Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 21 December 2005

Serious author?

Just as a question - how can anybody take the author of this seriously? - Mustafaa 21:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's the point? Why shouldn't she be taken seriously? What substantive challenges can you offer to her piece on Eurabia.

It's not Misplaced Pages's place to "take seriously" anything. WP' place is to report objectively (NPOV) on all topics of concern to a general audience. The fact that people talk about her (for good or bad) means she's worth an article in WP. Now - this article (*any* article) shouldn't pass judgement on what's being discussed - it should merely report on what is being said by all sides of the issue in a fair and even handed manner. Present her arguments, and then note that there are thousands of people who think she's a crackpot for reasons a, b and c, without passing judgement yourself. 19:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Name

First, can I ask anyone posting here to sign and date their posts; see Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages for how to do it. Secondly, what is the issue with the name? (1) Do we have good sources to confirm this is her name, and (2) if so, why are we deleting it? or (3) if not, why is anyone trying to include it? SlimVirgin 08:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi, please stop reverting and come here to discuss the issue. First, do you have a reputable source for the name? And if so, how do you answer the view that, for her security reasons, it would be best not to include the name? Please try to persuade people and stop endlessly reverting, because all that will happen is you'll be blocked either for 3RR or disruption. SlimVirgin 01:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The name has been in the New York Times ("Europe's Jews Seek Solace on the Right", February 20, 2005). If she wanted to keep it secret, she already failed. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to help a person keep a secret that's already out. Dhimmi 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

A number of google hits on "Giselle Littman" seem to be a quote from said article, that does indeed make this statement. Nor does it seem to be an especially big secret that she's married to one "David Littman" , especially given that he co-authors books with her non-pseudonymously. Alai 02:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, and thanks for finding a source, Dhimmi. So why has there been so much reverting to delete the name? Does she have a legitimate security concern, and if she does, does publication elsewhere mean we should ignore any concern she might have, on the grounds that the name is out there already? SlimVirgin 02:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Her security concern is her problem, not ours. Dhimmi 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to the NYT article. SlimVirgin 02:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Dhimmi, her security concerns are ours if publication here would make things qualitatively worse for her. I'm not sure we would, given the name is out there, but I've not had time yet to see how widespread it is. I'll do that now. SlimVirgin 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I had a look. I think perhaps the issue is that it's out there, but not that easy to find if you don't know it already. If you search for "Bat Ye'or" and "Giselle Littman" you get only 11 unique hits, most, if not all, of which come from Misplaced Pages mirrors, presumably because older versions of our article are cached. I suppose her argument would be that we're going to make it appreciably easier for someone to identify her by leaving it in. On the other hand, if she's a co-author with her husband, and he's using his real name, I supposed she outed herself and can't blame us.

Also, Yeor can be written without the apostrophe and it brings up more hits, so there may be other Giselle Littman references there.

I'd like to involve a couple more editors in this, and give the anon IP a chance to reply, as that may be her. Can we leave the name out in the meantime? Dhimmi, it won't kill you if it's not there for a day or so, surely. SlimVirgin 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm as suspicious about the motivation and behaviour of "Dhimmi" (!) as the next ed, but I'm not really seeing the case for not including this info. Thus far, there's not been much in the way of additional input other than more people happening along to revert D., so I'm adding this as a content RFC. Incidentally, what's the basis of the claim there's personal security issues at stake here? Alai 00:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the specific concerns are, Alai, except for the obvious point that she's a Jewish woman writing very critically about Islam, so she's almost certainly received death threats, and publication in Misplaced Pages will spread the name much further than it's spread now. However, it's already out there, and now Dhimmi has created a redirect from Giselle Littman, so that will spread it further on Google anyway. I've posted notes on the anon IPs' talk pages asking them to join this discussion; perhaps they can explain why they were deleting it. I'd like to give them a day or so to respond if you agree. I also wish Dhimmi would explain why he's so obsessed about getting the name in. His only edits are reverts of this page and creation of the redirect. SlimVirgin 01:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't find it difficult to foresee an issue here, I just had the impression there was some documented claim on her part, or from some third party (say a newspaper report stating the reason for their non-reportage of the name, or the reason for the pseudonym in the first place, etc). Thanks for clarifying. I have no objection to leaving it a number of days. As for Dhimmi's motives, like I said, I'm pretty suspicious myself, but we shouldn't have to make "windows into men's souls" to determine whether it's a reasonable edit or not. Alai 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's put it back, and I'm not inclined to delete it again, unless someone comes up with a good reason to leave it out: as Alai says, some documented claim on her part or similar. There's been no response from the anon IPs who were reverting Dhimmi. SlimVirgin 20:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT BY NE: One goal of wikipedia is to provide accurate information. Bat Ye'or's first name is not Giselle. Such can be confirmed by tracing back her articles and, I might add, citation to her books in other scholarly books. (see, e.g. Chapter 1, footnote 1 of the classic study of the Armenian Genocide The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Berghahn Books, 1995 in which her first initial and her birth surname appear). Here is a hint. Her first name begins with the letter "S." Needless to say, Gisell is simply is not a name for a Jewish woman born in Egypt. Moreover, whether or not she has actually adopted her husband's last name is an open question that someone should research before allowing the use of a name she prefers not be used (see e.g. comments of her booster Robert Spencer at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005195.php). Moreover, that one article in the New York Times used a name she may sometimes use does not mean that the paper has correctly identified her name. Which is to say, there is no basis to include the posted name as, in fact, that is not her name. Even if it were her name - which it is not -, there is the question of her safety. Concern for the safety of those who publish material disliked by Islamists is important if we are to understand all aspects of Islam, not just material which Islamists tolerate. Consider the Rushdie affair and those killed in the matter. In fact, more than 50 people died in connection with Rushdie's book. See http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp05/berman.htm . Enough said.

