Talk:The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam

Recent removals

Please explain why the stracture of book was removed.Does someone think it doesn't contain "244 pages of historical documents"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is unencyclopaedic POV-pushing nonsense. Why do you think? Wikipedia isn't here to promote the works of Bat Ye'or. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The book was reviewed by at least 5 independent sources I can provide the full text for you if you want and we can fix whatever POV problem there is.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You last statement contained BLP violation please remove it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat who? Please provide reasoning for mention. Jetpower (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

CopyVio accusation

If you would look at the site [1] it says "© Bat Ye'or 2005" the site belongs to her so its not copyvio.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Highly questionable. I'd have thought. How do we know the site belongs to her? 18:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What the reason to doubt it?Why should anyone impersonate her?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the current version of Bat Ye'or page, http://www.dhimmi.org/ belong to Bat Ye'or. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ELNO

Please state according to what you classify this link as WP:ELNO--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Why would a featured article cite this review? Who is Aviv Goldstein? Why are Aviv Goldstein's views on the book in any way more notable than those of say Robert Brenton Betts, or Matt Carr? Or is it there because it is a favourable review? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you will find review of Carr of this book you more then welcome to add it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Gross violations of WP:NPOV

I have just added an NPOV template to this article. It presents the opinions of a fringe author as fact, fails to address criticisms of her work and otherwise fails entirely to present the subject in a neutral encyclopaedic manner. It seems self evident that since the author is known for little other than her writing, that this is a blatant POV-fork, intended to whitewash the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't present her view as a fact its properly attributed and nothing stated in Wikipedia voice.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. It presents her claim to be a historian as fact, for a start. In doing so it makes unverifiable assertions such as where it states that "There is consensus among Jewish and Christian scholars that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status". Where is the evidence that any such 'consensus' exists? The 'Reception section' is downright fraudulent - as you are well aware, it completely fails to include the numerous criticisms of the work by reputable academics and others. It is a blatant POV-fork, intended to whitewash the subject, and you know it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"There is consensus among Jewish and Christian scholars that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status"-this what written in the review I can provided a source.Reception is about the book per WP:OR we can't include other sources that don't discuss the book directly.If you will find critical reviews of the book you can add them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

you're missing the bloody point. there are millions of other sources that characterizes bat ye'or as a lunatic and so on and so forth. your cherry-picking of sources violates npov.-- altetendekrabbe  19:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to find other sources that discuss the book.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You know full well that there are sources that do so in the Bat Ye'or article. Why didn't you include them as required under WP:NPOV policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that don't talk about the book.Per WP:OR we can't include them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is direct quote from the source "Most Christian and Jewish scholars seem to agree that at least in theory the condition of the dhimmi was one of second-class citizenship and constant reminders of inferiority. The issue is the extent to which theory was carried out in practice. Bat Ye'or believes that the practice conformed to the theory most of the time" do you want to rephrase it differently?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your frank admission that the article misrepresents the source. I suggest you correct this promptly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it?I have no problem correcting it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

why did you misrepresent in the first place?-- altetendekrabbe  19:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I did but I am willing to reach a compromise--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think you misrepresented the source, why would you need to compromise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you proposed change is reasonable why not also it better to reach agreement per WP:OTHERUSERS and WP:COMPROMISE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no compromise needed. The source cited says nothing whatsoever about there being any 'consensus' amongst Jewish and Christian scholars - not that 'supposedly inferior' means anything anyway. 'Supposed' by whom? The section should be deleted, as making a blatantly false assertion. Now what are you going to do about the other issues: misrepresenting Bat Ye'or as 'a historian', and the complete absence of any material criticising the work? There is no room for 'compromise' here either. Articles adhere to WP:NPOV - this is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the consensus part though I think it doesn't really changed the meaning; I have changed "in theory" to "supposedly" I thought is good enough.If you want to use different word please propose.Where did she described as historian in this article?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW the article was c/e by two other editors and they didn't complain --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This phrase currently is not correctly paraphrased in the article.Bat Yeor don't say "in pricple" or in theory she actually says that is true. Its Jewish or Christian scholars who actually "seem to agree that at least in theory the condition of the dhimmi was one of second-class citizenship and constant reminders of inferiority".--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. What does "in principle" mean to you there that you think that it means that she didn't actually say that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So why say "in principle"? I originally used it as synonym of "in theory" And also why we omitted the opinion of Jewish and Christian scholars? --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

