Talk:Daniel Pipes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Comments posted in February 2007

Cleanup tag

This article is woefully remiss in its lack of citations throughout and in its over-dependence on Pipes's personal website for information about him and publications that are listed as external links (mostly). I have attempted to make a start at cleanup; others will have to aid in providing full, accurate, verifiable, reliable citations throughout. This article does not currently follow guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite. What I provide throughout is only a start at what needs to be a thorough overhaul of this article in order for it to be in keeping with quality standards in Wikipedia (editing guidelines and policies). --NYScholar 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems are discussed both above and in the editing history. The article is not "fine"; I and other editors (above) have complained about its lack of neutrality and lack of adequate sourcing. See Wikipedia:NPA as well. Focus on content not on the contributor. --NYScholar 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific; give one example of something that you specifically think is lacking. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No Personal attacks policy

The comments that I removed (see editing history, unless SV has entirely deleted them from the record) were indeed personal attacks: I removed them. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. She is absolutely out of line. She also removed a tag directing people to the comment previously made on this talk page, with only her own POV (not Wikipedia:NPOV) in mind. That is really disgraceful, and I object most strenuously to it and to her editorial practices and abuses of other editors, who have just as much right to work on articles as she does. She actually deleted material that I posted and called it a negative term, addressing me personally in the editing history in an entirely-uncivil manner multiple times. She has a real problem that needs attention. See Wikipedia:Etiquette and etiquette. Every time she addresses me, she abuses me. To me that is against Wikipedia:NPA. --NYScholar 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

She has also reverted my improvements to the article. I added, for example, an access date to an article (same article citation that I was working on adding at the same time that she was (note 1), and she actually removed that. These kinds of changes are not "improvements" and, even if they were improvements, they are subject to discussion as content changes. I worked hard on many articles to add full citations where they are lacking (see Wikipedia:Cite). If anyone is engaging in so-called "wikilawyering," it appears to me that Swatjester and SV are themselves doing that. I simply was trying to signal that this article needs improvement (as it does; all those external links need to be converted to full citations; they need to be checked and verified and verifiable. The article is unbalanced as it depends too much on material from Daniel Pipes's own website; this is an issue of content. I placed a tag called "unbalanced" to indicate that there was discussion of this problem on the talk page, as there was. An editor has indeed objected to the unbalanced nature of this article and the need to clean up the problems of lacking full citations. That requires editorial work. The tags were and are legitimate. I am entitled to point out this problems, and I have done so and continue to do so. They are content problems, not personal problems. SV has a way of dragging such differences of editorial opinion down to personal levels. She does not need to address me at all. She needs to address the content issues that I am complaining about. Until she does that, she has no credence as an editor in my view, and, as far as I'm concerned, my view is worth paying attention to. If you want crappy articles in Wikipedia, you can ignore it. But you will end up with just that: crap. --NYScholar 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the article. I'm talking about your edits on the talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I removed (from history):

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 :::reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments that I removed (see editing history, unless SV has entirely deleted them from the record) were indeed personal attacks: I removed them. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. She is absolutely out of line. She also removed a tag directing people to the comment previously made on this talk page, with only her own POV (not Wikipedia:NPOV) in mind. That is really disgraceful, and I object most strenuously to it and to her editorial practices and abuses of other editors, who have just as much right to work on articles as she does. She actually deleted material that I posted and called it a negative term, addressing me personally in the editing history in an entirely-uncivil manner multiple times. She has a real problem that needs attention. See Wikipedia:Etiquette and etiquette. Every time she addresses me, she abuses me. To me that is against Wikipedia:NPA. --NYScholar 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Singling out an editor by name and commenting on the editor and threatening the editor ("don't even think about it...." etc.) and making similar personal comments addressing the editor in the editing history of the article are indeed "personal attacks"; it is clear to me and to anyone else that that is what is happening here. Try a little distance, and you will see it too. --NYScholar 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, there was no threat. Second off, calling you out by name is not a personal attack. There is a definitive policy on what is and what is not a personal attack at WP:NPA. What you are doing right now is called wikilawyering and is disruptive, and your comments are incivil to her, and becoming incivil to me. Let me be very clear about this: your interpretation of the personal attacks policy is completely incorrect, and your claims of personal attacks, as such are incivil and disruptive. I highly recommend you just let this go and drop it all now before this escalates any further⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: but it is clear to me that "Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS" implies that something bad will happen to me if I do "start" working on this article. I have a right to work on improving articles if I want to take my time to do that. Neither SV nor anyone else has a right (as an administrator or not) to tell me that I cannot work on an article. That violates Wikipedia editing policy. She, like everyone else, has to know that one's work is going to be edited by others; the notice is at the bottom of every Wikipedia article page. It applies to all editors, whether or not they are administrators. I was trying actually to add full citations to the article and to check to see whether a full citation could be found for the "neoconservative" claim; I found Daniel Pipes's article now cited as note 1 and was in the midst of adding it, when SV did multiple reverts of my previous changes (which were pending such citations). These are content issues not personal issues and they need attention in this article (throughout it). SV has removed the tags and editorial interpolated comments indicating the work that is needed. They were reasonable comments and they need attention from more neutral editors than apparently she is in relation to this particular article. That is my comment on the content of this article (see above prior to her removing the tag relating to the comment re: "unbalanced"); it is a legitimate comment and she had no right to remove it or to "warn" me that I had better stay away from "her" article (or else). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is a description of what is happening here. It is also not an "editing war"; at least it was not one until SV started deleting the tags that I had placed on the article and calling my work names ("disfiguring" the article, e.g.). Of course, I have no intention to "disfigure" any article. I was legitimately signaling the content problems which I had already discussed on the talk page. --NYScholar 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But something bad isn't happening to you, it's happening to me, your reader. You are boring me to tears! I demand an apology. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't see this comment by Viriditas before. If I had, I would never have responded with courtesy or at all to his asking me to come here to put bullets in etc. [....] Viriditas. If you don't want to read about what to do about improving content of articles, don't come to talk pages. If I had realized how disingenuous you were in what you posted on my talk page, I would simply have ignored you, as I will do from hereon. [The bracketed ellipses are my own. Fill in what you think might be most appropriate there.] Talk pages are not forums for discussing subjects; they are for discussing improvements to articles. I really don't see SV doing that, or any of her buddies doing that. I see them just trying to keep other people from doing that. --NYScholar 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Movement of comments on article content

NYScholar, I've moved your lengthy repetitive discussion and re-hash of the article and the Talk: page to User:NYScholar/Daniel Pipes. Please do not fill this talk page with lengthy diatribes and dissertations; if you have any comments, please keep the brief, and specifically on the topic of the Daniel Pipes article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: You have not got my authorization to create any kind of user page for me. I've moved the material to Daniel Pipes/deleted material, which is what it is. My comments have to do with the content and editing of the content of this article and are entirely appropriate on a talk page for an article. If necessary, I will move them to an archived talk page for the article later. --NYScholar 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments specifically about suggested changes to article content are welcome. Brief comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to my own talk page, archive 2, which I created for that purpose. See that page of my talk page if interested in the content. If not interested, please refrain from making any comment. --NYScholar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: Please figure out how to delete that page that you created. I would blank it, but I want you to see the note first. I don't know how to delete such a page. Since you created it, I suggest that you delete it. The material is archived in my talk page archive 2. --NYScholar 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now blanked the page (after re-reading the Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Any administrator can delete that page that Jayjg created now. Content relating to Daniel Pipes (this article) and improvements to it are in archive 2 of my talk page. --NYScholar 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now added that page that Jayjg created without my authorization to requests for deletion discussion. Some kind-hearted administrator should be able to handle the request. --NYScholar 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, 1) the page Jayjg created is not "yours" any more than this article is yours; 2) I think the "don't even start" is a figure of speech that shouldn't be taken as a threat that should concern you. It's my observation, having run into you several places, that you have a tendency to intersperse useful (at best) and innocuous but annoying (at worst) edits with strong POV edits. I don't know if you do this innocently or deviously and have no way of knowing. But it certainly gets in the way of a productive polemic, especially since it's followed by self-righteous diatribes like the one Jaygj moved. It is of course your prerogative to edit in this fashion, but you'll have to expect opposition that will at times become strident. --Leifern 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator, recognizing the legitimacy of my request, has already deleted the page. The user page is my user page, and I did not authorize any forking of this article via my user page. I posted the comments legitimately in this talk page, but they were deleted whole by jayjg with complete disregard for talk page guidelines and Wikipedia policy prohibiting such deletions. [Calling good faith editing comments--which my comments were and are--"disruptive" is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette or Wikipedia:Civility: see the talkheader tag at top of page. --NYScholar 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

There is no requirement for so-called "brevity" in talk page discussions of improvements to an article (form and content issues). It is not up to some editors to tell other editors that they must be "brief." One takes as much space as needed to make one's points clearly. If repetition occurs, it is because when stated the first time, other people do not seem to get the point. Repetition is a form of emphasis: from the definition in the Wikidictionary linked there: in the sense: "Special weight or forcefulness given to something considered important."

My final comments on this article are in archive 2 of my own talk page. Anyone who wants to find the clear-cut objections that I already defined regarding the problems of lack of neutrality and lack of balance and missing and incomplete citations in this article can read them in my previous comments on this page and in my subsequent comments on my talk page archive 2. If they want to make "bullets" out of them (see further comment below mine here), they can do so.

I stand by all my edits as in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite. But I've done all the work that I wish to do relating to this article due to the unpleasant nature of this experience. The incivility, insults, other breaches of Wikipedia:Etiquette, and intellectual dishonesty that I have encountered from administrators and other editors trying to twist articles to reflect their own points of view on subjects like Daniel Pipes (and other controversial subjects) and to avoid neutrality by eliminating and thus hiding the actual details of sources being cited are documented in this talk page and others. Wikipedia:Cite recommends adding full citations in dealing with articles concerning controversial subjects and living persons (WP:BLP). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Throughout Wikipedia, there is also a lot of plagiarism from unacknowledged sources which needs proper sourcing through vigilant editing. Many students who are not experienced or trained editors and certainly not knowledgable about professional editing practices simply write Wikipedia articles the same plagiaristic way that they write their high-school and college term papers; without concern for proper documentation rules. The purpose of adding the "fact" and "facts" templates is to indicate where plagiarized or often-invented passages need legitimate documentation if they are to remain in these articles, especially in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Readers of this article and this talk page (including administrators) need to review the guidelines linked in the headers at the top of this page and other article talk pages in Wikipedia. Apparently, many Wikipedia editors and even administrators really do not fully understand the meaning of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its relationship to WP:POV. I recommend that users of this page visit those links and judge for themselves before attempting to work on this and other articles in Wikipedia. [updated w/ link] --NYScholar 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Ok, if anyone thinks this article is unbalanced, can they list the problems here with brief bullet points (no more than 30 words each) so that editors can remedy the problem? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it was already posted here: from my talk page archive 2 (posted originally in this talk page but unjustifiably removed from it by Jayjg):

• Problems of lack of neutrality (lack of balance) caused by overdependence on Daniel Pipes's own websites and presentations of his own work (related to lack of full citations format listed below)
• The whole structure of this article as it currently is still needs reworking (see the structure as I revised it earlier; linked in my talk page or in this article's editing history prior to SV's reversions of that work):
  • the sections are mostly out of order and illogical [They do not follow usual Wikipedia article format order; e.g., "See also" comes most logically last, prior to Wik. categories; Wikiquote misplaced, etc.]
  • notes should follow text and come prior to actual "References" (for further reading, in bibliographical format)
• all the citations should be fully viewable as citations: providing author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed.

[More posted above in this talk page and in my archive talk page 2; see links in my previous comment] --NYScholar 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on bullets

These are structural and formatting issues, mostly about the order of sections, not issues of "balance". What makes the article "unbalanced"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of full citations (disclosure) creates an ongoing a problem of neutrality and lack of balance (too much Pipes, too little other perspectives on Pipes); identify authors, titles, publications, places of publication, dates of publication so one can see what is actually being cited throughout (in notes, not in "external links"). Rename "references" to "notes" and one can see the problem. (Maybe you should actually read the previous discussions of these problems. I've said this now several times; apparently, you just don't get it.) See my talk page archive 2 for my perspective on your comments. Please do not reply to me personally here. I will not respond further. I've said all I have to say about these problems. They exist, and they need to be corrected, with neutrality and honesty and in good faith. --NYScholar 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How do partial citations, vs. full citations create an issue of imbalance? The sources are the same sources, regardless of how completely we identify them. If the sources are unbalanced, say so (or better yet, add balancing sources) but it is ridiculous to claim that the lack of full citations creates imbalance. Isarig 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of full citations (disclosure) creates an ongoing a problem of neutrality and lack of balance (too much Pipes, too little other perspectives on Pipes); identify authors, titles, publications, places of publication, dates of publication so one can see what is actually being cited throughout (in notes, not in "external links"). Rename "references" to "notes" and one can see the problem. (Maybe you should actually read the previous discussions of these problems. I've said this now several times; apparently, you just don't get it.) See my talk page archive 2 for my perspective on your comments. Please do not reply to me personally here. I will not respond further. I've said all I have to say about these problems. They exist, and they need to be corrected, with neutrality and honesty and in good faith. --NYScholar 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [E.g., (a start at revisions, interrupted by reversions by SV): User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2#Other_references_for_further_reading. (The format and structural problems themselves create a lack of balance; see the differences between the version that I intially provided and the reverted current version.) --NYScholar 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

If one cannot perceive that there is a problem of balance in the faulty presentation of "external links" as if they are all equal "references" w/ complete disregard for what they actually are, one has a problem of perception. This is it. You're all on your own. Good luck to you. You'll need it. --NYScholar 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question. If you don't want to answer, that's certainly your privilege, but don't be surprise if editors subsequently revert your edits a dismiss you as a troll. Isarig 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: I will not engage with you any further. You repeatedly engage in violating Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:3RR; I have fully answered the questions; apparently, you don't read my answers or click on the links to the material linked. It is a waste of my time to respond to you any further, and I refuse to do so. Do not address me directly or indirectly again. (See my general comment on my talk page archive 2 and my report in the 3RR report page. And please stop bothering me.) I refer you to the top of this page and to WP:NPA. I am not a "troll" and I have never been a "troll". See Wikipedia:Etiquette and desist. It is against Wikipedia talk guidelines to accuse other longstanding editors (as I am) of being a "troll". I have never come across any Wikipedia article where you have contributed any substantive editing change. What you do is revert other people's contributions. --NYScholar 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You have addressed what you see as "unbalanced" problems, but the rest of us would like a little elucidation on the matter. It would be best if you start small. Give a real example in the article, briefly iillustrate it, and then offer a solution we can implement. It's that easy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 21 February

2007 (UTC)

As I say above, and in my talk page comments (which were moved from this talk page by another user originally without my permission or authorization and which I have saved and worked on in my talk page archive 2: I am not doing any more work on this article. All my work is already at Other references for further reading. Please read the note there. I explain that I converted the current "External links" section of this article (in its current version, which is a reverted version of my previous work) to what Wikipedia calls "full citations"--in keeping with WP:BLP. Full citations are required in this article by that policy. It is a controversial article about a living person. The sources of all statements quoted and made in it about the living person (and his works or comments about him and his work) must be fully identified in the format of full citation. You need to go to the link. It is not possible to "start small" as you ask: the entire notes and references and external links sections needed large work, that I did and one can simply click on the earlier version that was later reverted by SV to see that. Anyone can use the information that I have already provided to restore the full citations to this article. (Just take the first link currently listed in "External links" and see how it is listed in the section that I compiled for it.)

It is against Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy WP:BLP to include source references in such an article as this one as merely so-called "External links" without full citations (author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, possible annotation). External links are also supposed to be annotated fully. All of the now so-called "External links" are actually already converted to full citations in my above-linked talk page archive page 2. Just click on them and compare them to the "External links" and you will see that.

But I will not enter the text of this article to do that work, because I've already spent the time to do that and that work has been unjustifiably unappreciated and even maligned (by SV and Jayjg and others, who have reverted and even deleted my comments in this talk page explaining it and providing the changes). See my comment on my talk page archive 2 for how I regard what has happened in this article. As I say above, from here on, you (other editors and users) are on your own. I have done all the "elucidating" that I am able to do. It is up to you to follow the links and to compare the various versions. If you do so, you will see the importance of their differences in relation to WP:BLP and WP:Cite and WP:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I agree with you that Wikipedia suffers from all the problems you cite, but I certainly don't find that your edits exemplify - by a long shot - ideal editing. Writing solid encyclopedic articles that comply with all the policies, standards, and best practices is hard for even the most experienced editor; but it's something most of us try to do. Most of what I've seen from you is self-righteous preaching - you might want to take that under consideration when dealing with future disagreements with other editors. --Leifern 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Above (and after asking me first to come here in my talk page), Viriditas asks me directly to offer "elucidation" of my changes (which were completely reverted, deleted, and wiped off this talk page by Slim Virgin, Isarig, Jayjg, and others). I have replied that I have already done that--in spades.

Leifern: you are no neutral observer here. You have the Chutzpah to accuse me of "self-righteous preaching" when I have taken immense amounts of my own time and energy to try to document the missing citations in this article (and given everyone the information via links to the archived talk page where they still reside, where I worked on them even further). I am not being "self-righteous"; what I have been doing is called doing editorial work.

Rather than exchanging jibes against other editors, why don't some of the rest of you (including Leifern) get on with doing some of the required work of documenting statements with full citations as absolutely required by WP:BLP, which links to WP:Cite: read the full content of WP:Cite and you will understand the problems of this article. I provided a format for notes, but Isarig (after asking for these citations in the editing history) and Slim Virgin et al. wiped it out; then she wants the references: well, they're already in what I produced. (Please read it.) Her format of "External links" is not what WP:BLP and WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require.* Every source cited in this article needs to have complete information about it listed in what is now called "References" in this article, but really needs to be renamed "Notes," with most of what are listed in various other sections properly formatted as accurate "References" in a bibliographical format called "References." That is what I have already done. Go to the link and see. I'm not doing it for this article again. People can simply cut and paste and fix this article properly. Otherwise, it will stay the POV/unbalanced mess it is. Because I am not going to be doing it for you. --NYScholar 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hint: Scroll up to the top of this page, click on "poorly sourced" and, guess what it goes to? "Reliable sources": meaning no message boards posts--see SV's list of "External links" again: can you tell from reading the links and the descriptions whether or not they are "reliable sources"? Each one needs to be checked, verified as notable and reliable, and then listed properly as a full citation: WP:Cite. The very few items in "References" ("Notes") need to have all those others added to them. The only item relevant to keeping in a section called "External links" in this article on "Daniel Pipes" is one link: to his personal website, which links to "Daniel Pipes's websites"; that's it. (For illustration: See my linked User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2#Other_references_for_further_reading for the information (again if you've ever even looked at it before.) If those of you claiming to be interested in "editing" this article and making it conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view don't do that, then you just aren't interested in editing this article, and you don't belong here at all. This is not a discussion forum about the subject. (Scroll up to top of page once more.) --NYScholar 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hint: Click on the Other references for further reading (again). The Notes format I started days ago now was reverted by SV; you have to go to editing history to find it. (See [3].) Most of the numbered external links may already be listed in the "Other references for further reading" list (assuming that the "Notes" are still called "References") that I've produced from current "External links" section and weirdly-presented previous lists in the article. --NYScholar 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated: just want to remind people looking at the old reverted version of the Notes and References that many of those were originally incorrect; they were misleadingly presented as "External links" which came from Pipes's site, but I later corrected them (in current talk page archive 2 version of those sources): what I did is checked each one, and collected the full citation information from them (author, title, publication, date of publication) and added date I accessed it. So some of the items that initially appeared to be written by Pipes and listed as "works by" him turned out to be written by other people and published elsewhere originally and just rpt. on his website. So I straightened that all out and put them in proper subsections of References list, now called "Other references for further reading". I got reverted too many times to be able to provide the full citations for each of the notes that are just numbered links in the current text and in my "Notes" format version. All that work will still need to be done for the current numbered links throughout the text of this article. Each numbered link still needs to become a full citation and added as a note (with proper coding for a footnote). I won't do it, but it is possible for others to do it. I wouldn't touch the text of this article again with a ten-foot pole (so to speak). But I've provided all the references that are still just in the "External links" section and some of the earlier reference sections (that are largely incomplete references). The details are in the talk page archive 2 linked above. --NYScholar 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments posted in March 2007 [deleted from current talk page by another user; do not delete other users' comments from talk pages; they are part of the talk pages; archived here]:

Archiving of this page cut off still current, post-January 2007 comments and left the January 2007 comments

[Note: Archive page 1 is headed "This is the 2003-2004 archive," yet it included material from post 2004, 2005, 2006, and even 2007. [I scrolled down and found some other headings, but it is very confusing. It has two Januarys, with no year date to distinguish them. Each month needs to be followed by a date; viewed online, it is hard to know what year each month relates to.] Some of that archive needs to be organized more clearly, so that the dates for 2005 and 2006 are clear; it probably needs another separate archive page for 2005-2006; but even that is problematic, because some 2006 (and earlier) comments already have responses posted in quite recently after January 2007. The archive of page 1 needs work. Some of that material might also need to be restored to this current talk page, because it has recent comments. See below. --NYScholar 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]

This archiving created a misimpression of comments on this article. The comments on the article were missing between January 1, 2007, and now (March 2007), therefore. It is customary to archive talk pages chronologically. I re-factored the archiving because it had put the current comments from January 2007 through February 2007 in a page listing comments from 2005 (-2006? There were two Januarys listed followed by no clear indications of years for them). Note: I have updated references used in this article in full citations in Other references for Further Reading. This material includes items currently listed only as numbered external links throughout the article and also only in the "External links" section. --NYScholar 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) My comments have to do with the documentation of sources in this article (content of the article). --NYScholar 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the earlier material from 2005 to 2006 can be moved to archive page 1 in appropriate month and year sections; but that format is also confusing because sometimes people add comments in 2006 and even later (2007) to topics first begun in 2005 and/or 2006, meaning that they are still currently pertinent. Trying to remove currently-applicable comments on form and content of an article by deleting them from a current talk page and moving them to an archive of mostly 2005 comments misleads readers of this article and its talk page. It also violates WP:AGF. Pages are usually archived in whole in sections (one after another, chronologically), not re-factored into chronological talk page headings that don't match the content of an archived talk page. The archive talk page number one completely changes the way the comments were originally posted by many different users over a long period of time. It misleadingly leaves much older comments on the current page (scroll up) that one would expect to find archived (in archive page one) under some appropriate date heading there now. Anyone trying to follow the history of discussion about this article will have a hard time doing so, unless the talk page is archived properly, with the older material coming first. --NYScholar 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the current tag concerning reference problem on the article

These comments are on the current version of the content of this article. So do not delete this comment (dated March 1, 2007) from this talk page. It is still pertinent to the talk page and to the content of the article and to the content of the talk page of the article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is referred to in ongoing disputes and my comments, which are still currently applicable to the content of this article, need to be accessible by Wikipedia users and administrators trying to find them. The comments concern the content of this article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) N.B.: My archived Daniel Pipes talk page February 2007 comments (previously archived by Slim Virgin in talk page 1) are now in Archive 2 of Talk:Daniel Pipes. I also added the archive box, to which additional archive pages can be added in the future. (One can see the format in editing mode.) (updated) --NYScholar 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to the current tag on the article (added by another editor; my earlier attempts to tag the article as "unbalanced" and "unreferenced" were continually reverted by Isarig, Jayjg, Slim Virgin, et al.): Scroll up to the "controversial" tag heading: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." This policy pertains to this article and the way references are being provided in it. Thus, it still needs "full citations." --NYScholar 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Note: Despite my courteous request not to remove the above comments from the current talk page, the administrator removed them anyway. I have linked to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding such administrative actions (which I think are abuses of approved administrative behavior) in the current talk page. Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse; WP:ANOT. Notice how the administrator has re-factored the current talk page so misleadingly that it includes old comments from 2006, deletes more-recent and more-currently-relevant comments from February 2007 and March 2007, and fails to include most comments critical of the article and is not representative of recent comments questioning the content of the article. --NYScholar 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

Topic?

"Pipes was also criticized by Palestinian activist Edward Said." Erm, Edward Said wasn't just an 'activist', he was renowned scholar and his work Orientalism is considered highly important in acadamia (it is also probably very relevant to this case, ie. Pipes as an orientalist). This could do with fixing and the text should be scanned for other similar 'microbiases'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Daniel Pipes, an international known journalist?

I find this sentence amusing and i´m sure it was written by some supporter. I´m sorry to burst your bubble, but if you´d check with people on the street here in Europe they wouldn´t know who this guy is. It´s not like he is Larry King! (Unsigned comment by User:213.190.195.100)

Yes, I wouldn't think that he would be very popular outside of the US. Well it is like that here in the US too; not everyone knows him, but some internet users and people interested in politics do. What do you propose we change this wording to? a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply change it to an American journalist. Cheers Svest 22:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

He is definitely known internationally. I wouldn't call him a journalist, though, but a writer or columnist. (Unsigned comment by SlimVirgin)

He's well known in the politics circles. No doubt. The problem with denomination of international is that it seems that every American journalist is international while I'd never hear about a Japanese or Swedish journalist being called international! It is just like saying Steven Spielberg is an international film director! Cheers -- Svest 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I've changed journalist to columnist, and I got rid of the long list of American tv shows he's appeared on as it looked a bit silly, and the wikification made it hard to read anyway. Not sure I got your point, Fayssal. WP articles say that people are internationally known when they are, and not when they're not, regardless of nationality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the comment when I reverted, WP biographies do not state that. I am not against that he's not internationally known. I am just wondering about why the statement should be added for DP and not for MJ or SP, etc... Jimbo is an internationally known founder of WP! Hundreds or thousands of biography articles in WP is about well known people globally. Svest 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, I agree with Svest. I don't understand the importance of saying "internationally known"? It's almost one of those statements that try to give a very positive aspect to a person. If it isn't added for other bio articles, most of whom are more well-known than DP, then why should this article say that? a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair point, AE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It really annoys me. WP is everything but NPOV. No consistency indeed. I would never encounter such an intro in Britannica, Larousse encyclopedia or Encarta. Michael Jackson is an internationally known singer. Zineddine Zidane is a very well known internationally football player!!! And the list is very long.

Britannica, NPOV? LOL!! When was the last time you read it? And anyway, we're not trying to become, and don't want to be like, Britannica. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it is the case than people internationally know he's a Jewish. Should we include that as well following the same logic stated above by Slim?

This is an encyclopedic intro to a person that can be compared with DP; Thomas Friedman. -- Svest 03:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Thanks SlimVirgin for your understanding and action. Cheers -- Svest 03:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here, SV. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed columnist back to journalist. Why? Because journalist was right in the first place and merely calling him a columnist is a POV attempt to belittle his credentials. Kyaa the Catlord 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how being a columnist is 'belittling'. His work is that of a columnist, he writes columns. I don't recall him ever being a reporter. Correct me if I'm wrong. Amibidhrohi 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Misquoted?

This article includes the quote: "The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be."

According to Pipes' web site, he NEVER SAID THAT: go to http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php and scroll down to "Updates". According to that page, the supposed quote is based on a talk he gave at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. This seems to seriously call into question the authenticity of the "quote".

