Talk:John Esposito

message: Why were these published works chosen as representative?  According to amazon.com, he has at least 69 published books.  Also, this article desperately needs expanding.JeremyBicha 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people aware of Esposito likely share those views. Arrow740 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms Esposito are more prominent and propounded by more reliable sources, as opposed to one non-notable person. Arrow740 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same argument made there. WP:BLP requires balance between positive and negative views. --Aminz 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is undue weight. Please read BLP again. Arrow740 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am making the same arguments. A WP:BLP can not conain only criticisms. --Aminz 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP does not say that a biogrpahy cannot contain any criticism. Beit Or 07:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine with me. We can have criticisms but not "all" criticisms. --Aminz 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. Notable and releevant criticism must be included. In addition, yours and Bless sins' edits to this page clearly violate WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bless sin's edits? It is not WP:POINT. What point? I am saying we should apply equal standards to WP:BLP articles. --Aminz 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed to insert criticism that violated WP:NPOV#Undue weight into Martin Gilbert, so you want to remove notable and relevant criticism from this article. This is a violation of WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you please explain the difference between valid criticism and the one that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aminz 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it many times, but I'll do that once again. Beilin's criticism was about a rather obscure book by Martin Gilbert, who is best known for the biogrpahy of Winston Churchill. On the other hand, Martin Kramer's criticism of Esposito is about the latter's rise to fame. This is clearly an important aspect of Esposito's notability and thus not in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Beit Or 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Esposito seems to believe like many Muslims - that Islamophobia (i.e. irrational fear of Islam) is the root cause of terrorism and all that is not right with the Islam and the wider world. If we would just stop fearing Islam in America, Europe and in other parts of the free world, then, Buddhist monks would not be attacked in Southern Thailand - for being Buddhist; the beliefs within Islam that call for world domination - by almost any means - i.e. jihad / which the Prophet Muhammad took part in - to create terror and fear - in order to convert and to subjugate or to kill those who would not convert - so says the Koran. Does he believe that if we would rid ourselves of personally or cleanse society of all fear of Islam or Islamophobia, then the entire reality of jihad would go away - as 93% of the versus dealing with jihad in the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, relate to violent jihad - while only 3% deal with the highly publicized 'inner peace/struggle'. Or perhaps the reality that calls for apostates to be sentenced to death - and non-believers to be attacked - is probably what cleansed the once largely Christian Middle East of those believers - can also be rectified by doing away with the person choice to dislike, somewhat like, or even hate Islam.
Though it puzzles me how it is that - in reaching out to Islam - those who profess to be Christian - like Esposito and the Archbishop could so easily overlook the plight of Christians within the Islamic world. So eager to help – they trample the very thing they claim to believe. Solving the 'Islam problem' is far more exciting and something which they could gain much more prominence than dealing with the old 'Christian persecution problem' in the Islamic world. 
While it is not possible for Esposito or the Bishop to bring a personal bible or a cross into Arabia or to worship freely there, due Esposito Saudi sponsored position at GU, his sole aim is to convince us that the problem with Islam is entirely owing to western attitudes towards the religion.
Why is Esposito so keen on getting westerners to accept Islam – or rather to see it in a positive light - over and above what it actually does in today's world? It is a valid question – if John Esposito has converted to Islam – would he put his personal interests above that of the University, society and then nation – in order to fulfil a religious role?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has John Esposito converted to Islam? 

message: I have just read the article and the discussion. The facts are that John Esposito IS highly criticized by many, though I don't have the full list ! That we agree or disagree with these criticisms is irrelevant, I think they should be mentionned at any rate, and could be mentionned in all neutrality with regards to Wiki's policy with giving a short summary of them and of which personns/organizations issued them. Unfortunately, I don't think my English is good enough to write a paragraph about that, besides the fact that, although I know in general which criticisms are made towards Esposito's views, I don't have enough precise references. But if anyone would write such a paragraph, with a neutral title such as "Criticisms", I really don't think this would violate the neutrality policy (as long as references are given !), which appears to me as being the motive of the discussion above. I would add that without any mention of a strong opposition in the intellectual and/or activist sphere towards Esposito's points of view and activities, this article is really uncomplete.
Spipou (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One little point more : of all the non-muslim intellectual personnalities who promote the inter-faith dialogue, John Esposito seems to me to be one of the most controversial, at least in the US and from what I can read in the anglophone media/websites. If I am not wrong saying this, this mere FACT should be written in the article !
Spipou (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms ARE many 

message: This section uses obviously biased language and ought to be either deleted or rewritten to have a neutral tone:
:Following the September 11 attacks, Daniel Pipes's anti-Islamic organisation Campus Watch[5] initiated accusations that Esposito is an Islamist apologist because he raised attention to grievances that inspired people to conduct suicide bombings in Palestine. Esposito does not condone terrorist violence and has supported the Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings issued by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. This fatwa, for which Esposito and Joel Hayward wrote the introductory sections, is one of the strongest condemnations of terrorism ever issued by a senior Islamic cleric.[6]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.202.225 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Esposito. 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/20061026001853/http://www.islam-democracy.org/esposito_bio.asp to http://www.islam-democracy.org/esposito_bio.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906105303/http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jle2/bio.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jle2/bio.html
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) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Esposito. 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/20060904131933/http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=3762 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=3762
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) 16:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified