Talk:Bat Ye'or/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bat Ye'or is not a historian

User:Bat Ye'or (should you even be editing this page? If this is not you, is it not clear that you wear your heart on your sleeve regarding the subject of this article?) claims that Bat Ye'or the author is a historian, as evidenced by several references given after the sentence that claims she is a historian. I will debunk these references one by one.

1. Review in "International Journal of Middle East Studies" by Sidney H. Griffith. Only one page is available to non-JSTOR subscribers, but it contains such illuminating information about Bat Ye'or's credentials as a "historian" as, "In the review (of the original article in French) I had complained about the lack of historical method in the work, and the misleading conclusions to which it might lead," and "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jidad and dhimmitude; as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the development of the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work ..." Griffith repeated refers to Ye'or as "author;" never as "hisotrian."

2. Washington Times reference to Ye'or as a "historian." Without even getting into the quality of the Washington Times as a newspaper, there is a difference between journalistic standards and encyclopedic standards. A newspaper journalist can talk to someone who seems to know about a subject and who has a title that indicates that me ought to know about the subject, and refer to him as an "expert," but an encyclopedia ought not to accept anyone as an expert unless he is widely regarded as such by others who are considered experts. So it is with historians; a newspaper can call someone who has researched and written a work on history a "historian," but real historians will ask, has the writer reviewed the existing literature, and clarified any discrepancies between them and his findings? Has he objectively researched the matter, without any prejudice? The gold standard for academics is, do other academics in the same field reference his work? A newspaper reference indicates popularity rather than expertise, and an encyclopedia ought to call only people with expertise experts, for which newspapers are not generally reliable.

3. Azure magazine. As with Washington Times, although kudos to Azure for accurately referring to Ye'or as a "scholar of Islam and a path-breaking researcher on 'dhim­mitude'" rather than as a "historian."

4. Jerusalem Post. As with Washington Times, although kudos for accurately referring to Ye'or as a "noted scholar of jihad ideology and Arab-European politics" rather than as a "historian."

5. Daniel Pipes. Not a historian himself, but even so he has the sense to refer to Ye'or as a "scholar" rather than as a "historian."

6. Vahakn Dadrian. Finally someone who refers to Ye'or as a "historian" and who cannot be dismissed easily! However, we can immediately question his accuracy, because he calls her an "Israeli historian," when in fact she is British, if we can believe this article. Anyway, Dadrian, while his article also incorrectly calls him a "historian" (fixed) his doctorate is in sociology, and the main academic backing given for him also comes from a sociologist (Stuart D. Stein). So, we have a sociologist who actually calls Ye'or "historian," although only in a comment in which he didn't even get her nationality right; this, so far, is the best evidence given, and it ain't much. And, incidentally, Dadrian is in a position very similar to Ye'or's: he works for an organization among the stated goals of whom is "To understand the immense impact genocide has had on the Armenian people." They are both individuals whose academic pursuits have largely been driven by the desire to promote a particular viewpoint, which is not an attitude that an academically rigorous study of history allows.

In short, your evidence is profoundly unconvincing, and may even have served to hurt your argument. Tegwarrior (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing here- analyzing the credentials of authors published in reliable sources, alleging mistakes in their published articles, etc.. – is called original research, and is not allowed. If reliable sources call her an historian – that’s the way we describe her on WP. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Errrr ... are you sure the standard is not that we should note that a particular source called her a "historian," while she is more typically called a "scholar?" If two "reliable sources" disagree, it would seem that your proposed standard fails. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, you need to read more carefully, Monkey. I only quoted a reliable source who condemned her methods. I don't have any direct opinion on them, nor have I expressed one. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I read very carefully. In attempting to discredit a source who called her an historian, you analyzed the credentials of Dadrian, trying to pas him off as someone who is not an historian, then proceeded to research his article alleging errors in it ("we can immediately question his accuracy, because...) - this is original research, which is not allowed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to change the article to indicate that she's Israeli, then? For she is Israeli, by your standard. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, no publication in a reliable source was sited for Bet Ye'or. The review in "International Journal of Middle East Studies" was only a commentary on a book she had published. She was not published in that journal, as far as I know. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

She's a scholar and an author of books of history (e.g: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century ) published by academic presses (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press). That's really more than enough to qualify as an historian. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no it isn't. Don't rely on Wikipedia's article on Historian for an understanding of what a historian really is. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "his·to·ri·an: a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis." Bat Ye'or was pretty specifically noted for not having produced a scholarly synthesis by Sidney H. Griffith in the most scholarly site offered on the matter of her being a historian. Tegwarrior (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, one of her critics called her work “unscholarly”, what of it? Such criticism is very common among academics with opposing viewpoints. Efraim Karsh has written that Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris "systematically distort the archival evidence" – are we going to remove their designation as historians based on this? Do you think we should value the point of view of one of her critics more than the decision of an academic press to publish her book? Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not "one of her critics," Monkey, but the academic chosen to review her work by the only scholarly journal referenced by the article that is not associated with promoting a particular viewpoint. It's sort of like if all your friends thought your fifth grade history report was really cool, but your teacher gave you a failing grade on it. So, yes, that counts more than the decision of an academic press (how many "academic presses" do you think there are? And how many of them have truly rigorous publishing standards?) to publish one of her works. And Efraim Karsh is a polemicist more than an academic; he has about as much business commenting on historians as I do commenting on camel racing. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to original research, I see. It is not up to you, or any other WP editor, to question the standard of academic presses who publish academic works of people you don’t like. It is not up to you, or any other WP editor, to question the academic credentials of the heads of academic departments of prestigious universities, when you disagree with their politics. Please read this and stop your attempts to discredit your political opponents. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about if we call people "popular historians" when they are not regarded, academically, as historians? And please read and adhere to WP:AGF. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this will just move the debate to the question of who is 'academically' regarded as an historian. Specifically with regards to BY, I believe that someone who is a scholar (according to you, and reliable sources), and who has had multiple historical books published by an academic press is an historian. We should describe people as they are described by reliable sources, not based on our evaluation of their work. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have written before about the status of Fairleigh University Press. Despite its name it is not one of the mainstream academic publishers. Another point to consider in regard to who can be described as a historian is whether they belong in some way to the community of scholars. I don't think the subject of this article does. But I am keenly aware that this is a Biography of a Living Person, therefore we can use words like "author" and "researcher", which are neutral and cast no aspersions on the subject's capacities. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but I think it's pretty easy with a little bit of money and a few connections, to manufacture an appearance of respectability. I think it's done a lot in contentious matters attached in one way or another to scholarship. I don't know too much about FDUP, but I do know that there are entire "universities" dedicated to promoting a particular way of thinking. How much easier to just slap a press onto one of these? (Some of them, allegedly, are pretty decent schools.)