Should anything be done to fix this? I'm a noob... Moxfyre 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This quote is attributed to an article in the July 2001 edition of the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, and it does indeed appear in the article (See the article). However, he's repeatedly denied having ever said this. Unless someone more knowledgeable on Daniel Pipes can provide additional evidence supporting this quote, I'm going to err away from possible slander and remove it. // Pathoschild 06:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it should be changed, here's the quote according to Pipes:

<< As the Islamic revolution approached its climax five years ago, many Western journalists in Tehran, including myself, wasted hours interviewing the wrong people [meaning the Westernized elite]. … Perhaps we would have better understood what was happening if we had access to Daniel Pipes' remarkable book, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power.

Pipes has taken on, and very nearly accomplished, a daunting task: to explain the political and social development of the Muslim peoples from their origins to the present …. Pipes, a lecturer in history at Harvard, has produced a brilliant, authoritative, but occasionally infuriating and inconsistent work which demonstrates encyclopedic knowledge of Muslim intellectual history and a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims. … Here he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them. He sometimes misstates conditions in Muslim countries, and is swayed by writings of anti-Muslim commentators less judicious than himself. But on balance these unfortunate lapses do not diminish the perceptiveness of his analysis. …

Few other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history as [a long list of phenomena] …. These points are forcefully presented and cogently argued. The book is a valuable contribution to our understanding. This makes it all the more unfortunate that it is marred by exaggeration, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject. [Lippman then lists some of these and concludes:]

A more perceptive editor might have counseled Pipes to purge these and similar passages. Without them, the book would be the definitive work of its kind." >>

obviously the biased quote was obtained from a website like CAIR's. Removed. H.J. Roding

Pipes on the BBC

I've never seen the chap - and I've been watching BBC current affairs for a while now. While I'm not an authotitative source on every foreign journalist the Beeb has ever called on a search of their web site for his name yields no hits. I think the word "frequent" is a bit of an overstatement here.

I'm also concerned by "well respected in the counter terrorist community." Who would that be exactly? And can we sho that "they" respect him? Sounds made up to me. Unbehagen 13:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Pipes article on Askariya shrine bombing

I've edited the last paragraph in the "On Muslims" section. Here's a copy of the previous version:

In Jerusalem Post Pipes is close to advocating Civil War in Iraq as "Strategic" and of Muslims killing each other: "The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy." and continues: "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one." [4]

I've deleted that tendentious lead-in strikes as POV (and arguably Original Research). I've also switched the link to Pipes's site; since he lists the New York Sun rather than the Jerusalem Post, I've done likewise. (They're both Hollinger papers, BTW.) So now we have:

"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. ... Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one." (New York Sun, February 28 2006 [5])

Which leads to my real question: should we delete this paragraph entirely? I say yes.
— Chris Chittleborough 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

keep. A human 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

keep.

Argh. I did not mean to drop the sentence "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt". Thanks to A human for restoring it.

Another mistake: I failed to notice an earlier paragraph about the same article, in the "Policy toward Iraq" section. I've deleted it, on the grounds that (1) the para in "On Muslims" is longer and more comprehensive and (2) the article is more about Muslims than U.S. policy. Here's the deleted text:

In 2006, as sectarian violence in Iraq continued, Pipes wrote that a civil war there "would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one."[6] He argued that such a war would reduce coalition casualties in Iraq and reduce Western casualties outside Iraq.

Also, I now vote to keep the para in "On Muslims", and regard my little poll as closed. Chris Chittleborough 12:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Books and policy papers" section

I've deleted the "How Nations Learn (publication date unknown), Free Press ISBN 0029253853" from this section, because neither Amazon nor http://daniel-pipes.org/ mention it.

Also, I found this alternate bibliography in a comment. I've moved it here.
—Chris Chittleborough 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

THIS BREAKDOWN MIGHT BE PREFERRED TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO CHANGE IT BACK 
===Books concerning Islam===
* Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), ISBN 0393052044 
* The Rushdie Affair (1990) 
* In the Path of God (1983), ISBN 0765809818 
* Slave Soldiers and Islam (1981) 
===Books concerning Syria===
* Syria Beyond the Peace Process (1996) 
* Damascus Courts the West (1991) 
* Greater Syria (1990) 
===Books concerning other topics===
* The Hidden Hand (1996) 
* The Long Shadow (1989) 
* Miniatures (2003) 
* An Arabist's Guide to Colloquial Egyptian (1983)
         systematizes the grammar of Arabic as  spoken in Egypt. 
* Conspiracy (1997) discusses conspiracy theories in modern
     European and American politics.
Pipes has also edited two collections of essays, Sandstorm (1993) and
Friendly Tyrants (1991). He is the joint author of eleven books.

Negativity

"Pipes is both praised and criticized for his negative views on Islam and Islamism." I think the people who praise him for his views on Islam regard those views as accurate rather than negative. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Daniel_Pipes#Praise,_criticism_and_controversy confirms your assessment. Also: The modifier to "views" used to be "outspoken" rather than "negative". Since only his outspoken views are relevant to the criticism, I think "outspoken" ought to be readded. Calling Pipes' views "outspoken" neither requires a judgement call nor reflects a POV. HKT 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with 'outspoken.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pipes and censorship

Isn't Pipes rather well known for encouraging students to "monitor" professors who are critical of Israel? I think this certainly belongs in the introduction. Homey 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a minor kerfuffle about that in 2002, but the website stopped doing that almost immediately. It's mentioned in the body, but that kind of trivia doesn't really belong in an intro. Also, please recall WP:LIVING. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're minimising by calling it a "minor kerfuffle" and "trivia". It still generates a lot of hits on google and I believe many people who know of Pipes first heard of him because of it. Yes, he's a living person but the controversy over Pipes and Campus Watch is certainly verifiable and it is still generating heat. See, for examples, Pipes' own "Is Campus Watch Part of a Conspiracy? dated May 12, 2006 (ten days ago)Homey 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The monitoring of professors was stopped right away, so it's no longer an issue. It belongs in the body of the text as part of the history of Campus Watch, but not in the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's rather bizarre logic. Campus Watch was cited in the recent report about the so-called Israel Lobby prompting Pipes to issue a response as recently as ten days ago so, despite the fact that Pipes was forced to curtail Campus Watch's activities in 2002, it seems he has not been able to erase the damage done to his reputation. The monitoring of professors remains something he is well known for regardless of the fact that he stopped doing it three years ago and is frequently brought up. Trying to keep it out of the lead is simply a white wash. Homey 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's trivia, long since forgotten. Trying to include it is merely smearing, as is the rather bizarre inclusion of his mention in a paper by Mearsheimer and Walt. The fact that his detractors try to flog that dead horse from time to time doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be in that camp. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That is not a defining event in Pipes' notability (though perhaps a simple mention of his founding of Campus Watch would be appropriate). HKT 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As several have noted, it is certainly both defining and central to Pipe's notability. The issue of monitoring of professors is probably one of the most distinct and commented aspects of Pipes' work. to call it trivial is strange. It belongs in the lead. It is quite ironic to call it a smear when Pipes' supporters would probably react strongly to the assertion that Pipes became famous for smearing.

Influence on the Bush Administration?

I seem to recall him being filling or being considered to fill an advisory position for the Bush Administration.

What ever became of this?

the article states that he was nominated by Bush to the United States Institute of Peace, and is currently a former member. I don't know what happened though.

He was appointed, but both Republican and Demcratic Senators blocked his nomination, and President Bush recess appointed him. According to members of the Institute, his tenure was marked by his work to block their efforts.

his comment about temple mount

I think he made a famous comment about temple Mount of Jerusalem. can somebody add that comment, wherein he claimed that Islamic invasions in the past led to the destruction of native religions.--nids 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

link for a similar comment is here.--nids 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous comment!!!

Between "3.6 On Muslims" and "4 Books and policy papers" somebody has snuck in the following paragraph: "Daniel Pipes is part of a vile treacherous gang of hatemongers that includes Joseph Farrah, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson et al, all of whom funded by radical Israeli elements to spread hate against Muslims. This they have done successfully in a variety of ways starting off with something as simple as hate messages against Islam on internet chat rooms to a range of books containing total falsehoods that were gleefully purchased by their pro-israeli constituents and the bull crap they peddled has been hailed as scholarship among their own circles." It doesn't appear on the edit page. Someone please do something about this!!!

It looks like it's been taken care of already. Ford MF 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes - historian

Daniel Pipes has a Ph.D in History from Harvard University, he has written a number of historical books as can be seen here. His intro description should thus reflect the tile to Historian like this:

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American neoconservative[7] columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, scholar and historian of Middle Eastern history.

Perhaps we can condense this a bit to by gettting rid of the dubious description as a neo-conservative which may be true but unneccessarily emphasized as the first descriptive adjective after citizenship in the intro.

Daniel Pipes, Ph.D. (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of the Middle East.

--CltFn 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes--WP:BLPN

See Daniel Pipes. In relation to the repeated deletion of my comments on the content of this article from this talk page, please see tagged notices at top of this talk page; WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:Cite#Full citations, WP:AGF, and also: Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_Abuse, WP:ANOT--NYScholar 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

and WP:OWN: the article was tagged by another editor as "unreferenced"; as she has been continually doing, the administrator removed that tag, saying that it was not accurate; I added the more specific and still currently applicable tag and she removed that. See WP:Cite and tags for articles lacking proper "full citations" as defined in Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:Cite pertaining to WP:BLP. All articles on living persons require "full citations" according to WP:BLP as well. --NYScholar 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of tags previously added but deleted later by administrator et al.

I had chosen what I thought was the most relevant template from the following list of citations problems templates: Wikipedia: Template messages/Sources of articles; I had used the template tag called "Citecheck"

Other ones that still pertain to this article are:

"Moresources"

The general problem tag, added by another editor earlier, and by me before that (but continually deleted by SlimVirgin and others) as if these tags and WP:AGF and WP:OWN do not matter (even though they do):

"unreferenced"

.

In my view, and the views of other editors who have unsuccessfully tried to tag this article, all these template tags still pertain. A key word in that tag is "adequately."

As a "controversial article", this article needs to have "full citations" according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:BLP The policies are already linked in the BLP tag at the top of this talk page.

Finally, as I have said so many times before already, these tags are necessary for signalling unsuspecting readers of this article that it has problems. Though this article was tagged before I ever came to it with a "neutrality" tag, that one has been removed as well, even though the "B" rating above refers to some of these problems. (Please see the report [I didn't create it].) --NYScholar 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been the site of contentious editing disputes since its inception in 2003 (see the talk archive, though from it some comments have been totally deleted by others). The problems that I've been trying to bring attention to in this article led me to tag it as

"unbalanced"

--a tag which was also deleted by SlimVirgin et al.-- and I tagged it that way because it is really not possible to see what is being cited, who wrote the sources, where and when they were published and when they were last accessed, and whether or not the sources have indeed been fully verified as both notable and reliable. (See my earlier talk page archive page 2 comments with my earlier explanations. Please try to keep in mind WP:AGF. I have been trying to bring attention to this article in good faith. --NYScholar 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

2/3 of article = POV blog

The first third of the Daniel Pipes article looks fairly encyclopedic, certainly average or better. It runs into trouble after that, descending into a blog-like dissection of other blogs, its many weaknesses including a near carpet-bombing effect of twenty or more cites of a single website and four cites of a single article.

An encyclopedia is not a pile of soapboxes: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

The article will be more encyclopedic when the "Continued friction" subsection and the entire "Opinions" section with all of its subsections are scrapped, and I mean well and truly scrapped. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view got buried there. — Athænara ✉ 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to repair this fault

I have moved the books, policy papers, interviews and documentaries above the far too lengthy and far too detailed criticism/controversy/friction/etc. sections—which are so excessive they come across as self-indulgent on the part of some editors—to give the notable output of this biographical subject the primacy it deserves in an encyclopedia article about him. — Æ. ✉ 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara, lists of books by the author belong at the end of the article, before See also. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin, that's where I usually expect to find them, too, but in this case they were made nearly invisible by massive sections of POV. That's why I called it beginning to repair. An encyclopedic biography is meant to be about the subject, not an assemblage of invective against him. — Æ. ✉ 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I do see that my edit was WP:POINTish and not a good thing. Thank you for reverting it. — Athænara ✉ 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. I agree that the article could use some improvement in the ways you suggested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Widely read blog

I removed some unsourced material about Pipes' blog. --Tom 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article - Japanese Internment - would Mr Pipes reasoning apply to Jews in Europe in the same time period? 159.105.80.141 11:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

His views on Arafat and the Oslo Accords

The Wikipedia article quotes Pipes as saying the following: "Mr. Arafat has merely adopted a flexible approach to fit adverse circumstances, saying whatever needed to be said to survive. The PLO had not a change of heart — merely a change of policy ... the deal with Israel represents a lease on life for the PLO, enabling it to stay in business until Israel falters, when it can deal a death blow." However, this is misleading because it implies that Pipes definitely believes this statement, when in fact the above statement is taken out of context. Pipes suggests it's one of many possibilities for the future of the PLO as opposed to its most definitive strategy. He has elsewhere said on his page that while he doesn't like the PLO, he believes the West should stand behind them against Hamas since the PLO are a secular and left-wing nationalist organization whereas Hamas is Islamist (and he is strongly against Islamism).

BLP issues

This article has major WP:BLP issues, and as such, I will be removing much of the unsourced content from this page.--Sefringle^Talk 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof by assertion doesn't cut it. You appear to be removing plenty of sourced criticisms of Pipes from the article. Catchpole 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegedly sourced criticisms which cannot be verified. If you have sources for the criticisms which can be verified, I wouldn't remove them.--Sefringle^Talk 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that a quote from a particular edition of the Washington Post cannot be verified. Catchpole 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it cannot be proven that the Washington Post actually said these things. WP:BLP states the following: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space"--Sefringle^Talk 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can be proven, you just need to get access to the appropriate archive, now you are just being silly. Catchpole 08:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding BLP. BLP is in place to remove assertions which are not true, or are unsourced. It has nothing to do with quotes that a person has said or written themselves or that appear on their own website. Those can easily be verified. I do not agree with all the information you summarily removed from the article; the University of Toronto incident, for one, didn't make sense after you took out the explanation of the protests by the professors and students. I don't think that all these quotes should just be listed, so I'm listing them here for discussion. When I first read this article, I didn't understand why exactly everyone was getting in a fuss over this guy-- until I saw some of these quotes. At least a few should be in the article. Here are some quotes Sefringle took out, from the "On Muslims" section:--Gloriamarie 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And per the quote I provided above, I am removing the quotes from the talk page. WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source states the following:

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is relevant to the subject's notability;
• it is not contentious;'
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources like any other, because they are not self-published.

