Talk:Robert Spencer/Archive 20051230

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.

see Talk:Robert_Spencer/archive20051217

Contents

Summary of Old discussion

religious affiliation?

What is his religious affiliation? I'm linking him as Christian from Criticism of Islam, is this correct? dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

His religious affiliation is Roman Catholic. But his handlers don't want anyone talking about it or his board membership in a Catholic Group (the Christian-Islamic Forum) that works to convert Muslims to Christianity. His typical bio used to mention the group and how it was a prestigous organization, but say little about its mission. The spin put out is that he is an expert on Islam giving neutral facts, but reality is otherwise.

I don't know how one could determine if Christians and Muslims are equilly violent over the historical record. However, it should be recognised that Spencer is not on objective commentator. He is on the vangard of Islamic Criticism. --Dr.Worm 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and the Christian-Islamic Forum

Talk:Robert_Spencer/Christian-IslamicForum

Criticism

Avoid Weasel Words

We need a rewrite to avoid weasel words. see WP:AWW --Chalko 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

CAIR Quote

  • Added a quote from CAIR --Chalko 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I left the CAIR quote intact, Sometimes you can judge a man by his opponents.
    • The CAIR quote should be left exact or removed from Italics and summerized. It is in appropriate to "soften" a quote. People can judge the nature of the criticism, by the exact wording of the quote.


Scholarship

On going revert war see Talk:Robert Spencer/Scholarship

JihadWatch Views and Relevance to Spencer

These quotes, which some persist in posting here, are not by Spencer at all, but by Hugh Fitzgerald:

  • The West must "Understand how very useless is the concept of the "moderate" Muslim -- because it is impossible to know when someone's "moderation" is real or feigned"[1] and must take "specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are."[2]

Yet despite the fact that Spencer did not write these things, they continue to be posted and reposted here and attributed to him.

  • Thanks for the tip. I will watch to make sure they stay off the page.--Chalko 17:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not sure this is the right move - specifically, the question is whether the views of the group that Spencer directs are relevant to understanding Spencer himself. Particularly relevant is the fact that each of the quotes was posted by Spencer with explicit endorsement in each case. That seems highly relevant to a complete, neutral representation of Spencer's views and activities, and it seems somewhat misleading to remove them.

I also think, if we decide splitting it out is correct, one other way we should consider is creating a page for JihadWatch instead of just one for Hugh. ----Yalto 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Old Dates

It is also interesting that material in which Spencer responds to his critics has been removed as "partisan" and "lacking in neutrality," and even simple indications of the dates of quoted material, which indicates just how old (and possibly outdated) many of the (intended) scare-quotes from him are. None is newer than eight years old. Yet false charges and insinuations against him are allowed to stand unanswered and unchallenged. This shows where Wikipedia really stands.

Please explain which dates are incorrect. Amazon lists his book with the dates the contributor.I see few other dates in the posts you changed. Can you clarify?

Sure. I mean that the Wikipedia article quotes several very old articles by Spencer, from 1994, 1996 and 1997. There is no indication that he still thinks like that now, but since the quotes were undated, they give the impression that he is espousing such views today. When I put in the dates of the articles, they were removed. I put them back, as I think they are relevant to understand Spencer's views in context, and the age of the articles shows the political motivations of those who quoted them in the first place. I also restored Spencer's responses to his critics, which are highly relevant and show the charges to be completely inaccurate in some ways. All this was removed. I restored it. I expect it will be removed again. Right now (6 Dec 2005) this article is reasonably balanced. By tomorrow it will be a partisan, untrustworthy, biased zoo of half-truths and false charges again.

Re: the dates, are there reasons, in verifiable sources, to think that those are no longer his views? If not, why should assume his views have changed? Again, Spencer is first and foremost an author - and as an author with a page here, we should consider his writings/postings as providing reasonable insight into his views unless he has publicly and explicitly stated otherwise.

Nevertheless: the fact that Spencer's own words are continually removed from here, while extended quotes from other writers are continually added instead, for the obvious fact that they appear more incendiary and damaging than Spencer's own words, completely destroys any objectivity this Wikipedia article might have.

Regarding Spencer's own words being removed from here, this entry is not intended to be a platform for any and all of Spencer's works. It is meant as a neutral summary and explanation of his work. There are, in fact, many of "Spencer's own words" on the page. I think the section describing his views presents a fair picture. The parts you are complaining about are within Criticism - I don't believe Spencer is criticising himself. If you add them to the proper section, they have more liklihood of not eventually being edited out, I think.

The second question appears to be whether Spencer's organization and his postings of third party articles are relevant. I think they are. If Spencer disagreed with the "more incendiary and damaging" authors, he might have not posted them on his website or invited the authors to join his organization. That's not what he did - he actively promotes those views. The fact that he does both post and promote them seems relevant for people looking to learn the complete picture. It (now) clearly states that Spencer did not write those words, but that he did post them on his website (with no disclaimers). - Yalto 07 Dec 2005

Regarding "it will be a partisan, untrustworthy, biased zoo of half-truths and false charges again" said by the person at 24.63.54.248, show a little respect please. Everything here seems reasonable and well intentioned, and would be a whole lot less partisan if you stopped pretending to be a disinterested party, Mr. Spencer.


respect

See Talk:Robert Spencer/respect. I hope I got the spilt format correct. --Chalko 05:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if I am supposed to continue the discussion here - couldn't see how to do it in the Respect section. Sorry if this is incorrect.

I am a little confused about the Catholic section - Anne, I really don't understand how your POV about the statements being irrelevant meshes with your point about adding dates. I have no attachment whatsoever to the Catholic section - I too think it is kinda bizarre in here (but if it remains, I think the dates are equally weird). I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point. I am not sure how adding dates changes that or makes it more relevant. I think the conclusion we have here is that the Catholic section should go. I'll delete - feel free, obviously, to revert if we don't have consensus. --Yalto 06:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More Discussion

I added some overall goals to try to focus the page.

I just checked in again and am amazed that you have removed my criticisms of the article from this Discussion. It is sadly typical of how biased and unfair this article is. Anne24.63.54.248 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anne - please take a closer look at the page before jumping to conclusions. Chalko merely created a separate page for the discussion - this is clearly noted under the Respect section, and is fairly standard procedure when a particular topic gets too long. Really, given the hard work the contributors on this page have been putting in to dealing with some of the issues you raise, it is completely uncalled for to keep saying "how biased and unfair this article is". Many of your concerns have been addressed - the Christian Islamic forum issue has been clarified, the Catholic beliefs issue has been largely removed. Frankly, I think we're too biased in favor of Spencer now. And, I think you owe the folks who are contributing an apology. Just because some of them don't agree with you doesn't make the article "biased and unfair". --Yalto 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I do apologize. I didn't see the other page. However, I think must more must be done to make the bio fair. Of course, I am biased too: I respect his work and volunteer for JW. But at least I admit it. Anne24.63.54.248

Here is an interesting comment from Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch to someone who mentioned the Tom Tancredo bio at Wikipedia: "For god's sake, Wikipedia is a guide to nothing and nowhere. Maligners, Muslim and non-, are having a field day (google "Siegenthaler" for more on this). The attempt to slander Robert [Spencer] for examle, through guilt by assocation, and that assocation happens to consist of phrases that are attributed not to him but to me, and which have been completely ripped out of all explanatory and softening context, making me seem -- and therefore Robert seem -- quite as Tancredo is made to seem, apparently, in his entry. Skip Wikipedia. It has no value. Anyone at all can add anything at all. And most people will not bother to respond or correct, for a determined campaign will not be dissuaded from reposting. That, by now, should be obvious." [3] Anne24.63.54.248

Anne - Thank you. Regarding Hugh's quote, I do suggest that there is a difference. The Siegenthaler case actually involved a fabrication. In fact, most of the times Wikipedia has gotten into trouble has been when people fabricate facts, explicitly violating Wikipedia policy. (In other cases, such as with Adam Curry, the subjects are found to edit articles themselves or send close associates to do so with the goal of making it view them in a more positive light.)

With respect, I don't believe either of these is what we are doing here. I believe we have a legitimate difference of opinion about the relevance of Hugh's quotes, stemming from the fact that Spencer posted those articles. I have said a few times that I personally view anything that Spencer posts, without a caveat, to contain an implicit endorsement. I believe he would do the same if someone a director at CAIR posted an article supporting violent Jihad and saying "So and So at Hamas explains the difference between X & Y". Spencer would rightly condemn that person for supporting violent Jihad and Hamas. I am not drawing moral equivalences, but I do think it is similar. I have also said that I would be very against posting anything on this page that Hugh says that Spencer did not post. That, in my opinion, is the crucial difference.

