Talk:Robert B. Spencer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP Consensus: Spencer is not a reliable source on Islam

Consensus reached here at WP: Spencer is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Consensus 1detour (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

1detour wrote:

... he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on his own article) (Italics mine.).

WP:RS/N doesn't really apply here except as a hint that we should look for secondary sources critiquing his opinions, which we should be doing anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

True, although it does in sense that the subject makes their living proffering themselves to be a reliable source, especially in comparison to others whom he criticizes, hence the criticism of him that he necessarily engenders. As there are very clear guidelines delineated at WP:BLP, we should be careful, expecially when it comes to criticism, praise, and self-published materials.Jemiljan (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

More about the reliability of Robert Spencer on discussions concerning Islam, Quran, etc.

I have been reading one of his books. His claims about Islam may be irritating to some, but I found that Robert Spencer

(a) does not use esoteric sources in the citations that he bases his arguments on,

(b) usually does not slip into fallacious arguments, unlike many others do,

(c) cites Quran very much, when argumenting about it, and

(d) cites also notable islamic scholars.

I want to ask: What especially makes him unreliable?

I base my opinions about Spencer's writing style on his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (ISBN 978-0-89526-013-0).

--Uikku (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You might like to refer to the link above to the discussion regarding why he is not considered a reliable source. As for your points, he has been routinely accused by cherry picking by his critics. You might like to look in the discussion archives for more examples of this. Sure he doesn't use "esoteric sources", cites the Qur'an, and also Islamic scholars, but he also tends to overlook, disregard, or downplay verses that provide certain caveats to the material he criticizes. That is what in logic is called confirmation bias, and unlike what you have asserted, that very constitutes a form of fallacious reasoning.Jemiljan (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If he is using the same cherry picking method (naskh) as Islamic scholars do routinely when they read Quran, then is it really cherry picking at all? --Uikku (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Is the methods used by traditional interpretations a "cherry picking method"? Is the concept of (naskh) even as you describe? Even so, do I hear a Tu quoque?Jemiljan (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another book he has written The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran discusses in length those peaceful passages and how they have been understood by some of the great Islamic commentators through history. Take Ibn Kathir on some peaceful verses: (2;109; Many of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that they could turn you away... But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His command.) was abrogated by the Ayah, (Then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them) (9:5), and, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day) (9:29) until, (And feel themselves subdued) (9:29). If he is really so unreliable why aren't his critics able to demonstrate the distortions and half-truths in his work, but resort to personal attacks and moral equivalence? Many of the people and organisations in the criticism section have no substance in their criticism and in regard to Karen Armstrong and CAIR from a demonstrably unscholarly and bias source. Davidelah (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that so, David? Have you read, for example, the criticisms of [[ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_robert_spencer/%7CSheila]] [[ http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert_spencers_10_points_of_obfuscation/%7CMusaji]] and Robert Crane for yourself to verify that is in fact the case? They were included in the criticism section until they were deleted simply for being published on a blog, even though Spencer, is essentially a blogger himself. Are those criticisms just "personal attacks"? Also, is Armstrong "demonstrably unscholarly"? According to whom? Spencer? Do I hear Spencer's pot calling the kettle black? So, even though Spencer's academic background in these matters is nil, we are to trust his "exegesis" as "scholarly"? Why? Because you are predisposed to concur with his polemics even before objectively researching these matters in an impartial fashion? What's amusing is that if you were to spend even a few minutes researching these topics, you would readily find specific disagreements with his desired narrative. For example, There is nothing in the traditions to show that 9:5 abrogates 2:109, and then interpretation of 9:29 is debated. See Sheila Musaji's article on this matter.Jemiljan (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think that Robert Spencer's work is essentialy about the historical and traditional teaching of Islam. Take one of the leading historians on Islam, Bernard Lewis. He says that jihad is an obligation that the overwhelming majority of theologians, jurists and traditionalist understood be a militarily one, a war particularly against non-Muslims, not limited to time or space, with the objective to either have the world converted a submitted to the power of an Islamic state, and which can only be resolved by final victory(page 72-77). This is pretty much irrefutable, and Spencer just makes the reasonable argument that jihadis like Islamic Jihad are able to recruit peaceful Muslims by referring to this and presenting them-selves as the true Muslims, but he has never actually said that they are. But of course many of the Muslim critics that object to him just denies that these things have ever existed. Maybe you should read some more on this topic in an impartial fashion? Anyways, Daniel C. Peterson has been very critical of Armstrong comparing Muhammad with Gandhi. Armstrong has also said it was the crusaders that made up the idea that Islam was violent. How does that square with the most respected historian on the subject? Another respected historian on the Middle East has said that some of the most important research on the this topic is being done outside the academy due to a very big shift in that academic field over the years[1].

I think you should take your own advice and "...read more about this topic in an impartial fashion...", because you clearly don't practice what you preach. For starters, think you are misreading Bernard Lewis' views. For example, in the work you cited, he describes "...elaborate rules governing the initiation, conduct, and the termination of hostilities..." and which "...show a clear concern for moral values and standards..." (p.72) In the section of the WP article about him, Bernard_Lewis#Views_on_Islam he offers some details. This quotes a passage from Islam: The Religion of the People, where he describes views that Spencer routinely promotes as "...a dangerously misleading formulation...". He continues to note how he attempts to present "...a picture of Islam as it was an is- not the demonized version shared by the terrorists and their opponents...(p. 176) I could go on, but let's just say that Lewis is hardly in absolute agreement with Spencer, principally when Jihad is an obligation, and what is the conduct of it. For example, Spencer actively promotes the notion that suicide bombing is condoned, and Lewis vehemently disagrees. (ibid, p. 153). Suffice it to say that I have a heck of a lot more respect for Lewis than Spencer.

Also, since you brought up Daniel C. Peterson, you might like to read up on his criticisms of Spencer. In fact, here is a case of someone holding a nuanced view, who is nevertheless included in the "positive views" section, even though his criticisms clearly outpace his praise. Also, who is this "most respected historian" you mention in passing? As far as Daniel Pipes is concerned, he's not a historian, but a political commentator. I have only slightly more respect for him than Spencer, for the fact that he has in fact distanced himself from the concept that Taqiyya is a some sort of pervasive Islamic practice, albeit in muted terms. Nevertheless, he's just as controversial as Spencer, and a member of the same echo-chamber. Pipes reactionary sentiments have been criticized by many, including figures like Christopher Hitchens, who are hardly given over to Islamic apologeticsJemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to read Sheila Musaji's article but as you know we can't use unscholarly self-published blogs on Wikipedia. - Davidelah (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscholarly? I see, as if JihadWatch is any better? Funny, but TAM was a print magazine, with an editorial board before moving online, so I do wonder what qualifies? Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent you from reading it; all you have to do is just click on the link. Also, Crane's article was published in a journal, but I haven't had time to check the specific reference. It will be added back once it is verified. BTW, it's pretty amusing to see you denigrate something you haven't read as "unscholarly", while resorting to overt Confirmation bias to justify your support of Spencer.Jemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also according to Ibn Kathir there is a sahih hadith that Ibn Abi Hatim recorded Usamah bin Zayd saying: The Messenger of Allah used to forgive them [disbelievers and the People of the Book] and was patient with them as Allah ordered him, until Allah allowed fighting them. Then Allah destroyed those who He decreed to be killed... - Davidelah (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? Have you scrutinized the tafsir for yourself? What is the context and the specific circumstances referred to? Is Ibn Kathir the only tafsir to be read on the matter? If you haven't done so, I recommend spending some time doing so, for it appears that Spencer glosses over anything that might contradict his desired narrative. For example the on Sura 9:5. Why does this specific commentary not conform to the views you've outlined above?Jemiljan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An answer to some of the questions and assertions: I wouldn't make any speculations on what Bernard Lewis thinks of Spencer's work, but he criticised those who hold the position that "...the enemy is simply Islam..." and nowhere in his books does Spencer make that claim, for example when Adam Gadahn invited him to Islam Spencer invited him to accept the US Constitution. Spencer does not say that Islam condones suicide bombings either but he only explains how jihadis use verses in the Quran to justify it, usually 9:111. I think you should perhaps read more into his position before making broad-based claims. And fyi about the rules for conducting jihad you should read Majid Khadduri who explains that there was no concept as 'civilian' and that there is a very pragmatic approach to the killing of women and children, the destruction of enemy territory and the treatment of POW in his book War and peace in the law of Islam (p. 101-131), but I suppose those things was an improvement for example in comparison to Arab tribal warfare.

By "most respected historian" I meant Bernard Lewis who also says that the crusades was a reaction to the Islamic Jihad, and here again you should read more about those persons you criticize because Daniel Pipes is a historian as well a political commentator, and Christopher Hitchens (not a historian) is not known for holding back criticism to say the least and he has to my knowledge not repeated his accusations against Pipes. Many scholars also respect Pipes including Daniel Peterson. Using JW on this article is allowed in BLP because it is his own site, and I would hold that JW as well as TAM are both self-published sources. And if you don't believe me about the tafsir you can read it here, and Ibn Kathir's commentary on 9:5 is "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," does that contradict what I outlined above?

About the original point, would it be sufficient to have some notable people say that Robert Spencer is a leading authority on radical Islam to make him a reliable source on radical Islam? - Davidelah (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Davidelah, I think you are overlooking some of my points regarding Lewis. Did Spencer not specifically write that "...the idea of suicide in the cause of jihad is no innovation. It is founded upon Qur’an 9:111, which guarantees Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah. It is a phenomenon that is actually found throughout Islamic history, and is not new"? This position flatly contradicts Lewis', who clearly argues otherwise. Also, Majid Khadduri refers to a Shafi' text in support of his contention that in naval conflicts, it is permissible to dispense with non-Muslim women in children. Nowhere does he state that this is true in general; quite the contrary. Also regarding the interpretation of verse 9:5, does it somehow abrogate the subsequent verse 9:6? The way you are interpreting it seems to me that you think as much, though you have no support for it. Ibn Kathir was clearly speaking about the hostility of the pagan Quraysh, not of all non-Muslims, everywhere, and throughout all of time.

But to return to the topic at hand, regarding whether Spencer is a reliable source or not, allow me to point out just one serious flaw that he has continually repeated and published in a number of his books, in articles, and on his website, which relates to the practice of clitorodectamy, "female circumcision", or "female genital mutilation". Spencer repeatedly and very selectively cites Geneive Abdo, a Lebanese scholar who is a Maronite Christian, stating that the late Mufti of Egypt, Shaykh 'Ali Tantawi, condoned the practice as "laudable". In fact, Abdo writes quite otherwise, as Tantawi was very well known for publicly denouncing the practice, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms (see No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam p. 59). The quote Spencer mistakenly attributes to Tantawi was actually made by the late Shaykh Gad al-Haqq. Abdo is very clear about this, but Spencer butchers the reference beyond his own recognitions. This misquotation by Spencer [[ http://books.google.com/books?id=eanFm7hiM1cC&pg=PA88 |began in 2003]] appears repeatedly in subsequent years after that. http://books.google.com/books?id=_7RD2jwMU2wC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76 [2] [3] [4]

The problem here is two-fold. Not only is this mistake made repeatedly by Spencer over the course of several years without any retraction to be found on his website or elsewhere, but the fact that Abdo herself writes in far greater depth about the controversial nature of the practice is in no way reflected by Spencer. In order to have made the quote in the first place, he must have read the chapter on the matter, after all, so it begs the question as to why he neglected to mention this, and chose to only focus on one figure, and never mention others? His manner of writing lends an aura of surety to the view that he quotes, but in fact, there is nothing remotely sure about it.

Spencer also likes to quote the "Reliance of the Traveler", claiming that it is "endorsed by Azhar" (even though the nature of this "endorsement" is really more in support of the quality of the translation, and not so much an endorsement of all that lies between the covers of that pre-modern text). The passage he quotes mentions the view that the practice is laudable in the Shafii school, and "recommended" by the others, even though other literature is available that would contest this assertion (and he conveniently neglects the Maliki school altogether, because they say nothing about it at all). So here again, why hasn't he bothered to look at all of the relevant literature on the matter? By comparison, Abdo describes the literature in support of these views is largely rejected by scholars today. Gad al-Haqq clearly was a stark exception, not the rule.

If Spencer were "reliable" as you seem to think, then why doesn't he reliably quote his sources, and reliably communicate the views presented? Because he quite clearly isn't anywhere nearly as interested in being a reliable mature scholar as he is interested in overtly alarmist, anti-Islamic polemics. This is precisely why he isn't considered a reliable source. Sure, he quotes some verifiable facts, and sure, he uses appeals that are justifiable. Yet he also communicates dubiously-sourced and incorrectly sourced material and uses appeals that are not only fallacious and unjustifiable, but also indefensible, as I have shown in his cherry-picking of Abdo's book. Obviously, no reliable scholar would ever engage in such tactics. This is just one specific facet of Spencer's work, but I'll stop there for now. Note that in the prior discussion of his reliability, this point I've made here was not brought up, so add it to the list of reasons that have been previously discussed.Jemiljan (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Reliance of the Traveller" and "endorsed by Azhar". The Azhar certification says "concerning the examination of the English translation ...we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community". The first part certainly is endorsing the quality of the translation, whereas the latter I would say is a sanction of the actual text connecting it to modern religious practices, with no qualifier. Is it perhaps a stardard phrase employed by Azhar in cases such as this, or do I read too much into the words employed? Steflars2011 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

...and yet the late Shaykh of al-Azhar, Tantawi routinely and very publicly condemned the practice of FGM, so how is the endorsement of a committee tasked with reviewing a translation, which is clearly speaking in broad general terms, superior to that of the contemporary head of the institution in question on a specific matter? By comparison, shall we read the pre-modern Corpus Juris Civilis, which Catholic Canons will readily admit is the basis of current Canon Law today, cherry pick more controversial material from it (like the execution of apostates, and persecution of non-Catholics), and then claim that it still applies today to current Canon law (Catholic Church), as if Vatican II and other reforms never happened?

Also, as I said before, the book, which is a traditional Shafite text, claims that the position of other two schools is X and Y, but offers no references to support the assertion made. So it begs the question as to what do the scholars of the other schools have to say about this practice? In any case, I still have yet to see Spencer issue any sort of public retraction, or revise any of his books to redress the glaring error of attributing quotes of Shaykh Gad al-Haqq to Tantawi.Jemiljan (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer editor Uikku on why Spencer is not reliable, best suggestion is to look up WP definition of a reliable source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. It's quite insightful with many definitions. If Spencer were weebit sincere in finding what Islam stands for, he would not be so far off in his conclusions. For example, take Philip Jenkins, a Christian, author of "The New Anti-Catholicism" recently wrote a book about "Dark Passages" of the Bible in which he compared the so called violent passages in the Quran to the ones in Bible (including the New Testament). His sincere efforts in understanding what Quran teaches (when he evaluated the entier passage and not just cherry picked 1/2 a verse here and another 1/2 there) he concluded: "the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane." He continues: "Violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attacks." But, for the Bible, he writes: "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide." Please don't take similarities in Islamic monotheism with that of the Bible to mean that Quran is similar to the Bible. It's not. Google this for yourself. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788) 1detour (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you accuse Spencer of cherry picking. Jemiljan brought up the same argument on July 17 2011. But is it really cherry picking or the islamic doctrine of naskh that Spencer has been using? What kind of picking method does Philip Jenkins use? Does he know naskh and its importance? What you said about the obvious non-similarity of Quran and the Bible made me wonder: Have I really called them similar somewhere? --Uikku (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you are not very knowledgeable about Spencer's writings style in his books. Please pick up any of his books and tell me if you don't see over use of ellipses (...) whenever he quotes the Quran. Then find for yourself the passage in the Quran and uncover what is hidden behind the ... What you will find is what Jenkins found. Spencer contradicts what Islam teaches because he doesn't like what Islam teaches. Quran is the best thing before and since slice-bread.1detour (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Uikku is reiterating the same rhetorical questions about naskh, which he isn't interested in answering. I don't see any particular relevance of his point to his blatant mistaken attributions of quotes to entirely different people, and never issuing any sort of a retraction. What does "naskh" have to do with the manner in which Spencer cherry-picked the above-mentioned book by Geneive Abdo? Clearly, Spencer's habit of using highly selective, even distorted quotations is in no way limited to his treatment of just Islamic literature, but is an established pattern with other sources he cites. That has nothing to do with naskh at all; however, it has everything to do with why he isn't considered a reliable source.Jemiljan (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I want to point that 1detour in his recent edit interpreted a web source by ADL this way:

"ADL also pointed at Spencer for inciting the Norwegian Terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, to harm and kill innocent European teenagers."

That was an exact citation. But what did ADL actually say in their text? Here it is:

1) "The suspect in the July 22 attacks, Andrew Behring Breivik, published a 1,500-page manifesto quoting from the writings of European and American anti-Muslim writers, including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam."

2) "The League has extensively reported on individuals who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda in this country, including Spencer and Geller and their group, "Stop Islamization of America.""

Now, if we strictly and honestly interpret what ADL actually said, they did not blame Spencer for inciting some terrorist to kill teenagers. --Uikku (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Uikku, ADL's statement is relevant and direct to Spencer's writings about Islam and Muslims. Per WP policies, we write for the benefit of WP readers and not for what we wish the facts were. ADL clearly states: Spencer was that American writer who incited this man with his writing of Islam being an "existential threat to West". Andrew Breivik's actions took the life of dozens of teenagers is a fact of history.1detour (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is undue weight as it does not add anything new at all to the criticism section, and it has been extensively discussed that any mention of Breivik in his article is against consensus. Truthsort (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that while the ADL has been critical of Spencer, they did not specifically blame him for Breivik's behavior. That said, I think the time has come to add a very carefully, concisely worded reference to the Breivik incident, which is unambiguously clear that Spencer denounced his violent actions, so as to avoid charges of guilt by association charges by other editors. I disagree with Truthsort's contention that "...any mention of Brievik is against consensus" as the archives clearly show that what was against consensus are attempts to blame others such as Spencer for "inspiring" Brievik's actions. A carefully worded passage that includes Spencer's very public denunciations does not meet that criteria.

For myself, I have held off for months from adding anything in about this, and I would like to see this discussion revived and a real consensus that reflects this specific proposed wording to be reached. In the previous extensive - now archived- discussion about such a passage, I mention how Spencer has in fact "explicitly and unambiguously" responded to the incident, and has now done so very publicly, in strenuous terms, and more than once. He has not only responded via his blog, but he has given four separate interviews: on the BBC (starting at the 8-minute mark), on Michael Coren's show, and with Alan Colmes, and on the Frank Wuco show on Fox News. Also, a NY Times op-ed examined- and essentially defends- Spencer & Co. from the Association fallacy. Several editors who supported deletion of mention of Breivik in the BLP entries of people he cited in his manifesto conceded that my proposed wording was in this specific case, acceptable. Mention of this incident is appropriate to add to the 'controversies' section, but only so long as the wording is careful and concise, linking to sources that made the charges against him together with references to Spencer's several responses. A including a brief quote from him illustrating his condemnation would be good to add in at the end.

I found a quite similar passage to what I've proposed in the entry on Sarah Palin (now moved to Public image of Sarah Palin#Campaign_imagery), in which mention is made of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting by Jared Lee Loughner and includes Palin's subsequent denunciation. A cursory search of the archives reveals that there was a similarly contentious debate over mention of the Gifford's shooting in Palin's entry on both the discussion page and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and a consensus was clearly obtained regarding the current wording. I think this provides an acceptable model, and would ask dissenters to specifically describe how the wording that is under discussion violates WP:BLP standards, as similar passages are found in other WP:BLP articles.

Simply put, if lunatic X commits an act of violence Y, and implicated person Z, and Z publicly responds and condemns X and Y, then mentioning the fact that Z responded in the relevant entry is no longer an insinuation of guilt by association in violation of WP:BLP. Yes, blaming Z for X and Y is an example of guilt by association, but mentioning that Z denounced X and Y is not. If anything, I believe that those who insinuate that such specific wording is in violation of WP:BLP bear the burden of proof of describing specifically how describe how the model I present above, which clearly mentions the incident together with the subsequent denunciation is in in fact a violation of WP:BLP. Again, consensus was only reached in relation blaming others for supposedly causing Breivik's violent actions; no specific consensus was reached on the specific type of wording that I propose. For full disclosure, I have posted a notice asking that the WP:BLP policy be further clarifies for this type of incident in general here on the WP:BLP discussion page. There, I note both the controversy of the 2011 Tucson shooting and implication of Sarah Palin (which I have been totally uninvolved in editing) as well as the issue of Breivik. I just think it would be helpful for WP to devise a specific BLP policy that would clarify this matter and be helpful for all editors that when controversial incidents occur that fit the above model, and carefully worded entries that dispassionately discuss the charges and include a refutation in no way attempts to link the person to the crime, and so does not constitute an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP policies.Jemiljan (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Jemiljan due to fair objectives of WP and because it's a biographical article. :::::::We need to present a balanced view but can't ignore this event which has changed course of human history.1detour (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Per ongoing discussion a consensus has beein building to report at least the facts of Breivik following Spencer.