A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.

The quotes were obviously contentious; meant to give the reader a certian view about the author. It is very selective quotefarming meant to prove a point. They do involve claims about third parties, notably muslims, and the point of them seems to try to push the POV that Pipes is somehow prejudice against muslims.--Sefringle^Talk 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The quotes that you removed are not self-published. They may come from Pipe's website but they were originally published elsewhere. Catchpole 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In February 2007 I tried to alert Wikipedia to the problems of poor sourcing [and lack of "full citations"] in this article about a living person (currently categorized as a problematic BLP[--see "Category:Disputed biographies of living persons"]), following WP:BLP. [... Another editor deleted my point of view on the article and the work on source references that I provided from the current talk page, re-factoring it and creating archive 1.] The information that I had worked on and provided has been archived in my own talk page archive since [Feb./March 2007]: for those who want to develop "full citations" for this article and to check and verify that the sources are presented in a neutral manner and are reliable sources to include in a biography of a living person, I provide the link to that information: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2. --NYScholar 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [Corrected & updated. --NYScholar 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]

[Note: After another editor refactored the current talk page, deleting my content-related comments, I moved my previously-deleted comments about then still-current matters (which are currently discussed in this section) to Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2 in March 2007. One may still find them archived there. --NYScholar 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]

[Note: My view is that providing "full citations"--names of author[s], titles of articles and/or books, publication information (places of publication actually accessed; if reprinted, original places of publication and their sites of reprintings), dates of publication, access dates--will improve this article. If it turns out that "full citations" to actual sources used demonstrate that some of those sources are not "reliable and verifiable" or otherwise appropriate sources to use in this biography of a living person, then editors can work on correcting those problems by deleting the statements taken from those sources and the citations (external links to) those sources. For more information about the policy pertaining to external links in biographies of living persons, please see both WP:BLP#Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (where related matters are currently in dispute), and WP:EL (ditto). Thank you. (I am not engaging in editing this article and do not plan to do so, or to discuss this matter further on this current talk page, but I thought it important to point people discussing these matters to this prior related information.) --NYScholar 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]

Major rewrite

Can the material be added here first and discussed? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, once again: IronDuke 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting proper formatting edits and removing information about Pipes' views on Arabs; they are reliable sourced. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are they? Including the derogatory stuff with {{Fact}} tags on it? What source do the {{Fact}} tags represent? IronDuke 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources I added have no fact tags and they are not derogatory. They are from reliable sources cited using <REF> tags. I have no clue what you are referring to. What BLP violation are you referring to here?

The section entitled "On Muslims." You did manage to weakly source some polemical stuff elsewhere, but it doesn't even come close to being okay for a sensitive bio. IronDuke 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see now. I didn't mean to revert the "On Muslims" sections, it is obviously OR and should be removed; however, there is nothing wrong with my others edits. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with edits to this article.

Problem with your recent edits to this article:

1. You added back in text I deleted because it has no source and is origional research: He considers CAIR to be an apologist for Islamist terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Robert Spencer described the campaign against Pipes on the CAIR website as a "lynching." Citation was added, so this is not an issue.
2. You deleted: pro-Israel neoconservative from lead (intro) section
3. You deleted: According to writer Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians." from the Views and positions section
4. You deleted: Pipes has angered many American Muslims because he suggested that Muslims in government and military positions should be given special attention as security risks and has claimed mosques are breeding grounds for militants. from the American Muslims section.
5. You are adding unnecessary bullets, resulting in strange looking formatting under the On Iran section.

Sources

Thanks for coming to talk, Chris.

1. It certainly is not OR, I think you should take another look at the OR policy. You are right, though; it did not have a source. I put one in. (And yes, Pipes' blog is a fine source for Pipes' opinions about himself.)
2. First of all, your automatic equation of "pro-Israel" with "Israel lobby" (whatever that might be) is prima facie inaccurate and offensive. Second, can you cite the specific passage in Walt and Mearsheimer where they mention him as a member of the "Israel lobby?" Third, Walt and Mearsheimer are, to put it mildly, quite controversial themselves. They don't get to define Pipes here--we start with what Pipes himself says he is. If he says he's a neocon, fine, great, let's have it in the lead. If he doesn't, it doesn't go there. Maybe in "Controversy." And why would his being "pro-Israel" be the second thing we learn about him after the fact that he's an American? How about "scholar"? Yumpin Yiminy.

   I did not make an automatic equation of "pro-Israel" with "Israel lobby." The book states, Pipes is a "pro-Israel neoconservative", which Pipes did not dispute in his explanation of what he believed to be the books inaccurate statements. I don't know what page exactly, but it is also in a brief version of the book, published in LRB can be found here. I can find many other sources besides the book that state Pipes is pro-Israel anyways. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

   You did equate pro-Israel with “Israel lobby” by writing pro-Israel. (It’s called a piped link.) Pipes denies that he is part of any such lobby. Again: inaccurate and offensive. Pipes does not specifically deny being pro-Israel, but it’s entirely irrelevant. He says he wished to keep his response brief, and it may be that he has a more nuanced view of his position than “pro-Israel.” You may well find more sources that say Pipes is pro-Israel, but he is not going to be defined in the lead by his enemies. I just want to make that super-clear: it’s not going to happen. There may be room later to discuss it in its own section, if it’s worth discussing. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

3. According to the Nation website, "Kristine McNeil is a writer living in Brooklyn." That's the extent of her bio. Maybe there's more. Is she a scholar? Does she have a degree... in anything? The Nation is nakedly partisan, one step up from a 'zine or a free alt-weekly. There may be some room to quote from it, if there's a reliable person writing for it, but the article can't turn into a quote farm from this one partisan "writer's" article. And the gamla stuff? Well, Ms. McNeil can try to smear Pipes with guilt by association; we have to be a bit more careful. See the history of the Rachel Marsden article for a good example of how BLP issues have been handled in the past.

   Partisan news sources are reliable sources, unless they are from extremist groups, regardless of the author; the fact that The Nation published the story, makes it reliable enough. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

   Kristine McNeil is not a “news source.” She is a writer living in Brooklyn who has an opinion. She’s pushing a POV, which is fine (it’s what The Nation exists for), but we’re not going to report her (AFAIK) amateur opinion as fact. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Arab News? From Saudi Arabia? Really? Is that a WP:RS? And who is Barbara Ferguson? I'm genuinely curious. The second part from NYTimes is fine.

   I didn't add any Arab News citation, but I don't believe it is an unreliable source. Why does it being based in Saudi Arabia have anything to do with it's reliability? It is available world-wide and to my knowledge is not heavily censored by the Saudi government —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

   Your question about Saudi Arabia is… difficult to answer. It would require you to know a great deal of background information, e.g., that there may be differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech between western countries and theocracies. IronDuke 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any effort to invalidate sources from countries we may not like or for being non-Western is unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1. See below about bullet points.

IronDuke 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

You are deleting information regarding Pipes anti-Arab views, which are reliable sourced. You claim the text you deleted is a BLP violation, as you claim the information is derogatory; however, this it is not derogatory, it is stating verifiable facts in a NPOV, which is consistent with Wikipedia policy and BLP. Please stop this type of disruptive behavior. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what the "please stop" stuff is about. By your own admission, you have been reinserting text that has no source, and could be said to defame Pipes, violating WP:OR. WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If you could have found a way to violate WP:NPA with that edit, you might actually have violated every WP core policy in one click of a mouse. This is after I told you you were violating BLP, but instead of taking a closer look at what you were doing, you continued to edit-war it back in.

I did not go through and, for example, make sure that all the bullet points, formatting, etc. were as pretty as possible; I felt that your edits some in particular but also taken in total violated one the few true core policies of WP and needed to be reverted instantly. If you attempt to put them back, they will be reverted again, and this is not subject to 3RR. There's plenty of room for criticism of Pipes in this article, but it's got to be placed very carefully, and sourced very well. This isn't my opinion, this is policy. IronDuke 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think The Nation article is acceptable as a source for criticism as long it's appropriately attributed in the text and not overly excerpted. The "pro-Israel/necon" characterization is probably undue weight for the first sentence of the lead however, and it's not proper to state it as fact when sourced to Pipes' enemies. - Merzbow (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the neo con label from a NYT article? Not sure if it belongs in the lead sentence. The pro Israel stuff is a strech, and even if is "true" that would be hard to defend. Chris, can you post what you want to add here in talk and then see what editors have to say? I'am staying out of editing this article but will comment here. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)ps, apologies, Chris is posting his material in here and seeking consenus. Please work it out in here and reach middle ground and both be willing to bend, please, thanks, --Tom 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neocon isn't a negative label, it is a fact, which describes Pipes' political views. Obviously, Pipes is pro-isreal, as shown through his actions and organizations, this is also not negative, but a fact. Also, deleting Pipes' views on Arabs is not acceptable. All views should be presented fairly according to NPOV policy; they are worded in a neutral manner and are backed up by reliable sources. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, if you have a problem with having pro-Israel/Neoccon in the first sentence of the lead, where to do suggest placing it instead? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It could go in "Views and positions", something like "his political views have been described as neoconservative by XXXX", and "he has been labeled as pro-Israel by XXXX". If some writing by Pipes describing himself as either of the two is found, however, then we can obviously state it as a fact. But even then it's still more important that he's a historian and an analyst than what his political views are, so those should always come first. - Merzbow 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add more sources, reword, and move the pro-isreal and neocon reference to the 'views and positions' section. I still see no policy violation/blp violation in having the other text I added; please address concerns about the other text I added and please be more specific to what the specific violation is, as 'BLP violation' is vague (what part of BLP is being violated?). Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen my point by point response to your point by point stuff above? IronDuke 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just now noticed and responded, but what about the New York Times article regarding American Muslims? This was not mentioned. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would err on the careful side with biographies. Slander etc are not something that should occur in encyclopedias. Good attribution is one thing, but if something is seen as derogattory, most legal systems will allow prosecution and compensation, often for big bucks. Songstrasse 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is most certainly not slander and would never result in prosecution and compensation. Your claim of slander is not a reason to remove text that may be viewed by some as negative. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it isn't slander. Libel is another question. As you can see, I responded to you above. I'll only add that I answered your point about the NYTimes; think it's a good source for this. IronDuke 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well libel can turn into slander depending upon the angle of opposition. Litigation can be the result in any case. It seems pretty clear to me that the opposite of care has been applied to some of the past edits of this article. Criticism is fine and no doubt there will be more to come, but we need to stamp out anything that will drag Wikipedia down into mud slinging - and that means all articles relating to any particular individual. Songstrasse (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific to what you believe 'will drag Wikipedia down into mud slinging'? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article by the Nation [8] is mud slinging. The way you restored it demonstrates a lack of care over this type of dirty journalism. You would do well to seek input from other editors over its appropriateness, and, if appropriate, how to present it without dragging Wikipedia into dubious reporting. Songstrasse (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I eliminated a number of phrases that violate the NPOV regarding Campus Watch such as "controversy" etc. These are not appropriate under Wiki standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.222.110 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is completely acceptable to use the word controversy as long as it is cited, which in this case it was. I have no idea who this guy is but I have altered a few of your edits, and left others which were appropriate.

I fixed the Wiki-link for David Horowitz. There is no disambig at all in his article's name.

I reinstated the text about attacking academic freedom. Like it or not he was criticised for that, but you removed that text and changed what it said completely- but you actually left in the reference about the criticism lol.

Added a citation needed tag for his languages.

Put back the 'but he is nothing if not extreme in his own views' in the title of a reference. Did you even realise what you were doing or just removing anything critical of this guy? You don't just remove half a reference's title because you don't agree with it. It isn't article text, it is a reference title.

Changed the bit about his Peace Institute appointment from "Some mulsims..." to "Some defended the appointment, including Muslims".

NPOV doesn't mean you remove anything critical of someone, but that all criticisms are just and cited. Cheers, Rothery 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Re: Edit War

I've requested temporary full protection of this page until this dispute is resolved. This is a BLP page and should not be subject to edit-warring over controversial claims. Please come to a consensus on the talk page before making edits others are likely to disagree with. Avruch^Talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On ArabNews as a source

It is preposterous to say it is not a reliable source as it is used right now on the page, as Pipes did factually make that statement about Muslims posing a danger to American Jews. See here to determine if he made such a statement. He also says that he said it on www.danielpipes.com, so it seems ArabNews is perfectly reliable and acceptable. Why or how was this one point ever even contested? I found this via the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Lawrence Cohen 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better source for the assertion, happy to have it. I am curious as to your logic... So ArabNews gets one fact right (assuming they have), this therefore means that any and all statements they present as fact are true and reliable? IronDuke —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but do you have any sourced, factual evidence of them being a bad source? Saying they're an Arab source, Saudi, or from a "theocracy". We can't exclude from non-Western sources. Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source is one that is widely recognized as such and has a reputation for quality. DO you have evidence that ArabNews has such a reputation? What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof to others ("prove ArabNews is not a reliable source"), while the burden is fully on you. This time, at least, ArabNews presented a distorted quote from Pipes since they omitted his reasoning. The full quote is: "I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership [ArabNews omitted that], that this will present true dangers to American Jews." Beit Or 19:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Related talk. Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}} I request that the quote from the "American Muslims" section sourced to ArabNews be replaced with the correct quote from Mr. Pipes' own website: "I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership, that this will present true dangers to American Jews."[9] As it stands, the quote is redacted and untrue and may be a WP:BLP violation. Beit Or 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put the statement in the article, in its unredacted form, as I believe it to be a WP:BLP issue. To pick out certain words from a statement, is to mislead. Woody (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Character Assassination on Campus

I do not think the issue of character assassination of groups and individuals critical of Neo-conservatives policies has been fully discussed, didn't Mr Pipes publish a monograph or carry on an attack on certain sectors of the Academic Establishment? It is called Campus Watch and it polices disagreement through Blacklisting.Wrong No?

