Jump to content

Talk:Karen Armstrong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

On scholars

"Still, some scholars have attacked her writings for having a bias against Christianity" This form is problematic, since it inevitably invites a judgement on her, based on what may be a small minority. Can anyone indicate what is the consensus among scholars?

Or, given that there is never a consensus among scholars, can anyone expand on who the critics were (if they were themselves fundamentalists, for example), and what other scholars might have said. —195.72.173.51 18:41, 28 July 2005

Non-NPOV sentence relating to academic credentials removed.


History re-defined as Her Story

The journey to seek knowledge is an honorable one as long as it is not clouded by a personal agenda to rewrite history or to commentate away the truth of the event. Sadly Karen Armstrong, in all her knowledge seems to have developed tunnel vision when it comes to the historical accuracy of events surrounding Israel or the Jew. As a result of this selective view of history she has managed to allow herself to used as a pawn in the struggle of mankind’s quest for truth, only she is on the wrong side of truth when it comes to the facts of historical truth or the purposeful omission of certain historical facts dealing with both the Jew and the half brother of Isaac of the Arab people. Other then this propensity to dance around events that might not line up with her preconceived ideologies she does present an adequate overview of the history in the middle east but keep in mind her background, which in my opinion, plays a subliminal part in her view of that history.

If asked the question, what is truth, Karen Armstrong might well find the proverbial question mark pop up over the top of her head and with the times we live today that’s not a recommended source of truth unless your reading a comic book.

Clyde West Heritage-Media.com

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponchowest (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And that, Ponchowest, as your unique contribution to this encyclopedia, is IMHO, a clear example of using an article talk page as a platform for your own opinion rather than than for any contributions to the improvement of the article.--Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is she a historian? Or a propagandist?

It is a shame that literary critics of Armstrong tend to be chosen among those who either agree with her, or can be trusted not to know anything about the subject. She is simply NOT a historian, but a story teller with a very glaring, grating, and partisan bias. For example, read "Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths" and look up the section about the siege of 1948. At one point, she states, without attribbution, "By March, 1948m 70 Jews and 230 Arabs had died." She provides no source at all. The actual number of Jewish dead, by March 1, was roughly 1500, as reported at the time by the Palestine Post. The sum of 70 dead was surpassed by two bombings, alone -- the Jewish Agency and Ben Yehuda Street. (Eventually 4,000 Jews died in the city, or along the roads leading to it.)

She also accepts the canard that the Hadassah convoy massacre of April 13 was carried out because it was carrying "Irgun terrorists who had been wounded at Deir Yassin" -- and fails to mention that the convoy was moving under a pre-arranged flag of truce.

Armstrong mentions neither attrocity, not even the dynamiting of the Jewish Quarter. They would contaminate her pro-Arab narrative. My personal opinion, speaking as a historian gathering material for a book of my own on that siege, is that she wrote that section of the book off the top of her head. 68.5.64.178 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncited criticism cut to Talk page for sourcing

I've cut the following here as in need of citation. Critics consider her covertly hostile to Jews and Jewish ties to the holy land in such books as Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. Who says this? Is there a reliable source that states that such a criticism is common or from a noteworthy source? Jkelly 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Historians?

Comment from the poster 68.5.64.178 insists that Karen Armstong is no historian, but then goes on to assert that they themself are a historian. Can we have some evidence please?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)

We don't normally ask for credentials from our contributors. Expertise can be demonstrated through having reliable sources at hand. Jkelly 14:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't her standing within the 'historian' community slightly irrelevant since she is a widely used text for many basic Islam college courses? I know that she may not be considered a 'true' Islamic scholar by the community, but she is probably one of the most popular and widely read authors for the non-Muslim community. --MrBleu 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminist

Is she really? Widsith 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gospel According to Woman---now out of print, I believe---is unquestionably a feminist book. It stands out as perhaps the least conciliatory, most aggrieved piece of writing she has yet produced. In The Spiral Staircase she backs off a bit from its vehemence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.170.202 (talk)

Yes, she is. Read the Publisher's Weekly summary here, "About the Author" here (those little bios are usually put out by the publisher, which would get the info from Armstrong herself, and just google. Someone has taken this out of the article, saying it was WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. I'm putting it back in and I hope other editors here will watch for further attempts to remove it. — coelacan talk — 07:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Counter-intuitive"?

I'm a little confused with this; what does we mean, exactly, when we describe her theory of fundamentalism as 'counter-intuitive'? Has it been described in that manner by commentators or reviewers?

If that's counter-intuitive, what's the 'intuitive' or 'default' theory? The Wikipedia article describes fundamentalism as a "fairly recent creation" -- if that's the case wouldn't fundamentalism be, intuitively, a 'modern' movement?

I'm not finding the words 'counter-intuitive' in the linked source under that section, by the way. Tagging it as citation needed for now; if we can't find the source then it might be best to get rid of it — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The intuitive theory would be that fundamentalism is "the way people used to think" and it opposes modernism because that's "the new way people think." Armstrong's theory is counterintuitive because it says that fundamentalism is more "modern" (recent) than modernism. Fundamentalism appeals to heritage, but (per Armstrong) it doesn't reflect the way pre-modern people thought any more than modernism does. I could see someone taking the term as POV and a slight and deleting it for that reason, but I wouldn't. Maybe the answer is to spell it out: Armstrong promotes the theory that fundamentalism, far from being "that old time religion," is actually a reaction to modernism, not a continuity with pre-modern religion. Summarizing the theory ahead of the quote would be a service to the reader and might make the label "counter-intuitive" unnecessary. Jonathan Tweet 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your solution's a better one than what we've got, actually; I'd be bold and take a stab at it now, except that I'm a lazy bastard at work and I don't have any of the necessary sources available right now. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The "counter-intuitive" is rather redundant - Armstrong's description of fundamentalism as a product of and reaction to modernism is quite mainstream. Indeed, you could argue that the section is rather non-notable! 84.92.241.186 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

A heading noting the significant criticism Armstrong has received is warranted. Most other polarizing figures on Wikipedia have similar subsections at least documenting the claims of their ideological rivals. Inoculatedcities 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Please discuss why this is being removed [1]. --Aminz 07:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be balanced with statements to the effect that she is not a scholar of Islam and has a decidely unobjective slant to her writing. Otherwise it's just a POV in the intro that doesn't reflect the article. Arrow740 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote doesn't say she is an scholar of Islam. It says that she (as a writer) has conveyed the post-19th century scholarship of Islam to a wide range of people. Do you have reliable sources that she "has a decidely unobjective slant to her writing"?--Aminz 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, Aminz has a source. If there are contrary sources, provide them. Jonathan Tweet 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section added

I've added a section which mentions criticism of Armstrong from notable scholars, referenced with URLs. Ysageev (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not WP:RS to be quoted. ~atif Talk 08:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
His criticism is notable. He is a reliable source for criticism of Islam as has been established many, many times. He's quoted all over wikipedia for criticism of Islam other such things. He might not be a reliable source by wikipedia standards for Islam itself, but for criticism of Islam he is. Arrow740 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
the doublespeak of being "reliable for criticism" or "reliable for his own statements" (!) has been debunked many, many times. if his critique is reported by a reliable third party, then it is noteworthy. quoting websites like FPM and JW however is insufficient. the criticism here is a clear example of a BLP violation. ITAQALLAH 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"[Robert Spencer] has published seven books, including two bestsellers, on topics related to Islam and terrorism." His works have been critically acclaimed. You will add Robert Spencer back to the criticism section or I will tag this article NPOV, because you are in clear violation of it. Just because you do not like Spencer is no reason to omit him. Whether or not Spencer expressed his view in FPM does not make it any less his view.Ysageev (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is a writer. he is not an academic, nor a scholar, nor anyone in a position to attack anyone for their lack of competence Islamic studies, given that he too suffers from the same. that he has two bestsellers (easily achievable if you make your books controversial enough) says nothing about how experts view him on the topic. please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Wikipedia:Verification, as well as WP:BLP#Criticism - all of which specify the standard of sourcing required, especially on biographies of living people. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ysageev, you also need to lower your tone in the discussion ~atif Talk 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that Spencer is not a scholar is your opinion, not a fact. Similarly, your statement that it is easy to write two NYT bestsellers if the work is controversial is also your opinion. If that were true, millions every year would write NYT bestsellers. It is also profoundly disingenuous to claim that there exists any writing about Islam that is not controversial, regardless of whether it is critical of Islam or extols it. This holds true for articles published in scholarly journals as it does for bestsellers. Whether or not you agree with Spencer, he has been supported by a sufficient number of peers to merit his inclusion as a critic. In short, your belief that Spencer violates WP:RS is your assessment, not a fact, and one that many would take issue with. Ysageev (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

if you believe Spencer is a reliable source, please explain how he conforms to the indicators provided in the aforementioned guideline//policy pages. the indications are the opposite.[2] ITAQALLAH 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is clearly very notable. Maybe itaqallah could explain his "per BLP" and forget the rest of this attempt as a waste of time. Arrow740 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
the relevant section from WP:BLP has already been provided above. would you like me to quote it in full for you? ITAQALLAH 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Explain how the inclusion of Spencer violates it, in full. Arrow740 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary 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; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

there you go. is Spencer reliable? no. is Spencer being used as a secondary source for the material? no. are FPM, JW etc. reliable, third party sources? no. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As regards FPM, if Spencer publishes an article there, it is 100% reliable that he expressed his view 100% as he intended at FPM. I might understand your position on this if FPM itself criticized Armstrong in an editorial. But that is not the case here. If Spencer comments on Islamism in a speech at Joe's Hot Dog Stand, it is not the reliability of JHDS that is up for contention. Secondly, and as I have mentioned here and elsewhere, it is not up to me or you to evaluate the merits of Spencer's positions, but to mention a critic of Armstrong whose criticisms are widely read and commented upon. It should be noted that I did not give my opinion about Spencer either way. Only, Spencer occupies a prominent place in the public discourse about a topic that is inherently controversial, and hence deserves mention in the criticism section.
In response to "atif", I apologize if my tone seemed overly forceful. In my defense, it should be noted that I did not violate edit-warring policies by deleting entire paragraphs from other editors of this entry, as others have done to me. I believe that it is customary to discuss deletions prior to doing so, specifically to avoid edit warring. That courtesy was not provided me, and that may be considered far more "loud" in tone than expressing disagreement on a talk page.Ysageev (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Spencer is not only a reliable source for his own views (a red herring here- is anyone not a reliable source for their own views??), he is also a 'primary' source for the criticism. that is, he is not a discussing criticism that has been levied against Armstrong (as a secondary source would). the policy extract above specifies that a source must be a) reliable and b) secondary; neither criteria has been met here. furthermore, if there is an attempt to coatrack criticisms, then reliable third-party published sources should be demanded. thus far, none of this has been established.
Ysageev, your general civility and conduct are commendable. biographies of living people are especially important, and material which is unreliably sourced or of poor quality must be removed on sight (see WP:BLP). that might mean reverting editors who continue to restore such disputed material. the conditions for criticism are also much stricter. ITAQALLAH
As Merzbow has explained to you, Spencer is clearly a secondary source. He is a reliable secondary source critical analysis. Your definition of "secondary" is wrong. He is very reliable as regards criticism of Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"He is a reliable secondary source critical analysis. He is very reliable as regards criticism of Islam." Says who? WP:V says reliable sources are sources that have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What sort of reputation does Spencer have? Has his work been published by a university press or another respected publishing house? We have to be extremely careful since Karen Armstrong is a living person.Bless sins (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
He is not being used as a source of history. He is an notable source of opinion. Nothing you could quote bars his use in this context. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Spencer is being used as a primary source for criticism here. as discussed previously, you can't be reliable for a 'POV' on a topic (no less an academic discipline) - this is your own invention, it has no substantiation in Wikipedia guideline or policy. you have yet to explain how he meets the criteria shown above. ITAQALLAH 13:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"He is an notable source of opinion" Is his opinion about Karen Armstrong notable? Says who? You need a source (generally a reliable secondary source, but reliable tertiary sources also work) to 'prove' that his opinions about Armstrong are notable.Bless sins (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections make for poor articles and are discouraged. We need to integrate material (positive and negative) into a single, balanced, coherent article. Guettarda (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The parenthetic link to the tribe was redundant so I deleted it. We already have one in the same sentence. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sentence "she tends to maintain a diplomatic silence when it comes to the treatment of women in Islam" should be reworded. "Islam" doesn't treat anyone anyway. "Islam" is a set of beliefs. I wouls say instead "she tends to maintain a diplomatic silence when it comes to the treatment of Muslim women" or "she tends to maintain a diplomatic silence when it comes to the treatment of women in the Muslim world". In fact, Islam can and has been interpretted to mean many, many things for women, some good, some bad. But that fact should merit the rewording of this sentence. Pppmntgrl (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)pppmntgrl, 13 May 2008.

Two recent undooz

Greetings sfmammamia![3] 1. Must confess I'm a little puzzled as to why the need to revert the date of the Ted lecture to March . . . since it was actually delivered in February. Was merely correcting my own mistake. 2.The TED link: In view of the potential importance of the Council of Compassion idea and the fact that it's arisen so recently, is there any harm in linking direct to the video in the second par? It seems to me an excellent device for offering the reader straight away a real feel for Armstrong's personality & ideas, thereby increasing the likelihood that he or she will read on. (I speak as a former magazine editor & BBC TV producer who early on became ultra-aware of the advantage of capturing the attention right up front.) In this instance in particular does it actually cost anything? I first saw the video elsewhere some days ago, but only realized that the Wikipedia article links to it after I'd read the entry three or four times. I feel we do the reader & the subject a great disservice if we let it languish at the level of footnote. Kind regards, Wingspeed (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The month revert was my error, which I corrected. Bare URL links in text are considered bad style on Wikipedia; per the Wikipedia external links guideline, convention is to place external links in reference footnotes or in the external links section (and not both). Refs that are relevant in more than one place in an article should be created with reusable ref tags. See Wikipedia's footnote guideline. I will place a ref reuse tag in the lead to do this appropriately.--Sfmammamia (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for directing me to the ext links Guideline, with which I was not otherwise familiar. Disappointed though I am, a direct link in this instance would seem to be ruled out on grounds of category 8 alone: "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content . . ." Hadn't thought of this. Upon a low-tech user, particularly in an intro, such a direct link would most likely have an effect quite contrary to what I'd hoped for. Please forgive me. Am only a beginner. Wingspeed (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re: a substitution & a cut in Career section

To: sfmamamia:

1."musical recordings": Such an objection may seem pedantic, but to a British ear the phrase sounds, in the context, pompous & wrong. Desert Island Discs, according to the Guinness Book of Records the longest-running music programme in the history of radio, is a British institution, & maybe this is why - though in other contexts the phrase 'gramophone records' would certainly jar - what was almost a catch-phrase of the founding presenter is still to this day used in trails and suchlike. There's a similar programme, of much more recent origin, over on BBC Radio 3 devoted to classical music choices; there the term 'musical recordings' would not seem at all inappropriate. Maybe 'gramophone records' sounds bizarre to a North American ear. I suggest simply "records."

Yes, many North American readers will lack the context to justify usage of what seems an archaic term -- just plain records is fine with me. I will make the edit. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2. "in Europe and North America": Personally, I wouldn't have included the quote in the first place, but this excision deprives it of much of its meaning & reduces it to a banality. I infer that the significance of the phrase "some observers credit her with being influential in conveying a 'more objective' view of Islam to a wide public in Europe and North America" is that it's in North America & Western Europe that hostility to Islam, for obvious reasons, is at its most intense. The excision thus loses much of what was presumably intended as a compliment. RegardsWingspeed (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, you elided what used to be two sentences. By doing so, you implied that a lecture in Singapore was typical of a speaking schedule in Europe and North America, which makes no sense to me. I will break this back up into two sentences and restore the geographic modifier to the second sentence. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New English Review quote in Criticism

Hi, Malcolm Schosha. Would be grateful if you could specify your objection to Hugh Fitzgerald being identified as the author of the New English Review quote. He is proud, as far as I'm aware, to identify himself as a Zionist. As for "polemicist," his website says he contributes regularly to The Iconoclast, its community blog. In a Criticism section, context, it seems to me, is both important & helpful. Regards. Wingspeed (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to his name being there, but his identification as a Zionist, in that context is at best irrelevant, but hints at something far worse [4]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to note Hugh Fitzgerald as a contributing writer Jihad Watch, as I believe this sheds light on his perspective, which is relevant to his strong criticism of Karen Armstrong. Malcome Schosa has deleted this addition as POV, even though he himself linked Hugh Fitzgerald's name to the article on Jihad Watch. Would like to hear other thoughts on whether citing Hugh Fitzgerald's role as a contributing writer to Jihad Watch is itself a form of bias. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a wikilink for Hugh Fitzgerald that showed him as editor of Jihad Watch, but you -- or another editor -- removed it. That link should be enough. I have been thinking, neverthelss, that a less highly charged quote might be better, but I have not had time to search for something better. But, if you will assume my good faith, and extend a little patience, I will do that. (Additionally, I would like to suggest that you could do more good for the article by improving sections which are weak, rather than worrying about the small criticism section.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikilink as you used it above (linking his name not to an article about him but to Jihad Watch itself) is precisely the one I changed. I simply don't understand why you would insert that link and then object to the minor expansion that clarified the connection between him and the publication. I agree that this article could be expanded, but criticism sections in general are frowned upon in Wikipedia, as indicative of poor article structure or bias. See WP:CRIT --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Jihad Watch article mentions Hugh Fitzgerald as a contributor, so it is a good link (unlike your version that is based on an unsourced assertion). Criticism sections are common when dealing with subjects, or individuals, who are controversial, particularly when the article is short. But if you want the criticisms merged into the rest of the article, it might be possible. The criticism itself is part of achieving balanced and neutral articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Can we add this interview[5] I was surprized to learn that she was interviewed by Share International [User:Andries|Andries]] (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain how Fitzgerald is at all a reliable source? We're dealing with a living person here.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious position?

This section hardly touches her religious position. It mentions that she has been "particularly inspired" by Jewish tradition in a particular way; are we supposed to conclude that she's Jewish? Or what? Hexmaster (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite agree. Thanks for pointing this out. Now I read it again, it's so thin as to be misleading. I suspect this "?section?" may have had its origin in the midst of some assault from Armstrong critics. I've got no excuse for not fixing it, since I've got most of her books at hand. Would be a particularly fruitful issue to expand & clarify. I for one, when I"ve completed stuff elsewhere, shall give it priority. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have removed a sentence that seems to be WP:OR. If there is a reliable published source to support the sentence it can certainly be returned to the article, but not otherwise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

re-added the word controversial

I have re-added the word controversial in the criticism section after a quick web search shows considerable views and debates:

He calls her treatment of the controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe in her Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time "a travesty of the truth".

However I am no expert on this so I don't know if the issue is only controversial outside informed circles. I therefore won' object or re-add it if my change is reverted again. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Career confusion

The section on her career is very hard to understand. What's clear from it is that she was "transfigured", which I interpret as "her attitude was changed". Except it is not possible (?) to grasp from the text how she was "transfigured" from what attitude to what attitude. The first paragraph of the career section should try to make clear what her attitude was before the Jerusalem visit, how the Jerusalem visit affected her, and what her attitude was (is?) afterwards. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticised for lacj of professionall training?

