Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2

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.

Comments posted in February 2007

Contents

Cleanup tag

This article is woefully remiss in its lack of citations throughout and in its over-dependence on Pipes's personal website for information about him and publications that are listed as external links (mostly). I have attempted to make a start at cleanup; others will have to aid in providing full, accurate, verifiable, reliable citations throughout. This article does not currently follow guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite. What I provide throughout is only a start at what needs to be a thorough overhaul of this article in order for it to be in keeping with quality standards in Wikipedia (editing guidelines and policies). --NYScholar 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems are discussed both above and in the editing history. The article is not "fine"; I and other editors (above) have complained about its lack of neutrality and lack of adequate sourcing. See Wikipedia:NPA as well. Focus on content not on the contributor. --NYScholar 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific; give one example of something that you specifically think is lacking. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No Personal attacks policy

The comments that I removed (see editing history, unless SV has entirely deleted them from the record) were indeed personal attacks: I removed them. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. She is absolutely out of line. She also removed a tag directing people to the comment previously made on this talk page, with only her own POV (not Wikipedia:NPOV) in mind. That is really disgraceful, and I object most strenuously to it and to her editorial practices and abuses of other editors, who have just as much right to work on articles as she does. She actually deleted material that I posted and called it a negative term, addressing me personally in the editing history in an entirely-uncivil manner multiple times. She has a real problem that needs attention. See Wikipedia:Etiquette and etiquette. Every time she addresses me, she abuses me. To me that is against Wikipedia:NPA. --NYScholar 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

She has also reverted my improvements to the article. I added, for example, an access date to an article (same article citation that I was working on adding at the same time that she was (note 1), and she actually removed that. These kinds of changes are not "improvements" and, even if they were improvements, they are subject to discussion as content changes. I worked hard on many articles to add full citations where they are lacking (see Wikipedia:Cite). If anyone is engaging in so-called "wikilawyering," it appears to me that Swatjester and SV are themselves doing that. I simply was trying to signal that this article needs improvement (as it does; all those external links need to be converted to full citations; they need to be checked and verified and verifiable. The article is unbalanced as it depends too much on material from Daniel Pipes's own website; this is an issue of content. I placed a tag called "unbalanced" to indicate that there was discussion of this problem on the talk page, as there was. An editor has indeed objected to the unbalanced nature of this article and the need to clean up the problems of lacking full citations. That requires editorial work. The tags were and are legitimate. I am entitled to point out this problems, and I have done so and continue to do so. They are content problems, not personal problems. SV has a way of dragging such differences of editorial opinion down to personal levels. She does not need to address me at all. She needs to address the content issues that I am complaining about. Until she does that, she has no credence as an editor in my view, and, as far as I'm concerned, my view is worth paying attention to. If you want crappy articles in Wikipedia, you can ignore it. But you will end up with just that: crap. --NYScholar 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about the article. I'm talking about your edits on the talk page. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I removed (from history):

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)  :Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)  :::reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments that I removed (see editing history, unless SV has entirely deleted them from the record) were indeed personal attacks: I removed them. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. She is absolutely out of line. She also removed a tag directing people to the comment previously made on this talk page, with only her own POV (not Wikipedia:NPOV) in mind. That is really disgraceful, and I object most strenuously to it and to her editorial practices and abuses of other editors, who have just as much right to work on articles as she does. She actually deleted material that I posted and called it a negative term, addressing me personally in the editing history in an entirely-uncivil manner multiple times. She has a real problem that needs attention. See Wikipedia:Etiquette and etiquette. Every time she addresses me, she abuses me. To me that is against Wikipedia:NPA. --NYScholar 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[2] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Singling out an editor by name and commenting on the editor and threatening the editor ("don't even think about it...." etc.) and making similar personal comments addressing the editor in the editing history of the article are indeed "personal attacks"; it is clear to me and to anyone else that that is what is happening here. Try a little distance, and you will see it too. --NYScholar 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, there was no threat. Second off, calling you out by name is not a personal attack. There is a definitive policy on what is and what is not a personal attack at WP:NPA. What you are doing right now is called wikilawyering and is disruptive, and your comments are incivil to her, and becoming incivil to me. Let me be very clear about this: your interpretation of the personal attacks policy is completely incorrect, and your claims of personal attacks, as such are incivil and disruptive. I highly recommend you just let this go and drop it all now before this escalates any further⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry: but it is clear to me that "Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS" implies that something bad will happen to me if I do "start" working on this article. I have a right to work on improving articles if I want to take my time to do that. Neither SV nor anyone else has a right (as an administrator or not) to tell me that I cannot work on an article. That violates Wikipedia editing policy. She, like everyone else, has to know that one's work is going to be edited by others; the notice is at the bottom of every Wikipedia article page. It applies to all editors, whether or not they are administrators. I was trying actually to add full citations to the article and to check to see whether a full citation could be found for the "neoconservative" claim; I found Daniel Pipes's article now cited as note 1 and was in the midst of adding it, when SV did multiple reverts of my previous changes (which were pending such citations). These are content issues not personal issues and they need attention in this article (throughout it). SV has removed the tags and editorial interpolated comments indicating the work that is needed. They were reasonable comments and they need attention from more neutral editors than apparently she is in relation to this particular article. That is my comment on the content of this article (see above prior to her removing the tag relating to the comment re: "unbalanced"); it is a legitimate comment and she had no right to remove it or to "warn" me that I had better stay away from "her" article (or else). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is a description of what is happening here. It is also not an "editing war"; at least it was not one until SV started deleting the tags that I had placed on the article and calling my work names ("disfiguring" the article, e.g.). Of course, I have no intention to "disfigure" any article. I was legitimately signaling the content problems which I had already discussed on the talk page. --NYScholar 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
But something bad isn't happening to you, it's happening to me, your reader. You are boring me to tears! I demand an apology. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't see this comment by Viriditas before. If I had, I would never have responded with courtesy or at all to his asking me to come here to put bullets in etc. [....] Viriditas. If you don't want to read about what to do about improving content of articles, don't come to talk pages. If I had realized how disingenuous you were in what you posted on my talk page, I would simply have ignored you, as I will do from hereon. [The bracketed ellipses are my own. Fill in what you think might be most appropriate there.] Talk pages are not forums for discussing subjects; they are for discussing improvements to articles. I really don't see SV doing that, or any of her buddies doing that. I see them just trying to keep other people from doing that. --NYScholar 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Movement of comments on article content

NYScholar, I've moved your lengthy repetitive discussion and re-hash of the article and the Talk: page to User:NYScholar/Daniel Pipes. Please do not fill this talk page with lengthy diatribes and dissertations; if you have any comments, please keep the brief, and specifically on the topic of the Daniel Pipes article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: You have not got my authorization to create any kind of user page for me. I've moved the material to Daniel Pipes/deleted material, which is what it is. My comments have to do with the content and editing of the content of this article and are entirely appropriate on a talk page for an article. If necessary, I will move them to an archived talk page for the article later. --NYScholar 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments specifically about suggested changes to article content are welcome. Brief comments. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to my own talk page, archive 2, which I created for that purpose. See that page of my talk page if interested in the content. If not interested, please refrain from making any comment. --NYScholar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: Please figure out how to delete that page that you created. I would blank it, but I want you to see the note first. I don't know how to delete such a page. Since you created it, I suggest that you delete it. The material is archived in my talk page archive 2. --NYScholar 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now blanked the page (after re-reading the Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Any administrator can delete that page that Jayjg created now. Content relating to Daniel Pipes (this article) and improvements to it are in archive 2 of my talk page. --NYScholar 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've now added that page that Jayjg created without my authorization to requests for deletion discussion. Some kind-hearted administrator should be able to handle the request. --NYScholar 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar, 1) the page Jayjg created is not "yours" any more than this article is yours; 2) I think the "don't even start" is a figure of speech that shouldn't be taken as a threat that should concern you. It's my observation, having run into you several places, that you have a tendency to intersperse useful (at best) and innocuous but annoying (at worst) edits with strong POV edits. I don't know if you do this innocently or deviously and have no way of knowing. But it certainly gets in the way of a productive polemic, especially since it's followed by self-righteous diatribes like the one Jaygj moved. It is of course your prerogative to edit in this fashion, but you'll have to expect opposition that will at times become strident. --Leifern 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator, recognizing the legitimacy of my request, has already deleted the page. The user page is my user page, and I did not authorize any forking of this article via my user page. I posted the comments legitimately in this talk page, but they were deleted whole by jayjg with complete disregard for talk page guidelines and Wikipedia policy prohibiting such deletions. [Calling good faith editing comments--which my comments were and are--"disruptive" is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette or Wikipedia:Civility: see the talkheader tag at top of page. --NYScholar 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

There is no requirement for so-called "brevity" in talk page discussions of improvements to an article (form and content issues). It is not up to some editors to tell other editors that they must be "brief." One takes as much space as needed to make one's points clearly. If repetition occurs, it is because when stated the first time, other people do not seem to get the point. Repetition is a form of emphasis: from the definition in the Wikidictionary linked there: in the sense: "Special weight or forcefulness given to something considered important."

My final comments on this article are in archive 2 of my own talk page. Anyone who wants to find the clear-cut objections that I already defined regarding the problems of lack of neutrality and lack of balance and missing and incomplete citations in this article can read them in my previous comments on this page and in my subsequent comments on my talk page archive 2. If they want to make "bullets" out of them (see further comment below mine here), they can do so.

I stand by all my edits as in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite. But I've done all the work that I wish to do relating to this article due to the unpleasant nature of this experience. The incivility, insults, other breaches of Wikipedia:Etiquette, and intellectual dishonesty that I have encountered from administrators and other editors trying to twist articles to reflect their own points of view on subjects like Daniel Pipes (and other controversial subjects) and to avoid neutrality by eliminating and thus hiding the actual details of sources being cited are documented in this talk page and others. Wikipedia:Cite recommends adding full citations in dealing with articles concerning controversial subjects and living persons (WP:BLP). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Throughout Wikipedia, there is also a lot of plagiarism from unacknowledged sources which needs proper sourcing through vigilant editing. Many students who are not experienced or trained editors and certainly not knowledgable about professional editing practices simply write Wikipedia articles the same plagiaristic way that they write their high-school and college term papers; without concern for proper documentation rules. The purpose of adding the "fact" and "facts" templates is to indicate where plagiarized or often-invented passages need legitimate documentation if they are to remain in these articles, especially in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Readers of this article and this talk page (including administrators) need to review the guidelines linked in the headers at the top of this page and other article talk pages in Wikipedia. Apparently, many Wikipedia editors and even administrators really do not fully understand the meaning of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its relationship to WP:POV. I recommend that users of this page visit those links and judge for themselves before attempting to work on this and other articles in Wikipedia. [updated w/ link] --NYScholar 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Ok, if anyone thinks this article is unbalanced, can they list the problems here with brief bullet points (no more than 30 words each) so that editors can remedy the problem? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it was already posted here: from my talk page archive 2 (posted originally in this talk page but unjustifiably removed from it by Jayjg):

  • Problems of lack of neutrality (lack of balance) caused by overdependence on Daniel Pipes's own websites and presentations of his own work (related to lack of full citations format listed below)
  • The whole structure of this article as it currently is still needs reworking (see the structure as I revised it earlier; linked in my talk page or in this article's editing history prior to SV's reversions of that work):
    • the sections are mostly out of order and illogical [They do not follow usual Wikipedia article format order; e.g., "See also" comes most logically last, prior to Wik. categories; Wikiquote misplaced, etc.]
    • notes should follow text and come prior to actual "References" (for further reading, in bibliographical format)
  • all the citations should be fully viewable as citations: providing author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed.

[More posted above in this talk page and in my archive talk page 2; see links in my previous comment] --NYScholar 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on bullets

These are structural and formatting issues, mostly about the order of sections, not issues of "balance". What makes the article "unbalanced"? Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of full citations (disclosure) creates an ongoing a problem of neutrality and lack of balance (too much Pipes, too little other perspectives on Pipes); identify authors, titles, publications, places of publication, dates of publication so one can see what is actually being cited throughout (in notes, not in "external links"). Rename "references" to "notes" and one can see the problem. (Maybe you should actually read the previous discussions of these problems. I've said this now several times; apparently, you just don't get it.) See my talk page archive 2 for my perspective on your comments. Please do not reply to me personally here. I will not respond further. I've said all I have to say about these problems. They exist, and they need to be corrected, with neutrality and honesty and in good faith. --NYScholar 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How do partial citations, vs. full citations create an issue of imbalance? The sources are the same sources, regardless of how completely we identify them. If the sources are unbalanced, say so (or better yet, add balancing sources) but it is ridiculous to claim that the lack of full citations creates imbalance. Isarig 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Lack of full citations (disclosure) creates an ongoing a problem of neutrality and lack of balance (too much Pipes, too little other perspectives on Pipes); identify authors, titles, publications, places of publication, dates of publication so one can see what is actually being cited throughout (in notes, not in "external links"). Rename "references" to "notes" and one can see the problem. (Maybe you should actually read the previous discussions of these problems. I've said this now several times; apparently, you just don't get it.) See my talk page archive 2 for my perspective on your comments. Please do not reply to me personally here. I will not respond further. I've said all I have to say about these problems. They exist, and they need to be corrected, with neutrality and honesty and in good faith. --NYScholar 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [E.g., (a start at revisions, interrupted by reversions by SV): User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2#Other_references_for_further_reading. (The format and structural problems themselves create a lack of balance; see the differences between the version that I intially provided and the reverted current version.) --NYScholar 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
If one cannot perceive that there is a problem of balance in the faulty presentation of "external links" as if they are all equal "references" w/ complete disregard for what they actually are, one has a problem of perception. This is it. You're all on your own. Good luck to you. You'll need it. --NYScholar 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked you a simple question. If you don't want to answer, that's certainly your privilege, but don't be surprise if editors subsequently revert your edits a dismiss you as a troll. Isarig 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isarig: I will not engage with you any further. You repeatedly engage in violating Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:3RR; I have fully answered the questions; apparently, you don't read my answers or click on the links to the material linked. It is a waste of my time to respond to you any further, and I refuse to do so. Do not address me directly or indirectly again. (See my general comment on my talk page archive 2 and my report in the 3RR report page. And please stop bothering me.) I refer you to the top of this page and to WP:NPA. I am not a "troll" and I have never been a "troll". See Wikipedia:Etiquette and desist. It is against Wikipedia talk guidelines to accuse other longstanding editors (as I am) of being a "troll". I have never come across any Wikipedia article where you have contributed any substantive editing change. What you do is revert other people's contributions. --NYScholar 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have addressed what you see as "unbalanced" problems, but the rest of us would like a little elucidation on the matter. It would be best if you start small. Give a real example in the article, briefly iillustrate it, and then offer a solution we can implement. It's that easy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 21 February

2007 (UTC)

As I say above, and in my talk page comments (which were moved from this talk page by another user originally without my permission or authorization and which I have saved and worked on in my talk page archive 2: I am not doing any more work on this article. All my work is already at Other references for further reading. Please read the note there. I explain that I converted the current "External links" section of this article (in its current version, which is a reverted version of my previous work) to what Wikipedia calls "full citations"--in keeping with WP:BLP. Full citations are required in this article by that policy. It is a controversial article about a living person. The sources of all statements quoted and made in it about the living person (and his works or comments about him and his work) must be fully identified in the format of full citation. You need to go to the link. It is not possible to "start small" as you ask: the entire notes and references and external links sections needed large work, that I did and one can simply click on the earlier version that was later reverted by SV to see that. Anyone can use the information that I have already provided to restore the full citations to this article. (Just take the first link currently listed in "External links" and see how it is listed in the section that I compiled for it.)
It is against Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy WP:BLP to include source references in such an article as this one as merely so-called "External links" without full citations (author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, possible annotation). External links are also supposed to be annotated fully. All of the now so-called "External links" are actually already converted to full citations in my above-linked talk page archive page 2. Just click on them and compare them to the "External links" and you will see that.
But I will not enter the text of this article to do that work, because I've already spent the time to do that and that work has been unjustifiably unappreciated and even maligned (by SV and Jayjg and others, who have reverted and even deleted my comments in this talk page explaining it and providing the changes). See my comment on my talk page archive 2 for how I regard what has happened in this article. As I say above, from here on, you (other editors and users) are on your own. I have done all the "elucidating" that I am able to do. It is up to you to follow the links and to compare the various versions. If you do so, you will see the importance of their differences in relation to WP:BLP and WP:Cite and WP:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar, I agree with you that Wikipedia suffers from all the problems you cite, but I certainly don't find that your edits exemplify - by a long shot - ideal editing. Writing solid encyclopedic articles that comply with all the policies, standards, and best practices is hard for even the most experienced editor; but it's something most of us try to do. Most of what I've seen from you is self-righteous preaching - you might want to take that under consideration when dealing with future disagreements with other editors. --Leifern 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Above (and after asking me first to come here in my talk page), Viriditas asks me directly to offer "elucidation" of my changes (which were completely reverted, deleted, and wiped off this talk page by Slim Virgin, Isarig, Jayjg, and others). I have replied that I have already done that--in spades.
Leifern: you are no neutral observer here. You have the Chutzpah to accuse me of "self-righteous preaching" when I have taken immense amounts of my own time and energy to try to document the missing citations in this article (and given everyone the information via links to the archived talk page where they still reside, where I worked on them even further). I am not being "self-righteous"; what I have been doing is called doing editorial work.
Rather than exchanging jibes against other editors, why don't some of the rest of you (including Leifern) get on with doing some of the required work of documenting statements with full citations as absolutely required by WP:BLP, which links to WP:Cite: read the full content of WP:Cite and you will understand the problems of this article. I provided a format for notes, but Isarig (after asking for these citations in the editing history) and Slim Virgin et al. wiped it out; then she wants the references: well, they're already in what I produced. (Please read it.) Her format of "External links" is not what WP:BLP and WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require.* Every source cited in this article needs to have complete information about it listed in what is now called "References" in this article, but really needs to be renamed "Notes," with most of what are listed in various other sections properly formatted as accurate "References" in a bibliographical format called "References." That is what I have already done. Go to the link and see. I'm not doing it for this article again. People can simply cut and paste and fix this article properly. Otherwise, it will stay the POV/unbalanced mess it is. Because I am not going to be doing it for you. --NYScholar 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hint: Scroll up to the top of this page, click on "poorly sourced" and, guess what it goes to? "Reliable sources": meaning no message boards posts--see SV's list of "External links" again: can you tell from reading the links and the descriptions whether or not they are "reliable sources"? Each one needs to be checked, verified as notable and reliable, and then listed properly as a full citation: WP:Cite. The very few items in "References" ("Notes") need to have all those others added to them. The only item relevant to keeping in a section called "External links" in this article on "Daniel Pipes" is one link: to his personal website, which links to "Daniel Pipes's websites"; that's it. (For illustration: See my linked User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2#Other_references_for_further_reading for the information (again if you've ever even looked at it before.) If those of you claiming to be interested in "editing" this article and making it conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view don't do that, then you just aren't interested in editing this article, and you don't belong here at all. This is not a discussion forum about the subject. (Scroll up to top of page once more.) --NYScholar 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hint: Click on the Other references for further reading (again). The Notes format I started days ago now was reverted by SV; you have to go to editing history to find it. (See [3].) Most of the numbered external links may already be listed in the "Other references for further reading" list (assuming that the "Notes" are still called "References") that I've produced from current "External links" section and weirdly-presented previous lists in the article. --NYScholar 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Updated: just want to remind people looking at the old reverted version of the Notes and References that many of those were originally incorrect; they were misleadingly presented as "External links" which came from Pipes's site, but I later corrected them (in current talk page archive 2 version of those sources): what I did is checked each one, and collected the full citation information from them (author, title, publication, date of publication) and added date I accessed it. So some of the items that initially appeared to be written by Pipes and listed as "works by" him turned out to be written by other people and published elsewhere originally and just rpt. on his website. So I straightened that all out and put them in proper subsections of References list, now called "Other references for further reading". I got reverted too many times to be able to provide the full citations for each of the notes that are just numbered links in the current text and in my "Notes" format version. All that work will still need to be done for the current numbered links throughout the text of this article. Each numbered link still needs to become a full citation and added as a note (with proper coding for a footnote).[1] I won't do it, but it is possible for others to do it. I wouldn't touch the text of this article again with a ten-foot pole (so to speak). But I've provided all the references that are still just in the "External links" section and some of the earlier reference sections (that are largely incomplete references). The details are in the talk page archive 2 linked above. --NYScholar 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments posted in March 2007 [deleted from current talk page by another user; do not delete other users' comments from talk pages; they are part of the talk pages; archived here]:

Archiving of this page cut off still current, post-January 2007 comments and left the January 2007 comments

[Note: Archive page 1 is headed "This is the 2003-2004 archive," yet it included material from post 2004, 2005, 2006, and even 2007. [I scrolled down and found some other headings, but it is very confusing. It has two Januarys, with no year date to distinguish them. Each month needs to be followed by a date; viewed online, it is hard to know what year each month relates to.] Some of that archive needs to be organized more clearly, so that the dates for 2005 and 2006 are clear; it probably needs another separate archive page for 2005-2006; but even that is problematic, because some 2006 (and earlier) comments already have responses posted in quite recently after January 2007. The archive of page 1 needs work. Some of that material might also need to be restored to this current talk page, because it has recent comments. See below. --NYScholar 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]

This archiving created a misimpression of comments on this article. The comments on the article were missing between January 1, 2007, and now (March 2007), therefore. It is customary to archive talk pages chronologically. I re-factored the archiving because it had put the current comments from January 2007 through February 2007 in a page listing comments from 2005 (-2006? There were two Januarys listed followed by no clear indications of years for them). Note: I have updated references used in this article in full citations in Other references for Further Reading. This material includes items currently listed only as numbered external links throughout the article and also only in the "External links" section. --NYScholar 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) My comments have to do with the documentation of sources in this article (content of the article). --NYScholar 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the earlier material from 2005 to 2006 can be moved to archive page 1 in appropriate month and year sections; but that format is also confusing because sometimes people add comments in 2006 and even later (2007) to topics first begun in 2005 and/or 2006, meaning that they are still currently pertinent. Trying to remove currently-applicable comments on form and content of an article by deleting them from a current talk page and moving them to an archive of mostly 2005 comments misleads readers of this article and its talk page. It also violates WP:AGF. Pages are usually archived in whole in sections (one after another, chronologically), not re-factored into chronological talk page headings that don't match the content of an archived talk page. The archive talk page number one completely changes the way the comments were originally posted by many different users over a long period of time. It misleadingly leaves much older comments on the current page (scroll up) that one would expect to find archived (in archive page one) under some appropriate date heading there now. Anyone trying to follow the history of discussion about this article will have a hard time doing so, unless the talk page is archived properly, with the older material coming first. --NYScholar 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the current tag concerning reference problem on the article

These comments are on the current version of the content of this article. So do not delete this comment (dated March 1, 2007) from this talk page. It is still pertinent to the talk page and to the content of the article and to the content of the talk page of the article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is referred to in ongoing disputes and my comments, which are still currently applicable to the content of this article, need to be accessible by Wikipedia users and administrators trying to find them. The comments concern the content of this article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) N.B.: My archived Daniel Pipes talk page February 2007 comments (previously archived by Slim Virgin in talk page 1) are now in Archive 2 of Talk:Daniel Pipes. I also added the archive box, to which additional archive pages can be added in the future. (One can see the format in editing mode.) (updated) --NYScholar 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to the current tag on the article (added by another editor; my earlier attempts to tag the article as "unbalanced" and "unreferenced" were continually reverted by Isarig, Jayjg, Slim Virgin, et al.): Scroll up to the "controversial" tag heading: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." This policy pertains to this article and the way references are being provided in it. Thus, it still needs "full citations." --NYScholar 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Note: Despite my courteous request not to remove the above comments from the current talk page, the administrator removed them anyway. I have linked to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding such administrative actions (which I think are abuses of approved administrative behavior) in the current talk page. Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse; WP:ANOT. Notice how the administrator has re-factored the current talk page so misleadingly that it includes old comments from 2006, deletes more-recent and more-currently-relevant comments from February 2007 and March 2007, and fails to include most comments critical of the article and is not representative of recent comments questioning the content of the article. --NYScholar 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

Topic?

"Pipes was also criticized by Palestinian activist Edward Said." Erm, Edward Said wasn't just an 'activist', he was renowned scholar and his work Orientalism is considered highly important in acadamia (it is also probably very relevant to this case, ie. Pipes as an orientalist). This could do with fixing and the text should be scanned for other similar 'microbiases'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Daniel Pipes, an international known journalist?

I find this sentence amusing and i´m sure it was written by some supporter. I´m sorry to burst your bubble, but if you´d check with people on the street here in Europe they wouldn´t know who this guy is. It´s not like he is Larry King! (Unsigned comment by User:213.190.195.100)

Yes, I wouldn't think that he would be very popular outside of the US. Well it is like that here in the US too; not everyone knows him, but some internet users and people interested in politics do. What do you propose we change this wording to? a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Simply change it to an American journalist. Cheers Svest 22:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
He is definitely known internationally. I wouldn't call him a journalist, though, but a writer or columnist. (Unsigned comment by SlimVirgin)
He's well known in the politics circles. No doubt. The problem with denomination of international is that it seems that every American journalist is international while I'd never hear about a Japanese or Swedish journalist being called international! It is just like saying Steven Spielberg is an international film director! Cheers -- Svest 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
I've changed journalist to columnist, and I got rid of the long list of American tv shows he's appeared on as it looked a bit silly, and the wikification made it hard to read anyway. Not sure I got your point, Fayssal. WP articles say that people are internationally known when they are, and not when they're not, regardless of nationality. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