I expect that there has to be a way of basically getting a "google"-type ranking of academic journals and then of academics, where iterations of seeing how many references are made to different journals and scholars, and then seeing the relative quality of the journals and scholars making the references. Tegwarrior (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you wrote elswhere on this page that "Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is not an academic publishing house". You now assert that although it is an academic publisher, it is not a "mainstream" one. Neither of these assertions are accompanied by any sort of backing cites or refernces - perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your claims. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Most academics have their books published by academic publishing houses. These are few in number. Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Sage, Routledge are all known in the UK. In the US, University of California Press, Harvard University Press. Then there are a larger number of specialist academic publishers, Edward Elgar for economics, Falmer for education studies. It used to be that Oxford University Press would mainly publish books by Oxford academics, but that is no longer the case. Academics who work in minor universities usually aim to be published by these major publishers. Fairleigh Dickinson University, a liberal arts college, is a special case in maintaining its own press. That it publishes Gary Null should ring alarm bells. And it isn't a member of the Association of American University Presses. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for some reliable 3rd party sources that state that FDUP is not an academic press, not more of your personal opinions of it. I think you are quite mistaken in thinking that the US has only a "few" academic presses. You name 2 (Harvard, UC), but surely you know of Yale[1], Princeton[2], Stanford[3]? In fact, just about every major (and many minor) US university has its own press, and FDUP is far from being a special case. I think you miscategorize FDU as a "liberal arts college" - US News and world report does not list it in that category, but even looking just at LACs, Amherst has a press, Wesleyan has a press . If you meant to say FDU is not as distinguished as Oxford or Harvard (and, by extension, FDUP is not of the same caliber as Oxford Press or Harvard Press) - I would not argue that point, but that is a far cry from "FDUP is not an academic press". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy, they publish Gary Null and we're supposed to take them seriously? The guy's one of the world's leading con-artist quacks and an HIV denier to boot.

Anyway we had this fight before, and I don't recall hearing any answer to the following argument: Yes there are one or two more-or-less reliable sources calling her a "historian," but there are also many more calling her a "researcher" or an "author" or a "scholar." There are also sources of equal or better reliability calling her a "controversial non-academic" and a "polemicist." NPOV means we play it down the middle, not picking out the most or least favorable option in order to boost or lower her credibility. Come on, this is basic stuff. Call her an author or a researcher, those are both undeniably accurate terms, without the POV-baggage. <eleland/talkedits> 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fellow HIV denier Peter Duesberg has been published by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Should we now put Kluwer on our shitlist? Should we extend that to Kluwer's current owners, Springer, one of the best known and biggest academic publishers? Do you see the problem with that kind of reasoning? Now, are there any reputable 3rd party sources that say FDUP is not an academic press, or will we go by the personal opinions of Eleland and Itsmejudith? If 3rd party sources called BY a researcher, we can call her that. If other 3rd party sources called her a historian, we can call her a “researcher and historian”. If 3rd party sources disputed her scholarship, we can describe that (within the bounds permitted by WP:BLP) in a criticism section, of which this article has more that the usual amount. But we can’t use our personal views of FDUP or BY’s scholarship to strike out what reliable sources have used to describe her. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, I looked, and I can't see where FDUP publishes Null. He does appear to be actually on the faculty there though (!), but whatever, that wasn't the main part of my argument, and I really don't feel like fencing with your strawmen anyway. You're suggesting now, I think, that we're only allowed to put potentially negative information in a special "criticism" section, while we can pile on positive terms everywhere else. Um, what? This has no foundation in policy, if anything it's against policy, which usually frowns on criticism sections. You're also subtly complaining about how this article "has more than the usual amount" of criticism; as if every figure has been criticized in the same degree! Reliable sources profiling Ye'or indicate that she is HIGHLY controversial and WIDELY criticized. Are you now disputing this? FFS, why do I edit Isr-Pal articles at all... <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be several arguments going on here. All I am saying is that it is not possible to describe Bat Ye'or as a historian simply on the grounds that she is published by FDUP. IF it can be called an academic publisher it is one of the most minor in existence. In regard to Null there was previously a citation of a resume where FDUP was given as the publisher. Since it was only a resume they may now have withdrawn it from their catalogue. Going back to the original issue, I cannot see any reason NOT to call her a writer or a researcher, as these descriptions are obvious, factual, clear and neutral. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey seems to have taken it upon himself to make sure that various non-historians are called historians. Meanwhile, the fact that Daniel Pipes, who actually is a historian, is not called such did not register with CM when he edited the article yesterday. I'm not sure if this attitude is part of Wikipedia's cult of the amateur program, or what.

Anyway, it galls me that CM first has insisted on an understanding of "historian" according to which David Irving and Joan Peters should be considered historians, and second that he insists, as in this article, that if two marginally reliable sources call someone "historian," we may ignore that the rest of the world, including a lot of more reliable sources, call him only "author" or "scholar." But, that is apparently the sad state of Wikipedia.

What seems unfortunately what has to happen is that if a non-historian gets called a historian, it should be made painfully clear through clear citations of exactly what and where the non-historian has published his historical work that there is no danger of this person's writings being taught in a serious course of history.

If FDUP is essentially a vanity press for people who footnote, it would be nice to make that clear somehow, although I'm not sure what the "how" would be.

Tegwarrior (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite comical. After you had edited out Pipes' description as an historian from the Middle East Forum article, and I had to revert that, explaining to you that he is one, you find it appropriate to come here and complain that I didn't make the same change on his page? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited it out after looking at Pipes' article, which didn't call him a historian. As vigilant as you, who had just edited the Pipes' article, are about calling everyone a historian, I figured that meant he was not a historian. I was mistaken. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith, I agree that it is not possible to describe Bat Ye'or as a historian simply on the grounds that she is published by FDUP. In fact, it is precisely this kind of original research, promoted and practiced by User:Tegwarrior, that I am against. It is not up to us to research the credentials of the academic presses who publish the works of BY. It is not up to us to analyze articles by authors who describe her as an historian, searching for mistakes in order to discredit them. The standard on Wikipedia is simple and clear: If you want to state ’Person X is Y’ – you need to find a reliable source that makes that claim. Once you do that, the debate is over – we do not go looking for what other things that reliable source may have published in an attempt to discredit that source, we do not analyze the rest of the content of the article in which the claim was made in an attempt to find errors of fact there, and we do not engage in pissing matches to show that the reliable source which made the claim is not as prestigious as some other reliable source. If there are reliable sources calling BY an historian –we can make that claim in the article. It is really as simple as that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Puh-lease! You have two dodgy, marginal references that call her "historian" in the face of the overwhelming consensus of calling her "author" or "scholar." The debate is not over when the thinnest reliable sources imaginable say something that is not upheld by the mainstream. I am pretty certain that Wikipedia's standard is to go by most common consensus in accepting descriptions without qualification, and in this case the most common consensus is "scholar." Tegwarrior (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The references are neither dodgy nor marginal. "historian" and "author" or "scholar" are not mutually exclusive - I have no problem describing her as "scholar and historian" if we have references for both. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I find User:Tegwarrior's argument credible, and the follow up discussion conclusive. Much of what Bat Ye'or has done is probably very useful, but I find the arguments used to support a description of "historian" to be problematical and in many cases, non-policy. It is particularly noticeable that she gets no citations at Google Scholar. In case you're not familiar with this test, compare that result with this one, which refers to an author regularly targeted for complete exclusion from articles on grounds that are equally difficult to follow. Bat Ye'or is probably an excellent source for opinion, and may be a good source for historical fact. But calling her a polemicist would be far better justified than calling her a historian which (if I'm reading the above discussion correctly) is, I'm afraid, an abuse of the term. PR^talk 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Historian, pt. 2

The American Historical Association has a searchable database of English Language History Journals. I think a reasonable standard for who can be called "historian" would be anyone published in one of these recognized journals (there are a LOT of them) or who has had their work favorably reviewed (by which I mean, reviewed in a way other than to advise that the work be ignored). Tegwarrior (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(Obviously, foreign language publications would have to be looked at separatetly.) Tegwarrior (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be in line with the special RS guidelines for history articles. To reply to Canadian Monkey, the argument that that we need a source for every single epithet is overly simplistic. To call BY a writer is justified by the fact that we include a bibliography of her works. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling her a writer as well as an historian, as I've stated several times. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue is with professionalism. There is a profession, "historian," and I mean "profession" in the narrow sense. When someone is understood to be a historian, the expectation - built around the profession of historian, which, as every profession must, has codes of conduct and standards of practice - is that he will have endeavored to conduct his research in an objective manner, and his historical writings will have been honestly vetted by his peers, and modified or withdrawn if this process shows deficiencies in the work, before they are published.

When you have a profession that has built up a body of work and that has established a reputation for itself and for its work, it is inappropriate to allow lay people to claim the title haphazardly. With many professions, this protection is embodied in law: if you claim to be a physician or a lawyer, you'd better be licensed or you're likely going to end up in jail.

I think we all know that the most appropriate description for Bat Ye'or is "polemicist," although this wouldn't stand up to the BFLP niceties. But as a polemicist, it is clear why she, and those who hope to exploit her work for similar purposes, would want to call her a "historian," and it's not because they want to identify her with the 17th century aristocracy who dabbled in studying the past. It's because they want to identify her with the profession, so that she might - without having adhered to any code of conduct or had any honest vetting of her writings - benefit from a reputation that she has not helped to build nor worked to uphold.

It would be fair to call Bat Ye'or a "historical scholar." This accurately describes, without noting her biases, what she does: she researches the past and writes about it. The only reason I can think of that anyone would insist on calling her a historian rather than a historical scholar is in order to claim the reputation of the historian profession. But no one can honestly claim that she has adhered to any standard of practice in her work, nor that she has had her work honestly vetted, so to claim that reputation for her is dishonest.

Can anyone name a quality that adheres to the word "historian" but not to the term "historical scholar" and that is an accurate description of Bat Ye'or? Again, the only quality of "historian" that is not also in "historical scholar" is that of the profession, and that is not a quality that Bat Ye'or has.

Tegwarrior (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some professions are regulated and/or licensed, by law or by professional guilds. Others are not. Like it or not, "Historian" is in the latter category. You may think that the most appropriate description for Bat Ye'or is "polemicist", but others disagree. To overcome this issue, we have a clear and simple policy on Wikipedia: We do not use the standards favored by Tegwarrior, or those favored by Canadian Monkey, we simply describe people as reliable sources have described them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken, CM. The AHA has an official Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, a Report on Redefining Historical Scholarship, a Statement of "Best Practices, etc. It is a professional guild. Since you ignored my question, I'll repeat it: Can you name a quality that adheres to the word "historian" but not to the term "historical scholar" and that is an accurate description of Bat Ye'or? If "historical scholar" captures the essence of what you want to claim for Bat Ye'or, you should have no objection to me replacing the term "historian" with "historical scholar" in the article's description of her; if you think there is some quality to Bat Ye'or's research and writing that is captured by "historian" but not by "historical scholar," I am all ears to hear what it is. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would not be 100% happy with "scholar" because it implies membership of a community of scholars and the article subject doesn't seem to have such a membership. As with "historian" the implication is that writers regularly submit their work for review by peers. When a writer addresses their work directly to a popular audience there is no such critique. Bat Ye'or does not have the training of a historian, nor does she contribute to scholarly journals. Her books sell better than those of most academic historians though. It is just two different career roads that people can choose to follow. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess "scholar" doesn't have the same connotation for me; to me it just means "student." Possibly this is because my elementary and secondary school system used "scholar" a lot. Bat Ye'or has clearly done a lot of research, albeit probably not objectively, on her topics; is there some other term besides scholar that would reflect this? Tegwarrior (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The exchange above illustrates the problem with trying to define BY in terms other than the way reliable sources describe her. "Schoalr" has certain connotations for you, others for Itsmejudith, and still others for me. You are happy to describe her as a "history scholar" - I don't know what that term means or how it's different from "historian". That's why we have simple and clear guidlines: we describe her the way she is described by reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith, you wrote that you would not be 100% happy with "scholar" - how about 95%? I intend, given Canadian Monkey's indifference, to change the article to call her a "historical scholar." Tegwarrior (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I was indifferent, I said i don't know what the term "historical scholar" means, as opposed to "historian". Which reliable source has described her as an "historical scholar"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, "I don't know what that term means or how it's different from 'historian.'" Are you know insisting that you can make a distinction between the two? Rather wriggly of you, if you are. Several sources are noted above as describing her as a "scholar;" adding "historical" merely clarifies of what topic she is a scholar. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for improving article content, not for commenting on other editors. Your post above is quite uncivil, and I strongly recommend that you strike your personal comments out. What I wrote is quite clear : "I don't know what that term means". I haven't seen it used anywhere, and it seems you have coined it. If I don't know what it means, I obviously can't tell how, if at all, it is different from "historian". If it means the same thing, and we have reliable sources calling her an historian, I prefer we use the less-wordy, familiar term which is backed up by sources. If it means something different, please explain what that difference is, and show which reliable sources have used it to describe BY. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can leave out "historical," if you like. It's clear that MOST reliable sources call her "scholar" and only only a very few call her "historian," so shouldn't we go with the consensus of reliable sources? Do you understand the difference between "scholar" and "historian," and why most reliable sources would consider Bat Ye'or a scholar but not a historian? What is it that makes you insistent that she be called "historian" instead of "scholar?" Would you understand what "scholar of history" or "scholar of Islamic and Middle Eastern history" mean? Is there a quality that adheres to the word "historian" and not the the term "scholar of history" and that accurately describes Bat Ye'or? I don't think we should suggest, as by using the word "historian," that Bat Ye'or submits her work for honest peer review or that she follows a formal standard of practice in her work, because by reliable source accounts, she doesn't. If you can't understand the significance of the word "historian" in this matter, maybe you should defer to the judgment of others, and leave her with a description that accurately describes every aspect of her and of her work that you would want to describe with the word "historian." Now please be civil and answer my question.

Tegwarrior (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote: we have reliable sources calling her an historian, I prefer we use the less-wordy, familiar term which is backed up by sources. She calls herself ah historian. We have reliable sources calling her an historian. She's had multiple books of history published by an academic press. She's an historian. Please don't revert again without consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My preference is for "writer" but if we carry on like this any longer we will risk being included in the list of the most petty edit wars. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

reopening

I'm reopening it, because I do not see how someone apparently without university degrees can possibly be described in a NPOV encyclopedia as a scholar. Her publishers may describe her as what they please, buyt it's peacock terminology. She's a writer, or historical writer. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Views on Bush

From an interview with the Jerusalem Post:

But I think that Bush has been a great politician, and that history will show he was right. Aside from everything else, he has woken up Europe to the calamity of global terrorism - and this is what brought about the coming to power of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi. And Europe can no longer be as anti-American.

