimately, we shouldn't list quotes supportive of Pipes if we don't balance them with quotes from his detractors (of whom he apparently has many). If anyone wants to re-add the text I've removed, you can do so (I've copied it below), but please add quotes from the 'other side' as well to ensure the section meets the standards of NPOV. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Text removed: "Some defended the appointment, including Muslims. Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic studies at American University, asked "Who is better placed to act as a bridge than the scholar of Islam?" Pakistani-American Tashbih Sayyed, editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times, called Pipes "a Cassandra. He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it. Historians will write later that Pipes saved us. There are Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves." [citation needed] Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow in the human-rights program at Harvard Law School, said, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam, just as I usually do."[12]"

The Christopher Hitchens critique could be integrated into the Peace Institute section, since Hitchens was specifically criticizing the nomination rather than Pipes in general. The current form is clearly POV, particularly since it cites people like Ahmed Subhy Mansour that have, in essence, invented their own sects of Islam that has virtually no following. IMO, a "praise" section in that location is tangential to the nomination and provides no information that is of use. It persuades the reader that the nomination was legitimate, which clearly makes the formulation unencyclopedic. Moreover, the construction at the beginning ("Some defended..") immediately suggests that many people did not support the appointment; the current section does not elaborate on that side. If one side is given a voice, then the other ought to be given a voice also. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Before my time, but it appears there used to be a couple paragraphs of negative reaction to the appointment.[13] Probably removed by some POV pusher screaming "BLP", if past experience is any judge. Andyvphil (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PNAC

Is this the same Daniel Pipes who was/is a member/associate of PNAC (project for a new american century)? If so that really should be covered in the article. If it's the same man (which seems likely), he is listed as a signee on at least one of their documents http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm Mrmrmrmrmoooo (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Mr. Pipes's religion Identity

He is a Jewish, so I am going to include his religious identity in the initial part of this article. It would be more specific that this gentleman is not a secular man. He has some essence of a different religion and full of his own religious tradition.116.0.33.47 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is usually kept out of the lead per WP:LEAD unless you can find several reliable sources that indicate it is central to his notability. Relata refero (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain possible BLP violations

I added more sources and slightly reworded (diff):

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most,"[5][3] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."[6][3] Pipes has also contributed to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."[7][3]
  1. ^ Mesarsheimer, John; Walt, Stephen (August 27, 2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 0374177724.
  2. ^ Kirkpatrick, David D. "Ideas & Trends; Battle Splits Conservative Magazine". The New York Times (2005-05-13). Retrieved on 2007-11-29.
  3. ^ a b c d McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
  4. ^ Stevenson, Richard W. "AFTEREFFECTS: WASHINGTON MEMO; For Muslims, a Mixture Of White House Signals". The New York Times (2003-04-28). Retrieved on 2007-11-29.
  5. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
  6. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
  7. ^ Abunimah, Ali. "The Growing Clamor for Ethnic Cleansing". The Electronic Intifada (2002-08-28). Retrieved on 2008-03-12