Robert Spencer does say that it's her real name. SlimVirgin 17:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Then Robert Spencer is mistaken. It is merely a name she uses. Her real name, using only an initial for her first name, appears in her early work. One minor correction, Bat Ye'or first name actually begins with the letter "Y," not "S."

Do you have any evidence that Giselle Litmann is not her real name? If you do, and would prefer to e-mail it, you can use the link on my user page. SlimVirgin 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the anon was referring to the name "Y. Masriya", which appears on her own web site. Said site only claims she published under that name, however, not where or not it's her "real" name. (Assuming this isn't simply an issue of maiden vs. married name, and anglicisation/francisation/transliteration of her given name.) Alai 05:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Expanded the article a bit

There is more work to be done particularly in the Theses section to make it a bit more clear and do the copy editing of the text.Also we should add a section that deals with her bio , her life story that is.--CltFn 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

I do not want to see any claims as to the real name of this pseudonymous author without citation. All editors here are strongly admonished to follow our citation, verifiability, and original research policies. Do not speculate as to the identity of the author, or report on speculation that cannot be verified against a reputable source. Your cooperation is expected; failure to comply may result in sanctions. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The claim is now referenced, and that reference has been verified by someone I trust who has access to the New York Times archives. Thank you for your cooperation. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now please unprotect/undelete Giselle Littman. Dhimmi 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added what Kelly Martin said about mindspillage verifying it to WP:RFPP so we can see what happens. I am loathe to change it arbitrarily myself. gren グレン 18:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what here justifies the above KM "admonition", in either substance, or tone. Or indeed the "speedy deletion of the redirect", which seems to have no basis in the usual criteria for such. The source for this, (the very same NYT article, fairly widely quoted on the web), was discussed on this talk page months ago. Nice to have it as a proper citation, but let's be proportionate here. Alai 07:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A request was made to the Wikimedia Foundation (by email) to remove the identification of the legal name behind the pseudonym. I was acting based on that request. Frankly, we need to be more vigorous in enforcing WP:V and WP:CITE, not less so. On top of that, this issue has been the basis of a rather drawn out edit war here, and that also annoys me. Edit warring is bad. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I was missing that rather key piece of context, that makes a lot more sense now, thank you. You'll certainly not see me arguing against verification or citation; just the reverse. (Though as they're not policies, "enforce" is a tad too strong, or if they're to be policies at some point in the future, premature.) However, deletion-on-sight-of-anything-not-referenced could easily get out of hand -- and indeed fairly regularly does, with each editor reserving to themselves the judgement of what's "properly referenced". So I'd personally be uncomfortable with too general an application of that, trumping other practices and (indeed actual) policies. Alai 08:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is policy, Alai, and citing sources is also required by Misplaced Pages:No original research, which is policy too. I've never been happy about using this person's real name even though there's a New York Times article. So far as I know, the NYT is the only reputable source of it, and Misplaced Pages is probably spreading the name much further. I'm also uneasy about the fact that User:Dhimmi seems only to edit this article or Giselle Littman, and yet he seems to know instantly whenever either is changed, which suggests to me that he edits under another user name too. The whole thing makes me uneasy. Just because a piece of information is out there, does that mean we have to publish it? SlimVirgin 11:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V should really self-describe that way, then, rather than having a "guidelines" header template, and categorisation (as well as OP). But that's neither here nor there, as I'm not for a moment arguing against following it, though nor do I think the source here was inadequate in the first place.

It'd make sense to me to place the Littman reference in a different context, if it's to be included. I don't think it has to be in the lead, and if NYT is the only source, it should probably be mentioned explicitly caveated or at least contextualised as such (beyond the superscript citation). The "also published as" information above, from her website, might be mentioned in the same context too, if people feel that's appropriate. IIRC from earlier poking around, there's more than one source for her being married to David Littman, though. That wouldn't stop WP spreading it, of course. If there's significant controversy about the NYT allegation/disclosure (a withdrawal, a formal complaint to the paper, some sort of legal stink about it) perhaps inclusion itself should be revisited. But if this is simply a preference on the part of her and her supporters, it strikes me as potentially wandering into "giving the subject a veto over content" territory.

I agree that Dhimmi's pattern of contributions are as fishy as a can of anchovies; whether that makes him (or her) a sockpuppet or a "one article editor" (wouldn't be the first time I'd run into those, though generally they seem to be alleged crypto-autobiographers) I have no idea (though I'm not especially fond of either, if I might venture a personal value judgement). Until policy tightens up on either sort, though, I don't see how it helps us, unfortunately, other than acting as a "good faith alert". Alai 05:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above tangent on WP:V... seemingly it was, all along, tagged with the "policy" template: except that was itself redirected to the "guideline" one, and for two days+, at that. That makes a bit more sense. So mutatis mutandis, verifiability having the same standing as deletion policy, etc. My bad on not having learned which are which off by heart... Alai 07:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism

Her works are widely quoted and are held in great esteem in the counter terrorism community.

No, her works are widely quoted and held in great esteem in the political crackpot community, and as far as I know, nowhere else. So I'll remove this. Please, anyone, feel free to source it if you want it back. Arre 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

Reverts by User:CltFn

User:CltFn keeps reverting my edits and labelling them "vandalism", but refuses to explain himself. I hope he will come to his senses and respond to the following. I happen to believe, as do most people who have heard of her, that Bat Ye'or (BY) is a full-blown racist and bigot, and I deeply dislike her writings. I find this page to be strongly biased towards her extreme prejudices against Muslims, both in that it presents her rantings more or less as accepted scientific theory, and in certain dubious phrases. This violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy - and that is why I feel I have the right to perform these edits; not because I dislike her. I have attempted to correct a few of the more blatant biases by these changes, and this is my argument:

• Counter-terrorism. The claim that BY is held in great esteem by the counter terrorism community (whatever that is), is not sourced, and I believe, most certainly not true. If this is to be included it should both be rephrased ("by some members of the CT community") and sourced.
• Pioneering. "Dhimmitude and Jihadist Tactics" are not accepted scientific terms. They are used exclusively by BY herself, and, in later years, by some of her followers. I accept her claim that she is an expert in this, since she invented the terms - but we should phrase ourselves to make this qualification clear. I have added the "what she terms as" (Dh-tude and Jtactics) to these sentences, which I believe is better in line with WP policy.
• Jizya tax. I rephrased the strongly POV paragraph on jizya/dhimmi, which referred to these religious taxes as extortion money. Granted, all taxes are extortion in one way or another, but this is not how WP generally refers to them, and it is not how the scientific community or popular history refers to the jizya. Also, not all "vanquished populations" were Christians and Jews; and the jizya was not paid on condition of halting Islam's further expansion, which the paragraph suggests ("cessation of the Jihad war").
• "Eurabia" moved. I moved the paragraph on "Eurabia" to the section on that term. This was not intended to correct bias, but rather to make the article more readable.

Now, I have made my case. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, although I think most people who compare the edits will see that these are clear improvements of the articles POV/NPOV status. But I do expect a response instead of just being reverted and insulted. Arre 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your case in utter nonsense , you evidently have not even read any of her books and should not be editing this page out of a total lack of research. Your obvious agenda and POV pushing is clear. I wonder whose sock puppet you are? Boring!--CltFn 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry? That was kind of unprovoked.

• No, I have not read her books, but I'm not trying to edit the parts on the content of the books either. I've been concerned with the parts on her influence on the scientific and counter terrorism community.
• If you refer to the part on the Jizya, then whatever her groundbreaking research is, it does not matter. It is not common usage to talk about taxes, including the Jizya, as "extortion". To do it here only, and in this context, is very obvious POV.
• Also, please stop publicly labeling innocent people vandals. I don't know if you two have a previous history, but as it stands, I'm trying to discuss this, and so is Palmiro. Please respond to arguments, mine and his, instead of just reverting.
• This is the fourth time I ask. Soon you've left me no choice but to call on the opinion of an administrator. As it stands, I don't think that would go in your favor.

Count to ten, calm down, and talk. Arre 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, you have added unsourced material and material attributed to a source which said something different. A hidden comment made it clear that this was the case and that was why it was commented out. Nevertheless you removed the comment and added the material and untrue claim regarding its source back in. I hope that you simply didn't look at what you were doing.

Please refer to three relevant Misplaced Pages policies, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources. Please do not add falsehoods to Misplaced Pages. If a comment says something is not true, and explains why fully, you should at least check before removing it and re-adding information that another editor has gone to the trouble of finding out is misleading.

Also, writing misleading edit summaries or using edit summaries for personal attacks is generally considered extremely poor form. Palmiro | Talk 13:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Arre , what you are doing editing an article for which you have not done any significant research? Why should we waste time arguing with you, if you cannot invest the time to research the topic.--CltFn 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro , your little routine is getting old. Your uninformed remarks on the topic would lead me to suggest that you do a modicum of research before editing an article like this one.--CltFn 07:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My friend, you haven't yet managed to come up with sources for the material you insist on including, which would be a good way of showing that you're better-informed yourself. If this continues the page is going to land on RfC, because we're getting nowhere fast at the moment. Palmiro | Talk 13:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do your research on the article then come back when you know something about the topic.--CltFn 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read articles by Bat Ye'or, and I've read about Bat Ye'or. I would think the same goes for Palmiro. What we are disputing is - I repeat - not the content of her books, which should of course be presented accurately, factually and undistorted (but should not be allowed to become the general POV of the article). We are disputing erroneous and unfounded/unsourced claims of her influence on the scientific community and public discourse, plus some very biased sentences on Islam in general - I can judge those points as well as you. Please stop acting like this, and make your point on the talk page. Arre 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

NY times reference

Googled the reference and read it . It is irrelevant , thus I took it out.--CltFn 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it has her proper name which is why it shouldn't be removed. gren グレン 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I don't exactly know what's going on here but, two things. Firstly, it does appear that this is totally disputed. Palmiro has given reasons... so, you can have content disputes but don't remove that without general agreement. Secondly... there is a revert war of sorts. I haven't read either version yet and I don't plan to as of yet. When I come back if you two are still reverting I will protect the page. Then I will give my opinion but I'd much prefer there wasn't still a revert war when I come back. gren グレン 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No mystery here , Gren , what we have here is a case of the usual editors trying to do their best to cut and shred articles on personalities that they object to. Nothing new , we have seen this all before many times.--CltFn 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As you can see above (and in the History), CltFn refuses to respond to our arguments. Sadly, I believe this page should be protected right away and an administrator join the debate to mediate, otherwise there will only be more damage and confusion. In addition to his previous disputed edits and reverts, CltFn just went on a deletion-spree, and I have a feeling he is not going to stop acting like this unless forced to. (As for "usual editors", when making my original edits, that was the first time I touched this page.)Arre 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous , how is it going, still up to the same old tricks? --CltFn 17:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't need an administrator, you need a psychiatrist :-D Arre 19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I've become involved about the NYTimes reference (one of the edit things) I won't be protecting... but I will ask someone to. For the link please don't remove it since it is the reference from which we get the name Giselle Littman. Can we agree on not removing that? gren グレン 16:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arre asked me to take a look at this, but as I've edited it quite recently and commented on the talk page, I shouldn't take admin action. I've done a copy edit, however, and I may do more. I'm concerned to see User:Dhimmi is back. SlimVirgin 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see Dhimmi is back doing nothing but revert. I've removed that she's Jewish and has British nationality from the intro because they're arguably irrelevant, and anyway mentioned at the top of the next section. That she is Jewish explains why she was expelled from Egypt, but being a British national isn't at all relevant, and she's probably a Swiss national too, but we don't mention that. Also, there's no reason for having a single footnote there, when we can link to the article. See WP:CITE about changing from one citation style to another. SlimVirgin 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The NYT article is referred to twice, so it makes sense to have it as a footnote. Nationality is always relevant, any article about an author will mention the nationality in the first paragraph. I don't think she has Swiss nationality, she is typically described as a British citizen living in Switzerland. Dhimmi 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE: you're not supposed to switch from one citation style to another without g etting consensus on the page; if no consensus can be reached, you use the one first used. This Dhimmi account is a single-issue account, yet you know instantly when a change is made, which strongly suggests you're a sock puppet. I wish you would leave this article alone, because you're reverting makes improving the article (even in directions you might approve of) close to impossible, unless of course we only make edits you approve of. Please see WP:OWN. SlimVirgin 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This is a legitimate sock puppet, I'm not rigging votes or anything, I just wish to separate my edits on this article from my other edits. Your behaviour proves I was right in doing so. This is the kind of topic where one gets attacked by certain people. All I'm reverting is vandalism or other edits that degrade the article, like your removal of useful footnotes. Your version now repeats the same external link in three places, that's ridiculous. You can make good edits that improve the article all you want, but I haven't seen you doing so yet. Dhimmi 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being disruptive and you're not in fact allowed to use another account, or your primary one, with the sole intention of being a revert warrior. A footnote should be repeated too wherever the source is used to support an edit, so whether it's a footnote or a link makes no difference. Whoever you are, please read our editing policies. You know nothing about them yet you revert ANY change you do not approve of, which is completely out of order, and you label your edits rvv when you are not reverting vandalism. You're being highly disruptive. SlimVirgin 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)