-"One on One: A Dhimmi View of Europe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 06:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

quotes & NPOV

I removed a paragraph of quotations taken from the publisher's blurb and the book jacket. Though they are quotations from a known scholar, they are not trustworthy unless they have actually been published in a third party source. I see some other problems with the article--the description as scholar, thought apparently without any degrees--see above, the use of extensive quotations in footnotes serving as a WP:COATRACK. I've placed a NPOV tag on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced references should be removed

Please look into the history of the article. I removed unsourced references but my removings were undone. How comes? And how can anyone say they just expired without proving this? Maybe they never linked to anything! --92.74.18.114 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that just doesn't do it. Removal of reference and referenced information is disruptive editing/vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What are dead refereces good for? They were most probably made-up! The one inserting the references has to prove that they are real, otherwise they are good for nothing. --92.74.18.114 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2011-08 Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis

For you information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

lead biased

I consider the current lead very biased as it shows only critical. That "Eurabia" is a "conspiracy theory" is the opinion of her critics; in the lead is not explained Bat Ye'or's position but there is only a list of her books. as WP states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.".
In the current lead I find only controversies but not Bat Ye'or point of view.
Also the referement to Breivik is wrong: it is against WP rules to include in the lead matters not discussed in greater depth in the article
I would add something about Marjàn and Sapir's quote in the lead. These two scholars write that Bat Ye'or is "Israeli-born" (p.161 of the quoted book); as all we know Bat Ye'or is Egyptian born. Marjàn and Sapir even know who they are talking about. I could ask if they have read her book as in the back cover of Eurabia: the Euro-Arab axis is clealy written![4]
How is possible to quote someone who clearly don't know the minimum of this topic?--Domics (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wistrich on Eurabia

Historian Robert S. Wistrich, expert in history of Antisemitism, says: "In Europe there is also the cumulative effect of Muslim and Arab immigration, of the “Euro-Arab dialogue”, which has developed an almost conditioned reflex of anti-Americanism and anti-Israel feeling. This is what the Swiss scholar, who I am glad is here with us today, Bat Ye’or, pointed out in her book, Eurabia. Who can deny the role that Eurabia has played in favouring the emergence of an Israelophobic culture in which hatred of America, disinformation and vicious comments about Jews abound? This in turn explains, at least in part, the extraordinary reluctance to recognise the genocidal aspects of the jihadist challenge to Israel and the West".[5] (lecture delivered by the author in opening the SICSA - The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism- conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on 12 June 2006). At the same International Conference Bat Ye'or gave a speech: "From Europe to Eurabia".--Domics (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And at the same International Conference, after the same "From Europe to Eurabia" speech from Bat Ye'or, Joël Kotek (executive in the Paris Shoah Memorial) said "I think you should have titled your conference The protocols of the wise of Brussels [...] I think it's a conspiracy theory." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

that Bat Ye'or is criticized by many is known. It remains that Bat' Ye'or gave a speech in a qualified conference.--Domics (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See also "At the conference I said half-joking that it was possible to call this 'the protocols of the elders of Brussels.' However, unlike 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' which is a total forgery, here we have documents", Robert Wistrich in Adi Schwartz, The protocols of the elders of Brussels, Haaretz, 2006-06-20. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

question about a book

According to this interview with Pamela Geller, the previous Bat Ye'or's book (Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism) should have been published in English during late 2010. However, I can't find it in any online bookstore. Has it been really published? Is the forthcoming Europe, Globalization, and the Coming Universal Caliphate the same renamed book? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Censorship of this article

Why is valid information not allowed to be inserted into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.148.12.35 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia

As the mother of the Eurabia genre, and a consistently biased and cherry picking author on topics relating to alleged Muslim domination, Bat Ye'Or is central to the main islamophobic movements of our times. This is backed up by a large number of articles that conform with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. WP:LABEL states that

Value-laden labels (...) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

As it's hardly practicable to provide in-text attribution for inclusion in a template, I believe the "widely used by reliable sources" part should have the final say. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The term is also widely contested by reliable sources. Please come up with something more neutral. Ankimai (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Here are some sources that explicitly use the term islamophobic about what Ye'Or writes about Eurabia. 4 of them are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. When it comes to the question of using the template or not, that is a yes or no question, I can't really come up with something "more neutral".

• Fekete, Liz (2012). "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class. 53 (3): 30-47. doi:10.1177/0306396811425984.
• Carland, Susan (2011). "Islamophobia, fear of loss of freedom, and the Muslim woman". Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations. 22 (4): 469-473. doi:10.1080/09596410.2011.606192.
• David Lagerlöf; Jonathan Leman; Alexander Bengtsson (2011). The Anti-Muslim Environment - The ideas, the Profiles and the Concept (PDF). Stockholm: Expo Research. Retrieved June 8, 2012.
• Shooman, Yasemin (2010). "The concept of the Muslim enemy in the public discourse". In Jocelyne Cesari (ed.). Muslims in the West after 9/11: religion, politics, and law. Routledge. pp. 198–228. ISBN 0-415-77654-6. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Fekete, Liz (2006). "Enlightened fundamentalism? Immigration, feminism and the Right". Race & Class. 48 (1): 1-22. doi:10.1177/0306396806069519.

Best regards, benjamil (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should go on any biography of a living person. The same for the antisemitism template. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

benjamil lists up some excellent sources but i think itsmejudith is right on this one. rather than adding the islamophobia-template i suggest a re-write of this article based scholarly sources. the current version is neither neutral nor balanced and littered with unreliable, partisan sources.-- altetendekrabbe  09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could do with a trawl through the scholarly literature again. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

The quality of some of the sources does need addressing. Pipes, for example. If this is from a foreword, it shouldn't be in as if it were a review. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing sources individuality but the wholesale reversion is not constructive.For example [6] Bat Yeor is only mentioned in scarce and most of what told about her is not that she "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right." I think such phrase is taken out of the contexst and inappropriate for BLP article--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@itsmejudith, in addition, spencer is quoted from an interview he gave on c-span, hardly an academic source. bawer's piece is found in a literature magazine without any peer-review or academic purpose, [7]. pryce-jones is also sourced with an non-academic source. there is also another problem: bawer, spencer and so on are non-reliable, non-neutral partisan authors, just like jansen. if jansen is non-rs on this issue than so is bawer&co. the funny thing is that spencer, bawer, pipes, and so on are worse sources than jansen, who at least was published in a pseudojournal. we are dealing with a minority with extreme views.-- altetendekrabbe  09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

All those sources are reputable news outlets so they WP:RS we don't use academic sources all over wikipedia and there no such requirement if such sources thought the opinion of spencer and etc. important enough we may include them too--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at them all very carefully now. The Jones article in LRB is obviously sourced from this very WP article so we can't use it. Circular sourcing, and we can't use another author to say what Ferguson thinks, especially not when he got the info here. Taking that out immediately, please don't reinsert. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about this source [8] it comes from [9]?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please crarify to me according to what you decided that there is case of circular sourcing?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@itsmejudith, the pipes-quote is clearly not from a review, and spencer is a counterjihadist who founded the "stop islamization of america"-organization and runs "jihad watch"-blog, both the organization and the blog are described as islamophobic. bawer's piece is found in a literature magazine without any peer-review or academic purpose, [10]. in addition, bawer is not any better than spencer. all of these have to go.-- altetendekrabbe  17:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews from The National Review don't exactly cut it either.VolunteerMarek 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it's also interesting that shrike wants a full protection of this page [11] while he is indulging in edit warring.-- altetendekrabbe  18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

he has also removed a reliable source using the "cherry picking source misrepresntation"-charge, [12]. dunno what he meant but i'll add a fuller quote from new york times' craig smith when the protection expires. the only non-reliable source left is bawer and his piece in the literature magazine without any peer-review or academic purpose, [13].-- altetendekrabbe  22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how "Algerian journalist Mohamed Sifaoui" is reliable source in BLP article? also the opinion pieces in the times is not reliable source for such BLP claims--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

Link to David Aharonovich article is dead we can't have such WP:BLP information in the article without proper source moreover this opinion piece maybe not suitable for BLP anyhow thus should be removed.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh? A reference to The Times doesn't depend on a link to the online version. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

For the book The Trouble with Islam by Irshad Manji, a quote of which is used in the reception section, it appears to be specifically chosen to pretend to be negative toward Bat Ye'or, when Manji is actually agreeing with Ye'or and discussing the negative things Muslims have done in the past. Silverseren^C 22:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that seems to be the fundamental POV of the article, to make it negative. This is exemplified by burying the positive reviews at the bottom of the Reception section. Silverseren^C 23:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how the sentence « Irshad Manji describes her as "a scholar who dumps cold water on any dreamy view of how Muslims have historically dealt with the “other".” » is « negative toward Bat Ye'or ». But feel free to use an other quote from Irshad Manji instead. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

2012-08 Martin Gilbert on Eurabia

Since Europe after 1970 is not the field of Martin Gilbert, I suggest to remove his opinion about Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis in the Reception section. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many authors in the reception section are not in the field of Europe after 1970 do you propose to remove them all including various journalists?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok then we shouldn't remove him too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 03:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. Do you agree, or do you disagree, to remove Martin Gilbert's opinion about Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis in the Reception section? (This question does not target Martin Gilbert's quote "(...) acknowledged expert on the plight of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands") Do you agree, or do you disagree, to remove the opinions about Bat Ye'or's eurabian work in the Reception section from people which field does not include Europe after 1970? Rationale: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is currently labelled as conspiracy theory, so IMHO layman's opinion about Bat Ye'or's eurabian work should be carefully used, especially layman's opinion that Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is "100 percent accurate" should not be used. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

done. also removed bruce bawer who is a partisan author.-- altetendekrabbe  09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits was opposed and reveted by various users.Please gain consensus for such edits.More to the point JP is WP:RS for the view of Gilbert and becouse WP:RS report it totally relevant and WP:DUE to keep it in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New section : Influences on far-right

I have added this section. The influence of her writings and ideas on far-right [anti-Islam] movements are deep. I introduced two point of views on the topic. Her : she agrees with this and considers it is "bad" and says it is Europe to blame. One opposite to her where it is pointed that Breiving refered to her dozens of time in his manifesto and that her ideas influenced his attacks. This should be expended with pro- and contra- per wp:npov Pluto2012 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition as a clear BLP violation. The first paragraph is clearly POV and worded in such a manner. The second paragraph is a strongly negative BLP issue, as the source is nowhere strong enough to include such info, not to mention that it's largely irrelevant in this article. Include it in the guy's article, fine, but not here. Silverseren^C 10:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Morever its opinion piece not siutable for BLP.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or interviewed by a [friendly] journalist of Haaretz is not a reliable source for herself and what she says is a "strongly negative" issue regarding her biography per WP:BLP... Are you sure ? What you claim is a personnal attack against her...

And Toby Archer, PhD with "Expertise (...) in the politics of Islam in Europe; the politics of immigration and anti-immigration" is not a reliable source to talk about Bat Ye'Or. Could you please clarify why ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Its opinion piece so WP:SPS is not allowed in WP:BLP even by scholars.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I may miss something but the policy that you refer doesn't prevent to use this material : Haaretz doesn't belong to Bat Ye'Or and Foreign policy magazine doesn't belong to Toby Archer. That would be forbidden if somebody (even an expert) would write on his own blog about Bat Ye'or. That is not the case here.

Could you also explain what is bad for the biography of Bat Ye'Or in what she states herself ? Could you for that quote it precisely here and explain in what it harms her so that we can understand the issue ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The harm is cherry picking WP:primary in WP:BLP--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't quote her precisely and tell me in what the content is harmful, I will re-introduce this.

Note that in the article there is currently such sentences where excerpts of her ideas are given : Ye'or describes dhimmitude as the "specific social condition that resulted from jihad," and as the "state of fear and insecurity" of "infidels" who are required to "accept a condition of humiliation."[15] She believes that "the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad," and studies the relationship between the theological tenets of Islam and the sufferings of the Christians and Jews who, in different geographical areas and periods of history, have lived in Islamic majority areas.[16] The cause of jihad, she argues, "was fomented around the 8th century by Muslim theologians after the death of Muhammad and led to the conquest of large swathes of three continents over the course of a long history."[17] She says: Dhimmitude is the direct consequence of jihad. It embodie[s] all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, living in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. [We can observe a] return of the jihad ideology since the 1960s, and of some dhimmitude practices in Muslim countries applying the sharia [Islamic] law, or inspired by it. I stress ... the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights.[18]

That is normal to report the idea of a people.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

pluto2012, just re-insert your material. shrike's objects cannot be taken seriously when he makes statements like this, [14].-- altetendekrabbe  20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike that the first quotation is cherry picked. As far as I know, the statement by Bat Ye'or, she made it nowhere else during the last 12 years. In my opinion, the claim is not representative of her posture, thus irrelevant and useless. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you write something that is not irrelevant and useless. the fact remains that bat ye'or has influenced (breivik) and is still influencing the far-right through her affiliations.-- altetendekrabbe  21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"i suggest you write something that is not irrelevant and useless." (Altetendekrabbe) Good advice. I take it, thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"the fact remains that bat ye'or has influenced (breivik) and is still influencing the far-right" (Altetendekrabbe) Yes. And Bat Ye'or's (who is not a WP:RS) claim that some of her ideas has been used "sometimes also on the extreme right and in racist movements" is useless to point out that many ideas from Bat Ye'or have been massively used by several far-right, extreme-right or racist movements. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. get your point. adi schwartz from haaretz makes the connection between bat ye'or and the extreme right-wing himself.[15] why don't you make use of that? another point: i have no idea why schwartz has been used to quote wistrich in the current version. that's absolutely not the point schwartz is trying to make, as evident from the title of his piece, "the protocols of the elders of brussels".-- altetendekrabbe  21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't use that for this because it is much lighter than the actual links between Bat Ye'or and Filip Dewinter or Robert Spencer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are misleaded by the title of the article. Have you read all the text? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Vfp : Shrike argued that the content harmed her but could not explain why. From my point of view, his objection is not to take into account.
What you write is different. I am convinced that what I wrote describes very well her thoughts but I may of course be wrong. What don't you agree with ?

1. that far-right movements are inspired by her ideas ?
2. that she considers it is not a good think to attack Muslims ?
3. that she thinks that it is Europe policy about immigration that is responsible of the problem of racism against Muslims ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the quote "[s]ome of the ideas [she has] written about are very much accepted today (...) sometimes also on the extreme right and in racist movements."

• If the motive is to show that many ideas from Bat Ye'or have been massively used by several far-right people/group of people, then it is useless because the quote does not say that (but some ideas, sometimes, by uncounted far-right movements).
• If the motive is to make a balanced § "On one hand, WP:RS say..., on the other hand, Bat Ye'or say...", then it is misleading because, as far as I know, Bat Ye'or said this only one time, never else during the last 12 years, thus the quote is not representative of her posture/PR, the quote is cherry picked, the use of the quote would be misleading.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. I get your point. See below. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i've provided two sources below making this link. please use them.-- altetendekrabbe  14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, as far as I can. I guess that the "Amerikansk publikum" section of "Eurabiske vers" could be very usefull in the "Reception" section, but my Norvegian is too bad. If you can not do it (translate into English the most relevant part and copy them here or i the article), then I will ask Benjamil to do it when he'll be back (do not forget that Wikipedia:There is no deadline). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

sure no problem. i can make a translation, however, the only salient points of, as noted by professor cas mudde, the "amerikansk publikum"-section are,

1) bawer and the counterjihad-movement support bat ye'or's conspiracy theories

2) the counterjihad movement is small and dominated by americans

3) the eurabian conspiracy theory is built on the notion that europe has let usa and israel down due to "muslim infiltration"

hence, bat ye'or and her theories are important to the counterjihad-movement. you can add this statement right away, just attribute it to cas mudde.-- altetendekrabbe  22:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• About Bat Ye'or interview : I agree with Vfp when he points out that Bat Ye'or is not wp:rs when she states her ideas are followed by far right movement. Anyway, we agree also this is the case and that they are other wp:rs sources that state this. Do you agree that these sources should be added and that we could add that "Bat Ye'or recognizes this".
• Do you agree that the second link that underlines the influence of Bat Ye'or on Breivik is wp:rs and should be added ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

here is another source confirming bat ye'or's influences on breivik, and their affiliation with the counterjihad-movement, [16]. i think it's much more important to underline the influence bat ye'or has in this movement, a movement breivik evidently identified with. there is no need to explicitly state her influences on breivik. what is needed is to expand the "affiliation"-section, documenting her links to the extremist networks out there. last point, you and visit are right about bat ye'or not being wp:rs. her ideas need to be presented by reliable secondary sources (the interviews used in the current text won't cut it). a total re-write is needed. some very good sources are found on pages like "dhimmitude" and "eurabia". suggest to use them massively here. content from interviews and unsourced content have to go. the subject is just far to infamous and controversial.-- altetendekrabbe  13:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'Or on powerbase

Don't you think that some rightly referenced info found in this site: [17] could be used for the current article in WP ? There are many aspects referenced properly in that page that are not yet in the wikipedia article. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other wikis can't be used as our source.You have to check every reference yourself before including it to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur Shrike's comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I'll check every reference used. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i think none of them comply with our guidelines. better to use our time on the good sources we already have.-- altetendekrabbe  20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at some of the references are to partisan websites as opposed to reliable media outlets. --Activism1234 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of them are reliable, like the Washington Times and a few others. Anyway I found this page interesting. Note in particular that she never graduated, so far for the "historian" label she wants to put on her cv. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well look, I don't know that much about her, I'm mainly here for cleanups and ce, but a lot of experts and smart people have not graduated from college, it doesn't really reduce their status or anything. --Activism1234 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Historian ?

don't remove material that comes from an academic publisher - Da For Se — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da For Se (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

1 source that added the word "historian" next to the name of Bat Ye'or doesn't make her an historian.

She didn't even study history and has no academic background.

(In fact, the right conclusion to get from this is that this source and the author are not reliable).

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Three WP:RS describe here as such thus we can safely report her as historian.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

• What sources do you refer to ? Only one is given in the article.
• By the way, note that "a book" is not a wp:rs source. There are other criteria. What we could conclude from any book that states she would be an historian is that it is not wp:rs.
• More, WP:NPOV requires to provide all pov's with due:weight. If a minority of books (even wp:rs) claims that she would be an historian, that doesn't make her an historian if a majority claims the contrary. Did you check if there are other sources that state the contrary ?
• Finally, anobody who knows the topic can bring several "wp:rs" sources that claims she is racist. Can we bring this into the lede ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Anoter point of view: according to this source [18] (A journalist who sees her positevely and interviewed her) : "Bat Ye’or’s opinions have made her a controversial figure, as has the fact that she is not an academic and has never taught at any university. She conducts her research independently." Pluto2012 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

pluto2012 is absolutely right. there is common misconception among both laymen and some scholars that bat ye'or is a "historian". she does not have any academic credentials at all. in addition, there are other more serious issues regarding this article as well. bat ye'or is an extremist, affiliated with well-known islamophobes. to portray her and her work as somehow "respectable" is a blatant violation of neutral point of view. the fact is her work is shunned by the academic community.-- altetendekrabbe  19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what she have or have not if WP:RS call her a historian we have an obligation to report it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

a) Are they reliable? b) we have other sources saying she is not so that cancels it out. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes they are,If you have other WP:RS you can include them in the article too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We have sources that say she is has no academic background in history - they can go in the article. That is not the same as sayingshe is not a historian, and even if it was, the solution woudl be to put both opinions in the article. Beat Up Little Seagull (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

er, no. she's not a historian although there is a common misconception that she is.-- altetendekrabbe  16:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS describe her as such.That more then enough.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. Beat Up Little Seagull (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We could integrate both sources and say she's a layman historian, hobby historian or non-academic historian. That way we could state both views in a simple way. // Liftarn (talk)

Does any of the sources call her that way?I also saw "independant scholar" in some sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In that was we should rewrite it to a full sentence like "some(who?) calls her a historian and other (who?) an independent scholar but she is not an academic and has never taught at any university". // Liftarn (talk)

Multiple sources call her historian so I don't think attribution is needed even Carr who oppose her we can add that she never taught at the university(just bring a source for it)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it required to source this in the lede ?

• "who writes about the history of Middle Eastern Christian and Jewish dhimmis living under Islamic governments,[4][5][6][7][8]"

I think it is well described by her books. So why to source this that much. That is not required. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree. suggest to keep griffith, the rest of the lot is a mixed bag of characters.-- altetendekrabbe  15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did it. I disagree with the ref ICCT introduced before: ICCT seems to be a private non-notable think-tank. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

think-tanks with leading and acknowledged experts in their fields comply with wiki guidelines. icct is a perfectly fine source:"the centre is a result of an initiative originating in the dutch parliament (motion cörüz, april 2008) and will initially receive financial support from the ministry of foreign affairs. the centre will be supported by the collective efforts of three hague-based institutions active in the fields of international law and security, namely the t.m.c. asser instituut, the institute for international relations clingendael and the centre for terrorism and counterterrorism of campus the hague / leiden university".[19]. hence, it's run by 3 leading institutes and funded by the ministry of foreign affairs. the only condition is that we have to attribute the information in the text. the icct-report is useful as it demonstrates the links between bat ye'or and the islamophobic counterjihad-movement. perhaps you misunderstood visit's edit summary? otherwise, i agree with the rest of your edits.-- altetendekrabbe  21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I revert my edit on this point. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

you can read the full text here, [20]. interesting stuff. a must read.-- altetendekrabbe  22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

I doubt the mention of Sifaoui: this is a very controversial journalist that has absolutely no academic credentials. Some of his documentaries have been accused of "forgeries" in France. Moreover, some years ago, he was developing ideas very close to those of BY (for instance supporting people like Geert Wilders, a close friend of BY...). This is not very serious. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection of removing him--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, journalists accused of forgery and supporters of gert wilders are not reliable sources. thus, sifaoui has to go, along with bawer, manji and gilbert.-- altetendekrabbe  06:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.

TwoHorned is right when he states that Sifaoui has absolutely no academic credentials and when he says that Sifouai is controversial. But the remaining should be discussed. That is the 'pov' of those who do not follow him. Those who support him would emphasize his fight against the Algerian Islamists and against anti-Islam extremism. He thinks these latters among who he places Bat Ye'or harm his own fight against Islamism extremism. And he has supporters such as Caroline Fourest. He cannot be rebuffed just because WP:IDONTLIKE.

About the academic credentials : Bat Ye'or is exactly the same. So it is not as if a little journalist was criticizing a reknowned scholar. In that case, what Sifaoui writes would be not relevant. From my point of view, here it is. It is acceptable to know what people of the same level, who fight in the same arenas, say about each other. Whether we like him or not, Sifaoui is notorious and if what he says is controversial it is relevant given he is very active in that field.

About Martin Gilbert. He is highly notorious and is an academic. I think that what he writes deserve to be mentionned even if it is not exactly his field of interest. Pierre-André Taguieff also praises Bat Ye'or work. I think he should be mentionned too.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat Yeor book are widely reviewed is scholarly press her books are printed in university press she described widely as historian and independent scholar.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not widely as an historian. Only by sources that by the fact are not wp:rs given she never studied histor and is not familiar with the rules in that matter. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For your information, Bat Ye'or has been incidentally called "historian" by some WP:RS, for example in the abstract of Carr 2006. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: Taguieff is also very criticised in France for his positions, which are not mainstream in the academic milieux about all things related to israel politics. But could you give us a quotation where he supports BY ? It may be possible but I don't remember having read so. Anyway, Taguieff can be cited, but it is clear for me that sifaoui, bawer, manji and gilbert can't: they are just crackpots of extremist propaganda and, all together, their cv fit on a post-it. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 12:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am confused : are we talking about this Martin Gilbert ? I don't know any other and if we talk about the same I don't understand.

