Jump to content

Talk:Bernard Lewis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Double Standards

Jayig I took great note of the edits you have made in this article before, and I've noticed that you tend to exclusively focus your wikipedia prowess on passages which are critical of Lewis. But when I began examining the sources you've let stay, which are pro-Lewis, I noticed that the same standards weren't upheld. Take look at source #18 which is clearly self published by Robert Spencer, through his "Jihad Watch."

In every single edit you've made, it's been to bernard lewis' credit - whether it's on his Iran prediction, Engdahl, and M Shahid Alam or Juan Cole. Not once have you weighed the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight argument against Lewis only in his favor. And if these were personal attacks, then I'd say the BLP should always be in his favor. But I seriously doubt you'd prevent other world figures from being critisized at all, FOR THEIR IDEAS, in their wikipedia articles, if you didn't agree with them on a personal level.

The reason for the focus on negative material is twofold. One, WP:BLP is extremely strict about negative material, and the bar for inclusion is much higher than for anything else on Wikipedia. Two, give that Lewis is authoritatively described as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East", it's rather astonishing that half of the article is devoted to criticism of him, but not one word describes the contents of his scholarly historical works; again, clearly a WP:BLP issue. Jayjg (talk)
Since half the criticism section is devoted to Lewis' responses, I don't think you can say "half the article is devoted to criticism". And the crit &controversy section is not "half the article" in any case, it's about 40%. Which means that in fact only about 20% of the article is devoted to criticism.
In addition I see nothing wrong with an extended section on controversies, prominent scholars will often be involved in numerous controversies. Far more than half the article on Finkelstein is devoted to controversies he has been engaged in, and I see nothing wrong with that. I don't see why Lewis should be accorded special treatment in that regard. Gatoclass 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, for academia today, Lewis is probably more famous as an object of critique rather than as an object of study. This isn't merely political. Remember that Orientalism is almost cerainly the most influential book of criticism in the past quarter-century; and the conclusion consists basically of a sustained argument tearing apart Bernard Lewis' work. BLP might not be such an issue in that light. Hornplease 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How surprising to find you on this Talk: page as well. Orientalism is quite famous, and it is a sustained attack on Lewis' work, but that's not the same as "tearing apart" his work. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You're surprised? I'm not surprised in the least to discover you here. Nor am I surprised that you choose to question my phraseology rather than engage with the content, namely that given that the most important critical work of the past quarter-century wound up with a sustained attack on this man's work - which is how most people are introduced to the name Bernard Lewis now, actually - I don't think that BLP really matters in terms of criticism here, since in Lewis' case, the controversy and his work are so intertwined. Can we get back to discussion now? Or do you object to the word 'intertwined'? Hornplease 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition, your statement that Alam is not empowered to criticise Lewis because he is an economist 'dabbling' outside his areas of expertise is made in ignorance of the exact subject matter of economics today. Alam is a scholar of the political economy of institutional disparities, something which is a recognised part of economics - one of the people who works in that won the last John Bates Clark medal - and as such is more than acceptable as a source of criticism. Hornplease 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's still not clear exactly how his specific expertise relates to Lewis; he's not Daron Acemoglu. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. Well, let me explain: you said "he's an economist, what would he know about Lewis' work as a historian?" I pointed out that economists now study differing growth paths between cultures with differing institutional bases; Alam is one of these economists; so he's not ruled out as a valid critic. What about this needs further explanation? My patience is infinite, many students have remarked on it. Hornplease 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayig - The WP:BLP was never intended to shield a public figure from legitimate controversy over their ideas but to protect against slander. The allegations of anti-islamic bias are hardly a minority opinion among post-colonialists. Nevertheless, half his criticism section has his rebuttal to such arguments, particularly with the Armenian Genocide but also to Said. Again, you have not addressed why "Jihad Watch" has not entered your sights for a long list of reasons that "Global Dialogue (an international NGO) has been attacked for. Up until now you've made it seem like this is some kind of scientific quest of yours to uphold the rigid standards of Wikipedia, not, dare I say it, some ideological tilt. But now, it seems that you're tacitly admitting that all your revisisions HAVE been geared towards reducing negative criticism of him. Nevertheless, the solution to questions of "balance" is not to reduce vaild criticism of Lewis, but to expand his point of view. I am sitting next to 5 books Lewis has written, I would gladly contribute and add to his POV to balance this article out, but I'm afraid doing so would just tilt the balance even further, because legitimate criticisms of him are not being permitted.
PS whether you focus on negative content or not, don't you still think it's wrong to have a self published source by Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" on this page? I am pretty sure the WP:BLP says quite clearly, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." NEVER. Steveng72 00:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP is intended to ensure that living people are not subject to undue or disproportionate criticisms, and that all criticisms come from extremely reliable sources. High-profile people like Lewis do attract a great deal of criticism of wildly varying quality, often for political reasons ("post-colonialist"). The stuff by Spencer was added a year ago and has basically hung around in the article ever since; I have no objection whatsoever to it being removed, though I'm surprised you don't object to its removal. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed it now, after your lengthy objection to sources which allege anti-islamic bias in Lewis' work, and I didn't want to delete it until it was discussed. I might just do that, but I'm hardly going to get into a wiki-war over it. Nevertheless, there is a difference between something completely self-published,like Spencer's work, and something that appeared on Juan Cole's blog but was originally published in a reputable source. It's hardly the same thing - Spencer's page really is a blog post, the link to cole's webpage is not. Steveng72 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you were all worked up about Spencer's work, but now that you see I'm not attached to it (in fact I, like you, didn't notice the source until you brought it up), then you don't care about it any more? Anyway, the Cole stuff originally came from his blog, but you since pointed out it was published elsewhere first. We've moved on to other issues since then, so I'm not sure why you're still harping on it. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I could CARE LESS about Spencer's work, this whole section is entitled "DOUBLE STANDARD," that's my issue...my getting "all upset" was to point out that you ripped Cole, but left Jihad Watch. And why did you not notice it? Because you weren't innocently checking sources, you read something you didn't like in Lewis' bio here, scrolled down, found the source, and came up with reasons to have it deleted. And "we've" not moved on, I've just refused to go into an edit war. I'm not going to keep reverting stuff, unless there is a clear consensus that it should be. Steveng72 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand: Postcolonialism is not merely a political criticism, but an academic one. Hornplease 02:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think there is a difference. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, Lewis' work is as much political as it is academic. —Ashley Y 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the work; he has written strongly political works, and works that aren't political at all. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And his academic work is subject to academic criticism by postcolonialists. Nothing more or less political about it. Sorry, that's just the way academia functions. Hornplease 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayig EVERYthing written on the middle east is political, because it impacts current conflicts which are rooting in centuries-old issues. It's not like writing on the Ancient Mayans, where the civilization is basically long dead. This is a part of the world where everyone has an opinion. I'm not going to pretend like Said is nonpartisan, and yet so many people laughably claim Lewis is. The difference is, Said ADMITS his bias, people like Lewis don't. Which is why it's so absurd that "partisanship" is even an issue in this criticism page. It's ALL partisan. Steveng72 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"Post-colonialist" criticism is inherently political, much like Marxist criticism is inherently political. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I think you might not know very much about all this. All historical criticism is political. Or at least, mainstream historiography deals with what is included and excluded, and those decisions are viewed as political decisions. Lewis' choice of content is no less a political choice than that of any "marxist" historian. Thus your various claims that Lewis is sometimes historian, sometimes a political writer, etc., etc. aren't really relevant, at least given how academics views itself today. You may be more right than academia, but I must remind you that WP isn't the place to right these wrongs. Hornplease 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's all been interesting, but in any event, which specific part of Alam's bio or training makes him a reliable source when it comes to criticizing Lewis' historical works? Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We're on Alam now? Oh, all right. The fact, Jay, that he is a scholar of institutions and international disparities. He is qualified to discuss Lewis' methodology and conclusions concerning the broad direction of Arab society, if not his translations from Arabic. Hornplease 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Which part of his bio are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, all of it, or at least his work since 1994. Get hold of the RePec archive of his work - my connection is slow at the moment, or I'd do it. Note that thats publicly available working papers, though, not his published work on the subject; however, it indicates his speciality. Hornplease 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayig, take a look a M Shahid Alam's latest book "Challenging the New Orientalism"

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-New-Orientalism-Dissenting-Against/dp/1889999458

On the very FIRST page of the FIRST shapter of Alam's book, he takes aim at Bernard Lewis. Alam writes, "Lewis is still the reigning monarch of Orientalism, as he was some twenty-five years ago, when Edward Said dissected and exposed the intentions, modalities, deceptions, and imperialist connections of this ideological enterprise. This orientliast tiger has not changed his stripes over the fifty odd years he has been honing his predatory skills." Alam then goes on to write a section entitled "Who is Bernard Lewis" and critiques him. This book, and Alam's credentials in the post-colonial community, his featured works in Counterpunch, Al-Ahram Weekly, his TWO published books on this topic, make him clearly a notable voice of dissent on Lewis, just as Said (again, English Prof) was some 25 years ago. Even Alam's opponents at places like "Jihad Watch" and David Horowitz's "100 most dangerous Professors," for his views. Clearly, he's relevant and imporant in this field by supporters and opponents alike. Not to mention, I still think Juan Cole should be re-inserted as well. Is there at least some conensus that both Juan Cole's Global Dialogue, and M Shahid Alam's works are worthy critiques of Lewis to be included in his bio? Steveng72 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's published by "Islamic Publications International", not an academic press. He's a Muslim economist with a bone to pick with Lewis, which is fine, but it doesn't make him qualified to criticize Lewis according to WP:BLP; the very intemperate words Alam uses to describe Lewis indicate the work's non-academic nature. And the failings of Counterpunch and Al Ahram as serious sources of criticism have already been outlined. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The BLP does not requre that all books referenced be from an "academic press," another imaginary standard. And it's simply a fact that Alam is a notable Islamic critic of Bernard Lewis. If you can't see it, I hope the other people reading this thread see it - you're obvious selectivity in using the BLP to your ideological advantage. And BTW the "failings" of Al-Ahram is not noted, nor Counterpunch, nevertheless, nobody is using those sources in this article, they are merely prominant sources who criticize mainstream US policy and have featured Alam. And let's be clear, according to the "NPOV" policy of Wikipedia, you caused all this argumentation. It says quite clearly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete that you should delete content "as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased" Rather than what you did, which was delete everything, and then talk about why.
BLP over-rides that - it is quite clear that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The bolding is in the original. And academic presses are what print academic critiques; religious presses more often print polemics - and, given the wording, that work of Alam's is clearly a polemic. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(removing indents)Both of you please stop referring to Alam as "a Muslim economist with a bone to pick" (Jay) or "notable Islamic critic" (Steven). It is simply inappropriate to view Alam's qualifications as a critic of Lewis' through the lens of his religion. For further remarks on Alam, see below. Hornplease 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But Steven insists that the Muslim view must be included, and that Alam is qualified to critique Lewis because he is Muslim, so it's rather central to the discussion. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If he said so, then you should have made the claim I just did, rather than exacerbate the problem. I don't see the need for a religious critique. An critique published by an academic in a relevant field, but by an avowedly Islamic press? A different matter. Hornplease 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See, Jayig can't even admit you're wrong when people make it more than clear. You engage in a discussion, begin a short argument, then when proven wrong switch gears to "well, that's all been interesting." People don't have a problem with bias Jayig, except when people like you claim to be objective and then run around doing everything to the contrary. Steveng72 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, I wasn't proven wrong, I simply moved on from a non-productive discussion. The view that all history is political is interesting enough, but ultimately un-provable one way or another. You think one thing, I think another, but it wasn't really relevant to a discussion of article content, which is what the Talk: page is for. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's completely relevant, because you're raising questions of partisanship in your objections. Proving that all history has bias, disputes your position and makes the case for putting "the other bias" into an objective critique of the author. What's unproductive is you can't seem to stick to the same objections, but simply want to remain an obstacle to making this webpage to include a fair and realisitic assesment of Lewis' work, influence, and critiques. Steveng72 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing claims from proofs. No evidence has been presented that this economist is qualified to critique Lewis, just some hand-waving. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You do understand that there's no such thing as a "proof" in the soft sciences, right? I mean, you understand why historians have profound disagreement. It would really serve you well to read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" so you can understand paradigm shifts in academia, opinions, and dissenting opinions. We go in cricles because you are completely stubborn, I believe at this point because you simply have fought too long and hard to be proven wrong. Steveng72 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If "there's no such thing as a "proof" in the soft sciences", then why on earth would you claim (above) that I had been "proven wrong"? You can't have it both ways. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair point, if only a semantical one. I think facts can be proven/disproven, but I don't think one can "prove" something like the real cause of the decline of the Roman Empire, for example, only posit theories. That being said, of course one can prove whether or not something is correct if they create a list of assumptions, and match those assumptions to the facts - keeping in mind that not everyone agrees on those assumptions. In this case, you made a claim about what qualifies someone to discuss Islamic history, and Hornplease countered that point with many fair points. He challenged your arguments based upon your own assumptions and critereon, even though such criteria are not universal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
(removing indent) "No evidence has been presented that this economist is qualified to critique Lewis"? Jay, that is somewhat disingenous: please note again, since you have perhaps overlooked it, that I have spelled out his qualifications as a critic above; his work since 1994 means that he is arguably as competent as Lewis (a historian) to analyse broad claims about institutional divergence. (At least, economists would think so.) If you object to particular instances of his work, then let the conversation be about that, rather than his entire body of work. Hornplease 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You said you were on a slow internet connection, and could not provide the proof. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, Jay, I said that was why I wasn't doing it. I did tell you where to go i - the RePec archive of freely downloadable working papers and those journal articles that arent behind copyright walls. Since I'm here to help, I've done it for you anyway: [1]. Note his specialisation. He's empowered to comment on Lewis' methodology in evaluating institutional divergence. Hornplease 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in there that would indicate he is qualified to criticize Lewis in the area of Muslim history. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayig - am I to understand that unless someone is deemed "qualifed" to critique them, then even notable critiques by so-called "non qualified" experts cannot be used in Wikipedia? As I stated earlier, Edward Said was an English teacher, so by your standard he's not qualified but his book Orientalism is regarded as notable. So it seems to me like the real burden here is to establish that Alam's books, like his latest "the New Orientalism" as well as Alam's critics, like Jihad watch, Left Watch, and other neocon groups, regard him as notable. Correct? Otherwise, it sounds to me like Said needs to go too. Steveng72 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've come across a statement that reminded me of this conversation. In International Relations 19 (1): 5, Robert Gilpin of Princeton notes that Alam's critique is the most powerful one available. In any case, revisiting this issue, I think that a precis/suitable quote from the Alam SCI 4 (1) paper might be in order; specifically something referring to Lewis' approach to economic history. Hornplease 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin Kramer

I'm worried about the degree we depend on Martin Kramer. I think that's fine for biographical details, but a peacock phrase in the lead such as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East" rests on just the one source (who also happen to have been one of Lewis' students), rather than being a consensus of scholarly opinion. It's fine keeping Kramer's opinion under "Research", but it doesn't belong in the lead paragraphs. —Ashley Y 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is one opinion, but it's also in a pretty good source. Do you doubt it is true? Anyway, if you're looking for a more nuanced critique of Lewis than you'll get from Kramer, or people like Said and Alam, you might want to read this. Jayjg (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A very interesting book review, thanks. —Ashley Y 08:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Backwardness of Arab Lands

In Lewis' research section, I was troubled by this phrase, "Contrary to the position that the backwardness of Muslim lands is a result of Western colonialism, Lewis argues that the decline of the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim countries was largely self-inflicted. Their failure to keep up with the West stemmed from their cultural arrogance, which was a barrier to creative borrowing. Lewis analyzes the causes and consequences of the Muslim inflexibility in his work Muslim Discovery of Europe (1982)" The part about what Lewis believes is not really an issue, since it accurately reflects Lewis' position. But this sentence in particular makes it sound like "Muslim lands" are "backward" as if that's a fact, rather than the position of Lewis or some other individual. It seems a very inappropriate way to discuss the Middle East, because the term "backwards" is an insulting term which is both judgemental and unscholarly. It would be like a Doctor saying "lady, your nose is ugly." It's one thing to call the Middle East "maldeveloped" or struggling in certain areas, but to call it backward is just a slap in the face.

Moreover, calling it "Muslim lands" rather than the "Middle East" seems odd too, since it implies even places like Indonesia, provinces of India, and greater Pakistan - which is really far too broad of subject to offer an analysis with any real meaning. I mean, do we characterize the West as "Christian lands?" And what relevance would that have, because we understand the huge differences between France, England, and Canada, for example which makes such a characterization rather odd. I wonder if its not simply being ignorant of the vasty cultural, legal, social, and religious differences between a place like Morocco, Lebanon, or Iran by simply calling it a "Muslim land" as if to ignore particular Arab culture, and nationalism in the region.

Not to mention "Muslim inflexibility"? and "cultural arrogance" (putting a personal characeristic on an impersonal concept) "failure to keep up with the west?" (presuming that keeping pace with the west is the issue, and failing to mention in what respects this applies [presumably not in art, or music]).

This entire passage is built upon Lewis "explaining" the failure of Islamic societies, taking it for granted that this was the case, and I think that's biased, rather than fact. It should say "Lewis argued" ... rather than begging the question. Steveng72 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Persuasive enough. WP:SOFIXIT. Hornplease 10:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Quote Should be Restored

Somehow I knew the supporters of Dr. Lewis would not be content to just delete Dr. Juan Cole, or Dr. M Shahid Alam, but would go so far as to keep widdling away at Dr. Said until even his critique was not permitted. Once again, the same people, are making edits designed to accomplish the same thing - which is to silence or diminish the impact of the critics of a controversial man.

Regarding this deleted quote "According to Said, Lewis doesn't have "much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization. No, the West is the West, and Islam Islam"

Not only is the quote properly sourced, its under a section regarding Edward Said's famous debates with Bernard Lewis, which as I understand this debate, Edward Said is still considered a "notable" critique of Lewis. It perfectly summarizes how Said feels about Lewis' work.

The comment by Jayig, that this refers to "undue weight" is I think a bit unfair, since that would suggest even the paraphrased comment should be removed, and does not explain the necessity of deleting Dr. Said's exact words. On the other hand, I believe that if paraphrasing is considered preferable to quoting, then I should be perfectly justified in removing the quotes by Dr. Lewis and paraphrasing them in response to allegations that he is a Genocide-Denier in the case of the Armenian Genocide. Steveng72 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV. Please, no more POV words such as allegations. - Fedayee (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

misrepresentation in the New Criterion article by Windschuttle?

The wiki reads, "Said asserted that the field of Orientalism was"-- among other things-- "a tool of imperialist domination," citing Keith Windschuttle. Yet on page 12 in Said (Vintage, 1979), it is quite explicit that, quoting Said, "Orientalism is not a mere political subject matter or field that is reflected passively by culture, scholarship, or institutions; nor is it a large and diffuse collection of texts about the Orient; nor is it representative and expressive of some nefarious 'Western' imperialist plot to hold down the 'Oriental' world" (my emphasis). Why are we relaying such blatant misrepresentation? Can we add a comment about this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Walla Walla (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you are speaking to me, but I think there's more to that passage. If you look at page 12 and read a little bit further down, it says
As you can see, calling Orientalism a TOOL of imperialist domination is a manifestly different argument from saying that Orientalism is synonymous with imperial domination, or that it was the intent of orientlialists to dominate the Middle East. He is, however, saying, that Orientalism feeds into a cultural, moral, political, and economic sense of superiority of the region as part of an attempt to control it. Said's point in illustrating the difference between a direct attempt to dominate, and the subtlties of Orientalist bias, I think, is to rebut Lewis (and his suppoters) who believe that Said was in fact saying that it was a conscious attempt to dominate the Middle East, rather, it was a byproduct, as Said writes of an "overall campaign of self affirmation" that is part of a subconscious failure to understand the region and its inhabitants on their own terms Steveng72 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My comments weren’t directed toward anyone in particular, just the forum generally, but I’m glad someone replied. I was simply taking issue with the citation of Windschuttle as it relates to the characterization, which I found taken out of context, of Said’s remarks about “orientalism” as a “tool” of imperialism. Windschuttle is quoted approvingly by Ibn Warraq with even worse distortions, but what the former has to say is important; my quarrel isn’t with critiques of Said, just the ones that don’t fairly represent the source material (of course). I agree with you that Lewis gets him wrong on the nature of his orientalism thesis, but why cite a source for the following (“Said asserted that the field of Orientalism was … a tool of imperialist domination”), among other things, in the New Criterion article, which mentions Said’s remarks on imperialism, quoting Said in the only case that relates to his general thesis, in a wholly acontextual way, maybe approaching slander.

Allow me to quote Windschuttle and Said (for context), in turn.

I know zip about Massignon, but the latter quote Windschuttle uses is stripped of the context in which Said wrote it; and, is made to read as something it isn’t, completely. Here’s Said (giving the context but excising some of the excess words irrelevant to the matter at hand), describing “Orientalism” as

That is “manifestly different,” to use your good words. Walla Walla 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's Response to Edward Said

The section on Lewis' reponse to Said is easily refutable. Given that I don't have the primary source, I don't know whether to blame Lewis or the summarizer. The fact is, the Italians, Germans, and Dutch had significant imperialist records in Arab Islamic Libya and Somalia, the Islamic Ottoman/Turkish Empire, and the largely Islamic East Indies respectively. So to say that they had "little or no imperialist record in the Arab world" is disengenuous on the one hand, and begs the question with regard to the Arab world -- Orientalism with respect to Islam encompasses much more than just the Arab world. I propose leaving the line about orientalism's roots in European humanism, and the line about some of orientalism doing nothing to advance the cause of imperialism, and remove the rest. I'll leave it to someone else to go back to the primary source to develop a better summary of Lewis' defense.


If it turns out Lewis was, indeed, using incorrect facts (which I doubt) in his response, that does not mean they should make it into wikipedia. We are amateur historians, not journalists, so we have no responsibility to give everyone a chance to respond.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonrnwhite (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Debates section needs cleanup

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a debate, nor should they include quotefarming, as in this article. I suggest we rewrite the article to present both viewpoints in a manner that doesn't include full quotes or criticism/response. Yahel Guhan 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right wing policy?

  • His advice is frequently sought by right-wing policymakers, including the current Bush administration.

This sentence seems to be a rather poor one. I don't think right-wing policymakers are the only politicians who seek his advice. How about "Foreign policymakers" or something like that? Not to mention, I feel this sentence is expressed to reflect the American political situation without regard to the rest of the world. --72.205.63.176 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I think it's nonetheless a true statement that bernard lewis' advice is sought primarily by people in favor of current US policy in the Middle East. You don't see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama going to meet with Lewis, nor any of the Progressive luminaries which inform their campaigns ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

"Obviously imperialist powers are not blameless in this respect. They did contribute, but they are not the cause of what went wrong. What went wrong is what enabled them to come and conquer these places." - to me that reads like he is saying it is their fault that western powers conquer them and impose tyrannies, but surely he can't be saying that. LamontCranston (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not?--Radh (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Stance on the Iraq War

Shouldn't this be in "Views and influence on contemporary politics"??? Faro0485 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Inappropriate material=

I removed an eight inch long personal atttack on Lewis by Noam Chomsky. This section violated WP:COATRACK WP:BLP From WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.Historicist (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A better solution might have been to whittle down the eight inch knife to a thumbtack. In other words, much as I dislike Chomsky, he is a notable figure and appropriate coverage of his criticism of Lewis can legitimately be included.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As critiquing Chomsky on the Chomsky page is Verboten!, why should purely ideological criticism (Said, Chomsky) of a serious thinker be allowed here?--Radh (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think Lewis is more "serious" or less "ideological" than Chomsky or Said? csloat (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You will agree that Said's Orientalism is a brilliant polemical text, but not to be taken seriously "scientifically" (Said for example does not know that there was a strong german tradition of Oriental Studies. The early reviews of Said show this purely polemical character of Orientalism). But Said is to be taken seriously. Why should anybody take Chomsky on the Arab World seriously, when he doesn't know arab or any of the other languages (he knows Hebrew, I guess)?--Radh (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"Arab" is not a language; at least in English, we call it "Arabic." I have no idea what languages the linguist Noam Chomsky speaks but that would only be relevant if his criticism of Lewis was that Lewis mistranslated some key Arabic text. That's not the case here from what I can tell. As for Said, nobody claimed he was a "scientist." Is that the status you're claiming Lewis has? The thing that is interesting about Said is that his thesis in Orientalism (however incomplete) helps reveal how someone like Lewis is himself polemical and ideological even as he appears to many of us as "scientific." But anyway this discussion, while interesting, takes us away from the task at hand -- whatever we may think of Chomsky or Said as polemicists, "scientists," academics, etc., they are both notable and well-published critics of Lewis, and their critiques ought to be represented here. csloat (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Lewis has a political, "ideological" stance, is probably too much pro Atatürk, but most of his work is scientific, reasonable, scholarly work. I had put science in brackets, because I do not like the idea (that Chomsky shares or at least once shared

), that the humanities should be structured like mathematics and the "hard" sciences. Said is perhaps a notable critic of Western Science and History and Lewis. But Chomsky, the polemicist (not the linguist) is not at all notable, only notorious. And as long as well founded and sourced criticism of Chomsky is not allowed on the Chomsky page, Chomsky's name simply should be tabu everywhere else.--Radh (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't edit the Chomsky page, but I can't imagine that there is no criticism of him on there. Whether Chomsky is notable or notorious, I think his criticism is well sourced and relevant here. I don't think it's useful to debate whether he is "scientific" or to use our dissatisfaction with another page as a reason to delete material on this page. csloat (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
At this point I find myself in agreement with csloat. I would not mind calling the Chumpsky "notorious" but he is also notable. If it is true that sourced criticism of Chompsky is being kept out of that article then that is an outrage. Start an RfC to gain wide participation and let me know when it's ready so that I can contribute.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Goodmorningworld and will read up on Chomsky, esp. his critics and then attack the Chomskyite's entrenched positions.--Radh (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, guys? Before you reinvent the wheel; it didn't take me long to find this. Cheers, csloat (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know found this after our spat (rather red faced), but be this as it may, I will try to figure out a fair critique of Chomsky, read some of the more hard core rightist stuff and that can be as idiotic as the Chomsky adulation front.Radh (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of fair critiques of Chomsky, from various political perspectives, and many of them are already discussed on that page. No need to go for the "hard core rightist stuff" unless you are trying to make a point. csloat (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Category

Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Nolte

If Bernard Lewis denies the Armenian holocaust the way Nolte denies the Jewish holocaust, there is not much denial there.--Radh (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian genocide

I found what seems to be a copy of the judgement against Bernard Lewis on the "Armenian genocide" at http://www.voltairenet.org/article14133.html . Although the credibility of the "reseaux Voltaire", who own that site, is controversial, the document seems genuine. I do not know, of course, whether there ever was an appeal against the judgement; however, it seems to be the judgement referred to in the article. On that basis, I have made the following changes:

1. I have removed the reference to Lewis being "fined". A fine is punishment for a criminal offence; here, according to the document above, and the article itself, this was a purely civil matter, i.e. Lewis was alleged to have done wrong to others, but there was no allegation that he committed an offence. This may seem pedantic, but there was a lot of debate in France about whether denying genocides should be made an offence, so I think it is important not to confuse the issue.

