Talk:Robert B. Spencer/Archive 2

Listed as an Anti-Islam figure by FAIR
We should note that he has been listed as one of the twelve 'Smear Casters' by FAIR at SmearCasting.com. 70.56.82.177 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: How to write about scholarly errors by Spencer in this article
Dear admins/editors: I have several examples which show that Mr. Spencer's conclusion are not supported when the Quran is read in context, and are opposite of what Muslim and non-Muslim scholars conclude about the same passage. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate some suggestions on making this a stronger article without having the writing reverted: Thanks. Goldenlaker (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the section is to the point and well referenced, would the following sequence of steps be correct:
 * 1)  State the specific quote and example from Spencer's book (complete quote with page number and book title)
 * 2)  Quote the Muslim view and contrast with that of Spencer's view (again referenced with direct quotes from one of his book as well as reference the Muslim book)?
 * Would I need to also need to state why Mr. Spencer's conclusion is wrong, or would that sound too much as my point of view?
 * How many examples can I show?


 * I'd be interested in seeing your comments, but this material should be added to Wikipedia only with a fair amount of caution. I don't see a problem with you adding two examples of direct references from a book by a Muslim contrasted with quotes from Robert Spencer. Explaining why Spencer's conclusion is wrong would probably cause POV problems; depending on the quotations, I'm not sure why it would be necessary.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nat that you should only proceed with caution here. In my view, it would be better if you are able to cite OTHER people who have criticized Spencer along the lines that you mention, you can go ahead and add it to the "criticism" section with a brief quote contrasting a statement of Spencer's with that of his critic.  On the other hand, I also think that there is one issue that Spencer has been very outspoken, and which "Islamo critics" are not in full agreement, and that is that the concept of Taqiyya is somehow intrinsic to Islam and a tactic employed by all Muslims.  In the discussion section on that topic, I noted how Spencer's friend Daniel Pipes appears to completely disagree with Spencer on this issue, despite a pronouncement that the two are in "full agreement".Jemiljan (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to adhere to WP's standards and that's what gives content of Wikipedia credibility. This means avoidng POV; however, some people delete any content which meets the above criteria but they may not like to see it on WP.  At any rate, one should be able to post some examples here based on the ongoing discussion in this section.  (WP's standards of ethics are something to maintain and uphold, especially when compared to what one finds on Spencer's own blogs and in his books.)1detour (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the most part, the answer is, you don't. This is a biographical article on Robert Spencer; it is not supposed to be a critical analysis of his work.  Significant controversies should be included, but as it is now, this article is largely reading as an attack piece.  Significant retooling is required to the "Views on Spencer and his works" section; it comprises far too much of the article's total volume, in my opinion, creating undue weight issues.  Frankly, as it appears now, this article is not really a biography at all; that's just a coatrack for attacking his work.  And that's not what biographies are for on Wikipedia. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Coatrack!" What an apt description. I'm all in favor of trimming the "views" section. Ideally, the page should be a factual starting point with resources for people to use to make their own judgements, and not so much a pre-digested package that, by its nature, can't help but make subjective value judgements for the reader. As such, I'm not against naming a public figure's critics (any public figure), but we need not give them such an expansive, free platform for unanswered criticism. The "coatrack" article proves that's un-Wiki-like. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should also necessarily trim the "Spencer responds to his critics" section right along with itJemiljan (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fair. Both should be reduced (ideally eliminated, but I have a feeling that won't be the consensus here). — Hiddekel (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more info on critic Ivan Jablonka
I've come up empty trying to find more information on Ivan Jablonka. While I realize it's possible that an academic based in France may simply not be well known in Anglophone circles, the apparent lack of information in any language would seem to call into question his relevance as a critic. Many people with advanced degrees criticize other people in print, and still many other people criticize others on the Internet. Lacking other compelling information, I question whether Jablonka's single, Web-published article warrants mention on this entry at all, let alone so much space. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Among others, I found this. TwoHorned (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ivan Jablonka is relevant because of his scholarship and more importantly he is directly talking about the subject of this article. To remove his views would be taking away key examples which counter Spencer's claims that "no-one" has presented any specific examples of his errors.  Due to this reason, removing Ivan's quote would be to make this article less useful.  I don't think that you mean to harm WP.
 * Also, Spencer's writing appear on his own blog and books published by his organization. You should really quesion that since Spencer's views have never have been peer reviewed in any academic journal of any credibility, why should his un-substantiated claims be given much prominence in WP.1detour (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your objections sound more like you're making a case for deleting the article altogether. In any event, the raison d'être of any Wikipedia article is not to establish or dis-establish someone's credibility. In that event, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, but rather an ideological guidebook. For that matter, the issue of publishing in academic journals is a red herring. That realm encompasses a very limited collection of writers and readers that is (clearly) not everyone's target audience. And by logical extension, equating merit and academic publishing implies that there is no truth value in any general-audience publication under the sun. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is Robert Spencer's biographical article. Per WP:BLP, self-published information about the subject is acceptable when it has been written by the subject.  Also per those guidelines, information disparaging towards the subject is to be held to a high standard of notability and verifiability.  You have not established either the notability of "Ivan Jablonka", whoever he may be, nor of the publication his (non-english) article has been published in.  Is it self-published (in which case it absolutely may not be included in the article)?  Do you know?  I'm sorry, but in my opinion this passage should be the first (and definitely not the last) part of this section to be removed. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, interpreting the piece into english in Spencer's article constitutes original research, I believe. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the section: "Views on Spencer and his works"
It appears that this section has become jumbled overtime. I propose making minor org change by adding 2 sub-sections with the following 2 sub-headings: 1. People who agree with him, 2. People who disagree with his views. This should make the article more readable.1detour (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it would help to simplfy it. Contrary to prior comments, I do not think that this is a coatrackarticle attacking him, as there is plenty of "coatracking" in support of his views. Adding an entire section for Spencer's to respond to each of his critics is giving undue weight to his POV.  The fact that he replied can be mentioned in connection with each critic, but these back-and-forth replies need not be quoted in full, but they should be appropriately linked.Jemiljan (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New Section: Controversies
Some of the editors have brought up specific controversies that should be documented here. As one editor noted above a controversies section would be the proper place to capture that info, so its time to start to identify them. Here are couple
 * the term "Taqiyya" and how Spencer (mis)uses it to accuse Muslims of lying when he disagrees with them, rather than responding to the facts they bring forward. While this practice may sound very much authoritative and fascist Spencer nonetheless practices it freely and without shame.  Another controversy which could be considered: while on one hand Spencer claims his ideas of Islam comes from his own studies, on the other hand he refuses to consider conclusion by those who have been studying Islam and Islamic history for many 50+ years just because they contradict his ideas about Islam.  For example, Bernard Lewis (see his 2008 book) has clearly come to an opposite conclusion that mainstream Islam does not tolerate terrorism.  Should Spencer be considered a "bully" for continuing to push his mis-guided ideas and refusing conclusions of a neutral scholar who even he acknowledges is more qualified on this topic?Cspan viewer (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Use your common sense people--The fact that he has written 7 books and 1,000s of anti-Islamic articles, in about six years, doesn't pass the "smell-test". It's not very likely that he could have researched all the aspects of Islam and understood enough in such a short period of time, considering he was writing for a small-time Catholic magazine on Catholic topics until 2002.Cspan viewer (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon. None of his critics can deny that this is true, or quote him saying anything false, because the material manifestly exists. It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute. As Spencer asserts, the criticisms are all of the vague and ad hominem variety. See the debate with Professor Daniel Peterson (linked at the bottom) and note how Peterson does not dispute Spencer's essential claims. Writer98 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Writer98's comments about "vague and ad hominem" criticism, I just posted Dr. Crane's Criticism, very specific criticism of Spencer's views. If you know Spencer, please ask him to respond. 1detour (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, Spencer is incorrect that Islamic jurispudence justifies violence. Just look at Spencer's debate with D'Souze, who is a practicing Catholic and has strong conservative credentials: a conservative voice, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), dated Laura Ingrahm and Ann Coulter (per his WP Article), who clearly states that Spencer is guilty of Selection Bias by ignoring context and peaceful verses (therefore gives reason to dismiss him).  Also, as far as Islamic jurispudence, Bernard Lewis (see his piece on Wall Street Journal's Opinion section after 9/11) clearly stated that 9/11 is not something that Muslim jurists would approve.  Furthermore, you are asking us to view Spencer's debate with Peterson, but, I would ask you to view Spencer's debate with D'Souza to get the full picture.  Or, read the Reference link, in the article, of Dr. Crane's criticism:  you will find dozens more specific, not vague, examples and can research them for your self by reviwing the entire Quranic paragraph where the topic is discussed, not just by picking a verse here and half-a verse there.  Otherwise, Spencer has every right to his opinion; but, it's just that: one man's opinion and as his critics like Crane and D'Souza pointed out, it's crafted carefully to mis-lead some who want to be mis-led.1detour (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, D'Souza is extremely ignorant of Islam and Islamic law. In his debate with Spencer he never denied anything Spencer said about Islamic jurisprudence, likely because he is not in a position to discuss such matters. In D'Souza's debate with Trifkovich we learn that D'Souza isn't even aware that the chapters in the Qur'an are arranged from longest to shortest... http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015527.php Spencer quotes mainstream commentaries, taught in religious scghools throughout the Muslim world, and the texts of Islamic Law, such as "Reliance of the Traveller" which clearly mandate warfare against nonbelievers and their subjugation under the rule of Islamic Law. You respond by telling me that none of this can exist because Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter don't like Spencer? How does that follow? Bernard Lewis is indeed an expert, but so far as I can tell Spencer has never claimed that jurists would have any particular view over 9/11. Indiscriminate violence against nonbelievers is certainly not permitted in Islamic Law.

Please tell us which of the four mainstream Sunni schools - the Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools - do not permit warfare against nonbelievers who refuse to become Muslim and refuse to accept Muslim rule (signified by payment of the jizya tax).

As for Robert Crane, a refutation of his position is here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php Writer98 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Writer98, Is Spencer really in any better position to cite Islamic Jurisprudence than D'Souza, much less even Bernard Lewis? I have only seen Spencer quote the Qur'an and Sunnah, but only very selectively from the quite voluminous pronouncements in the Islamic legal traditions.  For one, your mention of the work translated as The Reliance of the Traveler leads me to point out the fact that it is a classic Shafi manual, which means that it was a text used by just one school of law; not all of them. For this reason, it is in no way "taught in religious schools throughout the Muslim world" as you implied, only Shafi institutions.  Has any subsequent jurist of the Shafi school challenged the concepts therein that Spencer is so critical of?  Good question.  Next, what are we to make of Tripkovich's criticism of D'Souza's understanding of the chapter sequence, when if you pick up any copy of the Qur'an, you will find it begins with a very short chapter, called Surat al-Fatiha, which is composed of just 7 lines?  Furthermore, does Tripkovich ever address D'Souza's explanation about Islam in India, which is derived from his own personal experience as a person of Indian origin?  Or does Spencer?  Next, you write that "Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon."  That may be, and Spencer is right to highlight that; however, by emphasizing only those verses that support his conclusions, he willfully overlooks textual sources that either contradict, limit, or contextualize those passages.  You wrote "It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute."  Actually, they most certainly have, and it's manifestly clear that most of Spencer's critics are generally accusing him of one over-riding problem: cherry-picking.  Verses supporting violence certainly exist, as do ones that advocate showing respect for the "People of the Book", negotiating truces, being merciful, and advocating peaceable coexistence.  Such verses are often followed by a another which then modifies it- a standard feature of many Qur'anic chapters, which end with an appeal to mercy, etc etc.  Spencer generally omits, overlooks, or  when pressed, dismisses these verses, and it is this approach that has engendered the criticism.  Sure, Osama bin Laden will use them to justify his positions.  Yet when other Muslim religious bodies criticize him for doing so, when does Spencer take note of their arguments ad the sources that they cited? Regarding the exchange with Crane, Spencer never once addressed the point that he emphasized Chapter 9: 1-3, and conveniently overlooking verse 4 which effectively modifies the previous ones.  That is a classic example of "cherry picking", and Crane has called him out on it.  Why did Spencer avoid acknowledging this point in his lengthy reply to Crane's critique?  Who cares if Crane is a former Nixon aide that shares the name of a famous television star?  Instead of explaining why he omitted verse 4, we are instead treated with incessant innuendo about Crane's association with "Tricky Dick".  As you've noted, Spencer has often replied to criticism made of him; but, so have critics in turn.  To balance the article, shall we feature an additional section for this entry of the critics replying to Spencer's reply to their initial criticism?  For example, the reply to Spencer's criticism of Mark LeVine's criticism of him engendered a rather interesting follow-up reply by LeVine, in which he states that "...it seems that you did not read most of what I have written before writing your critique of my work. I say this because I have discussed in detail most every thing you have accused me of not discussing--the origins of Hamas, the immorality and futility of suicide bombings, hatred for Israel and the like. It would be nice to be accused of something that I didn't do, instead of being accused of not doing something I have in fact done. Then at least I could learn from the criticism, which is always a good thing."  Is that really a form of criticism of "the vague and ad hominem variety" as you implied?  Finally, do you think that only people defending Islam are critical of Spencer?  Think again.  Here's a very interesting, more recent exchange with another notable conservative critic of Islam, Evariste, regarding Spencer's behavior.  Evariste highlights Spencer's penchant for sliding into petty ad hominem attacks and diatribes rather than sticking to his argument.  Spencer's treatment of Crane is quite similar; he cherry-picks the critiques made of him in favor of seizing the opportunity to lob a few more salacious references to the Nixon administration (which you should note, is another form of ad hominem fallacy).  Is that really an approach that can be defined as "scholarship"?  There are many credible scholars on Islam who take critical views (not only Lewis, but Patricia Crone, and more recent scholars like Donner, Berkey, Brown, etc etc) who generally do not share many of Spencer's sentiments.  Spencer is a controversial figure, and has made his living out of it.  Just as this article correctly highlights his views and criticisms, so should it highlight the nature of criticism made of him, irregardless of whether Spencer or his fans happen to like it or not.  Isn't that NPOV?Jemiljan (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

question...
The article refers to his Christological studies, what the heck is Christological? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The term Christology refers to the philosophy of the nature of Christ. "Christological disuptes within Christianity are very old, and the topic of the early Church councils.  The WP article is very well written and offers a concise overview of the topic.Jemiljan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Questioning references
I omitted large sections of this article because they were either copied verbatim from Mr. Spencer's website (for example, entire paragraphs of his biography) or the article referenced his website exclusively. Using this one individual source is problematic because it relies on an individual with a clear agenda as a sole reference. The article claimed that Mr. Spencer was a guest on a range of political talk shows but substantiated this claim with one reference to his website. Surely his exact work can be traced. Many of his arguments are thought to be dubious and I thought it was inappropriate to have a rebuttal section so I preserved his ideas section, part of his supporters' arguments (those not sourced from his website), and the opposing views. The final section seemed completely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.58.162 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pov tag
I've added a tag in the section which collects lots of quotations critical to Spencer. A more balanced section ought to include more of Spencer's own reply to what he calls "Wikipedia gremlins". —Cesar Tort 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See also the recent discussion here. —Cesar Tort 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I can see that you are well intentioned. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn't it a conflict of interest to change a Wikipedia article about you or direct others to change it on your behalf (as Robert Spencer has done on his blog)? It's too late in this case, as someone has already changed this article based on Spencer's wording after you directed them to his blog. At least now let's go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Thanks.


 * Is it necessarily WIKI policy to include a section for a living person to respond to their critics? This is the only entry for a living person where I have observed such a section. Normally, the views of the person are described, followed by criticism.  As such, I think that adding the "response to criticism" section is actually already giving undue weight to Spencer, rather than NPOV.Jemiljan (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By clicking on the link provided by Cesar Tort, one sees that Spencer is directing his associates to change Wikipedia.
 * I agree with what user Jemiljan has stated about this article being "unique" in terms of making exceptions for giving Spencer undue weight and to remove the NPOV tag since noone else has commented and this tag has beent here for over 4 months. 1detour (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the consensus from several editors in this section and other sections (see below) I removed section titled: "Spencer's response to Critics". Also, any dissenting editors have had over a year to pitch in, but none have offered up any defense for keeping the section. I removed it for not being compatible with WP Bio articles and agreements by several editors.1detour (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion
Spencer is a Melkite(greek catholic)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic background
Any information? He fits the perfect stereotype of "Middle Easterner" and/or a fundamentalist Muslim, especially with that beard. The comment above would suggest that he is of Greek (maybe Turkish?) ethnic origin. It would also be interesting if someone could find out if he is ever often asked whether or not he is from the Middle East or is Muslim, considering his looks. IranianGuy (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC he's from a Middle East country but his family moved to the States when they were forced to do it. However, in this page we only discuss proposed improvments on the article. —Cesar Tort 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

His family came to America from Turkey. He is a Melkite Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.212.191 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Controversy
He was claimed to be brought up as a Jew by an editor, I have undone it. You better keep an eye out for changes like it, it's pure antisemitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EitanTs (talk • contribs) 11:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Improvements Required
A pressing issue that needs to be addressed with this article is that it has taken on overtones of an attack page. Personal attacks (and yes, allegations of "Islamophobia" or academic malfeasance most certainly qualify as such) are explicitly forbidden from dominating Wikipedia articles in general, but especially biographies of living persons. And it doesn't even matter if they are "true". Work has been done to improve the article in this area, and cudos to those who have worked to that end, but we need to quickly come to a consensus to resolve this persistent problem.

The first order of business, as I have suggested previously, is trimming off non-notable criticisms of Spencer. Not every academian, Muslim community leader, or political activist with a bone to pick with Spencer is worth noting, nor are their bones. Some notable controversies dealing directly with Spencer's work are certainly appropriate, and a good standard of notability to go with is mention in a third party, reliable media source. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the external link, "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer". The "External Links" section of a living person's biolgraphy article is not the place to dump links to websites disparaging the article's subject. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we have ample reason here for an npov tag at the top of the page. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, please note the fact that this article is also used to disparage those ideas, religions, and groups that Spencer doesn't like. (As Hiddekel noted above, this article should not be used to pick "their bones" as well.)
 * Second, we should not allow someone to use this article at a "coatrack" to propogate hatred that Spencer holds. How do we as editors at WP walk this fine line of making this article a biography of someone rather than being a "repeater" of his views?  MadisonTn (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way does the article disparage ideas, religions, or "groups"? Please cite specific examples and we can work on improving those sections.  — Hiddekel (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There were couple of quotes without any references, despite the notice being there for several months. I just removed the quote until someone can find the reference.  One of them started with "Spencer has criticized the discussion of Islam by Western political leaders, "  (need page number and book or a URL with article name.)  The second one was a quote attributed to Woolsdy; it was also without a reference.
 * I agree with Kebert Xela in creating an NPOV tag for this article. This article, in my understanding of WP:BLP, violates the WP polciy.  For example, the section "Spencer's response to some critics" is self-serving, even-though there is already a section with Spencer's views and a section with those who agree with him.  Also, Spencer's WP:COI is clearly documented here already.  I also agree with Hiddekel's observation that this article contains a good dose of Spencer's views/counter views; but, this is understandable.  There is not much else that is known about Spencer.  We know him as someone who has written or blogged 1,000s of articles and at least 7 books Anti-Islamic books in the last 5+ years.  So, one could argue that the only way to know him is through his views and counter views.  What other sections do you propose that may be created here?1detour (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that question is being directed at me, then not only do I not propose adding new sections, I would propose deleting the "Views on Spencer and His Works" section in its entirety. It seems to me that its sole purpose is to be used by Spencer's proponents and critics to debate the merits of his writings on Wikipedia, and that's not what BLP articles are for; nor is it what Wikipedia itself is for.  If people insist on having something like this in the article, then it should be a SMALL (as opposed to the largest in the article, as is currently the case with "Views of Spencer and his works") "Controversies" section that deals with notable controversies only...  Notable meaning mention not in Spencer's blog or someone else's self-published journal, but a reliable media source.  I'm going to quote directly from WP:BLP since people seem to be repeatedly missing the point:
 * Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
 * Keep that emphasized (by me) text in mind, and what it implies: Someone's blog entry is not acceptable. Someone's self-published editorial is not acceptable.  Even someone's academic thesis is not acceptable.  Find some notable, secondary-sourced criticism or controversies (an example might be the debates between Spencer and Khaleel Mohammed in Frontpage Magazine) and the rest should be cut out of here. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Detour that as this is a biography of a living person, who has generated a litany of self- published literature, and non peer-reviewed literature, that one has to rely on such sources for his views and counter views. At the same time, the WP:BLP explicitly states that:
 * "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
 * I think that in light of the above, a systematic review of the entire "views" section is in order, but I disagree that it be eliminated in the manner that Hiddekel has advocated above. All praise and criticism derived from self-published materials should be be eliminated, but I also think a healthy degree of caution should be exercised in doing so. After all, the man's primarily notable for the fact that he is a critic, and as such has been critical of other people.  He is routinely cited by other political pundits and commentators, especially on the political right as an "expert", and others have criticized the nature of his expertise. Mention of his views, together with the criticism he has engendered in turn- including the accusation of academic malfeasance, that he is an "Islamophobe" and that he is even a polemicist- is entirely fitting, and as such merits inclusion within his biography, as it provides a greater range of views. As it stands, the criticism section is not, in my view, a "dominant" feature, as the article is in fact balanced by a preceding section featuring a chorus singing the man's praises, and then followed by an even lengthier rebuttal by Spencer, is it not?  Is that really suggestive of an "attack" page? Rather, I wonder if those who are so terribly "concerned" about this issue are in reality solely concerned with reducing or even eliminating any published criticism of Spencer. Jemiljan (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First: I might also speculate that people want to keep this wholly unbalanced section in, simply because they want to use Wikipedia as a platform to "inform" readers as to the evils of Robert Spencer and why he should be disregarded--but then I wouldn't be assuming good faith. And it wouldn't be wholly true anyway: as I said above, the section is being used by both his proponents AND his opponents as a message board platform to analyze the validity of his work, using sources which are almost all unaccaptable by the standards we have quoted from WP:BLP.  You need to look at the whole section--praise, criticism, rebuttals by Spencer--not just single out part of it, to determine whether a section is creating undue weight issues or simply causing the article to stray from its purpose.  As of now, there is simply no denying the fact that this section constitutes the bulk of the article.  If we aren't going to eliminate the section altogether, then I hope that we can at least achieve consensus that the stuff that does violate BLP policy in this section has to go.
 * To that end, I am proposing that the Ivan Jablonka stuff constitutes both original research (a translated analysis of a foreign-language article) and Also probably qualifies as self-published material. It should therefore be removed. — Hiddekel (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, in fact, looked at the whole section, and this article for quote some time now. What I can say is that someone went back and added in VERY lengthy quotes from both supporters and critics.  I think if you want to start reducing the weight of this area, then a great place to start is by reducing or abbreviating these complete quotes. They are published elsewhere, and links will suffice for many of them.Jemiljan (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiddekel, I believe you have good intentions. But you have not made a good case for removing the Ivan quote.  For translations, WP:OR has clear guidelines.  It's not to remove, but to make sure that different editors can agree on the translation.  Do you have a translation which is materially different than the one presented here?  Here is what WP:OR says about Translations:"'Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, Wikipedia editors may supply their own. If such translations are challenged, editors should cooperate in producing one they can agree on.'"
 * As far as cleaning this article, yes, we need to really work on it. Anyone can provide suggestion how to clean it up, change it, or add or delete parts of it.  But, please provide a clear reason which is based on actual WP policies.  Based on WP:BLP, this article is full of self-serving quotes, and other material which are from back of Spencer's books to help sell the book and are not relevant to WP.  Therefore, I propose keeping, Spencer's views and His critics Views, while removing the other 2 view sections.  Anyone disagree?MadisonTn (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. I think that a quote reduction is in order too.  They can be linked, or selective (say, 1 sentence tops).  This is really why the article appears to be heavily weighted.Jemiljan (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. Ideally his own opinions should form the bulk of the article since the article is about him and not what other people think of him. The article should be predominantly about what his opinions are, not about others' views of those opinions. I totally disagree with the suggestion that only the views of commentators critical of Spencer should be included. The fact that some of the positive quotes were used to promote his books hardly demonstrates they are not the opinions of the people who wrote them. If only critical opinions were allowed, and no positive opinions were permitted, the article would be essentially an attack-page. My proposal is that the section describing his views is expanded, and the sections praising and criticising be maintained but both reduced.