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong yes. Andyvphil (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Sudden Jihad Syndrome redirects to this article, but no mention of it is given. This should be included, or the redirect changed. Ideally, it should be something easily found with a Ctrl+F search. 137.222.221.112 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that SJS should not redirect here. It deserves its own article. Although Pipes may have coined the phrase, the SJS concept has grown far beyond Pipes. A Google search yields 44,600 hits for SJS![10] Clearly, it's a noteworthy concept that deserves its own article.((unsigned))

If it redirects here, it used to be here. And if it's important, and he coined it,[11][12][13] it should at least be mentioned here. And it's not. Sheesh. Every time I look at a new (to me) article I find some clown has been trashing the content other editors have added. Andyvphil (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request (minor)

{{edit protected}} The link to Department of Defense in the Background section is to a disambiguation page. It needs to link to United States Department of Defense. Thanks! Bleeding Blue 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain possible BLP violation

Re: 18 January 2008 diff by Addhoc.

Please be specific to what BLP violation you believe is in violation. Everything quoted from The Nation, a reliable source, are facts and are not opinion. I do not understand how having references to Pipes' anti-Arab views is a BLP violation. Please explain and if possible, please directly quote the specific policy violation. Thank you very much. 216.73.133.49 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted with the edit summary of "BLP concerns", this was because the content was obtained by selective quoting, and the source - The Nation - isn't entirely neutral. However, if there is a consensus the content is acceptable, I won't object. Looking at the history, however, I'm not the only editor to have concerns about this. Addhoc (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, just like Fox News, The Nation is not a neutral source; however, a source does not have to be neutral to be considered a reliable source. The information cited on this article from The Nation does not include any opinions, but only facts; therefore, the fact that The Nation is a liberal news source is irreverent--this was dicussed on WP:RSN a while ago. Also, the article is not quoted, so I'm confused to what selective quoting you are referring to; please further explain because I can't see how there is any BLP violation. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 18:34, 11 March 2008 diff by IronDuke.

Can you please be more specific to what "gross violation of BLP" there is in having this text instead of reverting without discussion. You shouldn't vaguely claim BLP violation without being specific to what part of BLP is being violated--especially with prior discussion as shown in the paragraph above this, questioning what specific BLP violation... Thanks! —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated both Nation/McNeil refs into the Praise/Crit section and fixed the attribution of controversial claims so that it is clear, e.g., that the claim that GAMLA favors ethnic cleansing is hers, not a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. That looks to me like a partisan and disputed characterization of fact, rather than a fact per se. Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to questioning the basis for McNeil's characterization of GAMLA, there's also the question of whether calling Pipes a "regular contributor" is misleading. The corrected link [14] "features" "Faces of American Islam", but oddly doesn't mention that that article is normally cited to the Hoover Institution's Policy Review, August/September 2002.[15]. So, is Pipes a contributor to GAMLA in the same sense that McNeil is a "contributor" to Campus Watch?[16]. GAMLA goes unmentioned at danielpipes.org[17]. Compare FrontPage,[18] where Pipes is a regular contributor. Andyvphil (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all: stop inserting the "information" back into the article, please, at least for now. I'm highly concerned that it is a BLP violation, and let's leave it until we gets ome good second opinions on that. Second, I have already addressed this point above, on December 5th, I believe, and it was not even responded to, much less refuted. Do please read the prior discussion before asking for more justification. But to repeat: McNeil is not a reliable source. She is virtually unknown; I can find no work by her other than this one article from 6 years ago. She is not a scholar, not even a journalist, as far as I can tell. Her opinions about Pipes are non-notable. Also, absolutely absolutely absolutely no scurrilous statements with {{Fact}} tags in a BLP. I mean, for heaven's sakes. IronDuke 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

McNeil not being a scholor or not writing a lot of articles has nothing to do with the article being a reliable source or not. The fact that The Nation, a very large news organization, fact checks and reviews what they publish, makes any article (unless opinion/opt-ed) published by The Nation a reliable source. And why do you state "Her opinions about Pipes are non-notable"??? There are NO OPINIONS of hers being used on this article--ONLY FACTS. What exactly do you think is an opinion? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to relax, Chris. Honestly, we can work this out, I'm sure. Moving on, you can't simply smear Pipes with a partisan magazine screed written by someone with no credentials whatever. That is what they call a "poor source," and we can't have that in a BLP. Also, she takes Pipes' quotes wildly out of context, and the bit about Gamla is a complete red herring. He does not "contribute" to Gamla, they reprint his articles. I don't believe he is affiliated with them in any way. Therefore, whatever Gamla may adovacte has nothing to do with this article. If Stormfront reprinted a Pipes article, would we be trying to smear him as a Nazi? Come on. As it is, the negative stuff in here is already close to too much, and the Coles quote will probably have to come out as well, as it doesn't really relate to Pipes per se. But there's plenty of other negative stuff in here for Pipes haters. IronDuke 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appointment to US Institute of Peace - text removed

I have removed a paragraph of quotes from this section, detailing the reactions of various Muslim figures to Pipes' appointment to the Peace Institute. The quotes were entirely positive and supportive, which does not seem to me reflective of a neutral point of view. I find it hard to believe that no one, not even Muslims, raised objections to Pipes' appointment; but the article does not tell us such. It lists the senators who opposed the appointment, but without saying what exactly about him they objected to, this isn't very useful.

Ultimately, we shouldn't list quotes supportive of Pipes if we don't balance them with quotes from his detractors (of whom he apparently has many). If anyone wants to re-add the text I've removed, you can do so (I've copied it below), but please add quotes from the 'other side' as well to ensure the section meets the standards of NPOV. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Text removed: "Some defended the appointment, including Muslims. Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic studies at American University, asked "Who is better placed to act as a bridge than the scholar of Islam?" Pakistani-American Tashbih Sayyed, editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times, called Pipes "a Cassandra. He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it. Historians will write later that Pipes saved us. There are Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves." Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow in the human-rights program at Harvard Law School, said, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam, just as I usually do."[19]"

The Christopher Hitchens critique could be integrated into the Peace Institute section, since Hitchens was specifically criticizing the nomination rather than Pipes in general. The current form is clearly POV, particularly since it cites people like Ahmed Subhy Mansour that have, in essence, invented their own sects of Islam that has virtually no following. IMO, a "praise" section in that location is tangential to the nomination and provides no information that is of use. It persuades the reader that the nomination was legitimate, which clearly makes the formulation unencyclopedic. Moreover, the construction at the beginning ("Some defended..") immediately suggests that many people did not support the appointment; the current section does not elaborate on that side. If one side is given a voice, then the other ought to be given a voice also. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Before my time, but it appears there used to be a couple paragraphs of negative reaction to the appointment.[20] Probably removed by some POV pusher screaming "BLP", if past experience is any judge. Andyvphil (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PNAC

Is this the same Daniel Pipes who was/is a member/associate of PNAC (project for a new american century)? If so that really should be covered in the article. If it's the same man (which seems likely), he is listed as a signee on at least one of their documents http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm Mrmrmrmrmoooo (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

About Mr. Pipes's religion Identity

He is Jewish, so I am going to include his religious identity in the initial part of this article. It would be more specific that this gentleman is not a secular man. He has some essence of a different religion and full of his own religious tradition.116.0.33.47 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is usually kept out of the lead per WP:LEAD unless you can find several reliable sources that indicate it is central to his notability. Relata refero (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain possible BLP violations

I added more sources and slightly reworded (diff):

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes has also contributed to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."

If there are any objections to this version--or any suggestions on how to improve it--please explain here. If there needs to be more sources, I can find some more to add--just let me know. I just don't see how there is any BLP issue whatsoever. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge objection to what you're doing. And trying to gin up a quote farm from questionable sources is not going to make this article any better. If you have good sources that take issue with Pipes, please find them. We can replace the terrible ones we have now. Otherwise, let's abide by policy. IronDuke 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no quote farming here... And what are you referring to about quotes being from questionable sources? "More troublesome than most" is quoted from the SF Chronicle and "barbarians" and "potential killers" are quoted from an article Pipes wrote himself! How on earth are these questionable sources? How are these sources terrible? They arn't! You are making up stuff to censor this article. This is unacceptable. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the actual sources before continuing. IronDuke 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with IronDuke, also guilt by association is expressly forbidden by policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I feel stupid. So, the SF Chronicle source is not reliable at all. I fixed that and put the article from Pipes himself instead. What other BLP issues are you concerned with? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Pipes has also contributed to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians." is guilt by association, which is expressly forbidden by the blp policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this guilt by association??? What would Pipes be guilty of? Gamla is not guilty of anything and guilt by association is "the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty"[21]. Gamla is guilty of nothing--they have broken no laws, so how could Pipes be guilty by association when the group he is associated with not guilty of any legal wrongdoing? Please explain. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the blp policy? Addhoc (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if that sentence is dropped, the rest is okay, right? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all, you are hanging by a fairly thin thread on Wikipedia, I think. So I would take steps to be as fair-minded and collegial as possible. Second, as you linked to the word guilty, you must know that it has multiple meanings other than the legal definition. That you pretend you do not (along with your pretense about not understanding what it means to favorably mention the murdering of Americans on your userpage) can only be called trolling. You must stop this entirely in order for me to continue to engage on this page with you. As to your point, once and again, McNeil is a "poor source" for defamatory material on Pipes. Does she quote what he himself has written? Yes. Does she yank it grossly out of context? Also yes. If Pipes is all of the bad things she says or implies he is, then surely there are good sources elsewhere backing that up. And just to be clear: cherry-picking through what Pipes has written and synthesizing it into an attack on him is a violation of WP:NOR, as well as BLP. IronDuke 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a OR violation to identify the source of McNeil's quotes. Or a BLP violation to quote McNeil being tendentious. The McNeil article is widely quoted in attacks on Pipes. Linking her quotes to where they appear in context and noting that GAMLA does not in fact advocate ethnic cleansing (merely policies that others have chosen to call ethnic cleansing) amd in any case Pipes has never written anything for GAMLA, etc., is a service to anyone seeking information on Pipes, who will likely encounter McNeil anyway. Andyvphil (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironduke, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes indicates that using the McNeil article for that paragraph, with a few minor changes to the wording of the paragraph, is okay and considered a reliable source. —Christopher Mann McKay 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay. You made this edit [22] which I reverted. Looking back over your edits on this article, I suggest you take a break from even discussing this matter. I don't see quite what you are getting at. Perhaps other editors could discuss instead. Songstrasse (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? The Nation is a reliable source, if attributed. I can't see what the objection is. If it's to the phrase "anti-Arab", which I don't like either, I should point out that this is not restricted to the Nation. "Pipes' anti-anti-semitism is unfortunately inscreasingly coloured with political anti-Arab thinking..": Gabriele Marranci, "Jihad Beyond Islam", Berg Publishers; "As Emerson's work has become increasingly discredited, much of the anti-Arab tone and substance of his work has been taken up by one of his former employees, Daniel Pipes..." : Ibish Hussein in "The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality", Mc-Graw Hill; etc., etc. So its not precisely a marginal view. (Unsurprisingly). Given that, I think I am puzzled at the level of anger here. Relata refero (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also puzzled, especially by Songstrasse's strange comments: "I suggest you take a break from even discussing this matter...Perhaps other editors could discuss instead," when I already stopped discussing because no further discussion is needed. Via this talk page and WP:RSN, the current paragraph was already agreed on upon as acceptable content for this article. The paragraph should not be removed or reverted because it is not against WP:BLP, WP:VER/WP:RS or any other such policy or guideline. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

I have cleaned up the McNeil quote. I still think it may have to come out, but let's see how this works. Also, everyone, please keep in mind: BLP is not subject to vote. IronDuke 22:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is not a BLP issue. Relata refero (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. We must decide what can and cannot be included, and we must be very careful as we do so. I've seen some shockingly sloppy work done here, things inserted that border on the defamatory, if not actually crossing over; I'm not going to allow it unless and until someone very high up the food chain says "IronDuke, it's fine, leave it alone." IronDuke 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as you revert the BLP vios back in, please at least make sure they're in their proper sections, okay? IronDuke 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does "high up on the food chain" mean? You are possibly thinking of some other project, not this one. Unless you do some definite clarification as to what is defamatory, given the consensus among impartial observers on a board dedicated to evaluating source quality that this is acceptable, you have absolutely nothing to go on.

Please also note my remarks in the section above. Relata refero (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? WP:OFFICE? Jimbo? I think they all belong to this project last time I checked. IronDuke 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you habe provided no justiication for reverting my rewording of the McNeil quote. Does it not sufficiently smear Pipes as I wrote it? IronDuke 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rewriting changed the meaning attributed it. Campus Watch was covered elsewhere in the article.

WP:OFFICE etc. tend to get involved to tell people when they're are committing BLP vios. It is not generally the practice to assume that everything is a BLP vio unless the legal authorities tell you otherwise. That tends to get you blocked for editwarring.

