Talk:Robert Spencer/respect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Respect Discussion

Respect has nothing to do with what is going on here on your part. You think only Spencer cares about the accuracy of information about people involved in the anti-jihad resistance?


Yes, Respect does have a lot to do with what is going on here. We need to have a civil discussion on these topics, not wild accusations. And not personally directed remarks such as "what is going on here on your part". Regarding the second sentence, I am not sure I understand - could you rephrase your question?Yalto 07 Dec 2005


  • Re: "You think only Spencer cares about the accuracy of information about people involved in the anti-jihad resistance?", what the writer may have been referring to is fact that the IP address used by the poster is registered as "spenwork.jihadwatch.org". It is, however, uncalled for to accuse the person at this IP address of misrepresenting themselves - I am sure JihadWatch has several people associated with it, and there is no evidence of misrepresentation. I think everyone needs to take a bit of a break and calm down a little.
  • Nope. I am not Robert Spencer, just a Jihad Watch volunteer, and have no interest in or respect for Wikipedia anymore than I have respect for restroom wall graffiti. Any one can and does edit both.

Still I see no reason to let half-truths stand, nor the previously deleted anti-Semitic tripe. Anne Crockett24.63.54.248 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Anne, please create an account. It will make it easier to respond and get a feel for your contributions. I am glad you are here. lets work on making this a good page. --Chalko 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. This is in no sense even close to a neutral representation of Spencer's views, and any neutral observer can see that. This is a series of quotes designed to show him in the worst possible light, while those that mitigate what is quoted here have been repeatedly removed. It is interesting also that the Wikipedia entries for far more famous people, like Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan, are much more genuinely neutral, and are not full of unbalanced scare quotes designed to discredit them. Why is Spencer different? I know why, myself. But I will make no further attempts to redress this travesty here. Anne24.63.54.248
  • Anne Help us make it better. Let me say that I am a Specer supporter. I think many will people can judge spencer by his enemies. But lets work on it. Go slow. Create an account, and then lets go through the misquotes on at a time. For example the Hugh quotes I think are take up to much space on a page about Spencer. Let work through that. However just as a person is defined by his enemies so he is defined by those he chooses to associate with. Of course you dont need an account to contribute, it just makes it easier for (at least me) to follow the conversions. --Chalko 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anne - I don't consider myself to be either a supporter or enemy of Spencer or his works. I had never heard of him until I stumbled upon his wikipedia entry, and I have educated myself by reading his site and the links in this article. So I believe I am a somewhat neutral observer, as much as anyone can be a neutral observer (although honestly, I am becoming less neutral the more I learn about him). I don't believe it is productive to attack the motives or positions of people contributing to this entry, to call them apologists or accuse them of Anti-Semitism. I am not sure why the thesis section is not an adequate enough space for anyone who has read Spencer's works to help convey them to readers. That could very well include any rebuttals of his "enemies" - by stating his POV on the motives of certain groups as part of his thesis, for example. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Furthermore, frankly, I think if you found a group, and direct a group, you are associated with the views of that group, like it or not. If Spencer doesn't want to be associated with the views of Hugh Fitzgerald, he shouldn't have placed him on the JihadWatch board and he shouldn't use his name to post Hugh's articles. Both are pretty strong endorsements in my opinion, and so belong here. And given that Spencer has posted articles calling, for example, for the forced expulsion of Muslims from the US (even citizens) and a curtailment of Muslim-American's civil rights, I think it is important. I completely agree that Hugh wrote those articles, but he did so as an officer of Spencer's organization, and Spencer himself posted the articles. Leaving them out would be more misleading. --Yalto 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My probplem with the Hugh pargraphs is takes up about 1/6 of the total article. I think it needs to be summerized and linked either under a JihadWatch article or under Hugh Fitzgerald. --Chalko 17:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yalto, with respect, you are spinning this discussion. You removed Spencers responses to the CAIR and ADC charges. You removed Spencer's disclaimer of any religious agenda, which is more recent than his association with the (defunct, although that is not allowed to be said here) Christian Islamic Forum. You assume that an association with Hugh Fitzgerald constitutes a blanket endorsement of everything Hugh has said, even though your construals of Hugh's words contradict explicit statements Spencer has made (see his bio). Hugh, for example, has writeen he is an atheist, therefore is Spencer also an atheist? The anti-semitism I referred to is from an earlier entry. That is what got me more actively involved in this discussion. "Critics have snubbed Spencer for his confused character which they say,is mirrored in his writings.He is considered psychologically impotent to be a scholar and his writings are mainly based on internet browsing.Most Arab and Western media personaal are even ignorant of his presence as a biased orientalist.The most common accusations he has to face are his zionist cause.His Jewish background is cited the main reason for his ant-islamic thesis.He is originally of Sephardic Jewish background.Publications in major US dailies of his works is mocked by critics as they are alreaddy know n to be Zionist tools.Furthermore neutral Political Scientists throughout the Western world consider his articles as ludicrous and laughable.His Jewish looks are evident of his cover as a catholic as to propagate and incite hatred towards Muslims." [1] Of course, the recent articles about Wikipedia in the news have made this all a moot point. As long as no one takes this article seriously, it is no problem. Anne24.63.54.248

