Talk:Daniel Pipes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the 2003-2004 archive. For newer comments, please see the original talk page.

Contents

2004

POV

This page is uniformly critical of Pipes without stating his views. Indeed, it moves from biography straight into criticism without noting the work by Pipes that has engendered this criticism. Some semeblence(sp?) of balance, if not the real thing, is needed. OneVoice 16:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So. . . write the needed sections. (And one other thing: Before you change "don't meet its approval" to "according to the Middle East Forum, fall short of academic standards" again, read about Campus Watch -- its goals are explicitly and overtly political, not academic.) --No-One Jones (talk) 13:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tons of people wrote about the threat of Islamic extremism - Huntington, for instance. The Hart-Rudman report on terrorism. Lots of people...it is not as though Islamic extremism was hidden from our sight before September 11. john k 21:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

article protected

I have protected this article due to a prolonged, low-intensity edit war between Zero000, John Kenney, Mirv and several anon users. -- Viajero 13:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re-write

I have added quotes and re-written sections for better organization and clarity. If you have objections (Virditas), please describe them. --Pravda 03:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quotes have already been moved to wikiquote, and deleted passages reinstated. --Viriditas | Talk 03:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You deleted text without explanation and so I will add it back. --Pravda 03:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yet, as early as 1983, Pipes' anti-Muslim agenda has been noted. An otherwise positive Washington Post book review noted that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them." (Washington Post, 12/11/83)

The statement, "Yet, as early as 1983, Pipes' anti-Muslim agenda has been noted," is unattributed and is not neutral. It has been removed. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is a description of the book review, "As early as 1983, Pipes' anti-Muslim agenda has been noted. An otherwise positive Washington Post book review noted that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them." (Washington Post, 12/11/83)" You can actually find it quoted on many sites, including Pipes' own Campus Watch! [1]
Wonderful, but it's not the duty of other people to cite sources in articles you edit. That's your responsibility. --Viriditas | Talk 05:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Professor Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago commented, "This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus." --Pravda 03:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Khalidi's comment has nothing to do with Pipes and belongs in an article about Campus Watch. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If Khalidis comment about Pipes' Campus Watch activities belong on the Campus Watch article then shouldn't Pipes comment about CAIR belong on the CAIR site? --Pravda 04:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you wanted to remove the entire section about CAIR (not just Pipe's comments) then the answer is yes. However, if your intent is cherry picking comments you don't like about CAIR and leaving in comments you do like, then the answer is no. Khalidi was criticizing Campus Watch, not Pipe himself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Viriditas | Talk 05:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The statement, "Campus Watch was immediately labeled a "McCarthyist blacklist"; and similar epithets, not only by the listed academics but by more than 100 others who demanded to be listed as well," is unattributed and lacks a source, so it has been removed. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should have your initiative to remove everything I don't like from articles until someone finds a source for them! This particular paragraph was apparently plagiarized, along with most of the rest of this article, from Information Blast. Information Blast doesn't appear to be a mirror of Wikipedia because the article contains more detailed information than the Wikipedia article. --Pravda 04:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Come now, Information Blast is an obvious copy of Wikipedia, it even says so at the bottom. It just happens to have copied an earlier version of the article. Jayjg 04:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are correct. I didn't see the small print. I thought it looked very close to this article but seemed to contain more detail - detail that has apparently been deleted over time from the Wikipedia version. --Pravda 05:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The McCarthite accusations against Pipes are pretty common. The quote may originate here [2] or here [3] or here [4] or here [5] or a number of other sites. --Pravda 05:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You need to attribute and cite sources. --Viriditas | Talk 05:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't edit the McCarthyite blacklist line that you deleted. That's been in the article for a long time. Do I still need to find more sources for it? --Pravda 05:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2003

Distortion in quote

I checked out the "quotation" that someone just deleted and found that it is distorted. For example Pipes didn't write "and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene" but rather "maintaining different standards of hygiene". It isn't much better, but the distortion is unacceptable. There is also missing context. As I've written elsewhere, this quotations game is a crock and I'm not going to make an exception just because the target is someone who richly deserves it. Btw, the date of the issue is Nov 19, not Nov 15. --Zero 23:48, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2005

This is the 2005 archive. For newer comments, please see the original talk page.

October

Daniel Pipes and Tariq Ramadan:

For a discussion of Daniel Pipes' criticism of Tariq Ramadan see:

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/why_tariq.htm

This comment is undated. For archival purposes, it will be assumed to have been posted on the date of it's archival. // Pathoschild 05:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

September

Modern Media

"Arab people live in some of the worse conditions in the world, without freedom to travel or modern media." Today people in the Arab World have more free TV channels to watch than Europeans. However, I sometime believe than modern media are not better than old-fashioned media ;-) Ericd 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Background section

I don't understand the rev war going on at the background section. Could you please explain to us, folks, what's wrong up there? I don't see anything wrong with both versions. Or maybe I am wrong myself! Cheers -- Svest 21:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

There is an effort being made to hide the fact that Pipes is Jewish. I have no idea why, both of his parents were Jewish, and it's made clear in the discussion section. Thanks.DannyZz 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why that should be hidden. Escape ---> Poland ---> America ---> 1939/1944 says everything. All humanity is proud of Einstein. Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born Jewish theoretical physicist of Swiss and American citizenship, who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Anything wrong w/ Pipes?
IMO, it's not something worthy to spend such amount of time discussing it and going into a long rev war. Cheers -- Svest 22:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

This was discussed at length above; perhaps you can review the section. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks Jayjg. I haven't noticed it. I believe now that I am right saying that the issue doesn't deserve such a havoc. However, I wonder why it was very important to say that the controversial Mark A. Gabriel is an ex-anti-semetic Muslim who is happy w/ his new life! Cheers -- Svest 23:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Then why are you reverting out Pipes' Jewish heritage?DannyZz 23:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Daniel_Pipes#He_is_of_Ashkenazi_Jewish_descent above. The people supporting included it included two banned editors. It is well-poisoning; he never refers to it himself, nor do any reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not well-poisoning, that's your original research and your personal opinion, not supported by the Discussion. DannyZz 23:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok, you've stated your opinion. Pipes never refers to it himself, nor do any reliable sources refer to him as being Jewish. Please read the discussion above. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Sheees! I really try to avoid long discussions. Indeed, I don't care if that should be mentioned or not. I've just noticed this rev war these 2 couple of days and was confused. I than asked why here. After checking the discussion above minutes ago, I realised that the issue was solved after Tomer withdrew his objections after Ttyre had brought sources. So what's the problem now? Cheers -- Svest 23:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Ttyre didn't bring sources about Daniel Pipes, he brought sources about Richard Pipes. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know Jayjg. I just don't think mentioning it or not would make any difference. However, most articles include all information possible about the subject. This is why there's WP. After all, he's included here List of Jews in literature and journalism. Cheers -- Svest 23:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
    • Here it is again: "Both Daniel Pipes parents are Polish Jews. His mother, Irene (nee Roth), escaped from Poland in the fall of 1939 and met Richard Pipes in the US in 1944; they married in 1946. This information is included in: Richard Pipes, VIXI, Memoirs of a Non-Belonger, Yale University Press, 2003, p.50. Book contains a photograph of Daniel Pipes at the age of 13 with his brother with the description: "Our sons, Steven (eight) and Daniel (thirteen) at an improvised Passover. Paris, 1962." Also, after browsing through his autobiography, I doubt that Richard Pipes would call himself a Polish-American. --Ttyre 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)" DannyZz 23:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Right. That was from a book about Richard Pipes; it said nothing about Daniel Pipes. Perhaps you could find a source about Daniel Pipes that discusses whether or not he is a Jews. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Read it again, please. Reread all the links and information provided in Talk:Daniel_Pipes#He_is_of_Ashkenazi_Jewish_descent. At this point, Jayjg it's clear you are just causing controversy.DannyZz 00:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny, please stop trying to insert that Pipes was Jewish. We don't do that in articles unless the person self-identifies (which Pipes doesn't) or the ethnicity is in some way relevant to his work (for example, if he were writing about Judaism), which it isn't, and in that case we'd need a firm source, which we don't have. (Someone has paraphrased a section of a book above, but didn't quote it, so we still don't know what it says.) If you can find a source where Pipes self-identifies, by all means add it, but otherwise please leave that section alone. Why are you so keen to include it anyway? Also, I think you referred somewhere to his being included in a WP list of Jews, but we don't use other WP articles as sources, because of the obvious problems of self-reference. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Pipes is Jewish, that's factual, so why are you trying to hide it? It is merely noted once in the article, the sources have been provided, and it is consistent with many other Wikipedia articles. That's still not good enough for you? Why? Please tell us why you personally want it deleted for Daniel Pipes? The reasons, sources and links are provided in detail in Talk:Daniel_Pipes#He_is_of_Ashkenazi_Jewish_descent. Please review. Please, kindly do not continue this ad nauseum. Thanks.DannyZz 00:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read the section already, and it gives no sure source. Can you please quote from a reputable source (a quote, please, not just the name of a book) that shows his mother was Jewish or that he himself converted? Then can you show me, in addition, why his ethnicity is relevant to his work? Or failing those two, show me where he self-identifies. I'm not trying to hide it: I just don't know whether it's (a) true and (b) relevant, so you need to show both, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone prove that Pipes does not self-identify as a Jew? I mean, he may not go around saying "I'm a Jew," all the time, but I don't see that that is positive prove that he doesn't self-identify as a Jew. Beyond this, the content fight in question is not about whether or not Pipes is Jewish, but whether his parents were. This seems to me to have been convincingly demonstrated, and I think that DannyZz's version of the paragraph is better written and clearer than the alternate version. I'm going to revert back, unless somebody can explain what is superior about the other version, which is oddly worded, contains less relevant information, and more irrelevant information (Pipes's mother's name). ETA after edit conflict - SlimVirgin, is there any reason to think that Pipes's mother was not Jewish? Given Pipes's own status as a Polish Jewish refugee, it seems likely, given the lack of contrary evidence, that his wife was also a Jew. Ttyre cited Richard Pipes's memoirs. The information supposedly contained therein is completely plausible. What's the big deal? john k 01:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

John, that's a strange thing to ask for: that we have to prove he doesn't self identify. He does say somewhere that he prefers not to talk about it, but it's up to you, if you want to add it, to find a source showing that he does. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ttyre didn't quote from the source, which would be better than paraphrasing, so we don't yet have a reliable source, and even when we do (in the absence of you finding a source where Pipes himself confirms it), you still have to show why it's relevant. Bernard Williams was raised as a Christian, but we don't mention it, because it isn't relevant. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, John, I'm unclear why you would write "I'm going to revert back, unless somebody can explain what is superior about the other version ..." three minutes after you had already reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Err...yeah, well, I should have said "I'm going to revert back. I will accept your version if you can explain what is superior about it." john k 05:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The real question for us: For some reason, SlimVirgin, you and user Jayjg , the two of you don't seem to care one iota that Pipes is listed as Polish, but you have a huge objection to the fact that Pipes is noted as being Jewish? Why are you being so controversial? Please explain. This is no big deal, OK? His parents were Polish-Jews and that's all it says. DannyZz 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - Obviously, it is difficult to prove that someone doesn't self-identify as a Jew. But Pipes's parents were apparently both Jews, there is a picture of him as a child in his father's memoirs celebrating Passover, and so forth. I don't see how it is problematic to say that his parents were Jewish. As far as mentioning someone being Jewish and not mentioning them being Christian, that's just a fact we all have to live with. Being Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion, and a minority ethnicity and religion. As such, someone's status as a Jew, of whatever kind, is almost always relevant to a discussion of their background, just as someone's status as an Irish-American or an African-American or whatever is relevant. Karl Marx did not identify as a Jew, and was baptized, but his family background is still identified as Jewish. I am perfectly willing to accept that we should not say that Pipes himself is Jewish, and that we should not discuss this at length. But I don't see why, in a discussion of his background, it is not relevant to mention that Pipes's parents were Polish Jewish refugees. If this is not relevant, what is relevant about somebody's background? As to the verification, Ttyre provides a source that supposedly supports a completely plausible story which we have no reason to doubt. Have you heard that Pipes's mother was not Jewish? Have you ever read that anywhere? Has anyone on this page ever asserted hearing that Pipes's mother was not Jewish? Ttyre claims rather plausibly to have looked through Richard Pipes's memoirs and to have learned there that Pipes's mother was Jewish. His comments about said memoir seem to show a knowledge of the book, and we have no reason to think he is being deceptive. I see no reason to consider this information any more unproven than any number of other statements in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some reason why we should not think Irene Pipes was Jewish, I see no reason to doubt Ttyre's words. john k 01:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi John, because of the nature of some of the trolls, troublemakers, and anonymous anti-Semites who've been trying to add this information over the last few weeks/months, I would prefer to see a very firm source, and if it's a book that we can't access online, it would be good to see the relevant section quoted from. It's up to the editor wanting to make the edit to find a reputable source, not up to the editor challenging it. The reason some people (and of course I don't include you in this) want to add this information is to make the point that Pipes is an Islamophobe in part (or entirely) because he's a Jew. In other words, they're trying to poison the well, which is why for a period they were particularly keen to have it in the first sentence, and would likely have had it in the title too if they'd been able to.
But we are not arguing about the first sentence, or about the title. We are arguing about a paragraph which discusses his parents' background. If it is not relevant to his parents' background that they were Polish Jewish refugees, I find it hard to see how anything about someone's parents backgrounds is relevant in any article. In terms of evidence, you are willing to accept other information derived from Ttyre's paraphrase of R. Pipes's memoirs - the fact that his mother was a refugee from Poland, that they met in 1944, that they married in 1946. If this information is acceptable, why isn't Mrs. Pipes's Judaism? john k 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what his ethnicity has to do with his work. If you don't like the Bernard Williams/Christianity analogy, we also don't say that he's Anglo Saxon. In fact, we never say of people that they're Anglo Saxon, or that their parents were. I therefore don't understand why we point out that people are Jewish unless it in some way directly impacts on their work, or unless they choose to self-identify.
This is true. But again, Jews are a minority ethnicity. I think it is nearly always significant that somebody has a Jewish background, at least in the Diaspora, because of the anti-Semitism that just about anybody with a Jewish background has faced until quite recently. I would add that there is probably no need to mention that an Israeli is Jewish, because most Israelis are Jewish. But if somebody is an Israeli Arab, I think that is almost certainly worth mentioning, and whether their background is Muslim or Christian is probably also worth mentioning, whether or not the person is religious. john k 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Finally, the problem with randomly deciding to mention that people are Jewish is that it raises the issue of who is a Jew. Do we say they're Jews only if their mothers were Jewish, or also if only their fathers were? And then there are examples like Wittgenstein, who had three grandparents who were Jewish, but neither of his parents were, and yet still people try to insert that he was Jewish into his article.
I think it would be fine to insert that Wittgenstein had Jewish heritage into the article. There's no point in talking about it ad infinitum. But I don't see how this is random. The fact is that Pipes's parents were refugees from the Nazis. It is completely relevant to mention that they were refugees because they were Jewish. I would suggest that it is misleading to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that Pipes does self-identify as a Jew. Several of the links above imply as much - he doesn't explicitly say he is a Jew, but "friends" say that he is, and he does not deny it, just says he doesn't feel that his personal religion is a matter deserving public comment. john k 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
For all these reasons, a good rule of thumb in these cases, I believe, is to include that a person is Jewish if and only if (a) they self-identify or (b) it is directly relevant to their work and we have an excellent source. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's the basic issue, as I see it. Just because anti-Semites may use the fact that somebody is Jewish to make anti-Semitic claims does not mean that a) saying that somebody is Jewish is anti-semitic; or b) that Wikipedia should avoid saying someone is Jewish. As a half-Jew myself, I think that it is nearly always worth mentioning, at some point in an article, that somebody is of Jewish heritage. I don't see how it is our responsibility to worry about whether somebody might take mentioning of these things in an anti-semitic way. No matter what we say, Anti-Semites are going to use it to support their anti-Semitism. And people who are not anti-Semites are not going to interpret it this way. john k 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Slim, I believe we should be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia articles, and there are numerous articles that list people's backgrounds without issue. Trying to hide that Pipes is Jewish is "poisoning the well" too, because it is flat-out deceitful, and it limits selective information to the reader. Pipes' parents were Polish Jews. It is common knowledge, and the source provided is more than adequate, and a memoir is far better than a journalism weblink which suffices for most Wikipedia articles. Thanks. DannyZz 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, you just keep repeating yourself. I've asked you to link to an online source or to quote from an offline one (quote from it, not paraphrase it), and a reputable source that says whether one or both of his parents were Jews. Read our policies: it's up to the editor making the edit to produce the source, not up to the editor challenging it. And I'm not trying to "hide" that Pipes is Jewish just as I'm not trying to "hide" that Bernard Williams was Anglo Saxon. I just don't see the relevance of it to his work and nor, evidently, does Pipes. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is you who continues to perpetuate controversy. A source has been provided. A memoir is a far better source than an online journalist source, so your point is already moot. Historians would consider a memoir to be one of the very best sources possible. It appears you want to hide that Pipes is Jewish, but not that he is Polish. Please stop. DannyZz 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Slim - you are demanding an incredibly high level of proof for this one claim, a level of proof which you are not demanding for any of the other information Ttyre provided which is still contained in the article. The level of proof you demand for this one, completely likely and plausible, claim is far beyond any level of proof ever used in wikipedia, that I am aware of, except in instances where there is a specific conflict of sources. You have not pointed to anything which refutes the claim that Ttyre derives from Pipes's memoirs. You have not pointed out anything that seems even implausible about what Ttyre has said. You have not given us any reason to doubt that Ttyre provided an accurate summary of the book in question. That said, I will make the ultimate sacrifice of actually going and looking at the book tomorrow, and providing a quote. Hopefully this will settle the matter. john k 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
John, the point you make that "[i]f it is not relevant to his parents' background that they were Polish Jewish refugees, I find it hard to see how anything about someone's parents backgrounds is relevant in any article," is a fair one. However, I don't feel I'm setting impossibly high standards by asking for a source that is actually quoted. I'm being extra careful with this because of the strong push to have it included: there was someone recently trying to claim that Rupert Murdoch's mother was a Jew, in line with Stormfront's view of Jews trying to take over the media, although the example of Murdoch flummoxes them somewhat. There's been something similar going on here with a few anon users: best to label all so-called Islamophobes as Jews, it seems, in the interest of neatness. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, calling Pipes a Jew hardly seems much of a stretch. His father is/was quite clearly a Jew (although the claim in Richard Pipes of his Jewish background is actually completely without citation...should we remove that, as well?) At any rate, as I said, I'll look it up tomorrow, as I'll be on campus, and should be able to access the book at the library. But I think the fact that Ttyre actually cited a page number in a book which actually does exist, and quoted a caption about Daniel Pipes as a kid celebrating Passover, should be presumed as evidence that he is being honest here. What ever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Ttyre's paraphrase of Richard Pipes's biography on a talk page is a completely different level and kind of contribution than anonymous and semi-anonymous users inserting anti-semitic nonsense into Rupert Murdoch. john k 05:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say or mean to imply that he was being dishonest; simply that it isn't clear what the passage says. And yes, we should remove that Richard Pipes was Jewish if we don't have a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Slim - I still think you are demanding a level of verification in this one instance that is far beyond what we normally require in wikipedia. I refer again to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. None of the statements about the elder Pipes's early life - that he came from a wealthy Jewish family in Poland, that his father worked for the Polish foreign office, that he fled Poland in 1939, that he became a US citizen in 1943, that he married in 1946 - is supported by any kind of specific citation. That said, it is all perfectly plausible, and in line with what we do know for sure about Pipes. My understanding of "assume good faith" is that contributions which appear to be good faith ones should be assumed to be such unless demonstrated otherwise. And that contributions that appear to contain a level of detail which could only be caused by bad faith if they are false, should be assumed to be accurate unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Do you have reason to believe that Richard Pipes's family was not Jewish? That his father was not a Polish diplomat? That he did not flee Poland in 1939? If not, I don't see why we should reject this contribution (added by an anon who seems to have a history of good faith contributions). As far as I am aware, for subjects other than "was somebody Jewish" we do not demand positive evidence for every statement mae. We assume good faith contributions and accuracy unless we have reason to believe otherwise. On the issue of Pipes's Jewishness, we have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. We don't even have "I vaguely remember reading that Pipes isn't Jewish." This latter would be reason to demand verification. But nobody is saying even that, so I don't see why this demand for verification when this material is no more unverified than probably two thirds of the information found on wikipedia. john k 15:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, there is a strong push to have Pipes' Jewish background hidden, with no complaints that Polish remains. Pipes' parents' ethnicity was Polish-Jewish, not Polish. Wikipedia should be accurate, not biased.DannyZz 13:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I have Vixi, Richard Pipes's memoirs, in front of me. It doesn't seem to directly state that Mrs. Pipes was Jewish, but it is implied about as strongly as it can be. In the first place, the entire first chapter of the book is pretty closely entwined with (Richard) Pipes's own Jewish heritage. He was from a well-off, assimilated Jewish family in Poland. It does not directly state that his wife was Jewish, but I think the discussion of her background implies it well enough. "Before long Irene and I began to drift toward each other. We had remarkably similar backgrounds: our mothers came from Warsaw, our fathers from Galicia, and the two families vaguely knew each other. We had both learned German before Polish. We had lived in Warsaw several streets apart and recalled birthday parties we had attended as children. She and her family had fled Poland in the first week of the war by making their way to Lithuania and then to Sweden from where, with the help of her father's elder brother in the United States, in January 1940 they migrated to Canada." (This from page 50, already cited by Ttyre). Then, on page 60: "[Irene and I] decided to marry. We arrived at this conclusion naturally, inevitably: in my diary I wrote that no decision was really required...Our parents had mixed feelings about the news: mine thought me too young for marriage, hers would have preferred a businessman for a son-in-law. But neither couple objected, and the Roths gave us a splendig wedding at the Delmonico Hotel in New York City." Now, neither of these passages explicitly calls Irene Roth Pipes a Jew, but given Pipes's own background, it seems incomprehensible to me that he would say that they came from "remarkably similar backgrounds" if she was not. Jews and Catholic Poles in Poland do not come from similar backgrounds. Furthermore, her German name, and the fact that she learned German before Polish, speaks pretty strongly to a Jewish background. The only other plausible option would be a German background, which seems unlikely, what with the fleeing Poland. One would also expect that a mixed marriage would warrant some comment in terms of the parents' reactions to the marriage. It seems quite clear that both Richard and Irene Pipes were Jews. I will add, that Ttyre was also truthful about the image, found in the image section between pages 124 and 125, which shows the two Pipes sons (Daniel and Steven) celebrating "an improvised Passover" in Paris in 1962. I see no reason not to say that Pipes's parents were both Polish Jews who fled German-occupied Poland in 1939. Can we move on now? john k 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether his parents were Jewish, but whether it has any relevance to Daniel Pipes. The article on Albert Einstein mentions he is a Jew, for example, but this is quite relevant, since he had to flee the Nazis, and was accused of creating "Jew physics". It's unclear what the purpoprted ethnicity of Pipes's parents adds to the article, especially when Pipes himself makes no reference to it. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps having Jewish roots influences the way he analyzes foreign policy and constructs his views, in which case this may be relevant. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it does; do you have any encyclopedic sources which make this claim? If so, feel free to quote them. I said much the same thing months ago. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
No, because not many other encyclopedias would have articles as extensive as this on him. Also mine was just a suggestion ("perhaps"). I really don't care whether it is added or not, but since many articles on other people indicate the religion of the person, despite relevancy, it is understandable why people would argue for adding the info on his religion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedic sources are sources which one would reasonably cite in an encyclopedia, not encyclopedias themselves. You know, books published by non-vanity presses, major newspapers and magazines, etc. And we have no idea what Pipes' religion is; people here are arguing that his ethnicity (Jew) be included. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that he be called a Jew, that I can tell. We are arguing that it is appropriate to say that his parents are Polish Jews who fled from the Nazis. Questions: 1) Is it appropriate to discuss a subject's parents' background in an article? I think "yes" is clearly the answer - we have hundreds of articles that discuss the backgrounds of the subject's parents. 2) Is it significant that the subject's parents were Jewish refugees from the Holocaust? I think "yes" is clearly the answer here, as well. If anything is relevant about a subject's parents, I don't see how this rather major thing could be irrelevant. These are all the necessary questions. The information would be informative, and is true. Our article on Noam Chomsky mentions his Jewish background. Beyond this basic fact, it seems to me that it is certainly relevant to mention that someone has a Jewish background when they write about issues surrounding Israel. This is not to try to poison the well. But surely a Jew with a hard-line pro-Israel stance is to be interpreted differently from a Fundamentalist Christian with a hard-line pro-Israel stance, aren't they? Your argument seems to be that we should not mention that somebody is a Jew unless we have some overwhelming level of proof that it is significant. It seems to me that somebody being a Jew is a priori significant, at least to a moderate extent, especially if they write on issues relating to Jewish subjects, like Zionism. But again, all of this is not even necessary. Is it significant that somebody is the son of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust? I find it hard to see how that is not relevant. You seem perfectly willing to accept that it is significant that Pipes is the son of refugees from the Nazi occupation of Poland. Doesn't it clarify things to note that they were Jewish refugees? john k 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. This article should be consistent with other Wikpedia articles and practises.DannyZz 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The Chomsky article is, in fact, quite different. To begin with, it nowhere describes Chomsky as a Jew. Instead, it notes his father's profession (Hebrew scholar) (much like the example given below quotes a father's profession), that their first language was Yiddish, and quotes Chomsky himself referring to his Jewish backgroudn (e.g. living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto"). Chomsky often refers to his Jewish background; this couldn't be more different from Pipes. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
John, you still haven't said why Pipes' ethnicity is relevant to his work. I make a habit, when I'm writing about people still alive, to e-mail them and ask whether they've self-identified anywhere in print or on television, and if they haven't, I don't include the information unless it has a direct bearing on their work. Are you now going to go around adding that people's parents were Celts, or their grandparents Basque? Please say specifically why, given that Pipes does not discuss his background (and has specifically said he doesn't want to), we should. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I think that being of Jewish background is relevant when you are writing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is, for better or for worse, seen as a "Jewish" issue. If the State of Israel is going to claim to be the Jewish Homeland, it seems relevant to write that an American writer who is a strong defender of it (or a strong attacker, for that matter) is themselves of Jewish heritage. I would have thought this is self evident. Beyond this, I don't see that it matters whether Pipes has called himself a Jew. He has never said he is not a Jew. His father's memoir clearly indicates that both he and Pipes's mother are of Jewish descent, and that their Jewishness played a major role in the course their lives took. Again, if it is relevant that they fled Poland in 1939, why is it not relevant that they were Jews who fled Poland in 1939? Because, again, we are not arguing about "whether Pipes is Jewish" (although we have absolutely no reason to think he is not, and there are some sources that have indicated that he is.) We are not arguing about "whether Pipes is an ethnic Jew" (he is). We are arguing about whether there should be a sentence that says that his parents came from Polish Jewish families that fled the Nazis in 1939. This is true, and is relevant in terms of explaining where Pipes is coming from. john k 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is relevant that (since you brought him up) Rupert Murdoch's grandfather be noted as Scottish and Presbyterian, and you could care less? Why is it, SlimVirgin, that you care only when it's about Jews? What are you hiding? and why is it so important? Pipes writes for the Jerusalem Post and the New York Sun about Israel, Zionism, Islam and the Middle East. Pipes is Jewish, big deal. DannyZz 19:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It gives his grandfather's profession, which was a Presbyterian minister; this was explained below, in the comment of mine you deleted. If Pipes father's profession was a Rabbi, you could mention that too. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, OK, not particularly impressive or convincing, Jayjg.DannyZz 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying that Richard and Irene Pipes were both from well-off, assimilated Polish Jewish families? This is true, and it gives background on Pipes itself. It is at least as relevant as Rupert Murdoch's grandfather's profession. This is an absurd level of sensitivity. And who cares whether Pipes discusses his background. We are writing an encyclopedia article about Pipes. A person's background is relevant to an encyclopedia article, whether or not they choose to discuss it. And the fact that Pipes's background is from Polish Jewish refugees is most certainly a relevant aspect of his background. In his memoirs, Richard Pipes indicates that his view of the Israeli-Arab conflict is strongly influenced by his experiences growing up in Poland. He sees the attitude of his community of assimilated Polish Jews in assuming that everything would turn out all right under the Nazis as analogous to the way some Israelis have (supposedly) grown complacent about the Arabs surrounding them. While these are obviously the Elder Pipes's views, it seems hardly coincidental that the views of his son on the Arab-Israeli conflict are precisely identical. And Jay, again, nobody is saying that we should call Daniel Pipes a Jew. My version did not say that at all. It said that both of his parents came from well-off, assimilated Jewish families in Poland, who fled in 1939. Why are you arguing against something that I didn't say? A background as the son of Holocaust survivors (more or less) is surely relevant, especially in an article of someone who writes about issues relating to Zionism, given the way that Zionism looks back to the Holocaust as a principal justification. It is far more relevant than the fact that Rupert Murdoch's grandfather was a Presbyterian minister, whose particular relevance I can't even begin to imagine. You seem to be claiming that we need some sort of extremely strong positive reason to mention a person's Jewish heritage. But you accept that pretty much any other trivia about a person's family background is acceptable without question, so long as it is true. Are you seriously claiming that the profession of Rupert Murdoch's grandfather is a more significant piece of information than the fact that Daniel Pipes's parents were both Jews who fled from the Nazis? john k 20:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The level of sensitivity is directly proportional to the number of times that others in the past (not you) have attempted to use it to poison the well - see, for example this[6] - and these well-poisonings do indeed directly say he is a Jew. As well, if you argue that the information about Murdoch's grandfather is irrelevant, then that is a condemnation of that article, not a reason to include the ethnicity of Pipes's parents in this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Who can even say that the fact that Pipes' parents are both from well-off, assimilated Polish Jewish families does not affect his perceptions on the topic of his expertise (Islam)? At some level, surely even Pipes himself is not entirely aware of what directs his perceptions; maybe the fact that he chooses not to highlight the fact that he comes from a Jewish background is cause more for further scrutiny than for unquestioning acceptance. If Wikipedia conceals the fact that Pipes' parents are both from well-off, assimilated Polish Jewish families -- the fact of which no one seems to contest -- the only justification would seem to be that Wikipedia had substituted its collective judgement for that of its readers, and decided on their behalf that the ethnicity of Pipes' parents had no effect on his perceptions about Islam. This, surely, is not an appropriate role for Wikipedia to assume, and it would be an unsettling indication of what Wikipedia is about if it were to assume the role anyway. Marsden 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope you'll be consistent and will now proceed to other biographies and dig around to find out whose grandparents were Welsh, Basque, or Celtic, and then whether they were Scottish Celts, Irish Celts, or Cornish Celts — because it might make a difference, and you wouldn't want Wikipedia to substitute its collective judgment for that of its readers. I have a suspicion that this admirable devotion to the readership may start and stop with trying to find out who's Jewish. But that's just a wild guess. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If someone's area of expertise was Spanish nationalism, and he was extremely critical of it, you're damn right I'd want to know if his parents were Basques. And if his area of expertise was early British imperialism, and he was extremely critical of it, you're damn right I'd want to know if his parents were Celts, and of what variety. And -- surprise! -- if someone's area of expertise is Islam, and he's extremely critical of it, I'd damn well like to know if his family is Jewish, or, for that matter, devoutly and judgementally Christian. I'd hardly take it for granted that his views are thoroughly determined by his family background, but I'd rather know if there were some likelihood for bias so that, after seeing a couple out-of-place opinions expressed, rather than thinking, "That's odd ...," and reading on until the oddities indicated that something unseen was at work, I'd be able to think, "That's not very odd at all," and potentially to decide that the value of the reading did not warrant the time it consumed. Why, SlimVirgin, would you imagine that an encyclopedia should ever be inclined to provide less accurate information as opposed to more? Central control of information has had an ugly and largely unsuccessful history -- why perpetuate it? Give up Stalinism, Slim. Marsden 21:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Expert in islamism, doubtful as views are very opinionated

