User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2

I've created another archive page

in my own talk page for the material. It's too valuable to lose entirely (as SV had just deleted it, and then as jayjg did so as well from the talk page of the article). I'll keep it archived for future reference, since a lot of work went into the citations and formatting. --NYScholar 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag at top of article page on Daniel Pipes to which the comments relate, later removed by users despite protests

{{unbalanced|February 2007}}

Clean up (continued from my previous section above)

This is the version that SV has reverted multiple times now (more than three at least); some subsequent edits to the first paragraph are partially acceptable (though it is better for a note to follow the period of a sentence than to interrupt it). (I was in the midst of adding a somewhat fuller citation in what is now note 1 in the article, to be placed at the end of a sentence.) SV's multiple reversions of my own earlier changes indicating where full citations are still needed in this article to a previous inconsistent format (the current format) hide the problems of the multiple external links and what are really supposed to be notes in a very partial and misplaced section now called "References."

The whole structure of this article as it currently is still needs reworking: the sections are mostly out of order and illogical; notes should follow text and come prior to actual "References" (for further reading, in bibliographical format), and all the citations should be fully viewable as citations: providing author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed.) (Right now a slew of "external links" is in the article instead of actual full citations. That is an editorial cop-out instead of providing full citations.) I link above to the earlier version that SV reverted several times so one can see that the Notes need consistency as full citations throughout, which will eliminate all those External links which SV has reverted to (which Wikipedia recommends against; Wikipedia:Cite recommends providing full citations in a fully-consistent format which are already fully verified by editors. One needs to be able to see the authors, titles, publications (places of publication) and dates of publication, as well as to know when they were most recently accessed). To provide such information is the work of an editor in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 10:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For important work that I had already done (prior to the reverting by SV), see the section linked in this comment called Other references for further reading. One can see there that some of those articles are by Pipes, where and sometimes when they were published, etc. More editorial work still was needed to fill in missing publication details (full citations), but I had provided a start, hoping that other editors would follow through in good faith. That is not what happened. --NYScholar 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At my most recent count, based on the earlier version, at least 27 items presented as "external links" need conversion to full citations in order to be in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia:Cite. Daniel Pipes's own website only needs to be listed once. It contains links on the home page that can be listed simply as part of an annotation (which I provided earlier). By continual blanket reverting my earlier editing changes, SV lost all that work, and reverted back to a poorer structure. I provided some full citations as examples in the earlier version, but explained in the talk page that I didn't have the time to convert all of them myself. (In many Wikipedia articles, I have done that work myself, contributing hours and hours of my own research time.) I requested help. Instead, SV simply undid the previous work. That is not an "improvement" to this article. An improvement would be to take the Notes structure and fill in the missing citation details. In doing so, one will be able to see how many of Pipes's own publications are being cited as sources for this article in relation to the sources written by others and published in publications that are not self-published by him. The lack of balance is directly related to the overdependence on his own views of himself being presented in this article due to the unbalanced sourcing and also due to the hiding of the actual citations' authors, titles, publications, and dates. Providing dates of citations also gives readers a better sense of chronology and the relative times when sources have been published. These details matter in an "encyclopedia" article that claims to be adhering to Wikipedia:Reliable sources in conjunction with WP:BLP. How reliable is an article on a subject that cites mostly the subject's own point of view on himself in describing him? How do we know whether or not these and other sources cited are both "notable" and "reliable" and still accessible? Editors need to do the work to make that clear to readers. Otherwise the article is virtually unreadable. This is actually one of the weaker articles that I have seen recently in Wikipedia, due to the overdependence on the subject for sources and on sources presented only as external links. My version intended to make clear where the work still needed to be done. --NYScholar 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of external links in the text that I missed getting into reference citation forms (awaiting full citations): e.g., external link number 31: Elaine Kelley is the author, the rest of the information about the citation can be easily listed in proper note citation format. All the others need the same work. E.g., [That is a proper full citation in a note. An external link is not.]--NYScholar 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes

--NYScholar 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the previous version that SV reverted to current version

[updated as checked. --NYScholar 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)] [Note the editorial comment embedded (see in editing mode):]

Other references for further reading

[Note further: What I supply below are the full citations for what are currently listed as numbered external links mixed up with some notes ("references") and a very large number of unclearly-identified and insufficiently-described so-called "External links"; that is not a format that enables reader to see what sources are actually being cited (full citations) and it violates the need for "full citations" to be provided in "controversial" articles that are also biographies of living persons according to WP:BLP, which governs this article, and it disguises the imbalance of material in the article as it is currently presented.]

Writings by Daniel Pipes

• "A Misdirected Attack". danielpipes.org. Rpt. from The Los Angeles Times August 17, 2003. Accessed February 20, 2007.
• Reply to CAIR's Attack on Daniel Pipes. danielpipes.org. n.d. Accessed February 20, 2007. (Reply to website postings by Council on American-Islamic Relations, listed below.)