I agree that Taguieff is a controversial figure 'but' he remains a CNRS member and due to that his mind and analysis are relevant when they refer to his fields of work... I only have one book of him ("La judéophobie des Modernes : des Lumières au Jihad mondial") and he refers to Bat Ye'or's book "Euro-Arab Antizionism" as " (...) a strong and argued critic of the dismissal of Europeans in front of convering offensives of political Islam, as well against their opportunistic slip towards radical antizionist positions" (footnote page 674). Pluto2012 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

i would also like to add that there is an unsolved npov-problem. bat ye'or is shunned by the academic community, and she is a major influence on the islamophobic far-right. these facts are not conveyed by the current version of the article. the reception section must be molded by the viewpoints of mainstream scholars, and not the tiny minority of extremists.-- altetendekrabbe  16:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Altetendekrabbe but could not find sources of high standards talking about her negatively. She is more "ignored" by these people. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

still, the reception-section needs an expurgation. i'll try to dig up more reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:OK for your quotation of Taguieff but it's just a footnote about an allegedly "antizionist" slip of European politics, not a detailed in-depth endorsement of BY "thesis". Also, let's not forget that, concerning Taguieff in relation with israel politics, Taguieff is a member of the right-wing "CRIF" , some kind of french AIPAC, so that his views wrt BY may be biased. But he can be quoted here, because he is a CNRS director of research (although heavily criticized by his peers). - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

here are some sources:

1. arun kundnani, writing for the international center for counter-terrorism, calls bat ye'or a conspiracy theorist and places her inside the fold of the counterjihad movement, a movement he compares with neo‐nazism. [21]

1. "eurabiske vers", a news article, covers the views of the mainstream scandinavian academia. bat ye'or is again exposed as an extremist, connected to the counterjihad movement. [22] i can assist with translation if needed.

there are other sources as well but i don't have time review them before next week.-- altetendekrabbe  20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"some years ago, he was developing ideas very close to those of BY" (TwoHorned) Reference needed. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For instance at a time when he was promoting Geert Wilder's movie "Fitna" on his blog in 2008: [23] (in french, but easily translated). - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not summarize Bat Ye'or's ideas as "promoting Geert Wilder's movie Fitna with reserve at a time". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

With very few reserve in reality. And Geert Wilders is a strong advocate of BY, they share a lot, not to say the whole. Promoting 'Fitna' is very close to promoting BY. Moreover, BY and Wilders appeared side by side in some extreme-right conferences in Europe. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not say that "Promoting 'Fitna' is very close to promoting BY." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you strongly believe that Bat Ye'or's ideas summarize as "promoting Geert Wilder's movie Fitna with reserve at a time", then I suggest you to replace the content of Bat Ye'or#Main works by "She promoted Geert Wilder's movie Fitna with reserve at a time". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done, since a few years. And your point is? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that she's just a crackpot of right-wing propaganda on its zionist side, linked to Wilders, fjordman, VB and so many others, and that can be easily referenced. Didn't you notice about it as you're working on her bio "since a few years" ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I did'nt notice that in the Wikipedia article about her. Maybe you should add this? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I remind you that I am the one who added a very critic quote in the article, you are the one who deleted this very critic quote from the article, and you have not added anything about "she [being] just a crackpot of right-wing propaganda on its zionist side, linked to Wilders, fjordman, VB and so many others" in the article until now. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I remind you that this is a talk page, not the article. Thank you for your Sifaoui quote, but we'd be better off with some authors whose cv does not fit on a post-it. Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think anymore that Bat Ye'or's ideas summarize as "promoting Geert Wilder's movie Fitna"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That was about Sifaoui, and I pointed the weakness of that source. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think anymore that "some years ago, [Mohamed Sifaoui] was developing ideas very close to those of BY"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still thinking that. So ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So I don't know why you changed the subject by "Have a look at this." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with  altetendekrabbe  proposed sources. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL and WP:BLP we can't use this in article also we write in English Wikipedia.So we better use English sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

nonsense. more nonsense[24]. please self-revert.-- altetendekrabbe  13:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This not policy based arguement--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

your inclusion of extremists like bawer is not wiki policy either. take the sources to rs/n if you dare.-- altetendekrabbe  13:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about this english-language source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

if you want an english source: arun kundnani is impeccable. there are several others.-- altetendekrabbe  14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"some years ago, [Mohamed Sifaoui] was developing ideas very close to those of BY" (TwoHorned) Reference needed. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As the journalists were already deleted from the article and there are already 4 negative entries in reception section I don't think we should add any other negative criticism as it create problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in WP:BLP article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess that we could balance the negative receptions by adding a few positive receptions, for example from Filip "here is my new political party because the previous has ben condemned" Dewinter, Bruce "Norway is an Islamist Tyranny" Bawer, Geert "I'm a nationalist politician who fundraise in foreign countries" Wilders, Edward "of course we envisage possibilities like civil war" May, Fjordman "They will need to be expelled from all Western countries", Oriana "they breed like rats" Fallaci, or Robert "Europe is now reaping what it has long sown" Spencer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already added one by Nemoy there are also mixed one for example "Many will consider Bat Ye'or's views alarmist and her scholarship tainted by an ideological agenda which ultimately shapes not only what historical data she presents but under what thematic categories she presents it. Nevertheless, her work is a perhaps necessary corrective to the romanticization of Islam current in many "enlightened" circles in the West. The truth probably lies somewhere between such views and those presented in this book."[25]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a review of "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide", which is not the target of Mohamed Sifaoui in his quote. I was thinking of positive review of "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" or "Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate", two of the (according to Wikipedia) height books by Bat Ye'or. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@visite, lol! excellent answer:D -- altetendekrabbe  20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only this is an hilarous answer, but it could be carried out (if understand Wikipedia's rules and policies correctly), and I have begun to do it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I talked about reception section in general currently it violates WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i placed sifaoui under a more appropriate section. more to come. the whole page needs a re-write according to reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  21:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For your information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mohamed Sifaoui. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Matt Carr

Matt Carr opinion is already in reception section(and it says exactly the same thing).Why we need it twice?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

re-write

the whole page needs a re-write according to reliable secondary sources, like michael sells' book [26] that is already in use (but underused). the reception-section is misconceived and chaotic, consisting of random book reviews and different topics. the content can easily be integrated into other parts of the article and so on and so forth. however, the latest attempts to exonerate and whitewash bat ye'or may require full community involvement.-- altetendekrabbe  07:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

i've made an attempt but i self-reverted. i need feedback. the first approximation looked like this, [27].-- altetendekrabbe  20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't agree with your edits we don't need criticism section after each term we can state in short that it was criticized and how but we don't need long quotes also her ideas was not only criticized but prized we can't omit that per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(since your English issues have been publicised) The previous sentence does not have any coma or dot. I guess it is not one sentence, but several. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the rewrite too hard to follow in the diff because there was so much of it; would you mind proposing each paragraph in a talk page section so we can all look at them here and discuss them separately?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, of course. the main alteration involves the moving of the content in the "reception"-section to appropriate criticism-subsections related to the eurabia conspiracy theory and the islamophobic myth of "dhimmitude". that's the only way to write this article according to npov, and to avoid a chaotic and vacuous "reception"-section that mixes the criticisms of different concept and notions. the concepts of "eurabia" and "dhimmitude" are heavily denounced by the academic community (and every sane person with an iq above 85), while terrorists like breivik and islamophobic extremists in the counterjihad movement praise them. following brd, i'll do just that: i'll dissolve the "reception"-section, and move the content into appropriate criticism-subsections of the eurabia/dhimmitude-sections.-- altetendekrabbe  20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"the latest attempts to exonerate and whitewash bat ye'or may require full community involvement" (altetendekrabbe) Are you talking about that? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Or about that? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