2. I have removed the references to Lewis "denying the Armenian genocide", again because I thought this could lead to confusion about Lewis's views on the matter. To say that Lewis "denied a genocide" could be read as meaning that Lewis does not accept that the Turks massacred Armenians. However, at least according to the above document, Lewis did not "deny" that massacres took place. The only issues was whether those masscres fulfilled the criteria to be called a genocide. This issue is important, but revolves more about the application of the concept of "genocide" than around a possible "denial" of facts that took place.

You get fined for jaywalking and for returning books late to the library but are those criminal offenses?
Difficult to come up with a wording that adequately conveys the situation in a couple of sentences let alone a section headline. In any case I believe that the Article has made it clear that it was a civil proceeding, ever since I cleaned up a wildly tendentious and defamatory recounting of this episode
Lewis unfortunately left himself open to trouble by expressing himself in a way that could be taken to accommodate denialist positions in Turkey.
Also, he should have known better than to question application of the "genocide" label. By most (if not all) reputable definitions, what happened in 1915 was a genocide.
Yet he did not deny the historical fact that the Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Hence it would be inaccurate to simply slap the "genocide denier" label on him. Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well, and I realise that the draft was making it clear that it was a civil proceeding, but, in a legal context (as opposed to, say, the return of library books), "fined" tends to relate specifically to the punishment for a criminal offence; it had confused me, hence the change - I had thought this was the application of the anti-denialism laws in France, and that, e.g., Lewis had acquired a criminal record through this. This would have raised issues about the application of anti-denialism laws in France, since it is questionable whether Lewis, however mistaken he may be (I do not have enough knowledge to judge how much he is), is in the same league of the loonies who grossly doctor the evidence to deny the Holocaust. But, as the decision was not based on such laws, the issue is not about the laws themselves, but the way the courts apply them. In any case, thank you for not changing my editing back to "fined"; hopefully any misunderstanding between us is now resolved.—Precedingunsigned comment added by 213.86.133.215 (talk)

Importance of Wikipedia

What I wanted to say (to all too involved in this): nothing on Wikipedia (and nothing in Lewis) will change the historic facts, whatever they may be. It would be nice if you could please stop pretending your edits here are of historic importance.--Radh (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just do not understand what you mean. In the present state of the article and discussion, no-one is "pretending that their edits are of historical importance". The quotation marks around the word genocide have been removed, so no-one can now say that the article makes any comment about the Armenian genocide. The article is now all about an episode in Lewis's life, i.e. his lost court case on the Armenian genocide. It discusses what his views were, and the consequences they had for him. This falls perfectly within the scope of an article on Bernard Lewis. The discussion in the above heading is about how the article should be worded to reflect that episode accurately, which, again, is something entirely appropriate for the dicussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.133.215 (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I was not talking against or for any spefic edits. It just seemed necessary to remind people that it s absurd to think or suggest, as waves of fanatical edits seem to, that poor Bernard Lewis is the one responsible for the pro Turkish propaganda about it. Also, France's cowardly censorship laws are nothing to be proud of (this also goes for the Anti-NS aspect or it, fine antisemitic collaboraters as most of them were). I think there was an Armenian genozide, but what you and I and Wikipedia think is not really important! In the end even Wikipedia is just one more useless book.-Radh (talk)
Looks to me that the misunderstanding has been resolved. Sorry if my quotation marks on "genocide" gave the impression I was expressing a view on the issue; on the contrary, I was trying to steer the article away from doing so, but I now realise that they may have achieved the opposite result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.133.215 (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to have completely misunderstood you. I simply liked Lewis book on Turkish history, even if I can see how his admiration for the modernizers may have led him into the mess he is in right now.--Radh (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

While he denies the Armenian Genocide, the relevant section is called Ordered by a court to pay damages for his views on the Armenian Genocide by POV. The French court says he is a denier, as well as many well known historians while the lead of this article is false positive. Scholars like Alain Finkielkraut, Yves Ternon, Richard G. Hovannisian, Albert Memmi, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Robert Melson, David B. MacDonald, Norman Finkelstein; Stephen Zunes find his works controversional so this fact must be included in the lead. Gazifikator (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems dead. Cihan Bahran (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest WP:BLP violations

Claiming in Wikipedia's narrative voice that Lewis has "conservative and biased opinions" and "is known as one of the leading figures that command anti-Islamic movements" is an violation of WP:BLP. So too is sourcing a series of "criticisms" to some Egyptian newspapers behind a paywall. Please review WP:BLP very carefully before editing this article. Jayjg (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Primer on Islam

  • Can someone please explain why the primer on islam section of this article was previously deleted?? It appears the RS and primary research arguments were used as justification, but quoting an individual's written words, in a reliably published work (that is readily available), on a topic for which he is a recognized expert is not against wikipedia policy. As long as it merely documents his written statement on the topic (which is exactly what that section did).

To quote wiki policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.

I think based on this the primer on Islam can be added back, if there is disagreement I would welcome taking this to the RS board.

The original Primer on Islam section is pasted below for all to review. Notice all statements are quotes (with references to the exact page) and offered without further analysis. And clearly it is on a topic of interest and for which the author has extensive expertise.

Primer on Islam Lewis's latest book is called Islam: The Religion and the People.[15] From his research, Lewis draws the following conclusions regarding the history of Islamic culture:[16]: "At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition)." "Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements." "The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion."[17] "The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."[18] "Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism [and colonialism] in the 17th century."[19] "Unbelievers, slaves, and women are considered fundamentally inferior to other groups of people under Islamic law.".[20] (Kitkat21 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Lewis' views on Islam

Regarding the following passage

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism [and colonialism] in the 17th century."

Sorry I don't have this book at hand. Are the words [and colonialism] Lewis'? Are these Lewis' square brackets, or is this a "clarification" from a WP editor? Is this passage actually Lewis quoting someone else?

Thanks Aquib (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a garbled version of the passage in the book, which was not a quote. I do not know where the phrase "[and colonialism]" came from. Spacepotato (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you -Aquib (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Bernard Lewis seems to have been a big inspiration to Breivik, as his manifesto is full of Lewis quotes. It should be mentioned in this article.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

It is very relevant in this case; Lewis' is linked by faith and by marriage to communities that are actors in the area he specializes in studying. This section must be included in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.112 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased article

Very strange article. The tone of the article is deceiving. It is fully biased. --User:Ghard (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.176.75 (talk)

How? (I'm not saying you're wrong, you just haven't really said anything) - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My friend Bernard Lewis is a spy working for UK &USA and you did not mention that.Why you want to make people foll . It is evident that nearly all spies are disguised as historians ,linguistic or cultural experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.206.178 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If he's your friend, then why are you outing him? You're puting his life in danger. Some friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You put the same word "foll" in the article on Ann Lambton when you accused her too of being a British spy. I think you mean "fool". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bernard Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Genocide denial

@92slim: It looks like you may have changed sourced text without checking the citations. I've just looked them up, and they rather muddy the picture. Yair doesn't relate Lewis' views on this point at all, as far as I can tell. Melson writes on the cited page "Lewis does not deny that a genocide occurred, but he sees it as stemming from the provocative aspirations and actions of Armenian nationalism" and elsewhere "[Lewis] refers to the Armenian Genocide as a "holocaust" in clear allusion to the Final Solution" (p. 154). That may refer to his writings from an earlier period than the cited interviews. There are other problems with the lead passage: criticism of Lewis' view is extensively covered in RSs are so it should be mentioned in the lead, while the comments about Armenians were plucked from an interviewed, apparently just because a WP editor wanted to highlight them, leading to undue weighting. Furthermore, the phrase "[the] Armenians want to benefit from both worlds" on its own is just unintelligible. So, let's have a discussion about improving this passage. Eperoton (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Rejecting designation as genocide is the rejection of genocide, plain and simple. Calling it by any other name is still denial. It doesn't matter if he calls them massacres, holocaust or extermination. Arguably genocide scholars have progressed in their findings enough to warrant calling these people by names. 92slim (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@92slim: Per WP:NPOV, our mandate here is to reflect how RSs cover the subject, which is Lewis' views about the Armenian genocide. The best I can connect your reply to WP policy is to read it as a proposal to handle them as a specimen of genocide denial, presumably based on how RSs treat that more general subject. This, however, would violate WP:SYNTH.
I have reviewed how the subject is discussed in several academic sources. All of them were written by genocide scholars and all vigorously criticize Lewis' views. However, none of them seem to follow your proposal of labeling his views as rejection of genocide without providing more detail. In fact, he has made two different kinds of arguments, both of which are discussed in these books. The first one comes from The Emergence of Modern Turkey:
  • "The argument that two nationalisms -- even two competing nations --- faced each other in a deadly struggle for the same land has been made nowhere more eloquently than in the words of the eminent scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis" [... quote from The Emergence of Modern Turkey...] [2] [footnote:] "Over the years Lewis has hardened his position. [... quoting a Lewis interview:] "[T]he point that was being made was that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks" [3] (A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press)
  • "Bernard Lewis's statement of the provocation thesis is most succinct and influential:" [... quote from The Emergence of Modern Turkey...] "Lewis does not deny that a genocide occurred, but he sees it as stemming from the provocative aspirations and actions of Armenian nationalism" and elsewhere "[Lewis] refers to the Armenian Genocide as a "holocaust" in clear allusion to the Final Solution" (Melson, Robert (1992). Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) [4]
I've added this argument to the article, and I think it should also be mentioned in the lead. The other view is what has already been discussed in the article:
  • [quoting Lewis] "The question to be discussed is the one of knowing if there was or was not a decision taken by the Turkish government to exterminate the Armenians, as well as orders given in that sense [...]" (Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide By Richard G. Hovannisian. Wayne State University Press) [5] (NB: the author testified against Lewis in the French trial)
  • The Banality of Denial By Yair Auron seems to have the pages discussing Lewis' views unavailable in Google Books preview, but he quotes a letter in Lewis' defense mentioning the same argument on another page [6]
I think it would reflect RSs better to mention what Lewis does deny (intent of extermination by the Turkish government) than what he does not deny. I also think, as I've already mentioned, that the provocative snippet psycho-analysing Armenians that was apparently put into the lead based on an editor's whim should be replaced by a mention of criticism incurred by the views which RSs actually discuss. I'd be curious to hear what the other involved editors think of this, of whom just TheTimesAreAChanging is pingable. Eperoton (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: I'm fine with your edits, which make clear that Lewis acknowledges "atrocities" but disputes the "genocide" label. My objection was to 92slim deleting any reference to Lewis's actual arguments in favor of simply labeling him a "denier."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: So, perhaps you're agreeing with the IP user rather than me on this point. There are four elements of Lewis' view that are under consideration for the lead, schematically: 1) the "intentionality argument"; 2) the "provocation argument"; 3) acknowledgement of massacres/etc; 4) "what the Armenians want". I took out #3 because it seems to get less weight in RSs than the first two, and #4 because it seems to get even less of it. What are your thoughts on these choices? Eperoton (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
What Bernard Lewis said is the equivalent of saying "a bunch of Jews during the Third Reich were being economically uncivil against the Germans". He is categorically a Genocide denier, as he has never used the word genocide to describe it as such. I don't see how this is even a controversy. I'm adding the appropiate sources now and ending this ridiculous discussion, sorry. Before you revert, discuss. --92slim (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
After you've gotten no support for your changes before, I'm pretty sure you realize that this more extreme version will get reverted, or at least moved from the lead, as I'm about to do. I'm also pretty sure you realize that the lead of a BLP normally isn't the place to list the negative epithets given to the subject of the article by their critics. Try to develop a policy-based argument for why it is consistent with WP:NPOV in this case. How is that a proportonal reflection of RSs on the subject? I've made an effort to review RSs from a NPOV rationale above, which you have ignored, choosing to cherrypick some "genocide denier" quotes instead. That isn't a valid rationale for establishing due weight. Remember, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for including this disputed material (in general, but particularly in a BLP lead), so if you want to get your changes to stay, you should actually be trying to convince other editors instead of "ending this ridiculous discussion". Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You're simply getting this wrong. First of, my edit got reverted([7]) by an obvious sock account. Secondly, the sock got reverted ([8]) by someone who is definitely not a sock. Apart from that, lots of IPs. That's not consensus, it's sockpuppetry. Thirdly, look at David Duke. He doesn't get the same treatment, even though he is as bad as this Genocide denier. Perhaps the WP:ONUS is on you, because there is nothing disputed. He is a Genocide denier, end of, and there are the sources. If you don't explain why he is not a denier, I will revert you again. --92slim (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that Lewis rejects the genocide designation and that he's been criticized for it is already in the lead, and this well supported by the bulk of RSs on the subject. The label "genocide denier" does not reflect RSs proportionally, based on the sample of RSs I've reviewed. And, yes, there is something disputed here (NPOV policy compliance), and the ONUS is not on me because I'm not the one trying to include contentious material in a BLP lead. Eperoton (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't read the sources: Israel Charny says he denies the Genocide. Btw, Israel Charny is a Genocide scholar, and director of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Apart from that, rejecting the Genocide designation is the epitome of genocide denial. Do you see how you have completely failed to prove your point? --92slim (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh? How is pointing to one scholar's statement supposed to contradict the conclusions drawn from a sample of academic publications on the subject by genocide scholars that I've reviewed above? Again, proportionality is key to NPOV. You're welcome to do a RFC on including that label in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Because I'll give you your so wanted rebuttal right here buddy:

