Talk:Robert Spencer/archive20061016

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.

Contents

Goal

The goal is

  • brief synopsis of who the guy is,
  • why he is famous enough (to have a Wiki on him),


Keep the debate over whether he is right or not to a more suitable place.


== Claims" is not a neutral word as it appears in the biography concerning PHD program. Therefore the neutral point of view of the first section as well should be disputed. And is every author who does not have a PhD questioned, or just Spencer whose ideological opponents like to bring this dead horse out since they cannot oppose his work on its own merits. I think the NPOV warning goes back at the top again. ==

Robert Spencer is an obvious Jew

OMG, LOOK AT THAT NOSE... Whoever says he is not jewish is another jew who tries to camouflage himself as a Christian (just like Spencer) so that he would look more reliable to the "West." Just like Christian TVs owned by the Jews..



== What a lot of totally irrelevant clap-trap!!! ==

Jews don't have a monopoly on large aquiline noses. Many Arabs, Italians, Armenians and some French (remember DeGaul?) not to mention many Irish (who never let Jews into their country for centuries) also have large hooters, pal! ... So, cut the immature crap you idiot.


Robert Spencer is not Jewish

Robert Spencer is not Jewish nor of Jewish ancestory, no matter how many times his critics say he is. It's somewhat childish for Muslim critics of Spencer to immediately assert he is a Jew; he's a devout Catholic and devotes a large part of his biography to it. Please stop saying he's Jewish - it's just plain stupid. Not all critics of Islam are Jews (surprise!).

More to the point, whatever Mr. Spencer's religion may be, his critics consistently fail to rebut his statements.
More to the point, they think that accusing him of being Jewish is some sort of killer blow that destroys his credibility. I do not think that this page ought to simply say he is not (or rather not) Jewish without explaining why. Lao Wai 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


"It's somewhat childish for Muslim critics of Spencer to immediately assert he is a Jew"


Unless you personally know the user who wrote that statement is Muslim or they have stated it do not assume or try to imply.

What is with the imperatives?

"his critics consistently fail to rebut his statements"


His statements are just that; nothing but statements with no evidence to back them up besides the obvious twisting of words from a non academic who has been beaten in debates.

Would you care to give on example of even one instance of these things
1. I checked his latest article and all statements are hyperlinked to sources. His books are scrupulously footnoted. So where is this lack of evidence?
2. As for "being beaten in debates" I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, one example please. But, of course, winning or losing debates is subjective.AnneCr 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To do

Information Needed

  • Does Spencer read Arabic, with source.
  • Another critic making the You don't read Arabic argument.

First Paragraph

Short is better

  • Summarize points where possible.
  • Use secondary articles if needed.

Old Discussion

  • Can we remove or at least summerize old discussion
  • shall we delete unsigned comments.

Paragraph flow

  • Use less direct quotes so the page reads better.

NPOV

How do we get past the NPOV dispute. --Chalko 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Talk:Robert_Spencer/archive20051230

Talk:Robert_Spencer/Christian-IslamicForum

Threats against Robert Spencer

New York-based Muslims who desecrated the U.S. flag on a street corner (watch video at http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/GW1.php ) issued a threat against Islam scholar Robert Spencer for publicizing their video of the event along with accusations of ties to foreign jihadists. Look at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44709

I have republished this text because I think it is important to mention that Robert Spencers life is in danger because islamic terrorists want to kill him. It is very important to know this about him because many islam critics are threated by muslim terrorists, for example Hirsi Ali oder the Cartoonists.

Thanks for the explanation. My main objection is that, due to the way fatwas/du'a (supplication) work (someone puts out a call for something to happen and it's up to any enterprising "believer" to carry it out), publicizing the threats against him increases the danger those threats pose.

On a more minor note, a look at the "history" tab and earlier discussion shows what an agonizing process has taken place to hammer out an acceptable entry on RS, with a compromise being reached in a spirit of "just the facts." Along those lines, it may be more prudent to leave it up to RS himself which threats/hate mail he sees fit to publicize at Jihad Watch.

What do you think? - Dy-no-miite, 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

... Opted to take it down for now, pending further discussion, for my reasons above. In any event, the section needs stylistic cleanup-- "look at," and the plain URLs for links don't flow with the rest of the article. Dy-no-miite 02:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)~

Video: Spencer on Fox News

Look at http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/RobertSpencer/RS010606.php

Criticism

See archives

  • 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)

I see why your are following the path you have taken, but it reads teraibly. At the minimum each reference needs to be explained in the text, ie Dr so and so form Imporant Org, says. Also ALL reference need to be in the reference section.

Seriously where this should be a article, in a narative form. I know that means we argue, It also means new comers will come in and change words. Like "hate site". That is the WP battle, if we are truely to make an encyplodia level article then we most move above quotes.

In the end if we can get to where both side agree on things like Spencer believes it is hard to tell the difference between a radical and moderate muslim, then the article can have a real flow. Lets not just not take the easy way out and just have dueling quotes --Chalko 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree that it reads horribly and that we need to weave both the thesis and criticism sections into a better narrative form. However, my hope is that we can agree that the quotes are a sound basis for that narrative (i.e., people feel like the sources are good, points are relevant and clear, etc), then we have a better basis for constructing that narrative, without arguing about interpretation, etc. So I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the points that I included in the section. (BTW, I intentionally left out criticism of Jihadwatch as I ran out of time. I believe it is very relevant to this page given Spencer's role in the organization, so will take a look at adding it later).

Once people have a chance to comment, I'd happy to take a crack at something that reads well, or let someone else who is interested take a crack at it.

The form I think this should take is some categorization as we had before (scholarship, accusations of bigotry, etc), a summary of the issues/points, followed by quotes in a bullet as illustrative examples. Anyone have issues with that?

I'd also love it if someone who has actually read Spencer's books could do the same with the Thesis section - i.e., provide context by explaining the point and providing an example quote from Spencer so that we can hear it in his own words and make our own judgements. --Yalto 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you've been busy digging dirt, Yalto. Well done. It's the height of hypocrisy that you pile up criticisms and charges while you will allow no responses or even any consideration of whether the charges and criticisms are true or not. And I'm still waiting to hear who you are and what your interest in Robert Spencer is. Anne Crockett Dec 31 05

Vet random collection of criticisms.