As I said in the comment when I reverted, WP biographies do not state that. I am not against that he's not internationally known. I am just wondering about why the statement should be added for DP and not for MJ or SP, etc... Jimbo is an internationally known founder of WP! Hundreds or thousands of biography articles in WP is about well known people globally. Svest 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Yes, I agree with Svest. I don't understand the importance of saying "internationally known"? It's almost one of those statements that try to give a very positive aspect to a person. If it isn't added for other bio articles, most of whom are more well-known than DP, then why should this article say that? a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair point, AE. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It really annoys me. WP is everything but NPOV. No consistency indeed. I would never encounter such an intro in Britannica, Larousse encyclopedia or Encarta. Michael Jackson is an internationally known singer. Zineddine Zidane is a very well known internationally football player!!! And the list is very long.
Britannica, NPOV? LOL!! When was the last time you read it? And anyway, we're not trying to become, and don't want to be like, Britannica. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, if it is the case than people internationally know he's a Jewish. Should we include that as well following the same logic stated above by Slim?
This is an encyclopedic intro to a person that can be compared with DP; Thomas Friedman. -- Svest 03:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Thanks SlimVirgin for your understanding and action. Cheers -- Svest 03:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here, SV. a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I changed columnist back to journalist. Why? Because journalist was right in the first place and merely calling him a columnist is a POV attempt to belittle his credentials. Kyaa the Catlord 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how being a columnist is 'belittling'. His work is that of a columnist, he writes columns. I don't recall him ever being a reporter. Correct me if I'm wrong. Amibidhrohi 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Misquoted?

This article includes the quote: "The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be."

According to Pipes' web site, he NEVER SAID THAT: go to http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php and scroll down to "Updates". According to that page, the supposed quote is based on a talk he gave at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. This seems to seriously call into question the authenticity of the "quote".

Should anything be done to fix this? I'm a noob... Moxfyre 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This quote is attributed to an article in the July 2001 edition of the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, and it does indeed appear in the article (See the article). However, he's repeatedly denied having ever said this. Unless someone more knowledgeable on Daniel Pipes can provide additional evidence supporting this quote, I'm going to err away from possible slander and remove it. // Pathoschild 06:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it should be changed, here's the quote according to Pipes:

<< As the Islamic revolution approached its climax five years ago, many Western journalists in Tehran, including myself, wasted hours interviewing the wrong people [meaning the Westernized elite]. … Perhaps we would have better understood what was happening if we had access to Daniel Pipes' remarkable book, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power.

Pipes has taken on, and very nearly accomplished, a daunting task: to explain the political and social development of the Muslim peoples from their origins to the present …. Pipes, a lecturer in history at Harvard, has produced a brilliant, authoritative, but occasionally infuriating and inconsistent work which demonstrates encyclopedic knowledge of Muslim intellectual history and a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims. … Here he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them. He sometimes misstates conditions in Muslim countries, and is swayed by writings of anti-Muslim commentators less judicious than himself. But on balance these unfortunate lapses do not diminish the perceptiveness of his analysis. …

Few other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history as [a long list of phenomena] …. These points are forcefully presented and cogently argued. The book is a valuable contribution to our understanding. This makes it all the more unfortunate that it is marred by exaggeration, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject. [Lippman then lists some of these and concludes:]

A more perceptive editor might have counseled Pipes to purge these and similar passages. Without them, the book would be the definitive work of its kind." >>

obviously the biased quote was obtained from a website like CAIR's. Removed. H.J. Roding

Pipes on the BBC

I've never seen the chap - and I've been watching BBC current affairs for a while now. While I'm not an authotitative source on every foreign journalist the Beeb has ever called on a search of their web site for his name yields no hits. I think the word "frequent" is a bit of an overstatement here.

I'm also concerned by "well respected in the counter terrorist community." Who would that be exactly? And can we sho that "they" respect him? Sounds made up to me. Unbehagen 13:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Pipes article on Askariya shrine bombing

I've edited the last paragraph in the "On Muslims" section. Here's a copy of the previous version:

In Jerusalem Post Pipes is close to advocating Civil War in Iraq as "Strategic" and of Muslims killing each other: "The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy." and continues: "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one." [4]

I've deleted that tendentious lead-in strikes as POV (and arguably Original Research). I've also switched the link to Pipes's site; since he lists the New York Sun rather than the Jerusalem Post, I've done likewise. (They're both Hollinger papers, BTW.) So now we have:

"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. ... Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one." (New York Sun, February 28, 2006 [5])

Which leads to my real question: should we delete this paragraph entirely? I say yes.
— Chris Chittleborough 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

keep. A human 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
keep.
Argh. I did not mean to drop the sentence "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt". Thanks to A human for restoring it.
Another mistake: I failed to notice an earlier paragraph about the same article, in the "Policy toward Iraq" section. I've deleted it, on the grounds that (1) the para in "On Muslims" is longer and more comprehensive and (2) the article is more about Muslims than U.S. policy. Here's the deleted text:
In 2006, as sectarian violence in Iraq continued, Pipes wrote that a civil war there "would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one."[6] He argued that such a war would reduce coalition casualties in Iraq and reduce Western casualties outside Iraq.
Also, I now vote to keep the para in "On Muslims", and regard my little poll as closed. Chris Chittleborough 12:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Books and policy papers" section

I've deleted the "How Nations Learn (publication date unknown), Free Press ISBN 0029253853" from this section, because neither Amazon nor http://daniel-pipes.org/ mention it.

