Talk:The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

message: In this collection of documents Robert Spencer provides a detailled debunking of the myths of Islamic tolerance propagated by Islamist propagandists today. - You will have to explain to me how that is anything other than inherently POV before I will allow the tags to be removed. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I will not ask your permission. By the way, why didn't you make it neutral yourself? Be bold. It was not so hard. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. If you can do something useful, just do it, don't wave your fists. mikka (t) 01:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV]] tags

message: This deletion is unjustified. It is fairly common to see critical essays that write:
*in Ch. 1 "Blablabla" the author writes...
*in Ch. 2 "Blublublu" the author insinuates...
And it would be very strange to declare copyvio here, not to say about 100% fair use of pretty liberal quotations from books. mikka (t) 20:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC of book

message: Removed:
:One obvious problem with this argument is that the Jewish communities in Cordoba, Granada, and elsewhere in Spain were destroyed by the Christians, not the Muslims, when they were expelled in the late 15th century.
Removal for two reasons: 
*first, logical: this fact says only that Christians became even more intolerant at these times, but does not prove that muslim were tolerant. 
*Second, formal: this is your opinion, dear wikipedia editor. However you may quote an opinion of a respectable critic of the book. Wikipedia is not a discussion board. You may only report facts, keeping in mind that an opinion of a notable person is a valid fact, i.e., my deletion does not mean that I am opposing the criticism of the book.  mikka (t) 30 June 2005 01:10 (UTC)
Let us look at the whole sentence: "Robert Spencer argues that Islamic advocates have promulgated a myth of Islamic tolerance that can be dispelled by examining the historical events that led to the destruction of the Zoroastrians in Iran; the Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; and the Jews in Morocco, Cordoba, Granada , Marrakesh and Baghdad".
The more I look at this sentence the more problems I see with it.  However one major problem is that it does imply that the Jewish communities in Cordoba and Granada were destroyed by the Muslims, which they were not, what Mikkalai says about these issues may be true but is beside the point in relation to the accuracy of this sentence.  Also, Mikkalai's arguments raise problems about the Wikipedia project.  If e.g. somebody wrote an article about a book claiming that the Earth is flat, would we be not allowed to say "all scientists agree that the Earth is round" or even "scientist X says the Earth is round", we would have to dig up a reputable scientist saying this about this particular book.  This could encourage people to just delete articles about controversial books. PatGallacher 15:19, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
:Whether or not Spencer is correct, that is what he argues.  As for the rest, you are arguing that original research should be allowed because obvious facts have no sources.  However, obvious facts do indeed have sources, usually thousands of them. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would only be a valid rebuttal if some critic had stated it, and then it would have to be attributed.  Otherwise it's original research. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Classifying trivial conclusions as OrRes would be an overstretch of the policy IMO. If Spencer says that the Earth is flat, then writing that his statement contradicts the Earth article, is perfectly legal IMO. Although I would agree that sometimes it is difficult to draw a line here.mikka (t) 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism

message: Removed: 
:Critics argue that the book is further evidence of the growing problem of Islamophobia in Western society.
Source please? (Removal by user:Jayjg). mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)
O.K., now it was changed to
"Critics, such as Wendy Campbell, argue that the book is further evidence of the growing problem of Islamophobia in Western society."
Who is Wendy Campbell, why is she relevant, what did she say, who are these other un-named "critics", and could we please have some proper citations for all this? You know, like a web-link or something. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
:Even with a citation, she's not a credible source. I've just looked her up. See here  and here url.com/axrno particularly the section headed "Zionists are re-building third temple off-site in Israel," where Campbell writes: "The Zionists are waiting for the right moment to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, which is the third most holy site of the Muslim world, and then re-locate the temple they are currently building off-site." The aim, she argues, is for Jerusalem to become the capital of the New World Order. She was told this by a businessman during a trip to Syria. 
::Actually, there is a small centre in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem with plans for the Third Temple on public display, including a model of the proposed temple and pamphlets for sale.  I realise they do not represent the majority of Israelis. PatGallacher 15:19, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
:My concern about this page, and several others written by the same user, is that, as originally written and if you look at all his/her edits together, the motive seems to be Islam-bashing, rather than to produce encyclopedic articles about books. That's why I'd be keen to see some reputable criticism included. SlimVirgin (talk) July 1, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
::It seems to me that labeling his views as Islamophobia is a way of dismissing his criticism.--Sefringle 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobia

message: It would be nice to have the contents expanded, like, say, The Sword of the Prophet does. Not necessarily in-depth, a line or two would do, but otherwise a chapter listing is useless other than to show the reader the "incendiary" chapter names. GarrettTalk 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "contents" section needs explanation 

message: :Image:TheMythOfIslamicTolerance.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheMythOfIslamicTolerance.jpg

message: If someone with knowledge of punctuation and access to the book could rewrite the first sentence, then it might provide some information. The sentence is meaningless as it stands. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a stab at it. --CltFn (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation in lead 

message: WP:SELFPUB says:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
Some of the content in this article is quite self-serving, and thus will be removed.Bless sins (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the self-serving review per above.Bless sins (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Selfpub

message: :Image:TheMythOfIslamicTolerance.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheMythOfIslamicTolerance.jpg

message: The review by Bruce Thornton in the EL is an odd document. It's hosted on Victor Davis Hanson's website but appears to have been copied from somewhere else. Unless the original source can be found it should be removed. Potential copyvio even. The review in Asia Times online is reliable though and could be used in the article rather than confined to the EL. It's a classic example of a mixed review so one favourable and one unfavourable sentence should be extracted from it. Favourable first, so as to convey the mixed review message: "fills a useful gap - but not very well". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews