Jump to content

Talk:Robert B. Spencer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NiceAdam (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 1 September 2015 (NiceAdam moved page Talk:Robert Spencer (author) to Talk:Robert Spencer (blogger): His work is not peer reviewed; his books are nothing more than publishing his opinions. Getting published these days does not make one an author nor an authority.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Debate with Peterson

Under "Spencer's views on Islam" the article currently states the following:

In a public debate between Spencer and Daniel C. Peterson, a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic, Peterson was critical about what he described as a selective criticism of Islam, but conceded to Spencer that "yes there is a broad consensus and has been for a long time about certain elements of jihadi teaching," about Spencer's assertion that the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do agree on the necessity to wage war against unbelievers, and that "we are really not disagreeing that much ... terrorism, Islamic terrorism, really does have roots in actual parts of the tradition of Islam."

This material is an excellent illustration of the problems with relying on primary sources. It's sourced to several videos on JihadWatch's YouTube channel and appears to have been cherry-picked to portray Peterson as broadly agreeing with Spencer despite his initial criticisms. The videos themselves seem to contradict this; following each quote, there's a lengthy rebuttal of Spencer's points (and specifically his contention that Islam is itself problematic, rather than particular Muslims). I'm not sure what value this adds to the article in the first place, but its use in this manner is problematic. Dyrnych (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is blatant misuse of a primary source as well as non-notable original research. If the arguments by Spencer and Peterson were notable then there would be reliable secondary sources reporting on them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

I've attempted to reorganize the article per my comments above. I eliminated the "Criticism" and "Praise" sections, moving relevant things to "Controversies" and "Views on Islam." I'm not sure that many of the opinions will survive an analysis of their value, but for the most part I avoided actually doing that analysis. That said, I eliminated the personal opinions from the "Praise" section, which have no encyclopedic value per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Dyrnych (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUESTIONABLE is about the reliability of the sources, not about the encyclopedic value of the content. If the sourcing is good you'll have to find a better explanation for removal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. The sourcing seems fine, but I stand by my statement that the personal opinions expressed have no encyclopedic value. They tell us nothing about the subject beyond that some people think he's awesome. Similarly, opinions that just call Spencer a bad guy and should not be included in the article. Having looked a bit further at them, I'm adding a couple of the "Praise" quotes back. Dyrnych (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Career Section

This section could use some details. His own website has relevant info about his career, from education to professional experience and organizations he has served and founded. Adding this info would help complete this article NiceAdam (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_B._Spencer&oldid=678871772"