Speaking of neutrality, what kind of nonsense is this quotation in the talk page (see above in this talk page), "His religious affiliation is Roman Catholic. But his handlers don't want anyone talking about it ..." Who are these mysterious handlers? What evidence is there that they exist?24.63.54.248Anne


Anne - A couple of points:

  • 1) I have nothing to do with the Christian-Islamic quote. I don't believe I made any changes on that, except possibly grammar. If you believe it is inaccurate, please feel free to change it to "was". Others may edit it, but I won't. Spencer's books with Daniel Ali are still actively in print, though, so I personally think the quote there (from 2003) should remain.
  • 2) I do not assume that everything that Hugh says Spencer agrees with. I don't believe that they have cloned views, so if one is an atheist, clearly the other doesn't. However, I do think that if Spencer posts Hugh's articles and effectively says to his readers "Read this", that he has effectively endorsed them and they should be included. That is how, in my opinion, most people read blogs. If he says "Hugh is crazy, but read this anyway", fine. But he normally says "See what JihadWatch VP Hugh says about this". That to me is an endorsement by JihadWatch, which Spencer directs, and Spencer himself. Note, this means that I don't believe that what Hugh says in the Comments section of JihadWatch represent Spencer's views. Or things that Hugh says in other publications. If someone tried to post those, I would be very supportive of removing it. However, again, I think if Spencer posts it with an intro paragraph, which I believe is the case with each of these, that they are relevant.
  • 3) I agree that the Anti-Semitic statements made on the talk page are uncalled for and unsupported. I am not an expert on Wikipedia; I started contributing only recently; but my understanding is that the Talk page is for discussions like these amongst contributors. Unfortunately, because of the open nature of Wikipedia, you do get all sorts, including people who make uncalled for, and frankly repugnant statements like this. Hopefully, this stuff, including the Catholic/handlers comment, doesn't make it on to the main Article which most people read. And it is up to us, the broader community of contributors, to correct the situation if it ever does.
  • 4) I really hope that you will begin to believe in Wikipedia. It is not perfect, but for the most part, people are well meaning here. Including me. Because I disagree with you on some elements of this page does not mean that people shouldn't take Wikipedia seriously. You will have issues with any open system. Please continue to help make it better, rather than just dismissing it as something "nobody takes seriously". We're not all hatchet men/women on either side of this conflict. Look at my history and you'll see that I have contributed to articles on people like George Marshall and George Washington as well. I want to make this experiment work - I hope that you will see that even this discussion, and the rantings you mention (not so different, btw, from the ranting of people like "Sheik Yer'mami" on JihadWatch), help to make this a better community. -- --Yalto 04:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the ITS quote, I have created a new section called Threats that describes the incident, acknowledges the dispute about whether it happened, and provides links to the quotes so that others can decide for themselves. Personally, I would like to know if there is any evidence that "give painful torment" was a call to violence against Spencer, or rather was a Pat Robertson-like "send him to hell" statement. Anyone know of a discussion of that? -- --Yalto 04:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Anne - One more thing: I looked at the Christian-Islamic Forum issue with an eye to changing it, but following the link, it appears that Spencer DOES still list it in his current bio on the Regenry web site. Given that they are publishing his current bestselling book (politically incorrect guide), I think that is actually a good source. http://www.regnery.com/authors/bio_spencer.html. So I actually don't believe it should be changed, unless he has issued an explicit denial of this relationship in a verifiable source. --Yalto 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yalto: I still think it is wrong to have more quotes from Hugh than from Spencer himself. This is a bio of Spencer, not Fitzgerald. Even Hugh's quotes are wrenched from context and misleading. Nor can you assume that everything Hugh says Spencer believes; I still don't think that is legitimate. And the ones featured here from Spencer himself are obviously chosen to portray him negatively.

