Talk:Bernard Lewis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead Edit

1. Wikipedia articles should not engage in universally definitive statements. The particular author who regards Lewis as the best specialist has a right to his position, and this may be shared by many others. It is more effective, however, to let Lewis' acomplishments speak for themselves instead of explicitly stating that position as fact. He is certainly in the top tier, and by regarding him as "one of the leading" as opposed to "the leading", this article is not harmed in any way. Contrarily, a better perspective is formed.

2. The lead should contain a presentation, to some degree, of the different viewpoints inherent in the article. The one sentence I have added serves to establish that though there are many, even a majority, that regard Lewis' scholarship as correct, there is a substantiated and significant minority that do not. This, as previously mentioned, creates better perspective and neutrality.Mft1 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis as a "Jewish David Irving"

A genocide denier is a genocide denier no matter what their nationality,religion, or ethnicity. I don't see any difference between Bernard's Lewis and his denial of the Armenian Genocide as a genocide and the statements of David Irving on holocaust denial.It is clear that the financial support that he has received from Turkey has perverted his scholarship.Any reputable genocide historian accepts that both the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were systematically planned campaigns of mass murder focused on eliminating a particular minority .There are many fair Jewish historians that strongly accept the Armenian Genocide as a genocide including Elie Wiesel.Bernard Lewis is wrong on many topics.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fofolz (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias

The bulk of this article's bias is in its "Controversies" section. Authors repeatedly claim that Edward Said hated all western scholarship and that anybody that didn't agree with Muslim political objectives should be discounted. That's absurd. Moreover, the source of that claim is a book written by Bernard Lewis himself! Said, a CHRISTIAN, never made such claims, and they are purposely being distorted in this biography for reasons I don't know why. My professor (Leslie Pierce, UC Berkeley) was actually a student of Bernard Lewis and she taught us Orientalism in a far less biased manner than this. Reasonable people can disagree about western scholarship, but there's no need to distort Said's views in this manner. Moreover, Lewis' response seems to totally misunderstand Said's criticism, which are not based on the fact that Orientalists are critical of the Middle East, but that it's scholarship exists to advance political intellectualism, and is based upon a campaign of self affirmation, rather than study for its own sake. If you take a look at Lewis' books, including his famous "What Went Wrong" the anti-Islamic bias is obvious. Who says things went wrong? Things happened the way they did and blaming culture for it is counterproductive and assumes western institutionals and models are more appropriate for how a "proper society" should exist. Moreover, Middle Eastern soceties have been greatly affected by Western political interference, either through colonialism and the British Mandate, or direct interference like the 1953 coupe in Iran. I'm not suggesting these events in and of themselves caused the Middle East to quote "maldevelop" but if your going to start pointing fingers, lets be honest about our own roles in its development since the rise of our allies, such as the House of Saud. And therein lies the great flaw in Lewis' work, which is that he assumes all blame is internal to Arabs and Muslims, rather than their development existing within a global framework that was at times out of their control. No person or society has complete agency over their futures. What Said objected to was the self-righteousness of Orientalism, not who was being self righteous.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Think Pink

ThinkPink, I thought Orientalism was published in 1979 myself, but Said often said 1978 in interviews, so I wonder whether the first edition was 1978. One year either way doesn't matter though. Slim 04:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Facts matter a great deal to encyclopedias and scholars meticulous about dates, quotes and other minor historical details. There are even ways to check facts, unlike opinions, assumptions and interpretations. [1] --ThinkPink 05:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, by Edward Said; Pantheon, 1978; revised edition Penguin, 1995. [2]

Orientalism. - Routledge & Kegan Paul, Londres, 1980 (réédition de Orientalism. - Pantheon Books, New York/Routledge & Kegan Paul, Londres/Random House, Toronto, 1978 [3]

"His most influential work, Orientalism, first published in 1978, is a study of the system of ideas by which the West has, since the eighteenth century, represented and ruled the East. [4]

"First published in 1978, "Orientalism," has been profoundly influential in a diverse range of disciplines." [5]

"Nine years ago I wrote an afterword for Orientalism which, in trying to clarify what I believed I had and had not said, stressed not only the many discussions that had opened up since my book appeared in 1978, but the ways in which a work about representations of "the orient" lent itself to increasing misinterpretation." — Edward Said. [6]

The Amazon source you checked gave only the first Vintage edition. Slim 05:48, 20 December 2004 (UTC)

Arab or Jew?

This is ridiculous how people post basic claims without verifying data.

In agreeing to an interview, Lewis, who left the University of London to join Princeton's faculty in 1974, had warned me he would be reluctant to discuss the experience of being a Jewish scholar of Islam, and of being a Jew in a field traditionally dominated by ardent Arabists, because he was saving those reflections for a memoir.

Mikkalai 07:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? , are you an anti-semite ? 4r2emi 22 MAR 05

What is your point? What is wrong with person's ethnicity? And my point is that at a certain moment he was placed in category:Arabs. Mikkalai 17:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity is irrelevant to this article. If Editor Mikkalai is implying a bias in Bernard Lewis's work , then he should document it and state it as such with full reference to this. 3/26/2005

It is a rare case when an arabist is a Jew, hence the fact is notable. I am not implying anything. Please don't imply my facist views. BTW it is ridiculous to claim that ethnicity is irrelevant to person's biography. It is one of the basic person's traits. It is Soviet communists who wanted global "internationalism" and introduced the nation of "Soviet people". But people there eventually decided to stay lithuanians, armenians, etc. Mikkalai 17:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"An arabist a jew" ?? "It is one of the basic person's traits"?? Sounds like like you just blurped out some serious anti-semitic and racist comments.

Please refrain from personal attacks. This is inadmissible in wikipedia: wikipedia:no personal attacks. The facts are that Lewis is a scholar of Islam and he is a Jew. I did not know that the word arabist some interpret as a curse. Unless you prove what is wrong with the fact that Lewis was born to a Jewish family, I consider your remarks and article edit as trolling. Mikkalai 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no stake in the political argument between Lewis and Said. I just want to point out the inaccuracy of any implication that being a Jewish Arabist is a curious exception. There were plenty of Jewish Arabists before and after Lewis, including some others criticized by Said. Goldziher is the most obvious example. Others include Grunebaum and Rosenthal. Iglew (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is a highly biased ideologue who passes for a “scholar” only in Neocon academic circles. For the record, the man is a card-carrying member of Israel’s rightwing Likud party, and owns a deluxe condominium in East-Jerusalem built on lands stolen from Palestinian Christians who were brutally expropriated by the state of Israel in 1967… I’m afraid Lewis is not the most objective analyst you’re likely to find on topics such as Islam, Baathism, and “Arabism” Pan or otherwise! DrVictorino

All false. Lewis has no property in Jerusalem. He does own a modest vacation condo in Tel Aviv overlooking the sea, just north of the Opera, where he spends his winters.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.175.106 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

lack of understanding

Bernard Lewis's lack of understanding of the Koran and Islam is evident. Throughout the pages of the Koran it is clear that the Prohet Mohammad did not ...."bring any new found religion or doctrine". ......"You (Mohammad) are only a messenger like the messengers of old." and ......"that the Supreme Command is one and one only to all of mankind. Bernard should first then question: Who founded Islam? Answer: Islam ("State of Peace")is another word for the eternal religion from the "Supreme Command" of the heavens and the earth. Its principles can be found in the hearts and minds of all people except the blind.

amir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.21.14 (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this article tries to discuss whether BL had a good or poor understanding of anything. This is an article to document his life works. By the way, BL was looking at islam from the standpoint of a historian and a scientist, whereas you look at it from the viewpoint of a believer. The difference in concept might therefore be extreme. If you want to debate who founded Islam on a theological plane, this page is surely not the forum for it.

Poposhka

Nearly everyone on earth regards Mohammad as the founder of Islam. If you think this is incorrect, please correct the articles Mohammad and Islam. But remember to use sources (not your own interpretation). --Uncle Ed 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is quite silly when you consider that "Islam" is explicitly not something new, but rather a continuation and a correction of what came before it. So when you say "nearly everyone on earth" you are discounting the billion-plus Muslims. How neutral of you! Actually, on a whim I opened the "Mohammad" link you provided, and it starts with "Muhammad is a major figure in Islam", with extensive debate about only using the term "founder" for non-Muslims' opinions in the talk page, so apparently your own link disowns you. Maronz 04:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The point above - no understanding of the Koran or Islam - followed by looking at Islam as a scholar and historian - what a dumb statement, I hope scholars have some understanding of what they are a scholar or historian of. When I read that in 1998 BL had never heard of BinLaden, I wondered where had this guy been - advising the government about what, draperies? He seems to be a classic neocon - his latest on the president of Iran seems almost in the range of astrology. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

Look at the conflicts people are initiating on Edward Said and then look at this article which is unabashedly praising and filled with laudatory excess. This is terrible, and User:Pecher seems to be mostly responsible. It is ironic because he talks a great deal about "censorship" and accuses others of this constantly (see history of Edward Said) and yet seems to be the one doing the most in other articles (such as censoring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). This needs a thorough cleanup. SirDiplomat 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see no specific complaints here, just a personal attack. Pecher ^Talk 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"A bulwark against" third-worldism was POV (assumes that third-worldism is not a useful viewpoint). So I have changed it to "reaction against", which I hope all will agree is neutral. I find the tone still rather adulatory. A lot of use is made of the Martin Kramer source and I wonder how neutral that is. Itsmejudith 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said "a professor of English and comparative literature"...?

Right. "A professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, who criticized Orientalist scholarship" is how this article summarized the renown of Edward Said. It appears to have been taken from the intro to Edward Said, which goes in full:

Edward Wadie Said (November 1, 1935 – September 24, 2003; Arabic: إدوارد سعيد) was a well-known Palestinian-American literary theorist, critic, and outspoken pro-Palestinian activist. He was a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University. He is regarded as a founding figure in post-colonial theory.

Nothing much wrong with that intro, or with the "a professor" sentence in that context. But to pick it out for the purpose of summarizing Said here is... well, "POV and madly unencyclopedic" is the nicest thing I can say about it. I have replaced it with a more appropriate bit from the Edward Said intro. Bishonen | talk 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Update: that got reverted, why?

I see Pecher has now reverted my change back to "a professor of English and comparative literature" with the edit summary "this description is factual and neutral". No, it's not, actually. Calling Said "a professor..." etc. is true, it is the case (or was), but as a summary of what he's known for, it's no more factual than describing Douglas Adams as "a very tall man" or George W. Bush as "the former Governor of Texas" or "the brother of Jeb Bush". These factoids about these people are true, they are the case, but they don't form a well-balanced summary of what they're known for. They're not how Wikipedia would describe them. Nor is it as any old professor of English and comparative literature that Said is known. Are you saying my description, "the well-known Palestinian-American literary theorist" is not factual and neutral? In what way? That he's well-known, that he was Palestinian-American and a literary theorist, and that he's well-known as a literary theorist are utterly uncontested facts, surely. They're not in the realm of opinion. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

Valid point. Edward Said may also have been left handed. Would pecher like to add that in as well? His shoe size? "Edward Said, a man with straight greying hair"? In the context of this article, what is notable is Edward Said's role as a Palestinian scholar and academic. That he is a scholar and an academic is easily verifiable. What's notable is Said's books and speeches on Western reviews and interpretations of Islam, not his review of the Sanskrit alphabet. His critiques on orientalism. To merely describe him as a professor of linguistics is a misleading attempt to imply that his relevance in debate doesn't extend past his credentials as a linguist. His Excellency... 07:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment of publication of Orientalism, Edward Said was known solely as a literary theorist, so describing him otherwise would be anachronistic. Just saying that he was a "scholar" is inane. Pecher ^Talk 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Edward Said's role as a Palestinian scholar": Said was an American scholar of palestinian descent. However, his writings should be evaluated at face value, not by ethnicity. The disgusting ethnic discourse (Dr. A argues like that because he's Jewish, Prof. B wrote this because he's Arab) is becoming endemic on WP - this is unfortunate. Details are to be handled at Said's WP entry. "renowned" is as redundant and unenyclopedical as "well known". Either someone is, than it's redundant, else he's not, than it's wrong. --tickle me 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests you take overwhelming joy in participating in this 'disgusting ethnic discourse'. The "disgusting ethnic discourse" exists because "certain" people of certain other ethnicities and cultures insist on editing on topics of Islam and Muslims with the intent of pushing their POV. If I didn't know better, I'd say you and Pecher take offense to the notion that this Muslim man is described as a scholar. How can any Muslim be described as anything other than a bloodthirsty jihadi, eh? The sourse I used describes him as a renowned palestinian-american scholar. That source is the BBC, not Al Jazeera or anything of Muslim origin. You and Pecher are making personal judgements and evaluations based on your POVs. Keep your sentiments, whatever their motivations, out of this. His Excellency... 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Your edit history suggests you take overwhelming joy in participating in this 'disgusting ethnic discourse'" What is it if not a personal attack, just another one on your record? Edward Said was not a Muslim; he was an atheist born into a Christian family. "I'd say you and Pecher take offense to the notion that this Muslim man is described as a scholar. How can any Muslim be described as anything other than a bloodthirsty jihadi, eh?" It's absolutely disgusting that you keep trying to imply anti-Muslim and other motives to people. Pecher ^Talk 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What's disgusting is you make it impossible for one to not take note of it. Netscott took note of your behavior (and I believe he used the phrase "Islam-bashing) as did many others. That is what's disgusting. I apologise for mistaking Said for being a Muslim. He's just Arab. As for Tickle, I merely remarked on his usage of a phrase "disgusting ethnic discourse". For one who finds such discourse 'disgusting', he seems to involve himself in an awful many such arguements. I certainly do not go about editing on topics on Jewish history or topics of Jewish/Muslim conflict, or in this case, on articles on scholars who specialize in Middle Eastern history, in order to edit the article towards tilting in my POV. Nothing personal or attacking about there, merely an observation that the one complaining about how disgusting such discourse is, is in fact generating the offending discourse. His Excellency... 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And that also got reverted — again, why...?

Pecher, I never understood why you reverted me ten days ago, and I don't understand why you've reverted me now. I quote from wiki article Post-colonialism: "Postcolonial theory became part of the critical toolbox in the 1970s, and many practitioners take Edward Said's book Orientalism to be the theory's founding work." So why exactly is it "anachronistic" to refer to him as "Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said, founder of post-colonialist studies, who criticized Lewis's work as a prime example of Orientalist scholarship in his seminal work Orientalism (1978)"? I notice you at the same time reverted my simplification of the awkward heaviness of saying "Orientalist/Orientalism" three times in seventeen words--surely an innocent stylistic improvement? Do you realize how discouraging it is to be used for target practice every time I stick my head above the battlements? My first edit, reverted by you, was reinserted by you practically word for word ten days later, so I guess it can't have been so abysmal that it absolutely needed to be reverted in the first place? And now this one is "anachronistic"...? Bishonen | talk 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

And now my word-change that I discuss above, ""Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said, founder of post-colonialist studies," which I could have sworn was merely a small NPOV improvement and which had been reinstated by His Excellency, has been reverted "to Pecher" by Karl Meier, with no other comment than... yes, well, "Rv to Pecher". Neither Pecher nor Meier have replied to my arguments here as you can see. Perhaps because they have no merit? I don't know. Or perhaps because it's so much quicker to just revert. (Timestamps show Pecher taking all of two minutes to consider my contribution, research his own claims of "anachronism", and revert.) OK, I'm shouting into a void, I understand it's meaningless to try to edit this page. I won't spend any more time arguing on this talkpage, and then trying to guess why I got reverted anyway, and the eternal question: do I need to argue more persuasively, or is nobody reading it anyway? It's just a sentence in the article, is it worth this much time and irritation? The point soon comes when it isn't. It's called attrition, it's working, congratulations. You've really made me feel welcome to help improve the article. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

"For one who finds such discourse 'disgusting', he seems to involve himself in an awful many such arguements": whenever you do find me involved, you see me opposing the concept, reintroduced again and again till kingdom come. seems is indicative here: unabashed smear.

"reverted — again, why...?": You'll notice that Said is not the only scholar and notable mentioned - so do L. Massignon, M. Kramer, D. Cheney, S. Huntington, O. bin Laden, M. Rodinson, J. Berque, M. Kerr, A. Hourani, and W. M. Watt, many of them certainly less known to a wider audience than Said - are Massignon or Berque household names to you? They weren't to me, until I researched and wrote e.g. Berque's entry. His Excellency even had to be informed that Said wasn't Muslim, as was inferred by his political stance and ethnicity alone - again.

However, nobody tries to add eulogical addendums to the aforementioned, only Dick Cheney is identified as U.S. Vice President - certainly not needed encyclopedically, as everybody knows, and the rest is offered one-click-info. There's quite a number of historians and, horribile dictu, orientalists lined up against Said. It might seem natural to some bolstering his position adding vacuous epithets not deemed necessary for anyone of the restant cited academics and contravening encyclopedical necessity and form.

You might want to refer to Einstein, an article certainly having received the utmost wikipedic care: of the dozens of academics and notabilities referred to none is lauded, all are merely mentioned in context, and linked to. Nobody saw it fit to call Mozart the renowned, prolific and highly influential Austrian composer, or Kant a well known philosopher, nor is any silliness added to H.G. Wells. Can we agree that Said, a lightweight in comparison, lest history should decide otherwise, is being promoted here to support a POV? --tickle me 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you don't give houseroom to any notion that I'm trying improve the article. That makes discussion more difficult, but I'll give it one last shot. The article is about Bernard Lewis. The only interest in mentioning Said at all is to give context and perspective on Lewis; not to sneak in adulation of Said, who has his own article. To mention (as briefly as possible--I shortened some over-elaborate locutions) Said, post-colonialism, the concept of Orientalism, and the book Orientalism (are those the "vacuous epithets" and "eulogical addendums"? Have you looked at my latest version, that got reverted twice?) is very helpful in putting Bernard Lewis into the context of a discussion that many people are aware of, some of them only vaguely aware--some to the point that they've heard of Said but not of Lewis. It's as information about Lewis that the ideology of his more famous "sparring-partner" is interesting. It says a lot, and it does it in few words. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

"I see you don't give houseroom to any notion that I'm trying improve the article." An assumption of bad faith, hardly the first one on your part towards the same user. "It's as information about Lewis that the ideology of his more famous "sparring-partner" is interesting. It says a lot, and it does it in few words." (emphasis mine) I appreciate your being frank. The purpose of this article is not to demonstrate that Said was more famous than Lewis; your repeated attempts to use weasel words so as to embellish Said's image in breach of NPOV. Enough has been said on the charcterization of Said as "renowned". Now you want to describe Orientalism as a "seminal" work. Read Das Kapital; Marx's book is thousands times more "seminal" than Orientalism, but the article is happy without weasel characteristics. The reason is simple: it's sufficient to mention all the relevant facts about Das Kapital, and its importance will become clear to readers. I think if Said were indeed a more heaviweight scholar than Lewis, you wouldn't need to resort to POV terminology to assert his eminence. Pecher ^Talk 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You speak at random. I've never spoken to User:Tickle me before. I've never called Said "renowned". I didn't suggest Said was more heavyweight than Lewis, I said he was more famous. (I said that above only, not in the article.) That's hardly a matter of opinion. You know, if I'd written the original phrase "Edward Said, a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University...", I'd be thanking the person who tried to improve it rather than attacking them. I still don't understand why you reverted my first assay. You could have just removed the (I agree) useless word "well-known"; especially considering that ten days later you inserted my exact phrasing on the ground that it was "more precise". And it bothers me that you only took two minutes of research and deliberation to decide to revert me the second time. I'd have appreciated a genuine look at it. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

This is non sequitur. You didn't offer any arguments against substative objections to your version, e.g. the word "seminal". Pecher ^Talk 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The description of Said's Orientalism present an inaccurate and sensentalized version of its findings. --chemica 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's a case to be made on both sides, but the one presented here strongly favors Lewis and his defenders. The Said critique is presented unfairly. Regardless of politics, these are two important scholars and their debate was not like some kind of Hitchens-Juan Cole snipefest. There was much more subtlety and depth to both of their points of view than we see here. The closing statement, with a bunch of names ripping Said, is simply a pile-on. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In this section the sentence starting with "Lewis meant that it was ..." is rather subjective. Deciding what Lewis really meant, as if it can be decided, should be left to the reader. I suggest removing this sentence. Mtdashti 08:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The description of the decision of the French court is dubious :

"A Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and on June 21, 1995 fined him one franc"

In fact, that court wrote in its decision that it has not juridiction to decide wether the massacre were indeed a genocide. It condemned Lewis because "by concealing elements contrary to his opinion, he failed to his duties of objectivity and prudence". Furthermore, the fiddling value of the fine is misleading, nominal fees (1F, 1€) being common practice in France for such matters. It should not be mentionned (or one should add that he had been sentenced to 34,000F as fees on top of the 1F). --Geo115fr 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran might attack Israel?

I've removed the text regarding Lewis's article which suggested that Iran might attack Israel. The notion that this speculation was "controversial" is original research on the part of the editors inserting it. Moreover, Lewis is a respected academic who has written dozens of important works - the undue focus on this non-notable bit of trivia is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being printed in the prominent Wall Street Journal his predictions were widely reported and discussed in the global media, for example, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck and MSNBC host Tucker Carlson took his predictions very seriously. By any rational standard his predictions were both notable and controversial. Deuterium 05:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Widely reported and discussed"? A couple of mentions doesn't sound like it to me, and I don't see much "controversy" - he speculated that something might (or might not) happen, and it didn't; that's not a "controversy". By any rational standard this trivial information is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian and The Register also discussed Lewis's predictions, but I could do this all day and you still wouldn't be satisfied. As for whether it's controversial, you don't see anything controversial with predicting an Iranian attack on a specific date? If they weren't controversial why were his predictions discussed by so many newspapers? Deuterium

Given his stature, it appears to have been interesting to a number of people. However, he didn't make any definitive predictions, and there appears to have been no controversy. Given the dozens of books he's written, his decisive impact on Islamic studies, and the tiny length of this article, it's as obvious a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as one could ever hope to (not) see. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to expand the rest of the article go ahead but deficiencies in other sections of the article shouldn't mean we can't make note of the fact that Lewis has made some statements that were widely reported and extremely influential in the world media. Deuterium 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no indication that the statements were "controversial" or "extremely influential", and given the extent of his contributions, scholarship, and writing, their inclusion will inevitably violate WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This was a major story covered on a significant portion of major journals, newspapers and networks: National Review, Jerusalem Post, Toronto Star, ABC News Blotter and the Chicago Tribune to name a few more. It should be back in the article although Jayjg is right that it shouldn't be given undue weight, a few sentences at most. --Deodar 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this because I couldn't see what the controversy was supposed to be. Please stick to issues that are influential in his life, not silly points designed to have a pop at him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs in an article that covers the propaganda compaign against Iran. Such things as the "yellow star" hoax published in the National Post, the "Iran will attack Israel on Aug. 22" story, etc. There are so many it's hard to keep track. Mirror Vax 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I don't know how best to centralize coverage of it. You'll need though to find some solid references that say that this incident is an example of propaganda otherwise people will call it OR. --Deodar 17:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that it probably does not belong in the controversy section -- there really isn't much "controversial" about it. It is more just notable as a major news story he triggered. I will move it out of that section. --Deodar 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis wrote this:

"This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (cf Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Now abcnews reports that "Internet websites have been full of speculation" on the subject while mediamatters tells of "many conservative media figures have seen signs of the Apocalypse in the escalated conflicts in the Middle East." B. Whitaker, a reporter with a "part-time degree in Arabic" even reckons that Lewis is wrong.

The whole incident, arguably, tells something about aforementioned "internet websites", "conservative media figures" ' hysteria and Islamist's wish to peck at Lewis - that's it. The points made above by Jayjg and Slim apply indeed, this trivia is unwarranted. --tickle me 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't obsecure the subject! You are attempting to hide a good evidence, showing his biased and false ideas towards all of the middle East. what you quoted didn't change the fact that he intenentionally implied that Iran will cause an Apaclypse on the day that is supposed to deliver his answers to incentives. It is quickly paraphrased in every known Media in the West.I ask everybody who reads this talk page to give comments regarding the importance of Atomic Apaclypse.

You didn't deleted another paragraph which quoted him from an unimportant lecture in Monreal or a book alleging him conspiring against Iran in Bilderberg Meeting in a misterious meeting in Baden (only suitable for people who believe in Conspiracy Theories). Which one was more imporant? Why you didn't delete that section with alleging conspiracy theories? Isn't it because, it give this vision to reader: A man, an intellectual, a well-known orientalist predicting in advance that Iran will make problem at future in a meeting which "the real" masters of the world attends. He also gave some soloution. SO SMART.

