Talk:Bernard Lewis/Archive 3

Unbalanced II
OK, presently the following has been edit warred out of the article:

"Lewis has been called the "chief ideologue of post-9/11 politics of hate towards Islam and Muslims".

Hamid Dabashi, writing on 28 May 2018, in an article subtitled "On Bernard Lewis and 'his extraordinary capacity for getting everything wrong'", asked: "Just imagine: What sort of a person would spend a lifetime studying people he loathes? It is quite a bizarre proposition. But there you have it: the late Bernard Lewis did precisely that." He further wrote: "Afghanistan and Iraq are in ruins today, millions of Arabs and Muslims have been murdered, scarred for life, subjected to the indignity of military occupation and refugee camps, in no small measure because of the systemic maligning of Muslims Lewis advanced in his books and articles, and with them informed generations of imperial officers." "

In addition to the above, we also have, eg:
 * "The Islam Industry" and Scholarship: Review Article, by As'ad AbuKhalil, Middle East Journal, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 130-137
 * Bernard Lewis and His Reputation, 2012-12-17, by As'ad AbuKhalil

I would like to include both of the above writers (both obviously WP:RS) in the article. Could we possibly fight the text out here, instead of edit warring? Suggestions? Huldra (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE. Find a better source than an opinion piece by a partisan in AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have called you out on your double standard before, Icewhiz, ...and apparently I have to do so again. There already is opinion pieces in the article, like the one by his close companion Fouad Ajami. Strange you never have found that WP:UNDUE, isn't it? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are fine sources for the view of the author. NPOV requires all significant published views be included. You cannot use UNDUE as a bludgeon to keep significant views from the article. That is an abuse of the policy. Huldra, make your edit and if it is reverted we can take it NPOV/N and or open an RFC.  nableezy  - 21:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly, they represent the views of the author. Dabashi's views on Lewis are insignificant, as more significant people have commented on Lewis, and said commentary has been even covered in a secondary manner.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank heavens we have you around, Icewhiz, to tell us what is "significant" and "insignificant". Otherwise how would we ever cope? Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 10:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from cynical comments or personal attacks against other users, which adds nothing to the discussion. WP:Civility--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The idea that significance is determined by how "significant" a Wikipedia editor deems the author is fallacious. Im sorry Icewhiz, but you dont get to make rulings like that. Huldra, make the edit. If it is reverted we can go to NPOV/N. If people are filibustering then we just need to get the wider community involved, as the policies here are clear and I trust given wider input the cynical arguments advanced to keep out well sourced material will be soundly rejected.  nableezy  - 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not make a ruling, as such power has not been vested in my editorial self, I merely proffered my opinion as to why inclusion of insignificant opinion piece in AJ was undue. You do have consensus for inclusion of this UNDUE oped.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said,, make the edit and if it is reverted on bogus grounds like what has been offered we can open an RFC and see what the wider community thinks about such tactics.  nableezy  - 19:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of "critical voices" why not the author's name and their qualifications(professor of Iranian studies)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"In 1999 and 2007" praise
Should this praise be in the article? "Necessary per balance, properly sourced" is not enough justification

If it is in there to keep some balance, this is faulty. NPOV does not call for complete parity of views. NPOV is not about ensuring every criticism is equally matched with equal and opposite praise.

The 1999 praise is from Martin Kramer. Martin Kramer completed his Phd thesis at Princeton under the supervision of Bernard Lewis. Just as we wouldn't include praise from Bernard's mother, not matter how prominent she may or may not be, we should be careful in including praise from his own PhD student. This isn't an independent source. Surely there must be other prominent scholars who happened to not have such a close relationship; If there aren't why are we including the highest possible praise, when there isn't support. This current praise is so high that it is against Wikipedia:Wikipuffery.

The 2007 praise is from Col. Abrahamson. Is he notable scholar, or is the publication notable? The article itself is an opinion piece/commentary where Abrahamson builds up Lewis, and then uses Lewis to justify war policy. This kind of praise is already covered by following statement in the article "His advice was frequently sought by neoconservative policymakers,..." and in the "Views and influence on contemporary politics" section. If want to specifically have a quote that praise him Dick Cheney's praise would be much more notable Maidyouneed (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC) :Lewis was known for his expertise in Ottoman history and Martin Kramer is a notable historian on Middle Eastern topics. James Abramson is a graduate of West Point and the holder of a doctorate from Stanford University. Both of them are far more notable than Lewis' critics. No reason to delete information other than "I don't like it".--Aroma Stylish (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok. The Martin Kremer source is used multiple times in the text. But the praise by a student of Bernard Lewis is really undue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue with Martin Kramer is not his notability. It is his relationship as Bernard as having been supervisor, which makes it undue and a conflict of interest.
 * For Col. Abrahamson, a doctorate does or graduating from West Point isn’t itself notable. There are others which have given similar praise, in the same context and of the same type, who are much more notable. Dick Cheney’s quote for example might suit instead.
 * If you have issues with the notability with particular critics you are free to raise them. Maidyouneed (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)