Writer98 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not sure I wholly agree on all your points. Putting chiefly his opinions doesn't seem to make the article neutral and objective.  It would run too close to being a collection of his quotes and might resemble something of a scrap-booked blog.  In order to treat the subject--i.e., the person--objectively, you need both sides of the story, and you need third party sources.  Obviously, there needs to be a balance.  It can't be critical-only sources and it can't be positive-only sources.  Just my two cents.   Vincent   Valentine  00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Writer98 basically strays from a keeping the article as biographical in nature to one of promotion. Oddly enough, no one ever stated that "only the views of commentators critical of Spencer should be included".  The article is not a place to collect opinions, rather an articulation of Spencer's views, and then criticism of those views, as is often found on other WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is false. I certainly never said there should be no criticism of Spencer's views, only that there should be some sense of balance and that the agenda of some that this become an attack-page be resisted. In contrast, if you read what was proposed and you agreed with, you will indeed see that you agreed that the section involving praise of Spencer's views should be deleted. The proposal was "I propose keeping, Spencer's views and His critics Views, while removing the other 2 view sections." That would result in an attack-page, for it would only permit views critical of Spencer. Writer98 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I say that you did? Please show me where I said that.  Also, I never said that the section of praise shoudl be deleted entirely, but that the extensive quoting be reduced and links inserted instead.  Furthermore, I would ask if the article becomes predominantly about his views, is that "balanced", much less NPOV?  How is it that an article in which the extensive quoting is pared back to simply outline his views, and a summarized criticism of them, together with links to supporters and detractors statements (rather than reproducing each and every statement in full) become an "attack page"?Jemiljan (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. So, I spent a lot of time doing what we all said needed to be done: clean-up the article by trimming, reducing, and provide links for the material. But, someone named Kerbert just undid all the hard work. Can we please discuss here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1detour (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I had made my changes such that they were easy to track: 1 quote per change and then saving it.  So, if someone wanted to track, edit, or undo, they could do that at one change at a time, rather than all of them.  Also, I focused my changed to the criticism section only.  If someone wants to edit the "Spencer's response to his critics" they can do that as well.  I would hope that they would follow the same process I did of making small changes and then saving them. (Otherwise, I would be happy to edit that sub-section as well and leave it up to others to review and edit).  This would go a long way in improving the layout and removing an eyesore on WP.1detour (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great start!, Detour. I still think that the full quotes from the supporters sections should be reduced as well.  Most of them are taken from pages promoting Spencer's books anyway.  It's OK to list those who support him, and I think that substitute links to that effect could be found for them as well, which are not self-serving book endorsements.Jemiljan (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Per discussions on this page, NPOV tag was never really relevant to begin with; it's definitely not required any longer after recent changes. If someone has an issue with a specific area, they can discuss that here rather than tagging the entire article. MadisonTn (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This article helped me find almost no information on the person found in the title. I only have recently learned that Muslims and Muslim rights advocates hate him with deep rooted anger... which is helpful to know, but I would like to know more. Perhaps this title should be changed to (name of author) controversy? Too much random bold writing in the "I don't like him" section that was clearly written by people who do not like him. And the "I don't like him" section was way too long. Can anyone help this article become at least slightly "encyclopaedic"? 75.212.197.150 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition- "(The author's name) response to criticism" section should be removed. Just as this article should not simply be a staging point for a smear campaign against the author, it should not be his personal base of defense. Controversy about him can be mentioned, albeit understanding the concept of brevity, but to make another section for his rebuttals is a waste of space, unless a new page entitled "Controversy of (Author's name)" is dedicated. 75.212.197.150 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Balanced reporting and NPOV
The positive and negative views sections seem unbalanced to me, with undue weight given to those who view him negatively. The positive section has a list of supporters, with their names linked, followed by three short quotes. The negative section individually lists the credentials of each person (unneccessary, as their names are linked to their articles), with many long, rambling quotes. Although the list of supporters and opposers are almost of equal length, the opposition is given three times as much article space to promote their positions.

Situations such as this often arise through the natural course of article expansion, so there is no reason to assume bad faith editing. I do assert, however, that to someone coming across the article for the first time it might appear that the format is designed to impress the reader with the credentials and long quotes of one side while minimizing the impression on the reader of the other viewpoint.

Also, certain sections of the first negative quote are bolded in the article, but they are not bolded in the source material. This seems inappropriate to me. If the source has emphasized certain words or phrases, then the quote should do so as well. Wikipedia should not place original emphasis, however, as this borders on editorializing.

In an attempt to provide a more balanced treatment for the article, I have reduced the space given to the Negative section by formatting it along the same lines as the Positive section. The section begins with a list of those who oppose Spencer's views, followed by a few core quotes. I kept those quotes that seem to me to carry the most weight. Most importantly, no references have been removed. When a quote was removed entirely, I placed the bare reference after the appropriate name in the lead sentence. All references are still available and accessible. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! 79.195.192.235 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)-
 * I like the balanced improvement.— DMCer ™  20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 152..., I'm sorry about that, I missed this note, and also missed the edit summary you wrote, and registered the text blanking as of the drive-by, partisan-vandal sort. I wouldn't have been so cavalier if I'd seen the care you put into it. So, in that mindset, I thought that the important material was heavier on the criticism side... I wasn't evaluating the criticism-support in terms of there needing to be balance in the volume of words; I was regarding it in terms of what is cited and relevant from relevant sources (as I perceived it). I did cut up that criticism section as well, from the reverted version. I am going to start by eliminating those two recent good-faith additions that are based on weak sources. If I cut down the volume of text in the criticism section, do you think we could reach a balance starting from what we have here, without going back to your edit entirely? Thanks for your patience! DBaba (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains it. Certainly, I'll trust your judgement to balance the article.  I have no attachment to the article whatsoever so as long as it is balanced I'm not concerned about how the article gets there.  This was just one of those cases where I happened to check an article a few weeks after editing it and wondered about the interim changes.  Thank you for taking the time to work this out.  152.16.59.102 (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of hard work has been done here, but I am somewhat concerned by words that still "spin" the text in non-neutral ways. Two examples of these are "unfair" and "harsh" to characterize criticism. Simply noting that there is criticism, without using extra adjectives, seems far more neutral to me, and still preserves the point that criticism exists. Insahul (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: Known relationship to Ergun Caner
Does anyone know if Spencer has any relationship with Ergun_Caner, president of Liberty University. The reason I ask is that Caner was recently exposed for lying about his Islam knowledge and debates on Muslim, per Washington Post article: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/higher-education/a-most-unusual-university-inve.html).

Spencer, like Caner, is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam and, like Caner has written numerous books on Islam and Muslim despite the fact that prior to their self-proclamation, neither one of them had any in-depth experience with Islam or Muslims. Could this unraveling drive these opportunistic people to now admit their lies, or will their followers stay in denial? Both of them have done well for themselves over the past 8 years. Spencer has become famous and has many books to his name. Caner, in addition to writing many books managed to rise all the way to the presidency of the largest Evangelical University. It'll be interesting to see how much longer can they keep it hidden. Would appreciate any info if you can share.1detour (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish descent?
This claim was recently added. It implies that he is Turkish, when I thought he was of Greek heritage? Admittedly, this may be due to the fact that his ancestors were once Ottoman Turkish subjects, but that doesn't not necessarily mean that he is of "Turkish descent".Jemiljan (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interview with Spencer that is now referenced, he doesn't say he is of Turkish descent; rather, he says his family lived in the region for hundreds of years. That, combined with his description of the Greek Melikte Catholic religion as being practiced by Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, etc. makes his ethnicity definitely Middle Eastern but specifically unknown. That is why I added the quote.


 * I think you are aware of this distinction, but others are not, so I will mention it here. If someone is a "Greek Catholic" or even a "Greek Orthodox" of some sort, that does not mean they are necessarily of Greek ethnic origin, just as Roman Catholics are not necessarily all Italians. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a biography and should be deleted
It appears that even following extensive revisions of this entry that it still falls woefully short of a biography of a living person. My suggestion is to delete the entire entry and start from scratch.

Here’s why:

There is scant biographical material of the subject. We are treated to three lines about Mr. Spencer academic background but none of his personal life, parents, residence, work location or even the influences that shaped his political and social views today. And this is no easy task, I understand, since there is very little published about him.

This makes the “Views” section pointless for the casual reader who knows nothing or little about Mr. Spencer. Biographical data and an introduction to his founding of JihadWatch will support his views. Otherwise his views are not noteworthy. While Mr. Spencer’s views – in his own words -- of Islam appear to be reasoned and sensible, his writings on JihadWatch and other publication are anything but reasoned and sensible. By any definition his writings are extreme. Perhaps that is simply my opinion, but my point is that his published writings reflect entirely different views that what is stated in his Wikipedia entry. In other words, the “Views” section is not an accurate entry and should be deleted.

This leads me to the “positive” and “negative” views of Mr. Spencer’s work. Given that the “Views” section is vague at best and inaccurate at its worst, the positive and negative comments are inappropriate. As for the section regarding Mr. Spencer’s response to his critics, I find this very offensive. I don’t think there is a single Wikipedia biography of a living person that has a “response to critics.”

Finally, the numerous external, video clips and audio interviews make this entry an advertisement for Mr. Spencer’s work.

Mr. Spencer, by virtue of his controversial views of Islam, is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but in its current form it is not objective or encyclopedic. Not even close. To start there must be some proper basic research of this man’s biography, and then follow in a logical order his career achievements and whatever controversy he generates. An objective third party needs to study Mr. Spencer's work and background and then write a balanced view. Leicester17 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All those points would merit improving the article, not deletion.— DMCer ™  20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that article needs improvement, not deletion. Spencer clearly meets Wiki notability requirements - i.e. significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and this article does not violate WP:Not. - Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Change to infobox person
Inbox writer, which generally has fewer fields than infobox person has been used in this article, and I have changed it. According to the Template documentation for infobox writer: "If the writer-specific fields here are not needed, consider using the more general Infobox person". So I considered it and found that the writer specific fields are not really useful for Spencer's bio. These fields are:pseudonym, period and genre. Spencer is not known to have used a pseudonym, and the infobox writer field period is covered under the infobox field years active which is probably a better descriptor. So the only question remaining is whether the genre field is necessary? It was stated as "religion" but this is not actually a genre, nor does it describe Spencer's works which straddle politics and religion and which are mainly focused on criticism of Islam and political advocacy. Therefore, I am switching to the more useful and flexible infobox  person which allows other fields such as religion, denomination, residence, etc. and has modules for future expansion.- KeptSouth (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well-explained, thoughtful revision. I support it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving...
I am archiving the whole thing, including the past archives since they were archived under wrong names. Much of the old archived discussion is a real mess. From now on I would recommend to archive in Talk:Robert Spencer/Archive 2 the forthcoming posts until the page reaches, say, 250Kb. Just a suggestion; not a policy. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page has gotten long and outdated, so next week, I will be adding autoarchiving every six months with an archive search box on this page. Please discuss here if you have any objections or suggestions. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am creating a new page, Talk:Robert Spencer (author)/Archive 1, moving the contents of the previous archive Talk:Robert Spencer/Archive 1 to associate the archives with this page, and setting up the auto archive for every 90 days so this page does not get too lengthy. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I increased the archive time to 365 days, since this talk page isn't that active. With 365 days both talk page size and amount of threads is reasonable. There is no hurry in moving threads to archive if we have space on the page. --Kslotte (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kslotte - I am confused by your remark. There is infinite space on any page, isn't there? So it is all a matter of judgment as to what is too long -- though I think that many reasonable people would agree that 11 pages without the headers when printed, or 15 page downs is too long. That is what we have here with the archive set for 365 days. You did not discuss this during the 4 weeks that I waited for discussion, but instead took unilateral action, so I will be bold here and also take unilateral action, but based on a compromise. I am setting the time for 180 days which is half way between my choice of 90 days and your choice of 365. I plan to leave it at 180 for a day or two until the auto archive is done, and then reset to 365. I may manually archive any old threads that are being missed by Mizra due to a (formerly) unsigned post. This should clear the page so that it is short enough to read and navigate, and future archiving will occur at 1 year if the activity here continues at a low level. I hope this is agreeable to you. -Best regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG says 15 threads and 70K is too much. Oterwise it is a matter of judgment. I usually propose a longer archive time as long as it is below the thresholds. Users that aren't following Wikipedia actively may want to reply to something. --Kslotte (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then, we agree it is a matter of judgment. You left the 180 day archiving intact when you replied, though you had the obvious opportunity to increase the archive time again to 365. Miszabot did its thing and archived posts more than 180 days old, then I increased the time to 365 days as I discussed above. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jew or Catholic?
He has stated that he is a Catholic:

RS: My being Catholic is no secret; I co-wrote a book called Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics. But I have no religious agenda. [...] Q: I've read that you are actually Jewish. RS: Again, no.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Like to hear feedback of other editors on moving the article to read Robert Spencer (blogger) instead of (author). Reason is that referring to him as a "blogger" is more accurate (since blogging every day is his daily activity) and this is what WP guidelines mandate. But, open to any other suggestion.1detour (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree because he has written numerous books, and anyone looking for a Wiki article on Spencer because they are familiar with his blogging activities, will likely quickly realize Robert Spencer (author) is the article is the one they are looking for, whereas, the reverse is not as likely. In other words, someone who knows Spencer has written books, is not necessarily going to think a Robert Spencer (blogger) article is the bio of the author Robert Spencer.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Source for list of "Monographs"
The link given for this list is simply to a JihadWatch blog post by Spencer, which was then reproduced at "Catholic Online". It contains no reference to said monographs. So, where did this information come from? Are these in fact published monographs? Or are they simply private papers that he may- or may not- have written? If they are published, then they should be correctly cited. If they not, then the list should be deleted.Jemiljan (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing articles from spencer's jihad watch
Does it violate any wikipedia guidelines, particularly Identifying reliable sources? I've been going through the archives and some topics have dealt specifically with this issue, but there's been no unambiguous answer at the end of the discussion under the topics. Sleetman (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be Y i reverted myself - as jihad watch is used all over this article not just the most recent additions. Personaly i think using this "blog" type site violates many of our policies . However after some research i see that this is what he is primarily famous for - thus merits inclusion. I see that CNN, BBC, FOX news etc... have cited his  blog as well as interviews with him that mention content from the blog.  Side note:  very very interesting person we have here.Moxy (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section AGAIN
For some reason, the "Spencers response to critics" section was merged so as to allow Spencer a rebuttal to each point of criticism. So, shall we now add in all of the critics' rebuttals to Spencers rebuttals? Seriously folks, this way beyond WP:BLP standards. Either show me a page where this format is used, or I suggest that this should be reverted to the previous form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs)
 * Spencer's response on his blog is allowed a consensus on this issue has already been reached here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Consensus...and yes if you wish you can also put rebuttals by his critics to his criticisms of them.Sleetman (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Way to much from his self published blog - can we find this anywhere else. We cant copy and past everything from his blogMoxy (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is an issue...how? How does any of that disprove of the consensus that allows Spencer to respond to his critics using articles written on his Jihad Watch blog?Sleetman (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this info published anywere else? As i have stated above I do think the blog can be include as per its his blog. - However would like to see it less used that is all. We must be able to find other sources cant we? If not i agree that this would be fine refs.Moxy (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ma'am, again, I don't mean to be offensive....but your argument is a non-argument. It doesn't matter whether Spencer's responses to his critics are published "anywhere else" it doesn't matter they are or not. Moreover, the consensus never says Spencer's responses need to be published by somebody else in order for them to appear on his Wikipedia-page. I really don't know why you're making such a big deal outta this.Sleetman (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman, your link provides no such "consensus" that you claim exists, nor is there any standard for WP:BLP that allows for what you insist upon. This is the statement at the link you provided:  "However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space. Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay."  That is hardly a green light to go ahead and insert Spencer's self-published "responses" copied from his own blog, and pasting them into a section devoted to his critics, for that is undue weight.  Furthermore, consensus needs to be achieved here, on the page in question.  So, do provide me with an example of any BLP page that has a format where the person "responds" to their critics, using self-published blog materials, but happy hunting!  Otherwise no, there is no consensus on this matter, nor is it an acceptable standard to WP:BLP So please please review the policies for WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ma'am, the consensus makes it clear that Spencer's response to his critics are allowed even if it violates WP:UNDUE. What you've written is an edited version of what was actually the consensus, which is this: we agree he is notable, and we agree he should be mentioned as a critic. However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on his own article). Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay [] (notice the bolded part that was omitted in your version of the consensus). The fact that you don't think persons are allowed articles to respond to their critics (Noam Chomsky's page, particularly the criticism section) doesn't mean that it doesn't happen...and even if it did, it doesn't prove anything about violating BLP guidelines it's not as if the people's response to critics can't be posted on their own wikipedia-page. I would like to point out one final thing, which is you're claim that I violate 3RR...which is a charge that could just as easily be applied to you so I suggest you stop accusing me that on my talkpage. Sleetman (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First off Sleetman, I'm a guy. Second of all, there is no such format used on Chomsky's page.  Thirdly, the consensus you are citing is for a DIFFERENT PAGE, not this one.  You obtain consensus on the talk page of the article under discussion; you do not cite a totally different page and then say it applies to all.  finally, I never claimed you were violating the 3RR, but that you are dangerously close with your insistence on edit warring, and it appears that your behavior is not limited to this page alone, given the number of criticisms you have generated by several different editors this month alone.  You can go ahead and charge me with what you like, but the fact is that I am merely reverting your POV and unverifiable self-published materials.Jemiljan (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, you can complain all you want, but the consensus on Robert Spencer's website overrules what you're saying...which was that publishing Spencer's responses violates WP:UNDUE which in turn is clearly overruled by the consensus on Robert Spencer's page. It doesn't matter if the consensus reached was for a different page because the ruling applies to HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE ( However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on HIS own article)....notice the HIS word in caplocks). And yes you've get posting on my board that I've been violating 3RR which isn't true, but I'm glad you've stopped trying to call me out on that.Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What "consensus"? You have obtain consensus on this talk page, not a statement obtained from another page. This absolutely does matter, and it is the central reason why your rationale is flawed. To learn more about this, please read WP:CON.  Again, I never stated you were violating the 3RR, I said you should review the terms, because it appears that you are given over to edit warring, and not on this page alone.  You are waling a fine line on the matter, and you know it. Furthermore is the polite suggestion to review a WP policy such a terrible thing?Jemiljan (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor drawn here by a post on WP:BLPN, I would say that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE govern the issue of whether it is appropriate to rebut every statement in a "Criticism" section. In general, I believe it is not. The only criticisms that may support a rebuttal are very specific assertions of fact. For example, in the debate with Karen Carpenter, she apparently says he leaves out peaceful Islamic doctrine, and he responds that this does not represent Muhammad's original views, but material which came later. This may be an acceptable addition (and the Carpenter quote also needs to be shortened or summarized, by the way). On the other hand, "Spencer also doesn't like X" formulations in response to a statement "X criticized Spencer" (of which there were several) don't belong here, but could be moved to the criticism sections in these other writer's articles.Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonathan. Actually, her name is Karen Armstrong, not Karen Carpenter.  The latter was the late dummer and singer of the 70's musical brother-sister group, The Carpenters  You are right about the editing down the Armstrong quote.  It wasn't always in that form.  As far as Spencer's 'defense', shall we add to that references culled from self-published blogs demonstrating it to be highly "cherry-picked" and insufficient?  There is no shortage of self-published blogs to choose from. My point is this: to what extent is any self-published 'rebuttal' a "reliable source" as per WP:NPOV policies? If we're going to allow one, then why not allow another for the same reason?  Where does this slippery-slope end? Jemiljan (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't end, there's nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that doesn't allow for this tit-for-tat exchange to happen...provided of course you shorten the content of the exchange and just write, Spencer said this, his critics said this, to which Spencer responded and to which his critics responded once more. But of course I doubt that would happen anyway as Loonwatch, Littlegreenfootballs aren't even reliable sources.Sleetman (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Misfiring neurons: I know who Karen Armstrong is and have read A History of God which I admired. Sleetman: The "consensus" you are interpreting from WP:RSN was on a different issue and is not "black letter law" anyway. You don't have consensus for the changes you are making here, and the present state of the article has serious neutrality and weight problems. I will take another look and propose a solution sometime tomorrow. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what are you suggesting if the consensus isn't black letter law? That Wikipedia be a state of anarchy where consensus reached on particular issues (especially political ones) be disregarded for subjective judgments? But.....I'll agree with you on one thing here, the article has serious neutrality and weight problems...particularly if Spencer's response to his critics are removed.Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman says "It doesn't end, there's nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that doesn't allow for this tit-for-tat exchange to happen". According to whom? Do provide some sort of precedent to support your position. I used the examples of those blogs simply to make a point that if you allow one self-published blogger to provide rebuttals, then according to the terms of NPOV all such material could be cited, but I never said it should be. The problem is that if anything, it's quite the contrary; there's nothing in supporting such "tit-for-tat" exchanges from blogs because it's clearly proscribed. What you are doing violates two of the three main principles of Neutral point of view (NPOV) (Spencer answering critics is beyond undue weight), Verifiability (V) (Self-published materials are not verifiable). I suggest that you read up on the terms for WP:NPOV and WP:V again. Bear in mind, I've argued with other users that considering Spencer is most well known as a blogger, the fact that his controversial views and comments have elicited parodies in the form of LoonWatch is something to mention, but beyond that, I am also vigorously opposed to citing their material. So with that, stop making excuses for your edit warring. @ Jonathan, you are absolutely right.  Sleetman is taking a consensus from a different article as a justification for this one, but as I pointed out before, he must obtain consensus for this article on this talk page.Jemiljan (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do provide some sort of precedent to support your position" - Look up Chomsky's exchange with Christopher Hitchens on his Wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Iraq_War_and_the_War_on_Terror)
 * Sir, now you're changing your argument from WP:UNDUE to it's clearly proscribed...which strikes me as strange as that's already been pre-empted anyway in the consensus where they say, "however we agree he's not a reliable source." And yet in any case that whole point has been overriden by the agreement in the consensus that allows for the publication of his works. ("and should not be given undue space (except on his own article)")Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman, the debate between Hitchens and Chomsky is in no way parallel to Spencer's self-published "rebuttals", as it was debate sponsored and formally published by the editors of the Nation magazine. It was in no way material that was self-published on a blog.  Nor has that article been expanded to the extent that Hitchens responds to each and every point of criticism as you implied.  Secondly, I'm not changing my argument, as all of what I said applies.  This fact is that your statement was taken from another different page, and in no way is proof on consensus on this page.  Again, consensus about this page must be reached here.  To learn more, look up WP:CON.  So please stop citing that statement, as it patently doesn't apply here.  Finally, please review WP:RL, specifically the section regarding self-published materials.  Jemiljan (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, I really don't know where you're going with this. Consensus for WHAT? The quibbling about he's a reliable source or whether his self-publication response to his critics can be put on his Wikipedia page is already settled on the consensus! As the consensus makes very clear, it allows for the publication of Spencer's rebuttals to his critics hence the the proviso "except on HIS article"...and no I'm not going to stop citing it just because you don't like to see Spencer's respond to his critics (which by the way violates NPOV) There was no "formality" in the Hitchens and Chomsky debate and neither was it "sponsored" either...the whole point of me using that example of the exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens was to show you that exchanges between parties/peoples are published on Wikipedia.Sleetman (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On a further look, I think the problem is the artificial "Views" for and against structure, which is leading to the current edit warring here. I will be back this weekend to attempt a consolidaton of the pro and contra views into the body of the article in a way I hope everyone will accept. In the meantime, you guys need to be more aware of WP:3RR. Even keeping just to three reverts per day apiece can be deemed edit warring and lead to problems with admins. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, though I might add that before you head into that, take a look at the archived comments on those sections. Also I will have no problem as long as Sleetman is conscious and respectful of WP:CON obtained here, not lifted from somewhere else, much less WP:RS, specifically self-published sources by the subject of the page that is "unduly self-serving" and "involves clams regarding 3rd parties".  That has been my contention here all along.Jemiljan (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to settle this
I have made a bold edit in a good faith attempt to end the revert war on these pages. Please bear with me as I explain my thinking and what I chose to do.

The dispute, in my opinion, arose from the artificial and disfavored structure of a separate "Views for and against" section. WP:NPOV says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." This is exactly what we had. I therefore have merged both the positive and negative views into the main "Views on Islam" section. I put the criticisms, and Spenser's responses, into a subsection entitled "Assertions of bias and Spenser's responses". The "point-counterpoint" nature of this material is far more appropriate under this title than in one entitled "Criticisms".

I preserved most of the material but made some deletions on both sides of the issue. I got rid of anything sourced to blogs (except Spencer's own which is relevant for his views under WP:SPS), advertisements, and non-notable self published pages. I also deleted some less notable views, as it violates neutrality to list every repetitive criticism or supporting statement out there. Also, I included Spender's specific responses to critical statements, but removed WP:COATRACK material which merely said that Spencer does not like the critic or his work on other grounds.

We are at a crossroads here. If either of you disagree with anything I have done, lets discuss it here on the talk page, rather than continuing the edit war. I am confident we can work together to achieve a state of this article acceptable to all of us. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to the edits you've made which I think are pretty good. However, I don't think this'll go down well with Jemil as the user seems determined to remove ANY of Spencer's response to his critics....even though the consensus makes it clear that that is allowed. Depending on Jemil's changes (deletion?) to the edits, we shall see how this works out indeed in the coming days.Sleetman (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good word. Lets not pre-suppose but wait to see what the other editor says. I think a large part of the problem was the structure of recursive and endless criticisms of criticisms, which were caused by using a disfavored structure in the first place. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a pretty good start, and a vast improvement, and thanks for the hard work you put into this, Jonathan, though I might point out that I've not been here for a couple of weeks, and I see Sleetman is back to his old habits, attempting to turn the section into a "coatrack" of Spencer's rebuttals to practically every point of criticism. He shoudl note that was not I removing any and all of Spencer's responses, just those that that he posted which were unreferenced, self-published blog materials instead of published, 3rd party sources.  This revision is a good start, but it need to be strengthened using primarily WP:RS sources, NOT WP:USERG, as the guidelines clearly states "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated..."  I should also note that an extensive discussion on the matter of Spencer's reliability has been hashed out on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.  We must keep in mind that the criticism of Spencer is largely based upon how he represents (or in many cases conveniently omits) primary textual sources on Islam. I do think that the criticism section became something of an ad hominem attack, though I can understand that, as Spencer has had a habit of dishing out plenty of those himself.


 * A few points: First off, I'm also not entirely comfortable with the heading "Accusations of Bias", as the term "accusation" implies a POV that it they could be empty and baseless, and no truth in it. Yes, some of Spencer's rebuttals may imply a certain misunderstanding of his writing, but others are not.  Why not simply entitle this "Criticism and Spencer's Response"?  Was there something particularly wrong about the "Criticism"?  The reason that WP has a policy of not relying on self-published blog materials is rooted in the fact that even ideas" are often unreferenced.


 * Also, I'm not sure if you intended this Jonathan, but I see Benazir Bhutto is now mentioned twice, in both the "Accusations" and "Controversies" section, even though they are from the same source, and the name Spencer is misspelled in upper one. I'm not sure if her comment constitutes a form of 'controversy', other than the fact that she was a head of state.  I note that again, Spencer rebuttals involves claims, specifically that he has "...discussed the peaceful verses at length...", though he doesn't actually cite any pages (though he criticizes Bhutto for her accuracy in that regard) much less quote any pertinent material to that effect.


 * Also, some of the material removed is significant and solidly sourced, by a number of leading, contemporary academics on Islam and the Middle East. UNC Professor Carl Ernst reference to Spencer as an "Islamophobia" is in fact one of the earliest uses of the term on record ; the criticism of Cathy Young in Reason magazine details the polemics that Spencer has resorted to (thought the link seems to have died, and the two have had a series of exchanges, so it's a lot to wade through), as well as U Michigan Professor Juan Cole, and his criticism of UC Irvine professor Mark LeVine and author Reza Aslan is also notable. I also think that we might also like to restore the older reference to the series of debate articles between Khaleel Mohammed and Spencer's debating various points that were published in Front Page Magazine, but stop short of quoting one or the other?   In fact I might ask that some of the wording combining some of these comments be added back in:


 * "Louay M. Safi, Khaleel Mohammed, and assert that Spencer is an 'Islamophobe' who supports preconceived notions through selection bias; they suggest, 'he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity'. They have objected to what they describe as Spencer's method of taking a position they deem to be radical (on apostasy, women, etc.) and then attribute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions.'"
 * There previously was a succinct quote by Dr. Carl W. Ernst, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that: :::"'...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. . . his views have no basis in scholarship.'"


 * While some of the responses by Spencer that remain are generally solid, note that his specific quote in his criticism of Karen Armstrong isn't sourced at all:
 * "'In reply to Armstrong, Spencer asserts the Islamic conception of warfare culminates 'in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law by force of arms. That has been understood throughout history by mainstream Islamic teachers (Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti, Ibn Qayyim) as the Qur'an's last word on jihad.'"


 * Here Spencer simply claims that the historical sources say what he says they do. Well, do they? My understanding is that no, this is in neither universally accepted by all Muslims, nor is this the "last word" on the matter in the slightest. Most importantly, Spencer provides neither an exact quotation, nor is it a form of consensus among all Muslims, as the first three were proponents of the Shafi'i school, while the last one a Hanbali.  No Hanafi, or Maliki legalists or exegetes mentioned, much less any Shia.  Were he more careful in mentioning that these are verses cited by extremists in order to justify their views, but that these views are not endorsed by al legal schools and scholars, then his point would be more fair.  Nor does Spencer bother to mention that the commentaries he refers to are in reference to verses from Surat al-Tawbah describing opponents of Muhammad, who had violated the hudna or peace treaty, as well as duplicity from within his own ranks, again, an example of cherry-picking, and does not in any way support Spencer's contention that Islamic hegemony through violence is ordained in the Qur'an.


 * Here again, this points to a major element of Spencer's style, which is correctly criticized by academics, that is to to refer to a source but neither cite it nor quote it directly, leaving the reader to presume that his interpretation is in fact accurate. Need I mention that this is the major reason why citations are used in academic scholarship?  Citations are used to provide a way for the scholar to allow others to check and verify their references.  This is in fact an extension of an earlier discussion on the this talk page which noted how he cited what he described as a legal position by the traditional schools of Islamic law on the matter of Jihad, which were not only cherry-picked, but it also turned out that one particular source he cited was in fact a history, not an actual legal text.  So, do such rebuttals stray into the territory of "unduly self-serving" as I noted earlier?  It seems to me so, especially if sources he alludes to in order to support his own position are not solidly referenced, for they are flagrantly cherry-picked.


 * Were he more solid with his own references, then these rebuttals would be more appropriate, but just as we should be very careful with the selection of criticism, so too should we be cautious in adding in these "rebuttals". Again, the reliability of the use of blogs and self-published materials need to be considered very critically, as per WP:RS As you mentioned on the WP:BLP noticeboard, Jonathan, "...we can quote Spencer's blog for his statements of opinion and for details about himself, but not for fact assertions about individuals or historical events." In that regard, it seems to me a better quote to use here would be the one before that in which he determines Armstrong's reference to war being an "awesome evil" to be a misunderstanding of a specific verse.  Here Spencer has in fact cited the verse in question in full, unlike Armstrong, and his criticism is clearly valid (but only to a certain extent: his overall conclusion is still inherently problematic).  Note to Sleetman: this is an example of acceptable form of criticism, though it is still better to use reliable 3rd party sources as per WP:RS for such information, rather than relying almost exclusively upon unreferenced, self-published materials from his blog.  What you have been inserting is far from that standard.


 * Other points that should be included are Spencer's founding of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), which was listed as an anti-Muslim hate group by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, not to mention his designation by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a professional "smearcaster" . I also believe that blogs criticize and satirize him deserve to be mentioned, but not quoted as a WP:RSmention.  That is not "coatracking, but actual facts, based in reaction to Spencer's own comments.  A prior discussion regarding the inclusion and mention of, SpencerWatch, and I would also add "Islamophobia Today" though without any mention or quotation of any material from those sites.  This determination is based upon the fact that as a professional blogger, his controversial stances have naturally engendered a certain reaction in the very same sphere, nothing more.  Of course, for the same reason I am against using self-published "rebuttals" from his blog, I am also against using any such sources for criticism in this article as well.


 * Finally, shouldn't the fairly recent American Library Association incident should be added to the controversies section? That's a controversy involving a major US professional organization. Also Spencer's criticism of Rep. Peter T. King, for not including him in the recent hearings on terrorism among American Muslims? In any case, thanks for blazing the trail, Jonathan, and I think that this article can be further enhanced but still fall within the WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines. Jemiljan (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Crane and Spencer's response
I removed assertions by Robert Crane that an editor re-added because they are sourced to a website, American Muslim, that appears to be essentially a content aggregator with no claim of rigorous editing or fact checking. As such, it is essentially self published under WP:BLPSPS, which says: "Such material may be used as a source only if...it does not involve claims about third parties". Similarly, self published counter-assertions by Spencer, attacking Crane's integrity, should not be included in our article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But the self-published counter-assertions by Spencer are allowed despite the self-published nature of the counter-assertions as the Consensus on Robert Spencer make clear. Perhaps you are referring to Spencer's attack on Crane that is at the source of contention here? Sleetman (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed material that involved 3rd parties and was sourced to Jihad Watch. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman: My understanding is that WP:BLPSPS says that we can source a statement "I don't like Islam" to Jihadwatch, but not the statement "Joe Botz is an idiot". See the "claims about third parties" statement above. Somedifferent: The material you removed was not personally about Armstrong; it was his response to Armstrong's ideas, therefore not banned by the rules. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note that it appears that at least some of Dr. Robert Crane's criticisms have in fact been formally published. Specifically, he notes on the TAM site that ::"'This is a pre-publication copy, with copyright in the name of the author, Robert D. Crane. Parts One and Three of this book are scheduled for publication separately by the International Institute of Islamic Thought as part of the Conference Proceedings of a panel, entitled “Countering Islamophobia: The Intellectual’s Response,” held at the IIIT’s offices in Herndon, Virginia, on October 17th, 2007. Part Two is scheduled for condensation and publication by the IIIT as Part Three of the book, Compassionate Justice: The Normative Approach to Human Rights, Robert D. Crane, 2008.  The final published version will include all of the notes and references.'"


 * I will need to check, but some of this may have been published in hereJemiljan (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Specner's response to critics against consensus developed over a year long period
Although I see some good changes is article flow and layout, I was disappointed to see return of Spencer's response to his critics. Originally, I removed his responses only after a year long consensus development with other editors and admins. You can check out the Archived Discussions for yourself. Now, someone has decided to not only archive (hide) the consensus, but added his response again without trying to gain a new consesus. Reasons for removing Spencer's responses have not changed: They are irrelevant to the biography and there is no precedent for this elsewhere in WP. Besides, this is a biographical article and not a debate. If you want to put his response back in, I simply ask that you try to develop consensus similarly to what I did; taking one year to develop the original consensus may seem slow, but it's an example of best intentions and allows us to minimize revert wars.1detour (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Detour. I think that Jonathan Wallace had honorable intentions, and his changes were made in response to Sleetman's expansion of the "responses to criticism" section.  You can see above that I have critiqued Jonathan's changes in detail, but I didn't make the changes, as Sleetman  kept edit warring, and I didn't want to encourage him any further.  He was subsequently blocked for his edit warring on other pages.  It may be opportune to overhaul to page again, though I was hoping that Jonathan would have responded by now.Jemiljan (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversial?
Why is endorsing the EDL controversial now? Is this verifiable that endorsing the EDL is controversial? I've not been a user of Wikipedia for a long time so please forgive me if I am wrong but I can see that it says on the page "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.".Anon12356 (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The EDL has engaged in violent confrontations in the UK. Former Spencer protegé Charles Johnson has the skinny, including a video of an attack by members on Asian families in a restaurant:  , as does English commentator and blogger Richard Bartholomew. .Jemiljan (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two bloggers = notability now? The whole EDL business is "controversial" because of the circular logic that governs these things - they are labelled as "fascists", at which point anyone defending them becomes an "apologist for fascism" and can be discounted so the label of "fascist" remains "proven". 213.121.242.7 (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's far more than two bloggers. Note the first link is to an article in [The Guardian]], and the second specifically cites the Union of Jewish Students. The EDL has been further criticized by other major Jewish groups in Britain, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Community Security Trust.Jemiljan (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading introduction
I scoured the source of the introductions' comically biased last sentence for a description of Spencer as 'influential in promoting anti-Islamic sentiments in the United States', and the closest thing I could find was: 'While the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment hasn't shifted much since a spate of homegrown terror attacks and the furor over the mosque, Muslim American leaders worry that it could. They accuse the bloggers of fueling religious hatred.' 'Muslim American leaders', whatever they are, are not The Washington Post, and it's pretty clear therefore that the purpose of that sentence is to promote anti-Spencer sentiments in the minds of the gullible - so I've removed it. You may not like what Spencer says/writes, but it's unfair to portray him as a hatemonger; I've read his stuff and he seems respectable enough. Logos384 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While your criticism of the wording in question may be appropriate, what seems "comically biased" to me is your characterization of Spencer as "respectable enough", simply because you have "read his stuff". You might like to look at the immediately previous discussion entry with the reference to the consensus on why he is not to be considered a reliable source.Jemiljan (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association?
In connection to the 2011 Norway attacks, there isn't anything to suggest that Spencer's raising of concern about Islamic doctrines and advocating they be subordinate to human rights would lead to violence any more than other democratic political advocacy. Al-Qaeda has approvingly spoken of Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk for example and this is not mentioned in those articles. Davidelah (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations made towards Robert Spencer come from notable people (journalist Max Blumenthal and former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman) and cited by what WP regards as a reliable reference, the New York Times. I added Spencer's response as well that he thinks he was unfairly blamed. I see no violation or OR here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your description of Spencer's blog as one that criticizes only Islamic doctrines, not Muslims (whether groups or individuals) is not only grossly inaccurate but also irrelevant. The fact is, notable people have made accusations towards Spencer and Spencer responded. This interaction needs to be documented in the article regardless of whether the accusation had basis or not, or whether Spencer's response was honest or not and regardless of your views of his blog as one that allegedly defends "human rights". I'm reinstating the removed material for now. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The main article of the Norwegian murderer states the following under Anders Behring Breivik (and it doesn't look like there has been objections to it):
 * Major parts of the manifesto are attributed to the anonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The introductory chapter of the manifesto is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. The New York Times described American influences in Brevik's writings, noting that he mentions the anti-Islamist American Robert Spencer 64 times in his manifesto and cites Spencer's works at great length. The work of Bat Ye'or is cited dozens of times in his manifesto.
 * Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are also notable people who have deconstructed those accusation in a very simple way as I have above. This is not a violation of OR but of BLP, which says that these kinds of accusations should editors be particularly aware of, as I think I have been here. The quote from the Anders Behring Breivik article does not make the conclusion that Spencer made him violent.
 * This article is already very much below BLP standard and have been even more in the past, so please respect the guidelines even though you may be critical of this person, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems rather premature to me. I'm not fan of Robert Spencer, and IMO people like him should take responsibility for what they write but this event is still hot and there wont be any meaningful and thorough analysis of these types of issues for some time.  I say delete the section.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sageman's comment was not really an accusation of links with the terrorist, rather it is pointing out what he sees as the hypocrisy of Spencer and similar minded bloggers that love to correlate things together with it comes to Islam and Muslims (like his allegations against Feisal Abdul Rauf). An accusation of hypocrisy needs to be listed under the criticism section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I vote that the Norway attacks section be moved to the "Controversies" section, with the present wording, which makes no conclusion as to whether Spencer "influenced" Breivik, but simply reports that he was quoted.Jemiljan (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a vote and we have determined that this is guilt by association and should not be added. Truthsort (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? You might like to review WP:CON?  Do you see consensus here?  I don't.  Whether it constitutes "Guilt by association" or not, the fact is, Beivik quoted Spencer frequently.  All I'm advocating is that this fact be reported, which reflects the current wording, nothing more.Jemiljan (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is already covered at Anders_Behring_Breivik. Do not go and start adding this here as it is guilt by association and violates WP:BLP. Truthsort (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I didn't add anything, I merely expressed an opinion. Secondly, there is no consensus on this, and the reporting of a fact alone does not in and of itself constitute an Asssociation fallacy. Were the wording to state more than it does, I think it would stray into that territory.  I have posted a notice on the [|WP:BLP Noticeboard], and note that consensus there hasn't been reached either.  This is based on both the recent noticeboard entries on Robert Spencer, as well as [|Breivik].  Jayjg mentions that he left the passage in this article, as Spencer has publicly responded and commented on it himself in detail and on several venues.  Opbeith notes that the "..."dissociative" hypothesis (the claim that mention represents "guilt by association") surely needs to be substantiated too, in a way that explains convincingly why Breivik's views should be assumed not to have been influenced by his immersion in this subculture."  Jemiljan (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are simply arguing this based on reliable sourcing. Yes, there are reliable sources and yes he was cited 64 times in his manifesto. However, Breivik was the one who cited these subjects in his manifesto. Thus, this is only notable about the man who wrote it, that being Breivik. Responding to these allegations does not make the case for inclusion any stronger. As I pointed out, this is already covered in his article. Truthsort (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First of all, I am not arguing this based on reliable sourcing alone, which I clearly explain above. Again, please note that Jayjg specially opposed mention of the incident in most articles, but left the one on this specific article for the reason she gave: that Spencer has been very public in addressing the incident in multiple forums. On the [|Breivik] noticeboard that I referred you to above, Cerejota has since replied that these inclusions should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and not treated as unilaterally in violation of WP:BLP. Spencers responses very much does make the case for inclusion stronger, for it is clearly more at hand than simply an Association fallacy.  As such, I do think that the wording should be expanded to include mention of Spencer's replies (which I note on the WP:BLP notice).  For this reason, I have now reverted your removal of the section for the second time, but would like to discuss pertinent wording to add regarding Spencer's responses.  Please address these specific points directly rather than reiterate your previous statement, and refrain from unilaterally reverting the section in question.Jemiljan (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding, here and elsewhere, which is reflected in the unwillingness to abandon the argument that reporting of analyses in reliable sources is equivalent to imputing guilt by association. The reliable sources are not sources for Breivik's inclusion of Spencer as among his significant influences (which it seems a little perverse to disregard, but let's leave that aside). The reliable sources - articles published variously by New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, Dagbladet and other Norwegian sources - refer to the general influence on Breivik of what is described as a "subculture", "scene", etc. of right-wing/far right-wing commentators promoting an anti-Islamic ideology/agenda.

This group includes in particular Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs and "Baron Bodissey"'s and "Dymphna"'s Gates of Vienna (host for "Fjordman"), along with Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs, David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine, Srdja/Serge Trifkovic's Chronicles, Gisele Littman's "The Brussels Journal" and a number of others, all cited in Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence".

The ideology is described as "anti-jihad" or "counter(-)jihad", positioning the arguments as a counter-balance to "jihad", which the coalition subscribing to the Counterjihad Manifesto interpret specifically as "holy war". "Baron Bodissey" of Gates of Vienna, author of the Manifesto, argues that the target of what they depict as their defence of the Christian West has to be Islam and all Muslims because of the difficulty of identifying a small core of threatening extremists who susbscribe to the more violent aspects of "jihad".

The group refer to themselves as a coalition, others describe them as a network. Their publications frequently reference one another's views (for example in Fjordman's "tour d'horizon" syntheses, quoted verbatim in "2083"). They call on one another for support, as when Srja Trifkovic was challenging the Canada government over its decision to refuse him admission earlier this year or currently when individual members such as Fjordman and Spencer have found themselves accused of being an influence on Breivik. They also have very intense internal disputes on issues of basic principle, as in the dispute provoked by the English Defence League's split over Jewish involvement (and even Charles Johnson's initial accusation that Fjordman was Breivik).

Whatever the group's specific differences of detail the reliable sources see this ideological grouping as having a significant influence, directly or indirectly, on the ideas of Anders Behring Breivik. They note the extensive quoting in "2083" that has led to the discussion here and at other locations in Wikipedia. Frank Patalong at Spiegel Online notes that Breivik's "copy and paste" inclusion of material by Fjordman in "2083" runs to hundreds of pages in the 1500 page compendium.

The repeated attempts to portray inclusion of these mentions of influence as imputing guilt by association simply disregard the evidence that has been provided that the group is seen as a significant influence on Breivik's anti-Islamic thinking. The assertions by various members of the group that they reject and deplore Breivik's actions have been given due weight - there is no question of them being held to be knowingly responsible for Breivik's murderous actions. The partisans arguing to exclude mention on grounds of "guilt by association" have not provided equivalent reliable sources to challenge the claim of respected analysts that the writings of Spencer and his "counterjihadi" colleagues are liable to have influenced Breivik's thinking. In the absence of adequate refutation, it's not unreasonable to suspect that a point of view is being defended that has the effect, intentional or otherwise, of suppressing Wikipedia content that could be interpreted as disfavourable to the subject. Opbeith (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article already has two sections that are kind of attack pages and on my opinion quite obviously so, they should probably just be deleted. In regard to the 2011 Norway attacks there is no link to Spencer or endorsements in his work to violence so the controversy should be covered by that perspective. And yes it is precisely (or could imply) guilt by association to mention that Breivik shared a perspective or something with someone unless those individuals advocate or carry out violence on a shared basis, and I would think that they not only does not advocate but condemn violence. This is maybe equivalent to Ted Kaczynski's critical views on technology and industrialization with influence and references from people in his manifesto. But of course the controversy in the media is big enough to be written about. Davidelah (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg said that including this is a BLP violation and that several others had agreed on this, making it consensus. We do not need reliable sourcing to prove that adding this is nothing but an attempt of guilt by association from other users. Yes, we understand that Breivik included Spencer, among others, in his manifesto, but it does not mean we should mention this in every BLP that was cited. This is Breivik's manifesto and should only be mentioned at Anders_Behring_Breivik. Truthsort (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to resort to censorship for what is simply statement of fact, and as others have noted, the biggest thing to happen in Robert Spencer's career. We're not laying blame on Spencer, we're stating facts about his being cited. You're silencing that and you're silencing Spencer's statement that was made for public consumption and moreover, pretending it's what Wikipedia users want. Ericbloodaxeviking (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Ericbloodaxeviking (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * the claim of respected analysts that the writings of Spencer and his "counterjihadi" colleagues are liable to have influenced Breivik's thinking. There is the problem, gobshites on TV and in print have at this point in time, no way of knowing one way or another. They do not know whether he was formulating his views from those sources, or justifying his insane world views in relation to those sources. Certainly all those sat in TV studios in the US will have had no contact with the police investigation, or the psychologists or psychiatrist that are examining him. All they are doing is surmising up and getting paid. John lilburne (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See also: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard


 * First in response to Opbeith, I would not include Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs in what you describe as a "network". Johnson publicly broke with the others a number of years ago, and he currently steadily criticizes Spencer, Geller, et al, as promoting disinformation, promoting bigotry, failing to mitigate or address extreme comments on their blogs, and for their associations with far-right groups in Europe.   For this, Spencer and Geller have view Johnson intense animosity. In reply to Davidelah: your characterization that two sections of this page constitute attack pages is incorrect. WP:BLP clearly allows for [|criticism and praise.] The wording of these sections was carefully revised by Jonathan Wallace in view of consensus, after the page was the subject of edit warring and vandalism. May I suggest that you review this in the most recent talk archives?  In reply to Truthsort, yes, Jayjg has stated she thinks this is a BLP violation, but she also seems, like you, reluctant to address my specific point, which is that Spencer has in fact responded in reliable, third-party sources. I was incorrect in my earlier post concerning the [|discussion under way at the WP:BLP noticeboard.] It was Off2riorob who states that he left this specific article alone. While he states he wants to remove it for potential coatracking, I would argue that if carefully worded, that it would not be the case. Once again I'll reiterate that I am advocating not simply mentioning Breivik's quotation, but also including Spencer's response as well. You have yet to demonstrate that this format I am suggesting, which would be a concise and carefully worded addition, constitutes a BLP violation.  In reply to Ericbloodaxeviking, I am finding your unilateral edits, and those of other users problematic. The addition of this incident to the page should be the result of consensus. I agree that a mention of the fact combined with Spencer's response is in order. That said, it must be brief, rely on reliable, third party sources, and as i stated earlier, I would advocate that it be included in the "controversies" section. It doesn't warrant a separate section.  Finally, in reply to John lilburne, I would like to reiterate that the point is not to include solely a mention of Breivik's quotations, but also Spencer's response.  I do think that you make some valid points regarding some of the commentary, but I also don't see why a very succinct mention of the incident, together with Breivik's response constitutes a violation of WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That someone comments on a news frenzy is neither here nor there. Article sections the nature of which is essentially X accuses Y of Z, and Y says X is talking balls, is IMO bordering on tendentious, at the very least it is adding to a false controversy. John lilburne (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed elsewhere, should Spencer explicitly and unambiguously respond to Breivik's manifesto, there is a small possibility this could be added. If not, then it cannot go here at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To John lilburne, I respectfully disagree; you have not shown how the precise, limited wording I have advocated can be constituted as "tenditious", "false", much less demonstrate that it is an Association fallacy that specifically violates of any WP:BLP policies. Note that I am not advocating that each and every article about someone Breivik quoted must mention him, but this specific case is different, for fact that this wasn't a case of passing mention, but extensive quoting, to which the person quoted didn't merely provide a short rebuttal, but several published articles and interviews in reliable sources. In reply to Qwyrxian, what you mention to is precisely what I am referring to! Spencer has in fact "explicitly and unambiguously" responded to the incident, and has now done so 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. As an aside, I might add add this article published in the NY Times today that examines- and essentially defends- Spencer & Co. from the Association fallacy being promoted, though I would concede that it may be more appropriate to include it in the article about Breivik himself. Finally, I am no rush to amend and add this section in, as there has been considerable debate about it.  That said, I do think that it does constitute an incident that is appropriate to add to the 'controversies' section, but only with the careful, concise wording, and inclusion of Spencer's replies, which I have advocated all along Jemiljan (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. In that case, adding may be acceptable; it depends on what can be distilled from those sources.  I recommend no more than 2 sentences: one which states the inclusion of Spencer in Breivik's manifesto, and a second which summarizes his response.  I can't watch the videos right now at work, so I'll have to trust others to come up with that summary.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Qwyrxian, and I agree that precise and concise wordingis paramount and also your recommendation that it currently consist of just two sentences. Of course, depending on how this plays out, that may change in time. I would like to ask that you add your observation in response to my comment highlighting this specific point on the |discussion under way at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Despite my several attempts to have this specific issue addressed, this aspect of the discussion has not been thoroughly discussed on that noticeboard, and the resulting "consensus" does not reflect it at all. Otherwise for now, I would like to concentrate on developing a suggested wording that everyone can agree on. I would like the first sentence to be comprised of the short statement that was reverted several times: "In a manifesto which denounced multiculturalism and declared Islam to be a threat to the West, Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the July 22, 2011, massacre of 77 people in Norway, quoted Spencer 64 times. ".  The second sentence should simply be comprised of a reference summarizing Spencer's reaction, or to a select statement of Spencer's, supported by the references I have provided above.Jemiljan (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit to not yet having read Spencer's responses, but the impression I get is that he was not so much commenting on Breivik as on the articles linking Breivik to him. If this is the case, I think the initial sentence would benefit by prefixing something like "[Several (or non-weasel word of choice)] [commentators/media sources/analysts] have pointed out that...". This would explain why it's being included in the controversies section and why Spencer was responding.
 * Or – as I re-read the above, it occurred to me that it might be better to leave the first sentence as is, and open the second sentence with "In response to media reports of Breivik's manifesto, Spencer responded...". But either way, I think the coverage should be mentioned. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions. Spencer did address both Breivik and the media coverage.  Perhaps the first sentence could introduce the incident and the ensuing media coverage, followed by one comprised of a summarized reaction by Spencer, and then one quote about Brievik?Jemiljan (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll simply reiterate once again that consensus is completely against including. There are a countless number of users who have pointed out that this a BLP violation. Not surprising, when some in the media want to throw out accusations, the person receiving them is going to respond. It is comical to think this makes it more notable to that person. You are using the responses in an attempt to make it appear neutral, but the mere inclusion of how he was cited in his manifesto violates BLP. It does not matter if it is one sentence or one paragraph. Truthsort (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and I'll reiterate that my point hasn't been adequately addressed in the relevant WP:BLP thread. Also note Qwyrxian above is one of the people you are counting as supporting this so-called consensus.  Yes, I would agree that it is a BLP violation when the article simply inserts mention of Breivik having quoted them.  It is not at all so in cases such as this one where the person has published about it and given four separate public interviews that both address the quotations in question, as well as the media frenzy.  You bear the burden of proof that when the suggested wording, which is brief and neutral is still somehow is in violation of the WP:BLP policies.  Simply stating that "consensus says so", when the consensus in question fails to address my point about the extent of the person's public responses to the matter is circular reasoning at best.Jemiljan (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I addressed your point above on why the media frenzy and doing some interviews do not make this an exception to what several users have already agreed on. I cannot help it if you refuse to hear consensus. You have brought absolutely nothing new to the discussion and at this point it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion with you. Truthsort (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthsort, I see your point but would it not be logical to cover the controversy of the media since this has been addressed by Spencer in many major news channels, radio shows and on his blog and is probably this biggest controversy of his carrier. Note I'm talking about the media controversy and not about the 2011 Norway attacks, which is as you point out is guilt by association, so if the story had a head line it would read "Media controversy in relation to the 2011 Norway attacks." - Davidelah (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The media frenzy is today. In a year who is going to recall or care? Yet here will be a permanent record attached to the BLP of a media feeding frenzy. The problem being that BLPs become not about the subject but a list of media stories that are incidental to the subject of the BLP. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wonder if Spencer himself will ever forget this episode. As far as a "BLP record of the feeding frenzy" is concerned, it's one that the subject of the BLP has clearly engaged in himself, at length, and on several occasions.  As to whether the BLP is likely to become a "list of media stories", do I hear a Slippery slope?  David, I do like your headline idea, though I didn't think it warranted a separate section, but was simply thinking of adding it to the controversy list.Jemiljan (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A passage that is quite similar to what I've proposed in both brevity and neutral tone is found in the entry on Sarah Palin, in which mention is made of the Gabrielle Giffords [|shooting and Palin's subsequent denunciation]. The entry on Jodie Foster contains a similar passage referring to [|John F. Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan]. 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, when similar passages are found in other WP:BLP articles.Jemiljan (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly biased account - should be rewritten
This article clearly criticises the man and his views at every step and attempts to show evidence as to why this criticism should be upheld. That is not the point of a Wikipedia article and thus the whole article should be rewritten by someone who knows how to write without bias (even if he is personally biased). Shushanto (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply above to Davidelah.  WP:BLP clearly allows for | criticism and praise, and the current structure reflects that, and hardly constitutes criticism "...at every step."  The criticism section of the article was carefully restructured after extensive edit warring and vandalism.  Please refer to the talk archives concerning the last edits to the criticism section. Jonathan Wallace expended considerable effort revamping the section, in view said consensus.  The recent edits concerning Breivik have disrupted this a little, but you should at least apprise yourself of the most recent round of careful edits before the incident before making sweeping generalizations. Jemiljan (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That BLP allows for criticism does not mean that the article is not biased, this would be a violation of BLP because is gives UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. I would suggest we include more debates or criticism with some arguments juxtaposed with other arguments, since Spencer's work consist of much debate and public engagement. In any case his critics are overrepresented here and they don't serve much purpose other than to show they think Spencer is a bigot and they don't really address his position on Islam in my opinion, or with a false premise that Spencer has denied which is not included. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Davidelah, I must apologize, for it does appear that someone has reduced some of the "supporters" who were in the article before after the last round of edits. I'm sorry, that I hadn't picked up on it, but you are right.  I also think that choices of which compliments and criticisms to include deserves to be reevaluated. Before, there was a long list replete with quotes in both sections, which was edited down by Jonathan Wallace.  I believe that when he finished, it still included figures like Daniel Pipes,  Stephen Emerson, and James Woolsey.  That specific round of edits was triggered by a series of edits by someone, now banned, who engaged in edit warring and kept inserting Spencer's responses to each critic, referring to self- published materials on JihadWatch  That was also unwarranted, as it relied heavily on self published materials and also lent undue weight in the other direction   In any case, I would still advise that you review the previous discussions on this matter, as consensus was built about the nature of these sections.   At the same time, I would also add these sections lack nuance.  Support and/or criticism of Spencer is hardly black and white, and the rather Manichean hyperbole to that effect overlooks a great deal.  For example, the mentioned debate between Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, or this debate between Spencer and Professor Peter Kreeft, might be construed as "supportive" of Spencer, because they concede several points, even though if you scrutinize the debate, it's very apparent that these individuals, although more ideologically aligned (especially in Kreeft's case) have very different views.  Similarly, criticism by writers such as Cathy Young at Reason Magazine (which was also removed), or Dinesh D'Souza is also more nuanced than the article currently indicates.   As an example, Young in one more recent article notes that "Islamic extremism is indeed a serious global problem today, to a degree unmatched by the radical fringes of other major religions..." but also continues to state that because of polemics by people like Spencer,  "...Islamophobia has crossed the line from fringe rhetorical hysteria to active discrimination against U.S. citizens of the Islamic faith."  In her most recent article discussing he hoopla over Breivik, she notes that "The "uncomfortable truth" is that the anti-Islam polemicists have some legitimate points...", but then adds that "Whether the vitriolic rhetoric of Spencer, Geller, and their ilk helped create a monster is up for debate. What's clear is that it demonizes an entire group on the basis of religion—and discredits serious critiques of radical Islam. To oppose this bigotry is not "political correctness" but common sense."  Then there are the Islamic scholars, some of whom are Muslim, and others who are not. Some are more critical of Islam, and others are less so. For example, I referred you to specific positions of Bernard Lewis above, which also conflicts with Spencer in several respects (esp. regarding the "legitimacy" of suicide bombing, female genital mutilation, and honor killings). Nevertheless, any revisions should also take into account prior consensus.  Your desire to see Spencer considered a WP:RS is another matter entirely, and so any changes should be scrupulous.  I will reply to that issue later.Jemiljan (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some good suggestions, although Jihadwatch can be used as a source according to BLP under "Using the subject as a self-published source" I would say. I would also dispute that Spencer holds those views (about suicide bombing, female genital mutilation, and honor killings) but that's for the other discussion. - Davidelah (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * David, I agree, but the use of self-published materials on JihadWatch must stringently meet those points, especially points 1-3, which far too often in the past, I have seen ignored.Jemiljan (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobe
We have reliable sources calling Robert Spencer and islamophobe. Yet it is instantly removed from the article on spurious grounds. // Liftarn (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps inserting a statement saying that certain sources have called Spencer an islamophobe, not in the lede, would be preferable to out-and-out calling him one in the first sentence. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding to the existing statements in the article about hate speech and founding a hate group, I guess.


 * Just to insert a little "Truth in Talkpaging" here, neither of the sources in the first post were used in the content removed on purportedly "spurious grounds". The only reference provided was http://www.fria.nu/artikel/89268, a Swedish-language opinion piece in a sister publication of Stockholms Fria Tidning. What did the cited article, not exactly a reliable source in any case, say about Spencer? It's hard to tell, since a browser "find" couldn't locate his name in either the original Swedish version or the English translation.


 * So now we have two more possible sources. One is a brief article in Aftonbladet, a Swedish tabloid of questionable reliability. The other is another op-ed piece, but this time in The Washington Post. Ignoring for the moment whether op-eds can be used in blps, at least this piece mentions Spencer. It also uses the word Islamophobe. The only problem is, it doesn't use them together; any claim that he is an Islamophobe based on that article would be synthesis and/or original research. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first source says "med hjälp av den amerikanske islamofoben Robert Spencer" ("with help of the american islamophobe"). There is no qualifications, but if you want quotes there is one saying "Robert Spencer tillhör en grupp debattörer som har väldigt starka rasistiska åsikter." ("Robert Spencer belongs to a group of debaters who have very strong racist views."). So we have a reliable source for it. As for the other article it says that Spencer "promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam" and also compares it with antisemitism (how many would say that Hitler was only "critical of Judaism"?). // Liftarn (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find any number of RS cites stating that any number of people are very nasty in one way or another. The existence of such accusations does not warrant their inclusion as fact in the ledes of the associated article.  I believe that reference to accusations of Islamaphobia are appropriate to this article, but stating such accusations as fact in the first sentence is not appropriate.  I would support the inclusion of a section titled "Accusations of Islamaphbia" or something similar.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @User:Liftarn - I'd certainly agree that if anyone can be called an Islamophobe, Spencer should be. That said, it would be inappropriate to put it in the lead b/c it is such a loaded and potentially controversial term. As to your RSs, one is an Op/Ed, one is not a mainstream English language source. Neither of those really meet the mark in terms of what would be needed to include this word. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)::::
 * Nick, I agree, but I don't see why the "see also: Islamophobia: tag should be categorically removed. There were several RS sources referenced in the criticism section prior to the overhaul earlier this year.  Perhaps this should be added back in?Jemiljan (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

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 Sheila Musaji 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.
 * 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 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 |commentary 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 began in 2003 appears repeatedly in subsequent years after that. http://books.google.com/books?id=_7RD2jwMU2wC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76     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)

Controversies: English Defence League
Robert Spencer has strongly modified his support of EDL claiming neo-fascist developments within the organisation. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/change-for-the-worse-at-the-edl.html.

Steflars2011 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Has he? The update at the top links to a statement by EDL chief Tommy Robinson, which Spencer states he is "...pleased to see..."  Do you have anything more recent?Jemiljan (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We should add the rest of the sentence quoted by you where Robert Spencer writes that he "will continue to monitor the situation closely." I cannot in this see a recall of his modification of his EDL support, I see it as depending on developments. And that is the situation as of now, to the best of my knowledge. Steflars2011 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So? What I also can't see is any indication that Spencer admits the root of the split has more to do with Geller and Spencer's friend Roberta Moore's attempts to forge a "partnership" between the "Jewish arm" of the EDL and the Jewish Task Force, a US-based outfit founded by Kahanist extremist and convicted terrorist Victor Vancier a.k.a. "Chaim ben Pesach". Nor is there any comment on Moore's own provocations at any point before that. It would seem that this move by Moore was just a tad too provocative for even the EDL. Also, is Spencer only worried about neo-Nazis rather than extremists in general, which neo-Kahanist groups undeniably are? I can only surmise from his silence on the matter that it must be the case.Jemiljan (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is seen as a controversy in the article that Robert Spencer "endorsed the English Defence League (EDL)", followed by descriptions of how the EDL are viewed by some organisations. He has since then distanced himself, in support of Pamela Geller and ultimately Roberta Moore.  Now, we can all have our opinions of Kahanism,  Jewish Task Force and Victor Vancier - who has been banned from entering Israel, and the Kahanist party there outlawed - but the fact remains that either Mr Spencer endorses the EDL as is said in the article or he does not. Developments have changed what is stated in the article, and in all fairness this should be recognized and the Wiki statement therefore either be brought into conformity with objective facts or removed.   Steflars2011 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. While Spencer may have clearly questioned specific activities as per the EDL, but he has in no way done so with regard to Roberta Moore and her positions. Simply removing the reference to the EDL is not in support of objectivity, it's obfuscation of Spencer's positions, specifically, why he thinks Roberta Moore is so commendable, and why he, along with Geller, support her activities in the EDL.Jemiljan (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Robert Spencer has withdrawn his support from EDL, along with Pamela Geller. You do not want to change the article, you do not want it removed. What do you think would be reasonable for the article to say, considering that events have overtaken it? Roberta Moore is not the EDL, she no longer has a leadership function nor is she a policymaker.  As you point out yourself he questions EDL and not Roberta Moore ...who is no longer a part of it.   Steflars2011 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Steflars, you just want to remove the association simply because after supporting it for years, Spencer claims to disavow it. First off can you provide some verifiable proof, for example, something dated recently that demonstrates that Spencer's support has been withdrawn? Has Spencer had anything to say about the new head of the Jewish Division, Mr. James Cohen?  From where I sit, I only see Spencer's previous statement that bears certain caveats that leads me to wonder how assured this withdrawal of his support really is.  Also has the demands by the EDL that Spencer and Geller produce tangible evidence to support their assertions been effectively answered?   Secondly, Moore may have been the former leader leader of a well-publicized faction, but it was also quite clearly during her tenure that the EDL aligned itself with the JTF. While Spencer later deplored what he said he had heard about the EDL via Geller, he has never once questioned Moore's open association with the JTF. If you want to revise the section on the EDL, then a concise nature of the rationale- as well as his declared support for Moore despite her own controversial neo-Kahanist views- should also be mentioned, should it not?Jemiljan (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2011(UTC)
 * Robert Spencer no longer endorses the EDL, he has withdrawn his support of the EDL. He has clearly expressed this, there have been no changes and why you are asking for further proof I don't quite follow. We can speculate and guess as to his real reasons - other than those given by himself - and you can doubt the earnestness of how much distance he has put between himself and the EDL and their basic ideas and aims. And the EDL leadership can and have put up a defense and explanations and as you pointed out yourself he has replied to some of it. But this does not change that he has withdrawn his public support and that the present Wikipedia article does not reflect the facts as they stand at present. I really cannot write it any clearer than this. You can connect him to Moorer/JTF etc etc as much as you like, but this now belongs to a separate entry: the article as it stands now is antiquated/superseded/overtaken by events and developments, and corrections need be undertaken. By the way: the entry refers to a Jihadwatch blog of march 2010, and from then until now - or until Spencer withdrew his support of EDL - is hardly after "supporting it for years". The EDL as a matter of fact only goes back to 2009. If you indeed have more on this I think it would be most proper to employ the oldest available date for a Spencer EDL endersement in the interest of accurate information, and not one picked arbitrarily. Steflars2011 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Steflars, did Spencer not say the following in that supposed pulling of his endorsement?:"...I am not withdrawing my support for the EDL, but I continue to be deeply concerned and will be watching how events unfold." We've been over this before, I really cannot make this point any clearer than this. Since publishing this statement, I have seen nothing since to indicate that Spencer has unequivocally withdrawn his support.  All that I have seen are criticisms peppered with caveats like this, not an unequivocal withdrawal.  Also note the date of this link is after the previous ones referred to, so I think it's pretty safe to say that my lingering reservations about your assertions are fully warranted.  If you have something unequivocal to the contrary, I'd be happy to consider it. ...and your point about the period of time is well taken, though support of the organization by Spencer dates shortly after being founded, and I also note that in English, even just two years still qualifies for plural usage.[[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan] (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Jemiljan, you rightly point out that the withdrawal of the endorsement has been withdrawn. We could have avoided all this back and forth if you had come up with this blog entry long ago, naughty you ;-) Also a few days later came this: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/groundswell-of-support-for-geller-and-spencer-on-edl.html.   That I now read in a whole new light ....I had been wondering about that one, also a much later Jihadwatch entry on a MAC/EDL clash made no mention of all this. I  somehow overlooked the entry of July 1, I cave in and cry "Mea Culpa". Don't I look a sad fool? But this is why we have a discussion page: to correct what others overlook. What all this HAS lead to is that Moore and JTF are out of it, while Geller/Spencer in the end managed to stay in. Was it all political manoeuvring because Geller was following Moore's lead too quickly, and Spencer being loyal to Geller? Anyway,  the first crack has been made and it can be widened later with all the caveats still in place. Re "years" ....well, from March one year (the endorsement blog entry) to late June the next year. If I heard that someone had worked on something "for years" I would expect it to have lasted a bit longer than 15 months or so. But it is a minor matter.  Steflars2011 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, thanks for that excellent link, Steflars, for once again I read Spencer clearly stating "We have no intention of breaking with the EDL if they purge these antisemitic elements." Now, you wouldn't happen to have anything more recent than that to support your stated contention that "Robert Spencer no longer endorses the EDL, he has withdrawn his support of the EDL," now would you? As I said before, if you do, I'd be happy to consider it, if you should happen to have some shred of evidence to that effect...  As for my use of the term "years", mea culpa...Jemiljan (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to rub it in, I hope? My first entry DOES read "Robert Spencer has strongly modified his support", and this he sort of has done - if far less strongly than first suggested - by all the caveats put in place be they peppered or not. No, the last sentence written by you in bold is the one I had read in the future tense: I see now there is no reason for that and this is why I linked to the blog entry.  Anyway, I consider this cleared up and the matter closed. Lastly: I hope you do not consider me as someone trying to defend Robert Spencer at all cost. Bending quotations ...trying to put you down ...only bringing forward what is supportive to me. If so I must sadly disappoint you. I'm glad this was corrected and cleared up for me. I try to enter discussions and edits without hostile or overly friendly intent: I find it necessary and deeply interesting to combat both. In an ideal world only those completely neutral should write Wiki entries. Steflars2011 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wording of the passage should be modified, to reflect Spencer's own modification and criteria for his continued support, as well as his condemnation of anti-Semitism.. Shall we discuss the specific phrasing? Several of the links we've discussed provide useful references, though I would prefer to see fewer self-published examples, or blog content.Jemiljan (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011
Under the heading "Background," first paragraph, it reads "his grandparents were forced to immigrate from an area . . .." The word "immigrate" should be changed to "emigrate." One immigrates to a new country, and emigrates from a prior country.

Igor4458 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)