I don't think she is criticised for lack of professional training, for one thing this is an [ad hominem] attack. Also, some self-taught Historians are respected. I think it is her lack of rigour, selective use of facts, and so on that is criticised. However I have removed this previously and will not revert again. I have added a "fact" tag and would suggest that either it is reworded or a citation found that does dismiss here merely because she has no degree or professional training. -- Q Chris (talk)

Early life

This section seems short of info. We are told that her family were of "Irish extraction", though not how far back, and that they moved to Bromsgrove and then to Birmingham at some undisclosed date, but nothing about her schooling. Was she groomed as a Catholic, for example? What did she do well? Most folk do not end up in a nunnery, so how did that happen? These early experiences may help the reader to understand her emphasis on the rather negative requirements of the Torah ("Do nothing ...") and her need for "ultimate purpose" that colour her writing, plus the focus on the narrow Abrahamist tradition.TSRL (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I've removed there as they may be good sources but should be used as such rather than added to the Bibliography or External links section. -- Banjeboi

  • Campbell, Debra Graceful. Exits: Catholic Women and the art of departure. Indiana University press. ISBN 025334316


Criticisim section removed

First off, especially on BLPs, we should not have criticism or controversy sections. You might as well put up a sign that says we intend to write a POV smear. Even if not the intent that's what these turn into. Second, the only content there was to two opinion pieces which tend to be really bad sources for BLPs, especially negative or disparaging content. -- Banjeboi 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Every author, intellectual and political commentators have an BLP and those BLP include include section of criticism and it doesn't violate WP:NPOV.The BLP Noam Chomsky, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Brigitte Gabriel etc, etc all have section of criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
Criticism sections are bad form. They segregate criticisms from the discussion of facts and ideas, and tend to become a random list of quotes and comments. Criticism should be included in the body of the article. That way you avoid problems of undue weight and produce a more coherent whole. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section per wp:source#Self-published sources (online and paper). The sources are clearly blogs, which, by policy, are considered "largely not acceptable"
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable."
Furthermore, the criticisms sound very much like personal attacks. I don't think that's appropriate in a BLP.
Also note that the presence of certain content in other BLP's by no means legitimates the presence of such in all BLP's.
DVdm (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case the article in Brigitte Gabriel represent the same concept of personal attack and criticism section in Brigitte Gabriel sounds more like a POV .If name calling or is not an encylopedic terms than calling someone an islamophobe is nothing more than perjorative terms that were used by politicians or pundits trying to degrade their oppononents.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
Perhaps, but as I said, the presence of certain content in other BLP's by no means legitimates the presence of such in all BLP's. If you think that some aspect at Brigitte Gabriel goes against policy, please feel free to take appropriate action. DVdm (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Case for God (2009)

Could someone please have a look at The Case for God and correct/expand that page? Wiki-uk (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

This paragraph is basically useless: "In an interview, Armstrong sharply criticized Robert Spencer for his book entitled The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, arguing that it is 'written in hatred,' contains 'basic and bad mistakes of fact,' and that the author 'deliberately manipulates the evidence'. Spencer responded that "Actually, it was Karen Armstrong... who committed 'basic and bad mistakes of fact' and perhaps 'deliberately manipulate[d] the evidence' in her truth-free review of my book...'[8]

What evidence is there in this paragraph? All there are, are statements from Karen Armstrong about Robert Spencer and then statements from Robert Spencer that say the exact same thing about Karen Armstrong. I'm not deleting anything because I don't understand Wikipedia's policy about deletions. But that paragraph doesn't go anywhere, and ends in a stalemate between Armstrong and Spencer. It's not like World Wrestling and I want a "winner", but would at least like a more a nuanced argument.173.175.113.173 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph certainly does not belong in a career section upon which it clearly puts wp:undue weight, and, looking at its triviality, I wouldn't know where to put it. Afaiac, go ahead and delete it "per wp:undue weight - see talk page". If someone objects, they can always come to the talk page and propose a place —and preferably some kind of refactoring— to reinstate it. DVdm (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal to whoever wrote it. It's just that I am seeing that a lot of arguments end up with a sort of mirror thing, where the two people arguing come to a roadblock and just say the same things about each other.173.175.113.173 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I was about to remove the paragraph, but it was gone already. DVdm (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karen_Armstrong/Archive_1&oldid=1136866592"