double pov fork

user:shrike has used this article to basically write about the "dhimmi"-topic just like bat ye'or would have done, by cherry-picking sources. secondly, he doesn't even bother to mention that bat ye'or is shunned by the academic community and so on. thirdly, the fact is that the "the dhimmi: jews and christians under islam"-book is not notable at all. 6 cherry-picked reviews from the last 30+ years won't cut it. hence, the book doesn't deserve a page on wikipedia. should this page be taken to afd? please also note shrike's attempts to whitewash bat ye'or on her page as well.-- altetendekrabbe  18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Start WP:AFD if you think so--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm always fascinated when people complain that other editors have a bias by making biased statements (and assumptions) themselves. --Activism1234 19:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that there are enough reviews of the book in academic journals so that it meets WP:NBOOK and should not be taken to AFD. I would argue for the removal of the notability tag from the article on those grounds. The rest of the tags seem more than justified for now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

fine with me. the problem is the fringe views that are violating our guidelines.-- altetendekrabbe  14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There I'm with you. There's a lot of work to be done here and on the related articles.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem of adding more sources and that very good that you found them but we should give equal space to all sources per WP:UNDUE as far as I see all the sources that currently in the article are not fringe in any way.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I also appreciate your constructive attitude.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars agree that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status".

What kind of garbage is this: "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars agree that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status".[2] Given the fact that Shrike seems to be able to write in comprehensible English on the talk page, I can only reasonably assume that this is either some kind of joke, or an indication of severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Either way, such behaviour is utterly unnaceptible. Shrike, I suggest you offer a prompt and explicit explanation for this immediately, if you don't want this raised at WP:ANI. 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its good enough rephrase of "Most Christian and Jewish scholars seem to agree".--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

rfc-u, is a better place to address shrike's misrepresentation and cherry-picking of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  20:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not referring to misrepresentation here. I am referring to gobbledygook.I shall shortly be starting a thread at WP:ANI, asking that Shrike be blocked from editing, given that his/her grasp of the English language is clearly insufficient to be competent to edit articles concerning such sensitive issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote a "big part" instead of a "large part." That's easily fixable and doesn't represent tendetios editing or anything like that. People often make grammar mistakes, and other editors fix them. Not a big deal here. Move on, and deal with larger issues at hand than a grammar mistake. --Activism1234 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

the issue of cherry-picking of sources remain. indeed, shrike's trying to present the mentor of the islamophobic counterjihad movement, as someone respectable by omitting the unconvenient truths about her and her so-called theories. both here and on the bat ye'or-page. this merits an administrative action.-- altetendekrabbe  20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike doesn't have any obligation to include sources that he doesn't know about. I don't know much about this subject, but I'd be surprised if I googled a piece of info, found a reference, put it in, and then was attacked for "cherry picking" that reference. If you have reliable sources that discuss her, WP:Be bold. --Activism1234 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we need sources that discuss specifically the book per WP:OR.I didn't found more WP:RS about the book.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

excuse me, but if shrike was unable to comprehend that he was whitewashing a counterjihadist then he should refrain from editing in controversial topic areas.-- altetendekrabbe  10:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please strike BLP violation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not representative

The current selection of sources is in no way representative. I doubt that this book is even notable in its own right, but the sources provided do not give the whole picture about this book's reception. At all. I don't have time to fix it now, but I'll get to it tonight. benjamil ^talk/_edits 09:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is more then enough sources to testify notability according to WP:BK.If you have some other reviews of the book please present them because I didn't found them--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

you didn't find them? that's no excuse to write the article in a non-npov-way when you know very well bat ye'or's reputation.-- altetendekrabbe  10:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is written in perfectly NPOV way according to the sources about the book. Your accusations are without merit and unproductive--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

er, what?-- altetendekrabbe  10:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

i see that you have corrected your language. that's good but your comment is still meaningless. without merit, you say? this article has several tags pinned on it, including the npov-tag ....-- altetendekrabbe  10:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

These tags are exactly without merit, please present other sources that discuss the book to prove your claims.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

dude, i did not add those tags. besides, user benjamil just told you a few minutes ago that he'll add the sources that would provide the whole picture... please, also read andy's comments. it's really easy to infer that the current version is not neutral...-- altetendekrabbe  11:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

When he will present sources about the book then we will talk till then its meaningless and tags have no justification. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of these tags would constitute vandalism. so please, don't try to remove them.-- altetendekrabbe  11:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong of course please read WP:VANDAL--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

1. When it comes to notability, I would still argue that if this book should be treated, it should be linked to Littman's other books on the dhimmi, as they as well as their reception in the academic community, are closely linked. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm starting to add information from some of the other reviews.
3. I feel compelled to present an alternative text to the thesis section. I'll be adding that shortly.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark Cohen's review of this book

I wonder if anyone can help make sense of this situation. This article: Seth Ward (1990). "A Fragment from an Unknown Work by Al-Ṭabarī on the Tradition 'Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (And the Lands of Islam)'". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 53 (3). University of London: 407–420. mentions on p.408n10 a review of The Dhimmi by Mark Cohen from the Jerusalem Quarterly 38(1986) p.127. However, this: http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/ seems to be the Jerusalem Quarterly. The issues are numbered consecutively, and it only began publishing in 1998, which puts 38 in 2009. If someone can find the Cohen review, it may be useful. The footnote says:

Lists of expulsions, exclusions, etc., are provided, e.g., by Fattal, Le statut legal des non- Musulmansen pays d'Islam (Beirut, Imprimerie Catholique, 1958), 93, in the section on the Muslim world in the article 'Jewish Quarters', by David Corcos, Encyclopedia Judaica, 10: 84-8, and by Bat-Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, transl. by D. Maisel, P. Fenton and D. Littman (Rutherford, Madison and Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), 70 if. See review by Mark Cohen, Jerusalem Quarterly,38, 1986, 127, for a perspective on Bat-Ye'or's theme of congenital and unremitting persecution of the non-Muslim religions'. Another review placing this work in a similar perspective, but with a more supportive, attitude to the perspective, is by L. Nemoy, JQR, LXXVI, 1985, 162-4. (Note that 'Y. Masriya' is another pen-name of Bat-Ye'or, contrary to Nemoy's suggestion.)

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

michael sells also makes scathing remarks about her opinions and her low-grade book. the sources are there. i'll be adding more material when i get time, both here and on the bat ye'or-page which needs a clean-up-- altetendekrabbe  13:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't found a review but I found an answer of Yeor [3]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's useful. Now we have fuller bibliographic info on the Cohen article: Mark Cohen (Spring 1986). "Islam and the Jews: Myth, Counter-Myth, History". Jerusalem Quarterly. 38: 125–137.. Thanks! I'll try it through ILL.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[4] I found it.I think we should include the reaction too per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Najwa Al-Qattan on Bat Ye'or's "scholarship"

I wonder if this might be useful. In this article:Najwa Al-Qattan (July 2002). "Litigants and Neighbors: The Communal Topography of Ottoman Damascus". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 44 (3). Cambridge University Press: 511–533. we find the following on p.512:

While Islam is elevated as a destructive historic force that frames and poisons Muslim/dhimmi relations,the everyday life of Jews and Christians is pictured as if in material isolation, a view that ignores that larger social forces and a shared daily existence also connected dhimmi men and women to their Muslim counterparts who were, one assumes, more preoccupied with the business of making a living than of being a mob.[6]

And in the footnote to that sentence on p.529 we have:

6. For a typical example of this kind of "scholarship" which reifies Islam and essentializes the dhimmi condition, see Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi:Jews and Christians under Islam (Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985); and The Decline of Eastern Christians under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Seventeenth-Twentieth Centuries (Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996).

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is used a lot in footnotes for examples of bad treatment of dhimmis too or as useful source[5].I prefer that we use a book reviews per WP:UNDUE we can't compare a foot note and full book review.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that that's a reasonable restriction. If a book is seen by scholars as on the fringe it may not garner many full reviews but may be mentioned a lot in footnotes. I'm not saying we should use the material, which is why I put it up here for discussion, but I don't think that its being in a footnote is a reason to dismiss it. Some of the most important scholarly remarks I know are in footnotes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have more then enough reviews like 6-7.Also you found some in text mention that can be used too--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, most scholars consider Gisele Littman's works to be "scholarship", which might very well explain why it's treated in footnotes, and why using full reviews as the only source would be a major selection bias. benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with you there more then enough reviews coming from scholarly literature and per WP:WEIGHT they should be given prominence--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

There are critical reviews too so we don't have any problems with WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[6] for example here its used to source some facts about dhimmis should we use this too?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting case. See how the authors quote Bernard Lewis right after to temper the effect of what they cited to Bat Ye'or above? I read that as a covert acknowledgement that they're aware of her reputation. Anyway, the footnotes aren't comparable, because that one only cites the book rather than commenting on the book. It's not that I think citations are irrelevant; something about the number of citations would be reasonable to put in the article. Google scholar will calculate this kind of reliably. I don't think GS is a reliable source, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think we should use full text mentions here is another not so positive comment.[7]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

David Waines's review

Here's another one; I don't have access to this. Does anyone? Perhaps another ILL candidate: Waines, David (1987). "The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam". The Journal of the Historical Association. 72: 95.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[8] --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification tag on CHOICE citation

I'm willing to accept that as reliable. CHOICE publishes little packs of cards, one per book, containing capsule reviews. These are distributed to academics by academic librarians to help them make acquisition recommendations. The reviews are written by academics in the field, and CHOICE is selective about who gets to write them. It's exactly the kind of thing we can trust to describe the actual contents of the book. Of course a link would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's a page number. CHOICE also publishes the contents of the cards as little capsule reviews in their monthly magazine. I wouldn't take this kind of thing as having to do with notability, but, as I said above, it seems reasonable to me for a description of the contents.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil's rewrite

I think it is excellent. Kudos! If people think it's roughly stable, I would move that we delete the maintenance tags.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

no, not yet. our guidelines clearly state that "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". [9] the overwhelming majority of the academic community do not take bat ye'or seriously. cutler and fenton, needs to be replaced by, more recent, mainstream views.-- altetendekrabbe  08:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article written according to WP:RS about the book.Do you have some other sources about the book? There a few fixes probably should be made but there a minor word tweaks so I mostly agree with Alf. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I want to point the this article is about the book and not about the author.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Confused

From the article:

In a review article discussing antisemitism in Muslim lands, Gudrun Krämer notes that in contrast to the "white myth" of continuous peaceful coexistence between different religious groups under Islamic rule, the portrayal offered in Ye'Or's book is that of the "black myth". She describes both positions as irrelevant.

I think this should be clarified a bit. Which positions is she calling irrelevant? What exactly is this "black myth?" Etc... --Activism1234 00:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What's unclear about that? From the OED: white: 7.a. fig. Morally or spiritually pure or stainless; spotless, unstained, innocent. and black: 10. Very evil or wicked; iniquitous; foul, hateful. It's like white hats and black hats. I see no need to clarify. Plus they're quotes from the source, I assume. She's calling both Ye'Or's position and its opposite irrelevant, because, as is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's saying that Bat Ye'or portrays a "black myth," and then says she describes that too as irrelevant?? If your book portrays an item in a certain way, you wouldn't call it "irrelevant," because that's how you're portraying it... Unless the source here is saying she's offering it as an example or explanation, but then dismisess it... Not clear... --Activism1234 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer is saying that both Bat Ye'or's theory and the opposite of Bat Ye'or's theory are irrelevant. Bat Ye'or says X, other people say !X, the reviewer, a third party with a third point of view, says neither one is relevant. There are three different points of view expressed in that sentence. How is that unclear to you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe we should clarify what is white and black myth because it may be not clear for the reader(probably in the footnote)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you say exactly what's not clear about it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, don't fully understand what it's referring to (see above), and Shrike also agrees we should clarify it. Is this such a major problem??? Simply clarify the wording a bit... We don't need a debate over this. --Activism1234 05:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do understand but the reader may not I wish we had wiki article that explain it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you was not familiar with subject would you understand what exactly is "white" and "black" myth?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

@Activism: How can we clarify it if it's already clear and no one can explain clearly what's not clear about it? If you don't understand what it says, then clearly you can't propose a clarification. In fact, it seems to be so unclear to you that you can't explain what's unclear about it. It's clear to me, so I can't see what needs clarifying and can't, therefore, propose a clarification either. Since Shrike understands it and also thinks it's unclear, perhaps Shrike can propose a clarification.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Alf... What, according to her, is the "black myth?" The "white myth" is defined - but what's the "black myth?" Just a bit more info, that's all... If she is portraying the "black myth," then how can it be she is calling it irrelevant? Does this mean she is simply offering it as a suggestion, but then saying "Scratch that, it's irrelevant?" If so, what is relevant? I think I explained it well above. --Activism1234 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, there are three parties in the sentence. There is Bat Ye'or. She says that Jews were oppressed by Muslims. That is the "black myth." There are the people that Bat Ye'or is arguing against. They say that Jews and Muslims were happy together in the good old days. That is the "white myth." There is the reviewer of the book. She says that both of those parties are wrong and that therefore both of their "myths" are irrelevant. The sentence actually objectively says this. I don't see how to propose a clarification if you can't say what it is about the sentence that makes it unclear to you that this is what it means, and I hesitate to guess.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. OK, so I think just changing the word "she" to "Kramer" should be enough, as it's the "she" that confuses people - is "she" referring to Bat Ye'or (as I initially thought) or someone else (Kramer)? Sound good? --Activism1234 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Certainly, do it!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Activism1234 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bowman

Yesterday, I added a "clarification needed" tag to the Bowman citation. I'll bring it to your attention here as well: As it currently stands, this citation is unverifiable, because (as far as I can see) it doesn't give the title of the work cited. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I talked about this above. CHOICE is actually the name of the journal. I'm OK with it, as I said upstairs. They have a website here. The one cited might be on there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: A subscription is needed to search that far back online.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have this scanned if someone want it please send me an email.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)