Please also note that I at least watch this article to keep smears of Pipes out or, if notable smears, then adequately answered and kept in proportion. I don't appreciate your snideness. Relata refero (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I find it odd that you accuse me of snideness after referring to my points as "rot." It is not necessary to get OFFICE approval before making reverts that violate BLP, which I continue to believe, depsite a number of partisans who tend to make tendentious edits in this area disagreeing. She mentions Campus Watch in conjunction with Pipes, and the thrust of her criticism of him and them is that they put out a list of profs they thought were insufficiently anti-terrorist. IronDuke 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article talks about Pipes views at length, which is one of the things it is quoted in the article for. It is also quoted in the Campus Watch section, or should be.

Unless you provide concrete arguments, with reference to the policy's current wording and general practice, of how this edit violates BLP, you are not going to have much to say on the subject. And I was referring to your "food chain" remark, which is particularly absurd, as 'rot'. Accusations of "smearing", however, are considerably more serious when levelled at a fellow editor. If you cannot tell the difference...

As I say above, I have no dog in this race. I don't even like the phrase. And calling other editors tendentious given your attitude so far is not helping your case, either. Relata refero (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to allow it unless and until someone very high up the food chain says "IronDuke, it's fine, leave it alone." - IronDuke, this may surprise you, but you are not the sole decider of what is allowed on this article or not. Multiple editors have stated the text you removed is not in violation of any policy--you seem to be the sole user disagreeing. The text is fine how it is. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata. I say this with only a trace of irony, but I do grudgingly admire how you defend your own personal attack against me (or highly uncivil comment, if you prefer) by getting in an extra dig, “Well, yes, I referred to your post as ‘rot,’ but only because it was so absurd, you see.” Then, further, you go on the attack insinuating that it is I who am violating policy by referring to edits as smearing Pipes, and that is somehow worse than what you did. As I think you must know, this is quite wrong. My edits are not only within the letter of policy, but the spirit as well. I am trying to protect this article from editors who are inserting horrendously bad stuff into it (not saying everyone who supports the McNeil quote is doing that, BTW). Anyway, enough about process. I’ll ask again: who here thinks that KM is a reliable source on anything, and if so, what makes her reliable? Thanks all. IronDuke 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I must re-iterate that there are degrees of seriousness in this sort of thing and a one-word statement of "rot" in an edit summary while responding to claims that WP has a hierarchy of editors is not quite the same as a statement that other editors are involved in a smear campaign on the BLP of a prominent commentator - and, lets face it, one quick to take offence. Be that as it may, water under the bridge.

On to the matter of policy. As overwhelming consensus has demonstrated on the RS/N page, from all manner of editors, all of whom you would find difficult to dismiss as veterans of the WP:I/P quagmire, BLP is not touched here, in letter or in spirit. You are yet to make a case that it is. The Nation is a reliable enough source; it is quoted and attritbuted appropriately; it seems a notable viewpoint; it is not a marginal viewpoint. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing and references

Folks, citing and references are not that difficult. Its best to use the {{citeweb}} template, first of all, but at least use the ref tags? Also, when citing a quote from an individual, please actually provide a citation to the quote of the individual. Citing the claim of the quote (i.e. providing a citation to backup what the quoted person says, rather than the fact that the person said it) is not correct. The McNeil section under "Praise, criticism and controversy" is terribly cited. The citations attached to "...she stated...she also stated..." etc. all go to articles written by Pipes - that makes no sense. As far as the GAMLA article - the citations provide seem to demonstrate that the GAMLA article is a reprint, indeed without copyright citation and the addition of a new author without significant changes to the text, so how in any case does this back up the notion that he is a "regular contributor" to GAMLA? Avruch ^T 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, a 1983 Washington Post book review by Thomas W. Lippman stated that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims ... he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them". It said his book "is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject" while admitting that "[f]ew other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history" and that his "book is a valuable contribution to our understanding."

On this paragraph, what is the internal cite to the Nation trying to reference? I imagine that the quote comes from the Post? So the citation is a Nation quote of a Post article? Doesn't it strike you that perhaps we should quote directly? And if you can't come up with an article name or an author, but only a date, for a reference -- in my mind, on a BLP, that is not sufficient. Also, Andyvphil, could you use a better cite template than simple ref tags and a URL? Thanks, appreciated, really. Avruch ^T 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And as far as the "Steo-tep removal" - uh, no, whatever that is. I removed the cite, because its useless, and then noticed that not only was the general paragraph cite useless but the quote was apparently attributed to a third party. Since it makes a claim against Pipes that could be considered defamatory, and this is a BLP, and its not even barely adequately referenced, I removed it. You can reference it appropriately, soon, or I'll remove it again. Avruch ^T 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... how did I get from "two step" to "steo-tep". Anyway, looking at the history, I withdraw the question. Wrong or not, it was a one-step removal. Anyway, I didn't write the paragraph, and I don't agree with Lippman, but I assume the Nation quoted Lippman, and that is good enough for a work in progress. "BLP article" doesn't mean every cite has to meet FA standards. If you look and the Nation article doesn't quote Lippman that way, that would be a good place for a "fact" tag or even removal. Otherwise citation is not a problem. Nor is BLP. People saying Pipes is hostile to Muslims is part of his life we won't censor here. You remove it again and I will restore it again.

The Business Week cite is also good enough to allow that paragraph. Again, not good enough to pass GA or FA, but that's not the question here. If you don't like the content go to the library and check the issue. If it isn't accurately quoted, then you can yank it. But you don't get to demand better citation than policy requires.

And of course McNeil was lying about Pipes being a regular contributor to Gamla. He's a regular contributor to Frontpage and if you search his site for "Frontpage" it's all over the place. Gamla, nada. But search the web for "Pipes""ethnic cleansing" and you'll see that McNeil's slur got a lot of play. We shouldn't not mention it. If someone is looking for info on Pipes they should find the usual slurs mentioned here AND debunked. It's part of our service as a guide to the reliability of what is said elsewhere on the web.

As to the template, I usually only do that when I want to bookmark my last look at a page and I don't want to make any substantive changes. Usually there are more substantive changes to be made than time to do it, so quick-and-dirty on the refs is all I have time for. Sorry. The other things you complain about I either don't think I do or don't think are a major problem. Andyvphil (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GAMLA Claim

References again... It is unnecessary to attempt to prove the claim of a quote that is sourced appropriately (a la McNeil). It isn't Wikipedia making the claim, it is McNeil. In any event - if you wanted to try to prove the claim you would need something more convincing than a copyright violation of an article written for something other than GAMLA. There seems to be a number of mentions on the Internets of Pipes contributing to GAMLA, but no actual evidence that he has other than the one reprinted article. Feel free to discuss the problem on the talkpage (as opposed to just reverting back and forth with identical edit summaries). Avruch ^T 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim is false but widely repeated. Attributing it to McNeil without mentioning that it is false is unacceptable. Leaving it unmentioneded is unacceptable. The only acceptable course is to mention it and mention that it is false. The only question is how to do this. If you don't like my attempt at this, advance your own. Andyvphil (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Almontaser campaign

See this article for some information about Pipes' involvement in getting Almontaser removed as principal of the Arabic school in New York City. Avruch ^T 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

FPM

The FrontPage magazine is not a reliable source. Thus I've removed it.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You removed it because you don't like what it says. Thus, I've replaced it. I also don't know why his opinion about the muhammed cartoons is relevant, but I'm leaving that in for the time being. Yunfeng (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's reliable as a source in his own article, in his own words. - Merzbow (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>Merzbow you previously challenged me on Bostom and Prometheus Books (see Talk:Dhimmi#Bostom), claiming they were reliable. Yet anyone can see who ludicrous those sources are, and there came to be consensus on this Now you're saying that FPM is reliable, even though it has the opposite reputation. Even on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BS, FPM is about as reliable as Pipes himself, so if its being used to substantiate his opinion in his own words, thats OK. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let the Pipes stuff in.

But it is also being used to substantiate Robert Spencer's opinion (without attribution to Pipes). Now, I'm no friend of Spencer's, but Pipes can't speak for him.

WP:SELFPUB says the information must be "not contentious...not involve claims about third parties."

I believe the above principles are violated when we say ' Robert Spencer described the campaign against Pipes on the CAIR website as a "lynching." 'Bless sins (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't object to removing the Spencer quote. - Merzbow (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you should find a reliable source for it. As of now, we are attributing to Spencer something he may not have said. Secondly, the source is making claims about CAIR as well (by saying that CAIR actually had a campaign against Pipes).Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bless, please re-read my post. I'm agreeing with you here. :) - Merzbow (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The article says ". . . is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank, as well as the founder of Campus Watch, an organization which critiques those who it characterises as sources of "poor scholarship" concerning the Middle East." Where is the citation to the "poor scholarship"? 69.232.157.143 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"controversial"

What better word is there than "controversial" to summarize the sentence "Among his supporters, Mr. Pipes enjoys a heroic status; among his detractors, he is reviled" in a single adjective? Perhaps "polarizing"? Would that be acceptable? It's silly not to have something like that in the introduction - the guy hasn't just been criticized by some random Nation writer, he's been the target of a filibuster in the US Senate. Kalkin (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Polarizing" may be a good alternative, but why isn't it enough to just quote the NYT sentence, w/o summarizing it? The sentence you quote is virtually a tautology, and could be applied to just about anyone who has critics, and which notable public figure doesn't? I am sure it is true of George Bush, for example, yet we don't lead his article with a sentence that reads 'Bush is a controversial president'. I think you have done great work to improve the article over the past couple of days - but since it is a BLP, we should be extra careful about criticism, especially as the first sentence in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. On consideration, just quoting the NYT - as the intro presently does - is good enough for me. I originally added "controversial" when I had not yet found a source for "neoconservative", and I felt Pipes extreme politics needed at least some implicit reference in the introduction, as opposed to presenting him as simply a prolific scholar. But just "neoconservative" is sufficient. Kalkin (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight misinformation here

First off, Daniel Pipes is primarily a columnist for the NY Post, The Jerusalem Post, and FrontPageMag. Those publications aren't mentioned in the opening paragraphs. I can't find any article of his in the NY Times, though HIS website claims he wrote one for them in 1989. Also, his writing one article or column or opinion piece in the NY Times, if he did, almost 20 yrs ago, does not merit mention. I will go through the rest of the claims attributed to his website, but I don't think a website designed to promote Daniel Pipes should be regarded as a reliable source, even in the context of describing his professional achievements. Personal resumes often exaggerate one's achievements, his website is likely no better.[[

Ghalibshah (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being syndicated by the NYT is different from actually being an NYT columnist. Chomsky is also syndicated by the NYT, but there's zero chance they'd ever give him a column. Nevertheless, it appears that Pipes is not, at least, currently even syndicated: http://www.nytsyn.com/opinion_col.php

I'll remove that claim from the article. Kalkin (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, this is a DISCUSSION PAGE. Do not censor the discussions of editors. Also, please specify where BLP justifies the censorship of talk page discussion. I don't see peoples comments edited because of NPOV or RS or anything else. Ghalibshah (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes on Barack Obama

Daniel Pipes has commented extensively on his believe that Obama is or was a Muslim. His opinions were used by Fox News, notably on Sean Hannity's documentary on Obama. Certainly that deserves mention here. Ghalibshah (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the text I added to the article. Daniel Pipes has been a vocal critic of Obama, writing that he was in fact a Muslim, and that he had ties with Rashid Khalidi, whom he describes as a former agent of the PLO. All comments are cited. This is as notable as any other statement of his:

Claims Barack Obama was a former Muslim and associations with Rashid Khalidi

- - On his own website and in articles for The Jerusalem Post, Daniel Pipes argued his belief that Barack Obama was a former Muslim. He alleges Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim, and that "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque." Ben Smith, in an article on The Politico responds to these accusations claiming they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipe's works "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".

- - On a program on The Fox News Network, Daniel Pipes claims scholar Rashid Khalidi was an employee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, at the time when the United States government designated the PLO as a 'terrorist organization', and that Barack Obama had alleged "financial ties" with Khalidi and that Khalidi hosted a fundraiser for Obama.

Sources include his own website, and publications he had written for. I don't see reason for objection.

Ghalibshah (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the articles. They deal mainly with the perception in the Muslim world of Obama and whether they think of him as a muslim or former muslim. Also if there is any place for reporting this it should not be where it is.

His description as a propagandist is really out of place and a clear POV.

On the other hand his visiting professorship has no place (he is not famous for it).

I am reverting to the stable version till the end of discussion.

Mashkin (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The objective of Wikipedia isn't to be devoid of POV, but to have a neutral POV. If Daniel Pipes has gone on Fox News and used his website to argue Barack Obama was a Muslim and associated with a terrorist, and that statement has been circulated and responded to by other notable publications, how is it neutral to actively exclude that information? As for notability, these facts are as notable as anything else in Daniel Pipes' history.

As for misrepresentation, please explain that. I believe I have relayed the information from the sources faithfully. Go line by line, compare my sentences with the sources.

Please remember, it is NOT neutral to exclude information that is known and notable, on the grounds that it doesn't flatter the subject matter. Wikipedia articles on people are not meant to just be platitudes. Ghalibshah (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional note. I found the content on Obama in the article that Kalkin referred to on my talk page. It is as follows:

Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world." Media Matters describes Pipes' article as promoting a "falsehood".

It appears under subsection "Muslims in the United States", which in turn is under the section "Views on Islam". Given Obama is in fact not a Muslim and states he never was one, this content doesn't belong under "Muslims in the United States. And given that Daniel Pipes' assertions that Obama was a Muslim never reflected his view on Islam while he was making those assertions, it's obvious that this content doesn't belong in "Views on Islam" either. All this points to a new section being required to place this particular content in. Ghalibshah (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The label propagandist is not NPOV by any measure. We can take it slowly and try and resolve one issue at a time.

Is anyone disputing this?

132.77.4.43 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Propagandist can be included with appropriate sources. In a cetain way every label such as academic, historian etc. that are bestowed upon this person are disputable Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Where have I used the word "propagandist"? I've faithfully represented the sources. I'm certainly not editorializing. Ghalibshah (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Some sections overly reliant on Pipes' self description

I have a bit of a problem with this, under Views of Islam:

Pipes believes that moderate Muslims "constitute a very small movement", but a "brave" one, which the U.S. government should "give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating".[23] He suggests that "radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution".[24]

Pipes has praised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and the Sudanese thinker Mahmoud Mohamed Taha.[25]

First of all, there are published criticisms of Pipes' definitions of moderate and radical Islam. Please read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gershom-gorenberg/daniel-pipes-v-religious_b_99432.html . It is clear that there is a dispute as to what form of Islam constitutes 'moderate islam', as the article shows. Some believe that any expression of Islam exceeds the limits Mr. Pipes is willing to tolerate. The Wikipedia entry shouldn't presume what Pipes recognizes as Moderate Islam is actually moderate from an objective point of view.

We could add "what he sees as Moderate/Radical Islam" type sentences, as well as summarize the Huffington Post article to a sentence or two that informs the reader that there are those who view Pipes position as misleading, given his opposition to such simple accommodations to Muslims like 'womens only' hours at a Harvard University gym. The Debbie Almontaser incident is already described here.

Here's my attempt at such a sentence: Some columnists have objected Daniel Pipes' position regarding 'radical' versus 'moderate' Islam, arguing that in practice he has found "every manifestation of Islam, or of Arab cultural identity" to be potentially subversive to the United States.

Ghalibshah (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Scholarship versus Politiking?

One funny thing. The discussants in this page have said a lot of things, but no one has stated the fact that in fact Daniel Pipes is a dog. He was fathered by a Dog and because he is Jewish, he automatically becomes a dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.40.142 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some argue that professor Pipes has clearly blended his scholarship on "Islam" with a political agenda . Therefore, an academic distinction of him as a "specialist" of "Islam" is questionable. Specialist by definition are above taking positions on the subjects they specialize in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.133.57 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Who argues this? IronDuke 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this person even talking about? In Pipes's education section, it states that he's specialized in Islamic history for the entirety of his academic sojourn at Harvard. And second, being a specialist doesn't mean taking a particular position on some specific issue as, to me, it has more to do with the depth of knowledge you have in some field of study. Besides, is this the same way you think of a person who has, hypothetically-speaking, a specialist degree in biochemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.79.186 (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

WP:BLP is very clear that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Thus I have removed the statement "X has attracted both opprobrium as a bigot" -which is unsourced contentious material. Please don;t add it again. Further, the recent edit removed relevant material which is sourced to a reliable source -don't do that, either. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not just "X has attracted both opprobrium as a bigot", rather "X has attracted both opprobrium as a bigot and praise as a prohet". So there is fair amount of praise as well. It is not unsourced, rather it is a summary of subsection(see further paragraphs), and is alright.

The sentence "The Wall Street Journal has called Pipes an authoritative commentator on the Middle East." is clearly twisted to peacock Pipe's profile using a weak source. The secondary source says

Praised as an "authoritative commentator on the Middle East" by his allies at the Wall Street Journal, he's been branded "an anti-Islamist extremist" by some Arab-American groups.

It is not sourced directly by Wall Street Jou. and the latter part is omitted. See NPOV. I am reverting as there is no convincing argument Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 11:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need it sourced directly to WSJ, the Pittsburgh paper is plenty reputable. As for the negative part, it doesn't go in the section about his views on foreign policy. There is more than enough criticism of Pipes already in the aticle. It's very well covered. As for the "bigot" smear you keep trying to reinsert, it is not an accurate summary of the criticism against him. Maybe prophet is, but we don't need either one -- and can't have the bigot part without incredibly good sourcing (and again, it does not accurately reflect what people object to about Pipes). IronDuke 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the negative part, it doesn't go in the section about his views on foreign policy.

Well, in this case, the whole sentence cannot go as this is just twisting a source to paint him white. As for having too much criticism, this is not an argument to have lopsided sentences. As for the "bigot and prophet sentence", we can leave it out even though I think sometimes a summary is not a bad idea Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as question about the Wall Street Journal thing - Is it saying that the WSJ as a whole considers him an authority, or just his "allies" there? Chedorlaomer (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It only says that "Pipe's allies in WSJ...". It is clearly twisted. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting materials from talkpage

"It should be in the Infobox - the ethnicity tag is part of the Infobox Writer template. Unfortunately I tried adding it but was reverted. Is the fact of his ethnicity too controversial given this man's <blp vio removed> stance? )"

The above comment was deleted by some user(I assume the same user who tried to squeeze in some peocock statements by twisting sources) first without any comment and then saying it violated WP:BLP. I know that posting libelous materials about living persons are no go even in talk pages, but how can discussing the ethnicity of a person whose primary driving force is his own ethnocentric feeling in a talk page be considered violation of BLP?? If this is the case, how can we have some fearless, reasonable debates in talk pages to debate whether something be included in the main article? Maybe I am missing some points here, but comments are invited Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 09:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A certain amount of discussion is allowed on the talkpage, in order to be able to reach a consensus on whether or not specific information is allowed in the article. For best results though, any commentary which may violate WP:BLP, should be accompanied with a source. --Elonka 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't about "information" being put in an article. The BLP-violating talk put in by an anon wasn't meant, even by the anon, to be article content itself. IronDuke 19:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I may be confused here. Which diff exactly are we talking about? --Elonka 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

An anon placed a comment here. It had to do with whether Pipes' ethnicity was important in the infobox, an okay discussion to have. But there was a gratuitous smear in there which took out here. Again, the anon in question had no discernible intention of putting the smear into the article, it was just a little WP:SOAPy BLP vio. IronDuke 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So that anon was 129.215.37.207 (talk · contribs). And this is probably related to the attempt by 129.215.37.129 (talk · contribs) to add an ethnicity to the infobox, correct?[23] The IPs are different, but are probably the same person. I'm a bit confused though, as to why the addition of the ethnicity to the infobox was removed, considering that it's sourced?[24] I'm not seeing the BLP violation? --Elonka 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, you'd have to ask Jayjg about that, as it's a separate issue, though I'd point out that William F. Buckley, Edward Said, and Michelle Malkin don't have ethnicity in their infoboxes... should they? If not, why should Pipes be different? IronDuke 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those articles, so can't compare, and anyway it wouldn't really apply oer WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In terms of the infobox though, my understanding was that ethnicity could be included, where it was relevant to the person's notability. In other words, we wouldn't necessarily put "white" in the box by just looking at a picture and making an original research guess, but if the race/ethnicity comes up in reliable sources, then it might be worth including. Other than that, I really don't have any preference on whether the information is or isn't included in the infobox -- I'm just trying to understand why people are so upset about it, and whether any policies were violated. So far I'm not seeing any problems, so I'm still not understanding the "upset" part. --Elonka 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to why people are upset though it might have something to do with worry over editors building ground for an ad hominem attack on the subject, or just poisoning the well. But this isn't really relevant to this particular thread... I'm hoping this is moot now, as Zencv does not seem inclined to reinsert the highly questionable material. I hope, also, with the attention that this has garnered, that it will not be repeated, although given that no one in any position of authority has made BLP policy completely clear to Zencv (and ramifications of violating it), it will not be as shocking as it ought if this problem recurs. IronDuke 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, can you please explain why you think being Jewish is "highly questionable"? There is no need for that kind of comment on here. Mr. Pipes is proud of his heritage and there is no problem in Wikipedia displaying it. Josh Keen (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not say what you seem to think I said. Check the thread again, please. IronDuke 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in Pipe's case, its quite OK to have ethnicity included. What was dangerous was to use the word "anti-Muslim" as a pretext to thwart any discussion. Is "anti-Muslim" a swear word? Many right wing politicians are accused of the same and some even proudly admit that they are. A good mental exercise would be to replace "anti-Muslim" with "anti-Semitic" and you would find it abundantly in talk pages. In case of Pipes, it is not even difficult to get sources for this like this or this, where Pipes and anti-Muslim appears in the same sentence. What happened here was a gross overreaction and subsequent threatening to block me in the pretext of WP:BLP. IronDuke - there is a difference between someone posting an unreferenced libelous information in the article, and mentioning something in the talkpage at a specific context. I wish that you realize this mistake, cool down a bit and treat other editors in a way that you would have wanted others to treat you. As for your ad hominem concern, we don't need a preemptive action to prevent it. If the article ever becomes a WP:COATRACK, which is quite unlikely, then most experienced editors will get it and respond to it, a preemptive overreaction is not needed. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 13:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite cool, thanks for checking in, though I'll confess I do find it a bit odd you'd be lecturing others on how to treat fellow editors when your own posts on this topic have been so nasty. If you'd like to gloat about the fact that you weren't blocked for serial violations of WP:BLP, I could hardly blame you. And indeed, it matters not, as long as you refrain from repeating it (which you so far have done -- and for that I thank you). The sources you quote, FWIW are much too weak to support the smears you have been trying to insert. But again, you appear to have seen the light, so I'll not belabor the point. Thanks for engaging in dialogue, it is much appreciated. IronDuke 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironduke, if your problem was the single word "anti-Muslim" in the talk page, there was no need to delete the whole section which contained a legitimate point posted(ie, ethnicity of Pipes being mentioned). I have some problem to digest your logic behind it. I'm glad that now you yourself corrected it. On anon's contribution being a WP:SOAP, this is just your interpretation, isn't it? I would like to ask you honestly if this were a peacock statement, would you have shown the same discretion though it would have violated neutrality. I had shown some good faith by deleting unsourced criticism from this same page like | here Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Neocon

He calls himself a neocon. He has essentially screamed this from the rooftops. For the life of me I cannot see why this would have anything to do with WP:BLP. The Squicks (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He is widely regarded as a neocon. I cannot see this as a BLP issue. Is there any other reason why this is being removed from the lead? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put this back. This ironduke person is wrong to keep removing this. This is NOTHING to do with WP:BLP Vexorg (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My opinion is where it belongs in the article. I would not use it to describe him academicly. Maybe where it currently is ok. Sure doesn't need to be mentioned twice in the lead does it? Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears there is an update to Pipes' thinking. He does not consider himself a neocon. See here Thus, it would be wrong to label him one in the lead. Sincerely, "this ironduke person." IronDuke 05:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've updated the info to reflect his change of identification. This is more than just his views on Foreign Policy. Vexorg (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. I realize that you are extraordinarily amxious to jam the designation of "neoconservative" into the lead. However that -- and you -- are wrong on a number of fronts. 1) Though it is very, very important to you that Pipes be labeled as such in the lead, it isn't really important to anyone else (in terms of RS's), especially given that he has rejected this label. It is a footnote, little more. You violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE by insisting on cramming this info into the lead, where it does not belong. Pipes has been identified by others as a neocon, and though he never rushed to call himself that, in the past he didn't seem to mind if others did. Now he does. So we make a note of this -- in 'foreign policy,' where it belongs. Please desist in this -- you are worng on all fronts. If you must persist, at least get consensus, here on talk, before trying to restore any part of your edits. Thanks. IronDuke 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation. Indeed, it has a certain cachet, given that no more than 50 Americans have been called neoconservative, yet we allegedly drive American foreign policy.

Any attempt to claim that Pipes never considering himself to be a neoconservative is a simple lie. This is what he wrote. Here it is.

Claiming that he does not believe what he believes (he was a former self-described neoconservative, and he now is not) violates WP:BLP. The Squicks (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A "lie?" Do please settle down. I quote "I have never quite figured out what views define a neo-conservative, and whether I am one or not..." Does that look to you, or any reasonable person, like Pipes is referring to himself habitually as a necon? You are serially violating WP:BLP, and your weak efforts to suggest I am doing so further violate the spirit of that policy. Stop reverting now, please. IronDuke 04:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to type on a talk page "We Christians have been subject to many bad allegations", would anyone read this and claim that "Clearly, Squicks is not a Christian"? That is exactly the same kind of silliness that is being claimed here. You are seriously violating WP:BLP by putting ideas into Pipes head that he did not have. The Squicks (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could get ultra-technical and replace the current sententence with Pipes used to happily accept being called a neoconservative, and referred to "we neoconservatives". Would that be acceptable? The Squicks (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are quite wrong, and it is in very bad faith to suggest I am violating BLP, even if you yourself were not doing so, which you clearly are. It doesn't take a genius level IQ to see that Pipes is saying, basically, that he doesn't mind if people want to call him a neocon -- you think he's actually calling himself that, after he says he doesn't even really know what the term means? Seriously? IronDuke 04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear it wasn't something he habitually referred to himself as. "Pipes used to happily accept..." No, that represents a basic level of misunderstanding of elementary English grammar. A thing he did once is not "used to." Do you have other sources? Is it something he did frequently? Or once, for rhetorical effect? And he is using the word ironically/hyperbolically when he refers to himself as one, as in "I don't mind if you want to call me that, go ahead." (paraphrase) This is crystal clear to any good faith reader. IronDuke 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that represents a basic level of misunderstanding of elementary English grammar. A thing he did once is not "used to."

How is this any different in how we phrase anything else in the article? It says Pipes believes that Saudi Arabia is neither a "friend" nor a "foe" of the United States, but a "rival".[53] based on a source, when Pipes has written many times about the subject and other things could be cited. The Squicks (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since that source is not acceptable, this Australian interview may be better.

It says that "Daniel Pipes is Director of the think tank the Middle East Forum, and when he was last here in 2004 he described himself without qualification as a neo-conservative. Today, he was hedging his bets somewhat on the label, saying that many people associated him with neo-conservatism, and he wouldn't exactly argue with the description." Pipes says later in the program that "Well, I've never called myself it really, except to say that others see me that way, and, you know, maybe I am one of them. But I do think that it's a wonderful vision, and I do think it's attainable. It just takes a long time." The Squicks (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So, would 'Pipes used to happily accept being called a neoconservative, after being described as such. be okay- citing this? The Squicks (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Pipes used to accept being described as a "neoconservative", once saying that "others see me that way, and, you know, maybe I am one of them."[41][42] That's more helpful, since the terms 'happy' or 'happily' is not relevant at all. The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pipes is an Anti Muslim because he supports "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to Holocaust denial

Pipes wrote that the "key issue at stake" was whether the "West [would] stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech" and the "right to insult and blaspheme" but not the right to Holocaust denial.