Other points: The day which Mr. Lewis described is called al-meraj (المعراج) As I said in the aritcle, Muslims both Shiite and Sunni have lots of more important days in their calendar. another point is that "his solution" for Iran didn't work at all, either. There is no dout that Arabs of Khuzestan fought against Saddam in Iran Iraq war which lasted for eight years.(see [[7]])--Pejman47 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments against Lewis' views are original research; please re-read the previous section. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

why it is disputed?

that sections only quotes from "Edward Saeed" and explaining his ideas towards orientalism. His ideas may be wrong, but doesn't change the fact that some people believe in that and critisize Mr. Lewis for that. There are thousands of Articles in WP with "Critism of X" section :e.g. [8], [9](I am sure, you can find alot) and none of them has been labled disputed! (when we put sth in critism section, we imply that only some people belive in that.)--Pejman47 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a section for his opinion about Iran

I added a section for his opinion about Iran. which also includes his predictions about attack on Isreal. I think, it is very important to show his thoughts and his biased opinions about Middle East by some examples with lots of accurate and verifiable links and refrences. --Pejman47 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire thing was original research, claiming that he was an chief architect of various American policies, and then inserting various other arguments against him. Also, please see previous discussions regarding this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not orginal research; the parts you said all of them was sourced. And nuclear apocalypse is NOT unimportant at all. --Pejman47 11:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While it referred to sources, most of it was an original conspiracy thesis made up by you. Please re-read the WP:NOR and WP:BLP policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. I don't know how to make this more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, I have read WP:NOR but still I am not conivinced that it is a original research. Almost all of the sentences in that paragraph was "cut and pasted" from other articles. I feel that you are just trying to hide one of Lewis' big goofs. I have made my mind; so feel free to proceed for voting. cheers. --Pejman47 11:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You've "cut and pasted" the information together to construct an original argument. As for Lewis, the information is not hidden, but rather stated quite clearly. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you also said "gives undue weight to this minor incident". HOW YOU CALL IT "MINOR INCIDENT"??!--Pejman47 11:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would one offhand comment be a defining moment in an 80 year illustrious career? The incident is listed and described, and the information you've added "debunking" him is your own original research argument. Let me repeat one more time; WP:BLP is a very, very serious policy - Wikipedia cannnot be put at risk by editors inserting potentially defamatory information into biographical articles. It's the kind of thing that gets people permanently blocked, so please don't take this lightly. I urge you to discuss the suggested additions on the talk page here first, before getting Wikipedia and yourself into trouble. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. Pejman, what you're adding is problematic for two reasons: undue weight and original research. The first is self-explanatory. Regarding OR, you're coming up with your own arguments as to why Lewis was wrong. Even though some of the material is sourced, the way you're putting it together is your own work, your own ideas, and we're not allowed to add our own ideas to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jay, being less patient: anything worth saying has been said at Talk:Bernard_Lewis#Criticism_Section. --tickle me 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran prediction

This got a lot of attention at the time in the media, and this article should reflect that. Anything less is a POV whitewashing. Think of how much prominence we would have given his predictions if Iran had attacked Israel on that date. —Ashley Y 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but did you actually read what you were reverting to? I seriously doubt it. This was the text in question:

In 2006, Bernard Lewis suggested in the Wall Street Journal that Iran might attack Israel on 2006-08-22 due to the date's religious significance (the same day as the Iran's self imposed deadline to answer the west incentives) and also argued that mutually assured destruction would not apply to Iran if it were to achieve nuclear power. His predictions were widely reported and discussed in the global media: CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck and MSNBC host Tucker CarlsonSydney Morning Herald,The Guardian ,The Register also National Review, Jerusalem Post,Toronto Star, ABC News Blotter and the Chicago Tribune. On that day, Ali Larijani, chief Iranian negotiator handed Iran's response to the Security Council. [10] Needless to say, Lewis' prediction did not hold.

As you can see, it follows none of Wikipedia's conventions, and is completely unencyclopedic and filled with original research. According to whom was it "widely reported and discussed in the global media"? We'd need a source for that claim, not some Google searches by Wikipedia editors. Why was that list given, and why were those specific links chosen? More original research, apparently. Why was it all formatted in that bizarre way? And who on earth thinks that "Needless to say, Lewis' prediction did not hold" is an encyclopedic statement? Who could honestly prefer that to the simpler "(which did not occur)"? I understand you feel a need to promote certain POVs on Wikipedia, but nevertheless please avoid blind reverts in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith with regards to my attempts to remove bias from Wikipedia articles, it certainly does you credit as a Wikipedia admin and arbitrator. As for this particular article, while the citations should certainly be put into proper ref form, there's no excuse for deleting them, or minimising the attention this issue received at the time. Instead, you pick on one or two issues, which could easily be corrected, and then perform a blind revert (and then accuse me of doing one). —Ashley Y 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many of your attempts to "remove bias" from Wikipedia articles, which generally have the opposite effect. In any event, I mentioned several issues around the insertion, many having to do with original research, others with format. You've addressed exactly one. If you can't be bothered to actually read, much less fix, new contributions, then you shouldn't be reverting them in. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I feel exactly the same way about your edits, but have felt that stating my opinion on them would be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Rather than deleting the citations on the grounds that they're in bad format, why don't you fix them? As for the rest, yes, it really was widely reported exactly as the list of newspaper articles show. It really did get quite a lot of attention at the time.

There's not much point complaining about a blind revert if you're going to do a worse one. —Ashley Y 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read my initial comments again; the issue is not just about bad format, but more fundamental issues of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll give you a little more time to fix that; if you can't, (and it seems unlikely anyone can), then I'll have to restore the policy compliant version. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you consider looking up newspaper articles and including them in the article as "original research". Nor is the weight undue. If you want to fix the formatting, that would be much more helpful than threatening to do a blind revert. Otherwise, this is well sourced and neutral. —Ashley Y 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished you wouldn't recognize the original research nature of all of this. Why mention these newspapers and not others? According to whom is this encyclopedic? According to whom is it the case that "His predictions were widely reported and discussed in the global media"? You? You cannot answer this because, of course, it's more original research. Removing an edit that has been carefully evaluated and been found to be wanting in every way is not a "blind revert", but rather judicious taking out of garbage, which is what I have done. On the other hand, you've been reverting stuff you never even read. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, please see Wikipedia:Recentism: ""In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" In this particular case, I doubt it. Beit Or 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this flaw in his scholarship will be remembered in ten years' time. —Ashley Y 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense. This minor speculation will be completely forgotten 10 years from now, and it is without question that a random selection of newspapers in which the view was published will not be remembered. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your position on this is. Are you saying that many newspapers reported on this, of which this is merely a "random selection"? Even if not, it certainly was widely reported, and I think prominence given by media sources should carry more weight than your own opinion of what is and isn't notable. —Ashley Y 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It was "widely reported"? Really? According to whom? And by the way, what does "global media" mean? That's another bizarre phrase you're blindly reverting to. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It was reported by a fairly long list of newspapers, which were included, which you have blindly removed. I already made some small effort to improve some of the now-reverted text. Why don't you make the changes yourself rather than blindly reverting? —Ashley Y 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blindly remove them, I removed them because the list itself was OR. I explained that above. I also explained why there was no point in making any changes to the inserted text, since it had "been carefully evaluated and been found to be wanting in every way." I listed the many flaws with the text. Have you read any of my comments at all? According to whom was this "widely reported"? You are clearly not using this Talk: page in good faith; you refuse to respond to the specific objections raised here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How can a list of good, relevant sources be original research? —Ashley Y 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was that particular list chosen? Do we have a third party source that notes "Lewis's speculation was reproduced in a number of newspapers, including the Jerusalem Post etc."? Who will care in 10 years that those specific newspapers repeated Lewis's speculation? Why do you continue to refuse to answer my questions? When will you start using the Talk: page in good faith? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand: are you saying that there are more newspapers, of which this is merely a subset? And we have the JP article itself[11], that does indeed reproduce Lewis' speculation, so I don't understand your second question either. Bear in mind it was you who accused me of bad faith in "promoting certain POVs on Wikipedia", an accusation you still apparently feel is appropriate on a Talk: page. I have tried to address some of your concerns with edits, but you are only interested in reversion. —Ashley Y 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer my questions please; you continually refuse to do so, and your alleged attempts to "address my concerns" with your edits of course did nothing of the sort. You're interested in inserting POV regardless of how poorly written, policy-violating, and non-encyclopedic it is. Stop wasting time. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, and I object to it. I'm not sure what my recourse is, though. As for your questions, I have asked you quite clearly for clarification on the first two of them at least.

• "Why was that particular list chosen?"

I don't understand: are you saying that there are more newspapers, of which this is merely a subset?

• "Do we have a third party source that notes "Lewis's speculation was reproduced in a number of newspapers, including the Jerusalem Post etc."?"

We have the JP article itself[12], that does indeed reproduce Lewis' speculation, so I don't understand your second question either. —Ashley Y 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, who knows? We don't know who has been talking about this, since there aren't 3rd party sources regarding this. Regarding your second question, the JP article merely notes Lewis's comment, but it doesn't say that it was reproduced in a number of newspapers. Who says this, besides you and the IP editor? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But we do, ourselves, have proper references to a number of newspapers in which Lewis' comment was reproduced and discussed. We do know who has been talking about this: we have the references. Of course there may or may not have been more discussion. —Ashley Y 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If a third party can get a word in here (perhaps not, considering I have had four edit conflicts trying to post this), I would suggest that the whole list of views and predictions in that section of the article be looked at again with a critical eye. I'm not sure that either of the claims sourced back to Fouad Ajami's Wall Street Journal column are terribly good summaries of what Ajami says, nor are they necessarily the most interesting things in the WSJ piece, which is certainly potentially a good source for this article. Neither am I convinced that this article needs to mention Lewis' Iran remarks at all - though it should be remarked that Lewis is by no means the only respected scholar to note with concern the apparent millenarian tendencies of President Ahmadi Nejad.

Also, Lewis' column is hardly the best source for determining the importance of this statement as part of an article about Lewis. Are there sources commenting on what Lewis said? They would be more relevant. What we have now would arguably be more appropriate for inclusion in the articles on Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad or the Iranian nuclear programme. Palmiro | Talk 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting comparison: from a note to the epilogue of Nikkie Keddie's well-regarded Modern Iran: "Early in his presidency Ahmadinejad made some mystical statements, possibly suggesting that he was an instrument of the Hidden Imam who is to return as the messianic Mahdi. There were effectively opposed by many influential Iranian clerics who stressed that nobody can know the will or time of the return of the Hidden Imam. The statements do not merit the exaggerated reaction of some US commentators who say, based on little and distorted knowledge, that Ahamadinejad will work to bring on an Armageddon - a charge similar to some made by opponents of U.S. evangelical Christian presidents." Clearly, Keddie didn't think much of the ayatollah-armageddon hypothesis. Now, if we had some case of someone of Keddie's stature taking Lewis to task directly over this issue, it might arguably be worth including here. But as it stands I can't see that it is. Even if we had, we would need to think carefully about how relevant one such case could be said to be in the context of an article discussing the entire career of a scholar of extremely high standing. Palmiro | Talk 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In a 13 paragraph WSJ op-ed centering on the claim, that the threat of mutual assured destruction might not work with religious extremists, to which nobody of stature objected (or is likely to ever do), Lewis speculated in two paragraphs on the 22nd August date, concluding that it's "far from certain ... but it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind". Afterwards, some papers and blogs made fun of some conservative's ensuing hysteria, and some misrepresented Lewis vague notion as an exact prediction and stern warning.

Shame and attention, if any, belongs to the media. I fail to see how its short time frenzy will be part of Lewis encyclopedic curriculum, ever. Again, I feel that the issue doesn't deserve even the present single line.--tickle me 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the line should be removed. Let's have biographies that actually meaningfully represent a person's life, rather than frameworks for smear-jobs and political propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who has a faith in truth; please read the above sentences: they shamelessly consider linking to some internationally well-known newspaper as “original research”! And by bullying, they try to make their point. They are deliberately trying to censor his goofs and his failed “solutions” and “predictions”.

Anybody who want to know what truth is please read what I posted one month ago:

"During the debate about the nuclear program of Iran, 5+1 group (five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) offered some incentives to iran in the hope that Iran will be persuaded to quit its uranium enrichment program. Iranian officials anounced a self-imposed deadline that they will give their response by August 22, 2006. (The deadline of UN Security Council Resolution 1696 was the end of October.) [13]

Bernard Lewis suggested in the Wall Street Journal that Iran might attack Israel on the deadline owing to the date's religious significance and also argued that mutually assured destruction would not apply to Iran if it were to achieve nuclear power. His predictions were widely reported and discussed in the global media: CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck and MSNBC host Tucker CarlsonSydney Morning Herald,The Guardian ,The Register also National Review, Jerusalem Post,Toronto Star, ABC News Blotter and the Chicago Tribune

Iranians and Afghans use the Jalaali calendar. The self-imposed deadline was the end of Mordad (the fifth month of the Jalaali calendar) equivalent to August 22 (compare it to the west deadline which was the end of August. See the news on BBC Persian Section ). Also of note is that Muslims observe many more religious days indicated by Bernard Lewis.

On that day, Ali Larijani, chief Iranian negotiator handed Iran's response to the Security Council. [14] Needless to say, Lewis' prediction did not hold. It is unknown whether or not he was aware of the difference in calendars.”

They can not tolerate even a slice of the truce. --Pejman47 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have put into Lewis's mouth something he never said. Actually, he only said that the possibility of a strike cannot be entirely ignored; he never predicted any attack, although media hyped the story so that it would appear that he did. We cannot now say for sure what piece of the article, if any, will be remembered in five or ten years, so you'd better leave it alone. Beit Or 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pejman, please don't keep adding that. It is a minor thing and your attempt to blow it up looks as though you're trying to make him look foolish. Please review WP:BLP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

look at this: O. J. Simpson murder case, you can see that parts of it suggests that he was the KILLER and the court acquitted him for "political reasons". It was sourced and he is still alive; and there was no problem with that article. What I add here is sourced and it is not original research and I think it is not undue weight. you can not say "you're trying to make him look foolish"; you only can doubt its sources or its weight. Good luck. --Pejman47 11:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's astonishing you would compare the O.J. Simpson murder case to Lewis's brief speculation in a newspaper that Iran might attack Israel on a certain date. The Simpson trial was huge news, and hugely important in Simpson's life. This offhand comment in a newspaper by Lewis is sub-trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin told that I am trying to make him look foolish, then I said that in "O.J. Simpson" they tried to make him look like the Killer; there was no problem with that because all of it was sourced. So, regardless to my motives, I am only putting some links to internationally well-known newspapers! so, what is your problem?--Pejman47 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're assigning undue weight to a minor comment, which you have furthermore misrepresented. Beit Or 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pejman47. I have put the citations into "ref" format, though not quite perfectly. As you can see from the headlines, it really did create quite a fuss at the time. No, it's not very academic, and one could argue that the papers are overstating the case (and if we can cite someone credible saying that, we should), but an encyclopaedia should mention non-academic notability also, even for someone whose main notability is in the academy. —Ashley Y 06:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the paragraph in the hope it might be acceptable to both sides. Ashley, the point of the article was not to announce the date that Iran would attack Israel. The point of it was to question whether mutual assured destruction can hold firm when dealing with an apocalyptic culture. Lewis then gave an example of the kind of thinking such a culture might engage in. It was not a sensible example to give and he should have foreseen the reaction, or his editors should have, so granted, it was not a smart thing to say. Nevertheless, it was not the point of his argument, and we shouldn't misrepresent it as though it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. —Ashley Y 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no “27th day of the month of Rajab” in the Iranian calendar and that It is not very important in Islamic calendar; you can not interpret citing the calendar of a country as “original research”.

I don’t see any consensus for deleting that section in this talk page (did you see that?). if you can show that to me; I will comply and I agree that the whole section be deleted; in other way I will keep adding that part.--Pejman47 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed no consensus for removing this section. I have no objections to SlimVirgin's revision, I think it was an improvement to my last version. —Ashley Y 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, Beit Or, Tewfik and I thought it should be deleted, you and Pejman47 thought it shouldn't. That's rough consensus. SlimVirgin was nice enough to clean it up and try to find a compromise version. I'm willing to go with that too, in the spirit of compromise, but if Pejman47 insists on inserting his original research about the calendar intended to further discredit Lewis, then I'm taking the whole sentence out again. There's only so much violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP I can put up with. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think it should be deleted, it was very notable - so add me to the list. The current compromise is good though. --Deodar 21:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Beir Or, what's the problem with the sources? Do you claim that "Bernard Lewis is one of the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community" is wrong? --Aminz 13:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Every word in this sentence is POV. The source for this POV is irrelevant. Beit Or 13:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Go and find more sources that reject this POV and present a different view. Then add that in the article too. A good article should present all sides of POV with references. However, there is no reason to delete existing referenced material which YOU consider a POV. --- ALM 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM, you can say in the article that X writes in the Y journal that Lewis is perhaps the most articulate Zionist advocate, but it's an odd-looking sentence for a number of reasons, and not appropriate for the lead. You certainly can't state it as fact as you were doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Then modify it SlimVirgin instead of removing it all together. Hence if what I am doing is wrong then what you have done is also not right (even according to your own above statement). --- ALM 13:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put it here instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide denier"

I've removed the article from this category. I'm pretty sure it can't be justified per WP:BLP. —Ashley Y 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The category itself is rather artificial. Beit Or 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Engdahl

ALM scientist, can you say exactly what Engdahl says in his book, please? It's not clear how much is from him and how much from you. Does he mention Lewis in the book, for example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked up the source, and I've not been able to find any good reviews. ALM scientist, can you refer us to any? It seems very conspiratorial, and it's not clear what the author's credentials are. As the policy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

F. William Engdahl is qualified enough and appears to have 'mainstream' credentials, he currently writes for Asia Times and Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper. I have found an excerpt of the book's section containing the details of Lewis's anti-Soviet plan for the Near East, and the Carter administration's endorsement of it: http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

Here are some positive testimonials from notable figures: http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Century_of_War/century_of_war.html

This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with the price of oil in 1973. I strongly recommend reading it.

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia

I recommend this book to all who wish to know how the world is really run, what are the systems behind the sub-systems we perceive in the daily media, and what are the antecedents of the present global political dilemmas.

Dr Frederick Wills, former Foreign Minister, Guyana

For those truly interested about how the world economy functions, this book will be greatly useful. The book treats especially well the political goals of Britain, a thread in modern history all too often overlooked.

Stephen J. Lewis, economist, City of London

... one of the most readable books I have ever seen. It will shock people, but it is needed. William Engdahl has found a common thread that ties hundreds of events which, at first glance, appear to be unassociated.

Leon D. Richardson, Far East Financial columnist, industrialist, advisory board, Sloan School of Management, Massachussetts Institute of Technology

Also, the Amazon reviews are mostly very positive: http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-Order/dp/074532309X

217.134.94.162 23:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the those people appear to be particularly qualified to discuss this specific issue, though. Also, even if true, which is doubtful, it would seem to violate both the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue weight policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Wills, one of the reviewers ALM scientist mentions, was a member of the LaRouche movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article on Stephen J. Lewis, economist. Whether there are some positive reviews or not, such controversial material must be sourced to less doubtful sources, if it is to be included. Beit Or 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this material violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight but doesn't violate WP:BLP at all. because it is well sourced (a book that if someone tries, can get access to it)

by the way, I have heard this conspiracy theory about revolution of Iran many times. if it will be deleted from here. I will put that here--Pejman47 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish David Irving"?

Critics have pointed out the great irony that a Jewish individual like Bernard Lewis would be a genocide denier and critics have called him the Jewish David Irving.

This seems doubtful. There are a number of "Jewish David Irving"s found googling but I didn't see Bernard Lewis among them (except from this article). --17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Without sources, it's a weasel phrase. —Ashley Y 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dropping a question.

If this guy is 90 years old by now. Is he still even ALIVE?. (Just wondering as the article doesn't list a DOD)

Reply to me via my talk page.

Nateland 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Protection note: Beit-Or & Karl Meier, you need to start participating in the talk page. Thanks in advance. El_C 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beit Or,

Please discuss the links one by one. I checked the first one and it was the personal webpage of a univ prof. reliable source for his ideas. --Aminz 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Slate is not a blog - it is a reliable journalistic Web magazine. FCYTravis 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem how I see it is that information is presented to argue a cause in a POV way. That doesn't make the sources unreliable and it doesn't make the presentation neutral either --Rayis 11:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest something which you think is neutral but please do not outrightly remove it--Aminz 04:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The last part of what you were adding violates WP:BLP. Source? KazakhPol 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you guys think the criticism section is slightly large for a living person's biography? --Rayis 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lewis is a great scholar and I believe we have already said that in the article. But he has also involved himself in politics. Since he is a great figure, his words are taken more seriously and therefore give rise to more criticisms. It is partly natural.

Having said that, I think we can move some parts of this section to other articles (such as "Debates with Edward Said" to Orientalism article) and provide a short summary and a wiki-link to that section. --Aminz 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what Tewfik deleted as poorly sourced so violating the BLP, please revert your self.--Pejman47 11:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

M. Shahid Alam paragraph

The following section was inserted in the Criticism section.

M. Shahid Alam contended that Lewis' history of Islam deliberately frames the debate in a manner which always puts Islamic societies on the defensive, and as inferior to western culture.

“ [Bernard Lewis'] objective is to whittle down world history, to reduce it to a primordial contest between two historical adversaries, the West and Islam. This is historiography in the crusading mode, one that purports to resume the Crusades — interrupted in the thirteenth century — and carry them to their unfinished conclusion, the triumph of the West or, conversely, the humiliation and defeat of Middle Eastern Islam. Once this framework has been established, with its exclusive focus on a failing Islamic civilization, it is quite easy to cast the narrative of this decay as a uniquely Islamic phenomenon, which must then be explained in terms of specifically Islamic failures. ”

As has been pointed out already, M. Shahid Alam is an economist; he's not qualified to accuse "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East" of anti-Islamic bias, particularly given WP:BLP. Criticisms of living people should come from top-notch sources, not economists dabbling in fields outside their area of expertise. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayig - there are a number of incorrect assumptions in your paragraph. Number one, you assume there is no economic component to understanding Islamic civilizations, and number two, M Shaid Alam has been published in the field of Islamic studies. His writings have appeared in "Studies in Contemporary Islam," published the book "Is There An Islamic Problem" (2004), and been interviewed by Al-Ahram weekly, an Egyptian newspaper for his views on islam. Moreover, he is himself Muslim, born in pakistan, and is in a position to critisize those who make references about Islam like Bernard Lewis considering that his writings have an impact on the perceptions of his culture, and his religion, an aspect of his life he is very much in a position to discuss. Please respond to this post before I revert the edit to a previous version. - Steveng72

Bernard Lewis is a historian of Islam; in fact, the most influential postwar historian of Islam. People qualified to criticize his work would include other historians, particularly historians of Islam. People not qualified to criticize him would include economists, even Muslim ones, even if they were interviewed in Al Ahram, the Egyptian government's mouthpiece. Not even if they've written about contemporary Muslim society. WP:BLP is very strict, for good reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayig- You're creating an unfair and subjective standard for critiquing someone. It's your OPINION that he's the most influentional historian of Islam, not a fact. BTW - what do you mean "postwar historian of Islam," what war are you referring to? Islam began in 622 AD, and if you're referring to World War 2, that has nothing to do with Islam and is a euro-centric way of viewing the Middle East.

Just because Alam is an economist doesn't exclude him from being proficient in other fields, and he clearly is well respected by post-colonialists and is leading the pack of people who critisize Lewis. Why should his critiques, which stand and fall on their own merit, not be included? Even if you consider Lewis this infallible being, it doesn't mean that the little peons and peasants of the world can't object to things he's said. In fact, the reason he's subjected to so much criticism is BECAUSE he's so influential. I know, my Professor of islamic studies was one of his students - Professor Leslie Pierce. You can't use his stature to deflect critiques, and you're not in a position to decide whose qualified and whose not. Alam is not some Joe on the street, he's a tenured professor whose written books and articles on Islam. Clearly, it's your opinion that M Shahid Alam is not a good person to critique him.

By your wikipedia standard, Edward Said is not "qualified" to critique Bernard Lewis because he's not a historian but an English Professor. I mean, honestly, what is your purpose in editing these passages? I feel like you simply want to reduce the amount of criticism of Bernard Lewis because you like him, not because you want to uphold Wikipedia's standard for biographies of living persons. This section is entitled CRITICISMS of Bernard Lewis, and M Alam is a MUSLIM who has written BOOKS and ARTICLES (numerous ones) on Islam, and disagrees and CRITISIZES Lewis, what else do you want? I mean, does someone have to be a family member of Bernard Lewis to disagree with him? If you remove this critique, then you hurt readers ability to understand what people are saying, particularly in post-colonial studies departments, about Lewis, and reduce the overall quality of this post. -Steveng72

PS Why are you deleting the ENTIRE section on anti-Islamic bias, including the Said stuff? I feel like you're being very biased in your deletions here when there are very good reasons to leave this stuff in. I TRULY TRULY disagree with your "subjective" point of view here on a section ABOUT criticisms of Lewis, which you apparently don't approve of. - steve

BTW Here is a link to Shahid's book, where he republishes his critique of Lewis in a chapter entitled "Bernard Lewis: Scholarship or Sophistry" http://www.islamicity.com/m/bazar/action.lasso.asp?-db=Bazaar&-lay=Product&-format=detail.asp&-error=error.asp&-op=cn&Part_no=03046-4764&-find

No, it's not my opinion that he is "the most influential postwar historian of Islam", it is the opinion of the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing. It says so right in the lead of this article; haven't you read it? As for M Shaid Alam, again, he is an economist, and has no expertise in this area. At least Said wrote a famous book on Orientalism. As explained, criticism should ideally come from historians, particularly experts in the history of Islam. Also, I didn't remove all if the criticism, I removed the stuff from non-reliable sources. Since you weren't paying attention to my comments or edits, you ended up duplicating a paragraph. And finally, the sources you have brought do not state that Lewis has "anti-Islamic bias", that's something you made up. Please pay close attention to my comments from now on, so I don't have to repeat myself. WP:BLP insists on top-notch sources, and you haven't provided them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's still an opinion, whether expressed by an encyclopedia or yourself. I have a history degree myself, so if you're so intent on using that as a basis of valid critique, perhaps you'll listen to me. Secondly, it's simply absurd for you to delete M. Shahid Alam because you don't recognize his published material as connatating expertise. It was published in a book, just as Edward Said's (again, English Professor) critique was, and among widely circulated magazines. And it is a fact that Alam and others state, quite clearly, that Lewis has a bias against Islam - that's what Alam meant when he said. Because of Lewis' "exclusive focus on a failing Islamic civilization, it is quite easy to cast the narrative of this decay as a uniquely Islamic phenomenon, which must then be explained in terms of specifically Islamic failures." He's clearly saying that Lewis singles out Islam, which connotates BIAS. You clearly have an agenda to whitewash this article of any real suggestion that Lewis is biased against Islam.

Moreover, you placed the Said portion in a section entitled "Lewis' response, which is catagorically confusing. Clearly, Alam is perceived by the wider American audience to be representative of an important view of Islam, and is regularly interviewed and featured to discuss the topic. He has been the topic of discussion on FOX News, "Jihad Watch," Counterpunch, and a number of other places as a prominant voice of Islamic communities in America. Moreover, if you look carefully at his profile at NorthEastern University, you'll see clearly that even his research experise in Economics, deals with "global economic history and imperialism," which directly relates to the Middle East and its relationship to the West.

Thirdly, what do you mean "partisan?" or "Egyptian government mouthpiece?" Who are the partisans you are referring to? Al-Ahram Weekly is not controlled by the government, it is an expatriot publication, Al Ahram Daily is published in Egypt, and censored. There is rutinely anti-Mubarak editorials published in Al Ahram weekly. And even if someone concedes that a person is partisan, that does not exclude them from being a critique. Don't you think Edward Said is a "partisan" being a Palestinian activist? By your standard, Said cannot be featured for a number of reasons. Both because he's an English Professor, and because he's "partisan."

The opinion I quoted was from a highly respected source. The Said material was all kept in one Said area. Is there a difference between the two Al Ahram's, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Highly respected opinions are still not facts, and frankly, the History Channel is widely respected and I still see errors all the time. Whenever you say the word "most anything" you get into trouble. Identifying one person as the "most influential" of all scholars is patently absurd. It would be like saying Reagan ended the Cold War and ignoring Truman, Eisenhower, kennedy, Nixon, Cater, Gorbachev et al in bringing about that, not to mention the instability of the underlying economics of the Soviet Union. It's a newspaper clipping comment, not a historically valid statement. Calling him widely influential would be on more solid historical ground, especially for a "respected source." Hero-worshipping historians is foolish . Nevertheless, it's irrelevant, it's not really the issue. When it comes to Said's one area, it's in the wrong spot. If you want to put it there, it should be moved up to where Said's other comments are, rather than in Lewis' "rebuttal."

I understand you're a Wikipedian expert, but I truly don't understand this policy, particularly on Al-Ahram. Yes, the Weekly version is different from the daily, and anti-Mubarak editorials are run in the Weekly version. So I think that it apparently "qualifies" and yet I'm still confused. Lets say that wasn't not the case, so long as context is preserved, you can just say, "the Egyptian government's newspaper said..." I don't see any reason why a biased source (again, all sources biased) can't be used. There is a difference between "reporting slander" and "issueing slander," particularly because sometimes what a public figure regards as slander is in fact true. Moreover, by such a standard, if Mubarak critisized Bush in Al Ahram, Wikipedia couldn't discuss it because it would be "partisan" and printed in the "government's mouthpiece." It's still a widely circulated view, with some notable importance, and I can't see how Bush can object, particularly as a public figure. Lewis, too, is as you say a widely influential scholar, receiving American Enterprise Awards, featured in editorials, and meets with the President from time to time... so yes, he's going to attract criticism for his ideas. I didn't read anywhere where Alam suggested he had an affair, or that he does drugs (true slander), but instead they suggested his ideas are biased and unfair towards Muslims - and as such, I think using these Wikipedia rules to selectively edit things is not consistant with the stated purpose and intent of Wikipedia - which is to inform. -steve

> "I have a history degree myself, so if you're so intent on using that as a basis of valid critique, perhaps you'll listen to me"

You're an anonymous wikipedian here, nothing else. Hic rhodos, hic salta.

> Both because he's an English Professor, and because he's "partisan."

The first reason suffices. If Said polemices that only Muslims, or Arabs at best, are able to judge issues oriental, he's free to forward that racist notion. That doesn't qualify him as WP:RS on Islamic sciences, even if he thought that his skin colour makes him an expert of sorts. The latter goes for Alam as well. --tickle me 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not Said's assertion, that is Lewis' POV. Since you're so intent on disgarding "creed" for sources, you should know that. Said does not oppose "western" scholarship, he opposes "orientalist" scholarship, there's a difference. Unfortunately, "orientalist" scholarship has often dominated western academia, that is until the so-called "post colonial studies" which is patently outside Lewis' worldview. Colonization is rarely, if ever, an issue in the formation and so-called "decline" of the Middle East, because it would happen to lay some of the blame at the British mandate, rather than some Qur'anic verse.

PS If you read what I stated closely I was not attempting to hold my degree over anyone's head, just making a point that a degree doesn't make you right. Thus your "anonymous wikipedian" is a red herring. The basis of my argument does not hinge upon my identity. And in case you missed it, my point is that suggesting that you need a particular degree to critique something is patently unfair. The CEO of Virgin Atlantic doesn't have an MBA, but he's still a smart businessman.

PPS One more thing. Said's skin color was white, and unlike M Shahid Alam, he's Palestinian Christian, not Muslim. -steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

> Said's skin color was white

That was a metaphor for his stance - though he arguably was more tanned than, say, Marylin Manson.

> and unlike M Shahid Alam, he's Palestinian Christian, not Muslim.

I know, he's a member of those families that survived al-Husaynis pogroms against Jews and Arab liberals. Not being Muslim, he made an exception for Arabs, so he could have a say, too. --tickle me 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A stance which you assume is a "brown" one or an Arab one? Not racist at all my friend. Anyways what does his tan have to do with anything? And what are you talking about with respect to "not being Muslim, he made an exception for Arabs." What is that supposed to mean? Dr. Juan Cole and Dr. Edward Said had a favorable view of each other, to my understanding. And Dr. Cole is neither Arab nor Muslim. Said objected to the Orientalist VIEWPOINT, not the fact that Lewis was Jewish or that he was white, or western, or anything like that. Arguing that Said was racist just shows ignorance of his views because it assumes that Lewis' views were not the real basis of disagreement, but rather the fact that Lewis was Jewish and Said was Palestinian. And that really isn't the core issue. Believe it or not, Said' views are sometimes mirrored in Israeli publications, like Ha'aretz, a Progressive newspaper which I personally enjoy reading.

