Talk:Bat Ye'or/Archive 2

message: Dhummy, I'm actually pretty lenient -- if you can dredge up something claiming Bat Ye'or is the love-slave of over-sexed space-aliens ("with shocking photographs!") and wanna connect it in External Links, I couldn't care less (although others might zot it). But one-sentence throw-aways in the main body of the article, essentially boiling down to "This person sucks, according to this press blowhard!", followed by "And another ink-strained wretch says 'Does not!'", just get in the way of the more primary information (bibliography, etc). Virtually all of this criticism is self-evident anyway (e.g., Bat Ye'or is a Jew critical of many aspects of Islam--tough guess who doesn't like her).
There's plenty of room at the BOTTOM of the entry for all the hair-pulling.--Mike18xx 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "JournalistCruft" 

message: I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded. As it stands, this page would give a reader the impression that Bat Ye'or's status as a reputable historian was not a matter of considerable doubt (to put it mildly). The controversy over her opinions needs to be reflected here; otherwise it is a severe distortion (and yes, it is possible to distort by ommission). I will put a POV tag on the page until we reach agreement on this. Palmiro | Talk 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to include criticism of Bar Ye'or works, do so. Please note, however, that criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks.--Pecher 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded." -- Perhaps an equal-length endorsement by Spencer or Pipes or Fallaci alongside each criticism would be appropriate. Of course then it would just "cancel out" the section. And there would also be incessent wrangling over which sources each editor preferred for inclusion (as cover for their own POV).--Mike18xx 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks." -- The other reason I chucked that particular paragraph is because it led off with "Some historians..." when no historians were cited.--Mike18xx 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any time anyone tries to include criticism one or the other of Pecher and Mike18xx gets rid of it. Nothing indicates that Pecher is gpoing to actually engage in dialogue with other editors here, so rather than edit-war over the inclusion of criticism I will leave an NPOV tag on the page. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you get a tasate of your own medicine. This is EXACTLY how some editors are treated when trying to participate in Nakba  Zeq 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  It seems rather bizarre to me to place a NPOV tag due to the fact that the POV one wishes were there is not being accepted. Pecher has been beyond reasonable in attempting to get ANY of you to dispute any particular assertion contained in Ye'or's work cited elsewhere (e.g., Dhimmi); and the very best I've seen so far is sputtering ad-hominem. While Wikipedia is indeed the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's greatly preferred that the editors actually be familiar with the subjects they are editing. -- Having a cloudy perception that someone is a "right-wing extremist" doesn't really cut it (especially when that someone's major adversaries include, among others, Islamists who make up their own swastika flags, give the "fascist salute" at their rallies [if you think I'm making that up, I'll be happy to direct you to a choice selection of photographic evidence], and are making translated renditions of "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" best-sellers).--Mike18xx 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think I made it rather plain that I expect criticism to be substantiated and directed at the works, not the person. Nothing of this kind has emerged so far.PecherTalk 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Short version

message: . . . the former by a professor whose impeccable credentials on the topic may be viewed here, the latter by a well-known and likewise well-credentialed French scholar of Islam, are (take your pick) "non notable source[s] of criticism" or "apologist nonsense". Welcome to Bizarro Wikipedia. —Charles P._(Mirv) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that attempted injection of sanity, though I fear it will be of little avail. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the Chebel Malek citation: unfortunately his remarks are not accurate. After the rise of Zionism Jews in a number of Arab lands became the object of various abuses, including a small number of events which while not pogroms in the strict sense were certainly murderous sectarian riots. Obviously none of this was inspired by Islam or had anything to do with the dhimma, but was a response to contemporary political and, in the case of Palestine, economic developments, and he doubtless means to refer to periods of Islamic rule proprement dit; but it does mean that his remarks will make a lot of reasonably well-informed people go "what's he talking about? what about the Farhud (etc)?" So I would suggest removing his remarks, germane and all as they are. Palmiro | Talk 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I see that the material has just been removed. Well, it certainly isn't patent nonsense, but for the reasons given above I think it is better to leave it out. Palmiro | Talk 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored his comments. He's referring to pre-modern history. --Lee Hunter 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that must logically be the case, but the fact that he doesn't say so makes it a bit jarring, or possibly very jarring, depending on where you're coming from. Palmiro | Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-modern history? What about the slaughter and expulsion of Jews of Medina by Mohammad himself and the subsequent murder of many expelled survivors in Khaybar? What about the later expulsion of Jews from Hijaz by Umar I? What about massacres of Jews by Almohads, including the Cordoba massacre from which Maimonides spared his life only through conversion to Islam, the conversion which was later ruled void only thanks to his powerful friends? Just open Bernard Lewis to find out that Chebel is simply lying because Lewis never "established" anything Chebel ascribes to him. The reference to the Jewishness of the authors Chebel cites is particularly disgusting, as if an opinion of a Jewish author on matters of Jewish history carries more weight than opinions of non-Jewish scholars. Pecher Talk 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles in the IJMES and ''[[Le Point]]'' 

message: For information, I've requested unprotection, as I can't see that there was any vandalism, and I'm not sure that semi-protection is really the way to deal with edit wars of this sort. Palmiro | Talk 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has nothing to do with content.  User:Wik is a permanently banned user, and he must come to realize that his sockpuppeting will not be tolerated.  Semi-protection, and blocking his sockpuppets, are going to be a continual nuisance for him until he re-considers his actions.  If he wants to go away and edit non-controversially somewhere else, then no-one will notice.  Until then, semi-protection needs to stay. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Pecher, please stop removing the Benbassa segment. The article is quite authentic. Ye'or herself launched a lawsuit over it.  --Lee Hunter 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source for that article, see WP:RS. Pecher Talk 13:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is Le Point --Lee Hunter 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention that Bat Ye'or won the right to respond on the pages of Le Point and EUR 2,000 in one-time damages. Pecher Talk 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't forget. I just didn't want to deny you the pleasure of putting it in. :) .--Lee Hunter 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives me little pleasure to push the article further down the "he said-she said-he sued-she appealed" slope. Biographies are meant to document the key information on a person's life and to dexcribe why the person is notable, not to meticulously quote what different people said about that person. Pecher Talk 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is notable in part because of the controversy stirred by her books. Noting the reaction from her peers is all part of a good article. Glossing over criticism would do the reader a disservice.   --Lee Hunter 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is notable for the books she has written. There is not much of a controversy, as you can see, since the article has barely scraped together a couple of critical quotes. Pecher Talk 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much of a controversy in scientific circles about the flat earth theory, either. That still doesn;t make it right. Palmiro | Talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benbassa

message: Please stop removing factual, sourced information from this article. Criticism of Bat Ye'or in notable publications is entirely relevant. Your claim that it they are "ad hominem attacks" is entirely specious. The fact that she has been described as being right wing is not, in any way, an ad hominem attack (unless perhaps, you think there's something shameful about being a conservative) --Lee Hunter 16:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I see all the media criticism directed against Bernard Lewis or other historian dumped into the article, I may take the censorship argument more seriously. Wikipedia is not a place to record everything that people spleen on each other. Pecher Talk 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that if I add some media criticism added to the Lewis article you'll accept that the criticism of Ye'or belongs here? --Lee Hunter 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do that, it will be a violation of WP:POINT. There are tons of media opinions for any notable person, but it does not mean that all journalistic ramblings belong to the encyclopedia. What you want to restore are simply personal views of two individuals, who on top of that do not appear to be notable themselves. Essentially, it is a cunning way of disrupting an article by stuffing it with sourced material that does not supply any new information to the reader. Pecher Talk 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already shown you numerous examples of articles that do contain criticism of individuals. You can find some that don't. What does that prove? The two quotes you object to are not even so much criticism as they are correctly pointing out that Ye'or is a favorite of the right wing. This is interesting, factual and relevant information. At least to some people. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe it embarrasses you. I don't know why you have such a problem with it. But it does belong in the article.  --Lee Hunter 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That these quotes "correctly point out" to something is just your opinion or rather the opinion that you share with two other persons. Wikipedia, however, is not a soapbox for newspaper reporters and their fans. Pecher Talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times is one of the most widely-quoted sources in this encyclopedia. Calling it a soapbox is ridiculous. --Lee Hunter 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually Wikipedia, not NYT, that is not a soapbox. Pecher Talk 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a soapbox for its editors. Which means that we don't add our personal opinions and we don't exercise our personal preferences about what we would or would not like to see in an article. In other words, if a notable publication publishes commentary about the subject, it can be added to the article. The fact that a person has drawn the attention of a publication like the New York Times is such basic fodder for a WP article that I'm astonished that you would think otherwise.  --Lee Hunter 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: I've requested unprotection on this article.  Reviraz was restoring perfectly relevant and sourced information which was being censored. If the page is to be protected, it should be protected WITH the censored information, not without. --Lee Hunter 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are always protected in the wrong version. Pecher Talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested unprotection