I understand Wikipedia has problems, but with respect, I really view this as different. I am not a hatchet man out to get Spencer. I had never heard of him until I got to this page somehow, and honestly have only started reading his works. Frankly, I think he has some good points, and I think he has some bad ones. I just want the article to reflect both sides. The Thesis section should state Spencer's points; the Criticism section should reflect what people criticize Spencer about. Like it or not, people criticize Spencer about the things Hugh (and the commenters) say. -- --Yalto 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Having weird technical problems with signatures and postings to the wrong pages. The above was from Yalto, in case it is coming out wrong. Been getting error messages while posting, not sure the problem. -- Yalto


Re: the Hugh discussion: On today's Jihadwatch page is the following title/article posted by Spencer: "CAIR-FL spokesman says "nothing immoral" about Islamic Jihad. Yet CAIR will continue to get a free pass from the mainstream media as a neutral civil rights organization."[4] I think Spencer is right - what this CAIR official says does greatly tarnish the reputation of CAIR and given that he is a CAIR official speaking in an offical capacity, CAIR is ultimately responsible.

Again, no moral equivalence of the issue implied or intended, but for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, I think the Spencer/Hugh issue is the same. Spencer posts Hugh's articles, with an endorsement most of the time. This despite the fact that others can and do post (e.g., Eric [5], Rebecca [6]). In each case, Spencer points out Hugh's official role within JihadWatch ("Jihadwatch Board Vice President Hugh..."), an organization founded by and directed by Spencer. So it can be inferred that Spencer believes and endorses what he is posting. --Yalto 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Fitzgerald

I added the Hugh quotes back because of the reasons listed above, but I streamlined them to make them easier to browse through. I am fine removing them if we provide a complete summary. Hugh (and Spencer through him) calls for much more than an end to immigration - that is probably the least objectionable of his views (although it is very objectionable). He calls for forced deportation of US Citizens who happen to be Muslim, for harassment of law-abiding US Muslims (boycott their businesses, refuse to renew their cab medallions, refuse their business permits, monitor your neighbors activities and call the FBI). These are all JihadWatch positions, and it is a whitewashing of Spencer's activities if they are not mentioned. We can do that either via quotes or via complete summaries - I think the quotes are better personally. --Yalto 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With all respect due Wikipedia (i.e. none), Hugh is Hugh Robert is Robert. Want an article about Hugh? Write one. Then criticise Spencer for publishing him and use the phrase "q.v." Instead you are piggybacking to the more famous person. But what is the point when any idiot can and will change what is written? Wikipedia is wortheless.24.63.54.248Anne

  • Tried to summarize Fitzgerald criticism. The quotes are better left to his page. --Chalko 16:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anne - again, you're insulting the people - the "idiots" - on this page who have shown you nothing but respect, and I am tired of it. If you don't like Wikipedia or this article, make practical suggestions and work on building a consensus, rather than attacking us. You haven't once addressed my argument for the Hugh quotes, for example. I would love to hear your response. But if it is so worthless, it is probably not worth your time. Some of us do actually value Wikipedia and sincerely work towards making it better.

With respect, you are trying to get a version of the page with no criticism except that you approve of (i.e., people like CAIR who you think help Spencer more than hurt him). That is not the intent of this article - it is to present a both-sides POV about Spencer - what he believes and what people say about his beliefs. Like it or not, Spencer is often criticized for being anti-Muslim, bigoted, operating with a religious motivation, and for the postings of people like Hugh and even commenters on his site. Right or wrong, that is what people say. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of sources available on Google - some folks at Salon.com for example have written about this.

I'll also point out the Wikipedia suggested guidelines against Vanity articles [7], which actually suggests strongly that people with close associations to the subject not post, to minimize conflict of interest. --Yalto 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Yalto, ah then you want me to believe that out of the blue you took a burning passionate interest in writing about Robert Spencer? Puh-lease. You will notice I am NOT editing the page. I have addressed your argument for the Hugh quotes. I have pointed out that you are not following what would be standard procedure in a real encyclopedia. "people write of things they're interested in"[8], so what's your interest, Yalto? Hmmmm? And while I am at it, why does Spencer get to be ciritcized by you, but Wikipedia not by me? Wikipedia is often criticized for being worthless, biased, allowing people to operated with hidden motivation, and for the postings of people like you and even others on this site. Right or wrong, that is what people say. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of sources available on Google - some folks at Lucianne.com for example have written about this.

Anne - can criticize Wikipedia all you like. I only ask you not to insult the individuals who are working on this page, and who have until now been very open to discussing this issue and trying to find a consensus. Instead of appreciating the efforts put in by people to come to something we can all agree upon, you attack. That might be the JihadWatch style, but it is uncalled for here. A little civility would be nice...--Yalto 05:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely removed the section quoting Hugh Fitzgerald. First, its name is oblique and does not reflect its contents. Secondly, quotes from Hugh do not belong to the page on Spencer - enough has already been said on that. There is an article on Fitzgerald for that purpose and an article on JihadWatch should be created. Finally, the section starts with an introduction on who created JihadWatch, which looks silly because this information has already been provided in the article twice.--Pecher 21:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Threats Against Spencer

  • Is woldnetdaily credilbe (do they have a staff etc.)? (see Reliable Sources) The article it self is short and short on details. I don't doubt that Spencer has been threatened, but it needs to be Verifiable.--Chalko 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree, saying "Go to hell" is not a threat, saying"I'm going to send you to hell" is --Irishpunktom\talk 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The more I read the worldnet story the less cridible it seems. I think we should pull the whole section until it is better verified. --Chalko 19:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say no to that, but then I have my own bias --Irishpunktom\talk 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Format

I am adding the referenece section per WP:CITE. But I don't like the layout of Template:Web reference

Free Congress

Please check http://www.freecongress.org/media/030826.asp, it is blocked as extreme by my firewall. Then add it to the reference section. it is the 3 link in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&oldid=32381056 --Chalko 18:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"scholarship and credentials" subsection of "criticism" section; dhimmis

I have commented this out because 1. it didn't seem to make complete sense in how it dealt with asbáb al-nuzúl and 2. the only source provided was an internet debate on Frontpagemag.com. It's not clear whether this was a live debate or carried out by email or in some other form, but in any case it's hardly the most ideal kind of source. More importantly, though, it simply doesn't fully support the contentions made in this article. The only relevant material on the webpage cited is this:

Yes, Mr. Spencer, historical context is extremely important. In fact, those who are knowledgeable about Islam can explain to you that there is a whole science in Islam called the revelation context (Asbab An-Nuzool) in which the history, timing, and occasion of each verse is explained. Without this knowledge, no scholar would be able to interpret the Qur’an correctly. Each of the over 6000 verses in the Qur’an represents a revelation from God through the angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad. Over 23 years, the revelation dealt with various topics from establishing the belief system of monotheism, to promoting moral values, to challenging common unjust cultural behaviors, to teaching lessons about previous prophets and nations, and to providing guidance and orders on actions required by Muslims in face of changing political and social environment.

I don't see how this can be held to provide an adequate basis for the following

Spencer does not read classical Arabic. Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asserts no scholar can interpret the Qur'an correctly, unless thay are knowledgeable of Islamic revealtion context (Asbab An-Nuzul) in which the history, timing, and occasion of each verse is explained. Most of Asbab An-Nuzul has not been translated to english.

In other words, we would need a better source for 1. Spencer not having Arabic, and 2. "Most of Asbab al-Nuzul has not been translated to English" - and I'm not even sure what that sentence means - what constitutes "most of asbab alnuzul" (and also a bit more trivially, the conclusion drawn in any case does not follow inevitably from the premises: what if it's been translated into a third language that Spencer reads?). Finally, does Spencer claim to "interpret the Quran" or does he simply claim to report how it is interpreted by others and the effect of those interpretations, which seems to me to be the case?

The section about dhimmis gives Spencer's counterfactual claims as if they were matters of fact. I have changed this to make it clear tha it is a quote, though I don't know how to give a citation as it is taken from a (java script?) pop-up window on the website and doesn't therefore seem to have a URL of its own, though this may just be my technical ignorance. Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I had not intended to bother with Wikipedia anymore, but just as a test I added Spencer's response to the guilt-by-association section on Hugh Fitzgerald. Any bets on how many minutes it will last here before being edited out? Anne Crockett, December 26 '05

  • Remember if the criticism are common enough I think they should be kept even if they are bogus. Like the only a "Arab can understand the quran" defense. CIAR uses it. I would leave it. --Chalko 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with leaving common criticism in. My problem with the bit I commented out is that the source cited is a poor enough source to begin with, is taken out of context, and doesn't appear to bear out the claims made in the article (either that such criticism of Spencer has been made or that the argument made in the article was correct). If somebody can show that these are indeed criticisms of Spencer that (a) are commonly made or (b) have been made by someone or some organisation worth quoting, then I would have no problem with that paragraph going back in.
Just to nitpickkingly detail once again my objections: CAIR didn't say "only an Arab can understand the Qur'an". Hussam Ayloush said that one needs to understand the historical context of Quranic revelation to interpret the Quran correctly, and that an entire division of religious science exists dealing with this context. (I don't think that either of these are controversial statements.) A Wikipedia editor transformed this into the following series of assertions: 1. Spencer does not read classical Arabic (no source given). 2. Per Hussam Ayloush, no scholar can interpret the Qur'an correctly without a knowledge of the context of revelation (correct, but the sneaky implication is that Spencer purports to interpret the Qur'an, whereas I've seen no evidence that this is the case and he seems adamant in this very source that he does not). 3. The literature regarding the context of Quranic revelation has mostly not been translated into English (no source given).
It is rather tiring trawling through the hate-filled pages of FrontPageMag.com and such sites simply because some Wikipedia editors are too lazy, partisan or intellectually dishonest to provide proper sources. Unfortunately, it seems to be often necessary. Palmiro | Talk 23:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I am partisan and I do only have a limited amount of time. However I am trying to present a accurate description of the Criticism against spencer.
    • Does he read Arabic, I have no source. But more importantly that is what CAIR implies in there argument. CAIR is a high porfile apponent of him. The argument comes down to "You don't understand, Islam is the Relefion of Peace". Weather Spencer interpets the Quran or not the CAIR argument is if you "correcdtly interpret" the Quran you will see that Islam is the Religion of Peace.
    • Anne are you reading. Does Spencer read Arabic. Can you provide us a reference.
    • Just a note, I am seriously trying to clean up the sources here. I am the one who has added the reference section per WP:CITE. Everyone else just uses a link.
    • Ok bottom line. We would like a defenitive answer on Read Arabic. Also need another Critic using this. I will add that to the todo list.
    • --Chalko 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if we can prove that Spencer doesn't speak Arabic it doesn't make Ayloush's "criticism" (really not so much a criticism as a sparring point in an online debate) worth including. Of course it doesn't say much for someone purporting to be a scholar of Islam that they wouldn't speak Arabic. But on the other hand, Ayloush's claim was that you needed to speak Arabic to interpret the Quran. In Islam, the vast majority of people make no claim to interpret the Quran. They read it and attempt to understand it on the basis of commentaries and interpretations made by recognised theologians. That is what Spencer also claims to comment on - Islam and the Quran as Muslims understand it. If you read his contribution to the debate he is quite clear on it, and it is an entirely reasonable position which does not appear to have been refuted. Palmiro | Talk 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree on your counter argument. Put it in his thesis or background. Just like how at least at one point his thesis was listed as "no way to tell moderate from radical muslim" and criticism was "no way to tell moderate from radical"--Chalko 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


  • I am probably one of the editors who are "too lazy, partisan or intellectually dishonest to provide proper sources", so here is how Spencer himself describes the criticism of himself:

"There are many other such verses, but I don't have to speak with Dr. Badawi to know what he will say about this list: I am taking the verses out of context. I can only understand them properly in the original Arabic. I need to be well-versed in the science of Koranic interpretation, tafsir, to be able to understand them. Only an "Islamophobe" would take such verses at face value.

Very well."[9]

I think that pretty clearly says that he doesn't speak Arabic, and that the criticisms are common ones. (I am sure Anne will demand that all of his counter arguments are inserted).

I also refer everyone to the following additional articles [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], and [15] for other criticisms. --Yalto 05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


  • I have taken a crack at a new and improved criticism section. To avoid the debates we've been having, I tried to do the following:
    • Use direct quotes from critics, with sources
    • Use sources with some formal credentials - journalists, professors, activists, people Spencer has debated - not random bloggers
    • Use a broader range of sources than just anti-Spencer websites - a lot of FrontPageMag stuff (Palmiro - I am in the same boat wrt dislike of reading FPM)
    • Leave as much interpretation of the sources out of the writing - i.e., I tried not to summarize.

I think the criticism section needs to be strong. Rather than weaken it, if someone feels like the article is too negative, I would rather beef up (or at least organize) the thesis section - perhaps someone who has actually read the books so we don't continue to rely just on Jihadwatch? --Yalto 07:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)