Talk:Daniel Pipes/Archive 1

message: This page is uniformly critical of Pipes without stating his views.  Indeed, it moves from biography straight into criticism without noting the work by Pipes that has engendered this criticism.  Some semeblence(sp?) of balance, if not the real thing, is needed. OneVoice 16:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So. . . write the needed sections. (And one other thing: Before you change "don't meet its approval" to "according to the Middle East Forum, fall short of academic standards" again, read about Campus Watch -- its goals are explicitly and overtly political, not academic.) --No-One Jones (talk) 13:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I have protected this article due to a prolonged, low-intensity edit war between Zero000, John Kenney, Mirv and several anon users. -- Viajero 13:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: article protected

message: ===Distortion in quote===
I checked out the "quotation" that someone just deleted and found that it is distorted.  For example Pipes didn't write "and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene" but rather "maintaining different standards of hygiene".  It isn't much better, but the distortion is unacceptable.  There is also missing context.  As I've written elsewhere, this quotations game is a crock and I'm not going to make an exception just because the target is someone who richly deserves it.  Btw, the date of the issue is Nov 19, not Nov 15. --Zero 23:48, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: I checked out the "quotation" that someone just deleted and found that it is distorted.  For example Pipes didn't write "and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene" but rather "maintaining different standards of hygiene".  It isn't much better, but the distortion is unacceptable.  There is also missing context.  As I've written elsewhere, this quotations game is a crock and I'm not going to make an exception just because the target is someone who richly deserves it.  Btw, the date of the issue is Nov 19, not Nov 15. --Zero 23:48, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Distortion in quote

message: ===Daniel Pipes and Tariq Ramadan:===
For a discussion of Daniel Pipes' criticism of Tariq Ramadan see:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/why_tariq.htm
::This comment is undated. For archival purposes, it will be assumed to have been posted on the date of it's archival. // Pathoschild 05:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: October

message: For a discussion of Daniel Pipes' criticism of Tariq Ramadan see:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/why_tariq.htm
::This comment is undated. For archival purposes, it will be assumed to have been posted on the date of it's archival. // Pathoschild 05:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pipes and Tariq Ramadan:

message: "Arab people live in some of the worse conditions in the world, without freedom to travel or modern media."
Today people in the Arab World have more free TV channels to watch than Europeans.
However, I sometime believe than modern media are not better than old-fashioned media ;-)
Ericd 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Media

message: Daniel pipes from what i have read appears to be very anti-muslim as well as a right wing neo con, this is all well and good, but when it becomes a matter of expertise in islamism, i truely doubt that he can be objective, therefore i think it would be better to refer to him not as an expert in islamism, but as a "so called expert" or "self proclaimed expert". There are 2 sides to every coin and daniel only appears to be looking at one side
:No, he's regarded as an expert by other experts, not just by himself, and having expertise is not inconsistent with holding strong opinions; on the contrary, the former often causes the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reasonable doubts that he is an espert as many often declare themselves this after having read a book or two about subjects or having a bias towards the topic from the start. It is quite obvious that Pipes' neoconservative views have highly influenced what he thinks he needs to know about Islam altogether.  a-n-o-n-y-m 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi AE. The point is that we can't start speculating on Pipes's internal mental states, and whether his neo-conservatism influenced his views on Islamism, or vice versa. He's regarded as an expert by other experts, by the White House, by newspapers all over the Western world, and by the television networks. He also has a PhD in Islamic history from Harvard, so it's not as though he turned up yesterday having read an Idiot's Guide. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with scholar too. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I would disagree with calling him a scholar in Islam as that is a title reserved for those who have studied all their life in Islamic studies. Pipes has a degree in Islamic history and that is it. I'm afraid when referring to Islam, scholar has probably a greater meaning than expert, so I disagree. If for instance, he had degrees in a wide range of Islamic studies, including the Qur'an, then I could agree with you, but a degree in Islamic history just won't cut it. Hope that helps a bit, -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you meant Islamism. Well that is different from what I just said above. Please clarify that next time. I'm fine with it in that case. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion, AE. I doubt the word will survive though, because I also see scholar as stronger than expert, but we'll see. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. No problem ofcourse. Yes, we'll just wait and see what happens... -- a-n-o-n-y-m 20:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your changes are good, John; very accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I am also fine with calling him that ("scholar of Islamic history, who has written widely on Islamism and terrorism"). Ofcourse, I'd really hate to make him seem more important than he actually is. To me, personally, he is just some idiot with a website. :)  a-n-o-n-y-m 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Total agreement. However, I don't believe he's an idiot. He's rather seeing things from his own perspective and according to his background; a neocon to be clear. Cheers -- Svest 21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: LOL, well let's not debate idiocy or lack of. :) Obviously I won't be calling him that in the article; it was just my two cents.  a-n-o-n-y-m 01:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert in islamism, doubtful as views are very opinionated

