Jump to content

Talk:Robert B. Spencer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Dec 17, 2005

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 Furthermore CAIR is unable to quote Robert Spencer because they know that everything what Robert Spencer says is true. Look at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20183.

This seems to be a matter of considerable debate, not a fact. Let's stick with the facts and preferably impartial sources - i.e., articles not written by Spencer himself. - 06 Dec 2005

This article could use some criticisms of Spencers work, of which there are many. DigiBullet 03:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone find anything about him saying anything about Islam before 9/11? It's like this guy showed up from no where.

Robert Spencer is a self-appointed expert. He got his MA in 1986 but his biographies absurdly list his "scholarship" of Islam as beginning in 1980. His "expert" study of Islam either began his freshman year or else it took him six years to get his MA. He has no publication history that I've ever been able to find between then and when he shows up publishing books after 9/11. He claims to have published "hundreds of articles" but I can't find them unless he is talking about web pages. I can't find any biography that covers what he was doing between 1986 and 2001. He doesn't have a PhD and never had an academic job. The subject of his MA thesis in 1986 was about a scholar of the Church of England who converted to Catholicism in the 1830s. As far as I'm concerned, that shoots any credilibity he had left. So...the truth would would seem to be that Robert Spencer is a fanatical Catholic whose interest in Islam dates directly to the time of the foundation of the Christian-Islamic Forum, a group dedicated to creating interpretations of Islamic Scriptures to aid in converting Muslims to Catholicism.

All of this, however, is irrelevant to whether or not he is right in what he says about Islam. His alleged background and supposed motives don't negate his quotations of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and fiqh. He himself has pointed out that his critics can only lie or carp about his credentials; they haven't found any errors in his work.

Again, this seems to be a matter of considerable debate. Even the pages quoted in the Wikipedia article point out objections to his work including: ignoring schools of thought that contradict his POV, using faulty or inaccurate translations of Arabic texts, poor understanding of the context in which writings were made, highly selective quotations, use of discredited sources. This is from one of the articles quoted. So clearly people think they have found errors in his work. The point of this article is to present a balanced view - there is a section for Spencer's views, and a section for criticisms. Let's stick with the structure that most other pages are using. - 06 Dec 2005

The fact that charges are made doesn't mean they are true. Particularly when no specifics are offered. In fact, Spencer covers all the major schools of Islamic law in his book Onward Muslim Soldiers, which I have read twice. Which school of thought is he ignoring? And he uses only translations made by and for Muslims. Which are faulty? These are common charges of terror apologists, made to discredit people they don't like. --7Dec05

That is for the readers to decide. The entry presents facts and sources. All of the quotes are attributed, and almost every point has a verifiable source, most of them Spencer's own works. People are free to check the sources and decide for themselves. The point is not to promote a version that one side or the other thinks is "true". This entry contains a pretty large section on Spencer's background and thesis, and a reasonably large section on the criticisms of those claims and his organization. That seems pretty balanced. The solution to the concern you have is not to make the criticism section "Criticism and Spencer's rebuttal", but instead to put relevant points of view in the Thesis section.

Also, I think it is disrespectful to call other Wikipedia contributors "terror apologists" because they don't agree with you. Let's try to keep to the standards of Wikipedia [1]. - Yalto, 7 Dec 2006

Are you willfully misunderstanding me? I was referring to hate groups like CAIR and the ADC, not to Wikipedia. It is, anyway, completely UNbalanced to present their charges and not to allow for any rebuttal by him or anyone.

Everyone please remember that we're all trying to get to the same goal of a neutral, informative article about Spencer's work. There is no need for personal attacks or pointed comments. Please refer to the wikipedia etiquette section for more details on what is expected of everyone here. - 07 Dec 2005

Recent change to the page: "widely published in the counter terrorism community", yet none of the media references listed below list any Counter Terrorism specific publications. Can this claim be substantiated and some of the relevant sources added? --Yalto 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Spencer's leadership role in the Christian-Islamic Forum has been re-added to the page. Mr. Spencer's own bigraphies on the web list him being on the board of the forum and it no secret what the forum is about.

Before the information is removed again, its expected that those who have removed it will give a justification as to why Spencer's ties to a Christian group that targets Muslims for conversion to christianity should not be mentioned on the page.

Could you please provide some citation for this? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Spencer's being on the board of the organization:

[2] [3]

An account of the founding of the organization and its purpose by Daniel Ali.

[4]

Out of concern that the information will disappear, I provide the following quote from the above page.

"I begin the work on the legal framework for the non-profit Christian-Islamic Forum, Inc. On August 13, 2001, the Christian-Islamic Forum officially came into being.

The very first introductory meeting of our new organization was to be held at Holy Spirit Catholic Church, in Annandale, Virginia....The conclusion Sara and I drew from the horrific events was that God was telling everyone it was time to pay attention to the Muslims. Either they were going to aggressively “evangelize” the West through their various forms of Jihad, or we were going to have to evangelize them with the Good News of Jesus Christ. I’ve been called on to speak numerous times in the last months since the tragedy. These talks have been about the realities of Islam, their strategies for converting us to Islam and what we can do to successfully be heard and received by them. In the past, Christians have depended on the Bible to evangelize Muslins. This strategy has been largely unsuccessful because Muslims consider the Bible to be corrupted and falsified by Christians and Jews. We are developing a method to reach out to Muslims using only their sources, the Qur’an"

This reversion from the last edit seems to be just a wiki war The previous version read "Robert Spencer was a board member of the now-defunct Christian-Islamic Forum[5][6]. He has also co-written Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics with the founder of the Forum Daniel Ali." That seems a far more neutral claim than the latest revision.

The only way it is more "netural" is that it hides from the reader the goals of the Christian-Islamic Forum. As to the forum being defunct, if anyone claims to know that for certain they had better be prepared to offer citations or an explaination of how they know. They could also perhaps add details about when spencer joined the forum and when it went away (if it went away).

The account of the founding of the organization and its purpose by Daniel Ali [7] only concerns Mr. Ali, and does not mention Robert Spencer.

Mr. Spencer served on the board of Mr. Ali's organization. Board membership would seem to require that Mr. Spencer understand the goals of the organization. Material from Daniel Ali is necessary in the absence of other material about the forum. The use of the material is used strictly to show the purposes of the organization that spencer was a board member of.

Spencer's personal bio[8] no longer lists the association, and the group no longer seems to be active. It seems quite on the periphery of Spencer's work.

That is a difficult arguement to make. It is difficult to consider this to be on the periphery of his work considering that he served on the board of the organization and co-wrote a book with the leader of the organization. The nature of the organization in using Islamic scriptures as a tool to convert Muslims to Christianity would seem vitally relivant given the contents of many of spencer's books.

It would seem that a detailed account of the forum would be pertinent in a bio of Daniel Ali, not Robert Spencer.

Spencer's association with the group has been listed in his biographies for years. The biographies even go so far as to call the organization "highly reputed". His being on the board of a group whose stated goal was to use the Qu'ran to convert muslims to christianity is a very important fact about the man. Removing descriptions of the purposes of the group would seem to only result in hiding information which would make the page anything but neutral.

Actually, the "highly reputed" meme comes from a review of one of his books, not from any biography of Spencer. He has also explicitly disavowed any religious agenda at his website. This fixation on his connection with an obscure defunct group has the odor of conspiracy theorizing, not genuine investigation of his work and intentions.

This is not conspiracy threory. Spencer quite explicitly states a religious agenda in his book, published in 2003. The wording within the book makes it clear that this is his opinion, not the aggregate opionion of the two authors. We should let the words of the author speak for him, and let wikipedia readers decide. Quotes and specific page numbers have been added. - 6 Dec 2005

However, on 6 Dec 2005 the disavowal of a religious agenda still remained in his biography at his website: "Here again, people like to imagine that a Christian cannot write accurately about Islam, but they cannot point to any inaccuracy in my work. Nor is there any religious agenda here. I envision Jihad Watch as an opportunity for all the actual and potential victims of jihad violence and oppression -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims, atheists, whatever -- to join together to defend universal human rights. There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later."

Yet this continues to be removed from Wikipedia, despite its obvious relevance. If you really want to let the words of the author speak for him, you should allow all the words, not just quotes selectively chosen in order to demonize.

Added this comment below, but adding here for trackability. Spencer's web site does have a disavowal of a religious agenda. But his publisher's description of him on their web site still has it listed. Given that they are publishing his current bestseller, it seems like a reasonable source in the absence of a statement explicitly saying they are incorrect. --Yalto 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be true if you were actually looking at his current bio, instead of one that is two years old.

Both are active on the Regenery website, so both are "current". The link is not an archive or anything like it. If you look at the description of Onward Muslim Soldier, it is the bio used. It is not uncommon to tailor your messages to different audiences, and that appears to be what Regnery is doing. Plus, I am not sure what all this attention to the age of statements is for - almost all of Spencer's books are less than 5 years old, so I think it is stretching it a bit to suggest that something he believed two or five years ago is no longer relevant. Especially when the relevant books are still in print. --Yalto 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have Spencer's latest book, PIG to Islam, but Amazon lists this as "About the Author" on the back cover: "Robert Spencer is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation and a board member of the Christian Islamic Forum. He writes frequently on Islam in a wide variety of publications and is the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers and Islam Unveiled. He has been studying Islam for more than twenty years." Can anyone validate whether or not that is accurate? If so, it should dispel any question of the Christian-Islamic Forum issue.--Yalto 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

see Talk:Robert_Spencer/archive20051217

Summary of Old discussion

religious affiliation?

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

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

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

Robert Spencer and the Christian-Islamic Forum

Talk:Robert_Spencer/Christian-IslamicForum

Criticism

Avoid Weasel Words

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

CAIR Quote

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

Scholarship

On going revert war see Talk:Robert Spencer/Scholarship

JihadWatch Views and Relevance to Spencer

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

  • The West must "Understand how very useless is the concept of the "moderate" Muslim -- because it is impossible to know when someone's "moderation" is real or feigned"[9] and must take "specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are."[10]

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

  • I am not sure this is the right move - specifically, the question is whether the views of the group that Spencer directs are relevant to understanding Spencer himself. Particularly relevant is the fact that each of the quotes was posted by Spencer with explicit endorsement in each case. That seems highly relevant to a complete, neutral representation of Spencer's views and activities, and it seems somewhat misleading to remove them.

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

Old Dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

respect

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

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

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

More Discussion

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

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

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

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

Here is an interesting comment from Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch to someone who mentioned the Tom Tancredo bio at Wikipedia: "For god's sake, Wikipedia is a guide to nothing and nowhere. Maligners, Muslim and non-, are having a field day (google "Siegenthaler" for more on this). The attempt to slander Robert [Spencer] for examle, through guilt by assocation, and that assocation happens to consist of phrases that are attributed not to him but to me, and which have been completely ripped out of all explanatory and softening context, making me seem -- and therefore Robert seem -- quite as Tancredo is made to seem, apparently, in his entry. Skip Wikipedia. It has no value. Anyone at all can add anything at all. And most people will not bother to respond or correct, for a determined campaign will not be dissuaded from reposting. That, by now, should be obvious." [11] Anne24.63.54.248

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

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

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

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

Re: the Hugh discussion: On today's Jihadwatch page is the following title/article posted by Spencer: "CAIR-FL spokesman says "nothing immoral" about Islamic Jihad. Yet CAIR will continue to get a free pass from the mainstream media as a neutral civil rights organization."[12] I think Spencer is right - what this CAIR official says does greatly tarnish the reputation of CAIR and given that he is a CAIR official speaking in an offical capacity, CAIR is ultimately responsible.

Again, no moral equivalence of the issue implied or intended, but for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, I think the Spencer/Hugh issue is the same. Spencer posts Hugh's articles, with an endorsement most of the time. This despite the fact that others can and do post (e.g., Eric [13], Rebecca [14]). In each case, Spencer points out Hugh's official role within JihadWatch ("Jihadwatch Board Vice President Hugh..."), an organization founded by and directed by Spencer. So it can be inferred that Spencer believes and endorses what he is posting. --Yalto 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fitzgerald

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

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

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

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

I'll also point out the Wikipedia suggested guidelines against Vanity articles [15], which actually suggests strongly that people with close associations to the subject not post, to minimize conflict of interest. --Yalto 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Yalto, ah then you want me to believe that out of the blue you took a burning passionate interest in writing about Robert Spencer? Puh-lease. You will notice I am NOT editing the page. I have addressed your argument for the Hugh quotes. I have pointed out that you are not following what would be standard procedure in a real encyclopedia. "people write of things they're interested in"[16], so what's your interest, Yalto? Hmmmm? And while I am at it, why does Spencer get to be ciritcized by you, but Wikipedia not by me? Wikipedia is often criticized for being worthless, biased, allowing people to operated with hidden motivation, and for the postings of people like you and even others on this site. Right or wrong, that is what people say. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of sources available on Google - some folks at Lucianne.com for example have written about this.

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

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

Disputed

Threats Against Spencer

  • 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

References

Format

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

  • "Holland: A Muslim politician drops his mask". Comment by Robert Spencer. Retrieved December 22, 2005.

Free Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well."[17]

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

I also refer everyone to the following additional articles [18], [19], [20],[21], [22], and [23] for other criticisms. --Yalto 05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

I found this while googling: [24] 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

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 [25], or John Esposito[26]. 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,"[27] sort of proves my point about his bias. As I said in my article[28], 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 [29] and MoveOn.org [30], 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 [31] 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 [32] 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 [33]. 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 [34],[35]. --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 [36] 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)

Page break (arbitrary)

thank you, thank you. Im just a simple casual user here who somehow stumbled upon this particular page, so let me forward my (perhaps totally ill-begotten) concern as an innocent question: has wikipedia now become a forum for "me"-informercials, however softly & semi-'objectively' clad? just wondering, al lang212.186.71.128 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Vanity" cleanup

I have removed large sections of this article, and rewritten, hastily, bits of it. It's still messy, poorly referenced, and could use a lot of work - but it looks a little bit less like a vanity page written "by me, about me". Anyhow, what I did, and why I did it:

  • Archived and un-messied this page.
  • Rewrote the intro. Citing his own website on the matter of his being a researcher is not good enough.
  • Removed book review tidbits, positive and negative. Irrelevant to the article - it is about him, not his books.
  • Removed or rewrote lots of weasel wording.
  • Added some "citation needed" tags to uncited claims.
  • Removed a ton of uncited quotes and praise that were tagged as such from before.
  • Removed a ton of "information" cited from his own website.

...and then some. --TVPR 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read any of the previous discussion, you would find how this evolved. I notice you added some information, too. (by user:AnneCr on 18:46, 16 October 2006)

First off, I did read any of the previous discussion, which was messily organized, if at all. I also noticed this is the only WP article you've ever been involved with, your first contrib ever regarding "fixing vandalism" on this article again. Yes, I'm blatantly calling you a sockpuppet. Also, "see talk before removing info" and then not presenting any new points isn't helping your cause, ie. keeping this vanity article a vanity article. --TVPR 08:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (PS: Please sign your comments in the future, as has been pointed out to you before by others)

What do you mean you are calling me a "sock puppet?" Did you notice how many people were involved in a back and forth discussion of what should be here? How could this possibly be a vanity artricle? I notice that you do not find it necessary to treat others with respect, and feel free to lecture people on how they ought to contribute at Wikipedia, as well as to speak with absolute athority on how articles ought to be written.Is there some reason for this?14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)AnneCr 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Why do I have to present new points by the way? Why don't you answer the old ones?AnneCr 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite silly to ask for citations for basic statements of fact. Spencer announces from time to time that he is on radio or tv, and program listings at the time confirm it. Are you suggesting that he does not write articles, that his life as a public figure is a fantasy? How many publications and programmes must be cited here to back up his claim that "his work has appeared in a number of publications" ?AnneCr 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Argh! My last post disappeared... Anyway. The point is that WP policy, however cumbersome it may be, demands citations for more or less anything. Another point is that a biography - or any other part of a biographical article - should not list every single public statement from a person, be it newspaper article or radio appearance. Doing so makes the article look like a vanity article which the subject has written about himself to make him look "serious". Also, citing articles, biographies et cetera in heavily biased outlets is just plain silly. If you have a look at the Osama bin Laden article, they don't refer to his website for info on him. Heck, if I wanted an article about myself, it'd be much more beneficial - for me - to quote one of my website when describing myself than to quote others. It would, however, not necessarily, be entirely true. And that's what WP is all about, keeping the facts straight. You can't call someone an established academical researcher if 90% of his published material was pubished at frontpagemagazine.com - that would be akin, to use the Osama example, if Osama bin Laden's article described him as a "kind, respectful humanitarian bent on freeing the world from US hegemony", based on published material on ihatebushandamerica.com.--TVPR 05:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

87.63.35.213 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Robert Spencer has commented on this page at <A href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020205.php">JihadWatch</A>. He says: "Some time ago I called it "ridiculous," but it is worse than that: it is relentlessly biased, and the negative spin is thoroughgoing."

Basically, he disses this page as a smear. Then counters it, because smears need to be countered. But Wikipedia certainly falls flat on issues like this, tend to become a hate-fest for people trying to discredit others. Take the 'Controversial conference' section which is a weasel-worded smear with no substance. Rather than kick it out, I added a couple paragraphds with links to documentation proving the smear unfounded, thus repairing the damage it tried to do to Spencer and the European Islam-critics. Those paragraphs I added were not merely edited, they were summarily deleted.

Wikipedia doesn't work well when it comes to controversial subjects or persons. This page very much proves that point.

career as a researcher of Islam

While his biographies and the articles continue to say that he has been a "researcher" of Islam since the day he entered college as an undergrad, I have yet to see one reference to him publishing or saying one word about Islam prior to plus or minus a few years around 2000. He has a long publishing history but exclusively in Catholic publications on Catholic religious issues. It would be good if the article clearly stated when his first known publication on Islam was. 12.96.162.45 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, would it not be reasonably obvious from the date of the first published book? This seems a statement of the obvious.--AnneCr
Which basically proves the anon's point - nothing at all prior to ca. 2000. So you agree e's not a "long-time researcher" after all?--TVPR 06:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if one didn't release work prior to 2000, does not make the statement "long-time researcher" false. In fact, it makes it true.
Well, logically it does not prove that his research was long-term, but it in no way disproves it. And it is no long leap from an interest in Monophysism to Islam, as the Monophysite churches were crushed by the arab conquests.
Really, there is no disproving Spencer's statement unless one can find a realiable witness (or perhaps four witnesses) who has been at his side every moment since he entered college. AnneCr 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to back up your own claim (which is that Spencer is a "long-time researcher."--Kitrus 08:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

toward a more accurate early biography

This is a long-form early biography of Spencer. I'm putting it here to provide some information for those who might be interested.

Spencer drifted between religions in college. He was initially an evangelical christian but due to a dispute in the student group he belonged to over the charismatic gifts, he rejected it. Having sought the opinion of an episcopal priest on the charismatic gifts, he was convinced to join to that church.

  • What is your source on this? Since you have decided to doubt everything Spencer says about himself, I am sure it is not his published writings? --AnneCr
    • The point is that as encyclopedians, it's in everybody's best interrest to always doubt everything anyone ever says about themselves. --TVPR
That means that all of this early bio which is only known from Spencer's own writings is worthless.AnneCr 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
My source on this is Spencer himself writing in the Catholic Magazine "The Rock". He often wrote about himself in his early articles. I can provide you exact citations if necessary. 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but apparently anything Spencer says about himself is unacceptable; "The point is that as encyclopedians, it's in everybody's best interrest to always doubt everything anyone ever says about themselves. --TVPR."

He then rejected that Church's beliefs and converted to Roman Catholicism. His masters thesis is about the theological issues on which he rejected the Episcopal church. In short summary, he became an Episcopal because he like its sense of authority based on tradition/ortodoxy as compared to the Evangelicals. He rejected the Episcopal church because its appeal to tradition was in contradiction with its rejection of the greater authority of Roman Catholicism.

  • This is all very interesting, but other than showing a broad interest in religion is it relevant to anything? --AnneCr
    • I thought we were supposed to be writing a biography here... Meaning we include tidbits like these, which are enlightening to get some insight into the man's personality. --TVPR
Spencer is a "researcher" in religion. In the interests of a full biography, its very relivant to deal with his entire life rather than try to erase everything in his life before 2002. 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he had any interest in Islam in college or actually long after.

  • Well, he says so, and he has written several books bout Islam. You are implying that he is a liar, and that a person could go from having no interest in Islam to writing a book about it. --AnneCr
    • Him saying so is completely irrelevant.
Actually that's nonsense. "When did you become interested in X; How did you become interested in Y?" are perfectly reasonable questions to put to a subject.

Also, anyone with an agenda could go from having no interrest in something to writing a book about it. I'm not particularly into nuclear weapons, but if I wanted to write a book deriding the US, I'd propably learn quite a lot about it to use as an argument. --TVPR

"if" "probably" "with an agenda"-AnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to put something like this on the page (thats why its here). But is a VERY valid question for Spencer. I can't find one word he wrote about Islam prior to 2001. The school he went to wasn't exactly noted for its program in mideast studies. His thesis wasn't on Islam but his thesis was consistent with his next ten years of publishings (not on Islam). 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Though he claims he thought about entering a PHD program in mideast studies when he got his MA, that seems rather unlikely.

  • Again, you are just calling him a liar. And actually, the quote was concerning all PhD programs as well. In fact let's go to the quote, "Spencer has criticized academics at his web site writing that he opted not to enter any PhD program because he "could see [in 1986] that Middle East Studies and other departments were becoming highly politicized and retreating from genuine academic work"--AnneCr
    • Yes, this is speculative - but may well be correct. It doesen't belong in the article, but my point here is that his own word is worth jack shit in an article about him. --TVPR
No it isn't, especially when attributed to him, and not stated as factAnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm allowed to be speculative on the discussion page. I'm not suggesting this be put in the article. If you choose to believe a man who pursued an MA in religious studies with a thesis on Catholicism had the ability to simply jump into a PHD program in mideast studies, I can't help you. 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He lived in the Bronx in New York after college for some period of time. He wrote freelance articles for a variety of Catholic publications in the 1990s. He wrote articles defending papal infallibility, that Catholic Dogma was the church's reason for living, that the unity of the first millinium christian church was a naive myth and that the split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had "borne good fruit by God's grace".

  • Again, do you have some source here? And what is the point? (To be homest, I don't even know what his means. "Native Myth?" )--AnneCr
    • The point is still that an article, a biographical such, should include info on his life, not just "this is what Bob Spencer thinks about Islam: it's terrible!!!". That's what biographies are all about. --TVPR
No, it should include relevant infoAnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The sources are Spencer's own writings in Catholic publications during the 1990s. Native has been corrected to "naive". Spencer has set himself up as an authority on religion and the role of religion in history. As such, his writings on Christian issues are very relivant. That he considers Catholicism as a the only valid form of Christianity is very important actually.

1)What does "'the split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had "borne good fruit by God's grace' " mean? 2)don't most adherents of a religion believe that they are right? He has said he is a Catholic, therefore of course he thinks Catholicism true 3)"only valid form" is a little strong and is at odds with the Catholic Church, see here [37]. do you have a quote from SpencerAnneCr 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Around 2001, he got involved with Daniel Ali, a muslim convert to Christianity. Spencer joined Ali's Christian-Islamic Forum which was a group dedicated to converting muslims to christianity based on Islamic scriptures and knowledge of Islam.

  • That is not true, as has been previously discussed, and then conveniently archived. Ali wrote an article about his own reaction to Sept. 11 and the way to convert Muslims; his group according to Ali and the sources archived above, was fromed prior to 9/11. Direct quote from source "Before Father Most died, in January of l999, he and I discussed forming a forum in which Christians and Muslims could dialogue." [38]--AnneCr
    • I'm not giving either of you right in this one, but Anne, most of the sources you're listing are very heavily biased, either due to agreeing with Spencer on everything or due to him and the people in question operating them. --TVPR
Actually, i am citing the source that was used above by anonAnneCr 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Does Ali mention Spencer in this00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)~

Every word written is consistant with what has been archived. Daniel Ali (in that article) says in 1995:"I began immediately to tell my Muslim friends why I had converted, and made great efforts to evangelize them.". Your suggestion that Daniel Ali intended to dialog with Muslims about issues not related to conversion is not consistent with what he has written. Further, Daniel Ali makes it clear that Christian-Islamic Forum which Spencer was a member of was dedicated to evangilizing muslims. If that dedication happened before or after 9/11 does not matter, Spencer was a member and that was the organizations goal.12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot conflate an individual and the organization he founded. You are exchanging an exact quote about the forum for your impression based on Ali's statements.AnneCr 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What I have done is to show that Daniel Ali was a muslim convert to Christianity who say evangelizing muslims as something he was willing to devote a "great effort" to in 1995. It is then shown that the Christian Islamic forum was dedicated to the conversion of Muslims to Christianity using islamic works at the time of its first meeting. What you have shown is an ambiguity about what the purpose of the forum was between January 1999 and the time of the first meeting of the forum. As I have already said, Spencer was a board member of the organization *after* it became dedicated (according to Ali) to conversion. So (again) if that dedication happened before or after 9/11 does not matter, Spencer was a member and that was the organizations goal. 12.96.162.45 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it was not the organizations goal. It was Ali's personal goal. They two cannot be considered identical.AnneCr 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He also did a couple freelance pieces for National Review. Those relationships led to his first and second books.

  • Now I am really curious. How do you know this? Or are you just assuming?--AnneCr
    • Not having looked into this, I'm guessing National Review was behind publising said books. Him getting a "foot in the door", so to speak, would then be critical to getting something published. --TVPR
Okay, so now are you saying Spencer's statements attributed to him (not presented as fact but as his statements) are worthless but these guesses are just fine?

They also mark the point at which he became a "researcher" on Islam.

  • Unless of course, he is telling the truth about his early interest in Islam, which would not at all be out of character for someone who was (as you said in the first paragraph) "drifting through religions."--AnneCr
    • I wouldn't call "Oh, should I be a powertripping christian, a free-form christian or some other kind of christian" drifting between religions - rather drifting between directions. As much as you might like to think so, evangelists and episcopals are just as Christian as protestants and catholics. And, once again, his word is irrelevant. Your point that him telling the truth about early interest in Islam falls on its own back, since it would be in his best interrest to make the world think he was into the religion since he left kindergarten. It's all about him trying to get himself some credibility, and by listening to him, you're only helping. That's not building a reliable biography. --TVPR
Nonsense, the primary evidence of his interest in Islam is his writings, I don't care whether he learned about it first in college or on Sept 12, 2001. I just question your question everything mentality.AnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Through his freelancing at National Review, he was able to get one of the editors to write the forward for his first book.

  • How do you know this, or are you just guessing?--AnneCr
    • It's called logic. What, you think he could have gotten an editor to write his foreword if he had no idea who he was? --TVPR
It is far from logical. It is the error known as Post Hoc, Ergo Propter, i.e. after the fact therefore because of the fact.AnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

His timing was excellent in that he was well-positioned after 9/11. He was hired into the Free Congress Foundation as an "adjunct fellow" and wrote a bunch of website-filler stuff for them.

  • "Web site filler stuff"? I believe the word you are looking for is "articles"--AnneCr
    • Agreed, we can't say "website-filler" in the article. That's what it is, though. --TVPR
That's what what is?.AnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no information to be found so far on what he did before the Free Congress Foundation. [[User: |12.96.162.45]] 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing that game. 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Unlike just "blatantly calling {me} a sock puppet. AnneCr 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't call you a sock puppet. Please stop making insunations about me and take your problems with other people to a different heading. 12.96.162.45 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If the anon can provide sources for this, I'd be overjoyed to include most of it in the article. Also, he/she - unlike certain others - does things the right way, by discussing this type of long, heavy changes in the talk page before putting them in the article. The alternative would be to just post it directly into the article, with an ensuing edit war leaving us with bits, pieces, and a rotten article.--TVPR 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take the comments and start on version 2. I'll add citations as suggested. 12.96.162.45 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of pursuing accurate truth, I'd like to put it forth that Robert Spencer might either have grown up in or is now a member of the Melkite Catholic Church, which is only affiliated with rather than a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortuneately, I only read this in an unreferenced posting by a member of the FaithFreedom.org website. Perhaps someone else might look into this question and confirm it from a reliable secondary source? ~Anonymous 4:40 AM ET 22 October, 2006

Watch his recent c-span interview which is linked at the bottom of the article. There you shall find the details you seek.--CltFn 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also this: [39] The interesting bit is:

"Well as you may know I am a Melkite Catholic and my family is from the Islamic world. I remember being intrigued by the Koran and while in college several Muslim students knew of my background and ask me to read the Koran. I was happy to and spent a great deal of time reading the Koran and asking questions. I think my Muslim friends thought because of my interest that they could convert me but I was quite happy in my faith."

For Clarification:

- I dont know of any evidence that he grew up in the Melkite Catholic Church. He could possibly have been Eastern Orthodox in one form or another as a child. If he was Orthodox, it explains his obsession with Monophysitism in his early writings. It creates another mystery in that if he was Orthodox or grew up Orthodox, why didn't he mention that in his writings?

"obsession"? I think this is going the way of tabloid journalism. I just don't see the mystery here. He answered the question about his his religious affiliation in the interview you posted. He answers questions about his religion at his web site. You are saying he "could possibly have been" Eastern Orthodox, and then find it mysterious that he never mentioned it,

even thought that is nothing but your guessAnneCr 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would again ask you to try and engage in a civil discussion. I use the word obsession because few people today are even aware of a centuries-old christian dispute over Monophysitism. Robert Spencer has written multiple articles about it and it is the subject of his Masters Thiesis. His writings also strongly suggest it played a key role in his conversion from an Episcopalian to a Catholic. I would personally describe that amount of work on such an obsecure topic as an obsession. As far as the rest, I will remind you once again that the purpose of a discussion is to "discuss". People are allowed to make deductions, question sources, engage in speculation and talk about the subject of the article. If you have a different understanding of what discussion is, please explain what you think that is. 12.96.162.45 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- I'm not quite sure which college year he was "intrigued" by the Koran. He was part of a campus Evangelical movement for at least a year (if not longer). He also claims to have spent a year as a "full-time social ministries intern" in the Episcopal Church before his conversion to Roman Catholicism. And which of his three "faiths" was he quite happy with? (Orthodox, Evangelical, Catholic).

Christianity is the religion; I think you are making too much of denominational differences. More to the point, you seem to be selectively willing to let Spencer be a source. Do you have some third party evidence of the campus Evangelical movement, or are you just accepting Spencer's word? Why does do you use the word "claim" about his being a "full-time social ministries intern", but not for other parts of his bio?AnneCr 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The use of "claim" in discussion is a form of attribution. Since this is an open discussion, I am free to use any particular wording I choose. I am also free to both use Spencer as a source and to question the validity of any statement made by any source. That is one of the many purposes of a discussion page. And again, the religious history of a writer whose MA is in religion and who writes books on religion is very relivant to discuss. 12.96.162.45 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- He then converted to Roman Catholicism.

when?AnneCr 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Spencer has not provided dates. He wrote of his conversion in his work for Catholic publications. By the other facts he has provided, it can be deduced that it had to be between two years of his starting college and whenever he began writing his Masters Thesis. The subject of his masters thesis is directly related to his conversion. He has claimed to have spent a year in an evagelical group and at least a year in the Episcopal Church. 12.96.162.45 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how he can claim to be otherwise while having writing "Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter." and "When compared with the other great ancient see of the Church, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the papacy possessed monumental purity. Among the patriarchs of Constantinople were the arch-heretic Nestorius, a collection of grubby Iconoclasts and fellow travelers, and even a Calvinist, Cyril Loukaris!". Its difficult to comprehend a "Melkite" who says things like that. 12.96.162.45 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why a Melkite would not. Are you unaware that Melkites are Catholics?AnneCr 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In brief, the Melkite Catholic Church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church but it not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. Full communion between the churches indicates that all critical elements of the Christian faith from the Catholic point of view are common to the churches, but differences in other areas may still exist. There are on the order of 20 churches in this situation. There is a further complex matter of doctrine in that Catholic Church holds itself to be the *only* christian church and therefore does not recognize entities in full or partial communion as seperate (including the Melkite Catholic Church). But apart from a dogmatic point of view, it is a seperate entity. Historically, the differences have involved using Eastern rites in services (as opposed to Latin ones), issues with regard to baptism and married priests. 12.96.162.45 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Melkite Church is a separate entity within the larger entity known as "The Catholic Chuch." Eastern Rite bishops are approved by the Pope, (here [40] is a Vatican press release appointing a Melkite Bishop). and Eastern Rite bishops are members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. [41]. Just search the list in the preceding link for the word Eparchy and you will find all the Eastern Rite bishops. Some Eastern Rite bishops are also Cardinals and therefore help elect the Pope. Eastern Rite bishop Lubomyr Husar was considered papabile, though certainly a long shot. (Obviously, he was not elected). Roman Catholics can fulfill. their Sunday obligation by attending an Eastern Rite Liturgy. [42] They share the same dogma, but have different practices and disciplines such as the matter of Clerical_celibacy. AnneCr 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Articles Belong in a Bibliography?

Here is the list. Also partially answers the "cite needed" question above:AnneCr 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm altering your list in favor of keeping the discussion page shorter. You lifted everything

from [[43]] which may be under copyright except the material you removed from the article:

Holy Wreck: Catholics Battle Over Architecture
National Review Online, August 25, 2002

My Favorite Marcion
This Rock, December 1997

Knowing the Gnostics
This Rock, January 1996

The Truth about Pope Honorius
This Rock, September 1994

I think these four deserve to be in the article. My reasoning is that Mr. Spencer (for whatever reason) does not list his early work in his own lists of publications. As a compromise, I'm willing to have the four articles listed plus a link to his official list of publications at Jihadwatch. Is that acceptable to you? 12.96.162.45 18:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That would give a decidedly false impression, the 4 articles listed on Wikipedia would be more prominent. although he seems to have written a handful of early articles and become a regular columnist around 2002, The articles issue is handled in the bio as it stands now which mentions some Catholic articles early on, regular columnist at Frontpage Magazine, Human Events more recently, some in other papers. No articles were listed previously. Does every columnist get a listing of columns in Wikipedia? It seems absurd.AnneCr 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

These are not columns. They represent his written work on various topics before 2002. It is hardly unknown on Wikipedia for selected publications to be presented from periodicals or journals. While it would be unusual to list every column written by a columnist, I will point out you that you are the only one making that suggestion.
Again, in an attempt to compromise I would hope that you would be willing to accept the listing of some number of selected article (not regular columns) to create a balance and to eliminate what you consider a false impression being given. 12.96.162.45 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen the articles, so I really don't know how they differ from a Front Page article. What do you want to include and why? AnneCr 23:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just scary, I thought the guy was some sort of male Ann Coulter Light, but seems he's almost just as raving mad. Any old how, I'd re-sort that list if I were you. Half of the articles are listed under wrong publication. Now, another thing; from every single one of those publications, the only ones I found not to be bleeding obvious in their bias were the Dallas Morning News, the National Post, and the New York Post - of which I counted 1 occurance of each. The remainder of the articles are from heavily biased conservative publishings or plain old religious nutjobs. None of this - none, whatsoever - proves him to be anything close to a researcher. If anything it paints him as a zealot obsessed with "The ever-present danger of murder-religion Islam".--TVPR 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He isn't an Ann Coulter. He isn't even the worst of the writers in this area (see Bat Ye'or for a real raving mad case). I think the worst thing he has done so far is his attempt to historically rehabilitate the crusades as a good thing. His association with Frontpage and David Horowitz has actually hurt any mainstream acceptance he had. All he seems to be able to do these days is endlessly repeat the same things he said four years ago. 12.96.162.45 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Not even the worst of the writers in this area." Wow. It is kind of astonishing that you and the TVPR person both feel so free to flaunt you biases in the discussion and then think that you are going to be able to write something NPOV.AnneCr 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Scary"? Well, Happy Halloween. Meanwhile, I have given you the info I have. If you have better info about the articles, fix them. I don't see what you are talking about when you say "wrong publication."
Earlier we have settled "Robert Bruce Spencer is an American writer focusing on Islam" omitting the word "researcher."
This list was an effort to answer are the question about publishing which had been tagged as "citation needed"
You are quite welcome to your opinion of Right Wing publications, but your opinion that such opinions are "scary" seems a bit parochial.
And while you have questioned my right to contribute to this article based on my interest in it an it alone, you seem oblivious to the fact that others might view your biases (as revealed in your comments in this and other articles such as on "Christian Terrorists") as problematic.AnneCr 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I never questioned your right to edit the article, I used said argument as indices that you might have been a sockpuppet, for which I now apologize. In any case, my opinion on right-wingers is not of relevance, the fact that his publications more or less exclusively have made it into outlets that make no attempt to hide their bias is. I'm trying to push forward facts, and facts from a neutral POV - including not attributing virtues to a biased writer like Bob Spencer which he does not posess. If he wants to portray himself as a serious, knowledgeable researcher on Islam, that's swell, but a WP article on him should not serve as a tool to push him closer to this goal. It should contain a biographical summary of his life and actions, and dated entries for when and how he started writing on Islam. It should summarize his views, and what bias those who publish them, have - not push these as facts on the reader.--TVPR 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what standard you are using to determine who is a "researcher"; I am perfecty happy with "writer". I question your bias that a "serious, knowledgeable researcher on Islam" cannot write in right wing publications.AnneCr 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

starting the clock on consulting statements

I cannot find any source to validate that Robert Spencer has consulted with:

1) US Central Command 2) The US State Department 3) The German Foreign Ministry

If anyone is working to validate these claims, speak up now. I intend to remove the statements after a reasonable interval unless someone provides something to support these statements or other reasoning why this material should stay in the article. 12.96.162.45 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This information is on Spencer's website. Your presumption that he is an untrustworthy source reveals your biases, and is absurd.

So if I said, "I am Jesus Christ", you would put that up in the entry on me in wikipedia, simply because I said it? Because to do otherwise would presume that I am an "untrustworthy source"? Does critical thinking have any role in this?Geminifile 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

These were not public meetings, but he wrote about them at Jihad Watch at the time they happened. Other people were in attendance. Instead of assuming he is dishonest, why don't you ask him for some verification, or provide some reason why you find his information about these consultations untrustworthy? He is quite specific about the State Department/German Foreign Ministry workshop here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012304.php. Why don't you contact the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin and ask them if such a workshop took place, and if he was there? Likewise he writes that he gave a workshop to a U.S. Central Command group in Tampa, FL on May 23, 2006: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011546.php. Why not contact them and ask, or contact Spencer? Your assumptions here reveal a bias so unyielding that any pretensions you have to objectivity have been thoroughly eviscerated.AnneCr 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is unacceptable. The statements:
  • "Your presumption that he is an untrustworthy source reveals your biases, and is absurd.",
  • "Your assumptions here reveal a bias so unyielding that any pretensions you have to objectivity have been thoroughly eviscerated."
are personal attacks. This is the second time you have made a personal attack on me.
Your statement:
  • "provide some reason why you find his information about these consultations untrustworthy"
is a misrepresentation. There are (or were) open citation requests in the article on these matters. I offered no judgement about the trustworthyness of any particular material in this regard. Please review policy and cease the personal attacks. 12.96.162.45

I have reviewed the policy and do not consider this a personal attack. Thanks so much for your helpul advice, but I believe you to be mistaken. I am questioning the NPOV of what you write given that you have repeatedly said (see above) that you doubt what Spencer says in his own bio about his interest in Islam, his own religion and various factors.AnneCr 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

<chuckle> Arrow740 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you review good faith, Civility and remember "Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia". It is perfectly acceptable on any biography page to question any biography or biographical detail. The reason I have gone to great lengths to discuss issues here is to avoid POV disputes. 12.96.162.45

Is Spencer's public bio a reliable source about his own life?

TVPR/Anon3190 added "cite needed" tags to a number of facts that another contributor had put in. The original included references to Spencer's web site. I consider it to be a legitimate source until proven otherwise. AnneCr 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Please review what "cite needed" tags mean. In short they mean that if someone knows of valid sources to back the statement made in the article, that they add a reference to that source as a citation in the article. However, it is perfectly acceptable to raise questions about the accuracy of Spencer's public bio in this discussion page.12.96.162.45

Actually, if you read the above discussion TVPR/Anon3190 did not only suggest otherwise, he said so.AnneCr 02:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

Al qaeda is not cited as a critic but in a section marked Views on Spencer's works. They are far more prominent that the other sources mentioned.

The phrase is "If the Zionist Crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants..." found here:[44]

The problem is that mentioning it as a "critic" is politically inflamitory and ends up smearing his other serious critics. His dispute with Al Qaeda can be mentioned in the article, but putting it in the list of critics fails NPOV. Further, [45] already has an entire section devoted to in the article. (see invitation to islam). Since its already covered, why does it need to be double-covered in the critics list.
It does not violate NPOV. They criticize him. Arrow740 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The Al Qaeda criticism should be seperated from the list of other critics. It tarnishes the name of the other critics and makes it seem as if they have the same overall viewpoint. Clearly violates NPOV. Nokhodi 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"It tarnishes the name of the other critics." That is your point of view. A Qutbi would not take that view. It is wikipedia's place to judge that Al Qaeda negatively? It enjoys the support of millions of Muslims. Arrow740 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"It enjoys the support of millions of Muslims". That is your point of view. Nokhodi 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What? It's a fact. Read this [46]. Arrow740 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"It enjoys the support of millions of Muslims". For perspective, it does not enjoy the support of over a billion Muslims.Geminifile 05:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

As any student of certain monotheistic religions knows, there are sins of ommission and sins of commission. This article errs in the former, because althought it has a long section on Spencer's reactions to his critics, it has almost nothing to say about the critiques themselves. Until this problem is corrected, this article cannot claim to be in compliance with WP:NPOV. --Zantastik talk 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see as how the reactions of the subject of an article to criticism have a place in a biographical page in the first place. Response to criticism from the subject is by its very nature POV and inappropriate. The article needs to be encyclopedic rather than serve as a forum for debate between spencer, his supporters and his critics. If the criticism is to be expanded, it has to be expanded in an NPOV way and avoid any kind of back-and-forth arguement between "sides". 12.96.162.45 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Without any discussion, others have restored the section which means that Zantastik's NPOV issue is relivant again. The section (rather than the article) is now marked NPOV. In my opinion, to clear the NPOV tag the choices are either
  • Remove the "response to critics" section
  • Add a new paragraph of material detailing what the criticisms he is responding to are.

12.96.162.45 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The irony in all of this is that the article was much shorter -- a "just the facts" version representing an earlier consensus -- up until a few months ago, when one user in particular (who made little or no attempt at concealing his anti-Spencer agenda) forced the issue of a "Criticism" section. Before that, obviously there was no NPOV issue like the one we're dealing with now. One of the main objections to the a criticism/response section was that it would result in another interminable bout of wrangling over its content and balance.

And here we are. Dy-no-miite 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with the short criticism section as it exists now minus the "spencer responds to critics" sub-section. I don't think the sub-section is necessary given the "just the facts" version and I think re-expanding the criticism section would be a total disaster. I wish the people who *want* that sub-section to stay so badly could explain why and how they plan to fix the NPOV issue that its created. 12.96.162.45 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if we're going to have a "criticism" section, following to the resolution of the late-August/early September debate, I see the "response to critics" section as providing balance. Otherwise, the article is skewed decidedly "anti-Spencer": Suppose you had never heard of someone, and looked them up in an encyclopedia to find just a biographical entry, and a battery of criticisms. You'd think, "Wow, this guy must be awful," as the unanswered criticisms would serve to discredit the subject of the article and make the encyclopedia a platform for character assassination. Dy-no-miite 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What we have right now is a more or less equal number of external views of Spencer on both sides under "Views on Spencer's works" with little else said. I think that serves in place of a criticism section discussed months ago. In the article's current form there is no battery of criticism. If explicit criticims were to be added back in (a bad idea IMO), that would create a reason for the response subsection to be there. But right now thats not the case. 12.96.162.45 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I still think the "negative views" present charges that should be answered. I also think following up the section with Spencer's own words is a more neutral ending than letting either those who approve or disapprove of his work have the "last word" in the section. Ending with Spencer's own words invites the reader to form his/her own opinion rather than leaving who is "right" up future disputes among users. And a quotation from the person who is the subject of the article is a useful thing to have in a biographical entry. Dy-no-miite 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

new POV problems

The newly added section of "positive" views of Spencer's work is POV and unacceptable. It appears to be almost exclusively a collection of promotional statements mostly from a single book (the one on the crusades). The leading text: "Reviews of Spencer's bestselling book include these remarks:" suggests that it may have even been wholesale lifted from somewhere. There may or may not be copyright problems as well as POV problems.

The quotations used are essentially political material rather than actual reviews of spencers work. Examples:

  • "Robert Spencer assails, with much erudition, the taboos imposed by the Politically Correct League"
  • "The jihad that the Western world faces today is identical in its motivations and goals to that which Europe managed to stave off almost a thousand years ago thanks in large part to the Crusades of which the West is now ashamed."
  • "Today's jihad, as Spencer illustrates here, is proceeding on two fronts: one of violence and terror, and another of cultural shaming and the rewriting of history."
  • "he warns against the spirit of masochistic self-loathing that permeates the Western elite class."

The positive section needs to confine itself specifically to opinions on Spencer's work. That means for starters no political cheap shots and political opinions that are not Spencers opinions. The Ba Ye'or text buried toward the end is a example of somewhat acceptable material. 12.96.162.45 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting in "Al Qaeda" as an "organization which opposes Spencer's works" is almost funny. It makes the article spin like a child's toy. You might as well put "The whole of Islam" as a group which opposes Spencer's works.

71.195.114.237 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)== list of POV issues in spencer's response to critics ==

  • "One example: after I spoke at the University of North Carolina, Professor Carl Ernst of the university wrote a piece about me warning that my books were non-scholarly and were published by presses that he believed reflected a political agenda of which he did not approve."
This requires a citation to the exact "piece" that Spencer is talking about. Spencer's interpretation needs to be checked against the original work for POV.
  • "That kind of approach may impress some people, but Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."
This is entirely subjective POV. Spencer is making subjective conclusions about the work of another person. That is not encyclopedic.
  • Spencer has criticized academics at his web site writing that he opted not to enter any PhD program because he "could see [in 1986] that Middle East Studies and other departments were becoming highly politicized and retreating from genuine academic work"
This is unacceptable in a response to criticism section in that it is a criticism by Spencer of Middle East Studies programs. There is no response to criticism in this statement.
"and that is why I oppose the global jihad. And I think that those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth"
This porition of the statement is not a response to criticism. It is a political statement and an accusation presented without proof. Spencer here is accusing his critics of being liars with conspiratorial motivations.

I think in general it would be best to move away from many of the direct Spencer quotes and to have his arguements agianst his critics summarized in a encyclopedic way that also removes the attacks on specific critics. 12.96.162.45 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever contributed to wikipedia, so I'm not sure if my form is kosher, but the links to Carl Ernst's considered response to the substance of Spencer's claims don't work. The reader is left with a very lopsided view of Spencer, skewed positively, while there are evidently serious questions being raised about 1) his use of the primary sources; 2) his use of the secondary sources; and 3) his political agenda (e.g. "the politically incorrect guide to..."). When professional scholars such as Carl Ernst use words like "Islamophobe", the reader would like to know why. The article as it stands has a bunch of positive comments (and section for Spencer's response to his critics), and this is counterbalanced by some broad criticisms which border on ad hominem ("he has selection bias"), and one link of evident substance criticizing him (and that link doesn't work). If his critics claim that he has selection bias, the reader deserves to know *why*. It's a problem. A suggestion would be to move Juan Cole's open letter to Spencer up from the footnotes, and to give it equal space with the positive comments. There is plenty of substantive material to choose from in Cole's response, for example his point that SPencer uses legal compendiums from the fourteenth century to illustrate what Islam in its essence actually is. This is a very serious charge against spencer and his methodology (and obliquely his competence), and ought to be factored in (and not buried away in the footnotes) if the article is to show anything like balance. Geminifile 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with what you are saying, the article reached its current form because attempts to do what you want turned the article into a debate between supporters and critics. The pro-spencer element will not only refuse to accept what you are suggesting, they will demand that Spencers answers to every criticism be included as well. The current half-compromise is that there are links as references which give the actual views of the critics while other details are minimized in the article. Its not an ideal situation, but anything else is likely to lead to months or years of useless back-and-forth arguments/edits. 152.163.100.14 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, in a way this is ground-zero for how the west is to understand (or not understand) Islam. So there's going to be a lot of emotional charges on both sides. I think you have to do the thing with a balance of structure. If you give five favorable quotes, give five specific criticisms. A "Response to his Critics" section simply has to be balanced by specific examples of those criticisms. In my view, it's a really important article, because Spencer has put himself on the front line of the neocon construction of Islam, and it's important to know what his arguments are, and equally important to know why scholars of Islam (many of whom are Muslims themselves) invariably think Spencer is a quack. I'd balance it out, five quotes pro, five quotes against. Spencer claims that Islam is *inherently* violent (as opposed to Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism), which are not. It's a very important topic, which deserves a balanced discussion. The pro-Spencer side needs to be heard, in exactly 50% of the article. But I'm new to Wikipedia's vetting process, so I guess just consider this as comments from an interested/concerned observer.71.195.114.237 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this "neocon construction of Islam?" You claim that "scholars of Islam invariably think Spencer is a quack." So you've polled them all and a majority of them think he's a quack? Your request for an equal number of anti-Spencer sentences will be hard to fill, because no one actually references his work when criticizing him. Arrow740 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The links to the neocons may be seen through David Horowitz, among others. As regards the claim that professional, peer-reviewed scholars generally ignore Spencer's work, or think him an outright quack (the link to Carl Ernst's article doesn't work, but see e.g. the comments by Khaleel Muhammad ((viz, "[spencer] manifests an unforgivable ignorance of the study of religion concerning law and interpretation")), or comments by Juan Cole, or others). There are substantive reasons why Spencer's work may be questioned, and readers should be allowed to decide for themselves their own opinions. I find it fascinating that someone has removed Juan Cole's open letter to spencer...while some claim the great virtue of western democracy and christian values are the openness of ideas and the free flow of information and tolerance for divergent viewpoints, (as opposed to the muslim model of repression, violence and intolerance), they advance the point by removing and supressing those who call it into question? Let's play "spot the irony"...
Answer my question. What is the "neocon construction of Islam." You have found two scholars who agree with you. This is not evidence that a majority of them agree with you. Even so, most tenured scholars of Islam are probably ninnies like Esposito, so their opinion is not evidence that he is a "quack." Why don't you read one of Spencer's books so that you can discuss his work intelligently? Arrow740 08:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Arrow, I have read Spencer's works, & I have many friends who study Islam for a living. You may think Esposito and Karen Armstrong and the like are "ninnies", but you'll need to subsantiate *why* you think this is so, rather than just sling words around. As for the neocon connection, maybe it is tenuous, & I'd not push the point too far. I do think it is there, but this isn't the place to discuss the issue.
My wordslinging is easier to backup than yours. I'm sure you could back up mine for me, but I really have no idea what you're talking about with the neocon label. Arrow740 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Juan Cole's open letter to spencer" was removed because it never mentioned Spencer, and thus has no place here. Khaleel Muhammad's statement is, like the others, unsupported by examples, and is therefore worthless as criticism. AnneCr
The Juan Cole letter I read linked from here mentioned Spencer extensively, so I guess we're talking about two different articles. So don't worry! You haven't rained on anything! Yay!

--I suggest you enroll in a reading course. The Open Reply to Robert Spencer was written by Mark LeVine, not Cole. It was posted at Cole's site. Spencer has a further reply. AnneCr

Muslims are afraid to read what Spencer writes, because he just quotes them from their own literature, and proves that Islam has certain unacceptable qualities. Arrow740 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The primary charge against Spencer (from Carl Ernst, Khaleel Muhammad, and others), is not that he "quotes them from their own literature". That's child's play. The main critique is that he does not provide the social or historical contexts for those statements, nor any balanced survey of how Muslims themselves have understood the more problematic statements. It were as if one quoted Jesus saying "a man must hate his father and mother to be my disciple", and "in anger [Jesus] reached out his hand to heal [the lame man]", and then claimed that those two statements *defined* Christianity (throw in the entire book of Revelation, Paul's "wives submit to your husbands", etc, as well). And so Spencer's lack of academic training in the field turns out to matter after all...if the question concerns the scholarly integrity of his work. Throughout his books, he fails to sufficiently consider how Muslims themselves have understood the various passages...so that one is left with the impression that the true Islam is Islam-according-to-Spencer, and those practicing Muslims who might disagree are incorrect about their own tradition, while he is correct. For example, he all but ignores the vast amount of Islamic tradition which differentiates a "greater jihad" [=internal, against one's own ego and vices] from a "lesser jihad" [external, primarily in defense of the faith]. This is not a minor point. 71.195.114.237 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
he all but ignores the vast amount of Islamic tradition which differentiates a "greater jihad" [=internal, against one's own ego and vices] from a "lesser jihad" [external, primarily in defense of the faith] o rly?
You'll observe that Spencer often quotes what Muslims themselves have to say about topics within their faith, thus it is wrong to claim that the violent interpretation of Quranic verses/hadith is purely Spencer's. - KingRaptor 07:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The articles you linked are anemic...they merely attempt to reinforce the point that Spencer's idea about the meaning of "jihad" is right, and the Islamic idea is wrong. In neither article is there a discussion of the concept of "inner jihad", which is a hadith saying that has had profound influence on Islamic thought and jurisprudence. Here again, Spencer is either ignorant or dishonest, or else lacks perspective.
First off; newer comments go towards the bottom, not the top. Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to point out that Spencer HAS mentioned the hadith in one ofthe articles I linked to (did you glance over it or something?), quoted as follows:
In Onward Muslim Soldiers I detail how prominent jihadist theorists such as Hassan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdullah Azzam (founder of Al-Qaeda) argue that the idea that the "greater jihad" is a spiritual struggle is based on a weak hadith, a false tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, and that jihad is legitimately and primarily only warfare against unbelievers. (Emphasis mine) - KingRaptor 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the problem. Spencer has merely cited a few extremists who assert that it is a "weak hadith", without informing anyone that it's been a central and formative component of Sufi thehology for over a millenium. "Weak"? Hardly. It's these sorts of value judgments that help explain why a lot of people don't take him very seriously. Like I said, the articles are short and intellectually anemic...they don't give any perspective on the greater jihad/lesser jihad issue. All of which would be just fine if he was commenting on Islamic extremism. But he's not, he's making claims about the essential nature of Islam itself. Geminifile 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I did some probing around, following the relevant citations on Jihad, and found exactly what I guessed I would find: not only is the hadith not from the canonical six hadiths, leaving its credibility questionable at best, the chains of transmission involved were deemed to be unreliable.[47] [48] If Muslims acknowledge or follow weak hadiths, that's their fault, not Spencer's or the extremists'. - KingRaptor 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and he does give lots of social and historical context; in fact that's his main tool besides quoting the most authoritative Muslim scholars. We're still waiting for a criticism of something specific, indeed any valid criticism. Arrow740 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Robert Spencer wrote (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam), "Islamic theology so devalues non-believers that there is no room in Islamic culture for any generosity toward their achievements". Are you claiming that Aristotle did not play a part in the development of Islamic theology? Or that the muslim theologians did not acknowledge their forebears, or what?
Robert, nobody is going to say that your citations aren't historical, or doubt their veracity. What they will do is point out that your interpretation of those citations hasn't been current amongst most Muslims, for most of history. Today, for example, more than a billion muslims did not commit any act of violence, or wage jihad, or rape people, or whatever. That's not because more than a billion muslims don't understand their own religion, it's because you don't. Your work lacks balance and general fairness, and that's why most scholars think you're a quack. Plus, the amount of time you spend monitoring your own wikipedia entry is kind of weird. Geminifile 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If there was ever a talk page comment that needed a {{Fact}} tag, the claim that Spencer spends a lot of time monitoring his own Wikipedia entry would be one. Oh, and just because Muslims don't actively participate in jihad doesn't mean they don't support the goals (and often, the methods) involved. A support that's quite a lot more widespread than some people think, I might add. - KingRaptor 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not clear who you're accusing of being Spencer, but if you think it's me, I'm flattered. Anyway though it would be impossible (depending on the "citations") for you to prove that Spencer's "interpretation of those citations hasn't been current amonst most Muslims, for most of history," it would be irrelevant. Most Hindus are likely unaware of the Brahman/Ishvara distinction, that doesn't prove it's not the "correct" interpretation of the Hindu literature. Arrow740 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So we decide what correct Hinduism or Islam is, while they themselves don't understand their own religion rightly? 71.195.114.237 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Who are "we?" Arrow740 07:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that a consensus view isn't necessarily a coherent view. Arrow740 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A strawman NPOV version of the "response to critics" section