Daniel pipes from what i have read appears to be very anti-muslim as well as a right wing neo con, this is all well and good, but when it becomes a matter of expertise in islamism, i truely doubt that he can be objective, therefore i think it would be better to refer to him not as an expert in islamism, but as a "so called expert" or "self proclaimed expert". There are 2 sides to every coin and daniel only appears to be looking at one side

No, he's regarded as an expert by other experts, not just by himself, and having expertise is not inconsistent with holding strong opinions; on the contrary, the former often causes the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I have reasonable doubts that he is an espert as many often declare themselves this after having read a book or two about subjects or having a bias towards the topic from the start. It is quite obvious that Pipes' neoconservative views have highly influenced what he thinks he needs to know about Islam altogether. a-n-o-n-y-m 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi AE. The point is that we can't start speculating on Pipes's internal mental states, and whether his neo-conservatism influenced his views on Islamism, or vice versa. He's regarded as an expert by other experts, by the White House, by newspapers all over the Western world, and by the television networks. He also has a PhD in Islamic history from Harvard, so it's not as though he turned up yesterday having read an Idiot's Guide. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just call him a scholar of Islam? As I said months ago, I don't much care for the word "expert" to refer to just about anyone. john k 19:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with scholar too. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I would disagree with calling him a scholar in Islam as that is a title reserved for those who have studied all their life in Islamic studies. Pipes has a degree in Islamic history and that is it. I'm afraid when referring to Islam, scholar has probably a greater meaning than expert, so I disagree. If for instance, he had degrees in a wide range of Islamic studies, including the Qur'an, then I could agree with you, but a degree in Islamic history just won't cut it. Hope that helps a bit, -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you meant Islamism. Well that is different from what I just said above. Please clarify that next time. I'm fine with it in that case. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, AE. I doubt the word will survive though, because I also see scholar as stronger than expert, but we'll see. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. No problem ofcourse. Yes, we'll just wait and see what happens... -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO, regardless of his political background, he's a very known expert of Islam. He's a very known figure when it comes to Political Islam and references to him are found everywhere from newspapers to notable and academic books. However, he's definitely not a Scholar as per AE. Cheers -- Svest 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Expert is a POV term, since it implies, as far as I am concerned, that what he has to say is learned, and whatever. I don't understand the objection to calling him a scholar - whether or not he is a "Scholar of Islam" in an Islamic sense, he is most certainly a "scholar of Islam" in a western sense, as someone who has a PhD in Islamic history. Perhaps "scholar of the Islamic world" would be better, though. Although I see you have accepted "scholar of Islamism" as appropriate. To be honest, I'm not sure this is valid. The man's degree is in medieval Islamic history, and he apparently (according to his own website) can't speak Arabic (although he can read it). These seem dubious qualifications for a scholar of Islamism. Can we perhaps call him a "scholar of Islamic history, who has written widely on Islamism and terrorism"? john k 21:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your changes are good, John; very accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Good. I am also fine with calling him that ("scholar of Islamic history, who has written widely on Islamism and terrorism"). Ofcourse, I'd really hate to make him seem more important than he actually is. To me, personally, he is just some idiot with a website. :) a-n-o-n-y-m 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Total agreement. However, I don't believe he's an idiot. He's rather seeing things from his own perspective and according to his background; a neocon to be clear. Cheers -- Svest 21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Well, he's more than an idiot with a website. He's a lot more prominent, at least. I'd say that I view him as a very misguided ideologue who uses his academic degree and supposed aura as an "expert" to claim far more legitimacy for his despicable views than they deserve. But that would be my POV, and not an NPOV summary of who he is. john k 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL, well let's not debate idiocy or lack of. :) Obviously I won't be calling him that in the article; it was just my two cents. a-n-o-n-y-m 01:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias and inconsistency being pushed here

Slim, can you comment on the differences?:

Rupert Murdoch: “His father was Sir Keith Murdoch, a stern and somewhat distant figure who was the son of a Presbyterian minister from Scotland.”

“Pipes's parents were both Polish-Jews who fled Europe in 1939. They met in the US in 1944, and married two years later.” DannyZz 17:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What inconsistency? His father was from Scotland, his profession was a Presbyterian minister. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg , that's not contributing. Please spend some time reading the discussion before making bad fly-by comments and edits. DannyZz 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comments again; doing so is actually considered vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of no vandalism. You can find more information here: [[7]] Thanks.DannyZz 20:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does. So your deletion of my Talk: comments with the Edit summary "rv vandalism"[8] was obviously inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism, especially silly vandalism, and wholly irrelevant comments is Wikipedia policy. Please follow Wikpedia policy. You can find more information here:[[9]]. Thanks DannyZz 16:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Islam Online mentions Wikipedia and lists Daniel Pipes as "Jewish writer"

News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Adam Wild Aba (January 10, 2005). "Fox Features 'Muslim Terrorists' in 24 Drama.". IslamOnline.net.
News This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source for details.


Danny, it was Islam Online that felt Pipes had to be described (qualified, more like) as a "Jewish writer." And it's not a media organization. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt they felt they "had" to do anything. They obviously flat-out see Daniel Pipes as "Jewish", and they are accurate, because he is Jewish and he supports the Israelis against Islam.DannyZz 14:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, the Israelis are against Islam? Thanks for clarifying your views. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, if they're for it, they've got a funny way of showing it. -- Grace Note


I find this discussion absolutely outrageous. Not a single person - I repeat - not one - would have said anything if this article pointed out that Pipes was, for example, of Italian or Welsh descent. This kind of "why point out he's Jewish" argument ALWAYS, ALWAYS happens when it comes to controverisal figures or politicans of Jewish descent (well, I've never seen arguments of this size when it comes to mentioning the background of people of Jewish or part Jewish ethnicity who are not controversial i.e. 1, 2, 3). Reading the sources above, you can clearly see that there is "proof" that Pipes is Jewish, ethnically speaking at least. And according to the Wikipedia definition of Jew, it is certainly an ethnicity. You don't have to identify with an ethnicity in order to be a member of it.

