Talk:Karen Armstrong

message: As long as serious criticism of Karen Armstrong and her positions do not appear on this article, the entry will remain hopelessly unbalanced. I also find the dismissal of criticisms by Robert Spencer ideologically motivated, and not based upon the actual substance of his remarks against Ms. Armstrong. This entry about Karen Armstrong cannot be taken seriously as a fair work of reporting until the criticism section is restored and allowed to stand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teófilo de Jesús (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is hopelessly unbalanced

message: I am writing about this paragraph:
::Muslim Brotherhood
::Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, Armstrong stated in 2005 that:
::"[The Muslim Brotherhood] set up a wonderful welfare program before it was suppressed. … Factories where Muslims could work, had time for prayers, had vacation time, insurance, [learned] labor laws, [provided] clinics, they taught people how to treat sewage, drainage, and it was always the religion's response to try to help modernity to give to the ordinary people the benefits of modernity in an Islamic setting that made sense to them and made things more balanced."[10]
The reference citation given for this quote is erroneous and goes to another article that has nothing to do with Karen Armstrong or anything she said. I did find the quote on a cached page of the History New Network (it is no longer on their website), but it was not by Karen Amstrong, but rather from a commenter on a blog, reporting what Armstrong is alleged to have said, extempore, while commenting on a speach by another speaker. I am not saying she didn' t say this, but I don't believe this meets the wikipedia standard of a reliable source and in any case is no longer available. I am going to remove the false citation and put a notice of "citation needed." However, I would like to add that this appears to be a cherry picked quotation put in my someone who is hostile to Armstrong. It maybe that Armstrong, in making the case that Islam used to be a more tolerant religion than it now appears to be, tends to exaggerate the amount of tolerance present in early Islam. It is my impression that religious toleration is a relatively new thing, historically speaking, and that while it may have been relatively tolerant compared to Roman Catholicism or Judaism, Islam was never really tolerant in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Armstrong is no mindless booster of Islam or anything else, and it is easy to find other sources where she condemns intolerance, whether of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish fundamentalism. Her condemnation of intolerance is what needs to be stressed, not her having found positive qualities in the Moslem Brotherhood (now recognized by the way, by our State Department as a peaceful organization).  I recommend that the whole paragraph be deleted. 24.105.128.45 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moslem Brotherhood 

message: I have trimmed a number of sources for the "Criticism" section because they appear not to be WP:BLP-compliant sources
* FrontPage Magazine - on online magazine with no evidence of editorial oversight (the About page is little more than an advertisement for David Horowitz).
* A press release from CAMERA, an advocacy group is not a reliable source for criticism in a BLP.
* An unpublished speech by an academic (published on the website of an archive) 
* A self-published article from the website of a conservative think tank
None of these meet the standard for a biography of a living person, especially not for criticism. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: Pending the discussion of the criticism section, I've put a tag under the criticism section of the Armstrong article.Sleetman (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: I have removed self-published criticism, per WP:BLPSPS and WP:QS, yet again. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And this, also dealt with before. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Worse yet; not just an unreliable source, but an author for whom there was general consensus that his claims about others should not be used at all. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And this...  I can't imagine why anyone would include nonsense like "a scandalously apologetic . . . former nun with an ax to grind". Pipes is free to call Armstrong whatever names he sees fit, but we're under no obligation to repeat his name calling. Especially since it's comes, not from some secondary source who found it notable, but directly from Pipes' own writing. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Sir, you're right we've dealt with the issue many times now. I can understand the deletion of the quote of Pipes, but there's no reason why the criticisms by papers in think tanks, advocacy groups, and book reviews in newspapers should be deleted (and that's even according to Wikipedia guidelines). I'm going to request an RfC for this (again) but until we get extra feedback on this, stop deleting any criticisms of Armstrong as you're reducing it to hagiography.Sleetman (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not "understand" Wikipedia policy, but you're still obligated to abide by it. I have provided you repeatedly with links to policy which explain why this content cannot be used in a WP:BLP; the policy clearly says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. You have simply refused to in any way show how these sources are acceptable. This is classic disruptive editing, and coming off a block like you are, you should be especially careful about engaging in the sort of editing that can get you re-blocked. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, saying that I do not "understand" Wikipedia policy is not only untrue, but is also a borderline ad hominem so I suggest you take that back particularly as I see you are a Wikipedia administrator. You haven't provided me anything telling me how (aside from Daniel Pipes's blog) any of the criticism of Armstrong violates WP:BLP pr WP:RS...Also, I've already shown you how they are acceptable in every humanly possible way, so please come up with something more than "you haven't shown me how the sources are acceptable."Sleetman (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the quotes around the work "understand". The normal use for quotes is to denote a quotation. It was a quote from your own comment. Please see Wikipedia:No self attacks. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: "I've already shown you how they are acceptable in every humanly possible way". Actually you've done almost nothing to show that they are apart from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There's quite a bit more you could do - asking for input at BLP/N is the very least you could do. On another level, it's true - there's little more you could do to show that they are acceptable sources because self-published works are not acceptable sources for criticisms in a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sir, son, your highness, whoever or whatever you are yes I have proven that they are reliable sources except WP;YOUJUSTHAVENTHEARDANYTHINGIVEBEENSAYING. You asked for proof that they had fact-checking capabilities to which I pointed you to the fact that they had editorial oversight, to which your response was simply they have no reputation for fact-checking and to which I asked you how else are you supposed to establish something has a reputation for fact-checking capabilities aside from having editorial oversight...to which I've yet to get a response from you. Your right, self-published works aren't acceptable sources for criticisms in a BLP, but then of course the Hudson Institute and the Hill Museum don't even publish self-published work. And to top it all off, you keep deleting Sam Harris's criticism of Armstrong because you think it's a blog, when IT'S NOT EVEN A BLOG it's an opinion piece published in the Huffington Post. So much for "utter contempt for Wikipedia rules."Sleetman (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you bother to do any due diligence before making claims? The Huffington Post is both a news website and a blog aggregator. If you aren't familiar with HuffPo, a quick glance at its Wikipedia article might be helpful before making such bold statements. After doing that, you should try to determine whether Harris is a staff writer at HuffPo or a blogger. You would have seen that HuffPo's staff writers are labelled as "reporters" in their byline. So just a quick glance at Harris' byline should have raised concern. If you bothered to actually look at Harris' page you'd see a header "Blog Entries by Sam Harris". Your mendacity is tiring. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, if this is the editing standards of Wikipedia administrators, then it's little wonder Wikipedia is treated as an unreliable source for academic work. Sorry, but I'm not aware of the fact that blogs on news organizations aren't allowed on Wikipedia....maybe that you might think otherwise, but yes that isn't the case. ("Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." )Sleetman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the text you quote - the key words there are full editorial control. What evidence do you have that Harris' blog is under the full editorial control of HuffPo's editors? As far as I know, HuffPo's blogger do not have to get their posts approved by an editor unlike, say NYT's bloggers. As you are aware, the onus is on you to provide some supporting evidence. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Also see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] again 

message: The reliability of the sources on the Karen Armstrong page is being discussed here.Sleetman (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved form my talk page, since this belongs here Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSN 

message: I don't think that the "Views" section is really the best way to write this article. These aren't really the "views" she spends most of her energy on. They are primary-sourced quotes. Two of the five sections are taken from a single, poorly-sourced interview with Omayma Abdel-Latif. Overall there's a serious balance/weight issue here. Where are her views on compassion, to pick one major issue. Why did some editors pick these quotes? Ideally her views should come from secondary sources. Less optimally, they should come from her own writing, where her views are set out in context. Cherry-picked quotes from interviews seem like a bad idea. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could severely condense it and put it in a short "views" bit without separate headings, but you're right that including more content about her books should definitely be a priority. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think her views are important. But I'm actually a little concerned about some of these. The statement about the London bombing, for example, is taken straight from the Moyers transcript - was this something Armstrong thought important? Was it something others saw as important? Or was it just something that caught the eye of some Wikipedia editor? If it's either of the former, we can find a better source (and hopefully present it in context). If no one else cared about it, or only some bloggers, it probably doesn't belong here. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, looking at the transcript, that's a WP:UNDUE issue. We should probably talk more about the Charter, too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: While I have too many new articles lined on my to-do list to do any major writing/expansion here, I have access to places like JSTOR, so I can get you reviews. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: The following is a paragraph of Juan Eduardo Campo's opinion of Armstrong: 
Juan Eduardo Campo, the author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a "more or less objective" (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America.
Until the the International Journal of Middle East Studies can be proven that it is a reliable source, it can't be used as a Wikipedia source. Sleetman (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking? It's Cambridge University Press, archived by JSTOR. Don't grasp at such idiotic reasons to remove content that isn't critical of Armstrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't grasp at such idiotic reasons" Don't worry about me being idiotic, you oughta know you came up with the moronic theory of substituting your own idiosyncratic criteria for editing Wikipedia policies. But getting back to this, you aren't in any position to judge whether something is or isn't reliable source, your post doesn't mention what it is that's "Cambridge University Press" and were the same person who thought a #!#$ing weblog was a reliable source (IslamToday). Sleetman (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Eduardo Campo 

message: Can anybody explain why Armstrong's version of her Wikipedia page here  is being reverted?Sleetman (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you're coming off a block with an attempt to repeat a set of edits that were rejected the last time you tried to edit-war them into the article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with the changes that the edit  of Armstrong's Wikipedia page attempts to make? Instead of the usual ad hominem, can you stay on topic and address what is so wrong about the edit again the link for reasons of clarity? Sleetman (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The question arises of Armstrong's finances. She passes over Muhammadan slavery in silence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: Why does the reception section currently consist entirely of praise for Karen Armstrong. There is no shortage of criticism of her by reliable sources and notable people. And why has the Criticism section been entirely deleted? This article is currently in my opinion (which I realize is worth basically nothing) highly POV in favor of Armstrong. Criticisms and critical receptions need to be added (or added back, as it seems they existed before but were deleted). Armstrong's views are highly controversial, and certainly not without criticism. Other prominent religious and political commentators articles' include criticisms in some form or another, this article includes absolutely no criticism and only praise. Anon12356 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See higher up this talk page, and the archive. - DVdm (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section. 

message: AFAIK Karen Armstrong does not consider herself a Christian. The second sentence needs a rewrite. --2A00:801:320:DDB2:EC0A:AE3F:5D3C:B0FE (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Karen Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517022702/http://www.thelavinagency.com/college/karenarmstrong.html to http://www.thelavinagency.com/college/karenarmstrong.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Karen Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114185552/http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/armstrong.html to http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/armstrong.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103190743/http://www.opencenter.org/galahonorees/ to http://www.opencenter.org/galahonorees/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625025202/http://www1.aston.ac.uk/about/history/honorary-graduates/ to http://www1.aston.ac.uk/about/history/honorary-graduates/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118072829/http://www.tedprize.org/2008-winners/ to http://www.tedprize.org/2008-winners/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Karen Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215165824/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/index.php?content=20070705 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/index.php?content=20070705
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510213651/http://charterforcompassion.org/share/the-charter/ to http://charterforcompassion.org/share/the-charter/
*Added  tag to http://kunskapspriset.se/2011/10/internationella-hederspriset-2011-gar-till-karen-armstrong-3/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807045944/http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/04/18/armstrong/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/04/18/armstrong/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625013913/http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2007/11/049-conversatio.html to http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2007/11/049-conversatio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525014923/http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/66/reason-of-faith/ to http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/66/reason-of-faith/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karen Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.mohr.de/en/religious-studies/subject-areas/all-books/buch/plaedoyer-fuer-gott.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211252/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/159382-1/Karen+Armstrong.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/159382-1/Karen+Armstrong.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at the list of her books, I did not see "The Lost Art of Scripture" that according to the programme Sunday on Radio Four on June 9 2019 she had written. Vorbee (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lost Art of Scripture

message: The Bill Maher quote appears to be more about him than Armstrong. In both sources it is presented in the context of a petition against Maher from being able to speak at Berkeley. And in the quote itself Maher defends his own views more than tackling Armstrong's. I think this information should be moved to Bill Maher.VR talk 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the sources and you are quite right. Zerotalk 04:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Maher

message: This is not the article to get into minority arguments about whether or not Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic - Armstrong's book is about them as monotheistic religions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert