Talk:Bat Ye'or

Serious author?

Just as a question - how can anybody take the author of this seriously? - Mustafaa 21:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's the point? Why shouldn't she be taken seriously? What substantive challenges can you offer to her piece on Eurabia.

It's not Wikipedia's place to "take seriously" anything. WP' place is to report objectively (NPOV) on all topics of concern to a general audience. The fact that people talk about her (for good or bad) means she's worth an article in WP. Now - this article (*any* article) shouldn't pass judgement on what's being discussed - it should merely report on what is being said by all sides of the issue in a fair and even handed manner. Present her arguments, and then note that there are thousands of people who think she's a crackpot for reasons a, b and c, without passing judgement yourself. 19:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Expanded the article a bit

There is more work to be done particularly in the Theses section to make it a bit more clear and do the copy editing of the text.Also we should add a section that deals with her bio , her life story that is.--CltFn 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism

Her works are widely quoted and are held in great esteem in the counter terrorism community.

No, her works are widely quoted and held in great esteem in the political crackpot community, and as far as I know, nowhere else. So I'll remove this. Please, anyone, feel free to source it if you want it back. Arre 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

Reverts by User:CltFn

User:CltFn keeps reverting my edits and labelling them "vandalism", but refuses to explain himself. I hope he will come to his senses and respond to the following. I happen to believe, as do most people who have heard of her, that Bat Ye'or (BY) is a full-blown racist and bigot, and I deeply dislike her writings. I find this page to be strongly biased towards her extreme prejudices against Muslims, both in that it presents her rantings more or less as accepted scientific theory, and in certain dubious phrases. This violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy - and that is why I feel I have the right to perform these edits; not because I dislike her. I have attempted to correct a few of the more blatant biases by these changes, and this is my argument:

• Counter-terrorism. The claim that BY is held in great esteem by the counter terrorism community (whatever that is), is not sourced, and I believe, most certainly not true. If this is to be included it should both be rephrased ("by some members of the CT community") and sourced.
• Pioneering. "Dhimmitude and Jihadist Tactics" are not accepted scientific terms. They are used exclusively by BY herself, and, in later years, by some of her followers. I accept her claim that she is an expert in this, since she invented the terms - but we should phrase ourselves to make this qualification clear. I have added the "what she terms as" (Dh-tude and Jtactics) to these sentences, which I believe is better in line with WP policy.
• Jizya tax. I rephrased the strongly POV paragraph on jizya/dhimmi, which referred to these religious taxes as extortion money. Granted, all taxes are extortion in one way or another, but this is not how WP generally refers to them, and it is not how the scientific community or popular history refers to the jizya. Also, not all "vanquished populations" were Christians and Jews; and the jizya was not paid on condition of halting Islam's further expansion, which the paragraph suggests ("cessation of the Jihad war").
• "Eurabia" moved. I moved the paragraph on "Eurabia" to the section on that term. This was not intended to correct bias, but rather to make the article more readable.

Now, I have made my case. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, although I think most people who compare the edits will see that these are clear improvements of the articles POV/NPOV status. But I do expect a response instead of just being reverted and insulted. Arre 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your case in utter nonsense , you evidently have not even read any of her books and should not be editing this page out of a total lack of research. Your obvious agenda and POV pushing is clear. I wonder whose sock puppet you are? Boring!--CltFn 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry? That was kind of unprovoked.

• No, I have not read her books, but I'm not trying to edit the parts on the content of the books either. I've been concerned with the parts on her influence on the scientific and counter terrorism community.
• If you refer to the part on the Jizya, then whatever her groundbreaking research is, it does not matter. It is not common usage to talk about taxes, including the Jizya, as "extortion". To do it here only, and in this context, is very obvious POV.
• Also, please stop publicly labeling innocent people vandals. I don't know if you two have a previous history, but as it stands, I'm trying to discuss this, and so is Palmiro. Please respond to arguments, mine and his, instead of just reverting.
• This is the fourth time I ask. Soon you've left me no choice but to call on the opinion of an administrator. As it stands, I don't think that would go in your favor.

Count to ten, calm down, and talk. Arre 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, you have added unsourced material and material attributed to a source which said something different. A hidden comment made it clear that this was the case and that was why it was commented out. Nevertheless you removed the comment and added the material and untrue claim regarding its source back in. I hope that you simply didn't look at what you were doing.

Please refer to three relevant Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Please do not add falsehoods to Wikipedia. If a comment says something is not true, and explains why fully, you should at least check before removing it and re-adding information that another editor has gone to the trouble of finding out is misleading.

Also, writing misleading edit summaries or using edit summaries for personal attacks is generally considered extremely poor form. Palmiro | Talk 13:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Arre , what you are doing editing an article for which you have not done any significant research? Why should we waste time arguing with you, if you cannot invest the time to research the topic.--CltFn 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro , your little routine is getting old. Your uninformed remarks on the topic would lead me to suggest that you do a modicum of research before editing an article like this one.--CltFn 07:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My friend, you haven't yet managed to come up with sources for the material you insist on including, which would be a good way of showing that you're better-informed yourself. If this continues the page is going to land on RfC, because we're getting nowhere fast at the moment. Palmiro | Talk 13:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do your research on the article then come back when you know something about the topic.--CltFn 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read articles by Bat Ye'or, and I've read about Bat Ye'or. I would think the same goes for Palmiro. What we are disputing is - I repeat - not the content of her books, which should of course be presented accurately, factually and undistorted (but should not be allowed to become the general POV of the article). We are disputing erroneous and unfounded/unsourced claims of her influence on the scientific community and public discourse, plus some very biased sentences on Islam in general - I can judge those points as well as you. Please stop acting like this, and make your point on the talk page. Arre 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