Let work the criticism at Robert_Spencer/Criticism_Temp

  • I reverted to the last readable criticism we have. Lets vet the critism and make the readable before we publish. --Chalko 15:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just joined this page... looks like nobody has worked on this, so I thought we should put the criticisms, which seem well sourced, back in until someone decides to take up the readability issue. --64.241.37.140 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism as it is now looks like little more than a collection of labels, like "hate site", "not a scholar" etc. Including this criticism would violate WP:NPOV. In addition, most sources appear murky, and we are not obliged to report in every Wikipedia article CAIR's position on the topic of the article. If we want to say what CAIR thinks on certain issues, it is best done in the article on CAIR.--Pecher 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms recently added are made by notable people. The heading will be changed from "criticism" to "Controversy and Public Opinion" to make it NPOV --70.231.240.66 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we link to this

I found this while googling: [1] Can we link to a page like this or not? --Kefalonia 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kefalonia - My opinion is that it is irrelevant to an article on Spencer. Someone can link to it in an article about the evils of Wikipedia. Of course, see my comments below for a partial list of the incorrect statements in that article. --Yalto 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anne, Yalto, et al talk

Let work the criticism at Robert_Spencer/Criticism_Temp

  • I reverted to the last readable criticism we have. Lets vet the critism and make the readable before we publish. --Chalko 15:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chalko, aside from the conflict of interest issue, I really don't have time to work on this article. Also, I am skeptical as I have said, of the value of working on something that anyone can edit- it is like writing on a chalkboard. Nonetheless, I have two points: Look at the entry for Karen Armstrong [2], or John Esposito[3]. There is no Thesis and Criticism section. The articles are short, sweet, and to the point. Also, Yalto's statement, "Frankly, I am disgusted by Spencer and the hypocrisy that he practices,"[4] sort of proves my point about his bias. As I said in my article[5], the same criticism of Spencer as a "secret" evangelist popped up many places at the same time arrousing my suspicions. I think this article is a hopeless mess, and am sorry that Wikipedia does not have any final editors who can vet it. I like the idea of thousands of contributors, but I think this is a prime example of Wiki Problems. I don't know where to go with this.Anne24.63.54.248 14:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, Anne. You don't have time to work on this, because you have to actually stick to the facts unlike your article, where you blatantly make them up. Virtually NONE Of the things you accuse me of in the article are even factually true - I have never, for example, "repeatedly emphasizes that the Christian-Islamic Forum is “a Christian group that targets Muslims for conversion to christianity (sic)." That was written by someone else. In fact, look at 2005-12-12 18:44:19 Yalto (→Background - clarified Christian-Islamic Forum role), and you will actually see that I am the one who changed the statement to the past tense as an attempt at compromise - which, by the way, you fail to note in your article, choosing instead to use quotes that were on the site months ago while portraying it as current.

You of course also fail to note that I added at least 50% of the points in the THESIS section as well as the points in the criticism section. You make up the fact that I said Spencer/you couldn't respond to criticism - I REPEATEDLY said my belief that if you wanted a response, the proper place for it was the Thesis section. EVEN your claim that you had stopped taking part in this conversation ("I myself am no longer involved in the discussion between Wikipedia editors Chalko and Yalto."), and that you didn't edit the main article after learning Wikipedia policy - is a blatant lie.

Ummm, I deleiberately said "More or less" not that I abstained completely. AFter all the policy does not say that I cannot, or even Mr. Spencer cannot, but I figure what is the point. So I guess you are the one who is wrong here.Anne Nah, like Spencer, you just want to make a point and ignore the facts.

And somehow, the fact that Spencer can ignore comments on his site, saying anyone can post, he doesn't have time to moderate them, etc, is fine and noble, but Wikipedia's exact same policy re: their DISCUSSION page is not? This is NOT the article, Anne. Discussion is for discussion. I also find much written on here to be stupid, particularly the older stuff you single out (written, if you had bothered to check, WAY before I got here). But a discussion involves all types. I am sure you noticed,but again didn't mention, that NONE Of those claims are still on article.

On the issue of bias, at least I can admit mine but still feel compelled to make changes try to make the article more fair to Spencer. If you bothered to stop being outraged for a second, you will notice, as I have said 1000 times, that I have added much of the POSITIVE stuff about Spencer as well as NEGATIVE. And, isn't it interesting that you don't mind the pro-Spencer bias of some editors, it is just stuff you don't agree with. You don't care at all about seeing a balanced article written; you just care about having something you agree 100% with. I'd love that too - there are tons of articles I don't 100% agree with - but I am mature enough to know that that's the way the world works, even with well meaning people participating. You don't have to be one of our "Jihadist friends", as you insultingly refer to me, to disagree with Spencer and his means.

BTW, there are also hundreds of examples of pages with both THESIS and CRITICISM sections. If you think there should be one on Armstrong, ADD IT. That is the purpose of a community edited site. YOU CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE IT, instead of just complaining about it.--Yalto 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) As I have said I don't have much time for Wikipedia. I don't have any interest at all in Wikipedia except to ensure that no one uses it as a source until they have a group of people willing to take responsibility for its content. Period. I am not critcizing the other articles; I am saying that Spencers should be the same: brief, short and to the point. Yet when I have tried to edit it down to a bare bones statement of facts instead of the opinion piece that you are making it into, you put your stuff back. So what is the point? I don't think you need to provide Cliff's notes of Spencer's thesis OR his critics. Just the facts is all that is necessary.Just because you imagine that you are objective does not mean that you are. If I confused with another Wikipedia editor, sorry. Them's the breaks when you choose to be a Wikipedia nobody instead of going out and actually writing something you are responsible for like Spencer. Don't tell me you find him disgusting and that you are spending all this time and energy on this article and that it is "objective." What a joke. Clearly you have an agenda.


Anne - Tell you what - list this article for deletion, and I will wholeheartedly support it. I won't do it myself because I am sure you will then attack me for doing it.

Regarding other articles, take a look, for example, at the entry for a mainstream, well known figure like Pat Buchanan. It is not an Opinion Piece to present both sides of an argument. It is actually the norm.

And, regarding "them's the breaks", what more could we expect from someone who writes for JihadWatch? Careful research and attention to the facts? Integrity enough to apologize for false statements or unintentional mistakes? Of course not. Intellectual dishonesty, sloppy research, and distortion of the truth are more effective. The fact that you don't even care about the inaccuracies in your own articles speaks volumes. --Yalto 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I said "Sorry"- that's not an apology? You think Pat Buchanan is mainstream? You are delusional. My point is real simple: Buchanan and Spencer and Ali Sinna and anyone else deserve the same respect accorded left leaning figures like Esposito and Armstrong. A presentation of facts not a digest of opinions. That you don't know the difference between fact and opinion speaks volumes.


Anne - No, a Sorry followed by continued insults and "them's the breaks", with no correction issued, is not a sincere apology. Pat Buchanan won a fairly large portion of the vote in the New Hampshire primary back in 92. His books are published by major publishers. He was a regular anchor on CNN Crossfire. So, yes, he is a mainstream figure, even if his views are not. And if you look closely at the "left leaning" articles you cite, you will see a note saying that Wikipedia would like to EXPAND them too - it is right there on the screen. The fact that nobody has done it yet simply means that nobody has vonunteered. Other examples, such as Daily Kos's article [6] and MoveOn.org [7], do list the criticisms people have about them.

In case you didn't notice, this article was expanded well before I got here. I have tried to make it better, and actually more fair to Spencer. Do you see his views on Christian theology in the article? No. Why? Because I removed them as irrelevant. After YOU complained about it. Wow. I wonder what my agenda is?

From the first day you arrived in this forum, you attacked the people working on it. You did not once try to engage in a constructive conversation about how to reach a compromise on this page. Despite the fact that people, including myself, actually responded to issues you objected to, and made changes. Instead of acknowledging well meaning effort, you rant, you publish polemics filled with inaccuracies and outright lies, and when you say "sorry, that's what happens to people like you" when your sloppiness is exposed. Pathetic.

There is a difference between listing MY opinions, which I do not, and listing the genuine criticisms of others. The former leads to an opinion piece. The latter helps show the pros and cons of an issue. --Yalto 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


All - it is clear to me that I can no longer make contributions this page in an objective manner given this latest exchange with Anne and the attacks directed against me on the JihadWatch website. I have no desire to be seen by the Wikipedia community at large as a troublemaker. So, it has been a pleasure, but I will confine myself to other pages moving forward. Anne, you may have the last word if you choose. I see you have chosen to issue a correction on the jihadwatch site. I appreciate that, and hope that you will also choose to correct other errors in your article and make it clear to everyone that I have made contributions that are both pro and against Spencer. I tried to post a reply on the comments, but was not allowed for some reason (possibly technical) to do so. --Yalto 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found this page by accident: I had not heard of Spencer previously. I appreciate this article has been disputed, but is the introductory text ("This is an outrageously biased article!" etc) really appropriate? Could it not simply be flagged as an NPOV dispute? LeContexte 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That was only recently added. This article has clearly beeb seen as a pov plagued article, from both perspectives here- I really don't see why people want to remove the POV banner. Also, external links should be at the bottom, unless being used to reference a fact. I've readded the tag, the review of the site and removed the duplicated External Links. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks LeContexte 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the NPOV tag so consistently removed?


Why is it constantly re-added? Unless there is ongoing disagreement over facts pertaining to the subject *itself*, a "factual dispute" tag is not warranted; disagreement over the merits of, or motivations for, a subject's writings is immaterial (unless, for some bizarre reason, the wiki entry claimed no one disagreed with them); suffice to say that Spencer's Wiki entry highlights his main positions as well as those of his critics', and contains links directly to the critics' own pages.

-- Anybody who writes or says anything in public has critics. The places for Spencer's defenders and critics to argue their cases are their own websites and other media, not Wikipedia.

If there is substantial disagreement over a pertinent historical event pertaining to a subject (e.g., the causes of a war or other conflict), even that does not justify a "factual dispute" tag if the Wiki entry impartially indicates that disagreement exists, highlights the main points, and links to external sites were the subject is debated exhaustively.

The Wiki entry for Robert Spencer meets all of these requirements, there's no pertinent dispute over any biographical data-points -- and I am therefore subsequently removing (yet again) the "factual dispute" tag (which I am becoming increasingly convinced is being put up just as a smear-tactic, which is self-defeating since all it really smears is the reliability and integrity of Wikipedia).

-- Mike18xx Actually there is one factual error that I addressed early on. Spencer is not a board member of the Christian Islamic Forum. That entity ceased to exist. Attempts to make the membership past tense drew angry denunciations that I was trying to mask Spencer’s “religious agenda.” In fact, only Spencer’s old biographies list that; current ones do not. If you follow the discussion thread you will find quite a bit about it. It is a minor point, but it is factual. This led to the discussion of the neutrality of Wikipedia where upon one editor went so far as to say, “I find the level of pure hatred and bigotry expressed on the JihadWatch site, by both "commenters" and staff, to be disgusting and un-American." I continue to question the standards of the criticism section. CAIR obviously belongs, and Khaleel Mohammed, but an anonymous blog? Alternative weekly book reviews? Seems to me that critics are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Oops I am sorry, I forgot to sign this. I am Anne Crockett, from before The information about the disputed Christian Islamic forum is incorrect, too. Following the link informs you that, "Before Father Most died, in January of l999, he and I(Daniel Ali) discussed forming a forum in which Christians and Muslims could dialogue." After 9/11, 2001 (two years later), Daniel Ali began giving talks to Christians about Islam, and "developing a method to reach out to Muslims using only their sources, the Qur’an, Mohammed’s Tradition." These are two different things. Anne

> Actually there is one factual error that I addressed early on. > Spencer is not a board member of the Christian Islamic Forum. > That entity ceased to exist.

OK, then; let's just fix the OBVIOUSLY FALSE errors (regarding insinuated "present" membership in actually defunct organizations, an aspect I honestly haven't paid any attention to until now, but will get on immediately, assuming it hasn't already been fixed) -- and then just be done with it.

> Attempts to make the membership past tense drew angry denunciations that > I was trying to mask Spencer’s “religious agenda.”

If, after error-correction is made, people come back to re-insert OBVIOUSLY FALSE information, nuke it with extreme prejudice and report them. A "dispute" is one thing; deliberate vandalism by submitting known incorrect information is another.

> This led to the discussion of the neutrality of Wikipedia where upon one > editor went so far as to say, “I find the level of pure hatred and bigotry > expressed on the JihadWatch site, by both "commenters" and staff, to be > disgusting and un-American."

Adding a NPOV tag is weak-tea; after all, it can be hacked off by a vandal just as easily as anything else. The real thing to do is keep the site's "history" page bookmarked, and bop on it several times a day, and nuke with prejudice anything not conforming to nuetral-tone delivery of raw information.

As far as Spencer's critics are concerned, who cares? -- Wikipedia is NOT the place for them to be arguing with Spencer's proponants (and vice-versa). As far as I am concerned, Spencer's opposition to Islam is as transparent as his critics' devotion to it. I mean really: Is there anything that any reader spending ten seconds at either Jihadwatch, or CAIR or Islamic Thinkers, for that matter, cannot figure out on there own?

I'm tempted to just nuke the whole damn thing after the first or second paragraphs -- after all, a wiki entry about a person is about *that person*. Quite literally, all it needs to say is that he's a writer critical of Islam, and has a daily-updated website where interested browsers can trundle off to. A wiki entry's subject, nor his critics, are entitled to a "sounding board" for their "pet issues" to be wrangled incessantly. There are, for instance, literally hundreds of proponants, and critics, of Islam -- does every one of them warrant five paragraphs of essentially the same stuff, complete with links to wiki-hackers' favorite pro- and con- articles -- crud anybody could find just as quickly on Google?

How you deal with liars:

TO: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org; SUBJECT: Vandalism report

The following user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.166.118.99 ...has deliberately vandalized, by knowingly re-directing links, a Wikipedia page; the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=36394883&oldid=36253839

Please revoke his user account and ban his IP address for a minimum of one year for knowing TOS violations.

I am sorry, I don't know who wrote this. Mike? I don't really know what you mean by nuking "with extreme prejudice" as I don't have a more authoratative voice than any other. Maybe that I should just keep deleting stuff? For months this has been going on. I point out this is an old bio, it gets readded by someone who worries way too much about the the idea that someone might try to convert Muslims. I am very much in favor of reducing the article, as I said earlier in the discussion. One like this is just about right: John Esposito [8] So, how does one do this ? Is that possible? To give you a flavor of things, I feature prominently in that site misdirect above. Any editing I do is likely to incite a revert war. Anne Crockett

Anyone who knows their stuff has a "more authoritative voice" than those who don't. How does one go about "reducing the article"? -- By taking a meat-cleaver to it...which is exactly what I'm going to do if there's much more of this nonsense going on. -- okay, I like your solution a lot.