This is heading to some very clear WP:OR and WP:BLP violations. 1detour you should stop now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't like 1detour's edit either, but how would incorporating Breivik citing Spencer and Spencer denouncing Breivik's actions create an issue? Jemiljan seems reasonable on this. Jesanj (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik doesn't cite Spencer (or John Stuart Mill or any of the other figures) on the issue of using violence to wage war against a liberal democracy. Since violent revolution, or more correctly the delusion of starting a violent revolution, is what Breivik is known for there is nothing for Spencer to refute. Suggesting there is makes it an issue of guilt by association. I oppose bringing in Breivik just as I would oppose bringing up the Baader-Meinhoff gang in a discussion of a notable critic of capitalism ... say Noam Chomsky or Herbert Marcuse. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Spencer is cited as an ideological influence on Breivik.[5] Documenting who has been ideologically influenced by another is a neutral thing to do around here. But I don't think this article is in dire need of a sentence on this influence. That would be undue. However, if a neutral section in this article existed about Spencer's impact/influences, I wouldn't mind a sentence that said something like, "Spencer has also been cited as an influence on X, Breivik, and Z." This way it would omit all mention of violence, as I agree that there is nothing for Spencer to refute. Jesanj (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe your argument shows the need to have Spencer mentioned in the Breivik article since that article discusses not only his violent ideology but his general views on society, Islam, Norway, women, etc. After I wrote the above I checked out the articles on Baader-Meinhof and it does indeed mention their influence by the Frankfurt school and in particular Herbert Marcuse. However, the Marcuse article doesn't mention his influence on Baader-Meinhof nor his repudiation of that violent anti-capitalist group ... and that's as it should be. It would be undue emphasis and guilt by association. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jason, Spencer was in fact cited in Breivik's manifesto at length- some 55 times-, and Spencer very publicly, and repeatedly denounced him, as I have documented above. The issue is not whether to include Spencer in the Brievik article, or to simply mention Brievik in tandem with Spencer, but to report in an honest, and objective fashion implications of Spencer's influence, and Spencer's very public, repeated denunciations, much along the lines of Sarah Palin denouncing the implication that she somehow influenced Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords, among others in the 2011 Tucson shooting. I agree that attempts to link Spencer and Breivik constitutes guilt by association; however, the more careful, limited wording I have propsoed is hardly guilt by association; quite the contrary.Jemiljan (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We are getting ahead of ourselves here. The issue is whether or not ADL's statement explicitly states Spencer as influencing Breivik. This question can be answered by reading ADL's press release. Here is what ADL stated in their text

"The suspect in the July 22 attacks, Andrew Behring Breivik, published a 1,500-page manifesto quoting from the writings of European and American anti-Muslim writers, including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam.

"According to ADL, Breivik's views seem to be influenced by a coherent ideology present in growing numbers both in Europe and the United States, which views Islam as an existential threat to the world and sees leaders and governments as collaborators in allowing Islam to "infiltrate" the West.

"The League has extensively reported on individuals who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda in this country, including Spencer and Geller and their group, "Stop Islamization of America."

How can one continue to deny ADL's linking Spencer to Breivik after reading the above piece? The sentence we have been trying to carve out is about ADL's position; therefore, this point is both relevant and specific to Spencer as a Controversy.1detour (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It says nothing more than Breivik read Spencer's analysis. So what? Baader-Meinhof read Marcuse's analysis and as a Marxist he's an advocate of violent revolution. Yet we still don't see Baader-Meinhof mentioned on Marcuse's page. There is no proof that Spencer advocates violent solutions. Breivik is a revolutionary who attacked the leadership camp of the government's ruling party using tactics he copied from al Qaeda. Perhaps he should be in the influence section on al Qaeda and bin Laden articles. This is clearly "guilt by association" in that it is trying to associate violent terror tactics with a social commentator who has never (as far as we know) advocated such a response. If we haven't reached consensus yet the statement in question should be removed from the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that last edit is a good summary of Foxman's views. Perhaps a rebuttal by Spencer of Foxman is in order. Perhaps. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jason, great to hear you like the last edit. As far as the other point, what if we limited the wording of any edit to ADL's position is that Breivik was "influenced by Spencer's writings and lectures"?

1. Breivik, we know, attended Spencer's lectures in Europe and was influenced by the paranoia Spencer has been spreading for the last decade since 9/11.
2. ADL points out that Spencer has gone out of his way to spread hatred of Islam and Western Muslims by claiming Muslims are hatching a conspiracy to take over the West.
3. Breivik references Spencer's writings and lectures dozens of times in his manifesto and used the same paranoia execuse of a Muslim conspiracy as his rational for committing mass murder.

So, what if we kept the edit to a narrow confines of Breivik's claims and reasons?1detour (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't have bin Laden mentioned on the Muhammad or Islam pages. Take what you just wrote and replace Breivik with bin Laden and replace Spencer with Muhammad. You'll get something like Spencer's argument for why bin Laden should be on the Muhammad page (or at least the Criticism of Islam page.) The vast majority who read Spencer don't become terrorists and no one argues that Spencer is advocating violence. The vast majority who read Muhammad's Koran or Hadith don't become terrorists. Breivik cites Spencer -- but as an analyst, not a revolutionary or terrorist. I think the last edit shows Foxman's view of Spencer's writings -- as an analyst. This articles is about Spencer and Foxman is a critic. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PS When I searched for Geller's reply to Foxman I found that Geller has been bashing Foxman since 2005 when she started blogging. There may be something else going on between Foxman and Geller. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jason, first of all, it's not "Muhammad's Koran". If you want to be neutral, we can call it "Koran". It was probably just an oversight on your part.

Second the main issue is what ADL says and not whether anyone thinks Spencer is being wrongly associated. For this point, ADL says the main reason for Breivik doing what he did is due to a "common culture". Any wording we use should limit to what ADL says: basically a culture Spencer creates and propagates daily. {ADL's exact wording: Breivik's focus on "left-wing" multiculturalists destroying white European culture in favor of minority cultures such as the Muslim community is common among the far-right and the groups that straddle the far-right and conservative worlds in the U.S. They (Spencer and Geller) blame the government, universities, and the media for promoting diversity and minority cultures over European or American culture and accuse them of undermining "Western civilization" or European-American values.} We are not accusing Spencer of doing anything, we are just noting what ADL's position is. Thank you to you and other editors for discussing this topic as it helps everyone be more clear in their thinking and precise in their wording.1detour (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would support a passing mention of the ADL criticizing Spencer regarding the Breivik incident in the "controversies" section, but with a link to the ADLs statement, and no direct quotes by Foxman, and it must be coupled with Spencer's repeated public denunciations of Breivik, including perhaps a brief, excerpted quote, or a short paraphrasing, as I have outlined above. This is the only way to present this issue in an NPOV manner and avoid accusations of promoting an Association fallacy.Jemiljan (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of comments on recent changes to NY anti-terror training

Question should we include information about how he reacted to the changes in the NYPD anti-terror training programs? Tivanir2 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it would probably be worthwhile to add the link to the news site that covered it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/6/islam-content-spurs-fbi-review-of-anti-terror-trai/ Tivanir2 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Controversy

The Adam Sewer controversy is extremely unclear. I assume that it was hastily edited and important sections were accidentally deleted. It is unclear what "this accusation" refers to and the name "Rauf" is present with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.76.93 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. In any case there is a whole article about the Park51 controversy here and it doesn't seem to have Spencer mentioned as a major player. I think this paragraph should be deleted. Leave the previous paragraph as a note on his role in the affair. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason, my Internet connection has cut off several times in the middle of edits, and I see that you then reverted my changes before I had completed them. Yes, the entry was poorly edited by someone else, but that is no basis for deletion, rather an opportunity to fix and restore what was removed. You might think to search the archives and read the original article in full before you unilaterally deleting it for poor subsequent editing, and restore it, especially when the portion remaining clearly contains references to sites like FactCheck that refute Spencer's claims. Otherwise, someone might get the impression that you're trying to sanitize the article.

Here's what's missing: when Spencer and Geller founded SOIA together, their activities concentrated on opposing Park51. While the article you cited on Park51 may neglect to mention this, the article on SIOA does state this very explicitly. Secondly, at that time, Spencer insinuated that Park51 founder Feisal Abdul Rauf had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood on Fox News, and he has repeatedly accused Rauf of what he calls "Islamic Supremacism", and especially attacks him for "advocating Shariah Law", implying of course that Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to supplant the Constitution with Shariah, which is a blatant Straw Man, akin to accusing a modern observant Jew who abides by Halakah Laws in their personal life of wanting to stone adulterers and execute apostates. The original version mentioned these accusations in detail, but that, together with Serwer's first article "The Usual Suspects" was later removed by another editor. I will concede that the link to Serwer's first article no longer seems to work, but Spencer has preserved some of Serwer's points in his "rebuttal" (if you can call it that) to Serwer. In any case, just because a section reads poorly in the current version is not a good justification for deleting it entirely. Try looking at the archives for the original text and restoring what is missing back in next time...Jemiljan (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed heavy handed. The paragraph as I saw it had a heavy focus on Rauf. This article is about Spencer. To examine every claim Spencer makes in an article (that is essentially his biography) would involve an in-depth discussion of religion, politics, and history. The controversy about Park51 is better handled in-depth in the article on the Park51 controversy. I put in the link to that page in the article to make sure that readers will be informed. Perhaps this material should be in that article. It seems to have undue weight in this article to devote a whole paragraph to Rauf. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We should write BLP articles in conservative way so such material may be not suitable.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason your point is taken, though as it was originally written, it included Spencer's criticisms of Rauf in tamdem with Park51. If something looks oddly edited, the chances are that it's been tampered with and a simple search will reveal it.

Shrike, a controversial person generates controversies, and as such, mention of controversies is entirely suitable. "Conservative" writing is putting it mildly, as in this particular case, there have been numerous attempts over time to deliberately santize this article. Such an extreme hardly constitutes good biographical writing.Jemiljan (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen over the past 4 years, Spencer's WP page keeps shrinking. Even in the old days with printed edition of Encyclopedia Britannica articles would typically grow from year to year as the subject accomplished more. Spencer has certainly written more and done more every year by starting several prominent groups and creating global alliances to get his word out. His writing, opinions and activities need to be reflected of living person's biography in WP since he is such a prominent person now. As it stands now, the page is not as informative for WP users as it could be and this is not in the best interest of WP. Someone would rather delete his page from WP than have a good article resulting from collaborative effort of different editors. I am calling on editors of all POVs to work together, first through the talk pages, then in the article itself to correct these issues. Please collaborate as much as you can to ensure we have a good product which is bias free for the benefit of WP. Having said that, would anyone have a good example of a living person’s page on WP we can use as a model?1detour (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is a lack of secondary sources. Conservatives are split on Spencer and this seems to limit his reception to a few venues; and the limited attention brings him a few critics. We can't to better than the secondary sources. In time we'll have more. Being an independent scholar and popularizer will most likely limit his exposure. I notice he scarcely publishes in Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum [6]. His books are his personal interpretation and his influence is limited. Perhaps the bio will remain limited given his limited influence. Time will tell. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB offer clear guidelines on how and what can be used to improve this article. Let me know if you disagree, but there is enough important and relevant info in public domain to improve this article considerably and still meets or exceed WP guidelines.1detour (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory claims of support for Spencer

The last paragraph of the section titled "Spencer's views" discusses Spencer's debate with Daniel Peterson. Daniel clearly contradicts Spencer. While Spencer claims ALL Schools Of Thought teach war on the un-believers, Peterson is only conceding some "elements". Looks like someone jumped to conclusion and took his comment as support for Spencer's claims. But, this is not supported by the source cited or the quote used. The editor should either correct it or move it to the criticism section where is belongs after proper quote from the original sources. Otherwise this paragraph will be very confusing for the WP users which is meant to spell out Spencer's view. 1detour

FYI... Here is what Spencer believes, per his article in the Guardian in 2010: "there is no traditional, mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers." Daniel Peterson actually contradicts Spencer; therefore, the content should be moved to the appropriate section and the wording fixed. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/15/islam-religion?INTCMP=SRCH)1detour (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a reference that I somehow missed. By the way, you recently used a reference to Joseph Farrah's World Net Daily or [www.wnd.com]. Is this considered a reliable notable source? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Spencer has a new book that needs to be added to the bibliography: Not Peace, But a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam. Catholic Answers. March 25, 2013. p. 252. ISBN 978-1938983283.

Done Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar Check

There is something amiss in the following start of the section headed "Criticism": the sentence that begins - "Karen Armstrong has been criticized Spencer's work showing …" needs reconsideration.

49.181.237.1 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

'Ban from entering the UK'

'The decision, which they cannot appeal, will stand for between three and five years': What are you talking about? Of course this decision can be fought, and this is what is being done, see fx

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-904062.html

Robert Spencer even published their lawyer's appeal on jihadwatch.org months ago, and Pamela Geller will have done the same on her website.

Another piece of evidence: Also Geert Wilders was banned by May's predecessor, he fought the ban, and it was overturned. Did you sleep through these events? Then maybe you shouldn't pose as a Wiki author. Or is it just wishful bias?

Anyway, would you kindly rectify your embarassing error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: Here's the proof:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/our-legal-response-to-the-british-ban-grounds-for-judicial-review-to-the-queen-on-the-application-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge of SIPA

An ongoing discussion about the organization Spencer founded, Stop Islamization of America, is currently taking place at Talk:Stop Islamization of America. You're welcome to voice your opinion there, Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Other books

Please add the book:

• Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, Regnery Publishing (April 14, 2014), ISBN 1621572048

to the other books.--79.192.23.184 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Category "American people of Arab descent"

I certainly don't know all the details of Mister Spencer's ethnic background, but the fact that he is a Melkite Christian whose family lived in the Anatolian region, coupled with fact that I've never read or heard him claiming an Arab identity, makes me doubt if there are any grounds for keeping this article in the aforementioned category. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Crit / Praise

Its got a "criticism" section, so I don't see why it shouldn't have a "praise" one too. OTOH, they would be better merged, as the tag says William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Praise and criticism should be placed in sections about what is being praised or criticized, not be in their own sections, and should be added according to weight. So a section could read something like: "Spencer says the Koran says....So-and-so rejected his analysis saying...while someone else defending him saying...." That's better than addressing the same subject in three separate sections.

Also, when reporting opinions, the should be attributed to the person who made them rather than the publication in which they appeared.

TFD (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the immeadiate edit dispute appears to be about the "praise" section, which is being removed as "Reverted per WP:NPOV". I don't think that's reasonable, unless the "criticism" section goes, too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "Praise" section on NPOV grounds because (1) the "Spencer's view on Islam" section is already full of praise for the subject of the article, including the "perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country" quote that appears again in the "Praise" section; and (2) the "Criticism" section already features some rebuttals of that criticism. The effect of the "Praise" section is to create two uncontested positive sections and one contested negative section, which pretty clearly violates WP:NPOV. That said, we should strive for multiple neutral sections as opposed to one positive and one negative section. Dyrnych (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, of the items in the "Praise" section, we have the following

1. A claim repeated from earlier in the article
2. A statement of positive personal opinion (inappropriate per WP:QUESTIONABLE)
3. A possibly useful bit of opinion, though it's not clear that the source is notable
4. Something that's not actually praise but criticism of the travel ban
5. A positive book review by a person notable primarily for views similar to Spencer's

I'm not sure what most of these contribute to the article. #3 seems like it could be useful to present the view that Spencer is not an Islamophobe and #4 seems fine in discussing the travel ban, but the rest are unwarranted bits of puffery. I'd like to hear some justification for their inclusion beyond "we had to find something to balance the criticism section." Dyrnych (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We have two negative sections called Criticism and Controversies. So it is only NPOV to insert a positive Praise section.--Broter (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not supposed to balance negative views with positive ones but present them "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Most reliable sources present his views as extreme, his group is listed as a hate group by the SPLC and he is not allowed to travel to the UK. Positive views of him come from people who hold similar views on Islam. TFD (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with TFD here. Note also that the "controversy" section is mostly descriptive rather than negative.

@Broter: Can you respond to my comment above about the propriety of including each item? Again, these largely seem like puffery rather than anything with encyclopedic value. The threshold for inclusion is not "presents the appropriate POV." Dyrnych (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We have even a group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a reasonable critic of Spencer in the Criticism section. But according to you Dyrnych this is not POV. Only when someone praises Spencer, then it is POV. I think this is a little biased against Spencer.--Broter (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Broter: You are dodging the question and putting words in my mouth. I haven't defended any particular example of criticism of Spencer, and I suspect that the "Criticism" section could do with some editing of its own. But that's neither here nor there. I ask you again to respond to my comment above. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add with respect to #4 that I have no idea why this person's opinion is relevant. Dyrnych (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The solution to the criticism section is to remove it and integrate the content into the rest of the article. It is NOT to create a "balancing" praise section. So, I oppose the creation of the praise section, regardless of whether one might call it "POV" or "NPOV." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps rename the section "Reception" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The section should disappear as it is merged, renaming it is only putting lipstick on a pig. I have to ask, though, how smoothly can it be merged into the article if it is basically a blow-by-blow account of disconnected incidents of press coverage? I guess it could be cloaked as a narrative biography, but right now the Crit/Praise sections are basically hodgepodge collections of soundbites. Anyone who sees a way to easily merge this material is smarter than I am. Elizium23 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring these types of sections isn't trivial but it's totally doable. The way you do it is to review the sources themselves and then consolidate by subject matter. Focus on the subject matter rather than on the opinions about the subject matter. Many criticisms end up getting discarded because either the subject matter or the criticism isn't notable. If you want to see an example of how it's done, compare this (full-blown criticism and controversy sections) to this (cleaned up 3 days later). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The notable stuff from each of the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections can probably be worked into the "Views on Islam" section, as they mostly relate to that. The "Controversies" section should probably remain as such, though, since it relates primarily to the controversial nature of Spencer's works (prompting bans and trademark rejections) and appearances (prompting travel bans and cancellations). It probably wouldn't be hard to find defenses of, e.g., Spencer's right to appear at events from free-speech advocates who aren't affiliated with the anti-Islam movement, which would be much better than many of the current sources in the "Praise" section. Dyrnych (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I added each item!

1. The first persons who praised him, namely Ibn Warraq, Michelle Malkin, Dennis Prager and C. John McCloskey were before somewhere else in the article and I moved them in this section.

2. Andrew C. McCarthy is a notable individual who has a high opinion of Spencer, a contrast to the other persons in the criticsm section.

3. The Institute on Religion and Democracy balances the Souther Poverty Law Center.

4. Bruce Bawer crticises the travel ban but also says that Spencer is a truth-teller.

5. Daniel Pipes praises one of the books of Spencer, but this is also balances for the comments about Spencer by Reza Aslan.

6. The Franciscan University of Steubenville is a respected institution, so it is logical that this comes in the section.--Broter (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "The Institute on Religion and Democracy balances the Southern Poverty Law Center"? I think you're missing some history and perspective here. Moreover, balance is not the aim. WP:NPOV is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is correct. We not balance mainstream views with fringe views just so that criticism and praise have equal weight. We assign weight based on whether views are mainstream or fringe. TFD (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And the sourcing isn't exactly top-tier either. What's "juicyecumenism.com"? (link doesn't even work for me). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all replies above. Also, personal opinions (like many of those currently in the article, and specifically Andrew McCarthy's "high opinion" of Spencer) have little encyclopedic value and should not be used per WP:QUESTIONABLE. If there's notable commentary on Spencer's actions, we should report that (again, in the proportion required by WP:NPOV); if there are a bunch of like-minded people saying that they he's a great guy, that's pretty much useless to readers. Dyrnych (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Broter, your contributions are taken in good faith but this is exactly the opposite of what should be done, at least in my view. See WP:CRIT for more guidance. In a nutshell, we should be integrating the viewpoints about Mr. Spencer by placing all of the "balancing" opinions about the same subject matter alongside one another. That way readers can read and understand the full debate about a particular controversy without having to hunt and peck and try to figure out why so-and-so said something damning or glowing about him. A good way to look at our job is to try to educate the reader about the reliably sourced facts. There's much more to an article than simply being pro-subject or anti-subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to criticise your criticism of my section because in the Criticism section of this article are negative opinions of Spencer which are simply anti-subject. For example Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (which is a bad source) and Benazir Bhutto, Dinesh D'Souza and French academic historian Ivan Jablonka are only persons who have something negative to say about Spencer. There is no NPOV to include only those opinions and to delete the positive opinions in the Praise section.--Broter (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We're talking about someone who is not allowed to travel to the UK because of his activities. The balance of opinions if presented proportionately would be negative. What's the problem with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? Probably that they routinely criticize people like Robert Spencer. TFD (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant. If the opinions in the "Criticism" section are non-notable or poorly sourced, the answer is not to add different non-notable or poorly-sourced opinions in a "Praise" section. It's to eliminate the non-notable or poorly-sourced opinions in the "Criticism" section. Dyrnych (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Broter, please let me clarify. You are doing the right thing by trying to balance the content. You are doing the wrong thing by putting the balancing material in a separate "Praise" section. Right: identify the subject matter, describe the facts using reliable non-opinion sources, and describe in a balanced way the notable opinions about those facts, all in the same paragraph and/or section. Wrong: Turn this article into a cheerleading competition. If you're unclear about this feel free to reach out to me on my user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Debate with Peterson

Under "Spencer's views on Islam" the article currently states the following:

In a public debate between Spencer and Daniel C. Peterson, a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic, Peterson was critical about what he described as a selective criticism of Islam, but conceded to Spencer that "yes there is a broad consensus and has been for a long time about certain elements of jihadi teaching," about Spencer's assertion that the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do agree on the necessity to wage war against unbelievers, and that "we are really not disagreeing that much ... terrorism, Islamic terrorism, really does have roots in actual parts of the tradition of Islam."

This material is an excellent illustration of the problems with relying on primary sources. It's sourced to several videos on JihadWatch's YouTube channel and appears to have been cherry-picked to portray Peterson as broadly agreeing with Spencer despite his initial criticisms. The videos themselves seem to contradict this; following each quote, there's a lengthy rebuttal of Spencer's points (and specifically his contention that Islam is itself problematic, rather than particular Muslims). I'm not sure what value this adds to the article in the first place, but its use in this manner is problematic. Dyrnych (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this is blatant misuse of a primary source as well as non-notable original research. If the arguments by Spencer and Peterson were notable then there would be reliable secondary sources reporting on them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've attempted to reorganize the article per my comments above. I eliminated the "Criticism" and "Praise" sections, moving relevant things to "Controversies" and "Views on Islam." I'm not sure that many of the opinions will survive an analysis of their value, but for the most part I avoided actually doing that analysis. That said, I eliminated the personal opinions from the "Praise" section, which have no encyclopedic value per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Dyrnych (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:QUESTIONABLE is about the reliability of the sources, not about the encyclopedic value of the content. If the sourcing is good you'll have to find a better explanation for removal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. The sourcing seems fine, but I stand by my statement that the personal opinions expressed have no encyclopedic value. They tell us nothing about the subject beyond that some people think he's awesome. Similarly, opinions that just call Spencer a bad guy and should not be included in the article. Having looked a bit further at them, I'm adding a couple of the "Praise" quotes back. Dyrnych (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Section

This section could use some details. His own website has relevant info about his career, from education to professional experience and organizations he has served and founded. Adding this info would help complete this article NiceAdam (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is he a blogger or an author?

He is definitely a blogger. He blogs almost daily. But, is he also an author. The answer would be no simply because none of his work has been peer-reviewed; but, published by conservative publications with an agenda. It's not his opinion but the lack of scholarship which will never make him an author. Scholars have repeatedly pointed this out about his work. Professor Carl Ernst wrote an entire note about Spencer's work: “Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer” in which he stated:

His books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics. The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam. I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship

While being an author implies "authority" over a topic, Spencer simply does not have any credibility in the professional realm. Therefore, a blogger is the more appropriate of the two. (This needs to be added as well to his article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceAdam (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines "author" as "a person who has written something; especially : a person who has written a book or who writes many books." Spencer has written a book; ergo, he is an author. Wikipedia is—and should be—agnostic as to whether Spencer is a good author. Dyrnych (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation to USPTO document requiring a citation

The passage regarding the US Patent and Trademark response needs to be be edited in several respects.

(1) The mark referred to in the article is incorrectly cited as "Stop Islamization of America" when in fact the application SERIAL NO:77940881 filed February 21, 2010 by Pamela Geller on behalf of Robert Spencer was for the mark "STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA"

(2) The refusal of the "applied-for mark [as it] consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols" http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77940881&docId=OOA20100428111606#docIndex=1&page=1 This was not responded to and the application was abandoned. The current article incorrectly states that the USPTO found that the article "disparages all Muslims as terrorists". This is a biased point of view assertion. The USPTO actually stated as follows:

"The likely meaning of the term “ISLAMISATION” or “ISLAMIZATION” refers to the act of “convert[ing] to Islam or [of] bring[ing] into a state of harmony or conformity with the principles and teachings of Islam; giv[ing] an Islamic character or identity to.” Islam is “the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.” See attached dictionary definitions.

The applied-for mark refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease. See attached dictionary definition.

The proposed mark further disparages Muslims because, taking into account the nature of the services (“providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism”), it implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats. See attached dictionary definition. The trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted articles from the LEXISNEXIS® computerized database referencing how many Muslims view terrorists as illegitimate adherents of Islam. See attachments. Therefore, the suggestion that Islam equates terrorism would be disparaging to a substantial group of Muslims.

Accordingly, the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(a) because it consists of matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic religion.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration." (Emphasis added, page 1 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77940881&docId=OOA20100428111606#docIndex=1&page=1)

It should be noted that mark was abandoned and subsequently several almost identical marks were filed in December 2015 and are now pending acceptance. STOP ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA (Serial #86857969)and two SIOA (Serial #86857973 & 86857983) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.81.1 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Rampant Criticism

Seems his views on Islam mostly consist of criticism against his person or against his views. They should be put under its own section called 'Criticism' as they obviously aren't part of his views on Islam. The article as a whole is not exactly neutral either, but I gather there's a reason it's protected... --Kebman (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I just happened across this page. My impression is that it was written by someone who absolutely hates the man and wants everyone else to absolutely hate him as well. I really do not know a lot about him, so I came here, and I see this page is being used to smear a man. As I said I don't know much about him so I'm not going to get involved in fixing this page, but it has severe problems with obvious bias and people should know the obvious bias is obvious. I'm certain Wikipedia has rules that prevent Wikipedia from being used as a means to smear people. This page suffers from that problem in a big way.

Example: "His viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic,[8] while he denies this and says he focuses his criticism on radical Islam and its violence.[4]" The spin is clearly that he is Islamophobic but he denies he is and that he only criticizes radical Islam. It could have been written more fairly as he states that he focuses on the harms of radical Islam while his critics claim he is Islamophobic. That right there is so much less biased. But even then the bias is built in as the word Islamophobic is used, and that word carries bias with it. It's an invented word that has the equivalent effect of calling people racist.

This entire page suffers from layers and layers of bias and spin unworthy of an encyclopedia. This page is an example of why people distrust Wikipedia.

"Not exactly neutral"? That's an understatement. --Lawfare (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're able to find a reliable source that describes him doing or saying anything that might make him seem pleasant, feel free to mention it. 24.45.249.139 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Spencer (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309161405/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31171 to http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31171
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502054200/http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e1c8b5c2-faa5-11db-8bd0-000b5df10621.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim of poisoning

The only source for the allegation is Robert Spencer himself. I have therefore removed the claim until a reliable third-party source can be found and added. According to WP:BURDEN, finding such a source is NOT my responsibility. As it is, the section can't rely on RS's own claim, so until a reliable third-party source can be found, the claim cannot remain, even if true. Sorry. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The Free Congress Association described as an “arm of the Heritage Foundation.” It is not and this needs to be removed. I work at The Heritage Foundation and would appreciate if another editor could make this edit for me to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Augusta Cassada (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 06-APR-2018

Changes made:

1. Outdated link removed.
2. Wikilink added to Free Congress Foundation.
3. Claim of the Free Congress Foundation as an "arm" of the Heritage foundation removed.
   1. Reasoning: Although the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation share similarities, and were both founded by the same person, it would not be entirely correct to label one as "an arm" of the other. Perhaps describing them as arms of the conservative movement rather than arms of each other would be more accurate. I've added the Wikilink to the Free Congress Foundation in order for the reader to make that determination on their own. If there is another way of rewording this which would incorporate both foundations being mentioned and which explains their relationships better than simply as "arms", than I welcome those additions being made.

Regards,  Spintendo      16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Spencer self-describes as Islamophobic in a 2017 column

A 2014 source was used in the lede to say that Spencer denies being islamophobic. However, Spencer admits to being Islamophobic in a 2017 column. The 2014 source is therefore outdated and false, yet one editor opted to restore the outdated and false text[7]. This is extremely problematic given that this is a WP:BLP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

BBC News as a source for "anti-Muslim"

One editor deleted a BBC News' description of Stop Islamization of America as "anti-Muslim".[8] Note also that Stop Islamization of America is described as "anti-Muslim" (supported by a bunch of RS) in the lede to its Wikipedia article. The editor bizarrely claimed that the BBC News description was SYNTH, POV and a violation of BLP. This is not the first time that this editor removes reliably sourced text under false auspices in order to whitewash anti-Muslim groups and individuals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Spencer is no longer in the catholic church.

Hi Wikipedia editors. I've noticed that Robert Spencer's page mentions that he's in the Catholic church. A couple of days ago he was interviewed by David Wood on Youtube, where he said he left the Catholic church to join the orthodox church a couple of years ago. See the reference below. The link opens at the exact moment he answers a user question. He also went on to explain why he left the Catholic church if it's of any value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvmGvMZ9ZaU&feature=youtu.be&t=2501

I don't know if youtube is considered an accurate source, so I'm just putting it out there that his page currently has dated information. 41.144.11.75 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Christiaan

headline photo

...could be improved. IMO it doesn't look neutral. 149.5.39.244 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)JM

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

Change "He has also co-founded the anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)[8]"

to "He has also co-founded the non-profit organization Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)[8] " 2600:1700:6930:92E0:84EA:6DF0:4F38:7045 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This looks like it would be a controversial change. DannyS712 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'anti-Muslim' here is inappropriate. I think that a term like 'anti-Islam', 'anti-Islamic' or 'anti-Islamization' would be much harder to argue with. As far as I can tell, its use originates mostly from the SIOA being designated an 'anti-Muslim' hate group by the SPLC. The SPLC is a questionable source to begin with. But also, they have no category of 'anti-Islam' hate groups, so all groups that mainly critisize Islam are designated 'anti-Muslim'. It is entirely possible to hate islam, and be neutral and/or compassionate towards muslims, which is something many people (including those at the SPLC) don't seem to get. Also noteworthy, is that they call practising muslim & muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist' Article. Btw: It is also used on the Stop Islamization of America page, but there it isn't stated as fact, so I have no objections.Enchanted Bunny (talk)

Patreon

Patreon dropped Spencer: https:// www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/15/mastercard-forces-patreon-to-kick-off-jihad-watchs-robert-spencer/

Fair point Do you want to include this in the article? --JtThere (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fabrication to fit his narrative

The subject of this article falsifies quotes in his book to slander another individual and religion. Is this info already pointed out in the article? --JtThere (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2019-11 communist agenda

According to Robert Spencer here (2018-10-15), the Second Philippe government has globalist, communist and open borders agenda. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Interview links

Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeXrbqHeDk Interview of Robert Spencer by Dr. Jay Smith. Topic : 7th century historical critique of Early Islam. YouTube title: "Robert Spencer interviewed on 'Did Muhammad Exist?' Ref.: "PfanderFilms": https://www.youtube.com/user/PfanderFilms/videos Tweeqee (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone added links to some interviews of Robert Spencer which do not add anything to the WP article other than espousing Spencer's ideology. More importantly none of the interviewers or interview style qualify as RS. WP is not a fan club. Please revert.--JtThere (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

INTERVIEW: by Dr. Jay Smith of Robert Spencer. TOPIC: 7th century historical critique of early Islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeXrbqHeDk TITLE OF TALK: "Did Muhammad Exist?" SOURCE: PfanderFilms : https://www.youtube.com/user/PfanderFilms/videos Tweeqee (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Add this book to the Bibliography

Please add this book to the Other Books.

• Rating America's Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Bombardier Book. August 25, 2020. ISBN 978-1642935356.

--93.195.203.215 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits (February 2021)

Hi Muhammad Lotusflower, I noticed that you recently added a large amount of content to the article in a series of edits (Special:Diff/1004313773/1008998226), but did not cite any sources for this information. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires all information in articles to be supported by reliable sources, and this policy is observed more strictly for biographies of living persons, including this article on Spencer. Do you have reliable sources that support the recently added information? — Newslinger talk 06:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you please help me figure out how to cite my sources properly? I read the Wikipedia article about the policy, but couldn’t figure out how to actually do the citations properly. I can substantiate every individual claim in that article from something Robert B. Spencer has written or said in public, or something that has been written or said about him. I just need to compile the relevant links and source them all properly. I would appreciate your help. Muhammad Lotusflower (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You can see a guide to what information we're looking for in citations at WP:CITE. For formatting - check your Wikipedia editing screen. If just above the editing window you see a menu marked "Templates", click that, and you'll be able to choose a form that you can fill in to cite a webpage, cite a newspaper (or news webpage), cite a book, or cite a journal. If you don't have that, it's a mite trickier, basically you'll have to type something like <ref name="aaughblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.aaugh.com|title=The Aaugh Blog}}</ref> -- that part between the curly brackets is what we call a "template", and there are various fields you can put in there -- see Template:cite web, Template:cite news, Template:cite book, or Template:cite journal. And don't worry, you don't have to use all the fields, just the ones relevant to what you're citing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad Lotusflower, and thanks for responding. I see that you are using a mobile device for editing Wikipedia, which can be a bit challenging because most of Wikipedia's help pages are oriented toward desktop and laptop users. The easiest way to cite a source on a mobile device is to use the "add a citation" feature in the advanced mode of the Wikipedia mobile website. To turn on advanced mode, tap the hamburger button on the top left, choose "Settings", then enable the "Advanced mode" option. After turning on advanced mode, you can access the "add a citation" feature by tapping the quotation mark button in the center of the toolbar in the article editor. If you are having difficulty, please share the sources on the talk page (this page) and I'll look into them. — Newslinger talk 15:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these additions seemed quite plausible and useful. However, because they were unsourced for quite some time, I have removed the text. Please re-add any text for which you find reliable sources. Snuish (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The propaganda term "anti-muslim"

Isn't it a too obvious that this is a propaganda term and Wikipedia letting itself be used to smear a critic of Islam as "anti-muslim"?!--46.212.16.90 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the use of the term based on a specific Wikipedia policy? Dyrnych (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Curtis Culwell Center attack

Why has all mention of the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas been scrubbed from the page? Removing mentions of a jihadist terrorist attack against a man that keeps getting described as "islamaphobic" seems like deliberate distortion.

It wasn't an attack on a man, it was an attack on an exhibition. Spencer's link is small enough that he gets mentioned only once in our Curtis Culwell Center attack article, so it's not a surprise that it's not mentioned here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Views on Islam: quotation from "Fear of Islam. An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West" (2015) by Todd H. Green.

The Views on Islam section carries the following quotation from the "Professional Islamophobia" chapter of "Fear of Islam, An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West" by Todd H. Green:

"Spencer's commentary on Islam has been regarded as 'hav[ing] made a huge impact on the misinformation about Islam that circulates so freely on the Internet, in the media, and in political circles.'"

Shorn of its context, the natural interpretation of the quotation is that Spencer's commentary has reduced the amount of misinformation about Islam which is circulating. That is actually the diametric opposite of its intended meaning.

Quoting more fully:

"In this chapter, I analyze the arguments, motivations, and influence of prominent individuals and organizations that deliberately drown out the diversity of Muslim voices and consciously manufacture and exploit the fear of Islam in a manner unprecedented in mainstream political and media circles. I refer to this enterprise as “professional Islamophobia.” Professional Islamophobia is constituted by a cadre of conservative politicians, right-wing activists and bloggers, and even disgruntled Muslims or ex-Muslims who make a career of demonizing Muslims and Arabs. Nathan Lean refers to this cadre as the “Islamophobia Industry,” whereas the Center for American Progress labels it the “Islamophobia Network.” Whatever we call it, what matters is that those who participate in and profit from professional Islamophobia have powerful political, media, and publishing platforms from which to generate and exacerbate Western anxieties toward the Muslim “Other.” In the post-9/11 era, a host of far right academics, activists, and bloggers have emerged and become prominent voices in US debates about Islam. Three individuals in particular — Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer—have made a huge impact on the misinformation about Islam that circulates so freely on the Internet, in the media, and in political circles."

    ←   ZScarpia   09:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)