Talk:In the Shadow of the Sword (book)

Scholarly reviews
Bowersock is the only academic historian quoted. It should be highlighted that Holland's book is the laughingstock of specialists in the period and that all scholarly reviews have panned his work as rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.130.236 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add details of these scholarly reviews if they're appropriate. However, it's worth remembering that the book is aimed at the general reader, not for specialists Jeffgwatts (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also: I hugely enjoyed the book, but I'm also curious at what points the story fails. So more clarity on the nature of the criticism would be welcome, especially from academic reviewers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.108.41.50 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of a centre
This article is defective in that it is effectively confined to critical views of the work, and fails to give any summary of its arguments. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits 19 April 2023
1) Since your edits have been challenged, you should have started a discussion on this Talk page, rather than reverting me.

2) You have removed the text The book has sharply divided critics, with some lauding Holland's take on a controversial subject matter and others accusing him of dismissing recent scholarship on Islam. Your edit summary refers to this as unsourced and extreme editorialising and OR. This assertion is completely unjustified. The text is simply a summary of what comes afterwards. The text should be in the lead, which should summarise the body, but at present is very short.

3) You have deleted ‘rebutted’ from the ‘Negative’ section. So what we now have is a detailed description of Bowersock’s criticism, and the statement that Holland wrote a ‘response’. You cannot tell from this whether Holland’s response accepted the criticism from Bowersock, or whether he disputed it. Since he disputed the criticism, the article is now misleading, and biased against Holland. If you don’t like rebutted then I suggest addressing and arguing against.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 3) Who said that he "rebutted" his critic(s)? He responded to criticism - and of story. If you think that he "rebutted" his critic, that's your opinion; some other editor may have different view, and so on. So, article is not misleading now, actually only by removing unsourced claim that he "rebutted" his critic article is brought to balance - he responded to his critic.
 * 2) My edit summary was more than sufficient in this case because it is so obvious: text which I removed was framed as an analysis in its own right, which is clear and stark editorializing and POV pushing, WP:OR without sources - that bit of text was not just simple summarization.
 * Let me explain. Let's see, who are these "critics", who set a standard and says that we should think of them as equally relevant. Just because some editors succeeded in dividing a section into three distinct subsections, composing entire "Positive" one of mostly unqualified but enthusiastic pundits giving a rave reviews, in contrast to "Negative" subsection composed entirely of academics, his peers, who dismissed it, (with some "mix" in the middle) does not opens the door for rest of us to continue to analyse and freely make pov conclusions, and finally, without sources, insert the claim that there was some kind of a "sharp", or any other kind, divide between "critics". Just looking at the section a neutral reader may well conclude that there was no divide at all, that there was only a pundits' positive opinion in popular media against academics dismissing it to various degree - and they would be right, because, well, that's not "sharp divide" among "critics", that's hardly divide at all. That's exactly what appears to be, a few positive reviews by pundits made in pop-media.vs. peer-review by other historians or academics from different fields. But let me conclude, all this is just my explanation, and because things are not just simple summarization I am only interested in sources and who said that "the book has sharply divided critics,....".
 * 1)Thank you for bringing this issue to TP this time around. It seemed to me relatively obvious issue, easily explained with edit-summary. I was obviously wrong. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  12:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Please read my post again concerning rebutting– I have suggested an alternative wording, and I have explained why your deletion has made the article misleading and biased.
 * 2) Regarding your comments:
 * i) clear and stark editorializing and POV pushing, WP:OR without sources - that bit of text was not just simple summarization. You have not said what the editorialising consists of, and, very importantly, you are alleging that there is POV pushing involved, but you have not said what the POV is.
 * ii) a neutral reader may well conclude that there was no divide at all, that there was only a pundits' positive opinion in popular media against academics dismissing it to various degree Your comment makes it plain that you see a divide – so your objection does not make sense to me.
 * iii) I am only interested in sources and who said that "the book has sharply divided critics,....". As I have said, this is a summary of the article, and should be in the lead. You, yourself, have spoken of the divide, and you have not provided a coherent objection to this wording.
 * New point 4) If you don’t like the way the article is currently structured, do you have a suggestion for reworking it?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) There is no need to insert any alter wording to "rebutted" because "responded" is very neutral and quite adequate.
 * 2i) All of the questions on what is editorializing and pov are given in our policies and guidelines, so I suggest follow the links and familiarize yourself with it.
 * 2ii) Yes, there may be a kind of divide, but there is a difference when pundits' give a review in pop-media, which weigh considerably less in sense of speciality and qualification, and when an academic, or in this case a historian, in one word peer, gives a critical assessment, a so-called peer review. So, even if this kind of divide exists, but our wording does not clearly explain in wikivoice the nature of this kind of divide (a difference between positive reviews given by unqualified vs negative given by qualified), then it is removal of statement such as "the book has sharply divided critics"that is the best way to bring the balance (to the force :) to article.
 * 2iii) By now this one should be much clearer? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here, I will try another approach. To give a "rebutted" validity to withstand weigh of our policy on verifiability and wp:exceptional, you would need a reference with a strong reliable source where we can read that some significant number of historians agree with Holland's response to Glen Bowersock and agree that Holland "rebuked" (put any other synonymous wording) Bowersock criticism. That would give us a right to claim in wikivoice that Holland rebutted Glen Bowersock. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes there is. I have already explained that your wording makes this aspect of the article uninformative and biased. If you cannot provide a justification for your change, you should self-revert – or accept my suggested alternative wording. Since it appears that you have still not read my original post, I’ll repeat it here:
 * You have deleted ‘rebutted’ from the ‘Negative’ section. So what we now have is a detailed description of Bowersock’s criticism, and the statement that Holland wrote a ‘response’. You cannot tell from this whether Holland’s response accepted the criticism from Bowersock, or whether he disputed it. Since he disputed the criticism, the article is now misleading, and biased against Holland. If you don’t like rebutted then I suggest addressing and arguing against.
 * 2) i) Please answer my questions. It is not enough to say ‘POV’. You have to explain what POV is being pushed. In the absence of such an explanation, the only possible conclusion is that you are in error in claiming that there is POV pushing.
 * 2ii) So what do you suggest?
 * 2iii) Regarding the lead of an article, please see WP:LEAD e.g. In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. and The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My arguments are solid firm and elaborated. I guess when someone respond on someone else's criticism it is usually self-evident that, like in this case Holland, one's response is in defense of his own arguments, in this case a book.
 * It's easy to solve what seem like conundrum to you: longer version is that you go and read GB criticism, and which parts are included into the article, then read Holland's response and try to think some short remarks to include into the passage - however, I am not sure that would be in compliance with WP:DUE;, because it si "Reception" section after all. But you have option to use shorter version, which would be to simply explain in wikivoice what you just told me, or to use my own words from the first passage of this post: you can say that "in his defense Holland responded" - and of story. Reader will have references to both criticism and Holland response to judge for themselves, and not via our interference..
 * I explained what POV is concerning "intro" for the section in my 2ii of the earlier post, I won't repeat it for the third time - by the way, there is only one LEDE and it is a section at the beginning of the article not at the beginning of the section, and you are confusing that "small intro" to the section with WP:LEAD (LEDE) of the article. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is no reason, whatsoever, to keep or have that kind of intro to the section "Reception" (which I removed) - it is, I'll repeat, a clear and stark editorializing and POV pushing, blatant editors' interference with WP:OR (without sources) at its heart. We are not here to lead readers to certain conclusions, especially not in section titled "Reception". ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have said But you have option to use shorter version, which would be to simply explain in wikivoice what you just told me. So does this mean that you have no objection if I change the current wording to: 'Holland wrote a response to Bowersock in the same publication, addressing and arguing against Bowersock's criticisms'?
 * I have not confused the lead with the intro to the Reception section. I have repeatedly proposed that the sentence previously in the Reception section 'The book has sharply divided critics, with some lauding Holland's take on a controversial subject matter and others accusing him of dismissing recent scholarship on Islam.' should be in the lead. This is a summary of the article, and should be in the lead, as the second sentence. If you object to this proposal, then how would you summarise the article?
 * Your comments about POV do not make sense. If you think that text in an article is biased towards a certain POV, then you must know what POV you object to. If you can’t provide this basic information, then you cannot sustain your objection.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a response, I have now made the changes I proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not get any alert nor notice on your replies, but we usually wait a longer than two to three days. Doesn't matter. Anyway, the lede section is supposed to be a summary of things written in the body - where in body we read that the "book sharply divided critics" and all the rest that you included there? Leave your impressions behind and try to add only those things said in the body. Also. check these out MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, MOS:PRESUME, and don't be lazy to read through MOS:EDITORIAL, POV. If you think that I am biased or wrong, you should ask for comment or third opinion. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  12:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, just to be sure that you are been told (following is mostly matter of WP:DUE): how you know that division was "sharp", "controversial", what "sharp" even means and when it became "sharp", is there even division in case where scientific argument is criticized by journalist(s) on one side and scholar(s) on the other, how can you compare those and tell how many was ones and how many others. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  13:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As pointed out on 21 April, the lead should include a summary of the article. Once again, as on 23 April 2023, I ask how would you summarise the article?. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sweet, you should have known by now, four years of experience as an editor is enough to learn that we cannot do WP:ORIGINAL research, we cannot use certain words, idioms and compounds to lead the reader to conclusions we would like them to draw, etc.
 * If you ask me, I would choose to avoid talking about reception entirely, unless you can find a way to formulate it as neutrally as possible.Here's my suggestion - look for featured FA-class article about the book from the same or related field and see how is lead section framed there; you will be on firm ground by using proofread summaries from similar article(s). ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)