Talk:Robert B. Spencer

WP Consensus: Spencer is not a reliable source on Islam

Consensus reached here at WP: Spencer is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Consensus 1detour (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

1detour wrote:

... he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on his own article) (Italics mine.).

WP:RS/N doesn't really apply here except as a hint that we should look for secondary sources critiquing his opinions, which we should be doing anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

True, although it does in sense that the subject makes their living proffering themselves to be a reliable source, especially in comparison to others whom he criticizes, hence the criticism of him that he necessarily engenders. As there are very clear guidelines delineated at WP:BLP, we should be careful, expecially when it comes to criticism, praise, and self-published materials.Jemiljan (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

More about the reliability of Robert Spencer on discussions concerning Islam, Quran, etc.

I have been reading one of his books. His claims about Islam may be irritating to some, but I found that Robert Spencer

(a) does not use esoteric sources in the citations that he bases his arguments on,

(b) usually does not slip into fallacious arguments, unlike many others do,

(c) cites Quran very much, when argumenting about it, and

(d) cites also notable islamic scholars.

I want to ask: What especially makes him unreliable?

I base my opinions about Spencer's writing style on his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (ISBN 978-0-89526-013-0).

--Uikku (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You might like to refer to the link above to the discussion regarding why he is not considered a reliable source. As for your points, he has been routinely accused by cherry picking by his critics. You might like to look in the discussion archives for more examples of this. Sure he doesn't use "esoteric sources", cites the Qur'an, and also Islamic scholars, but he also tends to overlook, disregard, or downplay verses that provide certain caveats to the material he criticizes. That is what in logic is called confirmation bias, and unlike what you have asserted, that very constitutes a form of fallacious reasoning.Jemiljan (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If he is using the same cherry picking method (naskh) as Islamic scholars do routinely when they read Quran, then is it really cherry picking at all? --Uikku (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Is the methods used by traditional interpretations a "cherry picking method"? Is the concept of (naskh) even as you describe? Even so, do I hear a Tu quoque?Jemiljan (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another book he has written The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran discusses in length those peaceful passages and how they have been understood by some of the great Islamic commentators through history. Take Ibn Kathir on some peaceful verses: (2;109; Many of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that they could turn you away... But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His command.) was abrogated by the Ayah, (Then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them) (9:5), and, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day) (9:29) until, (And feel themselves subdued) (9:29). If he is really so unreliable why aren't his critics able to demonstrate the distortions and half-truths in his work, but resort to personal attacks and moral equivalence? Many of the people and organisations in the criticism section have no substance in their criticism and in regard to Karen Armstrong and CAIR from a demonstrably unscholarly and bias source. Davidelah (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that so, David? Have you read, for example, the criticisms of [[ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_robert_spencer/%7CSheila]] [[ http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert_spencers_10_points_of_obfuscation/%7CMusaji]] and Robert Crane for yourself to verify that is in fact the case? They were included in the criticism section until they were deleted simply for being published on a blog, even though Spencer, is essentially a blogger himself. Are those criticisms just "personal attacks"? Also, is Armstrong "demonstrably unscholarly"? According to whom? Spencer? Do I hear Spencer's pot calling the kettle black? So, even though Spencer's academic background in these matters is nil, we are to trust his "exegesis" as "scholarly"? Why? Because you are predisposed to concur with his polemics even before objectively researching these matters in an impartial fashion? What's amusing is that if you were to spend even a few minutes researching these topics, you would readily find specific disagreements with his desired narrative. For example, There is nothing in the traditions to show that 9:5 abrogates 2:109, and then interpretation of 9:29 is debated. See Sheila Musaji's article on this matter.Jemiljan (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think that Robert Spencer's work is essentialy about the historical and traditional teaching of Islam. Take one of the leading historians on Islam, Bernard Lewis. He says that jihad is an obligation that the overwhelming majority of theologians, jurists and traditionalist understood be a militarily one, a war particularly against non-Muslims, not limited to time or space, with the objective to either have the world converted a submitted to the power of an Islamic state, and which can only be resolved by final victory(page 72-77). This is pretty much irrefutable, and Spencer just makes the reasonable argument that jihadis like Islamic Jihad are able to recruit peaceful Muslims by referring to this and presenting them-selves as the true Muslims, but he has never actually said that they are. But of course many of the Muslim critics that object to him just denies that these things have ever existed. Maybe you should read some more on this topic in an impartial fashion? Anyways, Daniel C. Peterson has been very critical of Armstrong comparing Muhammad with Gandhi. Armstrong has also said it was the crusaders that made up the idea that Islam was violent. How does that square with the most respected historian on the subject? Another respected historian on the Middle East has said that some of the most important research on the this topic is being done outside the academy due to a very big shift in that academic field over the years[1].

I think you should take your own advice and "...read more about this topic in an impartial fashion...", because you clearly don't practice what you preach. For starters, think you are misreading Bernard Lewis' views. For example, in the work you cited, he describes "...elaborate rules governing the initiation, conduct, and the termination of hostilities..." and which "...show a clear concern for moral values and standards..." (p.72) In the section of the WP article about him, Bernard_Lewis#Views_on_Islam he offers some details. This quotes a passage from Islam: The Religion of the People, where he describes views that Spencer routinely promotes as "...a dangerously misleading formulation...". He continues to note how he attempts to present "...a picture of Islam as it was an is- not the demonized version shared by the terrorists and their opponents...(p. 176) I could go on, but let's just say that Lewis is hardly in absolute agreement with Spencer, principally when Jihad is an obligation, and what is the conduct of it. For example, Spencer actively promotes the notion that suicide bombing is condoned, and Lewis vehemently disagrees. (ibid, p. 153). Suffice it to say that I have a heck of a lot more respect for Lewis than Spencer.

Also, since you brought up Daniel C. Peterson, you might like to read up on his criticisms of Spencer. In fact, here is a case of someone holding a nuanced view, who is nevertheless included in the "positive views" section, even though his criticisms clearly outpace his praise. Also, who is this "most respected historian" you mention in passing? As far as Daniel Pipes is concerned, he's not a historian, but a political commentator. I have only slightly more respect for him than Spencer, for the fact that he has in fact distanced himself from the concept that Taqiyya is a some sort of pervasive Islamic practice, albeit in muted terms. Nevertheless, he's just as controversial as Spencer, and a member of the same echo-chamber. Pipes reactionary sentiments have been criticized by many, including figures like Christopher Hitchens, who are hardly given over to Islamic apologeticsJemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to read Sheila Musaji's article but as you know we can't use unscholarly self-published blogs on Wikipedia. - Davidelah (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscholarly? I see, as if JihadWatch is any better? Funny, but TAM was a print magazine, with an editorial board before moving online, so I do wonder what qualifies? Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent you from reading it; all you have to do is just click on the link. Also, Crane's article was published in a journal, but I haven't had time to check the specific reference. It will be added back once it is verified. BTW, it's pretty amusing to see you denigrate something you haven't read as "unscholarly", while resorting to overt Confirmation bias to justify your support of Spencer.Jemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also according to Ibn Kathir there is a sahih hadith that Ibn Abi Hatim recorded Usamah bin Zayd saying: The Messenger of Allah used to forgive them [disbelievers and the People of the Book] and was patient with them as Allah ordered him, until Allah allowed fighting them. Then Allah destroyed those who He decreed to be killed... - Davidelah (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? Have you scrutinized the tafsir for yourself? What is the context and the specific circumstances referred to? Is Ibn Kathir the only tafsir to be read on the matter? If you haven't done so, I recommend spending some time doing so, for it appears that Spencer glosses over anything that might contradict his desired narrative. For example the on Sura 9:5. Why does this specific commentary not conform to the views you've outlined above?Jemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An answer to some of the questions and assertions: I wouldn't make any speculations on what Bernard Lewis thinks of Spencer's work, but he criticised those who hold the position that "...the enemy is simply Islam..." and nowhere in his books does Spencer make that claim, for example when Adam Gadahn invited him to Islam Spencer invited him to accept the US Constitution. Spencer does not say that Islam condones suicide bombings either but he only explains how jihadis use verses in the Quran to justify it, usually 9:111. I think you should perhaps read more into his position before making broad-based claims. And fyi about the rules for conducting jihad you should read Majid Khadduri who explains that there was no concept as 'civilian' and that there is a very pragmatic approach to the killing of women and children, the destruction of enemy territory and the treatment of POW in his book War and peace in the law of Islam (p. 101-131), but I suppose those things was an improvement for example in comparison to Arab tribal warfare.

By "most respected historian" I meant Bernard Lewis who also says that the crusades was a reaction to the Islamic Jihad, and here again you should read more about those persons you criticize because Daniel Pipes is a historian as well a political commentator, and Christopher Hitchens (not a historian) is not known for holding back criticism to say the least and he has to my knowledge not repeated his accusations against Pipes. Many scholars also respect Pipes including Daniel Peterson. Using JW on this article is allowed in BLP because it is his own site, and I would hold that JW as well as TAM are both self-published sources. And if you don't believe me about the tafsir you can read it here, and Ibn Kathir's commentary on 9:5 is "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," does that contradict what I outlined above?

About the original point, would it be sufficient to have some notable people say that Robert Spencer is a leading authority on radical Islam to make him a reliable source on radical Islam? - Davidelah (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

I scoured the source of the introductions' comically biased last sentence for a description of Spencer as 'influential in promoting anti-Islamic sentiments in the United States', and the closest thing I could find was: 'While the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment hasn't shifted much since a spate of homegrown terror attacks and the furor over the mosque, Muslim American leaders worry that it could. They accuse the bloggers of fueling religious hatred.' 'Muslim American leaders', whatever they are, are not The Washington Post, and it's pretty clear therefore that the purpose of that sentence is to promote anti-Spencer sentiments in the minds of the gullible - so I've removed it. You may not like what Spencer says/writes, but it's unfair to portray him as a hatemonger; I've read his stuff and he seems respectable enough. Logos384 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While your criticism of the wording in question may be appropriate, what seems "comically biased" to me is your characterization of Spencer as "respectable enough", simply because you have "read his stuff". You might like to look at the immediately previous discussion entry with the reference to the consensus on why he is not to be considered a reliable source.Jemiljan (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association?

In connection to the 2011 Norway attacks, there isn't anything to suggest that Spencer's raising of concern about Islamic doctrines and advocating they be subordinate to human rights would lead to violence any more than other democratic political advocacy. Al-Qaeda has approvingly spoken of Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk for example and this is not mentioned in those articles. Davidelah (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations made towards Robert Spencer come from notable people (journalist Max Blumenthal and former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman) and cited by what WP regards as a reliable reference, the New York Times. I added Spencer's response as well that he thinks he was unfairly blamed. I see no violation or OR here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your description of Spencer's blog as one that criticizes only Islamic doctrines, not Muslims (whether groups or individuals) is not only grossly inaccurate but also irrelevant. The fact is, notable people have made accusations towards Spencer and Spencer responded. This interaction needs to be documented in the article regardless of whether the accusation had basis or not, or whether Spencer's response was honest or not and regardless of your views of his blog as one that allegedly defends "human rights". I'm reinstating the removed material for now. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The main article of the Norwegian murderer states the following under Anders Behring Breivik#Writings (and it doesn't look like there has been objections to it):

Major parts of the manifesto are attributed to the anonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The introductory chapter of the manifesto is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. The New York Times described American influences in Brevik's writings, noting that he mentions the anti-Islamist American Robert Spencer 64 times in his manifesto and cites Spencer's works at great length. The work of Bat Ye'or is cited dozens of times in his manifesto.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also notable people who have deconstructed those accusation in a very simple way as I have above. This is not a violation of OR but of BLP, which says that these kinds of accusations should editors be particularly aware of, as I think I have been here. The quote from the Anders Behring Breivik article does not make the conclusion that Spencer made him violent.

This article is already very much below BLP standard and have been even more in the past, so please respect the guidelines even though you may be critical of this person, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems rather premature to me. I'm not fan of Robert Spencer, and IMO people like him should take responsibility for what they write but this event is still hot and there wont be any meaningful and thorough analysis of these types of issues for some time. I say delete the section.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sageman's comment was not really an accusation of links with the terrorist, rather it is pointing out what he sees as the hypocrisy of Spencer and similar minded bloggers that love to correlate things together with it comes to Islam and Muslims (like his allegations against Feisal Abdul Rauf). An accusation of hypocrisy needs to be listed under the criticism section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote that the Norway attacks section be moved to the "Controversies" section, with the present wording, which makes no conclusion as to whether Spencer "influenced" Breivik, but simply reports that he was quoted.Jemiljan (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote and we have determined that this is guilt by association and should not be added. Truthsort (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's "we"? You might like to review WP:CON? Do you see consensus here? I don't. Whether it constitutes "Guilt by association" or not, the fact is, Beivik quoted Spencer frequently. All I'm advocating is that this fact be reported, which reflects the current wording, nothing more.Jemiljan (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is already covered at Anders_Behring_Breivik#Personal_manifesto. Do not go and start adding this here as it is guilt by association and violates WP:BLP. Truthsort (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, I didn't add anything, I merely expressed an opinion. Secondly, there is no consensus on this, and the reporting of a fact alone does not in and of itself constitute an Asssociation fallacy. Were the wording to state more than it does, I think it would stray into that territory. I have posted a notice on the [Noticeboard], and note that consensus there hasn't been reached either. This is based on both the recent noticeboard entries on Robert Spencer, as well as [[2]]. Jayjg mentions that he left the passage in this article, as Spencer has publicly responded and commented on it himself in detail and on several venues. Opbeith notes that the "..."dissociative" hypothesis (the claim that mention represents "guilt by association") surely needs to be substantiated too, in a way that explains convincingly why Breivik's views should be assumed not to have been influenced by his immersion in this subculture." Jemiljan (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are simply arguing this based on reliable sourcing. Yes, there are reliable sources and yes he was cited 64 times in his manifesto. However, Breivik was the one who cited these subjects in his manifesto. Thus, this is only notable about the man who wrote it, that being Breivik. Responding to these allegations does not make the case for inclusion any stronger. As I pointed out, this is already covered in his article. Truthsort (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, I am not arguing this based on reliable sourcing alone, which I clearly explain above. Again, please note that Jayjg specially opposed mention of the incident in most articles, but left the one on this specific article for the reason she gave: that Spencer has been very public in addressing the incident in multiple forums. On the [[3]] noticeboard that I referred you to above, Cerejota has since replied that these inclusions should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and not treated as unilaterally in violation of WP:BLP. Spencers responses very much does make the case for inclusion stronger, for it is clearly more at hand than simply an Association fallacy. As such, I do think that the wording should be expanded to include mention of Spencer's replies (which I note on the WP:BLP notice). For this reason, I have now reverted your removal of the section for the second time, but would like to discuss pertinent wording to add regarding Spencer's responses. Please address these specific points directly rather than reiterate your previous statement, and refrain from unilaterally reverting the section in question.Jemiljan (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding, here and elsewhere, which is reflected in the unwillingness to abandon the argument that reporting of analyses in reliable sources is equivalent to imputing guilt by association. The reliable sources are not sources for Breivik's inclusion of Spencer as among his significant influences (which it seems a little perverse to disregard, but let's leave that aside). The reliable sources - articles published variously by New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, Dagbladet and other Norwegian sources - refer to the general influence on Breivik of what is described as a "subculture", "scene", etc. of right-wing/far right-wing commentators promoting an anti-Islamic ideology/agenda.

This group includes in particular Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs and "Baron Bodissey"'s and "Dymphna"'s Gates of Vienna (host for "Fjordman"), along with Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs, David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine, Srdja/Serge Trifkovic's Chronicles, Gisele Littman's "The Brussels Journal" and a number of others, all cited in Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence".

The ideology is described as "anti-jihad" or "counter(-)jihad", positioning the arguments as a counter-balance to "jihad", which the coalition subscribing to the Counterjihad Manifesto interpret specifically as "holy war". "Baron Bodissey" of Gates of Vienna, author of the Manifesto, argues that the target of what they depict as their defence of the Christian West has to be Islam and all Muslims because of the difficulty of identifying a small core of threatening extremists who susbscribe to the more violent aspects of "jihad".

The group refer to themselves as a coalition, others describe them as a network. Their publications frequently reference one another's views (for example in Fjordman's "tour d'horizon" syntheses, quoted verbatim in "2083"). They call on one another for support, as when Srja Trifkovic was challenging the Canada government over its decision to refuse him admission earlier this year or currently when individual members such as Fjordman and Spencer have found themselves accused of being an influence on Breivik. They also have very intense internal disputes on issues of basic principle, as in the dispute provoked by the English Defence League's split over Jewish involvement (and even Charles Johnson's initial accusation that Fjordman was Breivik).

Whatever the group's specific differences of detail the reliable sources see this ideological grouping as having a significant influence, directly or indirectly, on the ideas of Anders Behring Breivik. They note the extensive quoting in "2083" that has led to the discussion here and at other locations in Wikipedia. Frank Patalong at Spiegel Online notes that Breivik's "copy and paste" inclusion of material by Fjordman in "2083" runs to hundreds of pages in the 1500 page compendium.

The repeated attempts to portray inclusion of these mentions of influence as imputing guilt by association simply disregard the evidence that has been provided that the group is seen as a significant influence on Breivik's anti-Islamic thinking. The assertions by various members of the group that they reject and deplore Breivik's actions have been given due weight - there is no question of them being held to be knowingly responsible for Breivik's murderous actions. The partisans arguing to exclude mention on grounds of "guilt by association" have not provided equivalent reliable sources to challenge the claim of respected analysts that the writings of Spencer and his "counterjihadi" colleagues are liable to have influenced Breivik's thinking. In the absence of adequate refutation, it's not unreasonable to suspect that a point of view is being defended that has the effect, intentional or otherwise, of suppressing Wikipedia content that could be interpreted as disfavourable to the subject. Opbeith (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This article already has two sections that are kind of attack pages and on my opinion quite obviously so, they should probably just be deleted. In regard to the 2011 Norway attacks there is no link to Spencer or endorsements in his work to violence so the controversy should be covered by that perspective. And yes it is precisely (or could imply) guilt by association to mention that Breivik shared a perspective or something with someone unless those individuals advocate or carry out violence on a shared basis, and I would think that they not only does not advocate but condemn violence. This is maybe equivalent to Ted Kaczynski's critical views on technology and industrialization with influence and references from people in his manifesto. But of course the controversy in the media is big enough to be written about. Davidelah (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg said that including this is a BLP violation and that several others had agreed on this, making it consensus. We do not need reliable sourcing to prove that adding this is nothing but an attempt of guilt by association from other users. Yes, we understand that Breivik included Spencer, among others, in his manifesto, but it does not mean we should mention this in every BLP that was cited. This is Breivik's manifesto and should only be mentioned at Anders_Behring_Breivik#Personal_manifesto. Truthsort (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to resort to censorship for what is simply statement of fact, and as others have noted, the biggest thing to happen in Robert Spencer's career. We're not laying blame on Spencer, we're stating facts about his being cited. You're silencing that and you're silencing Spencer's statement that was made for public consumption and moreover, pretending it's what Wikipedia users want. Ericbloodaxeviking (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

the claim of respected analysts that the writings of Spencer and his "counterjihadi" colleagues are liable to have influenced Breivik's thinking. There is the problem, gobshites on TV and in print have at this point in time, no way of knowing one way or another. They do not know whether he was formulating his views from those sources, or justifying his insane world views in relation to those sources. Certainly all those sat in TV studios in the US will have had no contact with the police investigation, or the psychologists or psychiatrist that are examining him. All they are doing is surmising up and getting paid. John lilburne (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik_.283.29

First in response to Opbeith, I would not include Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs in what you describe as a "network". Johnson publicly broke with the others a number of years ago, and he currently steadily criticizes Spencer, Geller, et al, as promoting disinformation, promoting bigotry, failing to mitigate or address extreme comments on their blogs, and for their associations with far-right groups in Europe. For this, Spencer and Geller have view Johnson intense animosity.

In reply to Davidelah: your characterization that two sections of this page constitute attack pages is incorrect. WP:BLP clearly allows for [and praise.] The wording of these sections was carefully revised by Jonathan Wallace in view of consensus, after the page was the subject of edit warring and vandalism. May I suggest that you review this in the most recent talk archives?

In reply to Truthsort, yes, Jayjg has stated she thinks this is a BLP violation, but she also seems, like you, reluctant to address my specific point, which is that Spencer has in fact responded in reliable, third-party sources. I was incorrect in my earlier post concerning the [under way at the WP:BLP noticeboard.] It was Off2riorob who states that he left this specific article alone. While he states he wants to remove it for potential coatracking, I would argue that if carefully worded, that it would not be the case. Once again I'll reiterate that I am advocating not simply mentioning Breivik's quotation, but also including Spencer's response as well. You have yet to demonstrate that this format I am suggesting, which would be a concise and carefully worded addition, constitutes a BLP violation.

In reply to Ericbloodaxeviking, I am finding your unilateral edits, and those of other users problematic. The addition of this incident to the page should be the result of consensus. I agree that a mention of the fact combined with Spencer's response is in order. That said, it must be brief, rely on reliable, third party sources, and as i stated earlier, I would advocate that it be included in the "controversies" section. It doesn't warrant a separate section.

Finally, in reply to John lilburne, I would like to reiterate that the point is not to include solely a mention of Breivik's quotations, but also Spencer's response. I do think that you make some valid points regarding some of the commentary, but I also don't see why a very succinct mention of the incident, together with Breivik's response constitutes a violation of WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That someone comments on a news frenzy is neither here nor there. Article sections the nature of which is essentially X accuses Y of Z, and Y says X is talking balls, is IMO bordering on tendentious, at the very least it is adding to a false controversy. John lilburne (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, should Spencer explicitly and unambiguously respond to Breivik's manifesto, there is a small possibility this could be added. If not, then it cannot go here at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To John lilburne, I respectfully disagree; you have not shown how the precise, limited wording I have advocated can be constituted as "tenditious", "false", much less demonstrate that it is an Association fallacy that specifically violates of any WP:BLP policies. Note that I am not advocating that each and every article about someone Breivik quoted must mention him, but this specific case is different, for fact that this wasn't a case of passing mention, but extensive quoting, to which the person quoted didn't merely provide a short rebuttal, but several published articles and interviews in reliable sources.

In reply to Qwyrxian, what you mention to is precisely what I am referring to! Spencer has in fact "explicitly and unambiguously" responded to the incident, and has now done so more than once. He has not only responded via his blog, but he has given four separate interviews: On the BBC (starting at the 8-minute mark), On Michael Coren's show, and with Alan Colmes, and on the Frank Wuco show on Fox News. As an aside, I might add add this article published in the NY Times today that examines- and essentially defends- Spencer & Co. from the Association fallacy being promoted, though I would concede that it may be more appropriate to include it in the article about Breivik himself. Finally, I am no rush to amend and add this section in, as there has been considerable debate about it. That said, I do think that it does constitute an incident that is appropriate to add to the 'controversies' section, but only with the careful, concise wording, and inclusion of Spencer's replies, which I have advocated all along Jemiljan (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. In that case, adding may be acceptable; it depends on what can be distilled from those sources. I recommend no more than 2 sentences: one which states the inclusion of Spencer in Breivik's manifesto, and a second which summarizes his response. I can't watch the videos right now at work, so I'll have to trust others to come up with that summary. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Qwyrxian, and I agree that precise and concise wordingis paramount and also your recommendation that it currently consist of just two sentences. Of course, depending on how this plays out, that may change in time. I would like to ask that you add your observation in response to my comment highlighting this specific point on the under way at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Despite my several attempts to have this specific issue addressed, this aspect of the discussion has not been thoroughly discussed on that noticeboard, and the resulting "consensus" does not reflect it at all.

Otherwise for now, I would like to concentrate on developing a suggested wording that everyone can agree on. I would like the first sentence to be comprised of the short statement that was reverted several times: "In a manifesto which denounced multiculturalism and declared Islam to be a threat to the West, Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the July 22, 2011, massacre of 77 people in Norway, quoted Spencer 64 times.". The second sentence should simply be comprised of a reference summarizing Spencer's reaction, or to a select statement of Spencer's, supported by the references I have provided above.Jemiljan (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit to not yet having read Spencer's responses, but the impression I get is that he was not so much commenting on Breivik as on the articles linking Breivik to him. If this is the case, I think the initial sentence would benefit by prefixing something like "[Several (or non-weasel word of choice)] [commentators/media sources/analysts] have pointed out that...". This would explain why it's being included in the controversies section and why Spencer was responding.

Or – as I re-read the above, it occurred to me that it might be better to leave the first sentence as is, and open the second sentence with "In response to media reports of Breivik's manifesto, Spencer responded...". But either way, I think the coverage should be mentioned. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Spencer did address both Breivik and the media coverage. Perhaps the first sentence could introduce the incident and the ensuing media coverage, followed by one comprised of a summarized reaction by Spencer, and then one quote about Brievik?Jemiljan (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll simply reiterate once again that consensus is completely against including. There are a countless number of users who have pointed out that this a BLP violation. Not surprising, when some in the media want to throw out accusations, the person receiving them is going to respond. It is comical to think this makes it more notable to that person. You are using the responses in an attempt to make it appear neutral, but the mere inclusion of how he was cited in his manifesto violates BLP. It does not matter if it is one sentence or one paragraph. Truthsort (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I'll reiterate that my point hasn't been adequately addressed in the relevant WP:BLP thread. Also note Qwyrxian above is one of the people you are counting as supporting this so-called consensus. Yes, I would agree that it is a BLP violation when the article simply inserts mention of Breivik having quoted them. It is not at all so in cases such as this one where the person has published about it and given four separate public interviews that both address the quotations in question, as well as the media frenzy. You bear the burden of proof that when the suggested wording, which is brief and neutral is still somehow is in violation of the WP:BLP policies. Simply stating that "consensus says so", when the consensus in question fails to address my point about the extent of the person's public responses to the matter is circular reasoning at best.Jemiljan (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your point above on why the media frenzy and doing some interviews do not make this an exception to what several users have already agreed on. I cannot help it if you refuse to hear consensus. You have brought absolutely nothing new to the discussion and at this point it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion with you. Truthsort (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Truthsort, I see your point but would it not be logical to cover the controversy of the media since this has been addressed by Spencer in many major news channels, radio shows and on his blog and is probably this biggest controversy of his carrier. Note I'm talking about the media controversy and not about the 2011 Norway attacks, which is as you point out is guilt by association, so if the story had a head line it would read "Media controversy in relation to the 2011 Norway attacks." - Davidelah (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The media frenzy is today. In a year who is going to recall or care? Yet here will be a permanent record attached to the BLP of a media feeding frenzy. The problem being that BLPs become not about the subject but a list of media stories that are incidental to the subject of the BLP. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if Spencer himself will ever forget this episode. As far as a "BLP record of the feeding frenzy" is concerned, it's one that the subject of the BLP has clearly engaged in himself, at length, and on several occasions. As to whether the BLP is likely to become a "list of media stories", do I hear a Slippery slope? David, I do like your headline idea, though I didn't think it warranted a separate section, but was simply thinking of adding it to the controversy list.Jemiljan (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly biased account - should be rewritten

This article clearly criticises the man and his views at every step and attempts to show evidence as to why this criticism should be upheld. That is not the point of a Wikipedia article and thus the whole article should be rewritten by someone who knows how to write without bias (even if he is personally biased). Shushanto (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply above to Davidelah. WP:BLP clearly allows for criticism and praise, and the current structure reflects that, and hardly constitutes criticism "...at every step." The criticism section of the article was carefully restructured after extensive edit warring and vandalism. Please refer to the talk archives concerning the last edits to the criticism section. Jonathan Wallace expended considerable effort revamping the section, in view said consensus. The recent edits concerning Breivik have disrupted this a little, but you should at least apprise yourself of the most recent round of careful edits before the incident before making sweeping generalizations. Jemiljan (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That BLP allows for criticism does not mean that the article is not biased, this would be a violation of BLP because is gives UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. I would suggest we include more debates or criticism with some arguments juxtaposed with other arguments, since Spencer's work consist of much debate and public engagement. In any case his critics are overrepresented here and they don't serve much purpose other than to show they think Spencer is a bigot and they don't really address his position on Islam in my opinion, or with a false premise that Spencer has denied which is not included. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Davidelah, I must apologize, for it does appear that someone has reduced some of the "supporters" who were in the article before after the last round of edits. I'm sorry, that I hadn't picked up on it, but you are right. I also think that choices of which compliments and criticisms to include deserves to be reevaluated.

Before, there was a long list replete with quotes in both sections, which was edited down by Jonathan Wallace. I believe that when he finished, it still included figures like Daniel Pipes, Stephen Emerson, and James Woolsey. That specific round of edits was triggered by a series of edits by someone, now banned, who engaged in edit warring and kept inserting Spencer's responses to each critic, referring to self- published materials on JihadWatch That was also unwarranted, as it relied heavily on self published materials and also lent undue weight in the other direction

In any case, I would still advise that you review the previous discussions on this matter, as consensus was built about the nature of these sections. At the same time, I would also add these sections lack nuance. Support and/or criticism of Spencer is hardly black and white, and the rather Manichean hyperbole to that effect overlooks a great deal. For example, the mentioned debate between Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, or this debate between Spencer and Professor Peter Kreeft, might be construed as "supportive" of Spencer, because they concede several points, even though if you scrutinize the debate, it's very apparent that these individuals, although more ideologically aligned (especially in Kreeft's case) have very different views. Similarly, criticism by writers such as Cathy Young at Reason Magazine (which was also removed), or Dinesh D'Souza is also more nuanced than the article currently indicates.

As an example, Young in one more recent article notes that "Islamic extremism is indeed a serious global problem today, to a degree unmatched by the radical fringes of other major religions..." but also continues to state that because of polemics by people like Spencer, "...Islamophobia has crossed the line from fringe rhetorical hysteria to active discrimination against U.S. citizens of the Islamic faith." In her most recent article discussing he hoopla over Breivik, she notes that "The "uncomfortable truth" is that the anti-Islam polemicists have some legitimate points...", but then adds that "Whether the vitriolic rhetoric of Spencer, Geller, and their ilk helped create a monster is up for debate. What's clear is that it demonizes an entire group on the basis of religion—and discredits serious critiques of radical Islam. To oppose this bigotry is not "political correctness" but common sense."

Then there are the Islamic scholars, some of whom are Muslim, and others who are not. Some are more critical of Islam, and others are less so. For example, I referred you to specific positions of Bernard Lewis above, which also conflicts with Spencer in several respects (esp. regarding the "legitimacy" of suicide bombing, female genital mutilation, and honor killings). Nevertheless, any revisions should also take into account prior consensus. Your desire to see Spencer considered a WP:RS is another matter entirely, and so any changes should be scrupulous. I will reply to that issue later.Jemiljan (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some good suggestions, although Jihadwatch can be used as a source according to BLP under "Using the subject as a self-published source" I would say. I would also dispute that Spencer holds those views (about suicide bombing, female genital mutilation, and honor killings) but that's for the other discussion. - Davidelah (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)