message: I just thought "islam and cotroversy" might be an appropriate category.DanielDemaret 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. --Lee Hunter 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category addition? 

message: What is the basis for the first line: "but her Egyptian nationality was revoked in 1955 because she was Jewish"? Was it really official Egyptian policy to strip all Egyptian jews from the Egyptian nationality? Hard to believe, so please provide evidence or reword this statement.
:Here's a source, an article based on an interview with her.  SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of nationality 

message: worth a look. --Coroebus 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Why is the first quote about her not being controversial?  Shouldn't it either not be there, be in the rest of the text, or be after the criticism? --Coroebus 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Why Bat Ye'or is a historian, while Karen Armstrong is not even considered as an scholar (just a writer) ? Why is not Bat Ye'or just a writer? --Aminz 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am kind of bewildered as to how Wikipedia doles out "historian" honors. To me, "historian" means several of the following are true about a person: he has a doctorate in history; he teaches history at a reputable school; he has published articles in peer-reviewed, respected journals of history; he has written a history book that is used in history courses at several reputable schools; his writings are cited by other people who are considered historians. I'm not sure if Bat Ye'or meets a single one of these criteria; I'm going to change her to being a "writer" unless her resume can be beefed up a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.91 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Bat Ye'or is a historian because she writes about the the history of non-muslims in the Middle East and under Islam. Had you read any of her books you would have seen that they are historical texts , which provide  one of the greatest repository of primary sources on the topic .Its also odd that you insist on credentials when you yourself do not even bother to get a wikipedia account.Might you be a banned user that is evading the block?--CltFn 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  historian ? 

message: I deleted reference to her real name from the article on grounds that this is a bio of a living person and the presumption of privacy.  I think we should also delete the redirect page to here from her real name and delete all references to this from this talk page also per WP:BLP; she is arguably a non-public figure as per the definition in that policy. Crust 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it could possibly be argued that she is not a public figure. According to the article "Bat Ye'or has authored 8 books. She provided briefings to the US congress and has given talks at major universities such as Georgetown, Brown, Yale, Brandeis and Columbia universities." She's even appeared in a documentary video and there's a picture of her in the article speaking on CSPAN. If that's not public, what is?  --Lee Hunter 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudonym 

message: Somebody keeps deleting Johann Hari's criticisms on the grounds he is not "a scholar of Islam". You do not have to be a scholar of Islam to be posted on wiki; you have to be a notable source. Hari has written for the New York Times and been shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. His criticisms are totally legitimate to be posted here, and Ye'or's fans shoudl stop deleting them just ebcause they are critical.
: Both Spencer and Johann Hari are not specialized in the field of Bat Ye'or. Albert Einstein is notable in matters related to physics but he is not a qualified source for his views on history. Similarly, Johann Hari is NOT a reliable source for criticism of Bat Ye’or. Why don't you google it and find a published reliable source on Bat Ye'or? --Reza1 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spencer is amply qualified on the topic Bat Yeor since his has published numerous books that quote her extensively.--CltFn 06:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spencer is no scholar of Islam. He doesn't hold any academic position. --Reza1 06:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is your personal POV . He is a published authors , his books are widely read and quoted and are supported by extensive primary sources.Furthermore he has a Masters degree in religion.--CltFn 06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimacy of citing Johann Hari as a source. 

message: Spencer is amply qualified on the topic Bat Yeor since his has published numerous books that quote her extensively The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.--CltFn 06:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prof. Carl Ernest& Khaleel Muhammad say he is no scholar of Islam. --Reza1 18:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Spencer as a notable source 

message: Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_Ye%27or&diff=72019346&oldid=71977427
The sources provided do not satisfy WP:RS. They are not peer reviewed academic works. --Reza1 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer Historian