Lastly, generally speaking, Palestinian Christians consider themselves as oppressed as Palestinian Muslims, so you're attempt to make this an "Islamic issue" is beside the point. Where Lewis falters, as do most of his Orientalist compatriots, is explaining the political and socio-economic problems of the Middle East as it relates to the history of colonization in the region, nor does he spare much time for the British Mandate. For them it's all "islam islam islam," a-la "Jihad Watch."

Clearly OT - all ye that lurke, be warned.

> A stance which you assume is a "brown" one or an Arab one?

A stance which I assume as uniformed, politicised and --let's call it like that-- ethnocentric as those of --glad you mentioned him-- Dr. Juan Cole, which I hold in high esteem. Dr. Said had a favourable view of him indeed, go figure.

> Palestinian Christians consider themselves as oppressed as Palestinian Muslims

Extreme forms of nationalism are shared by all factions, I never had any doubts that. Both George and Antoine are testimony to it, be it here or there.

--tickle me 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)\

How is Juan Cole ethnicentric to Arabs? And you really think that Bernard Lewis knows more about the lives of Palestinians than Edward Said, that Said is "ill informed?" Get out of your bubble buddy. If you REALLY think Lewis knows more about what it's like to be Arab that Said, you're absolutely foolish. And it's laughable that you think Said and Cole are "politisized" but Lewis is somehow floating on clouds, academically... totally above such partisanship. He's pro-Israel, pro-Turkey, which makes him a Partisan in the conflict. He takes a side, so stop pretending like he's not "politisized" and has no agenda himself. You keep shifting gears everytime I disprove one of your points, whether its about Said's "racism" or the idea that islam is driving the conflict. GO FIGURE. It doesn't surprise me.

PS It's a huge concession to say that the Palestinian question is driven at least in part by nationalism. Lewis would have simply called it the fault of Islam. And on a different note, Said was not an "extreme nationalist." He's primary objective is to get Israeli troops to pull out of the occupied territories that's what's called a sensible solution backed even by the Quartet and the roadmap. The difference is, Said actually means it whereas western countries only pay lip service to the roadmap.

Let's stop dreaming: he meant it - at best. --tickle me 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole paragraph

The following criticism of Lewis was inserted in the article:

In his 2002 book, What Went Wrong, Lewis argues that Islamic societies are searching for ways to catch up to the West while dealing with a host of socio-economic issues facing the Middle East. In response, Juan Cole of the University of Michigan asked Lewis why he posits the "problem" as being mainly economic, political and scientific but then "pose[s] the question [what went wrong?] with regard to a religious category?"

Juan Cole's response is self-published on his blog/personal website. As WP:BLP clearly states: Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Please do not use this kind of policy violating self-published material in this article again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayig - The Juan Cole response comes from his article in the publications "Global Dialogue" (Published 27 January 2003) and was merely reproduced on his website. I will gladly resource the material so that it properly reflects its original publication. Is this acceptable to you? Also, why did you delete the entire section on anti-Islamic bias, I noted that you had no critique of Edward Said and yet his criticisms were removed. I have reverted to a previous edit, and noted it in the discussion page and on your personal talk page. Thanks. - Steveng72

What is Global Dialogue? Is it a reliable source when it comes to biographies of living people? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "reliable" in the sense that we can rely on Juan Cole really being the author if this "Global Dialogue" claims to have published something by him? Or do you mean reliable in some other sense? Cole himself is certainly qualified to criticise Lewis' work. —Ashley Y 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Jayig, you didn't even establish that Global Dialogue isn't a source that has your permission to critique Lewis before deleted these passages. Juan Cole is a widely respected scholar of the Middle East. What on earth are you doing and what is your bias in doing so? You're changing your reasons for objecting to the Juan Cole source. First it's because it's "self published" and now it's because Global Dialogue isn't in your personal library. I think that's unfair. - steveng72

Is Global Dialogue a reliable source or not? Is it a peer-reviewed journal, or some partisan mouthpiece? WP:BLP says only top-notch sources should be used for critical material about living people. Was Cole able to get this published in a peer-reviewed journal? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You've clearly delted this source because you don't like it. The Global Dialogue publication is published the Center For World Dialgoue http://www.worlddialogue.org/dialogue.htm You can look at its board of governors if you are so inclined http://www.worlddialogue.org/governors.htm There is a process of peer review for all submissions to Global Dialogue. And my question to you is, do you rutinely delete sources simply because you haven't heard of them? Moreover, Juan Cole is a widely respected scholar on the Middle East, and if you read his review, which you probably have not, you can see for yourself it's hardly a "hit job" on Lewis, as there are many areas of praise and agreement.

WP:BLP says only top-notch sources should be used for critical material about living people - Jayjg

What it actually says is (I quote) "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives." WP:BLP is clearly aimed at material which might be defamatory, not at ordinary scholarly criticism of someone's ideas.

As for Shalid Alam, his ideas on the subject don't appear to be very notable so his opinion is probably not appropriate for this page. I think Cole's comments are though. I also have some criticism from historian Richard Bulliet which could probably be added to this section. Gatoclass 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong"? How can questions be wrong? Please be more clear, and, even better, answer the questions without asking your own leading questions. What is the "Center for World Dialogue"? How do you know there is a peer-review process? Anyone can set up a website. Are their journal articles referenced by other respected sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your question, except you assumed to know the answer when you deleted the source before discussing it ESPECIALLY given the notoriety and prominance of Juan Cole, who you certainly can not make the same claims against as you did M Alam. The Center for World Dialogue is an International NGO setup in 1995; it's hardly a pamphlet handed out near Wal Mart. http://thataway.org/exchange/resources.php?action=view&rid=62 Take a look at a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=intext%3A%22Centre+for+World+Dialogue%22 Remember how your first objection was that it was "self published"? Or is that forgotten now with the new objections? - Steven.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that doesn't tell me much beyond its grandiose name. As for being self-published, that indeed was the first hurdle it had to overcome. It wasn't the only one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Centre for World Dialogue has a distinguished board of journalists and academics, including an editor of Newsweek, the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique, a prominent Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and so on. It clearly fits the definition of a reliable source. Gatoclass 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there should be at least some criticism coming from an Islamic source. Juan Cole, Richart Bulliet, and others, are wonderful scholars in their own right. But if you ask Arabs and Muslims to react to some of Lewis' theories, they have an entirely different response to him than western scholars who evaluate Islamic culture "post WW2." The list of Islamic scholars who I have personally heard critique Lewis include: Prof As'ad AbuKhalil (CSU Stanislaus), Prof Hamid Algar (UC Berkeley), Prof. Tamari (NYU), and I'm aware of many others. It is important for readers to understand that Prof Lewis, whoe is a brilliant scholar, is critisized heavily for what is regarded by his opponents as a so-called "pro israeli," "pro turkey" and "anti Islamic" perspective. Most Muslim scholars simply do not agree with him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm inclined to agree, but Alam would appear to be speaking outside his own area of expertise here. It would be better to have quotes from someone with credentials in the field I think. Gatoclass 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

> The problem here is that there should be at least some criticism coming from an Islamic source

We choose our sources according to their scientifical merits, not according to their creeds. --tickle me 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A true historian knows that all sources are biased, it's a question of degree, and awareness of that bias to the reader. Yes, you have to be careful of sources, but you must also be careful not to limit your analysis to only one perspective. Like reading Roman History by only studying Caesar's "Conquest of Gaul" - can you prove bias? Not without knowing more fact, but it's safe to assume what Caesar wrote was a glowing account of himself. History is the same in the Middle East. If you read what the Turks write, the Israeli's write, the Palestinians write, you largely get the world from their perspective. And there's little danger in that, until one of the three groups starts pretending their history is the RIGHT one, and all others are incorrect - feigning truth where there is only perspective. Anyone who believes that the "soft science" of history or politics has "scientific merit" immediately disqualifies themselves from being credible. And when it comes to the Middle East, and particularly the Israeli-Palestinian question, everyone takes a side. Some people just don't like to admit it and sell themselves as "objective" (something which doesn't exist, really anywhere except in relative terms, which is why I suggested an objective piece would try to show more than one side of the equation).

And while it is true that one should not pick sources based soley upon religion, I have no doubt if a PBS special was made on, say, Israel, and all sources interviewed Muslim, people would question it - and rightfully so. The problem is, when it happens in reverse, people can't recognize it. And that is particular true when it comes to Lewis - he fails to understand that his history of Islam is inherently an outsider's perspective - which comes with advantages, and perils. He's just never willing to admit the latter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Very well. Am I to suppose the objection to Cole has ended? Hornplease 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)