Talk:Mohamed Elmasry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mohamed Elmasry article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comments

"Elmasry has authored and co-authored more than 500 research papers and 16 books on integrated circuit design and design automation, as well as having several patents to his credit." Why does publishing research papers and writing books give him credit for speaking out on these issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It is interesting that Elmasry tried to blame the very people he claims to represent and defend against stereotypes (the Palestinians) for his controversial comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.227.214 (talk • contribs)

The controversies stay in. I have no problem with adding Mr. Elmasry's achievements, but his views and remarks regarding Israel, Jews, and Islamism should not be covered up. If it is felt that I have taken his views out of context, feel free to put them in the proper context, don't just delete them. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Mr Elmasry's claims regarding the Old Testament should remain in this article CJCurrie had no right to delete them simply because he/she believes that it is possible that Elmasry might have been proposing a hypothetical question. I have read Elmasry's article and I believe the context is very clear.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

I removed the passage under WP:BLP, as the quoted text suggested that ElMasry was speaking hypothetically. I'm now far less certain of this, and I'm prepared to keep the text (albeit somewhat modified) in place. CJCurrie (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


The sentence that notes that Elmasry did not cite any specific Canadian Jewish intellectuals who are moving to the right of the political spectrum (as he claims) should stay in. It is correct to point out that Elmasry states that many Jewish Canadians are moving to the right yet he does not give any specific names.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

I disagree on this point -- it's a clear instance of Original Research for an editor to criticize ElMasry's letter in this way. CJCurrie (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Its not original Research. Its just common sense. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC))


Regarding Ezra Levant's alliegation, the source article was published in of one of Canada's largest newspapers. In addition, Elmasry has never denied that he made these comments. This is a credible source. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to present it - don't just delete it. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't see the term antisemitism anywhere in Levant's article. Is it possible he didn't use it (or that the Post didn't allow the word in the article) for a reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.63.170 (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Removed material copied and pasted from http://www.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca/~icm/aboutFounder.php. That sources can be used, but needs to be summarized and not copy/pasted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Quotes

The quotes stay in. They are properly sourced and taken in context. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, feel free to add it to the article. I also did some reorganization. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Quotations - you are violating policy with your excessive use of quotations. Specifically:

  • the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject.

64.229.170.210 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten and revised the quotes to make them conform to Wikipedia's specifications. I've also put them in context. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] WP:SELFPUB

Under WP:SELFPUB, Material from self-published and questionable sources may not be used as sources in articles about themselves, if it is contentious.

Much of the material used here as been published by Elmasry, and it is definitely contentious. It should be removed.Bless sins (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


How is it contentious? I'm basically referencing what Elmasry wrote on his organization's website. The fact that some of what Elmasry says is controversial doesn't mean its not accurate or notable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

While the source may not be reliable to support contentions about the beliefs of most Muslims, or even Canadian Muslims, Elmasry's own quotes from the organization of which he is president is reliable enough vis-a-vis to support what he himself has said and believes in. -- Avi (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The tone of this article appears highly negative and critical and therefore against the spirit of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Is it really necessary to have a litany of quotes selected to put Elmasry in the worst possible light? Has he said or done nothing over the years that reflect positively on him? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means; find them and add them. However, the fact that the predominant press about a person may be less-than-flattering is not ipso facto an WP:NPOV violation. Suppressing positive, or negative, information about a person would be. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, WP:NPOV#Undue weight would be an issue with a disproportionate to published sources amount of either praise OR criticism. Wikipedia should reflect what is out there, not take a stand one way or the other. Criticism or praise, in and of themselves, is not a violation of NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've hidden the following. If it's not sourced it needs to be removed entirely. We can't accuse someone of essentially making death threats without a source! Same with support for terrorist groups:

He has also been criticized for accusing his opponents of being anti-Islam, a charge that based on Islamic law could be interpreted as a death threat. He has also expressed support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad to be allowed to operate and engage in fundraising in Canada.

Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Islam Online

I disagree with Reginald Perrin about this. This is not a blog but rather a live dialogue on one of the largest Islamic websites on the web. I believe it is credible. I also fixed the link. It should be working now. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The old link had no article attached to it and the blank template looked like it was for a blog. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right - the link was broken. Thanks for pointing it out.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Pipes

I agree Pipes is totally not the worst part about this page, but we should be careful of quoting such sources on BLPs. See WP:RS/N for a long discussion on Pipes. Any convincing reason to keep him on? Relata refero (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipes is a credible source in this respect. His analysis of the problems with Elmasry's thesis is relevant to this article. Pipes' views are praised by conservatives and condemned by leftists but many sources with diametric views are cited throughout Wikipedia. The citation makes it clear that the source of this analysis is Pipes. Pipes does write for several mainstream news sources, so he is not as uncredible a source as some depict.

Pipes' analysis is a defence of Judaism against Elmarsy's remarks (it is not a criticism of Islam or Muslims). I believe that this is relevant and appropriate to this article. The citation should be kept. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I fully expect that Judaism doesn't need defending from the likes of Elmarsy. And in the unlikely possibility that it did, I doubt that Pipes would be a a reasonable source for that defence. Relata refero (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipes has been used as a source throughout wikipedia. It's true that he is controversial, but in this case, his comments are important and relevant - and they are not offensive (except to Elmasry). Pipes comments are being used in this case for the sole purpose of refuting Elmasry's comments, and not for political commentary. Pipes is controversial (although I personally don't think he's a racist - but that's my opinion), and he does write for many mainstream news sources (such as the Jerusalem Post and the New York Sun), has written over a dozen books, and has spoken at Universities and events across Canada and the United States (i.e. he is not an irrelevant or shunned source). Thus, I believe his comments, in this case, are important and should be included in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Please don't misunderstand me: I don't think that those comments need refuting; in fact, I don't think they need to be in the article at all. I don't have anything against Pipes as a speaker and writer, but I do think we can't quote him off his blog. Relata refero (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Pipes is only expressing his own opinions on this issue (he is not making reference to any other sources) and it is made clear (I hope) that Pipes comments are his own and that they have not been otherwise endorsed or accepted. I also haven't been able to find another source on the net that provides such a concise and accurate refutation of Elmasry's comments (I would use another source if one was available). I think that in this case Pipes can be quoted for this specific purpose because Pipes is writing on his own blog (not on someone else's). If this were a quote on a community blog or if Pipes had written this on someone else's blog, than it would be a much different story.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

In any case blogs are ruled out per WP:BLP. Relata refero (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not always. As per WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper):

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

– WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)

Pipes may be considered an established expert in the field of Israel-Palestinian Commentary (cf his books and publications), he has been published in reliable third party sources, and his own blog may be considered a reliable source for his own opinions which is all that is being brought here. So in this case, self-published sources are allowed under policy. -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Pipes not a credentialed expert, but his writing on blogs is strictly ruled out per WP:BLP. Relata refero (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep Pipes' comments in since they are not offensive or inaccurate. Keep in mind that Pipes' views are his own and are not being presented as anything but in the citation. As for the suggestion that Pipes is not credentialed, I'd like to point out that he does have a Ph.D in History from Harvard University (1978), which, in my view, makes him very credentialed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

According to the policy on self-published sources quoted above, self-published material is acceptable if the source is an "established expert on the topic...". Hyperionsteel points out that Piples has a PhD in History. What is his specific historical expertise? The quote by him that Hyperionsteel wants to keep is about Elmasry's comments on the Old Testament and deals directly with that work. Is Pipes an "established expert" on the Old Testament or the religious history? If so then his comments can be included; if not they should be removed. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipes has been described as by the Wall Street Journal as "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East." He also spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. He has also written a number of books and numerous articles, and has been quoted by many mainstream news sources, on the Middle East and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Also, we should keep in mind that Elmasry's comments relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again, I think that Pipes comments should be kept in this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