You are also wrong about the biography at Regnery. The current one you can find on this page: http://www.regnery.com/authorsS.html. It reads this way: "Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Islam (and the Crusades), is the director of Jihad Watch and an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. He is the author of four books on Islam, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery), as well as eight monographs and hundreds of articles. He lives in a Secure, Undisclosed Location.."

Note that there is no mention of the Christian Islamic Forum, and that the bio to which you linked that mentions it features a picture not of his new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide, but of Onward Muslim Soldiers, which came out in 2003.

This is the kind of prosecutorial carelessness that has soured me on Wikipedia. But at least you didn't accuse him of killing Kennedy! [2]

In general, this article is not so much untrue, as unbalanced. As a former English teacher and former editor, I say that it is just a mess. This man has written 5 books and hundreds of articles on Islam and terrorism. He has sold thousands of books. Two were bestsellers. But here all you read is: • vague oversimplifications of his views (with few quotes, and those are misleading) • guilt-by-association quotes from someone else • the twice-repeated irrelevancy that his MA thesis was not about Islam (which he says in his bio anyway, so it isn't as if you have uncovered some deep dark secret) • insinuations without any basis in fact (the charge that he doesn't know Arabic is unsupported) • the claim that he uses inaccurate translations (I have read two of his books and he uses translations made by Muslims) • claims he flatly denies in his bio (the claim that he has a religious agenda, which he denies explicitly in his bio, but this was removed when I posted it) • the despicable suggestion that he fabricated the ITS quote and even the video of their flag burning • ten-year-old articles from small-circulation Catholic journals that have absolutely nothing to do with what he is doing now (yet you removed the dates of these articles when I added them, to put the quotes into context).

And I think it is particularly wrong that you removed his replies to the false charges from CAIR and the ADC, and include not his own mission statement for Jihad Watch, but scare quotes from Hugh and third-party characterizations. There were even long quotes here from Daniel Ali for awhile. Anybody, it seems, except Spencer himself. All in all, this bio is simply a mess. It is like writing a biography of Woody Allen that focuses on his career as a clarinet player for two-thirds of the article, and spends the rest quoting what his ex-wives say about him. -- Anne


