Talk:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)/Archive 1

untitled comments
I'm sticking citation and npov tags on this article. As it stands it contains only positive views by conservatives or people who are at least in part anti-Islam, none of which have citations anyway. Theres no attempt at balance or anything close to it, and no criticism of the book and its topic (and theres bound to be some). Basically, it needs some serious work. Id have the whole thing binned, but thats just my POV and therefore not important. Durnar 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I've stuck an NPOV tag on the article. There is no meat except for a short quote from the author and selection of unsourced and uniformly positive excerpts of opinions on the book. Even serious conservatives find this book useless ("Spencer’s book has one and only one effect. It doesn’t illuminate. It doesn’t explain. But it does enthusiastically endorse the interpretation of Islam offered by al-Qaeda. Robert Spencer is a one-man recruiting machine for Radical Political Islam." ). --Stephan Schulz 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Video evaporated
I removed the following link and the (now empty) "Video" section per WP:EL ... "Robert Spencer Interview on FOX news about the book" ... it appears to have evaporated (404 error) ... if anyone can find another posting of it, feel free to restore with the new URL ... and please use a cite web template this time. --72.75.85.159 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Book has spent 15 weeks on the NYT best seller list
No need to state " According the publisher" For the skeptics here are the links to all 15 weeks. You will need an account with NYT to access the list, but its free to sign up. week 15 week 14 week 13 week 12 week 11 week 10 week 9 week 8 week 7 week 6 week 5 week 4 week 3 week 2 week 1 --CltFn 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's nearly always in the "also selling" section, not on the list proper. At least the NY Times itself does not seemt to count this section, as you can see from the few entries where the book is actually in the top 15 (e.g. week seven). I'm not American - does anybody know how this is counted popularly? --Stephan Schulz 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Feed the Troll ... the highest the book made it on the list in its 15 weeks was to #15, and that was for only one week ... the single citation in this article is sufficient for the claim that "it was on the list" ... posting all of these links on this talk page is just trollish behaviour, and you just took the bait by examining all of them.


 * BTW, none of those NYT links can be used as references because of WP:EL, but this editor frequently uses them in WP:AFD discussions when attempting to establish WP:N for books and authors because it's often the closest thing to a WP:V WP:RS that can be found for the subject of the article. --72.75.126.37 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag
Hi CltFn! You tagged
 * The book has been mostly ignored by mainstream and academic reviewers. However, it has received praise from some conservative and right-wing sources. [citation needed]

Do you think the whole needs support, or just the second sentence? The second one is easy to do (see e.g. the NRO quote just below, and more examples can be easily found). The first sentence is a negative, and I wrote it after failing to find any serious (i.e. major newspaper or academic) review of this book. --Stephan Schulz 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The statements makes an interesting point but they should propbably be sourced. Here is one academic reviews from Professor Bostom--CltFn 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but while that is a review by an academic, it's not an academic review. Bostrom is an M.D., i.e. his qualification is irrelevant for discussing a work about history and religion. It is an example for a conservative and right-wing source, though. Arguably, this is not a review at all, but a disguised opinion piece, as the book is only mentiond fairly late and cursory, but that's a different topic.--Stephan Schulz 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, I would argue that Andrew Bostom is a notable and qualified source , being that is the author of The Legacy of Jihad - Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims , is nationaly recognized as an expert on the topic , is often called to speak in think tanks in the subject and is often featured in the national news media.--CltFn 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He may be notable, but that does not make him an academic source. I couldn't find any useful reference to the book on scholar.google.com. Invitations to conservative "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation also does not make him an expert. --Stephan Schulz 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then not on the purelly academic credential but in term of notability then as an author on the subject and a recognized expert. If you were to google to some of his articles, you would also see that they are written in a very academic style , fully cited and replete with references to primary sources. In any case your original point is well made in that there are not a great deal of academic reviews on the book --CltFn 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Karen Armstrong is not a reliable source, so her rants is not worthy of inclusion
This revert by User:Karl Meier is totally out of line.

What is a reliable source?
Apart her bibliography on the field of religious studies, Armstrong has been described by Salon.com as "arguably the most lucid, wide-ranging and consistently interesting religion writer today." The Economist described her bio of Muhammad as "respectful without being reverential, knowledgeable without being pedantic, and, above all, readable." Financial Times, one of the 2006 Top 100 Daily Newspapers in the U.S. by Circulation, has just published in its "Arts & Weekend" this weekend an article of her. Armstrong writes for The Guardian as well. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  10:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a list of a few of Armstrong's scholarly works:


 * The Holiness of Jerusalem: Asset or Burden?, Karen Armstrong, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3. (Spring, 1998), pp. 5-19.


 * Women, Tourism, Politics,Karen Armstrong, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3. (Jul., 1977), pp. 135-145.


 * Ambiguity and Remembrance: Individual and Collective Memory in Finland, Karen Armstrong, American Ethnologist, 	 	Vol. 27, No. 3 	(Aug., 2000), pp. 591-608


 * And notably, Encyclopedia of Religon, Muhammad article is written by Armstrong. Encyclopedia of Religion is a famous academic Encyclopedia.. The publisher says:"The first edition of this work was published to considerable acclaim in 1987. For this revising, all 2,750 entries were reviewed. While a few were eliminated, the remainder were put in one of two categories: retained with few changes (1,800) or significantly revised, either by the original or by a new author. These are identifiable by the date at the end of the article. There are 600 new topics in this edition on healing and medicine with an overview and separate articles from Africa to Australia."--Aminz 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the reason given is bogus, but the revert is indeed correct. A published review in the FT is indeed notable enough to be listed here. Reliability of Armstrong does not really come into it anyways, as this section is about opinions, and there is no reasonable doubt that this is her opinion (i.e. the FT is a reliable source on this topic). But in this case, Armstrong's article, and the sentence quoted, are about "The Truth about Muhammad", Spencers "new work", not about TPIGTIATC, which is only mentioned to introduce Spencer. --Stephan Schulz 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you add one "I think" to your statements, it would become reasonable. --Aminz 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but while one might argue the suitability of the source in principle, the reference to the Muhammad bio does not allow for an "I think", it simply is a matter of fact. Here is the quote in context: This entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer’s misnamed biography The Truth about Muhammad, subtitled Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion. Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life.  The FT article is discussing four recent books on the topic (all listed at the end of the article), and this sentence clearly refers to Spencer's feeble attempt. --Stephan Schulz 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Armstrong says: "Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life."
 * Isn't this book the one Armstrong is talking about? --Aminz 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. By the time the review was written, TPIG was his old bestseller, and the Muhammad biography was his "new work". See how she refers to "the complexities of Muhammad's life", a core topic of a bio, but not TPIG. Also see the list of the books discussed at the end of Armstrong's article. --Stephan Schulz 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. I'll add this review to Muhammad bio article. --Aminz 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It'll be much more suitable there. --Stephan Schulz 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThePoliticallyIncorrectGuideToIslam.jpg
Image:ThePoliticallyIncorrectGuideToIslam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThePoliticallyIncorrectGuideToIslam.jpg
Image:ThePoliticallyIncorrectGuideToIslam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)