Also, I found this alternate bibliography in a comment. I've moved it here.
—Chris Chittleborough 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

THIS BREAKDOWN MIGHT BE PREFERRED TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO CHANGE IT BACK 
===Books concerning Islam===
* Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), ISBN 0393052044 
* The Rushdie Affair (1990) 
* In the Path of God (1983), ISBN 0765809818 
* Slave Soldiers and Islam (1981) 
===Books concerning Syria===
* Syria Beyond the Peace Process (1996) 
* Damascus Courts the West (1991) 
* Greater Syria (1990) 
===Books concerning other topics===
* The Hidden Hand (1996) 
* The Long Shadow (1989) 
* Miniatures (2003) 
* An Arabist's Guide to Colloquial Egyptian (1983)
         systematizes the grammar of Arabic as  spoken in Egypt. 
* Conspiracy (1997) discusses conspiracy theories in modern
     European and American politics.
Pipes has also edited two collections of essays, Sandstorm (1993) and
Friendly Tyrants (1991). He is the joint author of eleven books.

Negativity

"Pipes is both praised and criticized for his negative views on Islam and Islamism." I think the people who praise him for his views on Islam regard those views as accurate rather than negative. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Daniel_Pipes#Praise,_criticism_and_controversy confirms your assessment. Also: The modifier to "views" used to be "outspoken" rather than "negative". Since only his outspoken views are relevant to the criticism, I think "outspoken" ought to be readded. Calling Pipes' views "outspoken" neither requires a judgement call nor reflects a POV. HKT 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with 'outspoken.' Tom Harrison Talk 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pipes and censorship

Isn't Pipes rather well known for encouraging students to "monitor" professors who are critical of Israel? I think this certainly belongs in the introduction. Homey 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a minor kerfuffle about that in 2002, but the website stopped doing that almost immediately. It's mentioned in the body, but that kind of trivia doesn't really belong in an intro. Also, please recall WP:LIVING. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're minimising by calling it a "minor kerfuffle" and "trivia". It still generates a lot of hits on google and I believe many people who know of Pipes first heard of him because of it. Yes, he's a living person but the controversy over Pipes and Campus Watch is certainly verifiable and it is still generating heat. See, for examples, Pipes' own "Is Campus Watch Part of a Conspiracy? dated May 12, 2006 (ten days ago)Homey 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The monitoring of professors was stopped right away, so it's no longer an issue. It belongs in the body of the text as part of the history of Campus Watch, but not in the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's rather bizarre logic. Campus Watch was cited in the recent report about the so-called Israel Lobby prompting Pipes to issue a response as recently as ten days ago so, despite the fact that Pipes was forced to curtail Campus Watch's activities in 2002, it seems he has not been able to erase the damage done to his reputation. The monitoring of professors remains something he is well known for regardless of the fact that he stopped doing it three years ago and is frequently brought up. Trying to keep it out of the lead is simply a white wash. Homey 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's trivia, long since forgotten. Trying to include it is merely smearing, as is the rather bizarre inclusion of his mention in a paper by Mearsheimer and Walt. The fact that his detractors try to flog that dead horse from time to time doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be in that camp. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. That is not a defining event in Pipes' notability (though perhaps a simple mention of his founding of Campus Watch would be appropriate). HKT 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As several have noted, it is certainly both defining and central to Pipe's notability. The issue of monitoring of professors is probably one of the most distinct and commented aspects of Pipes' work. to call it trivial is strange. It belongs in the lead. It is quite ironic to call it a smear when Pipes' supporters would probably react strongly to the assertion that Pipes became famous for smearing.

Influence on the Bush Administration?

I seem to recall him being filling or being considered to fill an advisory position for the Bush Administration.

What ever became of this?

the article states that he was nominated by Bush to the United States Institute of Peace, and is currently a former member. I don't know what happened though.

He was appointed, but both Republican and Demcratic Senators blocked his nomination, and President Bush recess appointed him. According to members of the Institute, his tenure was marked by his work to block their efforts.

his comment about temple mount

I think he made a famous comment about temple Mount of Jerusalem. can somebody add that comment, wherein he claimed that Islamic invasions in the past led to the destruction of native religions.--nids 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

link for a similar comment is here.--nids 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous comment!!!

Between "3.6 On Muslims" and "4 Books and policy papers" somebody has snuck in the following paragraph: "Daniel Pipes is part of a vile treacherous gang of hatemongers that includes Joseph Farrah, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson et al, all of whom funded by radical Israeli elements to spread hate against Muslims. This they have done successfully in a variety of ways starting off with something as simple as hate messages against Islam on internet chat rooms to a range of books containing total falsehoods that were gleefully purchased by their pro-israeli constituents and the bull crap they peddled has been hailed as scholarship among their own circles." It doesn't appear on the edit page. Someone please do something about this!!!