message: Slim, can you comment on the differences?:
Rupert Murdoch:  “His father was Sir Keith Murdoch, a stern and somewhat distant figure who was the son of a Presbyterian minister from Scotland.”
“Pipes's parents were both Polish-Jews who fled Europe in 1939. They met in the US in 1944, and married two years later.”   DannyZz 17:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What inconsistency?  His father was from Scotland, his profession was a Presbyterian minister. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not delete my comments again; doing so is actually considered vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed it does.  So your deletion of my Talk: comments with the Edit summary "rv vandalism" was obviously inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and inconsistency being pushed here

message: For the sake of a NPOV and maybe for the sake of making Jayjg and Anonymous Editor happy, we have to agree that Daniel P. is criticized by some commentators (w/ no identity). Please, give us some sources or else people would criticize WP for being bullshit. Cheers -- Svest 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we need something that applies to him in a general sense. I am satisfied with John K's version: "also criticized for his controversial comments about Islam". Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think in the first paragraph we only need something that applies to him generally and then later in the article give particular details on who these critics are. Much detail is already given on the particular areas of controversy, but ofcourse there is room for more to be added. You are correct John in saying that criticism of Pipes goes way beyond Islamic groups. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree guys. However, the reader is blind. We are not! Can we help the reader in a better way? Cheers -- Svest 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critisized by whom?!

message: ===neocon===
CltFn and Guy Montag have both tried to remove the word "neoconservative" from the introduction. Clearly neither one has read this column by Pipes, in which he happily accepts the appellation of "neoconservative". —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
:I agree with Charles, even his views have shown him as a neo-conservative figure that supports conservative idealogies. - Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
:I've linked the article provided. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
Some anonymous user tried to remove it yet again. This is tiresome but not at all unexpected. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: July

message: CltFn and Guy Montag have both tried to remove the word "neoconservative" from the introduction. Clearly neither one has read this column by Pipes, in which he happily accepts the appellation of "neoconservative". —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
:I agree with Charles, even his views have shown him as a neo-conservative figure that supports conservative idealogies. - Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
:I've linked the article provided. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
Some anonymous user tried to remove it yet again. This is tiresome but not at all unexpected. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: neocon

message: Are those quotes in context? They are just linked to a site not friendly to Pipes. Although they cite the information, shouldn't the reader have access to the full article? Also, is it really on Muslims or something relating to Muslims?
Guy Montag 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most (probably all) of those articles can be found on the web with a little help from Google.  Why didn't you ask the same question in relation to the quotations of praise?  --Zero 08:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I expanded it and linked to the source.  In the case of the JP quote, in my opinion it is accurate and stands well enough without adding the "justification" he proposed. --Zero 11:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The section "on Muslims"

message: Anonymous editor, I reverted your latest edit because you wrote things like some "dismissed" him as "simply" an anti-Islamic "bigot". This isn't encyclopedic writing, and if you want to call him an "anti-Islamic bigot," you'll need to attribute that view to a credible publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I do agree with you. Perhaps better wording of the statement is needed. There are several works cited later in the article (controversy) that assert exactly what the statement stated. I wasn't trying to add my POV, but preparing a  compromise that some previous editors had a problem/dispute with. Personally, I think the message of statement needs to be stated just once in the controversy section. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 17:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) Exactly so.  Credible publications or credible sources; "Joe blo blogger" or "anonymous message board commentator" And if the sources for the criticism are already quoted below, then there's no need to repeat them. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, see now we are reaching NPOV and the article doesn't simply idolize pipes, and previous users who wanted the line there would be satisfied somewhat. --Anonymous editor 17:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently not, since they're using anonymous proxies to revert in that version, but that can be dealt with. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones specifically, there are several!?--Anonymous editor 17:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
202.83.175.156 and 63.218.109.130 so far. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Why are his reputed ethnic origins relevant? Does he refer to his origins, or promote them, or use them in his writing? I'm concerned about well poisoning here. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are any biographical facts relevant? No, he doesn't make much of his origins, nor do most of his critics (but see ). However, I fail to see how a brief mention, in a sentence on his family background, is well-poisoning—unless one considers the fact of his Jewish ancestry to be "adverse information". Any number of biographical articles do the same thing, and nobody complains: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . . and so on. (Too, according to our article on Richard Pipes, he is of Polish and German descent as well, so I've added that.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There are those who would disagree about Trotsky, at least; I'm sure you are familiar with the Nazi propaganda theme of "Jewish Bolshevism". No matter: see Bernard Lewis, Edward Said, George Antonius, Albert Hourani, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky—all Jews or Arabs, all writers on the Middle East, all have their ethnic background mentioned. Is this well-poisoning too? And if you think the current phrasing is inaccurate, reword it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: p.s. Pipes himself seems to think that background is important: he remarked that ". . .Middle East studies in the United States has become the preserve of Middle Eastern Arabs, who have brought their views with them. Membership in the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the main scholarly association, is now 50 percent of Middle Eastern origin." —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This argument: "he is a scholar of the Israeli-Arab" Therefore "The fact that Pipes is Jewish is totally relevant ... ", invites the inference that Pipes's positions arise from his ethnicity, when he does not advance his positions as representative of Jews or of Jewishness.  That's what's meant by "well-poisoning".  I support the consensus to avoid mention of ethnic background, especially in the lead.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't it great when sockpuppets agree with each other? Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that I am not a "sockpuppet" of any other user. You should not lie and block editors when you don't like what they are editing. There are several editors here who disagree with you. --AndyDiamond 07:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If the fact that he is Jewish is deemed relevant by his critics, then his Jewishness should be mentioned in the context of criticism, as tied to the criticism. Supporting references abound. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  If a citeable critic brings up his Jewishness, then it should be mentioned in the the context of that criticism in the criticism section. Pipes himself never seems to mention it. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: How can it be simultaneously "irrelevant" and "noteworthy"?  Can I have some of what you're smoking?  Please?  Also, nothing in the quote indicates that Pipes himself is Jewish, just that his father is.  Please see Who is a Jew?.  Until Pipes identifies himself as a Jew, the fact that his father was Jewish is immaterial.  Tomer TALK 08:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
**I completely disagree.  Pipes doesn't need to mention it for it to be relevant.  He's virulently anti-Muslim, a position you don't find many "Polish" people involved in.  He's a Jew, and it's relevant.  Sorry.  It is not a criticism or well-poisioning to mention that someone is of Jewish descent after all:  List of Jews.  The question is why do you want to hide it?  69.209.195.89 09:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: By countering the claim that he's Jewish, I'm not trying to hide anything.  Until he asserts that he's Jewish, if only his father is Jewish, he's not a Jew according to any definition of "Jew" other than that used by the Nazis.  Even the Reform mov't, which accepts patrilineal descent, does so only in cases in which the child is raised as, and identifies as, a Jew.  As yet, you've presented nothing whatsoever to support even that.  Your assertion that the problem here is the "(disputed) rabbinical defintion [sic]" of who is and who is not a Jew, is ludicrously gratuitous.  You are, in effect, saying that Jews should not be permitted to say who is and who is not a Jew, but that you are, instead, the only legitimate authority on the subject.  That's analogous to saying that the US government doesn't have the authority to say who is and who is not a US citizen.  [Yes, I realize you probably don't recognize as "legitimate" the analogy, but then again, that's, yet again, a non-Jew attempting to foist their opinions on who is and who isn't a Jew upon the Jews.  How pathetic indeed that you have nothing better to do with your time than run around saying "Jews are so stupid they aren't even capable of figuring out who is and who isn't a Jew!!!"]  If you're defending your assertion that Pipes is Jewish based on your view, or on the nazi view, just say so, but don't expect anything remotely resembling understanding from me, when it comes to reverting your antisemitism.  Tomer TALK 11:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Both Daniel Pipes parents are Polish Jews. His mother, Irene (nee Roth), escaped from Poland in the fall of 1939 and met Richard Pipes in the US in 1944; they married in 1946. This information is included in: Richard Pipes, VIXI, Memoirs of a Non-Belonger, Yale University Press, 2003, p.50. Book contains a photograph of Daniel Pipes at the age of 13 with his brother with the description: "Our sons, Steven (eight) and Daniel (thirteen) at an improvised Passover. Paris, 1962." Also, after browsing through his autobiography, I doubt that Richard Pipes would call himself a Polish-American. --Ttyre 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing the research Ttyre, objection withdrawn.  Tomer TALK 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Remember that the article is on "Daniel Pipes", not "Daniel Pipes' work". I don't think whether or not he's Jewish is relevant to his work, but ethnic origin is an interesting biographicaphical factlet that definately belongs in an encyclopedia entry. In the same vein, I'd like to see slightly more on his life, as opposed to his views - details of the jobs he's described as having held and names of his wives and children, for example. Donald Ian Rankin 22:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: He is of [[Ashkenazi]] [[Jew]]ish descent

message: We need a more accurate picture of Pipes.  He doesn't really look like that, in real life he looks like a skinny academic who reads too many books, not a humanized eagle.  DigiBullet 17:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More accurate image

message: ===Daniel Pipes and the University of Toronto===
Visit by pro-Israeli prof causes uproar at UofT
I think this information is relevant. The article says he was initially denied access to York University, maybe a secion about responses to this mans speaking engagements is relevant.
Any comments?
--Uncle Bungle 03:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident itself seems mildly interesting, not sure its encyclopedic.  What kind of responses did you mean, man in the street/protest mob type of interviews? Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the globe and mail article above (use bugmenot if its asking for registration to continue), it mentions an open letter from 90 faculty and former students, thats what I meant more than "mob type of interviews". There is a short note that "Pipes is also controversial in academia" I'll just add a note about the UofT event there, if enough are collected over time then an additional section could be added. --Uncle Bungle 14:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: March

message: Visit by pro-Israeli prof causes uproar at UofT
I think this information is relevant. The article says he was initially denied access to York University, maybe a secion about responses to this mans speaking engagements is relevant.
Any comments?
--Uncle Bungle 03:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident itself seems mildly interesting, not sure its encyclopedic.  What kind of responses did you mean, man in the street/protest mob type of interviews? Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the globe and mail article above (use bugmenot if its asking for registration to continue), it mentions an open letter from 90 faculty and former students, thats what I meant more than "mob type of interviews". There is a short note that "Pipes is also controversial in academia" I'll just add a note about the UofT event there, if enough are collected over time then an additional section could be added. --Uncle Bungle 14:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pipes and the University of Toronto

message: ===POV section title===
Why call them "Islamophobe quotes"?  That adds a POV unnecessarily.  Simply call them "quotes" and trust our readers to be intelligent enough to see if they are Islamophobic or not.  At most, note after the quotes what public or scholarly reaction has been.  But let's not bias the section heading.  If no other consensus builds here, I'll change it to "Quotes" -- it's not very lively, but it certainly avoids being POV. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, and fixed some other stuff. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a link to wikiquote, and any quotes should be added there. Stereotek 08:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the Examples section contains quotations.  These ones are no different (unless you mean more embarrassing). --Zero 11:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: February

message: Why call them "Islamophobe quotes"?  That adds a POV unnecessarily.  Simply call them "quotes" and trust our readers to be intelligent enough to see if they are Islamophobic or not.  At most, note after the quotes what public or scholarly reaction has been.  But let's not bias the section heading.  If no other consensus builds here, I'll change it to "Quotes" -- it's not very lively, but it certainly avoids being POV. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, and fixed some other stuff. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a link to wikiquote, and any quotes should be added there. Stereotek 08:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the Examples section contains quotations.  These ones are no different (unless you mean more embarrassing). --Zero 11:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV section title