Talk:Karen Armstrong

This article is hopelessly unbalanced

As long as serious criticism of Karen Armstrong and her positions do not appear on this article, the entry will remain hopelessly unbalanced. I also find the dismissal of criticisms by Robert Spencer ideologically motivated, and not based upon the actual substance of his remarks against Ms. Armstrong. This entry about Karen Armstrong cannot be taken seriously as a fair work of reporting until the criticism section is restored and allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teófilo de Jesús (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I support this comment. The main page reads uncomfortably like the result of over-zealous censoring. Karen Armstrong is hugely popular with the public and supporters of a particular view but her work is derided by many who are knowledgeable about history and religion. The article by Hugh Fitzgerald at http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong%3A_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/ illustrates problems similar to those which others identify, including major issues of historical fact and interpretation. If Fitzgerald is largely right, she cannot be accepted as a serious academic or a reliable guide to her subjects. Criticism sections are helpful. They facilitate healthy scepticism, tidy the flow of information and collect in one place the targets for defence. Armstrong is a controversial figure and the article does not reflect that.Martin852 (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-The article by Hugh Fitzgerald is ridiculous and completely biased and stupid. It is a massive rant by a hugely right-wing anti-muslim person (Jihad Watch? Oh please...) who has willfully mis-interpreted a Karen Armstrong article, and has torn it apart without references based largely on personal beliefs. Why on earth should that go anywhere near wikipedia? That reads more like a conservapedia article to me... If there is to be a criticisms section, it has to be unbiased and justified.Gorton k (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Though I do think there should be a criticisms section, just that it is a sensible one rather than an unhelpful and divisive rant.) Gorton k (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just visited this entry for the first time and I completely agree that this entry is a total joke. It takes all of about ten seconds on google to determine that Karen Armstrong is one of the most widely criticized authors writing on the subject of Islam. The above commenter goes out of his way to mention that a particular critic of Armstrong is "hugely right wing"(so what?) and that the criticism looks like it belongs on Conservopedia, as if the fact that a certain critic is conservative or right-wing is automatic grounds for rejecting a particular criticism. He then states that the criticism in question is "stupid" and "completely biased". We are also told the particular criticism "willfully misrepresent[s]" an Armstrong article. No evidence, at all, is given to support these claims. Fitzgerald's criticisms are without merit? Prove it. The majority of the "evidence" provided seems to be that the author is a conservative. To say that rejecting a particular criticism for such a reason is completely unacceptable would be an understatement of epic proportions. Also, the whole "anti-muslim" "justification" is equally without merit. I guess we should go back and excise any criticisms in the entry on the Democratic Party that come from Republicans. And the entry on Mother Theresa, for example? Clearly Christopher Hitchens's criticism should be completely removed, since he was very vocally "anti-Catholic." And any criticism of the Communist Manifesto that comes from anti-communists should obviously be removed this very instant. That a particular individual opposes a particular religion doesn't make his criticisms of Armstrong's "scholarship" any less valid. But this discussion isn't merely limited to Hugh Fitzgerald. Armstrong's critics are legion; that only one of them is mentioned is, in a word, pathetic. The entry contains a perfunctory one sentence criticism of Armstrong that was obviously tacked on in a failed attempted to appease those pointing out that this entry is hopelesly baised. Furthermore, the included criticism fails to address the charge that the vast majority of her critics have levelled against her: shoddy scholarship. And it never ceases to amaze me when individuals who write entries that are little more than hagiographies turn around and assert that a particular criticism is too biased, as if the entry they have written isn't hopelessly unbalanced. Until a more comprehensive criticism section is put back in place, this entry will remain the completely worthless farce that it is.74.138.40.147 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Moslem Brotherhood

I am writing about this paragraph:

Muslim Brotherhood

Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, Armstrong stated in 2005 that:

"[The Muslim Brotherhood] set up a wonderful welfare program before it was suppressed. … Factories where Muslims could work, had time for prayers, had vacation time, insurance, [learned] labor laws, [provided] clinics, they taught people how to treat sewage, drainage, and it was always the religion's response to try to help modernity to give to the ordinary people the benefits of modernity in an Islamic setting that made sense to them and made things more balanced."[10]

The reference citation given for this quote is erroneous and goes to another article that has nothing to do with Karen Armstrong or anything she said. I did find the quote on a cached page of the History New Network (it is no longer on their website), but it was not by Karen Amstrong, but rather from a commenter on a blog, reporting what Armstrong is alleged to have said, extempore, while commenting on a speach by another speaker. I am not saying she didn' t say this, but I don't believe this meets the wikipedia standard of a reliable source and in any case is no longer available. I am going to remove the false citation and put a notice of "citation needed." However, I would like to add that this appears to be a cherry picked quotation put in my someone who is hostile to Armstrong. It maybe that Armstrong, in making the case that Islam used to be a more tolerant religion than it now appears to be, tends to exaggerate the amount of tolerance present in early Islam. It is my impression that religious toleration is a relatively new thing, historically speaking, and that while it may have been relatively tolerant compared to Roman Catholicism or Judaism, Islam was never really tolerant in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Armstrong is no mindless booster of Islam or anything else, and it is easy to find other sources where she condemns intolerance, whether of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish fundamentalism. Her condemnation of intolerance is what needs to be stressed, not her having found positive qualities in the Moslem Brotherhood (now recognized by the way, by our State Department as a peaceful organization). I recommend that the whole paragraph be deleted. 24.105.128.45 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)173.77.108.172 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think that an article on a living person should be a forum for those who want to push a particular point of view. The criticism paragraph -- a dubious addition -- should say simply that a there is a vocal contingent of hardliners, among them Pipes, and David Horowitz and their associates, who object to any positive depiction of Islam and are vocal critics of Armstrong.173.77.108.172 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have trimmed a number of sources for the "Criticism" section because they appear not to be WP:BLP-compliant sources

• FrontPage Magazine - on online magazine with no evidence of editorial oversight (the About page is little more than an advertisement for David Horowitz).
• A press release from CAMERA, an advocacy group is not a reliable source for criticism in a BLP.
• An unpublished speech by an academic (published on the website of an archive)
• A self-published article from the website of a conservative think tank

None of these meet the standard for a biography of a living person, especially not for criticism. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section2

Criticism sections are, of course, a blight, a symptom of poor writing. Not that the "views" section isn't equally incoherent, but you need to start somewhere. Right now the section consists of two main statements:

• Efraim Karsh, has called Armstrong's treatment of the controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe in her Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time "a travesty of the truth" and the book's thesis as "thinly veiled hagiography.

and

• In his review of Armstrong's book Islam: A Short History, self-described neoconservative[14] Daniel Pipes characterized Armstrong as "a scandalously apologetic...former nun with an ax to grind" and alleges that her book is based on factual inaccuracies and what he considers moral relativism

So here's the thing: the article doesn't tell us what the "controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe", so the Karsh comment is worse than useless. Similarly, we have Pipes' criticism of her book, but no other information about her book.