If there are any objections to this version--or any suggestions on how to improve it--please explain here. If there needs to be more sources, I can find some more to add--just let me know. I just don't see how there is any BLP issue whatsoever. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge objection to what you're doing. And trying to gin up a quote farm from questionable sources is not going to make this article any better. If you have good sources that take issue with Pipes, please find them. We can replace the terrible ones we have now. Otherwise, let's abide by policy. IronDuke 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no quote farming here... And what are you referring to about quotes being from questionable sources? "More troublesome than most" is quoted from the SF Chronicle and "barbarians" and "potential killers" are quoted from an article Pipes wrote himself! How on earth are these questionable sources? How are these sources terrible? They arn't! You are making up stuff to censor this article. This is unacceptable. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the actual sources before continuing. IronDuke 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with IronDuke, also guilt by association is expressly forbidden by policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I feel stupid. So, the SF Chronicle source is not reliable at all. I fixed that and put the article from Pipes himself instead. What other BLP issues are you concerned with? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The sentence "Pipes has also contributed to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians." is guilt by association, which is expressly forbidden by the blp policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this guilt by association??? What would Pipes be guilty of? Gamla is not guilty of anything and guilt by association is "the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty"[14]. Gamla is guilty of nothing--they have broken no laws, so how could Pipes be guilty by association when the group he is associated with not guilty of any legal wrongdoing? Please explain. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the blp policy? Addhoc (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So, if that sentence is dropped, the rest is okay, right? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No. First of all, you are hanging by a fairly thin thread on Wikipedia, I think. So I would take steps to be as fair-minded and collegial as possible. Second, as you linked to the word guilty, you must know that it has multiple meanings other than the legal definition. That you pretend you do not (along with your pretense about not understanding what it means to favorably mention the murdering of Americans on your userpage) can only be called trolling. You must stop this entirely in order for me to continue to engage on this page with you. As to your point, once and again, McNeil is a "poor source" for defamatory material on Pipes. Does she quote what he himself has written? Yes. Does she yank it grossly out of context? Also yes. If Pipes is all of the bad things she says or implies he is, then surely there are good sources elsewhere backing that up. And just to be clear: cherry-picking through what Pipes has written and synthesizing it into an attack on him is a violation of WP:NOR, as well as BLP. IronDuke 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a OR violation to identify the source of McNeil's quotes. Or a BLP violation to quote McNeil being tendentious. The McNeil article is widely quoted in attacks on Pipes. Linking her quotes to where they appear in context and noting that GAMLA does not in fact advocate ethnic cleansing (merely policies that others have chosen to call ethnic cleansing) amd in any case Pipes has never written anything for GAMLA, etc., is a service to anyone seeking information on Pipes, who will likely encounter McNeil anyway. Andyvphil (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ironduke, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes indicates that using the McNeil article for that paragraph, with a few minor changes to the wording of the paragraph, is okay and considered a reliable source. —Christopher Mann McKay 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Mann McKay. You made this edit [15] which I reverted. Looking back over your edits on this article, I suggest you take a break from even discussing this matter. I don't see quite what you are getting at. Perhaps other editors could discuss instead. Songstrasse (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? The Nation is a reliable source, if attributed. I can't see what the objection is. If it's to the phrase "anti-Arab", which I don't like either, I should point out that this is not restricted to the Nation. "Pipes' anti-anti-semitism is unfortunately inscreasingly coloured with political anti-Arab thinking..": Gabriele Marranci, "Jihad Beyond Islam", Berg Publishers; "As Emerson's work has become increasingly discredited, much of the anti-Arab tone and substance of his work has been taken up by one of his former employees, Daniel Pipes..." : Ibish Hussein in "The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality", Mc-Graw Hill; etc., etc. So its not precisely a marginal view. (Unsurprisingly). Given that, I think I am puzzled at the level of anger here. Relata refero (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also puzzled, especially by Songstrasse's strange comments: "I suggest you take a break from even discussing this matter...Perhaps other editors could discuss instead," when I already stopped discussing because no further discussion is needed. Via this talk page and WP:RSN, the current paragraph was already agreed on upon as acceptable content for this article. The paragraph should not be removed or reverted because it is not against WP:BLP, WP:VER/WP:RS or any other such policy or guideline. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on

