Talk:Daniel Pipes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

(Financial) links to Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom

After adding

Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors of Geert Wilders's Dutch political Party for Freedom.

to this page and being reverted - and block threatened - by Jayjg for it - I was engaged in a fruitless discussion on how to add that info to this page on my Talk page. As I felt no consensus could be reached there, I now move this discussion here, where it might reach a wider editor audience and maybe here there can be reached a consensus on how to include the links between Pipes, Wilders and the Party for Freedom. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved conversation (From User talk:Honorsteem)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Daniel Pipes‎. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a straight from a quote from Pipes, so I dont get your poor reference-objection and I re-added it. I'm sorry it is in Dutch, but Google translate might help you. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See also http://www.danielpipes.org/7888/stand-with-geert-wilders

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Daniel Pipes. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time bringing this under my intention. Could you maybe expand on why you think it might be libel and why the source is not okay? Also, no need to threat with blocking, lets keep it polite, shall we? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you carefully read WP:BLP? Which phrase in this article do you believe supports the claim you made regarding Pipes? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Pipes, die gekant is tegen een Palestijnse staat en actievoert voor een militaire aanval op Iran, zegt dat hij het afgelopen jaar een „een bedrag van zes cijfers’’ heeft opgehaald voor Wilders in de VS." -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But the claim you attributed to that source was "Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors of Geert Wilders's Dutch political Party for Freedom". The source says nothing like that; it just claims that "six figures" (i.e. at least $100,000) was raised for Wilders in the United States. Pipes himself (in the link you brought) says the Middle East Forum's Legal Project raised funds for Wilder's legal defense - again, nothing whatsoever like your claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on Jayjg, cut me some slack. "Nothing whatsoever"? The money was raised for foundation "friends of Gert Wilders", only one of the things it does is pay Wilders' defense. In my world, +100.000 dollar for a foreign political figure (Gert Wilders IS the Party for Freedom) is encyclopedic. We just need to see what would be the best way to phrase it, or do you see that differently? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that "Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors". The source says nothing like that. You wrote that the donors were supporting his Party for Freedom. The source says nothing like that. Where does the source say Pipes is behind the private donors, and where does it say it's for Wilders' political party? It says nothing of the sort! Let's be clear: the Party for Freedom is somewhat controversial, so where are the multiple reliable sources backing this up? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, although I really believe you are being overly strict. Pipes clearly supported Geert Wilders, his Middle East Forum Legal Project gathered money for the the "Geert Wilders defense fund", which in Dutch is plainly called "Friends of Geert Wilders" and for example Sam van Rooy, a former employee of the PVV was a regular translator for Pipes' Dutch website. So there is a clear link. Also, NRC quoted Pipes, confirming he gathered donations. So, text proposal:

"Pipes, ao. through his Middle East Forum, fundraised for Geert Wilders during his trial".

Honorsteem, the article is not a reliable source. For example, it claims that Daniel Pipes had an annual income of 235,000 over 2008 while the second document at the bottom clearly reveals that this is the organizational income of the Middle East Forum over the said period. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is what we call Original Research. NRC Handelsblad is a reliable source. If they make a mistake, in Wikipedia we write "NRC Handelsblad wrote that Pipes earned $ 235.000". But for those figures I'm sure there better reliable sources. And, anyway, that is not the fact being discussed in this thread, but thank you.

The article engages in original research when it makes claims that are not supported in the included source. You engaged in original research when you introduced statements into our Daniel Pipes entry that are not supported by the source. I read the article from a to z and concluded that it is not a reliable source as it engages in original research. Mind you, I did not write this in any article. Also I did not make any claims about the journalists, editors, or newspaper. You claim that utterly confused information can be included in a biography of a living person, however Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and its editors have ethical obligations as detailed in our policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, do try to spend it on understanding the No Original Research policy (helpful link for your convenience: WP:NOR). It might make you seem less silly. Have a nice day! -- Honorsteem (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can call names, but it doesn't strengthen your argument. We have a responsibility for the quality of articles. Adding your own personal original research to our articles from articles that engage themselves in original research (making statements that are contradicted by their included sources) is counterproductive for our quality, definitely for BLP. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to explain it to me as if I were 10 years old: Why would adding a source (a quoted interview), which, indeed, practices 'Original Research' (only by the journalists of the reliable source), be Original Research in Wikipedia? Or do you mean that here we can only use Tertiary sources? According to which policy? Also, please bare in mind that at no point I was even adding Pipes' annual income to this article, so we're having a side-discussion here of which the outcome won't bring us anything. BTW; I don't have a degree in interpreting IRS statements, so the conclusion that it is wrong in the NRC is for your account. -- Honorsteem (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Honorsteem, there seems to be a confusion here between Pipes and the Middle East Forum. Pipes did found the MEF and is its director, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing, any more than Edward H. Crane is identical to the Cato Institute, or John Cavanagh is identical to the Institute for Policy Studies or Transnational Institute. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I mistook you for a reasonable editor, but you don't seem to be. I'll copy this whole thread to the Daniel Pipes talk pages, and leave it at that. Have a nice day. -- Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the 15 trillion will not be confused to be the personal debt of President Barack Obama. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg apparently didn't want the posts he made on my user to be page moved here, which seemed to me a more appropriate place to discuss this matter, so he deleted his comments. I put reference to where those comments were to track them back. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As per the admin comments on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I seem to have the right to move/copy Jayjg's comments from my talk page here. Please do not remove posts in the above thread without arguing there why I should not have that right. -- Honorsteem (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist.

user:Jason_from_nyc seems to think that it is unjustified, unsupported and unfair to call Daniel Pipes a conspiracy theorist. I can't understand why he thinks that when Pipes is using his own blog to spread the conspiracy theory that President Obama was a muslim: http://www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam http://www.danielpipes.org/5286/was-barack-obama-a-muslim. This should be enough to support the statement that the man is a conspiracy theorist. PerDaniel (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The rules for the WP:LEAD says that “The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. ... be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.“ In the section called Allegations against Barack Obama there is a discussion of Pipes' belief that Obama, as a child, was a Muslim. There is nothing there about a conspiracy only critics who say Pipes was wrong. Thus, Pipes being a "conspiracy theorist" is not an aspect let alone an important aspect of the article. Secondly, notable references (NPOV) don't describe him that way. Your original research doesn't as a notable reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start to fix this slanted article from the bottom up. PerDaniel (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of lede

I've made a number of changes to the lede to avoid WP:BLP issues and WP:RECENTISM. A WP:BLP should rarely quote self-published sources, and even then only when non-contentious - and almost never in the lede (particularly unique material). The lede should be a summary of the article, not an arbitrary selection of quotes from some of the many hundreds of articles and/or books he's written. Nor should the lede focus on one specific "issue" that happens to have caught an editor's eye, or lengthy discussions explaining topics that aren't actually Pipes himself. If something must be cited in a lede (and ideally this should be unnecessary, given that the lede is merely a summary of the article), then it should be cited to highly reliable, secondary sources, so that we be assured that the material is both important and of broad interest, and has been through an oversight process. I have left in one quote, from The New York Times - "Among his supporters, Mr. Pipes enjoys a heroic status; among his detractors, he is reviled." I think it quite nicely, and in a fairly neutral way, makes it clear what a polarizing figure Pipes often is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for the changes made, based on the edit summary. I don't know what is being referred to as a primary source, or what is being referred to as 'ephemera'. I think, given the subject and the timing, that we should clarify each point of change with an edit summary, edit by edit, so that other editors can understand the rationale. I don't necessarily disagree with the changes, I just need to understand what is being referred to as 'primary source' and what is being referred to as 'ephemera'; and I think anyone who wants to overhaul the article in a major way at this juncture should adhere to the same method. Is that reasonable? (The only change that I expect to disagree with at this point is the blanking of his association with 'Islamophobia' and his answer to that; his name and the word yield 290,000 google search results, and this is not a consequence of recent events, as the blanked sources show.) DBaba (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably a good revert. But, is Pipes PhD from Harvard more relevant to the lede than his (ubiquitously) alleged bigotry? DBaba (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved my (much) earlier comment in the lede changes from the section two above to here; you may not have noticed it earlier. Primary sources would be quotes taken from his columns, and "ephemera" would be the whole paragraph in the earlier lede discussing some comments he made about Iran in 2010 (again, taken directly from his columns). Regarding the PhD, it's three words from a single sentence that summarizes 8 years of his life, and his PhD dissertation was the basis of his first book, so I don't think it's undue. Finally, it's a pretty serious thing to accuse someone of Islamophobia, particularly someone who has been so clear on the difference between Islam and Islamism - his catch phrase indicates his strong approval for what he calls "moderate Islam" (vs. "militant" or "radical" Islam). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a serious thing, Islamophobia. That's why it's wrong to keep this on the margins of the article, when it is in the center of his public life. Quoting him was an attempt to cater to BLP concerns; what's the alternative? How do we best capture the theme of 'Islamophobia'/'Islamism-phobia' that dominates his career? I find that mentioning Harvard in the intro functions to confer legitimacy in a space reserved for conferring significance; but it's only conspicuous for what is absent. Before long, Jayjg, you will have spent more years defending Pipes from allegations/quotations of 'Islamophobia' on this web page than Pipes spent at Harvard.[1]

