Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 14 February 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Pipes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Pipes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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 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 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of lede

I've made a number of changes to the lede to avoid WP:BLP issues and WP:RECENTISM. A WP:BLP should rarely quote self-published sources, and even then only when non-contentious - and almost never in the lede (particularly unique material). The lede should be a summary of the article, not an arbitrary selection of quotes from some of the many hundreds of articles and/or books he's written. Nor should the lede focus on one specific "issue" that happens to have caught an editor's eye, or lengthy discussions explaining topics that aren't actually Pipes himself. If something must be cited in a lede (and ideally this should be unnecessary, given that the lede is merely a summary of the article), then it should be cited to highly reliable, secondary sources, so that we be assured that the material is both important and of broad interest, and has been through an oversight process. I have left in one quote, from The New York Times - "Among his supporters, Mr. Pipes enjoys a heroic status; among his detractors, he is reviled." I think it quite nicely, and in a fairly neutral way, makes it clear what a polarizing figure Pipes often is. Jayjg 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for the changes made, based on the edit summary. I don't know what is being referred to as a primary source, or what is being referred to as 'ephemera'. I think, given the subject and the timing, that we should clarify each point of change with an edit summary, edit by edit, so that other editors can understand the rationale. I don't necessarily disagree with the changes, I just need to understand what is being referred to as 'primary source' and what is being referred to as 'ephemera'; and I think anyone who wants to overhaul the article in a major way at this juncture should adhere to the same method. Is that reasonable? (The only change that I expect to disagree with at this point is the blanking of his association with 'Islamophobia' and his answer to that; his name and the word yield 290,000 google search results, and this is not a consequence of recent events, as the blanked sources show.) DBaba (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably a good revert. But, is Pipes PhD from Harvard more relevant to the lede than his (ubiquitously) alleged bigotry? DBaba (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved my (much) earlier comment in the lede changes from the section two above to here; you may not have noticed it earlier. Primary sources would be quotes taken from his columns, and "ephemera" would be the whole paragraph in the earlier lede discussing some comments he made about Iran in 2010 (again, taken directly from his columns). Regarding the PhD, it's three words from a single sentence that summarizes 8 years of his life, and his PhD dissertation was the basis of his first book, so I don't think it's undue. Finally, it's a pretty serious thing to accuse someone of Islamophobia, particularly someone who has been so clear on the difference between Islam and Islamism - his catch phrase indicates his strong approval for what he calls "moderate Islam" (vs. "militant" or "radical" Islam). Jayjg 01:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a serious thing, Islamophobia. That's why it's wrong to keep this on the margins of the article, when it is in the center of his public life. Quoting him was an attempt to cater to BLP concerns; what's the alternative? How do we best capture the theme of 'Islamophobia'/'Islamism-phobia' that dominates his career? I find that mentioning Harvard in the intro functions to confer legitimacy in a space reserved for conferring significance; but it's only conspicuous for what is absent. Before long, Jayjg, you will have spent more years defending Pipes from allegations/quotations of 'Islamophobia' on this web page than Pipes spent at Harvard.

As to the claim that Pipes "has been so clear on the difference between Islam and Islamism", you may well think that characterization is accurate, but other views conflict with yours. Others hold that he is "racist and bigoted", "an eloquent racist with a Ph.D"; "an anti-Arab propagandist"; "an Islamophobic pseudo-scholar hid behind politically correct statements", as well as various other Islamophobic characterizations (Breivik links above). I think the best way to move forward is to offer an alternative intro that I think meets your expectations, and notes this controversy. DBaba (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really that common for article ledes on people like Pipes to include accusations of Islamophobia, particularly given the WP:BLP concerns, and this article had no mention of it for years before you added it a couple of days ago. Do you have examples of it in other ledes? I don't see it in the articles of other individuals commonly accused of it, including Robert Spencer (author) and Pamela Geller, co-founders of Stop Islamization of America. George W. Bush was dogged by accusations of Islamophobia throughout his presidency, and was named one of the 3 biggest Islamophobes of 2004 by the Islamic Human Rights Commission - should we add that to the lede of his article? Regarding Harvard, I was simply trying to briefly summarize his life, and he apparently spent 8 or more years studying at Harvard, so I mentioned it. BLPs aren't solely about what one considers "significant", but are actually supposed to be biographies. Using George W. Bush as an example, again, its lede mentions his birthdate, which is not "significant" in any way, and the first sentence of the second paragraph is "After graduating from Yale University in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1975, Bush worked in oil businesses." Should all that university stuff be removed as not "significant"? And finally, I hadn't edited the article or its talk page for years before last month, so I didn't really have to do any "defending", much less "more years" of it. Please focus on WP:BLP and article content, not me. Jayjg 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd compare Pipes to Robert Faurisson, whose notoriety is in part his association with bigotry, as with Daniel Pipes. Previously, I discussed this same stuff on the talk page of Faurisson, as to how to represent Faurisson on Misplaced Pages: "Lyon-educated scholar", sure, but let's do mention why he's in the news. I'm not saying the education is immaterial, I'm just saying the thousand articles about antisemitism and Islamophobia are much more important. As far as Bush, this would be like omitting his presidency from the lede. DBaba (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. No, Faurisson would be unknown except for his Holocaust denial, which he has been convicted. But thanks for making it clear where you're coming from, that was at least honest. You really need to re-think who Pipes is, and the importance and meaning of WP:BLP. Jayjg 03:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Financial) links to Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom

After adding

Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors of Geert Wilders's Dutch political Party for Freedom.

to this page and being reverted - and block threatened - by Jayjg for it - I was engaged in a fruitless discussion on how to add that info to this page on my Talk page. As I felt no consensus could be reached there, I now move this discussion here, where it might reach a wider editor audience and maybe here there can be reached a consensus on how to include the links between Pipes, Wilders and the Party for Freedom. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved conversation

It is a straight from a quote from Pipes, so I dont get your poor reference-objection and I re-added it. I'm sorry it is in Dutch, but Google translate might help you. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See also http://www.danielpipes.org/7888/stand-with-geert-wilders

Thank you for your time bringing this under my intention. Could you maybe expand on why you think it might be libel and why the source is not okay? Also, no need to threat with blocking, lets keep it polite, shall we? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Pipes, die gekant is tegen een Palestijnse staat en actievoert voor een militaire aanval op Iran, zegt dat hij het afgelopen jaar een „een bedrag van zes cijfers’’ heeft opgehaald voor Wilders in de VS." -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on Jayjg, cut me some slack. "Nothing whatsoever"? The money was raised for foundation "friends of Gert Wilders", only one of the things it does is pay Wilders' defense. In my world, +100.000 dollar for a foreign political figure (Gert Wilders IS the Party for Freedom) is encyclopedic. We just need to see what would be the best way to phrase it, or do you see that differently? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, although I really believe you are being overly strict. Pipes clearly supported Geert Wilders, his Middle East Forum Legal Project gathered money for the the "Geert Wilders defense fund", which in Dutch is plainly called "Friends of Geert Wilders" and for example Sam van Rooy, a former employee of the PVV was a regular translator for Pipes' Dutch website. So there is a clear link. Also, NRC quoted Pipes, confirming he gathered donations. So, text proposal:

"Pipes, ao. through his Middle East Forum, fundraised for Geert Wilders during his trial".

Honorsteem, the article is not a reliable source. For example, it claims that Daniel Pipes had an annual income of 235,000 over 2008 while the second document at the bottom clearly reveals that this is the organizational income of the Middle East Forum over the said period. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is what we call Original Research. NRC Handelsblad is a reliable source. If they make a mistake, in Misplaced Pages we write "NRC Handelsblad wrote that Pipes earned $ 235.000". But for those figures I'm sure there better reliable sources. And, anyway, that is not the fact being discussed in this thread, but thank you.

The article engages in original research when it makes claims that are not supported in the included source. You engaged in original research when you introduced statements into our Daniel Pipes entry that are not supported by the source. I read the article from a to z and concluded that it is not a reliable source as it engages in original research. Mind you, I did not write this in any article. Also I did not make any claims about the journalists, editors, or newspaper. You claim that utterly confused information can be included in a biography of a living person, however Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information and its editors have ethical obligations as detailed in our policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, do try to spend it on understanding the No Original Research policy (helpful link for your convenience: WP:NOR). It might make you seem less silly. Have a nice day! -- Honorsteem (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can call names, but it doesn't strengthen your argument. We have a responsibility for the quality of articles. Adding your own personal original research to our articles from articles that engage themselves in original research (making statements that are contradicted by their included sources) is counterproductive for our quality, definitely for BLP. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to explain it to me as if I were 10 years old: Why would adding a source (a quoted interview), which, indeed, practices 'Original Research' (only by the journalists of the reliable source), be Original Research in Misplaced Pages? Or do you mean that here we can only use Tertiary sources? According to which policy? Also, please bare in mind that at no point I was even adding Pipes' annual income to this article, so we're having a side-discussion here of which the outcome won't bring us anything. BTW; I don't have a degree in interpreting IRS statements, so the conclusion that it is wrong in the NRC is for your account. -- Honorsteem (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I mistook you for a reasonable editor, but you don't seem to be. I'll copy this whole thread to the Daniel Pipes talk pages, and leave it at that. Have a nice day. -- Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the 15 trillion will not be confused to be the personal debt of President Barack Obama. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg apparently didn't want the posts he made on my user to be page moved here, which seemed to me a more appropriate place to discuss this matter, so he deleted his comments. I put reference to where those comments were to track them back. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Hillel Schenker
2. (Dutch) http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2544752.ece/Partners_Wilders_in_VS_verdienen_aan_acties_tegen_moslimextremisme - Pipes is quoted saying he collected in 2009 a 6-digit figure for the party of Wilders.
3. (Dutch) http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2544752.ece/Partners_Wilders_in_VS_verdienen_aan_acties_tegen_moslimextremisme - Pipes is quoted saying he collected in 2009 a 6-digit figure for the party of Wilders.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics