Talk:Daniel Pipes

Recent reverts
Can you explain why you reverted this as "not appropriate for the lede"? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes&diff=869821811&oldid=869821024&diffmode=source] "Not appropriate" is not a policy based justification ... Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it belongs in the body along with other appraisals of his work. The lead is a summary of the primary aspects of his career. If there is a section of criticism I have no objection to a sentence in the lede giving a balanced statement summarizing critiques he's received in a balanced way. FloridaArmy (talk)
 * For starters, information should be worked into the lede - not the body. Then we can continue with Christian Broadcasting Network possibly not being a great source. Then, we can continue with the fact that the SPLC decided to retract the report - apparently since they were concerned with its factual accuracy (and not just being sued - the SPLC has been sued many a time). Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually yes, but on other articles we have not always required that for brief adds about the SPLC. But, I'm not going to argue over this, I have no objection to expanding the article content first. CBN can easily be replaced. It seems the SPLC only retracted with respect to Nawaz and Quilliam? As usual, without reliable sources to support these comments they won't be much help in reaching a consensus. We usually give SPLC more prominence then other commentators for and against. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree the SPLC is quite notable. Very notable. However - in this case - this is a retracted report. They do not stand behind it anymore. They could have retracted just parts (e.g. not Pipes). Or re-issued a report on Pipes. They chose not too - which is a rather strong indication they stand by their retraction. Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think they could have retracted just parts, wasn't it part of the settlement? In any case, the SPLC has continued to label Pipes "anti-Muslim" in March 2018, April 2018, July 2018  and he was included in "Hate in Europe: September 2018" .  Some of these were published after the retraction and none of them have ever been retracted. He has also been called out for "troubling bigotry toward Muslims and Islam" by the Muslim Public Affairs Council The lede needs to have some mention of this.

NPOV
No criticism in the lead. No mention of the 2018 SPLC report which his anti-Muslim opinions back to 1990 when he wrote " “Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene.” Content problems also, no mention of the SPLC criticism for a start. and . See WP:NPOVN.  Doug Weller  talk 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed seems odd. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph to address this and removed the tag. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Response To 11/16/2022 Deletions
The Daniel Pipes page that has been on-line for sometime is a very biased, one-sided critique of Mr. Pipes that attempts to paint him as a hater of Islam. The purpose of the edits was to balance this, using links to articles he wrote. One example to begin with: in paragraph 3, it says: "Pipes is a prominent critic of Islam". This was changed to say that he is "a prominent critic of radical Islam." In other words, he is not anti-Islam; in fact, he supports moderate Islam. He's against Islamic extremists and radicals. The word "radical" was added to make that distinction clear, yet it was deleted.

The best source for this distinction is the Wikipedia article itself: The article quotes Pipes' position (which contradicts the claim that he is a "critic of Islam"): "It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution." So the article that has been on Wikipedia for some time says in the third paragraph he opposes "Islam", and yet in the text makes clear that what he opposes is radical or militant Islam and believes moderate Islam is the solution. Clearly someone who "opposes Islam" doesn't believe "moderate Islam is the solution."

Another example, also from the third paragraph: "Pipes has made false statements about alleged "no-go" zones" in France. Is it appropriate in Wikipedia to state as a fact that some statement is "false?" The claim that this is false is supported with a citation to an article, but if you look at the article, all the article says is that Pipes' statement is false; it doesn't say why it's false or attempt to show evidence that it's false. So the claim in Wikipedia that it's false is supported simply by an article saying it's false. The claim that it is a "false" statement appears to be an opinion, and therefore inappropriate.

In general, the sourced quotes about him are all one-sided; very negative. The article should be balanced with quotes from the numerous sources that are positive toward his work, and also not delete the references to his own writings. Cnemore (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Is it appropriate in Wikipedia to state as a fact that some statement is 'false?'" Yes, it is appropriate to describe a statement as "false" in wikivoice if reliable sources do so and there are no countervailing reliable sources describing the statement as true. In fact, not doing so (thereby repeating the false claim without context, or presenting the fact as attributed opinion) would likely violate WP:FALSEBALANCE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant--is it appropriate to say something is false if there is no support for that claim, other than someone claiming in another website that it's false, but gives no authority? Especially when you're using as a sources websites that are opinionated, so Wikipedia is simply relying on someone else's opinion on another website where the opinion in the other website doesn't give or even attempt to show why something is false? Cnemore (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cnemore We do this in multiple articles. If a source is deemed a reliable source we don't then try to analyse why they say what they say. And we aren't just using "other websites", a newspaper online isn't just another website, nor is a book. Doug Weller  talk 09:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response.
 * The article as now written is slanted in an attempt to paint Mr. Pipes in a negative light.
 * I will review further with the intention of making edits (consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines) to make the article more balanced. Cnemore (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)