- There are laws limiting freedom of speech in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland, for stopping Holocaust denial.

Anti-Muslim should be a swear word if anti-semetic is one.

--ChJameel (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM. The Squicks (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide a quote in which Pipes calls for the outlawing of Holocaust Denial. The notion that one has to mention the right to deny the Holocaust every time he also mentions the right to insult Islam is ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you forgot a lot of countries. Like Canada, the U.K., New Zealand and Australia.(to name the least obvious).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This gentleman "is" not an academic

He was an academic. That is an important distinction. Over twenty years ago, he was active in academia. Listing that first among his occupations/endeavors conveys unwarranted credibility to his arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.188.246 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would even like to state that being an academic should not always warrant credibility to ones arguments. Especially when one has certain personal interests in stating a certain argument. 82.168.243.40 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Evil picture

Is it just me or does the default make Pipes look sinister?

Perhaps we could switch it out for one of these:

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, don't worry. It is just in your mind. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well he is kind of evil character-wise. :D Can we switch out the picture? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

whatever, first foto has a shadow in the background, which makes it look rather amateurish..The way he smiles in the second foto - I would rather reserve my comments as it could violate BLP. But you could still switch the foto and see whether it fits better into the article layout Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama "accused" of having been a been a moslem?

The anti-liberals here (Wikipedia) tend to ignore the difference between accusing someone and stating a fact about someone. Regardless of the political capital Pipes may be trying to make from Obama' s islamist education and upbringing (at first hotly and roundly denied, now - well after the election- halfheartetly accepted), Pipes has stated a simple fact (or perhaps error, if his findings turn out to be wrong):

Obama has been (from birth) up to a certain young age been a muslim, has been educated as a muslim and was seen and described (school records) such by society.

To my mind Pipes has presented very good reasons and proofs for this in various articles, none of the facts (or errors, if you choose to not like them) is mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

I must say that although the article seems to try (perhaps a bit to hard) to be fair to Pipes: the english Wikipedia seems to be more tolerant than the German one in a lot of places (not always).

I think Pipes has presented facts about Obama' s religious past and tried to bring those facts to the attention of Wikipedia (a hopeless idea before the election, of course) and, not surprisingly have been laughed out of court.

Now it seems that Obama' s people are at least prepared to admit the basic truth of some of the facts of Obama' s religious upbringing.

I don' t think Pipes thinks Obama a bad or even evil person because of it. To me it seems the left thinks all the Neocons do hate all muslims ("Islamophobia"), but why should they (or Pipes) do such a thing?

If Pipes has been basically right and correct, his treatment in the media and the hushing up of Obama' s past is really quiet a scandal and demonstrates how blind and ideological the left has become (or has always been). Intellectual life in the USA sadly is not only ruined by the well hated R. L. and his gang.--Radh (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that just about all of Pipe's case against Obama has been completely scrubbed from the Obama articles. My attempts to restore these facts have been reverted with comments such as "get consensus first" "trivia does not belong here" or "frontpage cannot be used as a source" or "chicago tribune source cannot be used because it cannot be accessed" or "this is going to that fringe Obama is a muslim madness". No one has actually challenged the facts. Upon research, it is the Chicago Tribine story that DEBUNKS the myth that confirms that Obama's parents thought he was Muslim enough to register her in the school as such, and most importantly, friends and his teacher saw Barry walk to the Mosque with his father. In it places are statements that Soetero (who went to Mosque to pray) was a non-practicing Muslim or "not religous", and there is absolutely no reference to the religion of his father or stepfather in his biography main or early life. Bachcell (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity: Jewish

What exactly is the point of this in his info box? I don't see the ethnicity of other authors and academics listed as a vital statistic. Though I personally find Mr. Pipes to be an idiot, I disapprove of the implied "Check it out bro, he's a JEWISH NEO-CON!"75.141.222.91 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox_writer/doc. Ethnicity is listed as an available field for articles about writers. If you see ethnicity missing from other writers' articles, put it in too, provided it's verifiable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The doc page only states the existence of the of the field. The talk page, Template_talk:Infobox_writer/doc, discusses the usage of this field. It is to be used in cases where the identification is strongly associated with the individual or their work. I don't believe either of these are true in this case. Unless someone would like to argue that Judaism and criticism of Islam are strongly associated with each other I will remove this field in a few days. shnoble (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes in the lead

The formatting of scare quotes around "controversial organization...poor scholarship...harassing...conservative...Orientalist," etc., is unnecessary. An encyclopedia doesn't need to distance itself from these words, just to mention that they're the words of others. From a Wikipedia article about style guides' reactions to scare quotes:

Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion.

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition[13][14] acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58: "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#When_not_to_use_emphasis.184.77.15.82 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Inspiring right/wing militancy

Maybe it should mentioned that Pipes's WP:BLP-violating material removed views have been influencing Norwegian militant Anders Behring Breivik who is main suspect in Utoya massacre. He has quoted Pipes number of times in his "manifesto". --Magabund (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the WP:BLP violation from your comment; please don't do this kind of thing again. What have reliable sources said on the matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"yellow badging" [25][26]

Jayjg, to suggest that the Forward's statement doesn't belong in the lede, that's not unreasonable, but to equate other editors with Nazis in your edit summaries is more than a little grotesque. I don't know how you can think that sort of rhetoric is acceptable. Substandard Wikipedia editing, that was not the fate of the Jews in Europe under the Nazis. Let's do please be more respectful about how we 'use' the Holocaust.

That said, I can't imagine why we would conceal Pipes' Polish-Jewish family origins, his celebrated status as "influential Jew", or his particular interest in Israel, unless we are looking to accommodate Zionist/Jewish nationalist ideology (core themes of Pipes' work, and the work on Pipes) in light of the recent horrors in Norway. If multiple reliable sources highlight this information, and if Pipes himself highlights it, it is as pertinent as it needs to be.

When it comes to undue emphasis of a cited point by its inclusion in a lede, the optimal fix is to relocate that point appropriately in the bio. The blanking of such text is, first of all, rude to the editor who has cited and represented something honestly, and secondly it represents a net loss for the bio, as a cited fact is made to vanish. For example, the Washington Post's extraordinary contempt for Pipes' nomination is important to the bio; it may not be suitable for the intro, but the bio experiences a net loss when you conceal that altogether from the reader, to whom it is of obvious significance. DBaba (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi DBaba.

1. You're going to have to purge all words like "conceal" from your vocabulary when communicating with me, because they are unwarranted, uncivil, and assume bad faith. To quote you, "I don't know how you can think that sort of rhetoric is acceptable". Please be more respectful of your fellow editors; we will make no progress until this happens.
2. The yellow badge was not invented by the Nazis, and I have not equated any editors with Nazis. What is actually "a little more than grotesque" is editing Wikipedia for the purpose of trying to single out individuals as Jews. The IP in question has been trying to add the word "Jew" to this article in as many ways as possible, from describing Pipes' parents at "Polish Jews", to describing Pipes himself as an "influential Jew", sourced to what it describes as "a Jewish publication". WP:MOSBIO is quite clear that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability", and not-so-subtle attempts to do an end-runs around that are not in the spirit of the guideline. In the future, please make more accurate talk page statements, be more respectful of your fellow editors, and direct your wrath where it is actually appropriate.
3. The editor in question did not "cite" anything at all, but merely inserted unsourced claims into a WP:BLP, something that you should know better than to defend. Moreover, it is not "rude" to revert dubious inserted material; please review WP:BRD. Again, please make more accurate talk page statements, be more respectful of your fellow editors, and direct your wrath where it is actually appropriate.
4. Pipes writes about the Middle East, not specifically Israel, and is founder and director of the Middle East Forum, not the "Israel Forum". Israel is in the Middle East, and "unless we are looking to accommodate an anti-Zionist ideology", there doesn't appear to be any reason to single out that specific country.
5. I don't have access to the source in question, as it is behind a paywall, but I have no idea what the meaning or significance is of a fairly small circulation paper like The Forward allegedly designating Pipes (in some undetermined year) as one of 50 "most influential Jews". There's no indication, however, that this is a "celebrated status" - do you have any source for that claim?
6. You assert (or speculate) that "multiple reliable sources highlight" and "Pipes himself highlights" Pipes' ethnic origins. Do you have any source for that claim?
7. Regarding the Washington Post editorial sound-bite, it's not clear to me that the source at the end of the sentence actually includes the claim, and in any event the Post apparently described the appointment as "sort of a cruel joke", which is different than simply "a cruel joke". Context is everything, and the lede already contains a great deal of information about opposition to that appointment. It's not clear to me why you and others appear to place such weight on a one-off sound-bite quote from the Post (as opposed to, say, editorials by dozens of other newspapers), and I don't want to speculate regarding your motivations, but it's quite obvious that it at the very least doesn't belong in the lede. If you can find the actual source for this, feel free to make a pitch as to why this specific editorial from this specific newspaper belongs in the body of the text.
8. Regarding "the recent horrors in Norway", this kind of guilt by association is generally both distasteful and in violation of WP:BLP. And I'm certainly not going to ignore the elephant in the room - that a number of editors edit this bio solely for the purpose of smearing Pipes (or smearing Jews). That said, if sufficient numbers of reliable sources comment on there being a significant connection between the alleged mass-murderer and Pipes, then we could include it in the bio, subject (again) to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. But we're certainly not going to include it before then.

In general, not every citeable statement belongs in an article, and "the bio experiences a net loss" when one inserts too much material, particularly material chosen to introduce bias, promote a political agenda, or, in general, attempt to side-step WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what I've had to say will make more sense to you, if I get the chance to further edit the bio. The scholarship on Pipes is broad and vast. It may seem, for instance, that the comment you recently blanked describing Pipes as "Islamophobic" on the talk page was the opinion of an outlying Wikipedian, but really this is a core issue of Pipes' career: his being condemned as such, his responses to that, etc. His essays on Jewish nationalism and critiques of him as a nationalist, his father's fleeing Nazis in Poland (as, specifically, a Jew), these are all vital elements here. Thanks for not suggesting that I'm like a mass-murderer; I guess I don't know how to express to you how disconcerting it is to me to see you seeming to equate Nazi persecution to a trivial Wikipedia edit. So I suspect we've caused each other equal grief and frustration, at this stage. If I find the time I'll make a bunch of small edits with rationales, so that we can continue this constructively. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your more conciliatory tone, I'm sure simple misunderstandings were at the heart of both of our frustrations. By the way, as a simple example, regarding Pipes and "Israel" vs. "Middle East", if you look at his bio at the Hoover Institution, it currently lists five things he's written in June and July under "Recent Commentary", one is about Iran, one is about Democrats vs. Republicans, one is about Middle East Studies, one is about Israel, and one is about Libya. It seems to me that, based on this admittedly small sample size, "Middle East" is a far more accurate description of his interests. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Daniel Pipes seems to have been a big inspiration to Breivik, as his manifesto is full of Pipes quotes. It should be mentioned in this article.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of doing that? Breivik is only notable because of his murders. Beware of guilt by association in BLP, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's done all the time on Wikipedia. e.g. Sayyid Qutb is always cited as an "inspiration" to Al-Qaeda-type terrorists, this is pretty much the same thing.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sayyid Qutb openly called for subversion and revolution against the established orders in the Muslim world that he called Jahiliya societies, and Zawahiri has said he was the one that sparked the "Islamic revolution," which helped furthering the Muslim Brotherhood that has given birth to many terrorist organisations for example Al-Qaeda and Hamas. Is there any equivalence at all? Just to make my point clear on how Qutb is calling for violence and a totalitarian system here is a quote from Qutb:

Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely ordained system life, it has an Allah-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority, so that in may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individuals conscience. When Allah restrained Muslims from Jihaad for a certain period, it was a question of strategy rather than of principle; this was a matter pertaining to the requirements of the movement and not to the belief. Only in the light of this explanation can we understand those verses of the Holy Qur’an [e.i. also the violent offensive passages] which are concerned with the various stages of this movement.(Emphasis added)

And

What kind of man is he who, after listening to the commandment of Allah and the traditions of the Prophet – peace be on him – and after reading about the events which occurred during the Islamic Jihaad, still thinks that it is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders?

It is ridicules to suggest that Pipes has ever written anything similar or advocated any kind of violence to destroy any given society. Davidelah (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to the last sentence, Pipes advocated for the Iraq war, which used violence to destroy a society. So do not say Pipes has not advocated violence.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the same thing, it is not unusual for people to advocate preemptive warfare of one state against another. Davidelah (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let us suppose a situation; a muslim bombs some place or the other, and his manifesto repeatedly mentions a certain scholar/writer, would that not be mentioned immediately on his wikipedia page? The answer is yes, the only difference here is that this was not a muslim terrorist. Anyhow I won't be going into this further.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is really no subtle difference between violent people quoting advocacy for violence and guilt be association. Davidelah (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that if a controversy begin in the some major media outlet and Daniel Pipes responding to it this could be included in the article, but as far as I know this has not happened like it has with Robert Spencer for example. Davidelah (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Breivik cited Naomi Klein several times, and she even responded to it. Should we add a section to her biography about it? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some sources on this issue here, here, here, here ,here and here.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Some sources on Breivik and Klein: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Daniel Pipes has written about this controversy in more general terms so maybe this should be mentioned, however I have not read anything that would make a good argument that Pipes' writings could be a motivation for violence specifically. Davidelah (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He's commented on the Norway attacks, but he hasn't commented on Breivik's citing him. The former doesn't open the door to the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he has, see page two. "and (in particular) those authors he cited in his writings, including myself."--Aa2-2004 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he has. So has Klein. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)