Talk:Bibliography of books critical of Islam/Archive 1

2012-07 Commentaries and columns
In the Commentaries and columns section, only 1 of the 4 articles by Simon Kuper are listed. Is this volontary? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not intentional. I just didn't have the time to copy all of the references over from the Eurabia article. In my opinion, there's no need to restrict the size of the list yet, so feel free to copy them over. benjamil  talk/edits 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation
There is probably going to be a bit of trouble with the categorisation, possibly when it comes to defining the limits between academic books and other books, and very likely when it comes to the border between magazine articles and commentaries. Any ideas regarding a more fool-proof categorisation would be highly appreciated. benjamil talk/edits 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do not see the difference between Newspaper and magazine articles and Commentaries and columns sections. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea was to separate single-author opinion pieces from more thorough articles that have been worked on by a redaction. I thought about it in the same way as the WP:RS guidelines distinguish between reports and opinion pieces. However, I can see how this could make opinion pieces by experts seem less important than reports by not-so-knowledgeable journalists, so I guess it's not really that straightforward. If you want to merge, it's okay with me until we come up with a better solution. benjamil  talk/edits 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, when I think about it, some magazines that aren't scientific journals, hold a far higher standard than most newspapers and other magazines, for instance Foreign Policy, The Economist, Der Spiegel etc. Maybe it's better to have this discussion in relation to some concrete examples. I'll think about it and return later. benjamil  talk/edits 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012-07 books
I suggest to copy the [ books list here] in List of Eurabia literature. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. benjamil  talk/edits 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about [ the books list here]? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? benjamil  talk/edits 23:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because some of them could be not so relevant. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I thought you would use your own judgment to determine that. :-) Skimming the list, I believe that if they aren't yet included, the works of Bruce Bawer, Buchanan, Caldwell, Israeli, Laqueur, Thornton, Weigel and Wilders should at least be transferred. benjamil  talk/edits 22:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My judgment is not always perfect.
 * I have added those that you listed. I have added also
 * Claire Berlinski's book, because it is listed in Vaïsse (2010, Esprit)
 * Renaud Camus's book, because its title ("The Big Replacement [of French inhabitants by a muslim population]") speak for itself
 * Oriana Fallaci's book, because it is listed in Vaïsse (2010, Esprit); no, wait, it's not The Force of Reason, but The Rage and The Pride
 * Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the references?
Eurabia is a specific theory of the growth of Arab and Muslim influence in Europe. Where's the references that the books listed in the article adhere to that specific theory? There are many other sources and writers on the growth of Arab or Islamic influences that may arise from cultural conservatives, pro-Zionist advocates, or old-fashioned xenophobic writers. One would like to see references after each book to a review that argues the book in question is advocating Bat Ye'or's theory. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Eurabia is a specific theory [...] Bat Ye'or's theory" (Jason from nyc) No. Read Eurabia again. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Where's the references that the books listed in the article adhere to [those theories]?" (Jason from nyc) There is at least the books list in Vaïsse (2010, Esprit). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "There are many other sources and writers on the growth of Arab or Islamic influences that may arise from cultural conservatives, pro-Zionist advocates, or old-fashioned xenophobic writers." (Jason from nyc) Which books or articles? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "One would like to [...]" (Jason from nyc) One would like to have 1 t gold in her bedroom. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An 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 16:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

2015-03 deletion of content
The deletion of the mention of DOI:10.1177/0306396806066636 under the comment "remove offtopic entries (either focused on America or on criticism of Islam in general), not specifically on Eurabia" is a nice move. Bravo! Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Caldwell
We can not include Caldwell as a Eurabia author (conspiracy theory; islamophobia) just because some scholars argue he belongs there. There would have to be consensus for this to include him. Otherwise, it's a BLP violation. I'll quote Fouad Ajami in his NYT review: I"n his “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,” Christopher Caldwell [...] gives this subject its most sustained and thoughtful treatment to date." "It is a tribute to Caldwell that he has not oversold this story, that he does not see the Muslim immigrants conquering the old continent and running away with it." The Financial Times article which is linked does not mention Eurabia at all. Iselilja (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "[to] include Caldwell as a Eurabia author (conspiracy theory; islamophobia)"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I understand this bibliography; it is made up of two kind of authors: Those who write within the Eurabia mindset; like Bat Ye'or and then scholars/authors on the Eurabia theory/literature (who don't themselves adhere to the theory). Caldwell - if included - would fall within the first category (people who spread the Eurabia theory), not a scholar on the theory/Eurabia literature itself. Including him is therefore a grave accusation since the theory is widely seen as a conspiracy theory; and the Islamophobia template is used in the article. Per prior debate; the inclusion criteria for the islamophobia template is very strict (only clear-cut cases), because it is a serious allegations; and the inclusion criteria for a list of literature that promotes the Eurabia theory should be equally strict. Iselilja (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do the wikipedians at WP:BLP/N support this complex deduction, including your claim that this bibliography is actually a list of authors? And do you plan to delete the mentions of Vaïsse 2010 and Vaïsse 2010? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * agree with Iselilja. Eurabia is a very specific set of authors writing on the Eurabia conspiracy theory since Bat Ye'Or's work on Eurabia.
 * It would be much better to move this article to bibliography of works critical of islam, and simply include a section on eurabia in that article. --C (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I previously reverted your hijacking of the page, but now I do not care anymore. Feel free to do whatever you want. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a bibliography so I should have written book/s; however with regard to BLP I think that's a distinction without a difference. I removed it per BLP because I believe my view will have support at the BLPN if brought there; but of course it remains to be seen. I think there is some inherent problem with this list article, as Eurabia is both a controversial/stigmatized concept and at the same time there is no clear definition of what falls within the concept; and a list is pretty much either/or; it doesn't have room for the same nuances as you can have in ordinary articles; like this article's mother article. It also is confusing when proponents of the theory is mixed with academics and critics; and now even a fictional work (Submission). I recognize Vaïsse as a RS; but his pov regarding Caldwell is not shared by other RSs. (I may want to delete links to him for some other reasons; see below (soon)). Iselilja (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article so that also works published before Bat YeOr and on other geographic areas can be included in the article. --C (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Deprod
I removed a notability-based prod just now. Notability of a list of books critical of Islam does not seem to be an issue. The issue with this page is that
 * 1) what qualifies a book as "critical of Islam" should be explicit
 * 2) to what extent do we require citing a reliable source stating that a book is critical of Islam (if the answer is "always", #1 is all but moot)
 * 3) I'm a little uneasy with the having a bibliography of books critical of Islam when we don't have a bibliography of Islam. Sometimes bibliographies are best when they're more specific, so I don't know this is a bad thing -- but I wanted to mention it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Linkfarm problem
I think several sections of this bibliography may violate WP:Linkfarm. A bibliography should be made up of notable works and maybe a few that is not notable enough for its own article, but it shouldn't be a collection of everything that has been written on a subject. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be hand manuals. Basically I think the Books section is all right (to the degree there is consensus in RS that they are books on Eurabia) and problably the Reports section, but I am sceptical to the Academic works section and in particular to the Other articles section. They seem to include a lot of works that are OK to use as sources; but the works themselves are not of encyclopedic notable. See Selection criteria. Iselilja (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you do not oppose to (agree? support?) the deletion of the mention of the most RS and on-topic publication about Eurabia (see section 2015-03 deletion of content above), there is nothing worth of being mentionned in the page. I suggest you to blank the page, or to help your new friend to rename and rewrite the page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have cleaned up a bit.--C (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bibliographies tend to be treated differently from typical stand-alone lists. It becomes a resource that aims for exhaustiveness, as I understand it, which is not the purpose of most lists on Wikipedia. For example we have bibliography of encyclopedias (and a whole lot of subpages) in addition to list of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge, list of historical encyclopedias, etc. The bibliography is for all encyclopedias we can find information about, the other two are really primarily for Wikipedia articles (I have not yet but have intended to apply the common selection criteria to the latter). So there's room for List of books critical of Islam which could operate according to the CSC/notability, but I don't think this one needs to. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge?
Seems to me that this article and the new one: Bibliography of books defending Islam ought to be merged into Bibliography of Islam. It could be argued that the two lists currently are in effect POV forks of each other. IMO, the only reason to keep them split would be for length reasons. buidhe 06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only include books which have their own articles
The 2019 AfD which resulted in Keep, but with many people implicitly invoking WP:CSC #1, namely Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. The 2019 AfD on "Bibliography of books critical of Christianity" also resulted in Keep, but also with many people implicitly invoking WP:CSC #1. At Bibliography of books critical of Christianity, this rule is being enforced, but here it hasn't. Therefore, I am going to do that now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the heading. What it does need is documented inclusion criteria. Bibliographies are a rare kind of list where I don't think we need dedicated articles for each listing (it's a bibliography, not an index, after all). Here's one possible criteria:
 * Has a stand-alone article, or
 * The author has a stand-alone article which mentions the book, or
 * It is published by a reputable publisher and supported by at least two reliable sources indicating it is indeed critical of Islam.
 * &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)