Talk:Daniel Pipes

Scare quotes in the lead

The formatting of scare quotes around "controversial organization...poor scholarship...harassing...conservative...Orientalist," etc., is unnecessary. An encyclopedia doesn't need to distance itself from these words, just to mention that they're the words of others. From a Wikipedia article about style guides' reactions to scare quotes:

Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion.

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition[13][14] acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58: "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#When_not_to_use_emphasis.184.77.15.82 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Inspiring right/wing militancy

Maybe it should mentioned that Pipes's WP:BLP-violating material removed views have been influencing Norwegian militant Anders Behring Breivik who is main suspect in Utoya massacre. He has quoted Pipes number of times in his "manifesto". --Magabund (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the WP:BLP violation from your comment; please don't do this kind of thing again. What have reliable sources said on the matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"yellow badging" [1][2]

Jayjg, to suggest that the Forward's statement doesn't belong in the lede, that's not unreasonable, but to equate other editors with Nazis in your edit summaries is more than a little grotesque. I don't know how you can think that sort of rhetoric is acceptable. Substandard Wikipedia editing, that was not the fate of the Jews in Europe under the Nazis. Let's do please be more respectful about how we 'use' the Holocaust.

That said, I can't imagine why we would conceal Pipes' Polish-Jewish family origins, his celebrated status as "influential Jew", or his particular interest in Israel, unless we are looking to accommodate Zionist/Jewish nationalist ideology (core themes of Pipes' work, and the work on Pipes) in light of the recent horrors in Norway. If multiple reliable sources highlight this information, and if Pipes himself highlights it, it is as pertinent as it needs to be.

When it comes to undue emphasis of a cited point by its inclusion in a lede, the optimal fix is to relocate that point appropriately in the bio. The blanking of such text is, first of all, rude to the editor who has cited and represented something honestly, and secondly it represents a net loss for the bio, as a cited fact is made to vanish. For example, the Washington Post's extraordinary contempt for Pipes' nomination is important to the bio; it may not be suitable for the intro, but the bio experiences a net loss when you conceal that altogether from the reader, to whom it is of obvious significance. DBaba (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi DBaba.

1. You're going to have to purge all words like "conceal" from your vocabulary when communicating with me, because they are unwarranted, uncivil, and assume bad faith. To quote you, "I don't know how you can think that sort of rhetoric is acceptable". Please be more respectful of your fellow editors; we will make no progress until this happens.
2. The yellow badge was not invented by the Nazis, and I have not equated any editors with Nazis. What is actually "a little more than grotesque" is editing Wikipedia for the purpose of trying to single out individuals as Jews. The IP in question has been trying to add the word "Jew" to this article in as many ways as possible, from describing Pipes' parents at "Polish Jews", to describing Pipes himself as an "influential Jew", sourced to what it describes as "a Jewish publication". WP:MOSBIO is quite clear that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability", and not-so-subtle attempts to do an end-runs around that are not in the spirit of the guideline. In the future, please make more accurate talk page statements, be more respectful of your fellow editors, and direct your wrath where it is actually appropriate.
3. The editor in question did not "cite" anything at all, but merely inserted unsourced claims into a WP:BLP, something that you should know better than to defend. Moreover, it is not "rude" to revert dubious inserted material; please review WP:BRD. Again, please make more accurate talk page statements, be more respectful of your fellow editors, and direct your wrath where it is actually appropriate.
4. Pipes writes about the Middle East, not specifically Israel, and is founder and director of the Middle East Forum, not the "Israel Forum". Israel is in the Middle East, and "unless we are looking to accommodate an anti-Zionist ideology", there doesn't appear to be any reason to single out that specific country.
5. I don't have access to the source in question, as it is behind a paywall, but I have no idea what the meaning or significance is of a fairly small circulation paper like The Forward allegedly designating Pipes (in some undetermined year) as one of 50 "most influential Jews". There's no indication, however, that this is a "celebrated status" - do you have any source for that claim?
6. You assert (or speculate) that "multiple reliable sources highlight" and "Pipes himself highlights" Pipes' ethnic origins. Do you have any source for that claim?
7. Regarding the Washington Post editorial sound-bite, it's not clear to me that the source at the end of the sentence actually includes the claim, and in any event the Post apparently described the appointment as "sort of a cruel joke", which is different than simply "a cruel joke". Context is everything, and the lede already contains a great deal of information about opposition to that appointment. It's not clear to me why you and others appear to place such weight on a one-off sound-bite quote from the Post (as opposed to, say, editorials by dozens of other newspapers), and I don't want to speculate regarding your motivations, but it's quite obvious that it at the very least doesn't belong in the lede. If you can find the actual source for this, feel free to make a pitch as to why this specific editorial from this specific newspaper belongs in the body of the text.
8. Regarding "the recent horrors in Norway", this kind of guilt by association is generally both distasteful and in violation of WP:BLP. And I'm certainly not going to ignore the elephant in the room - that a number of editors edit this bio solely for the purpose of smearing Pipes (or smearing Jews). That said, if sufficient numbers of reliable sources comment on there being a significant connection between the alleged mass-murderer and Pipes, then we could include it in the bio, subject (again) to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. But we're certainly not going to include it before then.

In general, not every citeable statement belongs in an article, and "the bio experiences a net loss" when one inserts too much material, particularly material chosen to introduce bias, promote a political agenda, or, in general, attempt to side-step WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what I've had to say will make more sense to you, if I get the chance to further edit the bio. The scholarship on Pipes is broad and vast. It may seem, for instance, that the comment you recently blanked describing Pipes as "Islamophobic" on the talk page was the opinion of an outlying Wikipedian, but really this is a core issue of Pipes' career: his being condemned as such, his responses to that, etc. His essays on Jewish nationalism and critiques of him as a nationalist, his father's fleeing Nazis in Poland (as, specifically, a Jew), these are all vital elements here. Thanks for not suggesting that I'm like a mass-murderer; I guess I don't know how to express to you how disconcerting it is to me to see you seeming to equate Nazi persecution to a trivial Wikipedia edit. So I suspect we've caused each other equal grief and frustration, at this stage. If I find the time I'll make a bunch of small edits with rationales, so that we can continue this constructively. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your more conciliatory tone, I'm sure simple misunderstandings were at the heart of both of our frustrations. By the way, as a simple example, regarding Pipes and "Israel" vs. "Middle East", if you look at his bio at the Hoover Institution, it currently lists five things he's written in June and July under "Recent Commentary", one is about Iran, one is about Democrats vs. Republicans, one is about Middle East Studies, one is about Israel, and one is about Libya. It seems to me that, based on this admittedly small sample size, "Middle East" is a far more accurate description of his interests. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Daniel Pipes seems to have been a big inspiration to Breivik, as his manifesto is full of Pipes quotes. It should be mentioned in this article.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of doing that? Breivik is only notable because of his murders. Beware of guilt by association in BLP, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's done all the time on Wikipedia. e.g. Sayyid Qutb is always cited as an "inspiration" to Al-Qaeda-type terrorists, this is pretty much the same thing.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sayyid Qutb openly called for subversion and revolution against the established orders in the Muslim world that he called Jahiliya societies, and Zawahiri has said he was the one that sparked the "Islamic revolution," which helped furthering the Muslim Brotherhood that has given birth to many terrorist organisations for example Al-Qaeda and Hamas. Is there any equivalence at all? Just to make my point clear on how Qutb is calling for violence and a totalitarian system here is a quote from Qutb:

Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely ordained system life, it has an Allah-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority, so that in may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individuals conscience. When Allah restrained Muslims from Jihaad for a certain period, it was a question of strategy rather than of principle; this was a matter pertaining to the requirements of the movement and not to the belief. Only in the light of this explanation can we understand those verses of the Holy Qur’an [e.i. also the violent offensive passages] which are concerned with the various stages of this movement.(Emphasis added)

And

What kind of man is he who, after listening to the commandment of Allah and the traditions of the Prophet – peace be on him – and after reading about the events which occurred during the Islamic Jihaad, still thinks that it is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders?

It is ridicules to suggest that Pipes has ever written anything similar or advocated any kind of violence to destroy any given society. Davidelah (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to the last sentence, Pipes advocated for the Iraq war, which used violence to destroy a society. So do not say Pipes has not advocated violence.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the same thing, it is not unusual for people to advocate preemtive warfare of one state against another. Davidelah (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)