Talk:Daniel Pipes/Archive 2

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: 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. .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No Personal attacks policy 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Movement of comments on article content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: [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)
thread_title:  Archiving of this page cut off still current, post-January 2007 comments and left the January 2007 comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments pertaining to the current tag concerning reference problem on the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misquoted? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pipes on the BBC 

message: I've deleted the "How Nations Learn (publication date unknown), Free Press "
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)
thread_title:  The "Books and policy papers" section 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have no problem with 'outspoken.' Tom Harrison Talk 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negativity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pipes and censorship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  his comment about temple mount 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Libelous comment!!! 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Daniel Pipes - historian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of tags previously added but deleted later by administrator et al.

message: 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 </font>  ✉  10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. </font>  ✉  12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In retrospect, I do see that my edit was WP:POINTish and not a good thing.  Thank you for reverting it.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2/3 of article = POV blog 

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

message: Thanks for coming to talk, Chris. 
#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.)
#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 McKaytalk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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. AvruchTalk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Edit War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On ArabNews as a source 

message: 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." As it stands, the quote is redacted and untrue and may be a WP:BLP violation. Beit Or 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit requested 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wrong yes. Andyvphil (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Assassination on Campus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sudden Jihad Syndrome 

message: 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)
replies: text: done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request (minor) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 McKaytalk 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 McKaytalk 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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  "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.. So, is Pipes a contributor to GAMLA in the same sense that McNeil is a "contributor" to Campus Watch?. GAMLA goes unmentioned at danielpipes.org. Compare FrontPage, where Pipes is a regular contributor. Andyvphil (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  tags in a BLP. I mean, for heaven's sakes. IronDuke 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 McKaytalk 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please explain possible BLP violation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.""
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)
thread_title:  Appointment to US Institute of Peace - text removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PNAC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About Mr. Pipes's religion Identity 

message: 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,"Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21. and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12. Pipes has also contributed to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."Abunimah, Ali. "The Growing Clamor for Ethnic Cleansing". The Electronic Intifada (2002-08-28). Retrieved on 2008-03-12 
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 McKaytalk 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 McKaytalk 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the actual sources before continuing. IronDuke 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with IronDuke, also guilt by association is expressly forbidden by policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 McKaytalk 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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". 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 McKaytalk 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the blp policy? Addhoc (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: So, if that sentence is dropped, the rest is okay, right? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Christopher Mann McKay. You made this edit  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)

text: 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 McKaytalk 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain possible BLP violations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GAMLA Claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Almontaser campaign 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "controversial" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some sections overly reliant on Pipes' self description

message: 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)
replies: text: Who argues this? IronDuke 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scholarship versus Politiking? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Okay, I may be confused here.  Which diff exactly are we talking about? --Elonka 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  So that anon was .  And this is probably related to the attempt by  to add an ethnicity to the infobox, correct? 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?  I'm not seeing the BLP violation? --Elonka 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Deleting materials from talkpage 

message: 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)
replies: text: See WP:FORUM. The Squicks (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pipes is an Anti Muslim  because he supports "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to [[Holocaust denial]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This gentleman "is" not an academic 

message: Is it just me or does the default make Pipes look sinister?
Perhaps we could switch it out for one of these:
200px
Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikifan, don't worry. It is just in your mind.  Zencv Lets discuss 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well he is kind of evil character-wise. :D Can we switch out the picture? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Evil picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Obama "accused" of having been a been a moslem? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Ethnicity: Jewish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scare quotes in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inspiring right/wing militancy