I've come up with a proposal for a new version of his response to critics section. I'm trying to summarize Spencer's case in a neutral and encyclopedic way. No citations are presented this time but I will add them before putting anything into the article.


  • Responding to criticisms, Spencer has said that he does not present his work based on his academic credentials but rather on the basis of the direct evidence gathered from his personal study of Islam. With regard to charges of bigotry and hatred, he has said that those making the claim are engaging in displacement and projection. He has also said that his critics use charges of hatred and bigotry to frighten the credulous and the political correct away from his work.

152.163.100.14 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here again, I just think it's important to actually cite his critics. Who charged him with bigotry and hatred? Is that his own construction of why they don't like him, or are there sources for the claim. If there are sources, can we read them? If not, why not? Regarding the charges that he does not understand Islam (or rather, that he projects an understanding of extremist Islam onto *all Muslims*), can we have specific examples and citations? It's the same point I made above...just hoping that the controversy is fairly presented.71.195.114.237 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and Secular Humanism

I've noticed that one of Spencer's works (2005) is published by Prometheus Books. For those not familar with them, they are the publishing house for secular humanism and a leading publisher of anti-religious books of all kinds. Its a strange place for someone with Spencer's political views to publish through. 12.96.162.45 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at there. Dy-no-miite 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What he ofcourse is getting at, is that because in his esteemed opinion Robert Spencer is a raving christian with an agenda to convert muslims or some such nonsense, it does not make sense why he would release his works through an anti-religion outlet. It's a rather common tactic by his detractors, attack the person, not his work.
Indeed. They're probably afraid to read his work. Arrow740 07:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Does anyone know of someone who has critiqued Spencer's work, instead of just criticizing Spencer himself? If so, I would appreciate a response on my talk page. Arrow740 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*crickets chirping*
*dogs barking* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geminifile (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
*tumbleweed blows across empty street.....* --GreekEmperor 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*guinea pigs grazing on a lawn* - KingRaptor 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

lol--Boris Johnson VC 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

*Bat flies against a full moon partly obscured by a whisp of cloud.....* Prester John 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*Cows mooing while the wind whistles over the bare metal dashboard of the 950hp NOS-rigged 1972 Pontiac Le Mans coupe during the "Stereo" qualifying test for "Getaway in Stockholm 4"....*--Mike18xx 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the tone of this discussion really necessary? There is plenty of criticism of Spencer, much of it mentioned above. You will also find a more nuanced view if you bother to look closely at the views expressed by some of his "supporters", such as Daniel Pipes. A cursory examination is reveals a number of diverging opinions.

Here is just one example: Spencer has consistently trumpeted the concept of taqiyya as being intrinsic to Islam, and his views are widely quoted across the web. In stark contrast, you might be shocked to learn that no less that Daniel Pipes argues that it is an essentially Shia' practice, and neither widespead, intrinsic, or essential. He also is consistent in claiming that he has never directly accused anyone of the practicing taqiyya.

As evidence, please read Pipes rebuttals, some of them rather lengthy, to posters to his site proclaiming the "truth" about taqiyya: [http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/22855

<"I do not agree with much in this posting. Three corrections are needed, in particular: 1. Taqiya is a Shi`i practice, not a Sunni one. 2. It concerns hiding one's Shi`i affiliation, pretending to be a Sunni. 3. It is done only under stress. Here, for example is a passage of mine from "The Alawi Capture of Power in Syria - article by Daniel Pipes," published in 1989, on the subject of one Shi`i group, the `Alawis (or Nusayris): [49]

Pipes has reiterated his views in others posts. < "Taqiyya is a Shi`i concept for self-preservation and is not an all-purpose justification of falsehood." [50]

"I don't think I have ever accused anyone of taqiya. It is a specific and technical term, applicable to religion, not politics; and to Shi`is, not Sunnis." [51]

The link he posted after the above comment is now dead, but it was linked to this site: [52]

Jemiljan 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

People attack Spencer himself because it's sooooooo obvious how shamelessly self-promoting he is and how gullible his fans are. His actual "work" in "exposing" the jihadists isn't really in question; the difference between people like Daniel Pipes and Spencer is the fact that Pipes isn't so full of himself. Pipes is at least scholarly; Spencer is more like Ann Coulter than anything else - he says what he says about Islam in a way deliberately designed to get attention. Spencer groupies are highly entertaining in their devotion to riding the man's nuts.
Anyway, John Derbyshire has written a fairly scathing review of Spencer's last book, "Religion of Peace?" Please see the link at http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/christianity_good_islam_bad.php. Spencer, who of course never stands down ANY challenge to his work, has responded, but his response largely ignores many of Derbyshire's more cogent points. Actually, I think Derbyshire has made the same mistake as Spencer's groupies and the jihadists by buying too much into the book in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.49 (talk) 16:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

"Al-Qaeda have negative views of him also".

--This is beyond awful. What is this phraseology trying to convey, anyway? Slac speak up! 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobic?

I added this section, it contains some well sourced statements by Carl Ernst, coming directly from University of North Carolina. I think its very important to have an Islamic scholar's (such as Carl Ernst's who is a Christian) critical point of view. The statement is the only reference that Robert Spencer is not an Islamic scholar. Further more the article is still start class, so it needs lot more information than what it has now. So if you are removing anything please discuss here and give a valid justification. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's as I said. You obviously have not read the article you are editing. The "views" section already contains this sentence: "Khaleel Mohammed, Louay M. Safi and Carl Ernst 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 and; that 'he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity" as you should know. Arrow740 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well calling him Islamophobic is not mentioned anywhere right? Since you already reverted my edits without letting me explain anything, I don't see that you are really interested in my point of view. Though I can revert back your edit I will not do so for the moment as I try to adhere to WP:1RR. Please let others present their view before removing things from an article, I know that wikipedia is not a democracy but it doesn't stop us from being nice to each other does it? :o) ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you say "Carl Ernst calls him an Islamophobe" if you can provide the very sentence here. Spencer is possibly proud of the label. Arrow740 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I cant comment on behalf of Spencer :o), whether he is proud of the label or not doesn't concern me, whether you care or don't care also doesn't concern anyone of us at wikipedia :o) ; the fact remains that he is called an Islamophobe by some of the scholars and there is evidence for it and should go in the article. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey you know what... I dont think Spencer would like it.. check this out ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right.

And for my part I vehemently reject the "Islamophobe" label, which is only a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism. My work is dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts — a necessity that should be obvious to anyone of good will, although I have no illusions that it is forthcoming soon or ever, or that it will be easy. I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people. That's Islamophobic? Then is the fault in the phobe, or in the Islam?

from http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001527.php. Arrow740 07:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer has all the right to defend himself. What I have added is not my point of view, its simply what Carl and William said, they are some of the top Islamic scholars who are not Muslims. So could assume them to be neutral. May be we can include your quote in his response to criticism section. I restored my edits as I believe its more informative this way, If you want I can provide many more reference where other scholars have called him an Islamophobe I have included the most neutral scholars comments as reference. Please dont remove them, their allegation doesn't just surmount to being Islamophobic but they also raise questions about his scholarship on Islam and his publications. This I believe is important. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Ernst does raise totally ineffective criticism. And Robert Spencer is certainly a scholar. The silly name-calling has been mentioned and that is, in my mind, more than sufficient Arrow740 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Spencer has full right to defend himself. extensive quoting of his amusing pseudo-responses however simply topples the balance. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when are meaningless and POV (though that's difficult to avoid in this article) neologisms appropriate for Wikipedia? - KingRaptor 06:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles

We don't put titles everywhere. I guess you haven't picked up on that yet. Regarding your fervor for a special section with the title "Islamophobe?" that is providing undue weight to unscholarly name-calling. Arrow740 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my edits again without letting me discuss it. I dont see it as unscholarly name calling as respected scholars have called him like that, I can give you proof that Islamophobe is a topic at the Colgate University "Islam and modern world" course.. :o). So how come its unscholarly. I kindly request you not to revert my edits without even letting me discuss it that is pretty unscholarly :o) ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As Spencer said, the term is meant to end debate, not facilitate it. Arrow740 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That may very well be true, but it's not relevant. If scholars use it... it becomes scholarly even if it is completely untrue. gren グレン 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig

I have just spent a couple of hours turning all of the explicit external links into <ref name="xxx"> and {{cite web}} citations, adding |title= and |publisher= on some to highlight that they come from the subject's own website, and thus are not WP:RS ... it all started when I removed some links normally to be avoided (the NYT website requires registration to see book reviews), but the References looked coyote ugly, and I couldn't stop myself.

I could have done more, but these cosmetic improvements are really just a fool's errand to help manage my OCD, so now it's time for me to MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Put free lipstick back on pig. The NYT no longer charges to view its archives. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: Place of birth missing

For some reason there is a Category entry at this point of this Talk page. Don't know when it appeared (maybe after 22 May 2007). -- SEWilco (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD archive

Can someone provide me with the link of the AfD archive for this entry? Thanks.--Kitrus 08:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer Scholar

The Washington Times has described Spencer as a scholar here. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CNN thinks that doesn't go far enough and calls him a "leading scholar" here. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the former's famously rightwing and the latter is actually just Glenn Beck, not 'CNN', but at least you're on the right track. I did ask for multiple neutral sources, but someone else can take it from here on these specific lines. Discuss, everyone, please. Hornplease 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Asking for "multiple neutral sources" using the same word is unreasonable. Arrow740 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Researcher" / "Writer" is more accurate/fitting

Glenn Beck is not a news source. He does opinion pieces, which are produced by CNN, the same way Fox News hosts and produces Bill O'Rielly. Do you understand why that excludes them from being neutral, respectable sources?

The Washington Times is better known for its ownership by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, controversial for his blaming the Holocaust on the actions of "Jewish leaders" and publicly calling homosexuals "dung-eating dogs."

To the point, Robert Spencer has been published by no academic journals or presses. His work is not recognized by any academics. Spencer doesn't even have a doctoral degree. He fails the textbook definition of what a "scholar" or "academic" is.

For now, he is a "writer" or "researcher" (at best).--Kitrus 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. If Spencer is a scholar can you name the institution he is affiliated with? He lives in America, where there are tons of opportunities to join institutions and research there.Bless sins 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We should only add Spencer in the category of "scholars" if this is NPOV. Carl Ernst says that Spencer's writings are not scholarly. Khaleel Mohammad says that Spencer presents "fictions and prejudgments" rather than facts. Spencer does not have any official degree in Islamic studies. --Aminz 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One does not need an official degree in a subject to be a scholar of that subject. Nor does one need to be associated with a university. Your assertions that Spencer is not a scholar rest only on criticism by his detractors; mainly those who don't want to confront his assertions head-on. Further, you reverted my reversion because you say it's not clear in the views section if he's a scholar or not. That paragraph refers to Spencer's scholarship and contains an accusation of unscholarly behaviour. What would make it clear that he's a scholar if that doesn't qualify? Frotz 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for us to consider a person in the category of "scholars", he has to have official degree or otherwise has made significant contribution to the field of Islamic studies. Spencer is simply a writer on Islam, an even in that case, a controversial one. --Aminz 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Carl Ernst says: "This information is significant because these books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics."
So Carl Ernst is now the go-to guy for facts? Just like Glenn Beck's opinion (see above) can't be used as fact (unless discussing something from his show), Carl Ernst's opinion has no bearing on someone's scholarly status. Someone with a MA in Religious Studies, who writes on religion, is a scholar, period.-DMCer 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
For us to say that he is an scholar, requires it to be NPOV. Because of wikipedia NPOV policy. This is not the case here. There are scholars who hold that he is out of the scholarship circle. --Aminz 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is, I'm sorry to say, absurd that we now have to prove the scholar status of anyone who you think is critical of Islam. Why do you feel threatened by the fact that he is a scholar? Alexwoods 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I should point out that he has a Master's in religious studies and works for a prominent thinktank, and that his work being called "unscholarly" by Ernst might mean that he is a bad scholar, but doesn't mean he's not a scholar at all. So I guess I don't understand what would be POV about stating the fact that he is a scholar. Alexwoods 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Alex, please do not put words in my mouth. I didn't say he is not an scholar because he is critical of Islam. I said he is not recognized as an scholar by real scholars. He has no academic training in Islam. In order to characterize him as an scholar, you need to show that this is a view held by everybody (due to the spirit of neutrality WP:NPOV)
Further, His M.A. was in early Christianity. Ernst says:

The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam. I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship (he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity).

--Aminz 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly. A scholar studies things. That's what makes him a scholar, not someone else's sayso. Spencer is doing scholarly things, therefore he is a scholar. Frotz 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Frotz, please mind WP:CIVIL. No. There are many journalists/writers on Islam. We don't classify them as "scholars of Islam" --Aminz 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't waste our time with somewhat hysterical references to WP:Civil etc. As it has already been pointed out Spencer hold a academic degree in the area of religious studies and is member of a prominent thinktank. That mean that he is not just a journalist, but an academic that is working within his field. -- Karl Meier 07:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You have not provided any new argument. His Master irrelevant to Islam. Being supported by a conservative think tank doesn't add to his academic merits. --Aminz 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He hold a degree in religious studies, and Islam is among other things a religion. So he work within his area of expertise. -- Karl Meier 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me again remind users Karl Meier, User:Frotz, and User:Alexwoods to remain civil and assume good faith.

  • Karl Meier has called the polite suggestions of a user "hysterical."
  • User:Frotz says this discourse is "silly," while User:Alexwoods thinks it's "absurd" that we even question the subject's title.
  • User:Alexwoods assumes that some users are questioning Spencer's status simply because of his beliefs (they "think (he) is critical of Islam") and "feel threatened by the fact that he is a scholar".

--Kitrus 09:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitrus: It would be more interesting and productive if you had something to say about the actual issue that is being discussed around here. -- Karl Meier 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I also find it interesting that you are talking about incivility: [53] -- Karl Meier 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing uncivil in having a list of banned sockpuppets on my Talk Page. I encourage you to take my advice rather than continue to prove my point or prove another by sifting through my userpages.--Kitrus 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Your list was attacking an editor in good standing, and that makes it unacceptable. -- Karl Meier 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So are you going to continue with this pointless ad hominem stupidity, or shall we get back to discussing the actual article?--71.37.15.48 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
We can argue until the cows come home as to whether a person is a scholar or not, its all based on what definition of scholar you want to use. CltFn 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
regardless of whether or not he is a "scholar" in the general sense (definitions may very as CltFn pointed out), he is not an Islamic studies scholar, nor an Islamic scholar (he has no verifiable education in the subject; his MA is in early Christianity) - and we have real scholars (i.e. Ernst) confirming that. Category:Islam critical scholars might be borderline due to the ambiguity of what a scholar may be, but Category:Non-Muslim Islamic scholars is out of place here.ITAQALLAH 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a distinction without a difference. If you grudgingly admit he might be a scholar for one category, he is a scholar for the other as well. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
not quite, because i think he may be a scholar in early Christian studies for example. that doesn't make him a 'scholar' in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, international politics, sociology, or anything else. "Islam critical scholar" is quite ambiguous, does it mean a scholar in any field of study who just happens to be critical of Islam? does it mean a scholar of Islam who is critical of it? (an irrelevant aside, what kind of criticism are we talking about? textual criticism e.g. Caetani? or moral criticism e.g. Muir?). if it means the latter, then that too isn't appropriate here. ITAQALLAH 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me weigh in here. I have a M.A. in Religious Studies, like Spencer, from UNC Chapel Hill. Also like Spencer, my degree is in early Christian History. If anyone thinks that my MA in early Christianity makes me a "scholar" of Islam, they're nuts. The program has nothing to do with Islam. Spencer is a "researcher" and "writer" on Islam, not a "scholar" of it. TarSpiel (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of knowledge should be mentioned

The fact that Spencer doesn't read or speak Arabic (or Persian or Turkish) should be explictly mentioned. One could hardly claim to be an 'expert' on Hinduism with no knowledge of any Indian languages; the same holds true here 68.158.113.143 12:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just like many biblical experts don't speak Aramaic or Hebrew (original languages of the Bible), Islamic and Quranic scholars need not speak Arabic. That's why there are English translations and references for the etymology of certain Arabic words.-DMCer 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Spencer can read Arabic. - KingRaptor 05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, very wrong. One can be considered as an expert in Indian history, with no or very bad knowledge of Sanskrit. Romila Thapar for example was often criticized for her lack of knowledge in Sanskrit. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy within his methods ought to be brought up

His books primarily focus around Islam, but he also offers apologetics for any beefs against things done in the name of Christianity (Spanish Inquisition, Goa Inquisition, Crusades, etc... things that are pretty hard to walk around, especially if one is a Catholic). Moreover, he considers "Islamophobe" to be a deabilitating word, yet he accuses Ayaan Hirsi Ali of beings "anti-catholic," while at the same time supporting her stances on Islam. Since when is "Islamophobe" deabiliting but "Anti-Catholic" not? Perhaps this should be included in respond to his position on Islamophobe. And it's funny how he selectively picks which parts of Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens work he likes, but then disagrees with any of their comments on Christianity. It's almost childish to read what this grown man says. -MadarB (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ought to be brought up" Some sources and we'll think about it. - KingRaptor (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
These don't appear to be of any significance (if true). If certain things anger you about Spencer, they're don't necessarily merit inclusion in his encyclopedia article.-DMCer (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be significant because it undermines his credibility as an author to go against his own thesis.. This is one example of him accusing Ali of "Anti-Catholicism" [54]. His beliefs are rather syncretic. Ali is atheist. He supports what she says on Islam, but hates what she says about Christianity. It's inconsistant. I suppose one could say it questionable to place it within an encyclopedia, but it certainly is unscholarly for someone that tries to pretend to be a scholar. I suppose it does border on OR now that I think about it though. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"unscholarly for someone that tries to pretend to be a scholar"?? How is it unscholarly? In fact, it really isn't inconsistent at all. His argument is that Islam is intolerant and Christianity isn't, so disagreeing with Ali regarding her views on Christianity (while agreeing with her about Islam) is right in line with all his previous work. It's no different than a scholar who agrees with his/her colleagues on some issues, while having clear differences on others. This whole "hypocrisy in his methods" proposal is pretty much just original research; I think the article is better off without it.--DMCer (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be included (because it is OR), but I think it would be an inconsistency for him to say that terms like "Islamophobe" are intended to stifle legitimate debate, while at the same time, he uses similar terms (e.g. anti-catholic). It's not so much about Christianity or Islam as it is about his philosophy towards terms like Islamophobe. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic is hardly as disingenuous a word as Islamophobia. Anti-Catholicism exists; it's after all the most influential Christian creed in the world, a lot of people oppose Catholicism. 'Irrational fear of Islam' however, doesn't exist. To oppose Islam is very rational. While fear doesn't have to be a part of the equation, at the very least they should have called it Anti-Islam. In any case, you cannot equate Spencer using a perfectly valid term such as Anti-Catholicism, just because he disagrees with the term Islamophobia. Another relevant difference between anti-Catholicism and Islamophobia is that we Catholics do not try to accuse anti-Catholics of racism. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Try talking to the Irish-Catholics in Northern Ireland (especially the ones who support the PIRA. They sure do seem to enjoy playing the religious discrimination card against the British and the Northern Irish Protestants...that's what the whole "Troubles" thing was about. I suppose I should also mention that the Northern Irish Catholics seem rather sympathetic to the "Islamofascists" or "Jihadists"; they seem to think the Palestinians' cause parallels their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.220 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of "scholar" for Wiki purposes?

If a person, such as Spencer, writes seven books on Islam and religion, if two are bestsellers, and these books are footnoted and researched, why is Spencer any less a scholar than anyone else? Because he lacks a PhD? Most Imams lack a PhD.

Whether we agree or disagree with his POV, or whether we like or dislike the fora where he expresses his views is entirely irrelevant. CNN and media outlets have called him a leading scholar, in addition. The NPOV from Spencer haters here is very problematic.

It seems to be that if Spencer isn't considered a scholar, nobody can be considered a scholar. It is not up to Wikipedia editors, in any event, to debate the merits of a person's research. If that person has produced a sufficient body of material available for public and peer review, and he has a large enough body of reviewers who support his conclusions (as Spencer does), he should be sufficient for inclusion as a source. It should also be noted that university scholars also publish papers and books which are invariably controversial -- are these university professors also not scholars? Ysageev (talk)

most Imams do indeed lack a PhD, but then again, most Imams aren't considered reliable sources here either. indications for what makes a reliable source on Wikipedia have been outlined on WP:V/WP:RS - that is, they are qualified in their area of study (if it has one, such as biological sciences, historical studies, or even Islamic studies), have their works published by academic institutions (i.e. universities, or other established publishers on Islamic studies in this case), have their works peer reviewed in academic journals and well received by other experts in that field. scholars on the topic of Islamic studies would be people like Carl Ernst, Montgomery Watt, Annemarie Schimmel, and so on. ITAQALLAH 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider Bernard Lewis a scholar and citable source? His works have been disputed by many "scholars" in Middle Eastern Studies departments. Given a topic like Islam and Islamism, any writing related to it will be controversial, whether it is published for the masses or a less widely read journal. It is in the nature of certain topics they have less claim to empirical verifiability. A scientist writing about Newtonian Mechanics is not the same as a historian writing about Islam. Finally, many scholars in the field of MES should give one pause, given that large numbers of department chairs are demonstrably financed with petrodollars. Simply because an article is written by tenured professor at an MES department is no guarantee of it's validity or lack of bias; similarly, just because a researcher makes claims that are popular with "scholars" in MES departments, doesn't necessarily make that researcher the benchmark of truth. Ysageev (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Lewis' forte is Ottoman history i believe, but yes, he is considered a scholar on ME/Islamic studies- precisely because he has the relevant background education and academic pedigree. Ysageev, scholars differ all the time. that alone cannot mean one is not a scholar. however, if a writer doesn't have the qualifications to be writing on a topic of academic specialisation - and let's face it, many universities hand out qualifications on Islamic studies nowadays - then for wiki purposes his reliability must be questioned. if he wrote on early Christianity, which is the subject of his MA, then he would likely be considered as a reliable source on that topic. as for petrodollars, it's unwise to paint all academics with the same brush. the issue is less to do with opinions than it is the authority associated with academic, peer-reviewed publications. ITAQALLAH 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
At the same time, either one of us can cite numerous examples of intellectual luminaries who lacked institutional accreditation. Benjamin Franklin, for example, failed to graduate from Boston Latin School. He did not attend any university or college. Is he never to be regarded as an authority or citable POV for this reason?Ysageev (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
reliability always depends upon the context. Avicenna might be a prime authority on philosophy related articles, but it may not be appropriate to use him directly as a source in Wikipedia articles. the spirit behind the prescription of reliable sources is to ensure that articles contain material written by and sourced to the experts in that particular area, so that Wikipedia reflects mainstream and informed opinion. education isn't the sole indication of reliability, but it's an important one. if an author or idealogue has been widely acclaimed for his/her impact on a science or academic discipline, then education may not be as important as the fact that experts consider him/her an authority in that field. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some fundamental flaws in your argument:

  • "if two are bestsellers" The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a bestseller in many countries. It doesn't mean its a reliable source.
  • "It seems to be that if Spencer isn't considered a scholar, nobody can be considered a scholar". University professors (in general) are routinely considered scholars. If Spencer was one, he too would be considered a scholar.
  • "Because he lacks a PhD?" Please note that a PhD doesn't make one a reliable source forever. Only the material published during the PhD can be considered reliable. For example, I can attain a PhD in astronomy, and later claim the Earth is flat. No one can stop me from doing that. But if I claim earth's flatness during my PhD, I won't graduate.

Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If a person, such as Spencer, writes seven books on Islam and religion, if two are bestsellers, and these books are footnoted and researched, why is Spencer any less a scholar than anyone else? Because he lacks a PhD? — No, it really hasn't anything to do with that he lacks a PhD. This is just an irrelevant point being used against him. The real reason, is that he is critical of Islam. He is not wrong in criticizing Islam and he is pretty much always correct about Islam. But there's a lot of taqiyya going on here. So what the Muslim Wikipedians are trying to do, ingenuous as they are and biased because of their religion, is to try and make Spencer seem unreliable because they don't want him to influence Wikipedia related articles with his criticism (and thereby, influence the rest of the world). This is a simple tactic. When Spencer writes, for instance, that Muhammed married Aisha, 9 years old, he is basing this on Islam's own sources (the Hadiths that are considered most reliable). Of course, this would make the joke of a prophet known as Muhammed a fraud, and Muslims don't want that. So while Muslim Wikipedians are trying to appear NPOV by claiming that Spencer isn't reliable because he lacks a PhD, truth is, they are extremely POV by attacking his qualifications rather than his content. They know they can't attack his content, because nothing he writes about Islam is inaccurate since he bases his books on Islam's own sources. So they try to link him with "right wing extremists" (whatever that means) and claim that he's not reliable, and lots of other bullshit, and pretty much hoping that people are dumb enough to believe them when they claim that Spencer is a genocidal extremist who wants to kill all Muslims, etcetera. Muslim Wikipedians shouldn't be allowed to work on Wikipedia articles regarding Islam. Their bias is way too strong if there is criticism of Islam involved. Although, other than that, they can be quite helpful in Islam related articles. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that a PhD doesn't make one a reliable source forever. — Indeed, and the lack of a PhD doesn't make one unreliable either. Let's face it, his books are controversial because they give a pretty good picture of what true Islam is all about (not that non-existent, "peaceful" Islam Muslims claim they follow). Therefore, you don't want to give him any credibility on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"Scholars" with PhD's routinely publish rubbish, approved by other academics who routinely publish rubbish. Everybody knows this. PhD dissertations are routinely rubbish, approved by professors who publish rubbish. Accreditation in fields other than math or science means very little. Regarding The Protocols of the Eldars of Zion, WP makes a special distinction for extreme minority opinions, opinions held by a minority so small as to be deemed insignificant for citation purposes. The number of scholars, inside and outside of academia, which think the Protocols are not a tsarist forgery is an example of such an extreme minority. Spencer does not suffer from this extreme minority objection; minority perhaps, but not insignificant. Also, the Protocols did not feature hundreds of footnotes to sourced material, as Spencer's work does. Therefore, to compare Spencer's work to the Protocols is silly. Ysageev (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
i think Bless sins' point is that being a best seller has nothing to do with a source's reliability or lack thereof. "Accreditation in fields other than math or science means very little" - i disagree with that completely. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ysageev - scholars produce carefully thought out material. One indication is lots of references, another is the course material taught to students in accredited universities. Though there are other indications, well-respected books etc.
But the decisive counter-indication is the promulgation of hatred. That's what swung people against David Irving's historical writings - the individual distortions worried individual commentators, but it was very difficult to turn them into a case until people generally associated him with anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial. It was accusations of hatred that turned people against his books, not proof that he'd cheated. Proof of the latter was only dug out when he sued Lipstad for libel in a British court and lost.
Robert Spencer falls down the same way. I'd likely agree with him on many counts - but I'm no more going to align myself with the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion than I'd defend the author of The truth about Moses: Founder of the World's Greediest Religion. Irving had lots of excellent references he'd tracked down in Germany - but all his references were worthless once we recognised him as a hate-source. Unlike Irving, Robert Spencer won't go to jail - but any contribution he's made to history and scholarship won't be recognised or appear in encyclopedias. PRtalk 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, it is ok for you to label everyone you disagree with as intolerant, but when others do so, it is a problem. As Spencer has responded, critics never contend actual points that he makes, they merely smear him. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has successfully refuted specific claims that he has made. I do not, also, accept your moral equivalence. That Jews are no more greedy than anyone else is easily demonstrable. That Islam is the most intolerant religion in modern times needs to be addressed. I do not agree that it is "hate" to point out problems with honor killings, wife beatings, female genital mutilation, the fact that women can't vote in Saudi Arabia, riots in Sudan over a Teddy bear, or riots over a cartoon of Muhammad, or Imams declaring that uncovered women are "catmeat", or execution of homosexuals in Iran, or the women who was sentenced in SA to 200 lashes after she was gang raped, child marriages in Iran, sexual slavery, etc, the list is endless. On the contrary, Spencer is acutely concerned about human rights. Concern about these religiously-inspired human rights violations is fundamentally different than demonizing Jews for engaging in usury, or Christians for opposing gay marriage. Ysageev (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
User:PalestineRemembered, so what you're basically saying, is that Spencer is wrong because he is "hateful"? Who are you to make that judgement? I hope you realise this is very clearly an ad hominem, do you? This means, your opinion doesn't count because you just rendered it invalid. I can hate Muhammed all I like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say that he was a paedophile. I'm no more going to align myself with the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion than I'd defend the author of The truth about Moses: Founder of the World's Greediest Religion. — Tu quoque. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There is (as yet) no specific part of WP:POLICY that refers to hate-sources (or hate-sites). However, we are enjoined not to use "extremist" sites, and the author of "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" definitely qualifies. It's easy enough to prove that, by replacing Islam with an equivalent religion and seeing how it reads.
There is also nothing against quoting even good evidence from the Holocaust Deniers, however, it's an indef-blocking offence - even a false accusation of this kind will cause an editor months of trouble. You'd not want to dabble in anything so violating of policy, now would you? PRtalk 21:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting response. Threats with repercussions. Where did I write that I wanted to cite extremists? I don't think Robert Spencer is an extremist at all. He has never advocated violence against Muslims, he has never advocated hatred or discrimination against Muslims. He even thinks they should have equal rights and freedom of religion. He is very careful and watches his words. In fact, he is probably the most politically correct critic of Islam there is today. All he has criticized, is violent Jihad, which is a very, very, vital part of Islam. Just because he is critical of Islam, it doesn't give you a right to fuck up his reputation by portraying him as a "hater". To you, perhaps because of your illogical bias, Spencer is a "racist" simply because he criticizes Islam. But I don't believe that's true. Racist is a word that doesn't mean much today anyway, since it has been devalued so much by people who don't know what racism is. You can't compare him with Nazis just because he criticizes Islam. It's not only slander, but also intellectually dishonest to do so. however, it's an indef-blocking offence - even a false accusation of this kind will cause an editor months of trouble. You'd not want to dabble in anything so violating of policy, now would you? — I really think you should apply that to yourself. You are the one here, who is engaging in wild attacks and character assassination on an author simply because he has politically incorrect views about a religion you seem to favour. And for the record, we cite authors who are very critical of Christianity. It doesn't make them extremists, and we have a lot more reasons to be critical of a death cult like Islam, than Christianity. You're constantly equating criticism of Islam with racial hatred of Jews. This is a disingenuous point. Jews, are an ethnic group, Muslims are not. Islam is a proselytizing religion, Judaism is not. Personally, I believe there is some "anti-Semitism" that can be rational (as long as it's valid criticism, i.e., and not wild theories of Jews controlling the world from outer space or some crazy shit like that). But whatever critique of international Jewry there is, it is completely beside the point since it's not the same thing as criticism of Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PR wrote: There is also nothing against quoting even good evidence from the Holocaust Deniers, Are you suggesting there exists good evidence that Holocaust did not occur? Who knew? It is not only true that criticism of Christianity can be found in WP entries, but that such criticism is almost a pre-requisite to entry in academic professions. It is absolutely fine for large numbers of academics to be neo-Marxists who believe religion is the "opiate of the masses" and spend every waking moment criticizing only Christians. There are certainly valid criticisms of Christianity and its believers, both past and present, and these are included here, they are not called "hate", and the same should be true of Islam.Ysageev (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Ysageev. It is only criticism of Christianity that is considered respectable today. Slightest criticism of Islam and you are a neo-Nazi who wants to produce a master Aryan race. This is of course all because of the Marxists and other shitty Leftists and their influence in the media and academic world. It's a one-sided double standard that you can criticise Christianity and get away with it as a good guy who deserves respect, yet you criticise Islam and you're immediately branded as evil (which is quite ironic since Islam, in my opinion, represents evil). As for the Holocaust, yes, it did happen, but they have blown it way out of proportions and sort of made a new religion out of the Holocaust. Especially here in Europe where people get locked in jail for criticising it. I personally think that Norman Finkelstein has raised some interesting points on it all (especially by calling it The Holocaust Industry, that's right on the spot). Anyway, that's off topic. I personally think that Robert Spencer gets an unfair treatment because of his criticism of Islam. Spencer has sort of a Zionist agenda since of course, he collaborates with David Horowitz (try raising any criticism on Jihad Watch against Jews and see how far that gets you; Jihad Watch supporters of free speech my ass), and he is biased in favour of Christianity because he is Catholic himself. But there are two things Spencer is not: he is not an extremist and he is not wrong about Islam. Therefore, I think his criticism of Islam should be given more attention and respect than it does at the moment. Of course, for Muslims to concede and acknowledge that he has valid points in his criticism of Islam would mean that they would be apostates and have to leave Islam as fast as possible before some Jihadists executes them. That said, whatever Muslims Wikipedians think about Robert Spencer's critique of Islam is irrelevant since they are not neutral on the matter. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many Jews who criticize the excessive emphasis on the Holocaust, particularly among older Jews. I balk, however, at Finkelstein's contention that it is an industry. Fink has gone much further than the attitude of the "put the past behind" mentality (which is not, in fact, uncommon). Most Jews, actually, would not support jailing those who deny the Holocaust. No Jews that I am familiar with have called for Finkelstein to be jailed, and that prison sentences for supporting Nazism is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- only the policy in Germany, not all of Europe, and that the argument can be made as well that the motivation for such sentences is not strictly related to treatment of Jews. One must recall that WWII, spawned by Nazi aggression, resulted in the decimation of Europe as a whole. Fink has argued that there is a conspiracy of Jews to utilize the Holocaust for ulterior motives, which is absurd. While I can understand the irritation at being consumed with past events and propagating resentments to the present, Finkelstein was not satisfied with that and crossed into the realm of insupportable self-hatred and conspiracy. I'm sure, if you support him, to be consistent you would also object to the recent congressional proposal to admonish Turkey for the Armenian genocide, seeing that today, some claim, such an admonishment serves no useful purpose and interferes with Middle East diplomacy, particularly vis a vis Iraq. Your comparison of Finkelstein to Spencer actually harms your case for Spencer, since the two are not even remotely comparable in terms of the quality of their claims and their scholarship. In any event, you have rightly pointed out that Fink is off topic. I'm not sure Spencer would agree with you that Islam is evil -- I don't recall him ever saying that. His assertion is that a literalist approach to Islam is incompatible with peace and tolerance. That is not the same thing. Regardless, what is relevant here -- and what we both agree on -- is that Islam merits the same level of criticism that is routinely leveled against Christians and Jews, and that Spencer is being vilified when in fact he cares about human rights; also, that much of what passes for scholarship in academia is rubbish, that accreditation does not a scholar make (Finkelstein being an example of both). Ysageev (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many Jews who criticize the excessive emphasis on the Holocaust, particularly among older Jews. — Did I state anywhere that all Jews have a homogeneous mindset? No, I didn't. You can refrain from the but not all Jews are like that! retorts. I balk, however, at Finkelstein's contention that it is an industry. — Are you kidding me? It is the number uno Industry, with a capital I. How many billions has Israel raked in from Germany because of the Holocaust? How many millions of dollars has Spielberg made from Schindler's list? It goes on and on. I haven't actually read Finkelstein's book, but his title did it for me. I got the point instantly. He couldn't have given his book a better name. Most Jews, actually, would not support jailing those who deny the Holocaust. — That's what I also believe. But Zionist Jews are a different matter. One must recall that WWII, spawned by Nazi aggression, resulted in the decimation of Europe as a whole. — Indeed, Nazi aggression did play a vital part in causing WW2. But to blame it all on the Nazis is an irresponsible, disingenuous and partisan way of not taking responsibility for causing WW2. Britain and the Soviet Union were equally guilty for causing WWII. It takes two to tango. And let's not forget the Jews' Judea Declares War on Germany campaign. Say what you want about the Nazis, but I don't think they were stupid enough to start an entire world war if they knew it would be a world war out of it. They wanted to eradicate Communism, with violence, a political move I completely support if necessary. Fink has argued that there is a conspiracy of Jews to utilize the Holocaust for ulterior motives, which is absurd. — It's in no way absurd. He is right. Zionists are taking advantage of the Holocaust and using it for their own political agenda. There's no conspiracy about this. It's as evident as it can get. Everything that happens in Israel, every criticism directed against Israel, and you will get two mindless predictable retorts regardless of the context and how valid the criticism might be: Holocaust and Anti-Semite. It's truly an insult to anyone's intelligence. Finkelstein was not satisfied with that and crossed into the realm of insupportable self-hatred and conspiracy — To accuse Finkelstein of "self-hatred" is ridiculous. The guy is an honest man (even if he's wrong about what he's claiming in his books), he seems to care about his fellow humans, regardless if they're Jewish or not. This means he deserves respect. Just like Jesus, a Jew, cared about non-Jews, so does Finkelstein. He deserves the utmost respect for this. The reason why people hate Jews is because many of them (especially the nationalist Zionists) only care about Jews, only care about Jewish interests, and only care about Israel. Of course people won't appreciate a conceited mindset like that. I'm sure, if you support him, to be consistent you would also object to the recent congressional proposal to admonish Turkey for the Armenian genocide, seeing that today, some claim, such an admonishment serves no useful purpose and interferes with Middle East diplomacy, particularly vis a vis Iraq. — I consider this somewhat of a personal attack, since I'm quarter Armenian myself. In no way do I object the recognition of the Armenian genocide, just because I am critical of how the Holocaust industry has been handled (in my opinion, the Holocaust industry is immoral, since it exploits victims for capitalist, money-making purposes. I would personally, myself, never want money from a people who murdered my people, but I guess that's because I have some dignity, self-respect and honour). It's interesting though, that you brought up the Armenian genocide, considering that Jews from the ADL and other Zionist lobbies in the US have done their damnedest to block resolutions of the Armenian genocide.[55] The entire reason they've done this is because they have their own interests in not getting it recognized. In that sense, Holocaust deniers – though I'm not one myself – are doing an excellent job against what I deem to be the Holy Holocaust and its people's opposition to recognizing other genocides; they deny our genocide, and their genocide should be denied right back in their face, politically speaking, it's the only right thing to do against these hypocritical Shoa-believers. And what do you mean consistent with your logic? Just because I think the Jews are handling their genocide badly, does not mean I have an inconsistent logic when Jews are being selfish by not acknowledging the Armenian genocide. Your comparison of Finkelstein to Spencer actually harms your case for Spencer, since the two are not even remotely comparable in terms of the quality of their claims and their scholarship. — No, not really. It does not at all harm my case. Spencer, as much as I enjoy his criticism of Islam, does not in any way come near Finkelstein in terms of honesty and truth. Spencer is just a lackey anyway. He's doing what he's paid to do. He has an agenda behind it, that doesn't mean he's wrong about Islam, of course, but it's pretty much business for his part. Finkelstein on the other hand, is an interesting scholar, trying to seek some truth in the situation of his people. This is my impression so far of both Finkelstein and Spencer. Spencer is being vilified when in fact he cares about human rights — In my opinion he really doesn't care that much about human rights. If he did he wouldn't support Zionism. also, that much of what passes for scholarship in academia is rubbish, that accreditation does not a scholar make (Finkelstein being an example of both). — I somewhat disagree here. Being a scholar, of course, doesn't mean you speak the infallible truth on everything, but it does give you some more authority on speaking your opinion with more credibility (and with good reason, since scholars have a certified education). That said, lacking scholarship does not mean you are automatically wrong in every case. You can still make good points, if they are based on logic and knowledge. And some of the academia is very politically correct (especially in a politically correct century as the 21st century), which is why well needed criticism of Islam such as that found in Spencer's books are not common in the universities. I'm not sure Spencer would agree with you that Islam is evil -- I don't recall him ever saying that. — No, he hasn't. He's too politically correct to say anything like that. That's my personal opinion about Islam. You shouldn't attribute my opinions to Robert Spencer, he can speak for himself and whatever I say, is my opinion. Indeed, Islam is evil, and in my opinion, Spencer is too soft on Islam. In any case, I think this discussion ends here. We agree to disagree on certain things, but the contention of this discussion is that we both think Spencer should be given somewhat more credibility on Islam related topics on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We've wandered off the point more than a bit (much as I'd like to support some of what you say - and support some of what Robert Spencer says). Calling other people's religions evil is intolerable in the project for simple business reasons.
But more importantly, this kind of "hate-speech" (or extremism in WP language and policy) is known to conflict with a scholarly product. That's the lesson we need to be learning from David Irving's discrediting. Not that we should throw him in jail (most people opposed), but that we couldn't trust his scholarship. PRtalk 19:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever I write on the talk pages, that's discussions. I admit, I do have my bias, but when working on the articles, I always try to be more professional and cite sources. In any case, Spencer must be given some credit for the criticism he has brought up on Islam. Most of his criticism is good points and very professional. He never calls Islam evil, he doesn't advocate violence against Muslims, etc. I think it's unfair to try and accuse him of stuff he doesn't say. Granted, he does have an agenda, naturally, he has his POV, but that doesn't mean everything he writes on Islam must be rendered false by default because of that. His criticism of Islam is intellectual, and although criticising Islam isn't difficult (it's a dumb religion and I could easily write a book like those of Spencer's, since critique of Islam comes very natural to anyone in his right mind), Spencer's views on Islam needs to be taken a lot more seriously by the entire world, not just deflect his critique of Islam as "extremism" and "right wing" or any other stupid reason. It's no conspiracy he's bringing on the table. This is what Islam is. It has to be understood, Islam is a disgusting religion and should be refuted so much that all Muslims abandon Islam. Islam as a religion must be discredited and intellectually destroyed. Spencer is doing a great job on this through his books, let us not attack him, but rather, focus on his arguments. Word of advice to all Muslims criticizing Spencer: get some self-criticism of your religion. Calling other people's religions evil is intolerable in the project for simple business reasons. — It's called freedom of speech. But perhaps you don't support that. I do. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer is not a scholar and I do not necessarily think his views should be held in high regard in any encyclopedic article. He has obtained no official study on Islam, nor is his work peer reviewed by scholars. Spencer did not publish a single work on Islam before September 11th, 2001. He has roughly the same amount of credibility as Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly on the right or Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell on the left. With that said, it is perfectly acceptable to use his sources; many (not all) of his sources are credible, regardless of how he construes them. That does not necessarily mean his polemic itself is worthy of citation. Often times he cites weak sources to justify his views and treats these sources as Gospel (e.g. Tabari's biography on Muhammad, which is essentially a rewritten version of a secondary source biography that had been written hundreds of years prior). Scholars would never cite that source without providing additional sources that consolidate Tabari's work. Robert Spencer would make such an error and he does show a strong dependency on only a handful of sources (not just in his biography of Muhammad, but in all of his works). Elias Alucard's rant and victim-playing is completely unnecessary. Firstly, criticisms of Islam are just as widely available as criticisms of Christianity. In fact, I can probably find more bestsellers that openly critique Islam than I can of Christianity. This notion that people critical of Islam are being "censored" here in the Western World is utter nonsense. In the Middle East, perhaps. In the Western World, not at all. Please stop whining. Israel does not recognize the Armenian/Assyrian/Pontic Greek events as genocides for political reasons, not because they are searching for sympathy. Israel has strong relations with Turkey; even more, Israel has coordinated militarily with Turkey. The Israelis certainly do not want to alienate their only militarily potent ally in the region and they clearly aren't the only ones that question the usage of the term genocide (the only one that is universally recognized, mind you, is the Armenian Genocide). We are all entitled to our own views, but your bigoted ones certainly do not reflect well on Christianity. It is quite shocking to see individuals that claim Islam to be intrinsically intolerant, while they go around pouting on virtually every talk page they can about how evil Islam is. Grow up. You aren't a child. This isn't a nursery. As a word of advice, do not use your freedom of speech in a way that compromises your own standing and reputation as an unbiased editor. Of course, you may continue to embarrass yourself if you wish. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, criticisms of Islam are just as widely available as criticisms of Christianity. — The difference is, when someone criticizes Islam, he will be called 'racist' or 'hate speech', etcetera while it is perfectly okay to criticize Christianity. How many times has Spencer not been accused of hatred when he's only bringing up the hatred of Muslims and Islam? This notion that people critical of Islam are being "censored" here in the Western World is utter nonsense. — Where did I state that critics of Islam are being censored? Your straw man fallacy is not working on me. Israel does not recognize the Armenian/Assyrian/Pontic Greek events as genocides for political reasons, not because they are searching for sympathy. Israel has strong relations with Turkey; even more, Israel has coordinated militarily with Turkey. The Israelis certainly do not want to alienate their only militarily potent ally in the region — Which tells you a lot about their lack honesty. It's like saying, hey, our only friend is Turkey, let's deny a genocide for their sake. the only one that is universally recognized, mind you, is the Armenian Genocide — Actually, the Greek and Assyrian genocides got recognized recently.[56] Not that I expect Israel to recognize it despite this. Hey, they have their Turkish friends, after all. God forbid if the Jews could be honest about an unrelated genocide. We are all entitled to our own views, but your bigoted ones certainly do not reflect well on Christianity. — I'm not a spokesperson for Christianity; I do not represent Christianity, stop judging Christianity based on me personally. It is quite shocking to see individuals that claim Islam to be intrinsically intolerant, while they go around pouting on virtually every talk page they can about how evil Islam is. — Well not everyone can be politically correct. As a word of advice, do not use your freedom of speech in a way that compromises your own standing and reputation as an unbiased editor. Of course, you may continue to embarrass yourself if you wish. — I am not embarrassing myself. If anything, I'm being more honest than most people here who claim to be neutral editors. We all have our bias, let's not be hypocrites about it. And if you claim you're neutral then you're most likely not telling the truth. In any case, enough with the off topic. Back to Spencer: Robert Spencer is not a scholar and I do not necessarily think his views should be held in high regard in any encyclopedic article. — So it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong, all that matters is that he's not a scholar? Has the possibility even entered your mind that it may very well be so that he's not wrong about Islam? He has obtained no official study on Islam, nor is his work peer reviewed by scholars. — It could be, that if his work was per reviewed by scholars, most of them would have to agree with what he's saying, and they don't want to do that because they are politically correct. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer poorly handles sources as I already clarified once; I used Tabari as a simple example in regards to his biography written on Muhammad. He does not have his works peer-reviewed (I am using the word "peer" loosely) because he does not want/demand that his work be published by academic publishers. Whatever his reasons are for that are unknown to you or I, but certainly it gives one the impression that he realizes his work has no scholarly significance; he has been critiqued in this regard by academics (e.g. Reza Aslan, John Esposito) and has, thus far, failed to acknowledge the challenge. Even with regards to his critiques on Islam, they are primarily hackneyed, uncreative polemics that one could just as easily find from an illiterate, 13th century European analysis of Islam. Even if we were to assume that his work is largely true (as you do) for the sake of argument, he still provides nothing new or fresh; his ideas are primarily regurgitated arguments by other polemicists. The Pontic Greek Genocide is only recognized officially by two nations on planet Earth if I am not mistaken (Greece and Cyprus, naturally). Regardless of whether or not the term "genocide" is used to refer to such events, the Israeli government does not deny the deaths of those Assyrians, Greeks, or Armenians caused by the Young Turk Administration/Ottoman Empire. Moreover, Israel still allows for monuments to be built in honor for those that died, even though the events do not have official recognition. Even Bernard Lewis, who disagrees with the terminology, still acknowledges the full death count. Certainly Spencer has been right before; I don't think he is entirely wrong in every regard. That does not, however, make his work reputable as a source in itself. His work is peppered with factual errors and he, on certain occasions, uses dubious sources. He has a tendency to generalize things in order to reinforce his conspiratorial views towards Islam. A perfect example would be how he applies Taqiyyah to all Muslims, even though it is well known that Sunnis barely even acknowledge it. Sunnis make up 85% of the current Muslim community and, prior to the Safavid Empire, composed close to 100% of the entire global Muslim community. Shiites have used Taqiyyah before, but even then, it is a rarity in history (and usually it was done defensively). These types of blatant generalizations undermine his ability to be sourced directly. I've already given you two huge fundamental flaws in his theories and certainly we can find more if we wish to continue this redundant debate. As I clarified in my previous source, one has every right to acknowledge many of the sources that he uses, but that doesn't mean he is worthy of citation himself. I certainly am not opposed to higher criticism, but it is complete nonsense to sit here and pretend that Robert Spencer's work is mechanically competent enough to be used as a legitimate resource. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer is as much a scholar as any one of us. I hold 4 degrees with one of them being an M.A. in English Lit. I am a Muslim. Perhaps I should call myself a leading expert in Islam....

Shortcomings on Mr. Spencer's scholarship are legion and have already been mentioned. The legions of supporters are however spending a lot of energy propping his shaky academics up... This is in vain because his methods cannot stand scrutiny.

70.55.238.80 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

About Robert Spencer's Christian faith

He is a Christian, so why not It should be mentioned with his names, so that people of the world should know well that a Christian writer actually hosting a site about Jidad.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.0.33.165 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already specifies that he is Catholic.—DMCer™ 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong Mr. It is no mention in the article that he is a Catholic. It would be more specific to include his Catholic identity in the initial part of this article, after all his all writing experience is bouned with the circle of Islam.116.0.33.47 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to include his Catholic identitiy in the first sentence of this article. It will help those people whose are curious about the faith of Robert Spencer. Why a man not writing about Christianity and Judeism instead of Islam. He is a qualified man but writing on Islam. It is fair to mention his Catholic identity.116.0.33.47 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? There is an examople in Wikipedia that the faith of Osama Bin Ladin is mentioned in his introducery page then why not it should also be mentioned in the article of Mr.Robert Spencer.203.130.7.19 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, this guy is a D BAG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.92.254 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spencer has written about his Wikipedia entry and made the point that "Catholic writer" has a meaning -- analysis from a Catholic theological perspective -- that doesn't apply to his writings. I think the sentence in the next paragraph, "He wrote freelance articles for various publications between 1980 and 2001 on Catholic religious issues" makes his religion clear enough. Andyvphil (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spencer's Views

I added the section summarizing Spencer's views on Islam, and someone removed it with the edit summary Section on views, however well-intended, opens a can of worms for edit wars. People can always visit his site & the bio there. The section was later reinstated. It seems important for an article on a person to at least mention that person's positions. Isn't it at least as relevant as the section on the conference Spencer attended? Entries on figures like Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or expound on their theses. The fact that content might precipitate editing doesn't seem like reasonable grounds for deleting it, but for reaching consensus, which in this case shouldn't be too difficult. SpencerViews (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who restored it, since it appeared well written and the reason for deleting it inadequate. So, thanks for writing it. Andyvphil (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category Anti-Racist

Spencer is not specifically known for being an anti-racist activist. He is known as a writer/critic of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

agree. Yahel Guhan 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Response to his critics" section

At present, this section seems to heavily rely upon the Jihad Watch F.A.Q. Whenever anyone criticises Spencer, he always writes a response online and often challenges them to a debate. I think that these responses should be used in the section rather than the F.A.Q. Of course, we cannot put up every debate that he has ever had, but his responses could be put up for the main critics that are mentioned in the article.

Any objections? Epa101 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pipes and Spencer

Pipe's praising of Spencer is covered on Pipes' blog. As such it is subject to restriction of WP:SELFPUB, which says that they "may be used as sources in articles about themselves". Thus I'm moving that to the article on Daniel Pipes. Any objections?Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two objections. One, his name is Pipes, not Pipe, and there is only one of him, so the possessive is "Pipes's". Two, read WP:SELFPUB again. A comment by a well known author on his widely read website is not self-publishing. If Coulter made that comment on her show, rather than on some other show, would that be self-publishing? Leave it in there. Yunfeng (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It actually fits the precise definition of WP:SELFPUB. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, because of the general notability of the speaker and of his website. Yunfeng (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, its his own website, and he's publishing his own article on it. Normally it might be acceptable if he was considered, an expert, but see also WP:SPS, which says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." --Relata refero (disp.) 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted Controversial conference attendance section

The only cite about this is CAIR, which is not exactly a reliable, unbiased and nonpartisan source. There is no evidence that the far right groups sponsored the conference, despite the fact that spencer distanced himself. this whole section is POV, with insinuations and assertions. It has no place in the articleHeatsketch (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

CAIR is a perfectly acceptable source for a section on Spencer and controversy. Please do not vandalize the article by blanking cited sections. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this section give its subject undue weight? What's the story here? Spencer attended a conference which was also attended by some people from organisations he disavows. Does that really merit 300 words?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the section can be made more concise per WP:UNDUE. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Khaleel" :
    • {{cite web |url= http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/ |title= Home page of Muhammad Khaleel}}} - Comments on his discussions with Spencer accessible at 8/28/2006 - The comments are archived [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Spencer&diff=72355508&oldid=72338443 here]
    • {{cite web |url= http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/ |title= Home page of Muhammad Khaleel}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremist Christian?

Is he an Extremist Christian? He seems to have published several works which promote Christianity while scorning Islam and Muslims. Does he belong to any particular group by any chance? Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_B._Spencer/Archive_1&oldid=1025380440"