As to the claim that Pipes "has been so clear on the difference between Islam and Islamism", you may well think that characterization is accurate, but other views conflict with yours. Others hold that he is "racist and bigoted", "an eloquent racist with a Ph.D"[2]; "an anti-Arab propagandist"[3][4]; "an Islamophobic pseudo-scholar hid[ing] behind politically correct statements", as well as various other Islamophobic characterizations (Breivik links above). I think the best way to move forward is to offer an alternative intro that I think meets your expectations, and notes this controversy. DBaba (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really that common for article ledes on people like Pipes to include accusations of Islamophobia, particularly given the WP:BLP concerns, and this article had no mention of it for years before you added it a couple of days ago. Do you have examples of it in other ledes? I don't see it in the articles of other individuals commonly accused of it, including Robert Spencer (author) and Pamela Geller, co-founders of Stop Islamization of America. George W. Bush was dogged by accusations of Islamophobia throughout his presidency, and was named one of the 3 biggest Islamophobes of 2004 by the Islamic Human Rights Commission - should we add that to the lede of his article? Regarding Harvard, I was simply trying to briefly summarize his life, and he apparently spent 8 or more years studying at Harvard, so I mentioned it. BLPs aren't solely about what one considers "significant", but are actually supposed to be biographies. Using George W. Bush as an example, again, its lede mentions his birthdate, which is not "significant" in any way, and the first sentence of the second paragraph is "After graduating from Yale University in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1975, Bush worked in oil businesses." Should all that university stuff be removed as not "significant"? And finally, I hadn't edited the article or its talk page for years before last month, so I didn't really have to do any "defending", much less "more years" of it. Please focus on WP:BLP and article content, not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd compare Pipes to Robert Faurisson, whose notoriety is in part his association with bigotry, as with Daniel Pipes. Previously, I discussed this same stuff on the talk page of Faurisson, as to how to represent Faurisson on Wikipedia: "Lyon-educated scholar", sure, but let's do mention why he's in the news.[5] I'm not saying the education is immaterial, I'm just saying the thousand articles about antisemitism and Islamophobia are much more important. As far as Bush, this would be like omitting his presidency from the lede. DBaba (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. No, Faurisson would be unknown except for his Holocaust denial, which he has been convicted. But thanks for making it clear where you're coming from, that was at least honest. You really need to re-think who Pipes is, and the importance and meaning of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"_Allegedly_ rightist views"? I wasn't aware that Daniel Pipes being politically oriented to the right was _alleged._ Is there anyone who reasonably alleges otherwise? "Rightist" isn't a great word either. It can mean many things, from an economic liberal to a libertarian to a social conservative. Besides, the various civil rights organizations opposed to Pipes' nomination to the US Institute of Peace did not often cite his general "rightist" views but something rather more specific: his controversial views regarding Muslims. I suggest that would better suited than "allegedly rightsist views." --Mindfingers (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this regarding the above. User:Jayjg made the point that since some prominent Americans who have been accused of Islamophobia do not have it mentioned on their ledes on their pages that Pipes' shouldn't mention the allegations against him. But as of now Pamela Geller's lede does indeed include the allegations brought against her of Islamophobia. Masonpew (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Something about his history of xenophobic comments

I just find this article to seem very positive about a man who is undeniably very controversial. I believe that a reader encountering the lede should be informed, at the very least, that he is deeply controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonpew (talk • contribs) 2016-04-02T23:54:54‎

I agree and would encourage you to be bold (just make sure to keep it neutral). -- Irn (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Pipes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009032647/http://www.wikistrat.com:80/analyst/daniel-pipes/ to http://www.wikistrat.com/analyst/daniel-pipes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Pipes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012085802/http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2544752.ece/Partners_Wilders_in_VS_verdienen_aan_acties_tegen_moslimextremisme to http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2544752.ece/Partners_Wilders_in_VS_verdienen_aan_acties_tegen_moslimextremisme

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My new introduced section about the financial support for an antisemitic news outlet

Hello, my newly written section about Pipes' financial support for an antisemitic news outlet was directly reverted by Lucy Shir Cullen. I read that it was "undue weight, unbalanced, accusations need to be reported by reliable secondary sources". Concerning undue weight, I'm open for compromise, I wasn't sure where to put it best, it can be integrated with another headline. It's difficult to give a balanced account, taken that he isn't responding to the accusations. The only opposing reactions come from obscure far-right webblogs whe one can read terms like "looking at Germany through the Ausschwitz-glasses", so I see this point as solved. Concering the "reliable secondary sources", I consider The Times of Israel and Die Zeit as very reliable sources. For non-German speaksers probably unknown, Die Zeit is one of the most reknown weekly magazins, in Germany comparable to The Atlantic. I'm open for any ajustements, but I demand the reinsertion of my point, because it adds a relevant detail about the priorities of Mr Pipes' agenda.Tortososs (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

Criticism in that section is WP:UNDUE and needs to be trimmed. The Kingfisher (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing the work of Muslim terrorists?

This article currently implies that; for readers unfamiliar with the topic who happen to be reading this article, that is very misleading. Should this article include a parenthetical statement that the actual perpetrators were white American Christian right-wingers? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've added a referenced sentence on that. Might be useful if we could find any follow-up comment from Pipes on who the perpetrators turned out to be. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Counter-jihad activists

@יניב הורון:, are you aware that Pipes is probably one of the earliest users and advocates of the term "counter-jihad"?

• Here in 2005 he commands his fans to "Engage in Internet counter-jihad"
• Here he says: "Hope not Hate, by the way, lists both the Middle East Forum and me in its Counter-Jihad Report; it flatters me as the 'Powerhouse behind the international counter-jihadist movement.'"

Besides, Category:Critics of Islam is the parent category of Category:Counter-jihad activists.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)