Talk:Robert Spencer (author)

Unclear Controversy

The Adam Sewer controversy is extremely unclear. I assume that it was hastily edited and important sections were accidentally deleted. It is unclear what "this accusation" refers to and the name "Rauf" is present with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.76.93 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. In any case there is a whole article about the Park51 controversy here and it doesn't seem to have Spencer mentioned as a major player. I think this paragraph should be deleted. Leave the previous paragraph as a note on his role in the affair. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason, my Internet connection has cut off several times in the middle of edits, and I see that you then reverted my changes before I had completed them. Yes, the entry was poorly edited by someone else, but that is no basis for deletion, rather an opportunity to fix and restore what was removed. You might think to search the archives and read the original article in full before you unilaterally deleting it for poor subsequent editing, and restore it, especially when the portion remaining clearly contains references to sites like FactCheck that refute Spencer's claims. Otherwise, someone might get the impression that you're trying to sanitize the article.

Here's what's missing: when Spencer and Geller founded SOIA together, their activities concentrated on opposing Park51. While the article you cited on Park51 may neglect to mention this, the article on SIOA does state this very explicitly. Secondly, at that time, Spencer insinuated that Park51 founder Feisal Abdul Rauf had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood on Fox News, and he has repeatedly accused Rauf of what he calls "Islamic Supremacism", and especially attacks him for "advocating Shariah Law", implying of course that Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to supplant the Constitution with Shariah, which is a blatant Straw Man, akin to accusing a modern observant Jew who abides by Halakah Laws in their personal life of wanting to stone adulterers and execute apostates. The original version mentioned these accusations in detail, but that, together with Serwer's first article "The Usual Suspects" was later removed by another editor. I will concede that the link to Serwer's first article no longer seems to work, but Spencer has preserved some of Serwer's points in his "rebuttal" (if you can call it that) to Serwer. In any case, just because a section reads poorly in the current version is not a good justification for deleting it entirely. Try looking at the archives for the original text and restoring what is missing back in next time...Jemiljan (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed heavy handed. The paragraph as I saw it had a heavy focus on Rauf. This article is about Spencer. To examine every claim Spencer makes in an article (that is essentially his biography) would involve an in-depth discussion of religion, politics, and history. The controversy about Park51 is better handled in-depth in the article on the Park51 controversy. I put in the link to that page in the article to make sure that readers will be informed. Perhaps this material should be in that article. It seems to have undue weight in this article to devote a whole paragraph to Rauf. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We should write BLP articles in conservative way so such material may be not suitable.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason your point is taken, though as it was originally written, it included Spencer's criticisms of Rauf in tamdem with Park51. If something looks oddly edited, the chances are that it's been tampered with and a simple search will reveal it.

Shrike, a controversial person generates controversies, and as such, mention of controversies is entirely suitable. "Conservative" writing is putting it mildly, as in this particular case, there have been numerous attempts over time to deliberately santize this article. Such an extreme hardly constitutes good biographical writing.Jemiljan (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen over the past 4 years, Spencer's WP page keeps shrinking. Even in the old days with printed edition of Encyclopedia Britannica articles would typically grow from year to year as the subject accomplished more. Spencer has certainly written more and done more every year by starting several prominent groups and creating global alliances to get his word out. His writing, opinions and activities need to be reflected of living person's biography in WP since he is such a prominent person now. As it stands now, the page is not as informative for WP users as it could be and this is not in the best interest of WP. Someone would rather delete his page from WP than have a good article resulting from collaborative effort of different editors. I am calling on editors of all POVs to work together, first through the talk pages, then in the article itself to correct these issues. Please collaborate as much as you can to ensure we have a good product which is bias free for the benefit of WP. Having said that, would anyone have a good example of a living person’s page on WP we can use as a model?1detour (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is a lack of secondary sources. Conservatives are split on Spencer and this seems to limit his reception to a few venues; and the limited attention brings him a few critics. We can't to better than the secondary sources. In time we'll have more. Being an independent scholar and popularizer will most likely limit his exposure. I notice he scarcely publishes in Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum [1]. His books are his personal interpretation and his influence is limited. Perhaps the bio will remain limited given his limited influence. Time will tell. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB offer clear guidelines on how and what can be used to improve this article. Let me know if you disagree, but there is enough important and relevant info in public domain to improve this article considerably and still meets or exceed WP guidelines.1detour (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory claims of support for Spencer

The last paragraph of the section titled "Spencer's views" discusses Spencer's debate with Daniel Peterson. Daniel clearly contradicts Spencer. While Spencer claims ALL Schools Of Thought teach war on the un-believers, Peterson is only conceding some "elements". Looks like someone jumped to conclusion and took his comment as support for Spencer's claims. But, this is not supported by the source cited or the quote used. The editor should either correct it or move it to the criticism section where is belongs after proper quote from the original sources. Otherwise this paragraph will be very confusing for the WP users which is meant to spell out Spencer's view. 1detour

FYI... Here is what Spencer believes, per his article in the Guardian in 2010: "there is no traditional, mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers." Daniel Peterson actually contradicts Spencer; therefore, the content should be moved to the appropriate section and the wording fixed. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/15/islam-religion?INTCMP=SRCH)1detour (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a reference that I somehow missed. By the way, you recently used a reference to Joseph Farrah's World Net Daily or [www.wnd.com]. Is this considered a reliable notable source? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)