Basically, you have no sources backing up whatever you're pushing right now. --92slim (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good, thank you for finally joining a NPOV-based discussion. I'll review these sources again a bit later to see if I've overlooked something (which is possible, since I checked them for detailed characterization of Lewis' views, for which the authors may and do use direct quotes, and not use of labels) and whether the prominence of the label in the lead reflects its use in the sources. Even if the "genocide denier" label is prominently used among genocide scholars, based on what I recall from things written about Lewis, this controversy does not account for a third of it, as it does after your addition to the lead. Eperoton (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, two issues:
  1. I've reviewed the sources again, and I agree with you that the genocide denial/denier label is prominent among RSs which criticize Lewis' view on the subject
  2. I've also reviewed a number of sources to gauge how much weight this controversy should get overall. There aren't many RSs directly comparable to this article as a whole. The only one I see is an encyclopedic biographical entry by Martin Kramer [13], which makes a passing allusion to the French lawsuit. The next closest approximation are reviews of Lewis' recent autobiography, which covers the various controversies he's been involved with. This academic review in Review of Middle East Studies I found at JSTOR also makes a passing allusion to the French suit. [14] I've additionally looked at some reviews in major newspapers: those in Washington Post [15] and the Telegraph [16] don't mention it at all. The review in the WSJ [17] devotes less than 10% to it by word count. Among the contoversies he's been involved in, this one isn't as prominent as his feud with Said and his influence on American foreign policy, per these soruces.
In view of the above, I will work the reference to genocide denial into the lead, but in a way that doesn't give the whole controversy more weight than it had before your addition. Eperoton (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Quotes don't belong in lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important topics of an article. Lewis' position about the Armenian genocide is already specified in a few sentences, so it seems like an unnecessary overrepresentation to add an additional quote. Perhaps you can move it to the appropriate section.--186.137.94.191 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've done. Eperoton (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it looks fine. The fact that the IAGS (Israel Charny, Yair Auron, etc) labelled him a genocide denier was enough for me because they are pioneers in this field of study. But I'm not sure about including his justification in the lead: the deaths resulted from a struggle between two nationalistic movements and that there is no proof of intent by the Ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian nation, it sounds like the Jews stabbed the Germans in the back during WWI while actively hindering the German nation through their explicit support for Communism and there is no proof for gas chambers - ie. perhaps it's giving too much weight to revisionist arguments (which are demonstrably false). Pinging @Tiptoethrutheminefield: for a 3rd opinion. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I just saw Tiptoethrutheminefield's comment in support of your position (or aspects of it) while browsing their history. The constributions seem thoughtful and policy-minded, so I have no problem with inviting them here. The current form of the lead is my attempt to reflect two types of sources. Based on my earlier experience, if one reads about Lewis in general sources (newpapers, books, etc not specifically devoted to the Armenian genocide or genocide denial), including those which criticize him on other subjects, one tends to come across allusions to the French lawsuit but not endorsement of the label genocide denier/denial. This was confirmed in my attempt to draw a representative sample of general sources above. On the other hand, if one reads genocide scholars who apply those labels to him, as I did for the first source review above, one also finds out what his views on the subject are. The situation is different in the case of, say, David Irving, where one commonly comes across those labels without a specification of what he denies or argues. P.S. And I see that even the lead of David Irving includes details of his views. Eperoton (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton The article on David Irving starts by saying he is a Holocaust denier. I'm not too sure what you're hinting at now, but you can see that currently the weight on the current version is on the views of Bernard Lewis, and not the fact that he is a Genocide denier. I am not sure how does it matter what newspapers or books say about Bernard Lewis, when we have actual Genocide scholars calling him a denier. Those sources, the ones from Genocide scholars, should hold more weight than a petty newspaper or even some random book. --92slim (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I can express what I already wrote in the last comment better than I did, so I'll just add a few additional observations. First, a couple of heuristics that I would think should be uncontroversial: it seems natural that Lewis's views should get substantial weight in an article about him, and if we're less fair in presenting his views than his harshest critics (as in mentioning genocide denial without giving specifics), that's a good indication of serious NPOV problems.
Now, for some tangential issues. The views of some of these scholars should get considerable weight in the factual history of the Armenian genocide. The relevant specialization here is that period of Ottoman history rather than, e.g., genocide studies by a psychologist like Israel Charny. However, the topic of this passage isn't the history of the Armenian genocide, but rather Lewis' views and their reception. The term genocide denial is not a neutral way of expressing the fact that someone upholds a minority viewpoint about the classification of some event as genocide. It's a label with strong moral and political connotations, as is illustrated by the reluctance of the bulk of RSs to apply it to Lewis, and it doesn't seem like that there is an academic specialty that should get particular weight for its use. It's somewhat similar to a case where we have a few specialists of race relations who examine a person's views and find them to be racist, while the bulk of RSs don't adopt that label. It's challenging to apply NPOV to case like this, and I'm not surprised that others may prefer a different phrasing. If you're ok with the current version as you said, then we can declare WP:CONSENSUS (which doesn't mean agreement) for the article text and go work on other stuff. If not, then we can continue thrashing out our policy-based concerns, perhaps with Tiptoethrutheminefield's help. Eperoton (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
92slim doesn't understand that rejecting the categorization of an event as a "genocide," even if a minority view among scholars, is not automatically equivalent to being a "genocide denier." Reliable sources do not generally treat Lewis as a "denier" in the vein of David Irving, and neither should Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been having computer problems so have not been able to participate though I said I would. But just a brief reply to one of Eperoton's points. The label "racism" does have npov usage problems as well as vagueness of definition - however, the comparison for this issue is not valid. Here, it is not a matter of pov because it is the subject of the article who has said the AG was not a genocide, so the fact of the opinion existing is not subject to vagueness. While obviously not every rs source on Bernard Lewis will mention his position regarding the AG, amongst the sources that do, none are saying that Bernard Lewis's position is not one that the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide. So it is just a matter of giving this the appropriate weight. TheTimesAreAChanging, Bernard Lewis says that the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide - so he is denying that the Armenian Genocide happened. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can (or should) find agreement on whether the term "genocide denial" is a neutral form of stating that someone rejects the designation of genocide for some event. This matter of terminology should be decided based on RSs. However, I'm not sure we still have a dispute about the current version of this article, and I'm loath to prolong this discussion more than it needs to last for the purposes of its improvement. Eperoton (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose my concern is not really about advocating the use of that exactly worded phrase "genocide denial", but in maintaining Bernard Lewis in the Wikipedia category "Armenian Genocide deniers" and a concern that discussion could have spillover results in future arguments being presented against having him in that category. I think it is appropriate to have that category, and to have Lewis listed in it: he has written that the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide so he is denying that the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. There is no requirement for every person in that category to hold identical opinions or to hold them for the same reasons, only that each individual has a publically-expressed opinion denying that the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think one can find a better wording for that category, but I'm not as concerned about categories as I am about leads. Categories are a bit of a loose cannon, and luckily not a conspicuous feature for the average reader. Eperoton (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Bias and Denial