It looks like it's been taken care of already. Ford MF 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes - historian

Daniel Pipes has a Ph.D in History from Harvard University, he has written a number of historical books as can be seen here. His intro description should thus reflect the tile to Historian like this:

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American neoconservative[7] columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, scholar and historian of Middle Eastern history.

Perhaps we can condense this a bit to by gettting rid of the dubious description as a neo-conservative which may be true but unneccessarily emphasized as the first descriptive adjective after citizenship in the intro.

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of the Middle East.

--CltFn 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes--WP:BLPN

See Daniel Pipes. In relation to the repeated deletion of my comments on the content of this article from this talk page, please see tagged notices at top of this talk page; WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:Cite#Full citations, WP:AGF, and also: Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_Abuse, WP:ANOT--NYScholar 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

and WP:OWN: the article was tagged by another editor as "unreferenced"; as she has been continually doing, the administrator removed that tag, saying that it was not accurate; I added the more specific and still currently applicable tag and she removed that. See WP:Cite and tags for articles lacking proper "full citations" as defined in Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:Cite pertaining to WP:BLP. All articles on living persons require "full citations" according to WP:BLP as well. --NYScholar 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of tags previously added but deleted later by administrator et al.

I had chosen what I thought was the most relevant template from the following list of citations problems templates: Wikipedia: Template messages/Sources of articles; I had used the template tag called "Citecheck"

 This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text.
Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (March 2007) (help, talk, get involved!)

Other ones that still pertain to this article are:

"Moresources"

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2007)

The general problem tag, added by another editor earlier, and by me before that (but continually deleted by SlimVirgin and others) as if these tags and WP:AGF and WP:OWN do not matter (even though they do):

"unreferenced"

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

.

In my view, and the views of other editors who have unsuccessfully tried to tag this article, all these template tags still pertain. A key word in that tag is "adequately."
As a "controversial article", this article needs to have "full citations" according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:BLP The policies are already linked in the BLP tag at the top of this talk page.
Finally, as I have said so many times before already, these tags are necessary for signalling unsuspecting readers of this article that it has problems. Though this article was tagged before I ever came to it with a "neutrality" tag, that one has been removed as well, even though the "B" rating above refers to some of these problems. (Please see the report [I didn't create it].) --NYScholar 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has been the site of contentious editing disputes since its inception in 2003 (see the talk archive, though from it some comments have been totally deleted by others). The problems that I've been trying to bring attention to in this article led me to tag it as

"unbalanced"

 This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

--a tag which was also deleted by SlimVirgin et al.-- and I tagged it that way because it is really not possible to see what is being cited, who wrote the sources, where and when they were published and when they were last accessed, and whether or not the sources have indeed been fully verified as both notable and reliable. (See my earlier talk page archive page 2 comments with my earlier explanations. Please try to keep in mind WP:AGF. I have been trying to bring attention to this article in good faith. --NYScholar 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

2/3 of article = POV blog

The first third of the Daniel Pipes article looks fairly encyclopedic, certainly average or better. It runs into trouble after that, descending into a blog-like dissection of other blogs, its many weaknesses including a near carpet-bombing effect of twenty or more cites of a single website and four cites of a single article.

An encyclopedia is not a pile of soapboxes: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

The article will be more encyclopedic when the "Continued friction" subsection and the entire "Opinions" section with all of its subsections are scrapped, and I mean well and truly scrapped. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view got buried there. — Athænara ✉ 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to repair this fault

I have moved the books, policy papers, interviews and documentaries above the far too lengthy and far too detailed criticism/controversy/friction/etc. sections—which are so excessive they come across as self-indulgent on the part of some editors—to give the notable output of this biographical subject the primacy it deserves in an encyclopedia article about him. — Æ. ✉ 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara, lists of books by the author belong at the end of the article, before See also. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, SlimVirgin, that's where I usually expect to find them, too, but in this case they were made nearly invisible by massive sections of POV. That's why I called it beginning to repair. An encyclopedic biography is meant to be about the subject, not an assemblage of invective against him. — Æ. ✉ 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In retrospect, I do see that my edit was WP:POINTish and not a good thing. Thank you for reverting it. — Athænara ✉ 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, no worries. I agree that the article could use some improvement in the ways you suggested. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Widely read blog

I removed some unsourced material about Pipes' blog. --Tom 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)



Article - Japanese Internment - would Mr Pipes reasoning apply to Jews in Europe in the same time period? 159.105.80.141 11:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

His views on Arafat and the Oslo Accords

The Wikipedia article quotes Pipes as saying the following: "Mr. Arafat has merely adopted a flexible approach to fit adverse circumstances, saying whatever needed to be said to survive. The PLO had not a change of heart — merely a change of policy ... the deal with Israel represents a lease on life for the PLO, enabling it to stay in business until Israel falters, when it can deal a death blow." However, this is misleading because it implies that Pipes definitely believes this statement, when in fact the above statement is taken out of context. Pipes suggests it's one of many possibilities for the future of the PLO as opposed to its most definitive strategy. He has elsewhere said on his page that while he doesn't like the PLO, he believes the West should stand behind them against Hamas since the PLO are a secular and left-wing nationalist organization whereas Hamas is Islamist (and he is strongly against Islamism).