Talk:Robert B. Spencer

Pov tag

I've added a tag in the section which collects lots of quotations critical to Spencer. A more balanced section ought to include more of Spencer's own reply to what he calls "Wikipedia gremlins". —Cesar Tort 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• See also the recent discussion here. —Cesar Tort 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I can see that you are well intentioned. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn't it a conflict of interest to change a Wikipedia article about you or direct others to change it on your behalf (as Robert Spencer has done on his blog)? It's too late in this case, as someone has already changed this article based on Spencer's wording after you directed them to his blog. At least now let's go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Thanks.

• • Is it necessarily WIKI policy to include a section for a living person to respond to their critics? This is the only entry for a living person where I have observed such a section. Normally, the views of the person are described, followed by criticism. As such, I think that adding the "response to criticism" section is actually already giving undue weight to Spencer, rather than NPOV.Jemiljan (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • By clicking on the link provided by Cesar Tort, one sees that Spencer is directing his associates to change Wikipedia.
    • I agree with what user Jemiljan has stated about this article being "unique" in terms of making exceptions for giving Spencer undue weight and to remove the NPOV tag since noone else has commented and this tag has beent here for over 4 months. 1detour (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving...

I am archiving the whole thing, including the past archives since they were archived under wrong names. Much of the old archived discussion is a real mess. From now on I would recommend to archive in Talk:Robert Spencer/Archive 2 the forthcoming posts until the page reaches, say, 250Kb. Just a suggestion; not a policy. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Spencer is a Melkite(greek catholic) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic background

Any information? He fits the perfect stereotype of "Middle Easterner" and/or a fundamentalist Muslim, especially with that beard. The comment above would suggest that he is of Greek (maybe Turkish?) ethnic origin. It would also be interesting if someone could find out if he is ever often asked whether or not he is from the Middle East or is Muslim, considering his looks. IranianGuy (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC he's from a Middle East country but his family moved to the States when they were forced to do it. However, in this page we only discuss proposed improvments on the article. —Cesar Tort 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Listed as an Anti-Islam figure by FAIR

We should note that he has been listed as one of the twelve 'Smear Casters' by FAIR at SmearCasting.com. 70.56.82.177 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: How to write about scholarly errors by Spencer in this article

Dear admins/editors: I have several examples which show that Mr. Spencer's conclusion are not supported when the Quran is read in context, and are opposite of what Muslim and non-Muslim scholars conclude about the same passage. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate some suggestions on making this a stronger article without having the writing reverted:

• If the section is to the point and well referenced, would the following sequence of steps be correct:

1. State the specific quote and example from Spencer's book (complete quote with page number and book title)
2. Quote the Muslim view and contrast with that of Spencer's view (again referenced with direct quotes from one of his book as well as reference the Muslim book)?

• Would I need to also need to state why Mr. Spencer's conclusion is wrong, or would that sound too much as my point of view?
• How many examples can I show?

Thanks. Goldenlaker (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing your comments, but this material should be added to Wikipedia only with a fair amount of caution. I don't see a problem with you adding two examples of direct references from a book by a Muslim contrasted with quotes from Robert Spencer. Explaining why Spencer's conclusion is wrong would probably cause POV problems; depending on the quotations, I'm not sure why it would be necessary.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nat that you should only proceed with caution here. In my view, it would be better if you are able to cite OTHER people who have criticized Spencer along the lines that you mention, you can go ahead and add it to the "criticism" section with a brief quote contrasting a statement of Spencer's with that of his critic. On the other hand, I also think that there is one issue that Spencer has been very outspoken, and which "Islamo critics" are not in full agreement, and that is that the concept of Taqiyya is somehow intrinsic to Islam and a tactic employed by all Muslims. In the discussion section on that topic, I noted how Spencer's friend Daniel Pipes appears to completely disagree with Spencer on this issue, despite a pronouncement that the two are in "full agreement".Jemiljan (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to adhere to WP's standards and that's what gives content of Wikipedia credibility. This means avoidng POV; however, some people delete any content which meets the above criteria but they may not like to see it on WP. At any rate, one should be able to post some examples here based on the ongoing discussion in this section. (WP's standards of ethics are something to maintain and uphold, especially when compared to what one finds on Spencer's own blogs and in his books.)1detour (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the answer is, you don't. This is a biographical article on Robert Spencer; it is not supposed to be a critical analysis of his work. Significant controversies should be included, but as it is now, this article is largely reading as an attack piece. Significant retooling is required to the "Views on Spencer and his works" section; it comprises far too much of the article's total volume, in my opinion, creating undue weight issues. Frankly, as it appears now, this article is not really a biography at all; that's just a coatrack for attacking his work. And that's not what biographies are for on Wikipedia. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Coatrack!" What an apt description. I'm all in favor of trimming the "views" section. Ideally, the page should be a factual starting point with resources for people to use to make their own judgements, and not so much a pre-digested package that, by its nature, can't help but make subjective value judgements for the reader. As such, I'm not against naming a public figure's critics (any public figure), but we need not give them such an expansive, free platform for unanswered criticism. The "coatrack" article proves that's un-Wiki-like. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we should also necessarily trim the "Spencer responds to his critics" section right along with itJemiljan (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fair. Both should be reduced (ideally eliminated, but I have a feeling that won't be the consensus here). — Hiddekel (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more info on critic Ivan Jablonka

I've come up empty trying to find more information on Ivan Jablonka. While I realize it's possible that an academic based in France may simply not be well known in Anglophone circles, the apparent lack of information in any language would seem to call into question his relevance as a critic. Many people with advanced degrees criticize other people in print, and still many other people criticize others on the Internet. Lacking other compelling information, I question whether Jablonka's single, Web-published article warrants mention on this entry at all, let alone so much space. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Among others, I found this. TwoHorned (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Jablonka is relevant because of his scholarship and more importantly he is directly talking about the subject of this article. To remove his views would be taking away key examples which counter Spencer's claims that "no-one" has presented any specific examples of his errors. Due to this reason, removing Ivan's quote would be to make this article less useful. I don't think that you mean to harm WP.

Also, Spencer's writing appear on his own blog and books published by his organization. You should really quesion that since Spencer's views have never have been peer reviewed in any academic journal of any credibility, why should his un-substantiated claims be given much prominence in WP.1detour (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your objections sound more like you're making a case for deleting the article altogether. In any event, the raison d'être of any Wikipedia article is not to establish or dis-establish someone's credibility. In that event, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, but rather an ideological guidebook. For that matter, the issue of publishing in academic journals is a red herring. That realm encompasses a very limited collection of writers and readers that is (clearly) not everyone's target audience. And by logical extension, equating merit and academic publishing implies that there is no truth value in any general-audience publication under the sun. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the section: "Views on Spencer and his works"

It appears that this section has become jumbled overtime. I propose making minor org change by adding 2 sub-sections with the following 2 sub-headings: 1. People who agree with him, 2. People who disagree with his views. This should make the article more readable.1detour (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Improvements Required

A pressing issue that needs to be addressed with this article is that it has taken on overtones of an attack page. Personal attacks (and yes, allegations of "Islamophobia" or academic malfeasance most certainly qualify as such) are explicitly forbidden from dominating Wikipedia articles in general, but especially biographies of living persons. And it doesn't even matter if they are "true". Work has been done to improve the article in this area, and cudos to those who have worked to that end, but we need to quickly come to a consensus to resolve this persistent problem.

The first order of business, as I have suggested previously, is trimming off non-notable criticisms of Spencer. Not every academian, Muslim community leader, or political activist with a bone to pick with Spencer is worth noting, nor are their bones. Some notable controversies dealing directly with Spencer's work are certainly appropriate, and a good standard of notability to go with is mention in a third party, reliable media source. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the external link, "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer". The "External Links" section of a living person's biolgraphy article is not the place to dump links to websites disparaging the article's subject. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)