Talk:Robert Spencer (author)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Spencer (author) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.|
He is definitely a blogger. He blogs almost daily. But, is he also an author. The answer would be no simply because none of his work has been peer-reviewed; but, published by conservative publications with an agenda. It's not his opinion but the lack of scholarship which will never make him an author. Scholars have repeatedly pointed this out about his work. Professor Carl Ernst wrote an entire note about Spencer's work: “Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer” in which he stated:
His books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics. The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam. I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship
While being an author implies "authority" over a topic, Spencer simply does not have any credibility in the professional realm. Therefore, a blogger is the more appropriate of the two. (This needs to be added as well to his article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceAdam (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster defines "author" as "a person who has written something; especially : a person who has written a book or who writes many books." Spencer has written a book; ergo, he is an author. Wikipedia is—and should be—agnostic as to whether Spencer is a good author. Dyrnych (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Citation to USPTO document requiring a citation
The passage regarding the US Patent and Trademark response needs to be be edited in several respects.
(1) The mark referred to in the article is incorrectly cited as "Stop Islamization of America" when in fact the application SERIAL NO:77940881 filed February 21, 2010 by Pamela Geller on behalf of Robert Spencer was for the mark "STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA"
(2) The refusal of the "applied-for mark [as it] consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols" http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77940881&docId=OOA20100428111606#docIndex=1&page=1 This was not responded to and the application was abandoned. The current article incorrectly states that the USPTO found that the article "disparages all Muslims as terrorists". This is a biased point of view assertion. The USPTO actually stated as follows:
"The likely meaning of the term “ISLAMISATION” or “ISLAMIZATION” refers to the act of “convert[ing] to Islam or [of] bring[ing] into a state of harmony or conformity with the principles and teachings of Islam; giv[ing] an Islamic character or identity to.” Islam is “the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.” See attached dictionary definitions.
The applied-for mark refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease. See attached dictionary definition.
The proposed mark further disparages Muslims because, taking into account the nature of the services (“providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism”), it implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats. See attached dictionary definition. The trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted articles from the LEXISNEXIS® computerized database referencing how many Muslims view terrorists as illegitimate adherents of Islam. See attachments. Therefore, the suggestion that Islam equates terrorism would be disparaging to a substantial group of Muslims.
Accordingly, the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(a) because it consists of matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic religion.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration." (Emphasis added, page 1 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77940881&docId=OOA20100428111606#docIndex=1&page=1)
It should be noted that mark was abandoned and subsequently several almost identical marks were filed in December 2015 and are now pending acceptance. STOP ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA (Serial #86857969)and two SIOA (Serial #86857973 & 86857983) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Authors of the Wiki Article
I don't know anything about Robert Spencer, but I know a lot about Islam, so all I can say is that Spencer, if quoted correctly, is right in many points. The authors of this Wiki Article have seemingly no sufficient knowledge about Islam, the hadith for example. On war, I recommend to read Cite error: There are
<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Sahih Al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad (Hadith Collection of Al-Bukhari, Book of "Jihad", available in English). Certainly, war among moslems is not well seen, murder of moslems is forbidden, nevertheless, war on non-believers is very recommended, as well as the killing of nonbelievers and apostates for "ridda" (also an important theme of the hadith). Non believers can also be sold as slaves. There is a non-canonic division of the world in "Dar al Islam" House of Islam" where Islam reigns, and "Dar al-Harb", House of War , where Islam doesn't reign yet, and which is supposed to be fought (if not possible, believers should leave the house of war). Islamic theologists do not agree on this point at all (Cite error: There are
<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). s. e.g. German Wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dār_al-Harb).
I regret but this article is very far from being objective or impartial or informative, it is impossible to know if Spencer is really anti-muslimic (doesn't seem so, as he doesn' apply his sayings on the entire moslem community)) or if he is, as many others, a critic of islam who is insulted as being "islamophobic", which is mostly abusive. There is a big difference if somebody criticizes an ideologic system - what any religion is - or if somebody insults people. Unfortunately, many of the critics of critics of islam insult the latter.EUnderwood (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I almost forgot to talk about "dawa ila al-islam" - the call or invitation to Islam: when a moslem "invites" a non-believer to become a moslem and the non believer does not obey, the moslem may kill him (or her). That is why moslems are always in "defensive" wars: people do not follow the "invitation", so moslems feel attacked and can attack the non followers (elsewhere, this is called "purse or life"). Who attacked whom in Mekka? Mohammad attacked the Quraish by wanting to destroy thir religious system and economic basis, so they defended themselves, they did not obey the call to Islam", which was "peaceful" since Mohammed had neither weapons nor money. In Yathrib/Medina, Mohammed and his followers were accepted friendly as guests by the Jewish community, but after they did not accept the "call", the moslems killed them all (read in detailCite error: There are
<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Tilmann Nagel: Mohammed. Leben und Legende des Propheten der Muslime. I am afraid that Islam was and is a religion of war, until now, as long as the majorities and theologist do not reject the "dawa", the "jihad" and the "dar al-harb", and that Mohammed was a very gifted warlord.EUnderwood (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)