The WSJ is authoritative on financial matters but on political matters they're pretty extreme so I don't think their say-so ends the matter. "Expert" has a pretty precise meaning and is something at a higher level than "pundit" or "commentator" so let me ask again, what is Pipes' academic expertise in? I'm not asking what he's written popular books on but what his actual academic expertise is? When we're talking about statements that attack another individual and are published in a blog rather than a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine or book we have to be very careful and rigorous. The quote in question is about the Old Testament, is he an acknowledged expert in that area? Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Pipes' comments are not on the Old Testament but rather Elmasry's intepretation of the Old Testament as it relates to Israeli politics and society. Pipes is an expert on Israeli Politics and society, and as such, his comments may be appropriate for this specific citation. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

I know he's an activist and commentator on the subject but is that actually his academic area of expertise? Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's difficult to say. He has written many books and articles and given many interviews with mainstream media sources on the subject. Is that enough to say he's an expert? Also, whether or not he's considered an expert on the Middle East also depends which side of the political spectrum you subscribe too. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm asking specifically whether he's acknowledged as an expert in academic circles in that area. That's not a subjective question - if he's published papers in peer-reviewed journals on the Middle East, for instance, then he's an acknowledge expert regardless of what you think of his views. Anyway, I wasn't asking because I was trying to make a point about Pipes but just because I wanted to know if he passed the test given in WP:V. Looking on the web I've found this from Pepperdine University on his recent appointment as a visiting professor: "The Pepperdine School of Public Policy announces the appointment of Middle East expert Daniel Pipes as the 2007 William E. Simon Distinguished Visiting Professor. Pipes will be teaching a Seminar in International Relations: Islam and Politics during the Spring 2007 semester which begins on Jan. 2, 2007." This suggests he is an acknowledged "expert" on the Middle East (more than that - Pepperdine explicitly describes him as a "Middle East expert".) That's all I wanted to know. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are still ruled out per WP:BLP, I'm afraid. Relata refero (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think this should be kept. Keep in mind that these are Pipes' comments on his own blog on his own website and he not making reference to any sources except himself.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Does the Pipes quote pass the test in WP:BLP?:
Self-published material may be used in BLPs if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves     
through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the 
article only if:
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these 
are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.
A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as 
a source in the article.

Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, Pipes is not the subject of the article, right? Relata refero (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Pipes' comments should stay in,

  • Pipes comments are not contentious (unless you agree with Elmasry),
  • Pipes is not glorifying himself (or anyone else)
  • Pipes only claim is that Elmasry's thesis is incorrect, (the citation does not comment on Elmasry as a person),
  • The only "event" in question is Elmasry's article,
  • There is no doubt that Pipes' wrote this,
  • Pipes only source is himself.

Thus, I think his citation should be kept.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

You didn't address the requirement that "it does not involve claims about third parties". As for not being contentious, he is contributing to a debate so wouldn't the comments be contentious by definition? Your qualifier "unless you agree with Elmasry" is a bit of a giveaway - the flip side is Pipes' comments are not contentious unless you agree with Pipes since clearly they are one side of a two side argument. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipes is stating that Elmasry is wrong. Why is that contentious? I think most people would agree with Pipes opinion instead of Elmasry's.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

It's contentious for Elmasry and those who agree with him. You have to keep in mind that there are two sides to the Elmasry/Pipes argument, not just one. And then there's the third party test which you haven't addressed. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this, your probably right. Although I still think that its not contentious to say that Judaism is not a violent religion, but you are correct about the third party test. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Recognizing contentiousness doesn't mean that Pipes is wrong and that Elmasry is right. Just that we recognize there's a disagreement and that therefore a blog isn't an acceptable source. If Pipes makes the same comments in an article or book that would be different. Anyway, glad you see the point. Sometimes policy works for you and sometimes it works against you and if you find a serious problem with policy then you should go to the policy talk page and argue for it to be changed but if we don't adhere to policy even when we don't like it this place would turn into a madhouse:) Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)