Should we split and move the Reception section in the Main works section? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• before
  • Early life
  • Main works
    • Dhimmitude
    • Eurabia
  • Affiliations
  • Reception
• after
  • Main works
    • Dhimmitude
      • Reception
    • Eurabia
      • Reception
  • Affiliations

yes, please. i fully endorse your "after"-version.-- altetendekrabbe  21:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go ahead. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I was doing some work here now, but I think I will revert some of it, in order to not mess up your starting point.benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i've made some changes as well. hopefully they won't mess things up for visite :D visite, good luck with the re-write!-- altetendekrabbe  22:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's quite good and endorse this proposal.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The structure is now splited

• this
  • Early life
  • Main works
    • Dhimmitude
    • Eurabia
  • Affiliations
  • Reception
    • Dhimmitude
    • Eurabia

If there a consensus to split and move, the moving will be very easy. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, split and move please. the consensus is in favor of your "after"-version above.-- altetendekrabbe  20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2012-08-25 re-write

Among those 2012-08-25 changes, is there something that has not been done until now, and that should be used in your opinion? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A nit to pick

Regarding this:

Matt Carr argues that Bat Ye'or is the "main inspiration" for many conspiracy theories on the far-right. He elaborates: "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s preposterous thesis [in Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis] recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US".[10] He notes further that Bat Ye'or's analysis is driven by a contempt of "Islam’s celebrated cultural achievements" and a view of Islam as a "perennially barbaric, parasitic and oppressive religion".

I don't see how she can be an "inspiration" either for or to (as it was before I changed it) theories that are older than her work. I believe that she's an inspiration for (or to) theories, though. Just not the theories listed after the word "elaborates." I think that the easiest way to fix this is to dump the word "elaborates" in favor of something that doesn't tie the quote to the previous sentence about her inspirationhood. Clearly she isn't any kind of inspiration for or to early twentieth century anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I don't have access to the source, so can't solve the problem on my own. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[28] --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I believe I solved the problem I had with the paragraph. Comments and reversions are, of course, welcome.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

very good. i was about to suggest very similar re-wording.-- altetendekrabbe  20:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "current" in "for many conspiracy theories current on the far-righ" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

From the OED: 7. Generally accepted; established by common consent; in vogue. Often with mixture of sense 3: Accepted or in vogue at the time in question. I thought it would help distinguish between the theories that Bat Ye'or inspires and the historical theories listed in the next sentence.

Thank you for your answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

perhaps replace "current" with "anti-muslim"? thus, ""for many anti-muslim conspiracy theories on the far-right"-- altetendekrabbe  20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but, anyway, that's what I meant by "current."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2012-08 late

What is the meaning of "late" in "She was married from 1959 to the late British historian and human rights advocate David Littman" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That he is passed away.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

This is unsourced and even if it was, would still need to decide whether it's right to include it in the first sentence. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Presently there's one Liz Fekete, executive director of the "Institute of Race Relations", a far left NGO, and one "freelance journalist Matt Carr,", self avowed Marxist, both writing for the far left publication Race & Class, plus one Norwegian journalist and some fringe practitioners of related social studies, who make that claim. That's to be had by the thousands if we wanted, and for anyone not pleasing the particular political sensitivities of these groups. I don't even think they qualify as reliable sources, eventually I might deal with that after reading up on WP regulations. Anyway, such a strong sentiment right in the lead is a violation of WP:BLP if lacking relevant and notable reliable sources, as the lead summarizes the subject's principal claim to notability, so "Conspiracy theorist" right upfront gives undue weight. It certainly does not justify reverts without comment or participation on talk. --tickle me 23:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Race and Class is a Sage journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some links:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive184#Bat Ye'or
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Bat+Ye'or%22+conspiracy+theorist
• http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=Bat+Ye'or&q=conspiracy+theorist
• Thomas Jones, Short Cuts: How to concoct a conspiracy theory, London Review of Books, July 2005
• Abel Mestre, Caroline Monnot, L'inspiration des extrémistes post-11-Septembre, Le Monde, 2011-07-26
• John Færseth, Eurabia – ekstremhøyres konspirasjonsteori, Fri tanke, 2011
• Maren Olsen, Anders Bisgaard, Eurabiske vers, Morgenbladet, 2011-08-19
  • include quote of Cas Mudde
  • several sentences are translated into english-language in Bruce Bawer, The New Quislings: How the International Left Used the Oslo Massacre to Silence Debate About Islam, Broadside Books, 2012-01-31, ISBN 9780062188694, p. 117 - 122
  • already mentionned in Bat Ye'or and Counterjihad articles
• http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=Bat+Ye'or&q=konspirasjonsteori&as_sitesearch=.no

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because some people have called some of her work conspiracy theories, doesn't mean we put in Wikipedia's voice she's a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. This isn't Alex Jones. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

She is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little too forward to call Ye'or a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead. Obviously, there's enough of this assessment from published reviews of her work to mention this in "Reception". Also, I should mention that since this is the English Wikipedia, most if not all editors are only going to weigh in on English sources. Ender and Peter 05:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Far Left" Conspiracy

A part of that "Eurabia" conspiracy as well as with other unproven and absurd "theories" that the free world is in the hands of "leftists" ( media, governments...), "antisemites" and "anti-Americans" is the claim that all people who call this nonsense are on the left and therefore part of the conspiracy. You just follow the rule that any rumour will become a "fact" with each objection it must provoke. Rightwing Americans especially have been screaming at the top of their voices that anything that is not their own press is "leftist" propaganda for ages. Israel-lobbyists have been defaming anyone as an antisemite if that person does not follow the course of the most radical forms of Zionism. (E.Zeh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.225.12 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. But this is a discussion page about the article about Bat Ye'or. Any improvements needed? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate lead"

Our guidelines say "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Clearly we do not do summarise the most important points in the lead, in particular the controversies. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The lead doesn't need the criticism and controversies. Also, the first § state that she "writes about the history of Middle Eastern Christian and Jewish dhimmis living under Islamic governments", forgetting all she wrote about Europe (books Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis and Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate, and many articles). The second § mention Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis but not Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding more information over the next few hours. User:Crossark (User_talk:Crossark) @10:30 A.M. CST 3 December, 2014.

Added a very brief mention of her controversial standing, which will hopefully let readers of the article know in advance that some of her opinions have come under fire. Also fixed some language issues and did a lot of copyediting. Citation included. User:Crossark (User_talk:Crossark) @11:36 A.M CST 3 December, 2014. — Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead should reflect and summarize the content of the article. Ye'or's work is notable for the controversy and criticism it has generated, which is reflected in the article, and hence should also be in the lead. In particular, I can't find a single positive assessment of her dhimmitude books by an academic authority in this area of history. Even the comments from Gilbert and Jansen, who specialized in other areas, are equivocal in this respect. Gilbert seems to be referring to 20th century history, while Jansen seems to be using the strawman of the "golden age" myth which Lewis refers to in the earlier paragraph. Eperoton (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)