I am combining two sections of this talk page for this reason: I am not familiar with Dr. Lewis, having heard about him for the first time today. So I checked out Wikipedia, naturally. The article seems to be slanted, as the first section states. For example, the lead section states that Lewis was subject to a "successful civil suit," and only in the details is it revealed that he had to pay a single franc - which indicates the suit was unsuccessful. As I read the article, Lewis's views on the Armenian genocide seem reasonable; he is looking at the events from more than one side, which seems appropriate for a scholar. The comments in talk (above) have a tone that implies no one is allowed to study the event at all unless they agree with a particular viewpoint in advance. For example, the idea that failing using the term genocide is equal to denying the event happened is disturbing, in my opinion. The whole "genocide denier" section could be omitted, since it is merely the opinions of others, rather than a recitation of facts.Closedthursday (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Bernard Lewis was a hugely divisive and controversial person, especially after the spectacular failure of the 2003 Iraq war (which he was a supporter of...until it was an obvious failure). Not many would get that from this article, though!

His notorious "Alleged nuclear threat from Iran" from 2006 was widely mocked...when it turned out to be.....nothing.

The article now looks as if nothing has happened in the Middle East these last 15 years..but it has. Trying to censor out Hamid Dabashi, (a professor at Columbia University and a heck of a lot more notable than a lot of the people cited in the article) will not hide Bernard Lewis political failings. Huldra (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, WP:OWN is relevant. nableezy - 23:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion articles are not really suitable for leads. If you must, add Dabashi in some section about criticism. Also you removed a direct quote from Lewis without explanation.--יניב הורון (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
That direct quote is way, way too long, and, more importantly, strongly mischaracterised Lewis views of the people he studied. (At least according to the same people!) According to Hamid Dabashi: "What sort of a person would spend a lifetime studying people he loathes?" So according to him, Lewis loathes his subject....not easy to see that in the present article, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Leads should summarize an article, and that summary would include criticism of the subject. nableezy - 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There no particular reason to showcase Hamid Dabashi's opinion in the lead - particularly not from an opinion piece. We have much higher quality sources for Lewis - actual journalism profiles in leading newspapers, and academic level coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theres no particular reason for any one thing to be anywhere. However the lead has to contain an adequate summary of the article, including criticism of Lewis. nableezy - 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
We already have a whole paragraph in the lede devoted to his debates with Said and criticism from Said - which is more than enough.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
We must be reading different articles. There is one sentence about Said, and nothing about criticism of Lewis' views on the Arabs or the Middle East, whereas it includes the bizarre claim that Lewis is " generally regarded as the dean of Middle East scholars" sourced to video by Jay Nordlinger, who as best I can tell has no business making such a claim let alone being quoted (or plagiarized as there are no quotations around the word-for-word copy) in the opening of an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 05:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That said I dont see the need for this particular quote over any other. But criticism of the views he espoused belongs in both the article and the lead. And the fawning tone taken in portions needs to be dropped down a few notches. nableezy - 05:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I will remind you that BLP policy, per WP:BDP, applies to this article and the talk page. If at all, our lede (and body) gives too much space to Said and criticism - looking at the nytimes obit, we can see that we are over critical - the nytimes has in a long obit a paragraph and a half of criticism, and leads off with "Bernard Lewis, an eminent historian of Islam who traced the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to a declining Islamic civilization, a controversial view that influenced world opinion and helped shape American foreign policy under President George W. Bush" and continuing with "Few outsiders and no academics had more influence with the Bush administration on Middle Eastern affairs than Mr. Lewis".Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
lol, sure thing buddy, nothing I said violates any part of that policy, and besides he's been dead and confirmed dead, so no, per WP:BDP it does not apply here. Do you even read what you try to threaten people with? He is confirmed dead, and nothing written above is contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime so kindly take your threats elsewhere as I actually do read the policies instead of just waving them around. nableezy - 17:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
And well done completely ignoring the points made, I see you dont have a response to them. Thanks. nableezy - 17:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Good question, and you are not wrong. Presently only those who say that Lewis "loves it [the Arab world]" is allowed in the article. And at greeeeeeeeeeeeeeat length. Representatives from that world (or the Iranian world), who actually say that Lewis loathed them...are apparently not allowed. At present, AFAIK, there isn't a single Muslim voice in the article, in spite of the fact that the Muslim world were the object of Lewis's "love". We can't allow the object to have a say, can we? (Personally, I'm just damn glad I have never been the object of such "love" as that Lewis showed the Muslim world.....) Huldra (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

dean of the middle east

Im aware that another source was added, that still does not seem like something that a clinical psychologist is qualified to judge. nableezy - 16:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is from a book published by an academic press. Take it to RSN if you doubt its reliability, and there are no special qualifications required to call someone 'the dean of mid-east scholars'. It may be an incorrect evaluation, but it is indisputable that he has been called that.Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
He has been called that, whether or not being called that by a clinical psychologist merits being included in an encyclopedia article is what I am disputing. nableezy - 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps that is what you are disputing now, having moved the goal posts. But we are not idiots, and we can all read the edit history for this article - when you first removed this material, you did not claim "undue" or "no encyclopedic value", you claimed "unreliable source for such a sweeping claim", and when I subsequently provided a better source, you again did not claim "undue" or "not encyclopedic", but rather, again, "still an unreliable source for the claim". So, please make up your mind as to what you actually want to claim. That would stop wasting people's valuable time addressing your frivolous objection (which you now disclaim) at RSN. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Youre quite right, I made a mistake. I mistakenly believed your edit summary here that you had undone my edit. I noticed after that it was a new source, and then I came here with my objection to using this clinical psychologist as a qualified expert on the field of Orientalists. Of course I wont make the mistake to believe you again, no worries. nableezy - 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
What a pathetic little lie. I followed up that edit less than a minute later with another edit whose edit summary read "better source", hours before your edit. You simply blindly revert everything I do, and this time got caught. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Except that edit didnt add a source, it added a single character, so likewise, a dishonest edit summary. Youre really taking advantage of all the time you have here arent you. Looking forward to the per WP:BAN edits that will be coming. nableezy - 20:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I would get rid of this comment simply for the archaic use of the word "dean". I've worked most of my career in higher education and use/hear it regularly, but not in this manner. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_Lewis/Archive_2&oldid=1079509359"