NY times reference

Googled the reference and read it . It is irrelevant , thus I took it out.--CltFn 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it has her proper name which is why it shouldn't be removed. gren グレン 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I don't exactly know what's going on here but, two things. Firstly, it does appear that this is totally disputed. Palmiro has given reasons... so, you can have content disputes but don't remove that without general agreement. Secondly... there is a revert war of sorts. I haven't read either version yet and I don't plan to as of yet. When I come back if you two are still reverting I will protect the page. Then I will give my opinion but I'd much prefer there wasn't still a revert war when I come back. gren グレン 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No mystery here , Gren , what we have here is a case of the usual editors trying to do their best to cut and shred articles on personalities that they object to. Nothing new , we have seen this all before many times.--CltFn 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As you can see above (and in the History), CltFn refuses to respond to our arguments. Sadly, I believe this page should be protected right away and an administrator join the debate to mediate, otherwise there will only be more damage and confusion. In addition to his previous disputed edits and reverts, CltFn just went on a deletion-spree, and I have a feeling he is not going to stop acting like this unless forced to. (As for "usual editors", when making my original edits, that was the first time I touched this page.)Arre 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous , how is it going, still up to the same old tricks? --CltFn 17:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't need an administrator, you need a psychiatrist :-D Arre 19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I've become involved about the NYTimes reference (one of the edit things) I won't be protecting... but I will ask someone to. For the link please don't remove it since it is the reference from which we get the name Giselle Littman. Can we agree on not removing that? gren グレン 16:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arre asked me to take a look at this, but as I've edited it quite recently and commented on the talk page, I shouldn't take admin action. I've done a copy edit, however, and I may do more. I'm concerned to see User:Dhimmi is back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see Dhimmi is back doing nothing but revert. I've removed that she's Jewish and has British nationality from the intro because they're arguably irrelevant, and anyway mentioned at the top of the next section. That she is Jewish explains why she was expelled from Egypt, but being a British national isn't at all relevant, and she's probably a Swiss national too, but we don't mention that. Also, there's no reason for having a single footnote there, when we can link to the article. See WP:CITE about changing from one citation style to another. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The NYT article is referred to twice, so it makes sense to have it as a footnote. Nationality is always relevant, any article about an author will mention the nationality in the first paragraph. I don't think she has Swiss nationality, she is typically described as a British citizen living in Switzerland. Dhimmi 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE: you're not supposed to switch from one citation style to another without g etting consensus on the page; if no consensus can be reached, you use the one first used. This Dhimmi account is a single-issue account, yet you know instantly when a change is made, which strongly suggests you're a sock puppet. I wish you would leave this article alone, because you're reverting makes improving the article (even in directions you might approve of) close to impossible, unless of course we only make edits you approve of. Please see WP:OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This is a legitimate sock puppet, I'm not rigging votes or anything, I just wish to separate my edits on this article from my other edits. Your behaviour proves I was right in doing so. This is the kind of topic where one gets attacked by certain people. All I'm reverting is vandalism or other edits that degrade the article, like your removal of useful footnotes. Your version now repeats the same external link in three places, that's ridiculous. You can make good edits that improve the article all you want, but I haven't seen you doing so yet. Dhimmi 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being disruptive and you're not in fact allowed to use another account, or your primary one, with the sole intention of being a revert warrior. A footnote should be repeated too wherever the source is used to support an edit, so whether it's a footnote or a link makes no difference. Whoever you are, please read our editing policies. You know nothing about them yet you revert ANY change you do not approve of, which is completely out of order, and you label your edits rvv when you are not reverting vandalism. You're being highly disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disruptive at all. CtlFn was clearly vandalizing (removing whole paragraphs without explanation), as Arre and Palmiro will agree with. Instead of being thankful for my reverts of vandalism, you make up bizarre accusations. It's rather you who's disruptive. I know the editing policies better than you. Of course it makes a difference if it's just a footnote "ref nyt" that is repeated, or the whole URL! E.g., if one wants to change the URL to a better one, one would have to do it in three places separately with your version. You have quite some nerve to revert me and at the same time say "stop reverting". You have done this before, and it's not very convincing. Dhimmi 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it seemed to me CltFn was vandalizing the article, or at least not editing it honestly. That was why I asked SlimVirgin to have a look at it. I have no idea if Dhimmi is disruptive or not, as I'm not able to keep up with the reverting, or figure out what it is about. I would say the best thing is for either side to stop reverting, no matter who started it, and then discuss this calmly. Right now, you both seem to be talking more about each other and the revertion policies, than about what content should be in the page.
• The edits I was originally concerned with (pioneering & counterterror) are now both back, although with "citation needed" markers. I think it is obvious that they are not factual, and CltFn refuses to argue for them, even though I've asked him so many times now. I say both statements should be removed. Arre 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi has been blocked for 48 hours for 3RR and disruption, so feel free to edit, Arre. If CtFn has been asked for citations for particular edits and hasn't supplied them, you're within your rights to remove them.

Dhimmi is not as a rule interested in discussing. The account reverts any change he does not approve of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

pseudonym v. also known as

I would suggest that "the pseudonym of" is a better way of expressing this than "also known as", since Bat Ye'or seems to be the name that the woman uses exclusively in her public life. Palmiro | Talk 00:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Source request

These are some of the claims that need a good supporting source, and which I've removed:

[I took the liberty to move them down a step. Arre 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are the disputed quotes that SlimVirgin removed for discussion. Could everybody - including CltFn - who have an argument about these quotes please state it below, and then we'll see what the majority opinion is. If there are other disputed paragraphs, just paste a copy of them below, and we can discuss them here in the same manner, instead of trashing the page with reverts.

• "Her works are widely quoted and are held in great esteem in the counter terrorism community."

My opinion: I don't believe this at all. Good source or remove. Arre 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Some historians regard her work as politically opinionated rather than factual, while others regard it as scholarly."

My opinion: Remove the word "historians" or provide source for this. Arre 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Her writings have gained her worldwide renown as a pioneer on the topic of Dhimmitude and Jihadist tactics."

My opinion: Untrue. She is not world famous, and she has coined or popularized both of those terms herself. I would agree with a reference to BY as having developed these two theories, but not as being a "pioneer" of something that is cited as if they were accepted scientific disciplines. They are not. Arre 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Her articles have appeared in numerous periodicals around the world."

My opinion: Source on "numerous" and qualification of "periodicals", since the tone of this article seems intended to present BY as a reputed scientist, which she clearly is not. I don't believe she's cited in any respectable scientific periodicals - at least not in an appreciative way. Arre 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Arre's remarks on these four points. Palmiro | Talk 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also:"She has spoken at a United Nations Commission on Human Rights-organized conference"

The only source for this is a page on a website http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/ which may perhaps belong to Bat Ye'or, and which holds the text of this lecture, with the note: "Introduction to an "analysis and discussion" at the United Nations (Geneva), 31 July 2001, organized by the NGO, Association for World Education. (Spoken in French)". Is this really the same as "a UNHCR-organised conference"? I can't help but think that this source doesn't seem to bear the weight of the citation that's been landed on it. Who is the Association for World Education? What is their link with the UNHCR? What was the conference? Palmiro | Talk 02:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Book list

It doesn't strike me as standard practice to list every published book that attributes Bat Ye'or as an author, including translations of the same work. I would suggest listing all her works that have been published in English under the English title, and where she has published anything of which there is not an English translation, listing that in the original language. I think this is a more usual approach. Palmiro | Talk 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NYT

CltFn, why did you remove the quote from the New York Times calling it "nonsense," and saying the article didn't say it? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Because if anyone would bother to read the article that is being quoted they would see that what the article says and what is quoted in the wikipedia insert do not match. Thus I deleted it as a false reference. Simple. Read it for yourself--CltFn 06:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please say exactly what you are disputing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Those fears shape some of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right. Giselle Littman, who was expelled from Egypt in 1957 and now publishes under the pseudonym Bat Yeor, argues in her latest book, "Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis," that Europe has consciously allied itself with the Arab world at the expense of Jews and the trans-Atlantic alliance.

"Those fears shape some of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right" does not equal this statement: "that she is one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right".

Yes it does. Read what it says. It is one paragraph about Bat Yeor introduced by the sentence about "most extreme voices." This is how journalists write. It's called good writing. A form of show, don't tell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is your conjecture and original research. It says "Those fears shape some of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right" . Quote that if you want. --CltFn 07:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're being disruptive. Who else was he referring to if not the subject of the very next sentence, and the only person mentioned in that paragraph? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that author has not explicitly said that Giselle is one of the most extreme voices. You are perhaps reading that into it but it does not explicitly say that. Quote the exact sentence as stated by the author then if you want. --CltFn 07:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell me please who, in your view, he was referring to with that sentence if not the subject of the very next sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well "those fears" refers to what the author has listed in the earlier paragraphs. He then associates those fears with "the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right". The author however fails to then make explicit connection of Giselle Littman with "the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right". The reader can chose to or not to assume that this is what the author had intended to imply. If that was what the author had intended to get accross then he failed to do so explicitly and a conjecture that he had intended to do so cannot be the basis of a citation.--CltFn 07:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article simply says on the subject of Giselle Littman :Giselle Littman, who was expelled from Egypt in 1957 and now publishes under the pseudonym Bat Yeor, argues in her latest book, "Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis," that Europe has consciously allied itself with the Arab world at the expense of Jews and the trans-Atlantic alliance.--CltFn 07:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear from context that the article refers to her as an extreme voice of the Jewish right. You have to willfully misread the paragraph not to see thus. Dsol 12:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, since the NYT writer has not explicitely stated that Giselle is one of the most extreme voices, then wiki editors have no grounds to make that claim in the article. If certain Wiki editors were to interpret the NYT article to imply that Giselle is a member of that group, then they are treading in the zone of original research which is excluded from Wikipedia. And that is all there is to that.--CltFn 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that the article does call her an extreme voice of the Jewish right. (I also wonder whether anyone could ever read her work without coming to the same conclusion.) --Zero 08:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it must be completely obvious that you are seing things that are not there.By the way which book of hers have you read?--CltFn 18:44, 25 December 2005

(UTC)

Cltfn, the consensus is clear. Everybody except you appears to agree that the reference to Bat Ye'or here is clear. So stop reverting it out of the article please until you can persuade other editors that your interpretation is correct. Palmiro | Talk 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is that you are up to your usual tactics of trashing articles you perceive to be anti some ideology you submit to. Consensus does not overide facts.--CltFn 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn, I've been exposed. Palmiro | Talk 05:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, CltFn. I'm glad to see you're as impeccably NPOV as always. Whoops! I hope it's clear who that second sentence is about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seems clear that since this is a point of dispute, the section should be reworded before it's put back into the article, fair play people, can't keep a good smarck down--Ytrewqt 05:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to outline precisely what you dispute about it? James James 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Slim. Thanks , I will take that as a compliment. And a very happy politically incorrect new year to you and all the Wikipedia editors. --CltFn 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to CltFn's and Ytrewqt's position. The NYT article is unequivocal, the preceding paragraph refers explicitly to "European Jews who fled their North African homes". The ensuing paragraph's introduction "Those fears shape some of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right." is followed by just one example - Giselle Littman. The only way to make that even more obvious would be to replace the period by a colon. SlimVirgin calls that "good writing. A form of show, don't tell" - that's quite right.

CltFn, I agree with Yeor's inference, Europe doesn't handle the problems caused by muslim immigration adequately (*), but resorting to conspiracy theories as Y. does, won't help a bit.

