Talk:The Arab Mind

NPOV
Please see this page for a less biased review: http://www.meforum.org/636/the-arab-mind-revisited

214.27.58.113 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) nuetral

User:Kitrus's edits
Kitrus, can you explain why you are replacing properly sourced criticism with unsourced claims such as "The book is widely dismissed as being essentialist, reductionist, and unscientific"? This, of course, violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe article verifies this repeatedly. Read it.--Kitrus 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read it, and it does not say that. In fact, it uses none of those words. Please quote the sentences in question that you think do say that. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much criticism, too few other content
This article needs some information about actual content of the book, criticism is fine but article is primary is about "what the book is about" not "why the book is bad". So sections other than criticism should be gradually expanded so we should place stab article notice box in the article to encourage people to add more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I added an NPOV tag because this article is too heavily slanted towards criticism and the criticism is entirely negative (and extremely negative, at that). If you believe the criticism section, this book is universally and very strongly reviled. In reality, this is hardly the case, e.g. the New Yorker review was positive, and a casual Google search reveals plenty of both positive and negative viewpoints. A properly non-biased criticism section should reflect this, rather than painting a totally one-sided viewpoint. Benwing (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hatchet Job?
I got here via a chain of links expecting a short praesis of this book. Instead, this appears to be nothing more than a hatchet job with a heavy "left wing" political bias. Being told that The Guardian says the book's only use is as a doorstop tells me nothing of use about the book, the constant references to "neocons" are revealing. I am neither left nor right wing, I am a libertarian of some kind. I am thus not predisposed to either side; but there do seem to be many wiki articles biased towards a very American-centric "liberal" position and this is one of them it seems.

I do not wish to read a hagiography of this book either. The article should just describe it in as neutral as possible terms. As it stands, this is a useless article.82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If a book attracts controversy then this can be for both positive or negative reasons or both. Neutral balance is when a book has both significant independent positive and negative criticism. If a book has attracted solely positive criticism then the scales fall one way and the inevitable complaint is 'This article is not balanced and is no more than a free advertisement !'. If a book attracts solely negative criticsm then the scales fall the other way and the inevitable complaint is 'This article is not balanced and is a hatchet job !'. The answer to both type of complainants is the same: advise us of significant independent criticism to the other view to neutralise the scales otherwise withdraw your complaint as evidentially baseless. 213.123.135.235 (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater
It is certainly true that Patai's book on an ethnicity that he no doubt (if unconsciously) considered as hostile to his own (with some historical justification) is not without bias and misunderstanding. Does this make it valueless and 100% false? Of course not. Does it need to be approached with caution, compared to other sources, and read with a full awareness of critics' objections? Naturally, as does any other work of scholarship. Should a balanced and nuanced account of the controversy be presented in the article? Absolutely, without question! But let us also remember with respect the valuable contributions to knowledge he has made in the past. Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Arab Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060223075626/http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/05/30/misreading_the_arab_mind?mode=PF to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/05/30/misreading_the_arab_mind?mode=PF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arab Mind and the military
The description that Hersh's source claims "to the effect" that the book is "the source of the idea held by the US military officials responsible for the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib" is modified by the actual article by Hersh, which is not linked to.

There, Hersh writes:

"The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind”..."

So 2 points: o According to Hersh, it is one book -- among others -- that points to Arab vulnerability to sexual humiliation o Hersh does not connect the book to Abu Ghraib, but rather to Washington conservatives

Hersh's article is here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/24/the-gray-zone Are there objections to revising the article to reflect this?

UClaudius (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)