I have cleaned up the McNeil quote. I still think it may have to come out, but let's see how this works. Also, everyone, please keep in mind: BLP is not subject to vote. IronDuke 22:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is not a BLP issue. Relata refero (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is. We must decide what can and cannot be included, and we must be very careful as we do so. I've seen some shockingly sloppy work done here, things inserted that border on the defamatory, if not actually crossing over; I'm not going to allow it unless and until someone very high up the food chain says "IronDuke, it's fine, leave it alone." IronDuke 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, as you revert the BLP vios back in, please at least make sure they're in their proper sections, okay? IronDuke 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What on earth does "high up on the food chain" mean? You are possibly thinking of some other project, not this one. Unless you do some definite clarification as to what is defamatory, given the consensus among impartial observers on a board dedicated to evaluating source quality that this is acceptable, you have absolutely nothing to go on.
Please also note my remarks in the section above. Relata refero (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom? WP:OFFICE? Jimbo? I think they all belong to this project last time I checked. IronDuke 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, you habe provided no justiication for reverting my rewording of the McNeil quote. Does it not sufficiently smear Pipes as I wrote it? IronDuke 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your rewriting changed the meaning attributed it. Campus Watch was covered elsewhere in the article.
WP:OFFICE etc. tend to get involved to tell people when they're are committing BLP vios. It is not generally the practice to assume that everything is a BLP vio unless the legal authorities tell you otherwise. That tends to get you blocked for editwarring.
Please also note that I at least watch this article to keep smears of Pipes out or, if notable smears, then adequately answered and kept in proportion. I don't appreciate your snideness. Relata refero (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I find it odd that you accuse me of snideness after referring to my points as "rot." It is not necessary to get OFFICE approval before making reverts that violate BLP, which I continue to believe, depsite a number of partisans who tend to make tendentious edits in this area disagreeing. She mentions Campus Watch in conjunction with Pipes, and the thrust of her criticism of him and them is that they put out a list of profs they thought were insufficiently anti-terrorist. IronDuke 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Nation article talks about Pipes views at length, which is one of the things it is quoted in the article for. It is also quoted in the Campus Watch section, or should be.
Unless you provide concrete arguments, with reference to the policy's current wording and general practice, of how this edit violates BLP, you are not going to have much to say on the subject. And I was referring to your "food chain" remark, which is particularly absurd, as 'rot'. Accusations of "smearing", however, are considerably more serious when levelled at a fellow editor. If you cannot tell the difference...
As I say above, I have no dog in this race. I don't even like the phrase. And calling other editors tendentious given your attitude so far is not helping your case, either. Relata refero (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to allow it unless and until someone very high up the food chain says "IronDuke, it's fine, leave it alone." - IronDuke, this may surprise you, but you are not the sole decider of what is allowed on this article or not. Multiple editors have stated the text you removed is not in violation of any policy--you seem to be the sole user disagreeing. The text is fine how it is. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata. I say this with only a trace of irony, but I do grudgingly admire how you defend your own personal attack against me (or highly uncivil comment, if you prefer) by getting in an extra dig, “Well, yes, I referred to your post as ‘rot,’ but only because it was so absurd, you see.” Then, further, you go on the attack insinuating that it is I who am violating policy by referring to edits as smearing Pipes, and that is somehow worse than what you did. As I think you must know, this is quite wrong. My edits are not only within the letter of policy, but the spirit as well. I am trying to protect this article from editors who are inserting horrendously bad stuff into it (not saying everyone who supports the McNeil quote is doing that, BTW). Anyway, enough about process. I’ll ask again: who here thinks that KM is a reliable source on anything, and if so, what makes her reliable? Thanks all. IronDuke 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My dear fellow, I must re-iterate that there are degrees of seriousness in this sort of thing and a one-word statement of "rot" in an edit summary while responding to claims that WP has a hierarchy of editors is not quite the same as a statement that other editors are involved in a smear campaign on the BLP of a prominent commentator - and, lets face it, one quick to take offence. Be that as it may, water under the bridge.
On to the matter of policy. As overwhelming consensus has demonstrated on the RS/N page, from all manner of editors, all of whom you would find difficult to dismiss as veterans of the WP:I/P quagmire, BLP is not touched here, in letter or in spirit. You are yet to make a case that it is. The Nation is a reliable enough source; it is quoted and attritbuted appropriately; it seems a notable viewpoint; it is not a marginal viewpoint. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing and references

Folks, citing and references are not that difficult. Its best to use the {{citeweb}} template, first of all, but at least use the ref tags? Also, when citing a quote from an individual, please actually provide a citation to the quote of the individual. Citing the claim of the quote (i.e. providing a citation to backup what the quoted person says, rather than the fact that the person said it) is not correct. The McNeil section under "Praise, criticism and controversy" is terribly cited. The citations attached to "...she stated...she also stated..." etc. all go to articles written by Pipes - that makes no sense. As far as the GAMLA article - the citations provide seem to demonstrate that the GAMLA article is a reprint, indeed without copyright citation and the addition of a new author without significant changes to the text, so how in any case does this back up the notion that he is a "regular contributor" to GAMLA? Avruch T 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, a 1983 Washington Post book review by Thomas W. Lippman stated that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims ... he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them".[1] It said his book "is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject" while admitting that "[f]ew other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history" and that his "book is a valuable contribution to our understanding."[2]

On this paragraph, what is the internal cite to the Nation trying to reference? I imagine that the quote comes from the Post? So the citation is a Nation quote of a Post article? Doesn't it strike you that perhaps we should quote directly? And if you can't come up with an article name or an author, but only a date, for a reference -- in my mind, on a BLP, that is not sufficient. Also, Andyvphil, could you use a better cite template than simple ref tags and a URL? Thanks, appreciated, really. Avruch T 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And as far as the "Steo-tep removal" - uh, no, whatever that is. I removed the cite, because its useless, and then noticed that not only was the general paragraph cite useless but the quote was apparently attributed to a third party. Since it makes a claim against Pipes that could be considered defamatory, and this is a BLP, and its not even barely adequately referenced, I removed it. You can reference it appropriately, soon, or I'll remove it again. Avruch T 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... how did I get from "two step" to "steo-tep". Anyway, looking at the history, I withdraw the question. Wrong or not, it was a one-step removal. Anyway, I didn't write the paragraph, and I don't agree with Lippman, but I assume the Nation quoted Lippman, and that is good enough for a work in progress. "BLP article" doesn't mean every cite has to meet FA standards. If you look and the Nation article doesn't quote Lippman that way, that would be a good place for a "fact" tag or even removal. Otherwise citation is not a problem. Nor is BLP. People saying Pipes is hostile to Muslims is part of his life we won't censor here. You remove it again and I will restore it again.
The Business Week cite is also good enough to allow that paragraph. Again, not good enough to pass GA or FA, but that's not the question here. If you don't like the content go to the library and check the issue. If it isn't accurately quoted, then you can yank it. But you don't get to demand better citation than policy requires.
And of course McNeil was lying about Pipes being a regular contributor to Gamla. He's a regular contributor to Frontpage and if you search his site for "Frontpage" it's all over the place. Gamla, nada. But search the web for "Pipes""ethnic cleansing" and you'll see that McNeil's slur got a lot of play. We shouldn't not mention it. If someone is looking for info on Pipes they should find the usual slurs mentioned here AND debunked. It's part of our service as a guide to the reliability of what is said elsewhere on the web.
As to the template, I usually only do that when I want to bookmark my last look at a page and I don't want to make any substantive changes. Usually there are more substantive changes to be made than time to do it, so quick-and-dirty on the refs is all I have time for. Sorry. The other things you complain about I either don't think I do or don't think are a major problem. Andyvphil (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAMLA Claim