  • Good to see your stil here. Lets work on these one at a time.
    • I agree the thesis needs some work and should represent Spencer articulation of his strong points.
    • It would also be good to link to rebutals of the criticism, perhaps with a brief explination, With out disolving into a degate.
    • Is there a good example of Criticism rebutal format ?
    • The words are important here but it is a hard battle becuase people will fight over the difference between Islamic Terror and Islamist Terror. Just keep on it one at a time.
    • I concur that much of the article is random rants of things that are not what make him "famos"
    • Jihad watch and commentators need to be discussed. However I think most of the Fitzgerald quotes should be moved. (split the page)
    • --Chalko 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Ok, I think we're all getting somewhere.
    • I agree Thesis needs some work, preferably from someone who has read Spencer's works (I have not). I don't believe it should represent only his strong points, but anything that gives the complete picture. I think that has to include his anti-Jihad views, but it also has to include his frequent statements (in the last 5 years) about his comparisons between Islam and Christianty, such as those listed here.
    • I have looked at a good several dozen sites, and have not found a single example of "rebuttal" (not to say there aren't any, I just can't find them). Rebuttals just open a can of worms - we should then, technically, let Spencer's critics rebut his rebuttals, right? And so on. The Thesis section should be made stronger, and shoudl include enough material to state where Spencer stands against his critics. I agree with Chalko that this can include links to rebuttals. I do not believe links to rebuttals should be in the criticism section, as that inherently biases the section. We don't allow rebuttals in the thesis section.
    • I strongly disagree that this article is a bunch of "rants", and I don't think it gets anywhere to suggest that. Everything on here is well sourced, from articles that Spencer has written or posted, or from articles about him. Just because it is not the spin Spencer puts on his works does not mean that it is in any way inaccurate. He should not be allowed to decide which of his POVs are "valid" and which are "old" or otherwise not relevant.
      • Similarly, I don't think this page should only explain why he is famous. He is famous, so it should explain his views as well. All of his views - not just the ones that are most discussed. Hence, I believe his catholic-related writings are relevant.
    • I am not saying he made up the ITS quote. I am saying there is no verifiable source, and so it does not meet the standard of Wikipedia. I could say that Spencer threatened me, and then removed it from his website - should that be printed here also? I am sorry the guy was threatened, but I think it has to be recorded that he "alleges" he was threatened in the absence of a source.
    • Agree that JihadWatch needs to be discussed, as it is his primary daily occupation today, and the source of much of his notoriety. I disagree about Hugh - let me try to make my argument one more time:
      • JihadWatch has many contributors who post articles under their own by-lines. So Spencer clearly allows others to post items
      • Hugh is a regular responder to jihadWatch commentary, showing that he indeed has internet access
      • Despite the two points above, Robert Spencer is the person who posts Hugh's articles - not Hugh (who certainly could). So it is not guilt by association - it is very very different. Spencer uses Hugh as his "attack dog" and endorses his views by posting his articles. If he did not, why not just let Hugh post his own articles, like Spencer does with several other people?
      • Anything not posted by Spencer is NOT fair game. Do Hugh's (worse) comments on the jihadwatch site are not fair game, as their is no indication Spencer endorses them. You will note that I have personally removed some like this.
      • I think this point is critically important to presenting a valid, unbiased view of Spencer. I know Spencer's supporters probably will not agree, but nobody has yet explained by Spencer's posting/endorsement of these statements is not relevant, except that he didn't write them. If someone wrote"And Abdul X, great man and a friend, says that all non-Muslims are evil in this article; you shoudl read it" we would conclude that the person agreed with those statements. That is what Spencer does.
    • Regarding the dates, each article is presented via a link. Everyone can find out the dates. Very few other articles (actually none that I can find) date specific points. I would put the burden the other way around - unless there are statements that he does not agree with these, and he has withdrawn these from circulation (i.e., his books are no longer in print and he no longer makes money off of them), they remain valid. If Spencer writes on his blog "in the past I said XYZ, and I no longer believe that for these reasons", absolutely they should be removed. Similarly, if he withdraws "A guide for Catholics" from circulation or changes the endorsement of missionary works focusing on Muslims in a future edition, we can believe he is sincere. Otherwise, the public sources continue to support these positions. Note that this is the same burden placed on other people - if you read an article on any other author, all of their views are considered relevant. Spencer himself does not let people forget what they said 15-20 years ago unless they explicitly explain and disavow them. This is the same standard.--Yalto 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No one is suggesting that these are not Spencer's views, just that they are irrelevant. It is rather like writing about Babe Ruth and going into great detail about his Red Sox pitching career. Spencer is entitled to his views, but since they are commonplace views of the Catholic church, so what? Will you also eventually explain his views on transubstantion, too? Throwing in everything is bad writing. You have to ask, "Is this relevant?" For example, someone wrote, "Spencer considers the idea of an undivided Church of the first millenium to be a "naive myth." Whatever is the point of that? Since the historical record show conflict in the ealy church it makes about as much sense as saying that Spencer believes that the earth is round or that George Washington was the first president of the US. Only unusual thing make news. The entire section of his Christian beliefs can be summed up by saying, Spencer has written in support of such orthodox catholic positions as (blah blah blah, insert your links and examples here).

But what is the point of writing a book of sand?[3]Anne04:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

    • The chritsian beliefs sections seems to me like a "He is catholoic" so his view on Islam don't count.--Chalko 05:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. The dates points, Yalto, was a first attempt to explain why this is all unbalanced. Another way of putting it is this: someone at wikipeia commented "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."- showing obvious bias. His association with Free Congress for example gets less attention than this Islamic Christians forum thing from 2003 which quotes old second hand bios. "He was (and some bios claim he still is) a board member of the Christian-Islamic Forum" But those are simply 2003 bios. I mean, unless you believe in conspiracies, it would be enough that Spencers own current bio has deleted it and that there is no current info about the group. "was" is appropriate. A bio of Bill Clinton from 1998 would list him as President of the US. Wikipeida would therefore say, "He was (and some bios claim he still is) President of the US"! You cannot find a source or web site for this group, because it does not exist. For some reason this group has become somebody's hobby horse. The link in the article[4], about Daniel Ali's personal conversion, says, "Before Father Most died, in January of l999, he and I discussed forming a forum in which Christians and Muslims could dialogue." Wikipedia says, "a Catholic group dedicated to the conversion of Muslims to Christianity using interpretations of Islamic scripture rather than the Christian materials". In short, someone has substituted the personal views of Ali with the those of the group. Why? And why so much attention to a group that has no news, no info, no links, no nothing?Anne 24.63.54.248 13:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)