In fact I have truncated away to bare undisputed facts. I think any attempt to summarize thesis or criticism will just lead to spinning in one direction or another.

Hallelujah. I totally approve.


---

Bravo - I think this is a great solution.

Mike18xx: I do have an issue with the reporting of people inserting "OBVIOUSLY FALSE" information. I agree in principal, and clearly the person(s) vandalizing this page by changing jihadwatch to the blog deserves to be reported and banned.

However, the C-I forum issue can be a simple misunderstanding if someone has not spent a lot of time reading the talk section. Several of the currently available books include mention of the CI forum (in Daniel Ali's profile),as do relatively recent Spencer articles (as late as 2004), which gives the impression it is still active. As does the "old" bio, which is not labeled as old but rather is listed as current on Spencer's publisher's site (not on an old cached page, but along side a book by Spencer that is still in print).

To be clear, I am not at all arguing that the CI link should be included. I love the article the way it is now. But I don't think the "OBVIOUSLY FALSE" tag applies and I think people should be corrected at least once and referred to the discussion - it might be obvious to people who have been working on this article for some time, but it may not be as "obviously false" to someone who has not heard Anne's argument. --Yalto 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Anne et al, can we also agree that the Hugh Fitzgerald site should be listed for deletion? In the spirit of how this currently reads, I don't think Hugh requires a separate page. That can change when he writes the book that I think he mentioned he is working on. ;) --Yalto 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Regards "OBVIOUSLY FALSE" tag: That hammer was dropped in accordance with the following remark above: "Attempts to make the membership past-tense drew angry denunciations that I was trying to mask Spencer’s “religious agenda.”" -- I.e., an insistance to keep it present-tense is an attempt to impart false info to the reader, for ulterior motives.

But the whole, horrible mess is gone now anyway, so let's party like rock stars! Yay! --Mike18xx 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Again, great job! --Yalto 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Except of course the recurring vandalism but I fixed it again.

Now I see why you didn't take a meat cleaver to it, Mike. It's like a zombie that just keeps coming back.AnneCr 14:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The nice thing about a short article is that it's easier to monitor, and prevent crap from slipping in when there's a flurry of edits in one day.--Mike18xx 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A point I did not much think of before: the longer version includes numerous summaries of Spencer's writing. Any attempt to summarize work is inherently subjective and that too will be the subject of endless wrangling. The whole thesis/criticism thing was sort of an incoherent grab bag. Come to think of it, having a thesis section for a person is odd. Each of his books has its own thesis and covers something different.AnneCr 05:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Just the facts, Ma'am" short version

(...continued from the getting-way-too-long thread just above...)

One of my favorite aphorisms (and which lives up to its own advice) is "Brevity is a virtue." -- This is the internet age, now; anyone can find anything if it's on a search-engine; consequently it is not required for a Wiki entry to be "exhaustive". For instance, anyone who doesn't like Spencer's body of work can trundle off to Amazon and write scathing reviews of his books. Or, for that matter, take a dump on his blogs under a new ID every day. I do realize that some out there may be miffed in that they spent a lot of time writing up various bits and so forth; to them I say: I happily championed canning my own stuff as well under the aegis of tossing all POV-trending material. For my additional feelings, search back up for the phrase "Wikipedia is NOT the place...".--Mike18xx 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

For an example of what happens when the impossible is attempted, see (selecting a "protected" page on lock-down at random) the overly bloated entry on John Lott, as well as its conflict-ridden history page -- Who wants to go back to that? --Mike18xx 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me a really good reason, I'm not inclined to accept re-direction of the Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch links to anything other than the actual websites. The latest tactic involves the creation of Wiki stubs for J & D, then linking them rather than the sites. I oppose this, cuz:

  • It's a bait-and-switch on the reader, who reasonably expects to go to X website when he clicks on a link for X website -- not be yanked into an alley for a browbeating before being allowed to page down and hunt for the actual link amidst the clutter at the bottom.
  • I cannot imagine what is going to be put on these stubs that won't fall under the general category of "As much shitting all over Robert Spencer as I can get away with before some jaded editor zots it, because Wikipedia is, like, my own personal blog and brain-toilet!"
  • Alternatively, Wikipedia mutaween will relentlessly neuter the stubs of anything more flavorful than wet cardboard, the better to put the reader to sleep before he finds the real link.
  • The stubs are instant candidates for deletion at the precise moment of their creation.

--Mike18xx 11:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

<shaking head> Good grief....--Mike18xx 08:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Fitzgerald

Someone has recently created a stub on Hugh Fitzgerald. I have put it up for deletion, as the stub scandalously lacks biographical information.--Pecher 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow....and it's, like, so unbiased!--Mike18xx 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Charges of bias

Most have discredited Mr. Spencer's views on Islam due to oft-exaggeration. It must also be noted that Mr. Spencer's work is highly biased and influenced by his Jewish Ancestral viewpoints.

If "most" feel this way, it should be easy to name a few of the more prominent ones. While we're at it, can we give the reasons they disagree with Spencer? (Perhaps they feel he has misinterpreted Koranic passages.) --Uncle Ed 17:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


From Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011259.php) :


>the Wikipedia editor above assumes that I speak about the roots of jihad

>violence within Islamic theology solely because I'm Jewish. That might make some small bit of

>sense except for one little catch: I'm not Jewish.

Views and thesis

Back in December 2005, there was a "thesis" section [9] which is now entirely missing.

Is this because his views are described in the documentary? --Uncle Ed 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The thesis section was deleted because attempt to summarize a person's point of view lend themselves to endless wars especially in a controversial topic. There is a comment above, "Any attempt to summarize work is inherently subjective and that too will be the subject of endless wrangling..." et seq.AnneCr 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just silly. I've had a lot of experience summarizing authors' points of view. The only hard part is remembering not to judge whether the author is right or wrong based on whether *I* agree with their views or disagree with them. But it doesn't make much sense to have an article on a controversial writer, and then CENSOR their views.
I'm going to put Spencer's views back in the article. You can help by fixing an inaccuracies (like, that's not what he really says); and by adding any criticism which other writers, politicians, social scientists, book reviewers, historians, theologians, etc. may have aimed at Spencer's views. --Uncle Ed 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this for?

"Spencer makes several points, based on quotations from the Koran, which are at odds with President Bush's characterization of Islam as "a religion of peace":"

What does Bush have to do with this? Bush is not generally known as an authority on what Islam is. The only reason I can see to mention Bush is as an indirect way of implying that Spencer is more extreme than Bush. Ken Arromdee 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone took it out a minute ago. That was fast. Ken Arromdee 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The single most prominent source of information on Islam, in the Western world, is non-theologian (and US president) George W. Bush. I think it's important to our readers to see the contrast between this widely held (or widely known) view, and Spencer's view.
This seems absurd. Bush is also the single most prominent source of information about the war in Iraq, but we don't go into the articles of everyone who opposes the war and add "in contrast to George Bush, who believes the war in Iraq is winnable and that invading Iraq was the correct thing to do".
The line seems like disguised POV, which is either
  • aimed at people who believe Bush is an extremist, and trying to argue that Spencer is even more extreme, or
  • aimed at people who support both Bush and Spencer, and trying to argue that to be consistent, they should reject Spencer.
Either way, it should not be included. Ken Arromdee 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The section on Spencer's views of Islam was reverted for a second time, with no explanation but only a request that I do a lot of reading: rv to consensus version. Please read "discussion"-- all of it-- before editing. Can someone please give me the short version? --Uncle Ed 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Very short version for now-- busy day. There's been a great deal of wrangling/negotiating over the form and content of this entry, after which a rather minimalist, "just the facts" format was settled on. A look at the history column shows I'm not the only one in favor of preserving this consensus version, lest that can of worms be re-opened.
In that vein, I think a section attempting to interpret RS's views on Islam runs falls into the same trap of subjectivity that the now-removed "thesis" section has. Thus, it would become a magnet for agenda-driven revisions.
In my opinion, the introductory material of the article covers the basics of where he's coming from well enough. Dy-no-miite 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
But what's the wrangling about?
  1. WHAT his ideas are? Or,
  2. WHETHER his ideas are correct or incorrect?
I glanced rapidly at the talk above (but did not read every word), and I failed to see any conflict over what Spencer thinks about Islam, the Koran and how modern political groups interpret the Koran as supporting their aims. The separate article on his documentary gives a half-dozen-point summary of his views. Why not merge the pages? --Uncle Ed 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Scroll up to item 6, "archives" for more wrangling-- a bit of everything.

As for the documentary, it's not about RS or his work alone, so merging the pages would give a false impression. Dy-no-miite 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reporting and interpreting

Dy-no-miite wrote:

a section attempting to interpret RS's views on Islam ...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Speaking of making oneself clear, who are you? This doesn't look promising.--Mike18xx 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the Robert Spencer article interpret Spencer's views but rather report what his views are.

Spencer obviously regards as a false nostrum the idea that "Islam is a religion of peace." This is not an interpretation of his views; it's a summary of his main point.

Well, he's in good company as far as Iran, Hezbollah and the Wahhabis are concerned, since they don't consider Islam a "religion of peace" either, but rather one of Borg-like "Submission" to assimilation. Notwithstanding Saudi Arabian-funded propaganda overtures, anyway, which our blithering imbecile president has bought into....--Mike18xx 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He regards Islam as inherently violent, aggressive, and bent on conquering the world by force.

If it's "obvious", then the article, condensed as it is, must be a marvel of succinct brevity, and further exposition unnecessary if it's going to freight in fifty boxcars of other baggage (see below).--Mike18xx 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, whether he's "right" about this is certainly open to question. It would help our readers a lot if one or two sources who disagree with Spencer were quoted. If (in their opinion) he's taking quotes out of context, mistranslating them or ignoring modern mainstream interpretations by Muslim theologians or religious leaders, that would make an excellent addition to the article.

Been there, done it, bought dozens of T-shirts. Credible sources were ubiquitously lacking, and by virtually unanimous consensus (of editors participating in Talk) earlier this year, the "short version" was adopted to eliminate the endless, tedious, minute-by-ad-nauseum-minute revert war (interspersed with intermittant lurching heart-attack brick-wall stops in the form of Protected blocks) that otherwise plagues every other steekin' slightly famous bozo who ever once dared dream in REM-sleep something even the most obliquely critical of Islam.--Mike18xx 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I glanced through archives, and I didn't see much attempt at cooperation between contributors along the lines I suggest. So any "consensus" to do nothing doesn't really apply, because I'm proposing a new idea: that we summarize Spencer's views, along with rebuttals from other prominent sources.

Do more than "glance" at the (Talk) archives; read them thoroughly (beginning last January) and then also match them with editing archives of the main entry. Nooo--wwooah, I donnah think we wanna be fighting again over whether CAIR is a credible source (given the trouble it has keeping its directors out of prison).--Mike18xx 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Removal of sourced material is not "vandalism;" it has been previously agreed that the article is to be simply factual. Feel free to edit Mark Levine's page to include the all important topic of what he thinks of Spencer, and don't forget to include that Levine is responding to Spencer's critique of him. The discussion on this article concluded that Spencer's page will NOT summarize Spencer's views NOR those of his critics. AnneCr 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a controversy section doesn't make the article unfactual. I found the link from Mark Levine somewhere from this talk page. Feel free to edit the Mark Levine's remark, but don't remove it. --Reza1 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


It has been previously aggreed that a conroversy section is simply an opportunity to spin a controversial subject. Note that you now have about 50% of the article as "controversy" but controversy itself is 100% Anti-spencer. These are simply unsupported assertions. Why is this collection of others' opinions worth reproducing? There are no sources from those supporting his work, nor from Spencer himself. And if you do try to add those things, the article will once again become a bloated catchall. The criticisms you have cited are not trenchant, important, nor supported. It boils down to saying "Some people disagree with Spencer." That can be covered in one word, "controversial" The consensus was that the article should be just the bare the facts and as short as possible. Not everything factual is relevant nor is it important.

1. I added the neutrality tag to the conroversy section as you pointed out that "controversy itself is 100% Anti-spencer". Feel free to add material in defense of Spencer but please from academic scholars or notable people. But please don't remove other people's work. You wanted to add something from Mark Levine I guess.
2. Articles on Edward Said, Bernard Lewis do have a controversy section. Spencer is clearly controversial, isn't he? So, in fairness, we should have this section.
3. RE: "And if you do try to add those things, the article will once again become a bloated catchall. The criticisms you have cited are not trenchant, important, nor supported. It boils down to saying "Some people disagree with Spencer." That can be covered in one word, "controversial""
Feel free to add them as long as they satisfy WP:RS. If the section gets too long, we can have a separate article on this and have a summary of that here. Wikipedia is no place for propaganda for any side.
And you speak of consensus over and over again. Where is consensus? I can not see many people editing this article. --Reza1 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see 2.12 above - "just the facts." Then scroll up four sections (marked by horizontal separators) to where it reads "In fact I have trunctated..." This is the point of origin for the consensus reached by AnneCr, Mike18xx and Yalto.
I am also in support of this consensus version and agree wholeheartedly that any attempt to discuss criticism or controversy (like the anti-Spencer material I just reverted again) can never be resolved in the space of a Wikipedia entry precisely because it is controversial.
Thus, if there must be an entry, it should focus on who RS is, what he does, bibliography, and access to his websites (and a couple interviews), where one can draw his/her own conclusions. Dy-no-miite 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope! This is how you would like it to be. --Reza1 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not an argument. Nor are the opinions that ou wish to include in the article. That someone has an opinion is not a notable relevant fact.

Okay, now I see further things creeping in: you should check the discussion before posting. The Christian Islamic forum is defunct. It is only listed in older bios, not current one. To say that some bios still claim RS is a board member is as ludicrous as using a 1994 article to say of Bill Clinton, "He was (and some bios claim he still is) president of the US." AnneCr 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on this article concluded that Spencer's page will NOT summarize Spencer's views NOR those of his critics. He is a columnist. Some people disagree with him. That is not in and of itslef notable.

Reza, just because you want something in does not mean it will stay in.It is not vandalism to edit out matter that I consider irrelevant and unhelpful. I and the others who have objected to your changes have worked on this article for a long time. As Wiki says below, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."AnneCr 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any argument from you guys. Articles on Edward Said, Bernard Lewis do have a controversy section. So whatever argument you have could be applied there as well. The section has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue. You just oppose because you don't like it. --Reza1 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop inserting this material, this article needs to conform to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. The controversy section, based on a quick look at the sources does not.EricR 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Prof. Carl Ernst is an scholar of Islam and an orientalist. He is a reliable source for wikipedia. --Reza1 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how you state that Ernst is a scholar but not Robert Spencer , are we to conclude that in your mind a scholar is only someone that reinforces your own POV?--CltFn 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed interesting. Ernst is professor of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Spencer doesn't even publish his books in famous presses. He just has a master degree and doesn't hold any academic position. They are not even comparable. --Reza1 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Use the discussion page not the edit page to sort this out. I said "relevant" not reliable.

You also use the discussion page not the edit page to sort this out. --Reza1 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The article as you have it is not remotely balanced. It is just a long attack on Spencer, full of unsubstantiated assertions (why not give an example of his misquoting the Koran, if you can find one?) and sly insinuations (dragging up the defunct Christian Islamic Forum, saying it was designed to convert Muslims when it wasn't, and suggesting that he "may still be" part of it, as if it is some sort of secret society.) Your own lack of balance is shown by your quoting Carl Ernst's similarly substanceless assertions based on Spencer's publishers rather than his work itself. And "no famous presses"? Three of Spencer's six books are from Regnery, which has published dozens of bestsellers.

Spencer's work has been praised by Bat Ye'or, Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq, Habib Malik, Walid Phares, and others. Why does this praise have no place here? Is Wikipedia only a place for you to snipe at people you don't like?

Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq,... common. These people are not scholars themselves. Re:"why not give an example of his misquoting the Koran, if you can find one?" -> this would be an original research. I am quoting an academic scholar and that is what wikipedia is supposed to do.
Regnery Publishing press?? University presses are usually reliable. --Reza1 20:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong; most of them are scholars. Daniel Pipes has a PhD in Islamic history. Dr. Habib Malik is a professor at Lebanese American University. He has a Ph.D. in modern European intellectual history and is the author of many articles and chapters of books on Arab Christians, Lebanon, human rights and political pluralism, inter-religious dialogue, and political Islam. Dr. Walid Phares has a Ph.D. in International Relations and Strategic Studies and is the author of al Taadudiya fi Lubnan and Future Jihad. Bat Ye'or is the pioneering scholar of Islam and dhimmitude. Ibn Warraq has done important work on the origins of the Koran. The problem is not their scholarly credentials; the problem is that they represent a point of view you don't like. And as for Regnery, funny how your criticism that Spencer doesn't publish with "famous presses" has now morphed into a complaint that he doesn't publish from "university presses," which are only more reliable to you because they more faithfully reflect your biases.

I'm not asking you, Reza, to do any original research. But if you insist on quoting these critics, the quotations should be more than mere unsubstantiated charges, which amount to nothing more than "I disagree with Spencer" plus a bit of mudslinging, and they should be balanced by quotations from scholars such as those I have listed who have praised Spencer's scholarship.

However, the earlier consensus was that the most accurate article would simply give the facts and not attempt to summarize either Spencer's point of view or that of his critics. Otherwise it simply becomes a partisan free-for-all, a la Ann Coulter or Michael Moore. --Anne Cr

I would have to agree with Reza here. BhaiSaab talk 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

The idea of a controversy section is valid for a Wikipedia article. Most articles on controversial subjects do have such sections, although often under a different heading name than "Controversy." The trouble here is that this one gives undue weight. That type of section should begin with an introductory paragraph that sets out the issues in a neutral manner. This one begins by citing some scathing criticism, presenting the author's defense only lower in the section and no other defense but his own. The quotes selected for him also fall somewhat off the mark of the criticisms: rather than defending the quality of his scholarship or his understanding of Islam, he defends his politics. Has he never made direct reply to these points? If Robert Spencer has no notable supporter then the text should say so, yet I suspect that somewhere in a source that meets WP:V one of his books gained at least one favorable review. Despite these shortcomings, the sources do appear to be adequately authoritative and referenced - so the way to correct the imbalance is not to delete the section but to introduce it better, cite additional sources, and balance the material. Durova 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)\ That approach has been tried in the past. The question is not are the sources referenced but, "Are they relevant?" The answer is clearly no. There is no point in telling the reader in effect, "Some people like this guy and some people hate him." That is silly and gives no additional information to the reader. You could summarize for the lazy reader by saying supporters include Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye'or and Orianna Fallaci; critics include CAIR, Khaleel Mohammed, Carl Ernst, and Louay M. Safi. Doing so signals to people which general approach Spencer takes. (Critics do include CAIR but references to CAIR were deleted by the anti-Spencer critics early on because they considered CAIR a tainted critic. This is all above and discussed at great length.)AnneCr 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ: the putative irrelevance is not at all clear to me. Nor would I summarize the issues in so simplistic a manner. The accusations assert that this man's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks any genuine understanding. This is damning criticism. Perhaps Spencer dismisses it as irrelevant, but it would be irresponsible POV to accept his dismissal uncritically. Yes, I would like to know who lines up behind him, and specifically what they say in his defense. Editors on both sides should exercise editorial restraint to keep this a reasonable length in proportion to the rest of the article. Yet I stand by my earlier comment even more firmly than before after seeing the tone of the response it received: the way to correct the imbalance is not to delete the section but to introduce it better, cite additional sources, and balance the material. Durova 07:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your point that a controversy or criticism section would be appropriate, but don't agree that all the sources are adequately authoritative. The UNC web page cannot be reliably attributed to Ernst; if Prof. Ernst authored this criticism he did not bother to place his name on that page.
The Khaleel Mohammed quotations, while they look to be correctly attributed, are so derogatory their inclusion in the biography of a living person should discussed and handled carefully.EricR 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree: individual entries need to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:V. I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of the specific ones that have been used. Durova 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked Prof. Ernst to sign the page and he kindly accepted my request. The page is now signed and further information is also provided. --Reza1 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, re The Khaleel Mohammed's quotations: I have a question: How is it that wikipedia may censor a quote on Spencer arguing that it is derogatory but at the same time doesn't censor derogatory comments on Muhammad who is alive in the hearts of 1.4 billion people? Spencer chooses titles like:"The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" for his books. Is it really fair? --Reza1 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Policy. Any removal of sourced material from critics is a violation of this policy. As I said long back ago, I added the neutrality tag to the conroversy section as other editors have pointed out that "controversy itself is 100% Anti-spencer". They are encouraged to add material in defense of Spencer from academic scholars or notable people. --Reza1 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Relevant policy": I'll say what I said on my talk page: the Critics/Opponents/Detractors page states:
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics"
The neutrality tag is not enough. There are "weasel words," and the use of this tag in this way makes it a "weasel tag." The message it sends is "here's a mountain of bad stuff about this guy, but some people (weasel word there: could be 3, could be 3000) think otherwise." Dy-no-miite 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier and Durova re-stated: the way to correct the imbalance is not to delete the section but to introduce it better, cite additional sources, and balance the material. I, myself, added the POV tag to signal un-neutrality to the user. --Reza1 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted several famous academic scholars. Prof. Norman Stillman kindly replied back to me that: "I have not read any of Mr. Spencer's works and, therefore, am unable to make any fair judgments. Since he does not publish with academic presses and the titles do sound rather polemical, I have never felt a need to examine them." Does any of you guys know any academic scholar, except those already mentioned, who may have examined Spencer's works? Thanks --Reza1 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I proved to you above that Habib Malik, Walid Phares, and others are "academic scholars." Their positive appraisals of Spencer's work should go up in any ssction claiming to appraise his work on a scholarly basis. --AnneCr

Please start the articles on Habib Malik and others. --Reza1 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All sources should be dicsussed one by one in detail here. Please provide the references. Meanwhile, we can discuss them.

Your comment: 1. He has degree in International Law an International Affairs 2. He is the author of al Taadudiya fi Lubnan and Future Jihad.
My comment: He is a politician. He is NOT an academic scholar of Islam. He has studied International Law an International Affairs. So, his comments on reliability of Spencer books are not relevant since he is no scholar of Islam. --Reza1 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment: Daniel Pipes has a PhD in Islamic history.
I have no objection. --Reza1 04:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment: "He is a professor at Lebanese American University. He has a Ph.D. in modern European intellectual history and is the author of many articles and chapters of books on Arab Christians, Lebanon, human rights and political pluralism, inter-religious dialogue, and political Islam."
Please start this article and source this information for now. Thanks --Reza1 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment: "is the pioneering scholar of Islam and dhimmitude."
Although the works of Bat Ye'or herself are controversial, but academic scholars do sometimes cite her. no objection.--Reza1 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment: "he has done important work on the origins of the Koran."

A controvery section is certainly a valid section. More important, though, is that critical material not be removed. If it can be incorporated in another logical and neutral way no such section is necessary. Reviews could be divieded into praise and criticism, etc. These are all editorial choices. Straight up removal of sourced material is not. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Balance

I have tried my best to keep the balance. For example:

1.

0.5 sentence: "Daniel Pipes[citation needed], Bat Ye'or[3], Ibn Warraq[citation needed] are among those who have a positive view of Spencer's works "

0.5 sentence: "while Carl Ernst[4], Khaleel Mohammed[5], Mark LeVine [6] and CAIR [citation needed] for example hold a negative view of his works."

2.

"Bat Ye'or states that Spencer has provided a well documented work on jihad, the religious sources and motivations of jihadist terror [7] and many of the calls issued by Muslims for a general jihad [8]. Spencer "has examined the modern, global, jihadist culture in Muslim countries and in Europe - and its violent manifestations", Bat Ye'or states [9]"

versus "Louay M. Safi and Khaleel Mohammed however assert that Spencer's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks genuine understanding.[10] [11] [12]"

Still a sentence could be added to the criticism part here.

3.

Carl Ernst's comment and the reply are almost of the same size.

The whole section has the same as the criticism section for Edward Said's article. So, it is not very long. --Reza1 09:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The section seems fairly balanced. Thank you, Reza --Aminz 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

The Criticism section looks much better than it did a few days ago. I do have one suggestion: the one sentence introduction conveys information only to people who are already familiar with several names in this field. While I doubt the section should expand much beyond its present size, try adding a sentence of two to that opening paragraph along the lines of Robert Spencer for Dummies. Best wishes, Durova 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to compress all criticisms into an strictly smaller space than the defenses and responses. criticism = 9 lines. Defenses or Responses ~ 12 lines. i.e. the ratio is around 3 to 4. I have been honestly tried my best to abide by wiki policies. Please let that 9 lines remain there in the article. Also, please someone contact Daniel Pipes and Ibn Warraq for their positive comments on Spencer. I have done my homework here.
Durova, I understand your point but I am afraid of getting into edit war again on how we want to explain who these people are. I've got blocked once because of 3rr and that's enough for me. Best wishes, --Reza1 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand the desire to avoid an edit war. Perhaps another editor could supply a one or two sentence summary for the introductory paragraph. It isn't necessary to explain who these people are (that's what Wikilinks are for), but I would want to see a brief summary for the substance of their objections and defenses. This might seem like an obvious iteration to editors who already know the personalities and terms of debate, but it is far from obvious to a reader who lacks that background. Durova 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for a "criticism" section to beging with, seeing as Spencer isn't a politician with any enforced policies warranting such treatment in a short encyclopedia article. I've seen it before: All it's going to do is devolve into a "sounding board" for smears by critics of dubious merit dredged out of the grungy cellers of Google archives. CAIR, for instance: Why are they credible enough for citation, given a number of its directors are in jail? ....It'll be just like it was before last January.--Mike18xx 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy [10]. Also please note that Carl Ernst and Khaleel Muhammed are academic scholars. CAIR is only one of the critics. --Reza1 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't "relevant" (regardless of how Wiki defines the arbitrary) -- I questioned their credibility (i.e., "dubious merit"). And, given that Ward Churchill remains an "academic scholar" (just one notable among an increasingly lengthy list of outright mountebanks ensconced in the credentialed diploma-mills), merely being employed by a university should no longer be an adequate litmus test for credibility. An article whose criticism of its subject consists of "sound-bite" quotations from uncredible sources (and refrains from providing the reasons for their incredibility) is performing a disservice; and hardly represents "improvement" upon prior versions of the article.--Mike18xx 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike, Being employed by a university establishes that the person has reasonable knowledge in a particular field. Now, you may say people's personality override such considerations. Well, you first need to work on a policy for it at WP:RS; then "establish" your claim (using WP:RS again) that actually these critics here fall into this category. --Reza1 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Your first sentence is an archtypical logical fallacy (one shown to be obviously in error via the Churchill reference above), and the remaining ones suggest an evasion of one's duties as an editor of an encyclopedia pursuing the truth. Merely shopping for pundits invested with regalia by third-parties is not a substitute for an editor knowing his subject.--Mike18xx 04:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No, if what Churchill has talked about something which is related to his area of expertise, then it is his POV and wikipeida should reflect it. Secondly, according to the wiki policy, No original research should be done. If you can back up your view using academic reliable sources, I'll buy it. --Reza1 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(Hahahaha) You don't understand, do you? Ward Churchall HAS NO "area of expertise" because he is a FRAUD. Thus, my point.--Mike18xx 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it and don't find this discussion constructive. --Reza1 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What's not to "get"? Ward Churchill is a notorious fraud -- and yet he remains a college professor (i.e., "academic scholar"), and therefore a splendid example for exploding the appeal-to-authority logical-fallacy contained in the statement "being employed by a university establishes that the person has reasonable knowledge in a particular field." Meaning, once again, that it is the duty on an encyclopedia contributor to know his subjects, not fob that responsibility off upon whatever source he's choosing to advance his POV in an article.--Mike18xx 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Consult with an admin or WP:RS talk page about Carl Ernst. If you have an objective and reasonable method of distinguishing between what you call reliable academic scholars and unreliable academic sources, they will be more than happy to hear you. Then please come back with a written policy so that we could go along. Thanks. --Reza1 01:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please...we're not talking rocket-surgery here. A quite simple "objective and reasonable method of distinguishing between reliable academic scholars and unreliable academic sources" that any rational person (let alone the "Royal 'We'" you enjoy employing) is capable of undertaking is placing those who tell lies into the "unreliable" category. E.g., Ward Churchill is a liar, CAIR tells lies, etc. Next come those with a record of erroneous statements. I needn't write any policies for you, however, since it already exists/ Your clue is the first clause of #2.--Mike18xx 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And how can one, objectively, know that someone is a liar? Can you prove Spencer and Daneil Pipes and Bat Ye'or are not liar but Ernst is. --Reza1 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If your argumentative premise is that truth is objectively unknowable, then I submit to you that you have no business attempting to edit an encyclopedia. Asking me to prove that Spencer and Pipes aren't liars is also, needless to say, a negative proof logical fallacy.--Mike18xx 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