Were the responses to these books overwhelmingly negative? If not, there's a serious WP:UNDUE problem here. And what does "former nun with an ax to grind" mean? This isn't an informative comment on Armstrong's book. Guettarda (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ma'am I hope you aren't being serious here. The criticisms that you deleted comply with WP:RS and you've provided zero evidence of how they violate that template. The article by Karsh clearly states what was so controversial about her portrayal of Banu Quaryza ("Ms. Armstrong goes out of her way to whitewash Muhammad's extermination of the Jewish presence in Medina, especially the beheading of the entire 600 to 800 male population of the Qurayzah tribe." from http://www.nysun.com/arts/perfect-surrender/40266/)...and as for Pipes' criticism of course you don't have other information about her book, it's HIS criticism of the book. Sure you can think that's WP:UNDUE but if that were the case, then every criticism section about any person/organization/thing on Wikipedia would warrant that tag as well. As a "wikipedia administrator" I'm surprised the issues you're point to are even being raised up it's not criticisms that I'm putting for Armstrong's page don't happen on other Wikipedia pages for other people.Sleetman (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A. I'm not a "ma'am". B. I did explain, in the previous section, how the violated policy. Please note that standard for biographies of living people is higher than the basic minimum for reliable sources. To reiterate

• FrontPage Magazine does not appear to have editorial oversight. It appears to be self-published. If you have evidence that there is editorial oversight, please provide some. It's especially important here given the source: as has been pointed out to you before Spencer should not be used as a primary source.
• CAMERA is an advocacy group, and the source you used appears to be self-published.
• There's no evidence that the talk from Powell was subject to peer review or other editorial review.
• The Madden article was published on the website of a think tank. Again, what evidence is there of editorial oversight or peer review? Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FrontPage magazine does have editorial oversight (The magazine has an editor and is somebody other than Horowitz: [[1]]. The magazine also had an editor in the past who was replaced by the current editor Jamie Glazov, Richard Poe [[2]]) and does not only feature articles by David Horowitz ([[3]]) I should also point out that I've yet to find one source that described the magazine as self-published.

CAMERA is a media watchdog group, not an advocacy group and the article written was submitted to review in CAMERA (I should also add that it was also reprinted in a major Jerusalem-based news source). There's nothing to suggest that the source was self-published media anyway (defined as: books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets) [[4]]

"CAMERA is a media watchdog group, not an advocacy group" - this is really quite absurd, it is blindlingly obvious that CAMERA is an advocacy group, anyone can see that by poking around their web page for a minute or too. Zero^talk 00:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically it isn't it only engages in one kind of activity...watchdog group advocacy while advocacy groups engage in much more than that. But even if this was true, i don't really see what the point is of bringing this issue up it's not like articles from advocacy groups aren't used anyway.Sleetman (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FrontPage magazine does have editorial oversight - that's a start, but it doesn't go so far as to establish a reputation for fact-checking and the like. Anyway, it's irrelevant - we can't use Spencer as a source.And no, CAMERA clearly is an advocacy group. Please see WP:CAMERA. Guettarda (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest that lectures can be subject to peer and editorial reviews, and even if it wasn't it wasn't it doesn't matter as what really matters is whether or not the professor giving out the lecture is acknowledged to be an expert source on the Crusades (He was a Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at Syracuse University [[5]], interviewed by the Crusader studies program at Queen Mary University [[6]], has had his work published in peer-reviewed academic journals [[7]] and has had his works preserved by a library [[8]]. All the works by and reception to Powell means that he is clearly an expert on Crusades study and is thereby a reliable source[[9]] in his criticism of Armstrong's views of the Crusades. I should also point out that editorial oversight and peer-review are not the only the criteria by which to judge the verifiability of sources.

The Hudson Institute has editorial oversight (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_type) and the author in question is widely regarded as an expert of the Crusades. Moreover, the peer-review criteria isn't the only criteria by which to judge the verifiability of a source just because a source isn't peer-reviewed it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as a citation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source)

Miss, again, you can't be serious if you're making such a big issue about the reliability of Armstrong's criticisms. I can easily point to other pages (Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged Blog section) where I could make the same points as you are, particularly the criticism of the blog by Media Matters which (like CAMERA) is a media watchdog group and (using your argument) uses self-published sources. I reiterate the last point I made, which is that I find it surprising and a bit hypocritical that you would make such a big issue about the reliability of Armstrong's critics when much of your arguments could be made about pretty much every criticisms of the biography Wikipedia-page of any living person/organization. Sleetman (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's absurd to suggest that lectures can be subject to peer and editorial reviews - which is why it's not a BLP-compliant source.
• has had his work published in peer-reviewed academic journals - standards are different for BLPs.
• The Hudson Institute has editorial oversight (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_type) - actually that page says it has editors, not that they review everything that gets published on their website. And editorial oversight is just the first step - it has to be coupled with a reputation for fact-checking. Given that it's a think tank, some sort of external evidence would be needed for that.
• Miss - continuing to get my gender wrong after I have corrected you? If you're trying to taunt me, you'll have to try harder.
• you can't be serious if you're making such a big issue about the reliability of Armstrong's criticisms...I find it surprising and a bit hypocritical that you would make such a big issue about the reliability of Armstrong's critics when much of your arguments could be made about pretty much every criticisms of the biography Wikipedia-page of any living person/organization -

• Calling your fellow editors hypocrites are a violation of our policy on personal attacks. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable
• If you are aware of other pages that violate WP:BLP you need to raise the issues on those pages and, if you cannot get the matter settled there, raise it at the BLP noticeboard. This page is for discussing this article. WP:BLP makes it clear that this is a foundation policy, which cannot be overturned by local consensus. Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, if the evidence of editorial control on the Hudson institute and FrontPage magazine doesn't prove that the source has fact-checking capabilities, then what index should be used as to whether or not a citation source has a reputation for fact-checking? Also, I should point out that according to the overview section of WP:RS, the fact-checking test applies to authors and does not mention that it applies to think-tanks or advocacy groups.

As for CAMERA, there's nothing in WP:CAMERA, [[10]] or from WP:BLP that states CAMERA can't be used.WP:CAMERA didn't even have anything to do with the reliability of using CAMERA as a source, it had to do with people who were lobbying for CAMERA on Wikipedia contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

I would like to finally point that all you're rebuttals consists of one point, which is that the citations given criticizing Armstrong as not BLP or RS compliant although you haven't given me any evidence that they are violating the 2 wikipedia guidelines. So....I challenge you to cite me the specific rules (followed by a URL link to the paragraph in which that rule is contained) on WP:RS and WP:BLP that the citations violate. Until then, all this quibbling about "Hudson institute having no fact-checking" (if the Hudson Institute has editors but isn't fact-checking articles that is getting published on their website, why do they even have editors in the first place????) is quite frankly a red-herring.Sleetman (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[T]here's nothing in WP:CAMERA...that states CAMERA can't be used - You said that CAMERA was not an advocacy group. WP:CAMERA shows quite clearly that it is. Moreover, their activism includes working behind the scenes to introduce bias into Wikipedia articles. That definitely makes them a highly dubious source.

I challenge you to cite me the specific rules ... that the citations violate - please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. (Emphasis added.)

If you want to use these sources, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they meet they meet our requirements. You are the one asserting that they do. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence. Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, regarding CAMERA there nothing in Wikipedia's policies that prevents citations to advocacy groups. Moreover, the fact that a few of its members engaged in advocacy doesn't make the organization as a "questionable source" particularly if one uses the criteria of what constitutes a questionable source: the advocacy doesn't prove that CAMERA doesn't have editorial oversight, that its publication expresses views that are "extremist" or that it relies on rumo(u)rs and personal opinions. The same can be said about virtually all the sources (FrontPageMagazine, Hudson institute and the library source for the Powell quotation) cited criticizing Armstrong. Regarding the fact-checking proviso that you assert as being an important criteria for what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia citations, I've also asked you the specific question of what metric one should use in order determine whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking....for which I have yet to receive a response. You also say that the onus is on me to demonstrate that the sources meet Wikipedia's requirements (I already have) since I'm asserting that they do....so let me reciprocate and tell you that the onus is also on you to demonstrate that the sources don't meet Wikipedia's requirements since you're asserting that they don't. Sleetman (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Points well taken. I am sorry that I tweaked the paragraph before looking at the discussion page. I hope that some balance has been restored to the article. The only possible value in retaining Pipes and Karsh's criticism is that it lays on the table the nature of the harsh criticisms and weird sexist and ad feminam attacks to which she has been subjected. Also I added more about her two major works -- I should say I added something about the content of her major works, so that the article didn't give the impression that all she cares about is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the chief obsession of her critics)! However, I am sure the article can still be much improved.173.77.108.172 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Guettarda: especially for biographies, criticism section indicates a poor integration with the rest of the article. The israeli right criticism belongs to section Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the neocon criticism belongs to section Muslims, Modernity, and the Media. The criticism from new atheists could deserve a new subsubsection expounding on her article Think Again, or some such. Criticism seems to indicate some imaginary criticism against her person, such as "too short legs" or "too long ears". The criticism is actually against some of her views. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor. You can't use 3O here because you already have more than two editors in the disagreement, but anyway.