* don't forget Europe's failure to integrate them. In Germany the weren't even offered language courses, much less were they made mandatory. French policy was to confine them to isolated and architecturally brutalising "banlieus" - no good idea. --tickle me 14:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me propose a compromise here. The intro says that the work of Bat Ye'or attracted both criticism and praise. However, while the NYT quote is an example of the former, we have no examples of the latter there, making the intro unbalanced. So, I have moved the NYT quote to a separate section titled "Criticism of Bat Ye'or", which could be expanded with other examples of criticism, if necessary.--Pecher 16:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I think creating "pro" and "con" sections in articles, while a common tactic on Wikipedia, is not necessarily a good idea. Secondly, it is quite germane that bat Ye'or is generally regarded as an extremist. I doubt that anyone could read one of her articles without thinking otherwise. A bland statement that "she has attracted both criticism and praise" doesn't really represent the matter faithfully. Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that creatng a criticism section is not a good idea in this case, I would appreciate if you elaborate on your position. There are many people who read her works, including books, without coming to a conclusion that she is an extremist, and the article must conform to NPOV. Although the statement is indeed bland, it may be reworded to reflect the fact that she has a large following and her works have sparked a substantial controversy, and we need not tilt the intro on one side.--Pecher 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

EAD: Infos available?

I'm looking for infos on the subject of the "Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created in July 1974 in Paris" I can't find anything sensible: google.com? +"Euro-Arab+Dialogue" +EAD. Does Bat Ye'or qualify this organisation as being intentionally clandestine?

The only official mention I found was at publications.eu.int, but only in the danish section, the english section doesn't. This google search, google.com? site:publications.eu.int EAD, seems to indicate the possibility of a mix up with "Det Europæiske Forsvarsagentur (EAD, Bruxelles)", while this more comprehensive search, google.com? site:eu.int EAD, mentions the acronym "Encoded Archival Description (EAD)". --tickle me 12:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Try "Barcelona process". This is the current focus for dialogue between the EU and other Mediterranean states. Palmiro | Talk 12:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I did, prime result is europa.eu.int euromed and europa.eu.int euromed/bd.htm with an official descripion of the term. However, no mention of EAD or plotting for deliberate dhimmitude. --tickle me 20:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you hardly expected them to openly admit to it, did you? What's the point of having a massively effective evil conspiracy if you go and tell people about it? Palmiro | Talk 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but isn't that circular reasoning? "You may never have heard of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, but that only goes to show how powerful it is" (Thomas Jones). The issue is: Are there any factual clues indicating that EAD is more than a conspiracy theory, as it is prominently claimed by Ye'or's critics? --tickle me 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, what Bat Ye'or means by the EAD is in fact the Barcelona process. So, yes, there is this dialogue, but no, of course there is no evidence to support her insane theses about it. And she is, to put it mildly, a rather marginal figure: I've studied European government and politics and Middle Eastern history at third level, and wikipedia is the only place I ever heard of her. Palmiro | Talk 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Scholarly credibility of Bat Ye'or

The article contains a paragraph on citations of "dhimmitude" and Bat Ye'or in scholarly sources. One of the nightmares of Wikipedia is misleading citations (I'm not saying that anyone set out give misleading citations here). In an attempt to find out the accuracy of the claims and citations given here, I offer the following version of the paragraph (in italics) with the citations it gives quoted in full:

Usage of the term "dhimmitude" has increased in recent years (as Google confirms); some scholars have used it both by itself [2]

This is an article by one Sidney Griffiths of the Catholic University of America. Fr. Sidney Griffiths is a professor of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures, with special interest in "Syriac monasticism; medieval Christian-Muslim encounters; ecumenical and interfaith dialogue" so it is interesting that in relation to this, he does indeed use the term "dhimmitude". And he also has the following to say about Bat Ye'or, where he cites her in his references:

Also easily available is Bat Ye̓or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam; from Jihad to Dhimmitude; Seventh-Twentieth Century (Madison & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996). One must use this book with great care due to the author̓s extreme anti-Islamic prejudice and consequent distortion of the facts of history, both Christian and Islamic. Nevertheless, the quoted sources do provide some sense, albeit highly distorted by reason of selective quotation, of the difficulties experienced by Christians over the centuries living under Islamic rule. The book gave rise to some surprisingly bigoted remarks by Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square; the Approaching Century of Religion,” First Things no. 76 (October, 1997), pp. 75-79. There are similar problems with Bat Ye̓or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Rutherford, Madison, & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985) and with Bat Ye̓or, Islam and Dhimmitude; Where Civilizations Collide (Madison & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002). It remains to Bat Ye̓or̓s credit to have raised an important issue that still has not received adequate study.

and in association with Bat Ye'or's work, e.g. in undergraduate [3]

This really does look like a real academic course in a real university Westmont College that uses Bat Ye'or as a text. Which is rather worrying:

Muslim Challenge

Sources: Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction (SUNY Press, 1992); Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, 3 vols. (University of Chicago, 1974); Alexander Murray, :::"The Later Middle Ages" and Kallistos Ware, "Eastern Christianity" in Richard Harries and Henry Mayr-Harting, Christianity: Two Thousand Years (Oxford, 2001); Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (Fairleigh Dickinson, 2001); Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi (Fairleigh Dickinson, 1985).

and graduate courses relating to the relationship Muslims have had historically with other peoples [4]

This seems to be a bona fide reference to bat Ye'or, but not to "dhimmitude"; Bat Ye'or's book is given as additional reading on a reading list:

Week 4: Rearticulating Historical Context: the location of Ottoman minorities

The lecture starts with the identification of the parameters of the conflict within a social science framework. The reanalysis of the legal and social status of social groups in Ottoman history places the interaction and conflict between the Turks and Armenians in a broader perspective.

Assigned readings:

Bernard Lewis (ed), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman empire: the functioning of a plural society, [especially part I and part II], New York: Holmes and Meier 1982; Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong, (Chapter 4), Oxford University Press, 2002; Salahi R. Sonyel, Minorities and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, Vahakn Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, (introduction), Providence & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995; Fatma Muge Gocek Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change 1996.

Additional Readings:

Watt, William Montgomery. Moslem-Christian Encounters. Perceptions and Misperceptions. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Ye'or, Bat. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Translated by Miriam Kochan and David Littman. Madison and Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. Ye'or, Bat. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Madison and Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002

or to the study of regions such as Syria. http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/LT-ANTIQ/2003/04/0066.php http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/LT-ANTIQ/2003/04/0074.php

Link is to a mailing list message by one John N. Lupia, III, 31 Norwich Drive, Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News God Bless America in which he recommends Bat Ye'or's book as a source on the history of Syriac Christians; he also recommends William Dalrymple's travelogue 'From the Holy Mountain; this is in response to a question from another user "I am looking for some good general introductions to the Syriac church and the Syriac world in general. What would list members suggest should be essential reading for a beginner in this field- I am particularly interested in the architecture and archaeology of the area."

Her works have also been quoted by some scholars with reference to the field of religious history. [5]

Link is (no longer?) to an article but to the home page of the Emory International Law Review, which doesn't sound like a publication terribly concerned with religious history.

I will attempt to edit the article to sort all this out some time in the next week or two - I'm very busy with work at the moment. Griffith's remarks might also be good for the intro. Palmiro | Talk 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What I found most intersting was that some Bat Yeor is published by Farleigh Dickinson Press. People like Ibn Warraq are published by Prometheus which is suspect just because it only has more anti-Islamic leaning texts. I don't know if Fairleigh Dickinson is the most notable or well respected text... but I'd assume it deserves some respect. The undergraduate course that uses it also uses a book by Annemarie Schimmel who is definitely not along the same lines as Bat Yeor. So, we can't really know if it's used with a grain of salt or not. Interesting research you've done... and it does show a big problem with wikipedia... citing willy-nilly. gren グレン 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the westmont.edu undergraduate link, the lecturer is one Telford C. Work, assistant professor of Theology. The chgs.umn.edu lecturer is Taner Akçam, a professor of sociology and respected Turkish publicist, dealing mostly with Turkish/Armenian history. So neither of them is specialised in near eastern history or Islamic issues - for what that's worth, just to chip in my 2c. --tickle me 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Influence

Some historians regard her work as politically opinionated rather than factual, while others regard it as scholarly. The New York Times ("Europe's Jews Seek Solace on the Right", February 20, 2005) referred to her as one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right".

We must be more specific who these "some" and "others" historians are. NYT definitely does not qualify as a "historian".--Pecher 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pioneering

seem's we're back at square no. 1 again. CltFn, if you want to insert the claim that B/Y is a "pioneer of dhimmitude", you have to prove that there was something called "dhimmitude" to pioneer before her - and not a mention in a weird article somewhere, but a real field of study. she will not get credit for "pioneering" a racist slur she has invented herself. Arre 13:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly mentions that Bachir_Gemayel coined the term. There are no other books before her that mention dhimmitude, but after her many do so. She is the first one to have presented the topic on the University circuits and government pannels and in her books. Thus she is a pioneer. There is hardly any disagreement with this.--CltFn 13:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so a Lebanese militia leader said it once, according to her, according to you. Is that your case for her "pioneering the study of dhimmitude"? And what about her second field of research´, "Jihadist tactics" - who was it that first mentioned these two words in sequence and thus created an academic discipline for her to go pioneer? Arre 13:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot: there is disagreement about "the topic" appearing with any frequency in University circuits and government panels. This reminds me in a funny way of how the ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, is presented as a pioneer in the field of kimjongilism. Also a very well researched topic in the universities of North Korea, I can assure you. Arre 13:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read any of her books? You seem wholy uninformed about this subject. No one is trying to make these fields into academic subjects, we are simply describing the focus of her writings and public presentations on those topics. A pioneer , according to the dictionary is someone who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development. Bat Yeor clearly did that in the study of Dhimmitude, you would hardly find anyone writing on this topic without mentioning her name.--CltFn 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem. "Dhimmitude" is NOT an "area of thought, research, or development", it's a made-up word for Muslim-bashing. I don't know if you're familiar with the history of anti-Semitism, but this is like saying in the 1880s that Wilhelm Marr was a "pioneer of the study of anti-Semitism and Jewish usury". Yes, he was, in the sense that he invented the term to cover for traditional anti-Judaism. And no, he wasn't, in the sense that it was not a respected or established "study" at all. It's perfectly fine to mention that he invented the word, and what he meant by it, and to present that in neutral, descriptive terms - just as it would be to explain that B/Y "uses the term Dhimmitude as a scientific concept", bla bla. This is not done now. Instead you're insisting on a weasel sentence to lend academic credentials and respectability to something which is basically just another Internet buzz, and a particularly silly one at that. Arre 02:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's cool down a little bit here and start with defining what Bat Ye'or calls "dhimmitude", as the article does not have a clear definition now. She writes "Dhimmitude ... represents a domain, which embraces the social, political, and religious relations of different human groups [i.e., between dhimmis and Muslims, as well as between groups of dhimmis - Pecher] (Islam and Dhimmitude..., p.21). I do not think Bat Ye'or really pioneered the study of both these types of relations; there had already been literature on Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, see for instance, The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis, as well as non-specialized books devoted to the history of Islam. Anyway, a claim of pioneering must be sourced; otherwise, it will violate WP:NOR. However, she did make an impressive study of Arab-Christian anti-Judaism, and that may be mentioned.--Pecher 19:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Short version

I have rewritten the article in line with the recent abbreviated revision of the equally hotly contested article on Robert Spencer. Let's stick to biography here and move the discussion of her writings to the pages dedicated to her books. It worked for rebert Spencer, why shouldn't it work here? Other articles on historians of Islam look pretty much the same without causing much controversy, see Bernard Lewis, for example.--Pecher 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach . An encyclopdia is meant to be informative , and an author's page should provide a comprehensive overview of the authors work not just a skeleton of their life. What you are doing is slicing off anything that would be contentious , supposedly moving it to other pages, which is simply moving it out of sight where the wikipedia reader is not very likely to get to, so in essence the result is a loss of information in the wikidia experience. If you goal is no controversy then just erase all the wikipedia pages and you will achieve that--CltFn 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I approve of "Just the facts, Ma'am" approaches because there are the only demonstrated method that results in a high ratio of facts to smothering Wiki editor POV. Bloating entries seldom provide a "comprehensive overview of X's work;" rather, they provide a battlefield for POV turf-war with umpitty people hair-splitting over what's "comprehensive" and what's not. (I.e., Wiki editor "Bob" has an opinion, so he dashes to Google for a slam piece from the New York Times, and gives in prominance; then "Jay", of contrary opinion, wants to give The Wall Street Journal equal time; then "Mitch" cites Drudge...whereup everyone goes apeshit over "credibility" since Drudge Report is a website as opposed to the "credible" NYT, where a reporter is seemingly fired every week for lying and/or plagerism. And around and around and around it goes.)

The short version works well for Spencer, since his main "projects" are a blog (where anyone can spleen away) and writing books (where anyone can spleen away in an Amazon.com review). Given the ready availability of just about anything on the net, "exhaustive" articles are neither necessary nor advisable; giving the reader fast tips to further his own research in a rapidly-changing datascape should be, I think, a more paramount mission.--Mike18xx 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"JournalistCruft"

Dhummy, I'm actually pretty lenient -- if you can dredge up something claiming Bat Ye'or is the love-slave of over-sexed space-aliens ("with shocking photographs!") and wanna connect it in External Links, I couldn't care less (although others might zot it). But one-sentence throw-aways in the main body of the article, essentially boiling down to "This person sucks, according to this press blowhard!", followed by "And another ink-strained wretch says 'Does not!'", just get in the way of the more primary information (bibliography, etc). Virtually all of this criticism is self-evident anyway (e.g., Bat Ye'or is a Jew critical of many aspects of Islam--tough guess who doesn't like her).

There's plenty of room at the BOTTOM of the entry for all the hair-pulling.--Mike18xx 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Short version

I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded. As it stands, this page would give a reader the impression that Bat Ye'or's status as a reputable historian was not a matter of considerable doubt (to put it mildly). The controversy over her opinions needs to be reflected here; otherwise it is a severe distortion (and yes, it is possible to distort by ommission). I will put a POV tag on the page until we reach agreement on this. Palmiro | Talk 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to include criticism of Bar Ye'or works, do so. Please note, however, that criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks.--Pecher 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded." -- Perhaps an equal-length endorsement by Spencer or Pipes or Fallaci alongside each criticism would be appropriate. Of course then it would just "cancel out" the section. And there would also be incessent wrangling over which sources each editor preferred for inclusion (as cover for their own POV).--Mike18xx 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks." -- The other reason I chucked that particular paragraph is because it led off with "Some historians..." when no historians were cited.--Mike18xx 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Any time anyone tries to include criticism one or the other of Pecher and Mike18xx gets rid of it. Nothing indicates that Pecher is gpoing to actually engage in dialogue with other editors here, so rather than edit-war over the inclusion of criticism I will leave an NPOV tag on the page. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So you get a tasate of your own medicine. This is EXACTLY how some editors are treated when trying to participate in Nakba Zeq 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather bizarre to me to place a NPOV tag due to the fact that the POV one wishes were there is not being accepted. Pecher has been beyond reasonable in attempting to get ANY of you to dispute any particular assertion contained in Ye'or's work cited elsewhere (e.g., Dhimmi); and the very best I've seen so far is sputtering ad-hominem. While Wikipedia is indeed the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's greatly preferred that the editors actually be familiar with the subjects they are editing. -- Having a cloudy perception that someone is a "right-wing extremist" doesn't really cut it (especially when that someone's major adversaries include, among others, Islamists who make up their own swastika flags, give the "fascist salute" at their rallies [if you think I'm making that up, I'll be happy to direct you to a choice selection of photographic evidence], and are making translated renditions of "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" best-sellers).--Mike18xx 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I made it rather plain that I expect criticism to be substantiated and directed at the works, not the person. Nothing of this kind has emerged so far.Pecher^Talk 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Ye'0r's work

For inclusion when this page is unprotected:

Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work." [6]--Lee Hunter 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Such weasel-worded criticism does not merit inclusion in any Wikipedia article. Pecher ^Talk 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL. If it was good enough for a prestigious scholarly journal, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still weasel-worded, isn't it? BTW, can you complete the sentence after the word "work"? Pecher ^Talk 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Weasel-worded"?? What exactly do see as being weaselly? It's an utterly straight-forward critique. He says that 1) her interpretations of the terms "jihad" and "dhimmitude" are weak, 2) her historical method is lacking and 3) her work has a polemical tone. You can't get much more direct and pointed than that. --Lee Hunter 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Only the third point sounds more or or less lucid to me; however, examples are necessary to illustrate it. The first two, however, are vague. How exactly are her interpretations weak? What do you mean "her historical method is lacking"? Is there some kind of historical method that is specific to her? My understanding of criticism is: "Bat Ye'or says, quoting from a Syriac chronicle, that in the Abbasid Caliphate Muslims paid taxes to non-Muslims. However, the chronicle that she relies on had been proved to be a forgery by Julius Wellhausen 100 years before Bat Ye'or wrote her works." That's specific, substantiated crticism. On the other hand, "theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude" sounds smart and scholarly, but is in fact general amd unsubstantiated.Pecher ^Talk 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suppose you'll have to go argue with Mr. Griffith and the editors of the International Journal of Middle East Studies. --Lee Hunter 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of opinions of various people about each other. Arguments must be confined to the articles on specific subjects, not biographies. Otherwise, biographies of most famous people, especially politicians, would swell beyond any reasonable proportions. It can be argued that your quote may be put in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, but not in the biography in any case. In addition, please note that in the process of reverting you have replaced the current consensual version of the article with a very old version to which some sockpuppet reverted the article just before your edits. Pecher ^Talk 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact the articles about controversial persons ALWAYS contain information about the controversy (i.e. criticism). Removing criticism is simple censorship and is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your dichotomy between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" persons strikes me as odd and POV. Pecher ^Talk 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dichotomy? What dichotomy? Read the articles for nearly any controversial person (e.g. Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan) and you'll find plenty of criticism. Noam Chomsky has an entire lengthy article with nothing but criticism. What's so special about Bat Ye'or that we shouldn't include sourced criticism from established academics published in respected scholarly journals? Or from the New York Times for that matter. --Lee Hunter 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What dichotomy? Your dichotomy. How do you distinguish between a "controversial" and an "uncontroversial" person? Probably every single notable person has admirers and detractors. Should we include all praise and criticism into the article then? If we do, we may indeed get a monstrosity like Criticism of Noam Chomsky as a result. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes. If there is some bad practice in Wikipedia, then it does not follow that such practice must be perpetuated and expanded. Pecher ^Talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You write "How do you distinguish between a "controversial" and an "uncontroversial" person?" How about applying this simple test: "Do people express criticism about this person in notable publications?" Yes? The person is controversial. No? The person is non-controversial (but may be otherwise notable). You also write "Should we include all praise and criticism into the article then?" No, its not necessary to include ALL praise or criticism but a representative sample would be nice. The reader should, at the very least, be informed that the criticism exists! Your suggestion that including criticism is a "bad practise" is staggering. To be honest, it is quite ludicrous. I've never heard such a bizaare idea in the years I've been editing WP. --Lee Hunter 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a notable person of whom criticism is not expressed in "notable publications"? And how do you define that a "sample" is representative? Let me give you a quote that, I think, says it all:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Pecher ^Talk 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to spend more time reading articles in WP. You'll find that adding critical commentary to an article is entirely normal, proper and expected. Saddam Hussein is a poor example. Since he was an actor on the world stage, we can, indeed, simply let his actions speak for themselves. But Bat Ye'or, Noam Chomsky et al are academics and thinkers and their research and viewpoints cannot be evaluated by the average reader who has no background in linguistics, Middle East history etc. That is why we can't just summarize their ideas without including the commentaries of others. Bat Ye'or is notable for her ideas. This is a fact. Her ideas are accepted by some and rejected by others. This is another fact. I would suggest that if anyone is doing original research, it is you, because you are arbitararily deciding that we should publish the first fact, but hide the second. Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable and notable information. Whether it makes someone look good or bad is pretty much irrelevant. Regarding your question of what is "representative", that is a question which is decided on a case-by-case basis by the editors of an article and is subject to change as new editors come along. One thing I can tell you for sure, is that trying to "cleanse" an article of all criticism is unacceptable and goes against everything this encyclopedia stands for. --Lee Hunter 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're essentially saying: "Don't read the policy, read the articles." I doubt that it is an effective approach in improving NPOV standards in Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where in the policies does it say that we should not include criticism? --Lee Hunter 02:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

articles in the IJMES and Le Point

. . . the former by a professor whose impeccable credentials on the topic may be viewed here, the latter by a well-known and likewise well-credentialed French scholar of Islam, are (take your pick) "non notable source[s] of criticism" or "apologist nonsense". Welcome to Bizarro Wikipedia. —Charles P._(Mirv) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that attempted injection of sanity, though I fear it will be of little avail. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the Chebel Malek citation: unfortunately his remarks are not accurate. After the rise of Zionism Jews in a number of Arab lands became the object of various abuses, including a small number of events which while not pogroms in the strict sense were certainly murderous sectarian riots. Obviously none of this was inspired by Islam or had anything to do with the dhimma, but was a response to contemporary political and, in the case of Palestine, economic developments, and he doubtless means to refer to periods of Islamic rule proprement dit; but it does mean that his remarks will make a lot of reasonably well-informed people go "what's he talking about? what about the Farhud (etc)?" So I would suggest removing his remarks, germane and all as they are. Palmiro | Talk 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I see that the material has just been removed. Well, it certainly isn't patent nonsense, but for the reasons given above I think it is better to leave it out. Palmiro | Talk 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored his comments. He's referring to pre-modern history. --Lee Hunter 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that must logically be the case, but the fact that he doesn't say so makes it a bit jarring, or possibly very jarring, depending on where you're coming from. Palmiro | Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-modern history? What about the slaughter and expulsion of Jews of Medina by Mohammad himself and the subsequent murder of many expelled survivors in Khaybar? What about the later expulsion of Jews from Hijaz by Umar I? What about massacres of Jews by Almohads, including the Cordoba massacre from which Maimonides spared his life only through conversion to Islam, the conversion which was later ruled void only thanks to his powerful friends? Just open Bernard Lewis to find out that Chebel is simply lying because Lewis never "established" anything Chebel ascribes to him. The reference to the Jewishness of the authors Chebel cites is particularly disgusting, as if an opinion of a Jewish author on matters of Jewish history carries more weight than opinions of non-Jewish scholars. Pecher ^Talk 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

For information, I've requested unprotection, as I can't see that there was any vandalism, and I'm not sure that semi-protection is really the way to deal with edit wars of this sort. Palmiro | Talk 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with content. User:Wik is a permanently banned user, and he must come to realize that his sockpuppeting will not be tolerated. Semi-protection, and blocking his sockpuppets, are going to be a continual nuisance for him until he re-considers his actions. If he wants to go away and edit non-controversially somewhere else, then no-one will notice. Until then, semi-protection needs to stay. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Benbassa