It's disappointing to see this discussion return to the question of whether a criticism section is appropriate at all. Criticism is an appropriate topic for any Wikipedia article. The editors' goal should be to ensure that it remains balanced and well cited. This topic might get vandal and/or POV attacks is not a valid basis for questioning a section's existence. Durova 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I see an argument based upon the false premise that the article was "unbalanced" *prior* to having a criticism section, and have yet to see anyone make a credible case for it.--Mike18xx 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. My comment about balance refers to the responsibility of editors to maintain NPOV balance within a section, not to some hypothetical condition of the article were the section to be deleted. As another editor already cited on 24 August, Wikipedia policy makes this section necessary: WP:BLP#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors. Since this appears to remain unclear to some editors at this page despite two weeks of feedback from various Wikipedians and repeated follow-ups, I recommend formal mediation. Durova 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If an article is balanced prior to inclusion of a criticism section, then it arguably does not need one. If credible critics cannot be found, then their inclusion represents the dilution of accuracy with equal measures of innaccuracy, and they should not be linked.--Mike18xx 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And what is the way one can establish that some critic is credible? Is Bat Ye'or credible? Is Daniel Pipes credible? Is Spencer himself credible? Is Carl Ernst credible? What are the evaluation criteria? --Reza1 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered this question in the section above this one.--Mike18xx 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed the discussion here. But I think Mike18xx is a little bit "too" conservative [11],[12]. --Aminz 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're trolling.--Mike18xx 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that :P --Aminz 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one "critic" Mark Levine as all he is doing is replying to Spencer's criticism. It would be more accurate to include Spencer's article on Levine in a criticism section for Levine- if there were one on Levine's article which oddly enough there isn't.AnneCr 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


An error crept into the bio section. UNC does not offer a Religious Studies MA [13] in the field of early Christian studies. I do not think they did in the past. I cannot find any citation for changing Spencer's degree.

I think it is important to note that Ernst is objecting to having Spencer as a guest speaker at UNC. The other side did not issue a manifesto about why it was ok to invite Spencer, but their actions speak for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneCr (talk • contribs)

Clean up

The article needs a clean up due to recent edits. --Aminz 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AnneCr, would you please explain your revert. The article as it stands now, is not readable and there is no balance between criticisms and Responses. --Aminz 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV. Suggest trimming some of the book reviews and adding line citations. Durova 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV. I am fine with trimming some of the book reviews and adding line citations as long as it is short, right to the point, readable and doesn't give undue weight to defense of Spencer. The criticisms appear at the very end of the section now. Furthermore, all the reviews are unsourced.--Aminz 06:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm not expert on Robert Spencer I can't comment on the shape of debate about him - whether his supporters or detractors dominate or whether both sides are balanced. If the editors here agree that there's basic parity, then one solution could be to agree upon how many lines or what percentage of the article the section merits, then divide the space between partisans and each present the best space-conscious material. Durova 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You continue to try to make this into an attack piece. Please specify where in Wikipedia's rules it says that bios must be balanced exactly, by number of lines, between criticism and praise. Please explain why this is not the case in the Wikipedia biographies of John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Mark LeVine, and others. I don't have a problem with criticism as such, but the criticism you keep adducing is vague, non-specific, defamatory (in the case of Khaleel Mohammed's unsubstantiated charges) and clearly ideologically motivated. And the contention that these are neutral observations because these are university professors is simply laughable after the exposure of Ward Churchill and so many other professors. -Anne Crockett

Anne, you were simply pushing the criticisms under the carpet.

Hey, how can you say that? "Assume good faith and be respectful. This is a policy." AnneCr 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You had inserted a long list of reviews before all negative views. No reader would read all these and they'll never get to the end of the section to see the criticism. I suggest you summarize the book reviews in a couple of sentences and add them to the article. The article already gives more stress to apologists. Anne, if Spencer criticizes Islam and expects Muslims to be open to criticisms, then I guess he should be also open to the freedom of speech when it comes to himself, Shouldn't he? --Aminz 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Do you realize that this is a silly question? All of Spencer's critics are free to publish in whatever format they choose. They can speak, print or blog. You are saying that there should be no truth test in an encyclopedia article, because it violates free speech. Wikipedia is not a blog.AnneCr 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? Then it would be "objective". Or do you only confine yourself to one side of the issue?AnneCr 13:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Because I simply don't have time. I will when I got free. --Aminz 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against legitimate criticism. Innuendo and unsubstantiated charges like Ernst's are not actually criticism. They are just ideologically motivated propaganda. And I notice you didn't answer my question about Wikipedia policy re balance, or about the Armstrong, Esposito, Levine bios. Your own ideological agenda is obvious. -- AnneCR

1."Legitimate criticism" is defined in wikipedia as a criticism that comes from a reliable source. Ernst is a reliable source in wikipedia whether you like it or not. Whatever he has said is quoted on his own authority. Wikipedia doesn't take any positions. 2. Have a look at WP:NPOV specially the undue weight part. 3. Assume good faith and be respectful. This is a policy.--Aminz 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I say Ernst is NOT a reliable source. Why do you think he is? All Ernst has said simply amounts to the fact that he is ideologically opposed to Spencer. That is not a criticism; that is an opinion.AnneCr 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I think they appropriate place for opinion and commentary is not an encyclopedia article. I argued against reopening this section. But you have missed the main question, so let's go back to it: 1. Innuendo and unsubstantiated charges like Ernst's are not actually criticism. They are just ideologically motivated propaganda. Why does it belong here? 2. And I notice you didn't answer my question about Wikipedia policy re balance, or about the Armstrong, Esposito, Levine bios. Can you address those points?

Spencer is not an academic.AnneCr 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)