I agree that

a) there should not be a separate criticism section. What criticism is kept should be integrated.

b) Spencer and Pipes should be removed. Saying "R. Spencer and D. Pipes dislike book on Islam that isn't composed entirely of slander" is like saying "The Pope is Catholic," so if their criticism appears only on their own website or in a magazine like FrontPage and hasn't been picked up by any real sources (ie. is not notable), there's no reason to include it. I think we'll be able to assume they don't like it.

c) Likewise CAMERA and Hudson Institute. There is no reason to include the self-published statements of these advocacy groups.

d) The Sun is not exactly the best newspaper source, but the writer is Karsh, so I'd keep it.

e) The Powell lecture focuses almost entirely on things that are not Armstrong or her book, so it's inappropriate to pull a quote from it as though he devoted a substantial amount of time to criticizing her. Remove.

f) As I said, we should integrate the remaining criticism into the article, and probably also find some opposing views that approve of her work.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

a) I can live with this suggestion, no objections here.

b) The fact that somebody will already have a particular view on a particular issue (i.e. ideologically opinionated) doesn't make that view any less worthy of being reported on Wikipedia. Also, if you look at the Daniel Pipes reliable source discussion, many of the comments say it's okay to quote Pipes from his blog so long as it's about supporting an opinion, not facts. [11]

c) Nothing in Wikipedia guidelines to say self-published statements of advocacy groups can't be cited.

e) I can't see why criticism of Armstrong needs only to be devoted to either her or her book, what about her works that aren't in book form....like her views on particular issues in a particular interview? Or as the case with the Powell lecture, a review of a book review she wrote? Sleetman (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

b) That's true, but the combination of "totally expected" and "non-notable" is what makes it not worth including. If Spencer or Pipes had praised the book, that would be unusual, so I would see more reason to include it. (Though others might disagree, and say that even if it was unusual, a self-published review shouldn't be included.) Or if a real source had picked up their reactions to it, that would confer some notability on the response, so I would likewise see more reason to include it. (This is what's meant by "real source" here - obviously Pipes's blog is reliable for his opinion, but self-published sources don't confer notability.)

c) Ditto.

e) I think you may have misunderstood. What criticism of Armstrong is in that lecture is criticism of her book article - but it's not the focus of the lecture, and pulling one line out of context as though the lecture devotes any text other than that line to Armstrong is a misrepresentation.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

b) Ma'am, can you point to any Wikipedia guideline that says "expected views by particular people are not worth including?" (I will not address your insinuation that Spencer or Pipes are non-notable people as it is untrue given the amount of controversy they've generated with other people/institutions and the amount of press coverage they've received for their views) Of course you won't because if that happened, you'd reduce every Wikipedia article on living persons/institutions to little more than hagiography! You also say that in order for a source to be included, that source must be notable...so now I ask you by what metric does Wikipedia recommend to measure the notability of a source?

e) No, the criticism of her works IS an important part of the lecture, it illustrates by way of example an important rationale for the lecture...which is that historians/ the public needs to looks at the Crusades (and more broadly historical events) objectively and not through the lenses of ideology.Sleetman (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

b) Again, the expectedness is one of my criteria, which might not be shared by other users. Abandoning any idiosyncratic criteria, we're left with "did any real sources pick up this response," and the answer is no. Your claim that I want to reduce all articles to hagiographies is a nonsensical non-sequitur.

c) This simply isn't true. The lecture is about the Crusades, not about Armstrong's writing on the Crusades. This is very obvious if you click the link and read it, as I did. Going by word count as some relatively objective measure, an incredibly generous estimate of how much of the lecture concerns Armstrong, "incredibly generous" here being used to mean "I'm including parts that aren't about her just to be nice," would be 3.5%.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

b) Ma'am, that's great you have your own idiosyncratic criteria but why that should substitute Wikipedia's extant criteria for reliable sources is beyond me. My claim that your test of "expectedness" leads to hagiography is not a "nonsensical" non-sequitur at all, it's a natural outcome of what would actually happen if the test of expectedness was introduced as a part of Wikipedia's criteria for how judge reliable sources...people would just be deleting comments critical or extolling of particular person/institution because those comments of praise or criticism are expected of that particular commentator.

c) Again, Armstrong's writing in the context of the lecture is important, Powell uses the example of illustrate why it's important to look at the Crusades objectively (you could make the argument that by the word objectively Powell means looking at the Crusades according to his subjective view of the Crusades). You using a word count to measure the importance of a topic in a larger body of work is confusing (non-sequitur?), if I was to give a speech on the dangers of fascism and discussed Hitler's Third Reich in a way that it only constituted 3.5% of my speech, I doubt very few people would say just because Hitler's Third Reich constituted 3.5% of the speech on fascism, fascism does not concern itself with the Third Reich.Sleetman (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

b) They don't, that's why I've stated multiple times that when we ignore my own criteria, there's even less reason to include this self-published sniping. Also, you appear to be unclear on what "hagiography" means - obviously if expected praise is also removed, why should that automatically result in an article consisting mostly of praise? But again, this is irrelevant, because without my idiosyncrasies, there's even less of a case to include Pipes's and Spencer's self-published whining. (See for example, WP:WEIGHT, which Guettarda cited at the beginning of the section: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I'm sure you could find more if you poked around.)

c) And you claim I've got weird criteria. No, sir or madam, take it to RSN or another noticeboard if you really want to believe that it's secretly all about how horrible Armstrong is. It may well fail for other reasons, too, as another editor has noted, but it's also just not a source for criticism of Armstrong.

And I'm done. If you're discontent with the results of your 3O request, have you considered filing an RfC?

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

b) Ma'am, miss, madam I don't think you have an idea how opinions work on Wikipedia, you're entitled to you're own opinions but only if they're expressed within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines and principles and not serve as a substitute for them. Again, as I've said, it's fine for you to have your own idiosyncratic criteria on how to judge the reliability of sources, but they don't work for Wikipedia. As the word implies, changes based on your criteria is completely subjective and can be changed by somebody else because it doesn't accord with their subjectivity.

c) Yes your use of a word count if a weird criteria indeed; can you dispute the example that I used to show you fallacy of using that criteria?