As for relevance for stating his ethnicity? None except that articles of such size always mention a person's background, and that is the case for some articles of smaller size as well. There is nothing in this article like "Pipes' Jewishness influences his opinion on ... etc. etc.". That would be something to object too. But a simple biographical mention of his ethnicity and family background can not, and should not, be objected too on ANY reasonable grounds. Stop this insanity. -130.113.111.203

How many people do you think would have said something had Pipes come from a fundamentalist Christian family in Western Texas? I certainly would have wanted this known about an extreme critic of Islam. The fact of the matter is that most in the Islamic world are of the opinion that the "world's only" Jewish State of Israel was wrongly imposed among them, and are violently opposed to it. Many -- certainly not all -- Jewish people's opinions of Islam are strongly colored by this: how many Jewish people devote a large part of their professional careers protesting the racist and intolerant aspects of Shintoism, of which there are many? It may well be that Pipes is completely uninfluenced by the fact that the religion he has made himself an expert of is broadly and sometimes violently opposed to a state that was formed for the sake of his ethnic group, but I wouldn't want my life to depend on that. Would you? Marsden 22:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You're wrongly comparing adherence to a religion (Christianity) with membership of an ethnic group. We have no idea what Pipes religious beliefs are, if he has any, or what role his ethnicity played in his decision to study what he did. As I said, Marsden, I hope you're going to go around adding the ethnicity of people's parents to all our biographies from now on. As a matter of interest, what brought you to this page first? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
As I have addressed ethnicity in my earlier response to you, SlimVirgin, as opposed to in my remarks here in response to an anonymous user -- which remarks you have oddly decided to respond to for their lack of the information contained in my response to you -- I see no reason to comment to you on religion versus ethnicity. Read my earlier response to you, please. I came to this page because I saw that certain people of dubious impartiality were involved in a dispute here, and I sought to help make sure they didn't improperly promote their POV. Thanks for asking. Marsden 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I also came to this page because I saw that a certain person of obvious partiality was putting propaganda in here and other places, that being you, and I am going to help make sure you don't improperly promote your "POV", whatever that is. John McW

I think you misunderstood, Marsden, in my (and that anom you responded to was me) post earlier I was FOR mentioning Pipes' background, not against it. Read what I said again, I can sort of see now how it can be taken both ways.

SlimVirgin is correct, religion and ethnicity are certainly different in the sense of what Marsden was trying to say. However, what MY point was there is nothing off-colour about pointing out his ETHNICITY, which we DO know, unless it is incorrect factually, which it is not. And as a matter of fact, most of what I do here at Wikipedia is put up peoples' ethnic backgrounds (and sometimes religion, though I don't care for that information as much; and also I am referring here to people of all ethnic backgrounds, obviously not just Jewish). In fact that and gleaning information are my top specialties. And as I mentioned before, no one in my experience of doing this cares when it comes to pointing out actors or singers are Jewish or part Jewish. It's only controversial politicians and the like, which really annoys me and shows a double-standard. So.... --User 24....something something

Indeed. If Pipes' Jewish background is relevant, then surely it should be included in the article; if it is irrelevant, then why make such a big deal about it being included in the article? In an article that somehow manages to mention the pre-school he attended (!), how is his Jewish background so special in its alleged irrelevance that it specifically should be censored?
Anyway, there isn't much to discuss. If my help is needed to keep Jayjg and SlimVirgin and their usual posse from their Stalinist effort to constrain the free flow of information here, please drop me a line on my talk page. Marsden 15:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be a rather argumentative and biased bigot - you are the one who needs to be constrained. John McW

Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy of no personal attacks? Anyway, whether he is a bigot or not is irrelevant. Only his (and my) argument and the points we make during it are relevant. --User 24....something something

You're right, strictly speaking, 24, but comments like Marsden's tend to make talk pages toxic, and that affects content too, indirectly. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have been accused of causing controversy many times on Wikipedia. You comments tend to make talk pages toxic too.69.209.197.118 20:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's as may be, but are you certain that you'd be taking out that he was an Arab if he was of Jordanian origin, say, were he a critic of Israel? Would you even question mentioning his origin were he Arab and not Jewish? I don't think you can escape those questions by claiming that you are being personally attacked. I think the notion that Marsden is wanting you to discuss, that Pipes's being Jewish can be perceived to have a bearing on his views (and most importantly, given that what we perceive is supposed not to be of any importance, is perceived that way) should not be hidden. You are taking the same line that had Jay try to suppress that Ehud Olmert was deputy prime minister of Israel because it was "poisoning the well" to mention that he was a partisan! Making a person seem less than they are is an interesting way of building a comprehensive encyclopaedia article about them, or about the events they have commented on. -- Grace Note
You know what the issue is, GN, so don't pretend. For example, I don't see the relevance of adding that Edward Said was born to a Christian family. That doesn't tell me whether he was a Muslim, Christian, or atheist, and what good would it do me if I knew that? He was a scholar, end of story. With certain figures, adding certain types of information is too often an attempt to poison the well. I know editors' intentions shouldn't matter, but somehow they do. That's all I can say. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
...and censoring certain types of information is too often an attempt to "sweeten" the well, which is no less insidious that "poisoning" it. 69.138.215.194 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you being serious here, or are you just trying to make your position appear consistent? Of course it is relevant to mention the family religious background of an Arab, because whatever the state of their religious beliefs in adult life, a Christian Arab background is quite different from a Muslim Arab one. Taken to its logical extreme, your position would require that we not mention anybody's family religious background, unless they themselves followed their parents religion. This is completely untenable as a policy, since it seems to imply that the religious background one was raised in is completely irrelevant to who they become, which is obviously ridiculous. john k 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what wikipedia's policies are but if it has a policy of no personal attack then I don't understand why you are talking to me, instead of this marsden fellow. have you ever gone to his page and clicked on the User contributions link and read his statements? He does nothing but bias articles and attack other users. The word slimvirgin used - "toxic" - is exactly right. John McW 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

On this page, Marsden has been impolite to Jay and Slim in making what are (whether you agree with them or not) valid arguments about the content of this page. I would say that his comments about Jay and Slim come pretty near to the border of personal attacks, and may cross into them, but nevertheless he is actually discussing the content of the page in a substantive way. All you are doing is coming here and making ad hominems against Marsden. john k 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Critisized by whom?!

For the sake of a NPOV and maybe for the sake of making Jayjg and Anonymous Editor happy, we have to agree that Daniel P. is criticized by some commentators (w/ no identity). Please, give us some sources or else people would criticize WP for being bullshit. Cheers -- Svest 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Well we need something that applies to him in a general sense. I am satisfied with John K's version: "also criticized for his controversial comments about Islam". Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to have some names. What I very much would not like is for us to say that "Islamic groups criticize Pipes" - criticism of Pipes goes far beyond Islamic groups. john k 22:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think in the first paragraph we only need something that applies to him generally and then later in the article give particular details on who these critics are. Much detail is already given on the particular areas of controversy, but ofcourse there is room for more to be added. You are correct John in saying that criticism of Pipes goes way beyond Islamic groups. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree guys. However, the reader is blind. We are not! Can we help the reader in a better way? Cheers -- Svest 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

The "Praise and Controversy" section lists all sorts of people who have criticized him; the introduction is merely a summary of the article contents, and does not require (nor should it have) extensive listings of people who have criticized him (or praised him, for that matter). Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

July

neocon

CltFn and Guy Montag have both tried to remove the word "neoconservative" from the introduction. Clearly neither one has read this column by Pipes, in which he happily accepts the appellation of "neoconservative". —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I agree with Charles, even his views have shown him as a neo-conservative figure that supports conservative idealogies. - Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
I've linked the article provided. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Some anonymous user tried to remove it yet again. This is tiresome but not at all unexpected. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

June

The section "on Muslims"

Are those quotes in context? They are just linked to a site not friendly to Pipes. Although they cite the information, shouldn't the reader have access to the full article? Also, is it really on Muslims or something relating to Muslims? Guy Montag 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most (probably all) of those articles can be found on the web with a little help from Google. Why didn't you ask the same question in relation to the quotations of praise? --Zero 08:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because one side has a contextual quote explaining why they praise him, but the quotes that condemn him take controversial statements without showing in what context they are made. For example, I read the article in the Jerusalem Post where he talks about "watching Muslims in their positions" but it was made subsequently illustrated why, comparing America's situation to Israel situation where so called racial profiling is seen as a legitimate defense against terrorism. Readers should have the right to see the whole picture. Secondly, controversial statements should be made in context lest they be used against the author unfairly. It is similiar to condemning Nieztche for saying "God is Dead." without knowing what he meant.

For example, I am interested to know what he meant when this was constructed " "The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be." Why does he say this? What is he alluding to? what has been... that was left out? Where is the article? We need context and sources.

I expanded it and linked to the source. In the case of the JP quote, in my opinion it is accurate and stands well enough without adding the "justification" he proposed. --Zero 11:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 08:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everything needs expansion in context, but if most of the sources are found, they could be linked to for readers to read for themselves. The source you linked to, although adds more context, makes me feel that she leaves something out. The person writing it has a pro Palestinian bias. Of course you know this. If you can find another source where we know exactly what he says it would be much better. Blaming the Arabs, could also be construed as "the Arab government focus on Israel instead of their own societies."

Guy Montag 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

User:CltFn, what is the reason for moving the intro down the page, and inserting a list of his books into the middle of the text? We don't do that, and you've been asked not to. The list of books is at the end. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am simply making the intro clearer to read and putting the book section where it belongs. The book section at the end is purely arbitrary and has not basis in anything. That is all.--Diglewop 04:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Busted using two accounts! I gotta say this drops your credibility down another notch. Rhobite 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Anonymous editor, I reverted your latest edit because you wrote things like some "dismissed" him as "simply" an anti-Islamic "bigot". This isn't encyclopedic writing, and if you want to call him an "anti-Islamic bigot," you'll need to attribute that view to a credible publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Perhaps better wording of the statement is needed. There are several works cited later in the article (controversy) that assert exactly what the statement stated. I wasn't trying to add my POV, but preparing a compromise that some previous editors had a problem/dispute with. Personally, I think the message of statement needs to be stated just once in the controversy section. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 17:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly so. Credible publications or credible sources; "Joe blo blogger" or "anonymous message board commentator" And if the sources for the criticism are already quoted below, then there's no need to repeat them. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There, now I've cited the "Islamophobe" allegation in the article. Everyone happy? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good, see now we are reaching NPOV and the article doesn't simply idolize pipes, and previous users who wanted the line there would be satisfied somewhat. --Anonymous editor 17:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not, since they're using anonymous proxies to revert in that version, but that can be dealt with. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which ones specifically, there are several!?--Anonymous editor 17:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

202.83.175.156 and 63.218.109.130 so far. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now 217.219.18.10. I've protected the page against vandalism from these anonymous proxies for now; let's hope they calm down. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes, Islamophobic bigot

Pipes' supporters have asked for citations to support the description of Pipes as a bigot and an Islamophobe. Please see the links below:

"Daniel Pipes is a neo-conservative, orientalist, extreme right-wing Zionist, and often expresses islamophobic statements." [10]

"Throughout his career, Daniel Pipes has exhibited a troubling bigotry toward Muslims and Islam." [11]

"He has been called the country's leading Islamophobe." [12]

"President Bush yesterday nominated pro-Israel commentator Daniel Pipes, who many American Muslims regard as the nation's leading Islamophobe, to join the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a federal institution created by Congress." [13]

"CAIR accuses Pipes of being "an Islamophobe" [14]

"Daniel Pipes is a notorious Islamophobe." [15]

"To hear his critics tell it, Pipes is an "Islamophobe" and an anti-Muslim bigot whose ignorance about Islam is matched only by his hostility toward it." [16]

"He has been called an Islamophobe, an attack dog for the New Inquisition and a voice the Western world ignores at its peril. " [17]

"Since Daniel Pipes is considered to be America’s leading Islamophobe, his appointment would send a wrong message to Muslims all over the world." [18]

"He is the nation's leading Islamophobe and he is not welcome. " [19]

"Despite his endlessly repeated mantra—"Militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution"—he is charged with being an Islamophobe. " [20]

"The only consistency here is Pipes’ bald faced racism and shrewd agenda to silence American Muslims and American Arabs at any cost, because he is a bigot, and he belongs to an ultra right wing reactionary school of thought that believes that the destruction of Islam will somehow protect Israel." [21] --BiasLens 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BiasLens sure did his research. I have a feeling that there's a dispute war that will result, though. --Anonymous editor 17:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
BiasLens, it was Wikipedia supporters who asked for citations, not Pipes supporters. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly right again. And it was Wikipedia supporters who already included and cited the accusation that he was an Islamophobe. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has a problem with mention of Pipes as a bigot as long as it is clear who considers him one and who doesn't. Also, any such assertions should be countered with contrary assertions. For example, I don't think the following would be an NPOV opener for Barney the Dinosaur:
Barney the Dinosaur is a character on a popular children's television show. Owing to his undisputed large size, many consider him a bully (citation of fringe source(s) calling him a bully, and citation of mainstream sources mentioning that the fringe considers him a bully).
Get the point? HKT 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

plagiarism

Several sentences here are word-for-word identical to the biography from Pipes's site and are not credited as such. I don't know who originally inserted these and don't care to dig through the history to find out, but they need to be dealt with, either rewritten or removed, once this page is unprotected.

Specifically, these sentences:

Pipes received his A.B. in 1971 and his Ph.D. in 1978 from Harvard University, both in history.

Very nearly identical, but for the addition of two "in"s before the years and the removal of two sets of parentheses.

He speaks French and reads Arabic and German.

One comma has been removed and "Mr. Pipes" has been replaced by "he"; otherwise it's the same.

He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt[. . .]

Identical.

He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College.

Identical.

[He] sits on five editorial boards, has testified before many congressional committees, and worked on four presidential campaigns.

Identical.

The Boston Globe states that "If Pipes's admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11." The Wall Street Journal has called him "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East." MSNBC describes him as one of the best-known "Mideast policy luminaries."

Identical.

There may be others that I didn't catch. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much of that was apparently contributed a year ago by an IP editor: [22]. Jayjg (talk) 06:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anon IP: Probably ol' Dan himself. --Anonymous editor 06:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
If that's true, I suppose it ain't plagarism! However, I doubt he's his only fan, and, on the risk that someone else placed the info, I think that those lines should be rewritten (keeping all relevant info (basically everything there) in the article). HKT 06:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Family in intro

It looks a bit odd to say in the second sentence that he's married with children. That would normally go at the very end of an article: X lives in New York with his wife and three daughters. I've never seen it in an intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I didn't get a reply, I've removed it. Another question: why on earth does it matter which denomination he is? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, much, but precision and completeness are good qualities for an article; since he says very little about his personal life, I don't expect to find an answer. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps somewhere other than the first paragraph for the family. We could end the intro with it. I'm looking to see whether where he lives is published anywhere, so we can say: lives with his wife and three daughters in x, but I haven't found it yet. As for the denomination, that would look odd. I don't think I've seen that before unless the article's actually about the person's involvement in a religion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

He is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Why are his reputed ethnic origins relevant? Does he refer to his origins, or promote them, or use them in his writing? I'm concerned about well poisoning here. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are any biographical facts relevant? No, he doesn't make much of his origins, nor do most of his critics (but see [23]). However, I fail to see how a brief mention, in a sentence on his family background, is well-poisoning—unless one considers the fact of his Jewish ancestry to be "adverse information". Any number of biographical articles do the same thing, and nobody complains: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . . and so on. (Too, according to our article on Richard Pipes, he is of Polish and German descent as well, so I've added that.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While the origins of the individuals you have linked to are not controversial, given Pipes' subject matter and views this could be all-too-easily seen as an attempt to dismiss his views as merely being bias based on his ethnic origins. Also, if it were to be used, I don't think you're worded the sentence particularly accurately. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are those who would disagree about Trotsky, at least; I'm sure you are familiar with the Nazi propaganda theme of "Jewish Bolshevism". No matter: see Bernard Lewis, Edward Said, George Antonius, Albert Hourani, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky—all Jews or Arabs, all writers on the Middle East, all have their ethnic background mentioned. Is this well-poisoning too? And if you think the current phrasing is inaccurate, reword it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
p.s. Pipes himself seems to think that background is important: he remarked that ". . .Middle East studies in the United States has become the preserve of Middle Eastern Arabs, who have brought their views with them. Membership in the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the main scholarly association, is now 50 percent of Middle Eastern origin." —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles P. (Mirv), you are correct. The fact that Pipes is Jewish is totally relevant to note. He is a scholar of the Israeli-Arab conflict.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

This argument: "he is a scholar of the Israeli-Arab" Therefore "The fact that Pipes is Jewish is totally relevant ... ", invites the inference that Pipes's positions arise from his ethnicity, when he does not advance his positions as representative of Jews or of Jewishness. That's what's meant by "well-poisoning". I support the consensus to avoid mention of ethnic background, especially in the lead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The consensus appears to be that Pipes' Jewish descent is relevant to this article. --DiamondAndy 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it great when sockpuppets agree with each other? Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I am not a "sockpuppet" of any other user. You should not lie and block editors when you don't like what they are editing. There are several editors here who disagree with you. --AndyDiamond 07:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If the fact that he is Jewish is deemed relevant by his critics, then his Jewishness should be mentioned in the context of criticism, as tied to the criticism. Supporting references abound. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree. If a citeable critic brings up his Jewishness, then it should be mentioned in the the context of that criticism in the criticism section. Pipes himself never seems to mention it. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Being Jewish is not a criticism. Pipes' Jewish heritage is mentioned in many places like Pipes own website and Pipes himself does mention that he is Jewish. I don't understand why you insist on covering it up and blocking editors who disagree with you. You are out of control and abusive. You need to shape up. --AndyDiamond 07:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Partly, of course, it comes with the territory: in an academic field known for heated, bare-knuckled controversy, Pipes, as a Jewish conservative working from the outside, has chosen to make himself one of the most vehement contributors, finding himself on the right, which is to say the wrong, side of every issue—at least in the eyes of much of the press and academia. [24]
  • Richard and Daniel Pipes were scholars who specialised as students in the areas that ultimately came to be perceived as those most threatening to their country: Richard on the Soviet Union, Daniel on the Middle East. With roots in academia, they became political activists central to the arguments that define US ideology. Neither set out to be. Richard, a Polish Jewish refugee who emigrated to the US before 1939, learned Russian in the US Air Force. [25]
  • Hooper and others often speculate that Pipes is motivated by his faith. Friends say Pipes is Jewish, but it's a subject Pipes won't discuss." I don't deny it. If you look at my associations, yes. But there are all sorts of things about my private life I don't talk about, such as my three children. It's my prerogative to put a fence around these things," Pipes said. [26]
  • Pipes is Jewish, but Campus Watch isn't a Jewish group per se. [27]
  • The fact that Daniel Pipes is a Jew is perhaps irrelevant but certainly noteworthy.

In the Philadelphia Middle East Forum, the lobby group that promotes his thoughts, Daniel ponders about the dangers that threaten the New World Order. "I don't think that Islam is hopeless, but I think that Muslims don't know where they fit in the modern world." Daniel explains further how his father, a Polish Jewish refugee who migrated to the US before World War II, explained to him why mere containment did not work to fight the Soviets. Today, as well, Daniel preaches a similar idea that the threat from the Islamic world needs more than mere containment. [28]


How can it be simultaneously "irrelevant" and "noteworthy"? Can I have some of what you're smoking? Please? Also, nothing in the quote indicates that Pipes himself is Jewish, just that his father is. Please see Who is a Jew?. Until Pipes identifies himself as a Jew, the fact that his father was Jewish is immaterial. Tomer TALK 08:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree. Pipes doesn't need to mention it for it to be relevant. He's virulently anti-Muslim, a position you don't find many "Polish" people involved in. He's a Jew, and it's relevant. Sorry. It is not a criticism or well-poisioning to mention that someone is of Jewish descent after all: List of Jews. The question is why do you want to hide it? 69.209.195.89 09:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your question is intentionally trollish. His Jewishness cannot be simultaneously "irrelevant" and "noteworthy". That he is Jewish has no bearing on any accusations of Islamophobia. Many Americans dislike Islam and by extension, distrust Muslims, regardless of whether or not their of Jewish or Polish (or both) extraction. Your obvious intention is to poison the well, since you regard pointing out that his father is Jewish warrants calling him a Jew (despite the fact that there is no evidence yet presented that he is, nor that he even considers himself Jewish). Your argument that his appearance elsewhere as a Jew, just because you added it, is gratuitous. Tomer TALK 09:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    • Your comment makes zero sense. Daniel Pipes should be added to List of Jews. Why are you trying to hide it, in his particular case? Did you review the entire Discussion? Please read it. Also, are you trying to "poison" a well by inserting the Polish reference, but not the Jewish one? Daniel Pipes is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. You are trying to hide it, nothing more.69.209.193.197 10:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to hide anything. I didn't reinsert the polish american thing, Slim did (I think, without caring enough to go look). The fact of the matter is, you're trying to characterize him as a Jew, not as a Jewish American, nor as an American of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. As yet, your only grounds for doing so appear to be (a) his father is Jewish (which the Who is a Jew? article clearly demonstrates is not a valid reason to call someone a Jew) and {b) that you inserted his name in List of Jews. All I see here is a campaign by you to classify Daniel Pipes as a Jew, something that adds not a whit of quality or accuracy to the article. Tomer TALK 10:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer You are trying to hide the fact that Pipes is Jewish. It doesn't matter if Daniel Pipes meets whatever "your" definition of Jew is, or any (disputed) rabbinical defintion. The article states that Pipes has a Jewish Father, therefore he is of Jewish descent. 69.209.220.116 11:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

By countering the claim that he's Jewish, I'm not trying to hide anything. Until he asserts that he's Jewish, if only his father is Jewish, he's not a Jew according to any definition of "Jew" other than that used by the Nazis. Even the Reform mov't, which accepts patrilineal descent, does so only in cases in which the child is raised as, and identifies as, a Jew. As yet, you've presented nothing whatsoever to support even that. Your assertion that the problem here is the "(disputed) rabbinical defintion [sic]" of who is and who is not a Jew, is ludicrously gratuitous. You are, in effect, saying that Jews should not be permitted to say who is and who is not a Jew, but that you are, instead, the only legitimate authority on the subject. That's analogous to saying that the US government doesn't have the authority to say who is and who is not a US citizen. [Yes, I realize you probably don't recognize as "legitimate" the analogy, but then again, that's, yet again, a non-Jew attempting to foist their opinions on who is and who isn't a Jew upon the Jews. How pathetic indeed that you have nothing better to do with your time than run around saying "Jews are so stupid they aren't even capable of figuring out who is and who isn't a Jew!!!"] If you're defending your assertion that Pipes is Jewish based on your view, or on the nazi view, just say so, but don't expect anything remotely resembling understanding from me, when it comes to reverting your antisemitism. Tomer TALK 11:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Both Daniel Pipes parents are Polish Jews. His mother, Irene (nee Roth), escaped from Poland in the fall of 1939 and met Richard Pipes in the US in 1944; they married in 1946. This information is included in: Richard Pipes, VIXI, Memoirs of a Non-Belonger, Yale University Press, 2003, p.50. Book contains a photograph of Daniel Pipes at the age of 13 with his brother with the description: "Our sons, Steven (eight) and Daniel (thirteen) at an improvised Passover. Paris, 1962." Also, after browsing through his autobiography, I doubt that Richard Pipes would call himself a Polish-American. --Ttyre 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research Ttyre, objection withdrawn. Tomer TALK 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Remember that the article is on "Daniel Pipes", not "Daniel Pipes' work". I don't think whether or not he's Jewish is relevant to his work, but ethnic origin is an interesting biographicaphical factlet that definately belongs in an encyclopedia entry. In the same vein, I'd like to see slightly more on his life, as opposed to his views - details of the jobs he's described as having held and names of his wives and children, for example. Donald Ian Rankin 22:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

May

Who considers Daniel Pipes an expert?

This allegation needs to be sourced. Until a citation is found, the allegation will be removed. --JuiceLayer 01:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's someone who thinks he's an expert. [29] Grace Note 02:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This page links to two sources that describe him as an expert. I believe the WSJ says so too. While editors here accept newspapers are sources of incontrovertible fact, I'm afraid that we will have to allow Pipes to be described as an "expert", a word that is entirely meaningless and rendered ever more so by our misuse of it. Grace Note 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Pipes's academic training was not in modern Islam at all, but on medieval Islam. His dissertation was titled "FROM MAWLA TO MAMLUK: THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC MILITARY SLAVERY." (per UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations). This is, needless to say, not a topic on modern Islam at all, so perhaps this ought to be mentioned. The current section on "praise and controversy" is just absurd. To refer to the "Wall Street Journal" alone is problematic - the news section is reputable, but I would suggest that the editorial page is completely absurd, and shouldn't be used as the basis of anything. Beyond that, since when do newspapers get to define whether somebody is an expert? I should think that this would be up to academics in the field. Beyond that, the current section is simply confused. It should be fairly clear on what is going on - conservatives see him as a leading expert, and he is frequently quoted in the mainstream media as an expert, but most scholars of the Middle East consider his work to be tendentious and biased. I think this would be a fairly accurate statement of views on Pipes, wouldn't it? It is POV to simply refer to someone as an "expert" in something, I think, with no qualification. john k 21:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

He's an expert on the subject of Islamist terrorism, without a doubt, and my understanding is that he's also regarded as an expert on Islamism. It would be hard to know how to define expert if we exclude someone who has written (I believe) around 20 books on that and related subjects; has a PhD in a related field from Harvard; has advised the U.S. government; is a syndicated columnist, often writing within his area of expertise; and is frequently invited onto network television as an expert talking head. We don't say he's a scholar or academic; we say expert, which simply means he has specialist knowledge, and he clearly does. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
He is certainly seen as an expert, and is treated as an expert, as you demonstrate. Whether someone is an expert seems much more of a judgment call. Daniel Goldhagen has a PhD from Harvard (in government, natch) and wrote a bestselling book on the Holocaust. I would, however, hesitate very strongly to call him a Holocaust expert, given the major problems with Hitler's Willing Executioners. Use of the word "expert" in contexts of controversial figures seems to me to go too far to credit their views. There seems to be no need to use the word. Why not just say that he has written widely on the subject, that he has advised the government on the subject, and that he has appeared as a talking head on television on the subject? Why bring in a word that, well, at least suggests that his views are correct? Personally, I would prefer that we never on wikipedia call someone an expert. There are cases, I suppose, where it would be silly to deny that someone is an expert. But in such cases there are generally other, more NPOV, ways to describe the person - as a scholar of the subject, most notably. In Pipes's case, it seems sufficient to say that he received a PhD in medieval Islamic history and that he has written many books on modern Islamic issues. Beyond this, we are definitely getting into semantic battles. Why do this when we can simply avoid the issue? john k 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, John. How about:

Daniel Pipes is an internationally known journalist, activist, and author, who specializes in the study of Islamism and terrorism. He is a controversial figure, widely respected for the quality of his research, but at the same time accused by some of being an Islamophobe.

I dislike the bit about being an Islamophobe, for some of the same reasons as you object to expert, viz. that it's a label, and a disputed one, so I feel it's inherently POV, but I can't think of a tidy and factual way to say the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we say that he is accused of something more mild than being an Islamophobe? If he is "widely respected for the quality of his research" (of which I am uncertain - "widely respected" is kind of a weasel word, isn't it?), isn't he also widely considered to be an ideologue and a polemicist? I think both of these statements would be more a propos than calling him an Islamophobe, which strikes me as almost a straw man of the arguments of his critics. john k 05:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Expertise

Yuber, Pipes is considered an expert on Islamism by all reasonable people, whether they agree or disagree with him. To say it's just his supporters who regard him that way is POV and inaccurate. Can you supply a reputable reference disputing his expertise? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you are saying that Pipes is considered an expert by everyone then that is a very ignorant statement. Pipes has a certain POV and so therefore there will be people who do not consider him an expert. The only thing he has going for him is his basic knowledge of Arabic, but that does not put him above any other analyst of Islamism or terrorism in my own opinion. There are many sources that dispute his expertise, but they also come from a certain POV :

[[30]] [[31]] [[32]]Yuber 05:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

He's an expert. He has a PhD from Harvard and has written I've forgotten how many books and papers on Islamism. The sources you link to simply argue that he's not an objective source; that he has a POV. You'd need to find an authoritative source saying he is not, in fact, a recognized expert. I'm restoring the edit in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Please re-examine those links. There are many claims to his lack of expertise in them, such as this, "Furthermore, his pieces appear largely in newspapers that go without documentation or support". Here the article says that he knows nothing about what he's talking about, "Pipes suggests that Islamic states are inherently war-like, ignoring the fact that the war was started by secular Iraq." If you're looking for a specific sentence that says "Pipes is not an expert", you are thinking in simplistic terms. Still, if you really need it, here is a link to an article that has an excerpt from a letter someone sent in to them that said Pipes is not an expert [[33]].
This is similar to what happened at the Edward Said article. A few weeks ago, a line in the first paragraph said Said was one of the most influential scholars in the world. The complaint was brought up that that was largely an opinion, and so it had to be attributed to a source. In respect to this article, the distinction has to be made that he is not regarded as an expert by everyone in the world (as the first sentence is implying) and mostly by his supporters.Yuber 06:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
But this is to misunderstand what the word "expert" means. Same with Said. He *was* one of the most influential scholars in the world, and it's simply false and unreasonable to deny this, even if you think he misused his scholarship, held a strong POV etc. Same with Pipes. The sources you link to have no academic expertise themselves that I could see. Pipes is a recognized academic expert, though admittedly he does write in newspapers, but his books are respected, as I understand it. I think you'd need to find an academic source casting doubt on his expertise. It isn't encyclopedic to say "some people think X, some Y" and the supporters/opponents construction is weak for the same reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
My position is between these two. Most people recognise that Pipes is an expert in the sense that he knows a lot, but they also see him as an activist rather than as an academic. He writes opinion pieces rather than research. There are plenty of examples in the academic literature of Pipes' writings being called bad names, like "tendentious", but what I have seen suggests that his critics regard him as biased rather than ignorant. So calling him an "expert" without qualificiation is strictly speaking correct, but also somewhat misleading. One should also mention in the same place that his opinions are frequently controversial. --Zero 08:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
There's no contradiction between being an expert and being an activist: in most countries, there's a proud tradition of academic and intellectual activism. It's POV to try to argue that he's not an expert just because some people (or many, or even all) don't agree with his views, and when I last checked, the intro said he's regarded as an expert by "many of his supporters," meaning that even some supporters think he's not. That's unencyclopedic and false, so I'll be changing back to the previous intro as soon as I'm sure I'm not violating 3RR (the previous intro says: "Daniel Pipes is an internationally known journalist, author, academic, and expert on Islamism and terrorism,") and I'm asking please that it be left as it is, because it's correct as it stands. If someone wants to add a well written sentence saying he's regarded as controversial, I'd go along with that, though the article makes that more than clear. And please no "some believe this, and others believe that": any questioning of his expertise has to come from his peers i.e. from people with a similar expertise. We should have some respect for genuine scholarship, so long as it's an academic working within his area of expertise, even if we don't like the way it's being used. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
First, drop the "academic" since he does not have a university position (and only had brief teaching appointments in the past). Second, it is necessary to add "activist" to the same list of roles; since that is his primary role, leaving it out is misleading. --Zero 03:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to interpret academic strictly, fair enough, but he taught at University of Chicago 78-82, Harvard 1983-84, Naval War College 84-86, joined policy-planning dept at State 83, then director of Foreign Policy Research Institute until the mid-90s (from memory). Plus the 18 books translated into 19 languages. But no, he's not an academic, scholar, or expert on anything, just a jumped-up upstart compared to all of us, who know so much. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
All this discussion has shown is that in order to prove someone's an expert you must rely on details of where he got his degree and what achievements he has made. Instead of being blunt and POV in the first paragraph and saying "he's an expert" (which implies that you can't dispute him), we should let people infer from his achievements whether he is an expert or not.Yuber(talk) 04:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
You're POV pushing, pure and simple. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple, truly. Look at articles for Edward Said, Chomsky, and other activists. Do any of them mention in a blunt and uncompromising way that they are experts? Taken from the Wiki article on expert,

"The term is widely used informally, with people being described as 'experts' in order to bolster the relative value of their opinion, when no objective criteria for their expertise is available. The term crank is likewise used to disparage opinions. Academic elitism arises when 'experts' become convinced that only they understand their field of study.".

Add to the list of Pipe's achievements and where he taught if you want to improve his image, but calling him an expert is pure POV.Yuber(talk) 04:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Said's says he was one of the most influential scholars in the world. It's attributed (and I don't disagree with it), but does this mean if I can attribute that comment about Pipes, you'll stop arguing with it? Chomsky's doesn't mention expertise, but you know if it did, you wouldn't be reverting it: at least be honest enough to admit that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
If you can attribute it, then that would be fine. There are already a number of quotes in the article praising him so you might one to use one of those.Yuber(talk) 04:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the Chomsky approach is excellent. It simply states the basis for believing that he is an expert. Grace Note 02:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

widely criticised as an Islamophobe.

I suggest we remove this one sided generality in the intro or mention that is also widely respected by for his penetrating analyses of Islamisms which is the opposite POV.--Yhulkop 03:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

He is called an "expert on Islamism and terrorism" without even the standard NPOV weasel qualifications such as "widely viewed" or "generally regarded". Isn't that enough? —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "particularly in the Muslim community". There are plenty of non-Muslim liberals who hate Daniel Pipes and call him a racist and a bigot, that phrase seems to be put in there to water-down the criticism of him. As Mirv said above, he is already called an expert, that should be enough.Yuber(talk) 02:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem with removing it is that it gives the impression that the criticism is more widespread that it is. He's published in reputable newspapers all over the world, and appears frequently on network television; this wouldn't be the case if the view that he's a bigot were widespread. I did write "particularly within the Muslim community" to make clear that the criticism isn't confined to them, but it does stem largely from them, and it's fair enough to point that out. I feel you should allow this to stand, Yuber, as the only reason Islamophobe was added was because you wanted to get rid of "expert." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't the one that added the Islamophobe description, please keep that in mind. As for appearing on network televsion, Ward Churchill, Chomsky, and Ann Coulter have all done so as well. I don't think we'd keep criticism from their articles, would we? It certainly does not make them any less bigoted in people's minds. Publishing books and essays doesn't either. Daniel Pipes is a neo-con, he has opposition from all sides, Muslim, Liberal, etc etc. Saying that he's only criticized within the Muslim community is misleading. Perhaps you should edit the article to better reflect the diverse array of communities the criticisms come from. I will stay out of this because I do not feel like getting into a pointless edit-fest over the first few lines of this article, so edit as you see fit.Yuber(talk) 03:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Yuber. I realize you didn't add it, and I'd just as soon get rid of it (from the intro), but I thought it better to leave it and qualify it somewhat. I wouldn't call Ward Churchill, Chomsky, or Ann Coulter bigots, which is not to say they can't be criticized, but I doubt any of their articles has such strong criticism in the second sentence. Also, I'm not saying he's only criticized within the Muslim community; I'm saying that he is critized as an Islamophobe; and particularly (not exclusively) within the Muslim community. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Strange, an anonymous editor inserts "a Jewish-American" in the intro right after his name and Yuber completely missed that obvious well-poisoning. Astonishing. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't add Jewish-American, so why are you blaming me for it? By the way, criticized is a more accurate term.Yuber(talk) 10:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't blame you for it, I merely noted that your zealousness to remove POV has some obvious blind spots. Another good example of this is your preference for the term "criticized", which is an obviously POV term, as it assumes that Pipes is an Islamophobe, and that his critics are simply criticizing him for being one. You may well think that this characterization is "accurate", but it is also a POV, and one that many disagree with. Also, in the future, please try to use Talk: pages to make arguments and not merely assertions; as it stands, these kinds of all-too-common comments from you are merely obstructionism. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
IMHO the part on being an Islamophobe should be removed from the intro. It's unfairly poisioning the well. Claiming that Daniel Pipes is an "Islamophobe" is a minority view held mainly by Islamophiles. It's also meaningless as there is no evidence that Daniel Pipes has a personal fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims.

To the vast majority of people he is merely a well cited expert on Islamism and middle eastern affairs. Klonimus 04:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

More accurate image

We need a more accurate picture of Pipes. He doesn't really look like that, in real life he looks like a skinny academic who reads too many books, not a humanized eagle. DigiBullet 17:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

March

Daniel Pipes and the University of Toronto

Visit by pro-Israeli prof causes uproar at UofT

I think this information is relevant. The article says he was initially denied access to York University, maybe a secion about responses to this mans speaking engagements is relevant.

Any comments?

--Uncle Bungle 03:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The incident itself seems mildly interesting, not sure its encyclopedic. What kind of responses did you mean, man in the street/protest mob type of interviews? Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the globe and mail article above (use bugmenot if its asking for registration to continue), it mentions an open letter from 90 faculty and former students, thats what I meant more than "mob type of interviews". There is a short note that "Pipes is also controversial in academia" I'll just add a note about the UofT event there, if enough are collected over time then an additional section could be added. --Uncle Bungle 14:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

February

POV section title

Why call them "Islamophobe quotes"? That adds a POV unnecessarily. Simply call them "quotes" and trust our readers to be intelligent enough to see if they are Islamophobic or not. At most, note after the quotes what public or scholarly reaction has been. But let's not bias the section heading. If no other consensus builds here, I'll change it to "Quotes" -- it's not very lively, but it certainly avoids being POV. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, and fixed some other stuff. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article has a link to wikiquote, and any quotes should be added there. Stereotek 08:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All of the Examples section contains quotations. These ones are no different (unless you mean more embarrassing). --Zero 11:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January

Rewrite

I've removed the long list in the intro of American television shows Pipes has appeared on, as it made the article look like his CV. I also moved the Campus Watch stuff into the intro, as it's what he's most widely known for (in my view), and also because the intro was too short without it. I also toned down some of that paragraph, including the 100 others who demanded their names be listed too, which wasn't explained, and we didn't say what kind of list it was, so it looked kind of silly. If someone re-adds it, we should explain what the list was about. And I uploaded a photo because he's a handsome beast. Slim 07:32, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also rewrote his list of books and papers in the usual chronological format, and readjusted the number of books he's authored or co-authored to 18. Someone wrote in the previous list that he has co-authored 11 books. Does anyone know if this is right? I could only find two on Amazon. I've left the previous list, which broke the books down into categories, in the article but made it invisible in case you all prefer it that way. If so, feel free to swap it back. I prefer the chronological list, because it indicates something about his development. Some of his books are collections of policy papers, but I said "18 books" in the article so as not to get too bogged down. Slim 08:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

To the anon author, I reverted your edit of "Critics have called Pipes "the dean of Islamophobia." It's a good quote to use, but it does need a name attached to it, so if you want to re-add it, please have a look around for a reference. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 05:53, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)