Pecher, please stop removing the Benbassa segment. The article is quite authentic. Ye'or herself launched a lawsuit over it. [7] --Lee Hunter 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for that article, see WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 13:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is Le Point [8][9]--Lee Hunter 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Bat Ye'or won the right to respond on the pages of Le Point and EUR 2,000 in one-time damages. Pecher ^Talk 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget. I just didn't want to deny you the pleasure of putting it in. :) .--Lee Hunter 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It gives me little pleasure to push the article further down the "he said-she said-he sued-she appealed" slope. Biographies are meant to document the key information on a person's life and to dexcribe why the person is notable, not to meticulously quote what different people said about that person. Pecher ^Talk 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

She is notable in part because of the controversy stirred by her books. Noting the reaction from her peers is all part of a good article. Glossing over criticism would do the reader a disservice. --Lee Hunter 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

She is notable for the books she has written. There is not much of a controversy, as you can see, since the article has barely scraped together a couple of critical quotes. Pecher ^Talk 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There's not much of a controversy in scientific circles about the flat earth theory, either. That still doesn;t make it right. Palmiro | Talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Please stop removing factual, sourced information from this article. Criticism of Bat Ye'or in notable publications is entirely relevant. Your claim that it they are "ad hominem attacks" is entirely specious. The fact that she has been described as being right wing is not, in any way, an ad hominem attack (unless perhaps, you think there's something shameful about being a conservative) --Lee Hunter 16:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When I see all the media criticism directed against Bernard Lewis or other historian dumped into the article, I may take the censorship argument more seriously. Wikipedia is not a place to record everything that people spleen on each other. Pecher ^Talk 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that if I add some media criticism added to the Lewis article you'll accept that the criticism of Ye'or belongs here? --Lee Hunter 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do that, it will be a violation of WP:POINT. There are tons of media opinions for any notable person, but it does not mean that all journalistic ramblings belong to the encyclopedia. What you want to restore are simply personal views of two individuals, who on top of that do not appear to be notable themselves. Essentially, it is a cunning way of disrupting an article by stuffing it with sourced material that does not supply any new information to the reader. Pecher ^Talk 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already shown you numerous examples of articles that do contain criticism of individuals. You can find some that don't. What does that prove? The two quotes you object to are not even so much criticism as they are correctly pointing out that Ye'or is a favorite of the right wing. This is interesting, factual and relevant information. At least to some people. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe it embarrasses you. I don't know why you have such a problem with it. But it does belong in the article. --Lee Hunter 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That these quotes "correctly point out" to something is just your opinion or rather the opinion that you share with two other persons. Wikipedia, however, is not a soapbox for newspaper reporters and their fans. Pecher ^Talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times is one of the most widely-quoted sources in this encyclopedia. Calling it a soapbox is ridiculous. --Lee Hunter 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually Wikipedia, not NYT, that is not a soapbox. Pecher ^Talk 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox for its editors. Which means that we don't add our personal opinions and we don't exercise our personal preferences about what we would or would not like to see in an article. In other words, if a notable publication publishes commentary about the subject, it can be added to the article. The fact that a person has drawn the attention of a publication like the New York Times is such basic fodder for a WP article that I'm astonished that you would think otherwise. --Lee Hunter 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested unprotection

I've requested unprotection on this article. Reviraz was restoring perfectly relevant and sourced information which was being censored. If the page is to be protected, it should be protected WITH the censored information, not without. --Lee Hunter 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles are always protected in the wrong version. Pecher ^Talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category addition?

I just thought "islam and cotroversy" might be an appropriate category.DanielDemaret 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. --Lee Hunter 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Loss of nationality

What is the basis for the first line: "but her Egyptian nationality was revoked in 1955 because she was Jewish"? Was it really official Egyptian policy to strip all Egyptian jews from the Egyptian nationality? Hard to believe, so please provide evidence or reword this statement.

Here's a source, an article based on an interview with her. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Review

[11] worth a look. --Coroebus 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Review of 'The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, From Jihad to Dhimmitude': "As a consequence of its inflexible assumption that an unfir law must always be applied unfairly, itfails to recognise the different conditions under which dhimmis lived at different times and places. The author is guilty of the same doctrinaire attitude of which she accuses so many of her subjects." David Thomas, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Birmingham.

Controversy

Why is the first quote about her not being controversial? Shouldn't it either not be there, be in the rest of the text, or be after the criticism? --Coroebus 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

historian ?

Why Bat Ye'or is a historian, while Karen Armstrong is not even considered as an scholar (just a writer) ? Why is not Bat Ye'or just a writer? --Aminz 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

pseudonym

I deleted reference to her real name from the article on grounds that this is a bio of a living person and the presumption of privacy. I think we should also delete the redirect page to here from her real name and delete all references to this from this talk page also per WP:BLP; she is arguably a non-public figure as per the definition in that policy. Crust 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see a new user (Ali Quant) has already reverted this. According to WP:BLP, we are supposed to protect even her (exact) birthday. She publishes pseudonymously so obviously she wants to remain anonymous; it's not hard to understand why. Her real name is not related to her notability (which would give an argument as to why it might be important to include her real name). I realize there is some publicly available reference to her real name, but she is usually referred to by her pseudonym. If you do a google search by her real name, this article is the top hit. To quote from the guildeline (emphasis added):

“ Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable source. (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."

”

Crust 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy of citing Johann Hari as a source.

Somebody keeps deleting Johann Hari's criticisms on the grounds he is not "a scholar of Islam". You do not have to be a scholar of Islam to be posted on wiki; you have to be a notable source. Hari has written for the New York Times and been shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. His criticisms are totally legitimate to be posted here, and Ye'or's fans shoudl stop deleting them just ebcause they are critical.

Both Spencer and Johann Hari are not specialized in the field of Bat Ye'or. Albert Einstein is notable in matters related to physics but he is not a qualified source for his views on history. Similarly, Johann Hari is NOT a reliable source for criticism of Bat Ye’or. --Reza1 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)