I have no idea how to file a RfC, perhaps you can show me how to?Sleetman (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Pending the discussion of the criticism section, I've put a tag under the criticism section of the Armstrong article.Sleetman (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP again

I have removed self-published criticism, per WP:BLPSPS and WP:QS, yet again. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And this, also dealt with before. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Worse yet; not just an unreliable source, but an author for whom there was general consensus that his claims about others should not be used at all. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And this... I can't imagine why anyone would include nonsense like "a scandalously apologetic . . . former nun with an ax to grind". Pipes is free to call Armstrong whatever names he sees fit, but we're under no obligation to repeat his name calling. Especially since it's comes, not from some secondary source who found it notable, but directly from Pipes' own writing. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you're right we've dealt with the issue many times now. I can understand the deletion of the quote of Pipes, but there's no reason why the criticisms by papers in think tanks, advocacy groups, and book reviews in newspapers should be deleted (and that's even according to Wikipedia guidelines). I'm going to request an RfC for this (again) but until we get extra feedback on this, stop deleting any criticisms of Armstrong as you're reducing it to hagiography.Sleetman (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You may not "understand" Wikipedia policy, but you're still obligated to abide by it. I have provided you repeatedly with links to policy which explain why this content cannot be used in a WP:BLP; the policy clearly says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. You have simply refused to in any way show how these sources are acceptable. This is classic disruptive editing, and coming off a block like you are, you should be especially careful about engaging in the sort of editing that can get you re-blocked. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, saying that I do not "understand" Wikipedia policy is not only untrue, but is also a borderline ad hominem so I suggest you take that back particularly as I see you are a Wikipedia administrator. You haven't provided me anything telling me how (aside from Daniel Pipes's blog) any of the criticism of Armstrong violates WP:BLP pr WP:RS...Also, I've already shown you how they are acceptable in every humanly possible way, so please come up with something more than "you haven't shown me how the sources are acceptable."Sleetman (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note the quotes around the work "understand". The normal use for quotes is to denote a quotation. It was a quote from your own comment. Please see Wikipedia:No self attacks. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"I've already shown you how they are acceptable in every humanly possible way". Actually you've done almost nothing to show that they are apart from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There's quite a bit more you could do - asking for input at BLP/N is the very least you could do. On another level, it's true - there's little more you could do to show that they are acceptable sources because self-published works are not acceptable sources for criticisms in a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sir, son, your highness, whoever or whatever you are yes I have proven that they are reliable sources except WP;YOUJUSTHAVENTHEARDANYTHINGIVEBEENSAYING. You asked for proof that they had fact-checking capabilities to which I pointed you to the fact that they had editorial oversight, to which your response was simply they have no reputation for fact-checking and to which I asked you how else are you supposed to establish something has a reputation for fact-checking capabilities aside from having editorial oversight...to which I've yet to get a response from you. Your right, self-published works aren't acceptable sources for criticisms in a BLP, but then of course the Hudson Institute and the Hill Museum don't even publish self-published work. And to top it all off, you keep deleting Sam Harris's criticism of Armstrong because you think it's a blog, when IT'S NOT EVEN A BLOG it's an opinion piece published in the Huffington Post. So much for "utter contempt for Wikipedia rules."Sleetman (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you bother to do any due diligence before making claims? The Huffington Post is both a news website and a blog aggregator. If you aren't familiar with HuffPo, a quick glance at its Wikipedia article might be helpful before making such bold statements. After doing that, you should try to determine whether Harris is a staff writer at HuffPo or a blogger. You would have seen that HuffPo's staff writers are labelled as "reporters" in their byline. So just a quick glance at Harris' byline should have raised concern. If you bothered to actually look at Harris' page you'd see a header "Blog Entries by Sam Harris". Your mendacity is tiring. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, if this is the editing standards of Wikipedia administrators, then it's little wonder Wikipedia is treated as an unreliable source for academic work. Sorry, but I'm not aware of the fact that blogs on news organizations aren't allowed on Wikipedia....maybe that you might think otherwise, but yes that isn't the case. ("Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." [12])Sleetman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You should read the text you quote - the key words there are full editorial control. What evidence do you have that Harris' blog is under the full editorial control of HuffPo's editors? As far as I know, HuffPo's blogger do not have to get their posts approved by an editor unlike, say NYT's bloggers. As you are aware, the onus is on you to provide some supporting evidence. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting comments for Karen Armstrong

Requesting comments here as to whether or not the criticisms of Karen Armstrong are reliable sources.Sleetman (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, there is no issue with well sourced criticism. There are issues IMO with that content - in that it doesn't establish a balanced set of reactions to her work (i.e. both positive and negative). Preferably avoiding editorial/opinion sources (I haven't checked all of the sources, but some of them look not-brilliant). The long set of quotes seem largely irrelevant - I'm not sure what they are intended to show? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors are free to add positive reactions to her work. There's also nothing in Wikipedia policy that says editorial/opinion sources should be "preferably avoided"...and even if there is, given by the amount of opinion sources for biographies of all kinds of living people (Daniel Pipes for example) on Wikipedia, people don't seem to give that principle much of a thought. Ditto though on the long quotes. Sleetman (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here are the quotes and sources currently in dispute:

Quote - Regarding Armstrong's writing on the Crusades, a lecture by the late professor James M. Powell of Syracuse University called Armstrong's The New York Times Magazine article The Crusades Even Now as following "more in the tradition of a moral sermon than an effort to understand the past"

Source - James M. Powell, the late Professor Emeritus of Medieval History whose quote was published by The Hill and Manuscript Library.

Quote - Thomas Madden criticized her book Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World as "largely an exercise in modern left-wing rhetoric about sensitivity, tolerance, and the evils of Western civilization."

Source - Thomas Madden, director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. whose quote appeared in a paper published by the Hudson institute.

Quote - Regarding Armstrong's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Andrea Levin accused Armstrong as being "among the stable of pro-Palestinian advocates" guilty of "personal bias on scholarship" and and selective criticism of Judaism and Christianity but not Islam.

Source - Andrea Levin, director of the pro-Israeli media watchdog group. CAMERA.

Sleetman (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors are free to add positive reactions to her work; meh, a lot of people, me included, are uncomfortable with editors adding purely negative content. If you are adding critical reception - do the legwork. Otherwise you are not presenting a neutral overview - and as this is a BLP that is important. Editorial/opinon are a problem because we have to be sure they have significance of opinion. A source that discusses critical reception to the work is preferable, especially when the work is contentious (as in this case). I don't understand what you mean by "ditto for the long quotes"; I asked what they were there to source? It seems unrelated to Armstrong, and indeed related to CAMERA and denoting them as pro-Israeli. As that is sourced in the CAMERA article there is no need to duplicate it here. However what would be good is some form of sourcing that suggests them being pro-Israel is relevant to their opinion in this case. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well...if you're uncomfortable with editors adding purely negative (or positive) content to an article, then I'm sure you'd be uncomfortable with a lot of editors (myself included)...to which I reiterate my point that, many people don't subscribe to such "objectivity"... although I'd be more than pleased to add positive reception of Amrstrong provided that people can give me positive quotes of her. (I'm not interested in finding positive quotes of her, and to my knowledge, there's no Wikipedia policy that I've contravened by doing this.) As for the long quotes, I thought you were mentioning the long quotes for her views on Israel-Palestinian, Muslims in the media, the blockquotes that quote her words on the two issues verbatim.Sleetman (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You have pretty much admitted that you're here on this article to push some kind of point of view then. That's unacceptable. NW (Talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"You have pretty much admitted" Sorry, what? I've just said that I'd be more than pleased to add positive reception of Armstrong. Yes I'm not a fan of Armstrong, but I don't see how that puts me in violation of Wikipedia rules and especially not when I've just wrote that I'd have no problem putting on sources praising her. I'd also point out that despite Guettarda's attempts to delete any comments remotely critical of Armstrong, you've yet to write a single word about that user/administrator's ideological agenda. Unacceptable indeed. Sleetman (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You are even taking your own quotes out of context! You forgot the "provided that people can give me positive quotes of her". It isn't up to others to do the legwork. Try to find the BEST sources (neutral ones, not biased in one way or another), and go from there. Using the best (neutral) sources allows us to build a better encyclopedia, which is what you should be trying to do, as a wikipedia editor. WP:NPOV is an important policy to follow. DigitalC (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How am I taking the quotes out of context? NW accused me pushing a particular point of view, which I disputed (but did not reject) by pointing to the fact that I'd be willing to add positive quotes about Armstrong. To my knowledge, I haven't violated any Wikipedia policies by not actively finding positive quotes about Armstrong it's not as if that obligation is incumbent on editors (although if time permits I might be willing to do that).Sleetman (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." This means that if you are going out and actively finding only negative reviews, you are violating a core wikipedia policy. There IS an obligation for editors to edit from a neutral point of view. DigitalC (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well fortunately, that doesn't apply to me as I've just said I'm willing (if time permitting) to look for positive quotes about Armstrong. As for the obligation for editors, well let's just say edits like this [13], [14] and [15] aren't exactly what I have in mind when I think of neutrality. Sleetman (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Adding [citation needed] and [failed verification] tags, and discussing such issues on a talk page are somehow not neutral? If you have a problem with any of my edits, feel free to take it to my talk page, or to the appropriate noticeboard. This isn't the appropriate venue. DigitalC (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The main problem here isn't criticism, it's Sleetman's insistence on using self-published or otherwise poor quality sources for the criticism. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

These aren't "self-published sources" and are not of poor quality either.Sleetman (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Thomas Madden quotes seem like they are reliably sourced enough to be ok. The others are problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

how are the others problematic?Sleetman (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The others haven't been included in any secondary sources. This makes them very problematic from a BLP perspective, especially when they come from somewhat partisan groups like CAMERA. If a CAMERA spokesperson was quoted in a newspaper saying the same thing that would be different. But as of right now, this isn't any better than a press release or blog. WP:BLP/WP:SPS apply. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, press releases are allowed as are blogs (but only if they are subject to certain conditions...like newspaper editorial control for newspaper blogs); I don't see how think-tanks are now classified as SPSs articles since they republish articles from secondary sources and have their works commonly cited as sources of praise or criticism for BLP's all the time (the same thing would apply to a Museum)...BUT this SPS problem would surely apply to citation #14 of Karen Armstrong's page citing two poorly-written and poorly-sourced websites (blogs I would say) as the source of Armstrong's quotes on Muslims and Modernity and her views on the Israeli-Palestine issue. I don't see why citations from advocacy groups can't be cited, and in the Andrea Levin's case I'd say that's besides the point as the article already meets your criteria of sources needing to be produced in secondary source (The article originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post [16])Sleetman (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, we need to be more careful about advocacy groups as sources when we're dealing with BLPs. In any event, the publication in the Jerusalem Post makes the source much less problematic. It would have been nice to point that out earlier. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As I said above, we should keep Karsh and Harris, because their reactions were published in third-party sources. Hudson Inst. and CAMERA, as well as Spencer and Pipes, should be removed as self-published. (Sleetman, you mention that the CAMERA op-ed was originally published in the JPost, but I'd like to see some independent proof of that - it's not in the JPost archive, which appears to be comprehensive.) Powell should be removed because attempts to frame his lecture as a criticism of Armstrong, when really it is a lecture on the Crusades that includes one or two sentences criticizing Armstrong, are a misrepresentation of him and of his lecture. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ma'am, if you read my dispute with you'll figure out how the Hudson Institute and CAMERA aren't self-published sources, they're advocacy groups/think-tanks whose works ARE allowed on Wikipedia (I don't see why works from Media Matters should be sourced for criticisms of Daniel Pipes, but works by the Hudson Institute shouldn't be sourced for criticisms of Armstrong)...also Powell's talk isn't just about a lecture on Crusades, it's a lecture on his particular conception of the Crusades which is in contrast to Armstrong's conception of the Crusades hence the reason why the criticism quote is relevant. The CAMERA op-ed originally published in the JPost can be found here retrieved from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42907557.html. I'd finally point out that while your making a great Hullabaloo about the reliability of third-party sources critical of Armstrong, you apparently have no problem with the (un)reliability of third-party sources like blogs such as islamtoday where there is no independent evidence of her interview ever being conducted. Sleetman (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• One more thing regarding the Daniel Pipes quote, his review of Armstrong's book was reproduced here [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleetman (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Another: regarding the Thomas Madden article, one can clearly inferred the article was reproduced in the Hudson Institute; the weblink makes note that the Madden article appears in the current issue of American Outlook and underneath it is followed by the bolded caveat that, "Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Hudson Institute." [18]Sleetman (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• A self-published statement from a think tank, whether the Hudson Institute or the Middle East Forum, is still a self-published statement. Don't complain to me about Media Matters being used in the article on Pipes; I don't edit that article, so I don't really care, and if you support, as you are doing here, the use of self-published criticism in a BLP, you shouldn't care either.
• American Outlook is the magazine of the Hudson Institute, so no, the Madden quote is still self-published. Was it ever published in something that wasn't a house organ?
• Thanks for the Highbeam link; I support including the Levin quote now.
• Re IslamToday: we have no reason to believe it is unreliable. Do you have external evidence that shows they tend to fabricate interviews? It's a difficult thing to do under the radar.
• Your personal belief that Powell was secretly criticizing Armstrong the entire time is at odds with the actual content of the lecture.
• As a final note: Stop being obnoxious with the titles. It's not going to make anyone here agree with you, and it's not going to make you come across well to outside observers. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• No but you do care about the other stuff existing on Pipes's article you care so much about his article that you don't care whether the criticisms on his article are even reliable sources or not so long as the criticisms exist. So if you don't care that self-published criticisms exist on his page, why are you even complaining about "self-published criticisms" existing on Karen Armstrong's?
• That issue is irrelevant here. Articles from think-tanks don't qualify as SPSs.(And of course not to mention your implicit acceptance of self-published criticisms for people you dislike...like Daniel Pipes.)
• If this doesn't qualify as double-standards I don't know what does. All this time, you've been asking me to provide external evidence for the sources, but now that the tables are turned, you're asking that I have to prove whether her interview with IslamToday wasn't fabricated? No that burden falls on you: from WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." And by the way, who is "we"??
• My personal belief doesn't have anything to do with the fact of Powell criticizing Armstrong in the course of his presentation of his particular version of the Crusades.
• What obnoxious titles? Where did I call you anything obnoxious? Don't cry wolf as this is against Wikipedia policies. As for making you agree with me, well I think that goal died quite a long time ago when you thought you could substitute Wikipedia policies for your own "idiosyncratic criteria." Sleetman (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ma'am, aside from your faux-machismo rhetoric, do you have a response to any of my rebuttals to your responses? When somebody asks you a question, you should (or at least try) to answer them. It's just basic courtesy, really. Sleetman (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already answered your questions, and the fact that you've only been able to respond with incoherent non-sequiturs like your previous comment about the Pipes article indicates that you haven't any real answers to the points I've raised, rather than anything else. In the mean time: Women edit Wikipedia. Get used to it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, given that you're only just coming off a block for repeatedly calling a user "ma'am" after being asked not to, it would seem like the smart thing to do to stop calling me "ma'am" after I've asked you not to. Why don't you do the smart thing? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Incoherent non-sequiturs" Please, you aren't in any position to judge what is or isn't a non-sequitur you need to remember that you were the one who came up with this ridiculously laughable theory you could substitute Wikipedia editing guidelines for your own idiosyncratic criteria. My responses aren't non-sequiturs and even if they were...well let's be fair they're incoherent non-sequiturs because they're responses to even more incoherent non-arguments. Why don't you try to come up with an answer where Wikipedia bans the use of think-tanks or advocacy groups? Or instead of the standard "that's not my problem I don't edit that article" why you don't give a legitimate reason as to why you think works published by think-tanks like Media Matters on Daniel Pipes' page are alright, but why this shouldn't apply to Armstrong's page?

And as a side note, in reciprocation of your attempt to draw attention to the baggage of my editing history, getting into an edit war and getting reported on Wikiquette alerts isn't a good demonstration of amicability and especially not from a person who's moralizing about how ad hominems are "not going to make anyone here agree with you, and it's not going to make you come across well to outside observers." Sleetman (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, make an edit like this one more time and consider yourself reported to either AN/I or WP:Vandalism. If you don't like the fact that reliable sources critical of Armstrong exists, that's tough for you but this is an encyclopedia not a personal political blog where you can just delete material that is critical of people you like. Sleetman (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you're citing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists for the purpose of negating arguments like your own "But the article on Pipes, which you've never, ever edited, cites Media Matters! What do you have to say about that, missy?"

Now, do you have anything useful to say about the article? Or are you going to continue using the article talkpage to rant about me? I'm flattered, but I'd rather make productive changes to the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's right, what do you have to say about the hypocrisy of allowing self-published sources from Media Matters criticizing Pipes but making a big fuss about SPSs on Karen Armstrong's webpage?

I do: stop editing the article. Sleetman (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to Pipes' bio at Talk:Daniel Pipes. And please note that WP:BLP is a Foundation policy that cannot, under any circumstances, be set aside via local talk page consensus. No matter how bad you think some other page may be. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to change anything at Pipes' bio, all the sources criticizing and praising Pipes are of reliable quality (and yes, that includes articles by think-tanks.) Not sure why that shouldn't apply here. Sleetman (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies here, just as it does in Pipes' bio. Not sure why that's a difficult concept. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, can you be a bit more specific? WP:BLP allows for publications by think-tanks/advocacy groups of all political persuasions to be cited as a reliable source for BLP's. Sleetman (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, your claims are false. And no matter how often you repeat them, they remain false. I have provided you with links. Many times. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Given that this is a high profile individual and there is so much reaction to her out there, I think it would be best to stick to criticism that has been re-published in 3rd party reliable sources. Normally I'd be inclined to support a couple reactions published by prominent groups or think tanks, but since there is so much controversy I think it would be better to take a conservative approach here. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sir, can you be more specific? You would support the inclusion of which of the sources critical/praising Armstrong?Sleetman (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism section" (again)

Adding random criticisms is extremely poor writing. Please try to improve the article, don't turn it into a set of disjointed quotes. Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The criticisms are random how? Sleetman (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically this. Note that in the original version, the commentary is discussed in the context of her writings on Christianity and Islam. In the latter it stands on its own, without context. Presenting it in that way makes a comment on her work into a comment on her. Which isn't the way we write articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The two quotes criticize Armstrong's work on Islam specifically and not her works on islam and Christianity, hence why the quotes don't belong there. Sleetman (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If they were simply ad hom attacks on Armstrong they wouldn't belong in this article. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How are they ad hom attacks? The criticisms are attacking Armstrong's works, not Armstrong herself. Sleetman (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If the quotes criticise her work, they should be discussed with the relevant part of her work. If they are just attacks on her, they shouldn't be here. The ability to write coherently is one of the most basic requirements here. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"The ability to write coherently is one of the most basic requirements here." Well hopefully that remark wasn't directed to me, after all, this is what you wrote under the RSN page: "Moved form (FROM) my talk page, since this belongs here".

Grammatical and syntactical mistakes aside, I don't know how that applies to the works critical of Armstrong, none of them are ad hominems, they criticize her work specifically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleetman (talk • contribs)

Oh horror of horrors...typos! (Hilarious that your nitpicking has its own). As for the rest - I can't teach you how to write a coherent article. Heck, I can't even teach you how to read the policies and guidelines I keep pointing you to. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This might help. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, sir, at this point you're just embarrassing yourself. If my writing is incoherent, why do you keep responding to me? Also, I'm not writing an article, I'm writing comments on an article. The ability to write coherently indeed.Sleetman (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not writing an article? What do you call this? Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And so much for the sanctimony on adhering to WP:BLP. Is there a reason why you think a self-published web-blog like www.islamtoday.com qualifies as a reliable source?Sleetman (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's normal to massive unexplained article blanking. Given that the material wasn't controversial, it's not a huge deal. But adding blog-sourced attacks, that's a problem. Anyway, you reverted (again!) before I had a chance to look at it too carefully - as one should, I explained my reverts first. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's being used as a source for an interview with her, so the standard is probably just a little different. The question that matters is whether it's likely to be a reliable source for the content of the interview. Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the paragraphs were deleted because they were sourced to a web-blog that wasn't self-published by Armstrong (if the web-blog was self-published by Armstrong, then yes the standard would be different)...which leaves the question unanswered still: is there any reason why you think that a self-published web-blog that isn't written by Armstrong should qualify as a reliable source?Sleetman (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep removing material against consensus. You need to STOP. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop doing what? Is there a consensus that islamToday is a reliable source? Do you also have consensus that any of the sources (Hudson Institute, Media Matters, The Hill and Manuscript Library, Middle East Forum) are unreliable sources? I think it's worth pointing out that in regards to the second question, a la the discussion here, the editors who have responded have tentatively given a green light to use those sources as they qualify as reliable sources. Sleetman (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing against consensus. How many editors here have supported your changes? How many have reverted your changes? There's no consensus to turn this into an attack page, there's no consensus (not that it matters) to violate WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, where is this consensus you speak of? Sleetman (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

On this page, and on the article. It's pretty clear that just about all the active editors here disagree with you. Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah? Really? Who are these editors who have disagreed with me that islamToday is a reliable source?Sleetman (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that WP:TE is not an instruction manual. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And please... "editors who have responded have tentatively given a green light"? Really? One person has said that things like this need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. That's editor, singular. Three have disagreed with you. And pointed out that you're forum shopping after failing to get support on BLP/N. Which is, of course, the place to discuss sourced for a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please, sir you're embarrassing yourself. Yes the two editors who responded tentatively gave the green light to regarding those sources as reliable sources, hence that's why he said, "Possibly, with attribution." (note that that's different from the content of the sources, which is what the user was asking clarification for) The other user Qrsdogg also makes it clear that the works by Hudson Institute and Media Matters can be used as sources making claims about politicians. If you knew anything about simple math, it'd tell you that the tally in support of regarding the Hudson Institute, Media Matters, The Hill and Manuscript Library, Middle East Forum sources as reliable sources is three against two.Sleetman (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need to make an effort to read things more carefully. TimidGuy (talk · contribs) said "Possibly, with attribution. But we'd need to decide on a case-by-case basis." Which means that there's the possibility that these are acceptable sources. IOW, they aren't forum posts or random websites, they aren't the kind of source that can be dismissed out of hand. What he said is that there isn't enough information in your post to decide. As for Qrsdogg (talk · contribs), he is advising caution. Those are, at best, yellow lights. Your characterisation of them as "green lights" is deeply misleading. Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, sir you're in no position to question somebody else's reading comprehension skills you need to remember your laughable proclamation that three of the editors on RSN disagree with me when you've now just admitted TimidGuy and Qrsdogg advise caution...which makes it only 2 people who disagree with me. Anyway, it still doesn't change the fact that TimidGuy acknowledges that the sources can be reliable sources. (hence why I put the word tentatively in front of "gave the green light") It also doesn't change the fact that Qrsdogg thinks Hudson Institute and Media Matters can be used as sources making claims about politicians, thus implying that Hudson institute and Media Matters can be regarded as reliable sources. I'd also point out that even though you're making a big fuss about the reliability of using Media matters and Hudson institute as reliable sources, you apparently have no problem with the inclusion of a self-published web-blog (IslamToday).Sleetman (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

you apparently have no problem with the inclusion of a self-published web-blog (IslamToday) - Again, this is a falsehood. I already explained my action - I reverted your edit and came here to explain my action, before going back to examine it in detail. This is, of course, the way that you're expected to do things - explain your actions in talk. By the time I had done that, you had reverted again. After "bold" and "revert" come "discuss" (see WP:BRD). I never had time to look at the rest of the specifics of your edit. Claiming that I "had no problem" with the content is an outright falsehood. As I explained before.

My revert of your edit was entirely appropriate, since you were adding blog-sourced criticism that you knew to be problematic. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RSN

The reliability of the sources on the Karen Armstrong page is being discussed here.Sleetman (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved form my talk page, since this belongs here Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Views

I don't think that the "Views" section is really the best way to write this article. These aren't really the "views" she spends most of her energy on. They are primary-sourced quotes. Two of the five sections are taken from a single, poorly-sourced interview with Omayma Abdel-Latif. Overall there's a serious balance/weight issue here. Where are her views on compassion, to pick one major issue. Why did some editors pick these quotes? Ideally her views should come from secondary sources. Less optimally, they should come from her own writing, where her views are set out in context. Cherry-picked quotes from interviews seem like a bad idea. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we could severely condense it and put it in a short "views" bit without separate headings, but you're right that including more content about her books should definitely be a priority. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think her views are important. But I'm actually a little concerned about some of these. The statement about the London bombing, for example, is taken straight from the Moyers transcript - was this something Armstrong thought important? Was it something others saw as important? Or was it just something that caught the eye of some Wikipedia editor? If it's either of the former, we can find a better source (and hopefully present it in context). If no one else cared about it, or only some bloggers, it probably doesn't belong here. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the transcript, that's a WP:UNDUE issue. We should probably talk more about the Charter, too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article should reflect the following

1. She's a popular author, especially among religious liberals
2. Her personal spiritual story, which is the basis of a couple of her books and which seems to be something she talks a lot about in interviews
3. Her writings, especially those on the history of religion

Her thoughts and views

1. Best sourced from her own writings or third-party sources.

In terms of the reception of her work, there are maybe four strands

1. Her reception among the sort of people who read her books (general public, apparently very positive)
2. Her reception by religious studies people (apparently very positive)
3. Her reception by historians

   This is a difficult one. The quality of her scholarship has been questioned by historians (quoted in the article) but mostly they come from websites and partisan sources. Are these representative sources? Almost certainly not - politically conservative humanities profs are rare. And if you have something to say as a historian who write a book review in a scholarly journal. To know what historians think of her work, we need to find book reviews in scholarly journals.

4. Her reception by the Islamophobes, by the people who think she is too "soft" on Islam.

Of these, the fourth is the most likely to get heard online, but for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia article, they are the least important. Per WP:GEVAL. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

While I have too many new articles lined on my to-do list to do any major writing/expansion here, I have access to places like JSTOR, so I can get you reviews. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article

"Views" section; removed from article, per statement above Guettarda (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Views Christianity and Islam In an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong compared Christianity to Islam, stating that "Islam is a religion of success. Unlike Christianity, which has as its main image, in the west at least, a man dying in a devastating, disgraceful, helpless death… Mohammed was not an apparent failure. He was a dazzling success, politically as well as spiritually, and Islam went from strength to strength to strength." Armstrong also affirms that “Until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.” 2005 London suicide bombing In an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong blamed the the Suicide bombings in London on July 7, 2005, on Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, characterizing it a political, not a religious gesture: I thought that this [the attacks] was virtually inevitable. This is a political matter. And Tony Blair had put us right on the front line by joining with former President Bush. And we were all expecting this in London. There was no great surprise. The Pope A critic of certain aspects of Roman Catholicism, Armstrong characterized the Pope as "the world's last, great, absolute monarch. He not only controls doctrinal and spiritual affairs, but also the political, social and economic fortunes of his church. And because he's believed to be directly guided by God, his decisions have the ring of absolute truth, which is strangely out of kilter with the democratic tenor of today's world". Muslims, modernity, and the media Armstrong believes that all sides must learn to deal with extremism in their midst and advance their interests in a peaceful, non-violent manner. In "The feel of religion" (July 2002), an interview of Armstrong by Omayma Abdel-Latif that is widely reprinted on Islamic websites, Armstrong stressed that: Muslims should try to use the media; they have got to learn to lobby like the Jews, and they have got to have a Muslim lobby, if you like ....this is a jihad, an effort, a struggle, that is very important. If you want to change the media, then you have got to make people see that Islam is a force to be reckoned with politically and culturally. Have a march down the street at Ground Zero in New York, call it "Muslims against Terror". They need to learn how to manage the media and how to conduct themselves in the media. In the same interview she continued: Similarly, the West has got to learn that it shares the planet with equals and not with inferiors. This means giving equal space in a conflict such as that between Israel and Palestine. It doesn't mean just using governments to get oil: you promote Saddam Hussein one day, and the next day he becomes public enemy number one. The West promoted people like the Shah of Iran simply because of its greed for oil, even though he had committed atrocities against his own people. There should be no more double standards, because double standards are colonialism in a new form. Western people have also got to disassociate themselves from inherited prejudices about Islam. Muslims can run a modern state in an Islamic way, and this is what the West has got to see... There are all kinds of ways in which people can be modern, and Muslims should be allowed to come to modernity on their own terms and make a distinctive Islamic contribution to it. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Armstrong told Omayma Abdel-Latif in 2002 that she believed the Israeli Palestinian conflict was a European political creation and not a clash of religions: The West has to share a responsibility for what is happening in the Middle East. If it had not persecuted the Jews, there would not have been the need for the creation of the State of Israel. The Muslim world did nothing to the Jews, and the Palestinians are paying the price for the sins of Europe. Therefore, a solution has to be found because there will be no peace in the world without one. But if Israel has America behind it, it does not have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks. This gives a sense of omnipotence. At the moment there is no hope; they, the Israelis, can do what they want because America will always support them. I wish Europe would play a better role, but Mr Blair is running after Mr Bush like a poodle. "I don't think people sit at home and read the Qur'an and say, yes, I must go and bomb Israel," she continued: This is not how religion works, and I see just absolute hopelessness when people have nothing to lose. Palestinians don't have F- 16s, and they don't have tanks. They don't have anything to match Israel's arsenal. They only have their own bodies. In her opinion, charges of anti-Semitism in Europe play into the hands of the American Israel lobby because "this will discredit anything Europe says. They say Europe is anti-Semitic because for the first time Europe is becoming aware of the plight of the Palestinians. It is part of a campaign to discredit European input in any future peace process." She also believes that part of the problem stems from Jews still considering themselves solely as victims. "The problem with Israel now is that it cannot believe that it is not 1939 any more; the Israeli people are emotionally stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era."

Juan Eduardo Campo

The following is a paragraph of Juan Eduardo Campo's opinion of Armstrong:

Juan Eduardo Campo, the author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a "more or less objective" (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America.

Until the the International Journal of Middle East Studies can be proven that it is a reliable source, it can't be used as a Wikipedia source. Sleetman (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? It's Cambridge University Press, archived by JSTOR. Don't grasp at such idiotic reasons to remove content that isn't critical of Armstrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Don't grasp at such idiotic reasons" Don't worry about me being idiotic, you oughta know you came up with the moronic theory of substituting your own idiosyncratic criteria for editing Wikipedia policies. But getting back to this, you aren't in any position to judge whether something is or isn't reliable source, your post doesn't mention what it is that's "Cambridge University Press" and were the same person who thought a #!#$ing weblog was a reliable source (IslamToday). Sleetman (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The International Journal of Middle East Studies is one of the most eminent academic journals in the field and its reliability in Wikipedia terms is beyond question. Zero^talk 05:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Can anybody explain why Armstrong's version of her Wikipedia page here [19] is being reverted?Sleetman (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Because you're coming off a block with an attempt to repeat a set of edits that were rejected the last time you tried to edit-war them into the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the changes that the edit [20] of Armstrong's Wikipedia page attempts to make? Instead of the usual ad hominem, can you stay on topic and address what is so wrong about the edit again the link for reasons of clarity? Sleetman (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Finances

The question arises of Armstrong's finances. She passes over Muhammadan slavery in silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Gorton k (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception section.

Why does the reception section currently consist entirely of praise for Karen Armstrong. There is no shortage of criticism of her by reliable sources and notable people. And why has the Criticism section been entirely deleted? This article is currently in my opinion (which I realize is worth basically nothing) highly POV in favor of Armstrong. Criticisms and critical receptions need to be added (or added back, as it seems they existed before but were deleted). Armstrong's views are highly controversial, and certainly not without criticism. Other prominent religious and political commentators articles' include criticisms in some form or another, this article includes absolutely no criticism and only praise. Anon12356 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

See higher up this talk page, and the archive. - DVdm (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So-called academic

The article currently states that Armstrong is a writer and an "academic". In fact this is where a lot of the controversy over this figure lies, i.e. Armstrong never even studied religion or history, and is pretty far from being an "academic" in any sense of the word. I will change this immediately.--Birdtread (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Armstrong's work is academic and she's got a pile of honory doctarates, so I guess one could say that she's an academic. - DVdm (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you know any work of hers that's been peer-reviewed or appears in any academic journal? Does she have academic tenure at any public university? If you have any information about this, let me know and I'll take it back. Honorary doctorates don't make someone an academic - they're basically nothing and are not used as titles or qualifications by the people they're awarded to.--Birdtread (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Birdtread's hostile tone is inappropriate here. However, I agree that she is not an academic. In my view an academic is someone who holds, or held, a university position. Zero^talk 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. That's not how honorary doctorates work, and her books appear to have been published by non-academic presses. She may well be an expert anyway, but I don't think she's an academic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not as a profession. No problem there. - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while someone may be an academic and not depend on it for a living, i.e. a 'non-professional academic', for example an academic who may be retired or who now works in business, Armstrong isn't a non-professional academic as she lacks the qualifications to be one and isn't recognised as one by the academic community. To be doubly or triply clear, there is no space for you at all to assert that Armstrong is any kind of academic. --Birdtread (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

She is often referred to as a scholar, which is an equivalent term. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not an equivalent term in modern English. An undergraduate student taking a bachelor's degree may be called a 'scholar' (because they are a member of a 'school'), and so may a university head of department. However the same undergraduate student cannot be called an 'academic', while the latter (in common with everyone employed as academic staff in the department) can. The word 'scholar' has an even looser definition than that (for example, "an Islamic scholar", or "a scholar of the Traditionalist school"). Perhaps "celebrity" a la Stephen Fry would be a more apt and *neutral* description of Armstrong than "scholar" or whatever.

On a different note, this Wikipedia page seems to have peculiarly active editing. I find it curious bordering on suspicious. --Birdtread (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see a dictionary:

• "8. a student or teacher at a college or university. "
• "9. a person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc. "

Also, please see our wp:talk page guidelines. If you have a proposal to make another change to the article, you are welcome here. We don't discuss the subject here.

On a different note, please see wp:AGF. - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You are in fact discussing the subject. I have nothing to discuss. I am using this talk page to state the reason for my edit in case anyone knows anything about the subject that I don't and which might call my edit into question. In this case, there is a clear difference between the word "academic" as a noun (e.g. "he is an academic") and as an adjective (e.g. "academic writing" or "academic politics", etc.) --Birdtread (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The definitions of the noun (and of the adjective) in the dictionary, and some contributors on this talk page talk, seem to disagree with your view. On the other hand, nobody disagrees with your edit to the article which rightly took away the term from the profession list in the infobox. Note that the article did not state "that Armstrong is a writer and an academic". It stated something about academic as a profession. Nobody questions that edit. The things that are questioned here are your reasons, your tone, and a possible tendency to assume bad faith. Try to avoid that and you'll be fine here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Birdtread is exactly right, I fully agree. Armstrong is not at all an academic and it is highly misleading to describe her as such. She is a popular author with no academic background whatsoever. I actually came to this article just now because I was unfamiliar with her background but had the sense that she was an academic. I was surprised to see that she isn't. This article should certainly not perpetuate the confusion that seems to be out there.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Armstrong being called a "Scholar," here's some food for thought: "The word "scholar" is best applied to people who devote themselves to study of focused material, and achieve certification from others who have studied and gained expertise in that same material. Scholars perform original research. Scholars produce original, peer-reviewed publications. Scholars are circumspect about the public statements they make on which they claim authority. A scholar might say, "My research has been on medieval knighthood; therefore, I am not qualified to speak about soldiers in the Roman Empire." Armstrong does not meet any of these criteria of scholarship. Armstrong was, first, a nun. She left the convent and attempted to embark on an academic career. She tried to write a dissertation about the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Her dissertation was rejected. She did not receive her desired degree. She left the university. Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages. She does not publish with university presses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bill Maher's response to Armstrong likening him to Hitler

Karen Armstrong told Salon that Bill Maher's criticism of Islam is "the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe. This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe." Bill Maher, in response to Armstrong pulling the Hitler card on him called her out on it to the more than one million readers of Vanity Fair (magazine). And Salon published it too. Karen Armstrong certainly isn't denying her inflammatory remarks to Salon... because they happened. But when I posted the exchange on this page, it got reverted, despite being exactly relevant to this page and in accordance with all Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. I'm sorry if this is negative, but it's true and relevant and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is sourced to two primary interview sources, and BLP articles should be careful about relying solely on primaries. We could pull the same kind of quotes up for any pair of public figures who've commented publicly on one another: we don't need to just confirm whether the quotes happened, the benchmark for inclusion in either person's encyclopedia entry is whether there's been significant secondary coverage of the spat.

We should also be looking at this from a long-term perspective - does it past the ten-year test, if this is a back-and-forth pair of quotes that happened a few days ago? --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this does not tell us anything about the subject of this article. I.m.o. the entire section comments on Bill Maher can be safely deleted as irrelevant, as it puts undue weight on someone else. - DVdm (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is one secondary source but this really seems more about Maher than Armstrong - he is explaining the nuances of his opinion of Islam, and saying nothing about Armstrong beyond the fact that she said something "stupid" about him. I agree that this tells the reader nothing about Armstrong beyond the fact that she doesn't like a particular commentator's politics. Since we're still in the "D" of WP:BRD with no response from the bold editor, I'll go ahead and cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this section was cut, Karen Armstrong has AGAIN compared Bill Maher's criticism of Islam to the speech that led to the Holocaust by telling the New York Times, "in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe, we learned how dangerous and ultimately destructive this kind of discourse could be." Additionally, her Reductio ad Hitlerum of Maher's criticism of Islam has been heavily reported by several secondary sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12... and I could link these all day, so secondary sources aren't an issue. Now with her repeating the same idea to multiple publications over time, this is not about a singular event, but a recurring theme, so inclusion of this information passes Wikipedia:Recentism too.

A possible issue with this piece could possibly be the tagline that shows in the Table of Contents. If you agree, please remove the header and move the passage under a different section in the article. I'm re-adding this with her later NYT comments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you, personally, are much more interested in this issue than reliable sources are. (Note "reliable".) Consider that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in no way, shape or form affected by or associated with this BLP, so please cut your logical fallacy, the ad hominem. Also, Roscelese, how are the New York Times and Vanity Fair (magazine), the two sources for the two times she made an analogy to the Holocaust, not "reliable sources" but "gossip" as you put it?

Why is a whole section of Armstrong's biography dedicated to some American TV celebrity she has never heard of and never actually engaged in any dialogue with? The focus on this Bill Maher person seems out of place and irrelevant. If not deleted altogether, the section title should at least be changed.

Second sentence

AFAIK Karen Armstrong does not consider herself a Christian. The second sentence needs a rewrite. --2A00:801:320:DDB2:EC0A:AE3F:5D3C:B0FE (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)