References again... It is unnecessary to attempt to prove the claim of a quote that is sourced appropriately (a la McNeil). It isn't Wikipedia making the claim, it is McNeil. In any event - if you wanted to try to prove the claim you would need something more convincing than a copyright violation of an article written for something other than GAMLA. There seems to be a number of mentions on the Internets of Pipes contributing to GAMLA, but no actual evidence that he has other than the one reprinted article. Feel free to discuss the problem on the talkpage (as opposed to just reverting back and forth with identical edit summaries). Avruch T 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim is false but widely repeated. Attributing it to McNeil without mentioning that it is false is unacceptable. Leaving it unmentioneded is unacceptable. The only acceptable course is to mention it and mention that it is false. The only question is how to do this. If you don't like my attempt at this, advance your own. Andyvphil (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Almontaser campaign

See this article for some information about Pipes' involvement in getting Almontaser removed as principal of the Arabic school in New York City. Avruch T 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FPM

The FrontPage magazine is not a reliable source. Thus I've removed it.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You removed it because you don't like what it says. Thus, I've replaced it. I also don't know why his opinion about the muhammed cartoons is relevant, but I'm leaving that in for the time being. Yunfeng (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's reliable as a source in his own article, in his own words. - Merzbow (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
<sigh>Merzbow you previously challenged me on Bostom and Prometheus Books (see Talk:Dhimmi#Bostom), claiming they were reliable. Yet anyone can see who ludicrous those sources are, and there came to be consensus on this Now you're saying that FPM is reliable, even though it has the opposite reputation. Even on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
BS, FPM is about as reliable as Pipes himself, so if its being used to substantiate his opinion in his own words, thats OK. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll let the Pipes stuff in.
But it is also being used to substantiate Robert Spencer's opinion (without attribution to Pipes). Now, I'm no friend of Spencer's, but Pipes can't speak for him.
WP:SELFPUB says the information must be "not contentious...not involve claims about third parties."
I believe the above principles are violated when we say ' Robert Spencer described the campaign against Pipes on the CAIR website as a "lynching." 'Bless sins (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't object to removing the Spencer quote. - Merzbow (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you should find a reliable source for it. As of now, we are attributing to Spencer something he may not have said. Secondly, the source is making claims about CAIR as well (by saying that CAIR actually had a campaign against Pipes).Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bless, please re-read my post. I'm agreeing with you here. :) - Merzbow (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "controversial"

What better word is there than "controversial" to summarize the sentence "Among his supporters, Mr. Pipes enjoys a heroic status; among his detractors, he is reviled" in a single adjective? Perhaps "polarizing"? Would that be acceptable? It's silly not to have something like that in the introduction - the guy hasn't just been criticized by some random Nation writer, he's been the target of a filibuster in the US Senate. Kalkin (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Polarizing" may be a good alternative, but why isn't it enough to just quote the NYT sentence, w/o summarizing it? The sentence you quote is virtually a tautology, and could be applied to just about anyone who has critics, and which notable public figure doesn't? I am sure it is true of George Bush, for example, yet we don't lead his article with a sentence that reads 'Bush is a controversial president'. I think you have done great work to improve the article over the past couple of days - but since it is a BLP, we should be extra careful about criticism, especially as the first sentence in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. On consideration, just quoting the NYT - as the intro presently does - is good enough for me. I originally added "controversial" when I had not yet found a source for "neoconservative", and I felt Pipes extreme politics needed at least some implicit reference in the introduction, as opposed to presenting him as simply a prolific scholar. But just "neoconservative" is sufficient. Kalkin (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)