Media interviews and other programs featuring Daniel Pipes

• Ashbrook, Tom. "U.S. Policy Towards Israel and Dreams of Democracy in the Middle East". On Point WBUR (Boston, Massachusetts) May 20, 2004. (Incl. audio link.)
• Gordon, Dick."Rethinking Islam". The Connection. WBUR (Boston, Massachusetts). Aired September 10, 2002.
• "International Conflict Resolution". Talk of the Nation. National Public Radio. August 27, 1998.
• Kreisler, Harry, and Daniel Pipes. "Militant Islam". Interview with Daniel Pipes, Director of Middle East Forum, conducted by Harry Kreisler. Conversations with History. University of California, Berkeley February 10, 2004. Uploaded on Video.google.com on October 11, 2004. Accessed February 18, 2007.

Other commentaries about Daniel Pipes

• Abraham, Priya. Truth on Terror. danielpipes.org. Rpt. from World October 11, 2003. Accessed February 20, 2007.
• Ahmad, Firas. "Why Tariq Ramadan?" Islamica Magazine 12 (n.d.) (Site: Copyright © 2007). Accessed February 21, 2007.
• Burston, Bradley. "Daniel Pipes, a New Kind of Israel-basher." The Spin Cycle: Campaign Blog (personal blog). Haaretz March 31, 2006. February 21, 2007. [This item is a personal blog; it is not a "notable" "reliable source" according to WP:BLP. It should probably be deleted; it is currently given as only an External link in the article and not identified as a personal blog site post.]
• Cogan, James. "Daniel Pipes and the Unfolding Civil War in Iraq". World Socialist Website April 11, 2006. Accessed February 18, 2007.
• Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). "Who Is Daniel Pipes?" n.d. [Now incl. numerous "Updates."] Accessed February 18, 2007. (See reply by Daniel Pipes, listed above.)
• de Rooij, Paul. ""Smear Mongers". CounterPunch September 24, 2002. Accessed February 21, 2007.
• Hitchens, Christopher. "Fighting Words: A Wartime Lexicon: Pipes the Propagandist: Bush's Nominee Doesn't Belong at the U.S. Institute for Peace." Slate.com August 11, 2003. Accessed February 21, 2007.
• Lloyd, John. "Islam's Battle with a Hostile World". danielpipes.org. Rpt. from The Financial Times January 10, 2003. Accessed February 20, 2007.
• Muslim Public Affairs Council-DC (MPAC-DC). The Truth About Daniel Pipes. mpac.org April 8, 2003. Accessed February 21, 2007.
• Palazzi, Abdul Hadi. "In Defense of Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes". Question and Answer exchange hosted on hvk.org (Hindu Vivek Kendra: A Resource Center for the Promotion of Hindutva) September 19, 1999. Accessed February 18, 2007. [In 1999 Palazzi was Secretary General of the Italian Muslim Association (AMI).]
• Press, Eyal. "Neocon Man". The Nation April 22, 2004 (issue of May 10, 2004). Accessed February 21, 2007. (Corrected link.)
• Scherer, Michael. "Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?" Mother Jones May 26, 2003. Accessed February 21, 2007.
• Tassel, Janet. "Militant about 'Islamism': Daniel Pipes Wages 'hand-to-hand combat' with a 'totalitarian ideology'". Harvard Magazine January-February 2005: 37-38. Accessed February 21 2007. (Corrected date of publication.)

Other books of possible interest

• Pipes, Richard. Memoirs of a Non-Belonger. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003. ISBN 0-300-10165-1 (10). ISBN 978-0300-10165-2 (13). [Richard Pipes is the father of Daniel Pipes.]

External links

• Daniel Pipes’s personal website ("The personal website of Daniel Pipes contains an archive of his writings since 1990, with occasional articles going back to 1980. Many of the articles are translated into any of 25 other languages. The site also contains his weblog, spoken materials, and extensive biographical materials," as well as links to "Daniel Pipes's websites.")

(--NYScholar 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

See also

• Campus Watch
• Criticism of Islam
• The End of American Jewry's Golden Era
• Middle East Forum
• Middle East Quarterly
• Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West (2005 documentary film)

All that work and that structure for further revisions of citations has been lost by SV's reversions to previous version. Compare the versions and see which one appears to be an "improvement." --NYScholar 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

I added a new section that requires your input. See Talk:Daniel_Pipes#Unbalanced and follow the instructions. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I replied earlier. --NYScholar 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also made several corrections in the citations listed above, incl. correcting links provided in the current version of the article ed. by others. --NYScholar 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the hostility, incivility, and waste of my valuable time that I have experienced in stating my already-explained rationale for the imbalance of that article, I will not engage any further with anyone editing that page. I attempted to begin cleaning up the faulty citations throughout the article and the poor organization and format a few days ago, and an administrator (!) deleted my work (see above). My objections to the lack of neutrality and imbalance and my analysis of such problems in that article are already summarized on the talk page of the article and/or moved to my talk archive pages. There is no reason for me to waste any more time on such articles. I do not engage in presenting my own points of view in any articles that I edit; I engage in following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; cf. WP:POV. When articles deal with controversial subjects, I attempt to define and to document the conflicting points of view of others (that is in keeping with both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.

Unfortunately, there are groups of administrators and other editors and users of Wikipedia who continually inject their own points of view and that of sources with whom they agree or take issue with into articles in Wikipedia, and I refuse to participate in such what I consider to be intellectually-dishonest activities. Some of us have academic integrity and abide by what we know are intellectual and ethical standards of discourse. As far as I am concerned, the administrators acting in consort with their friends on such articles as Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Jimmy Carter, and other articles dealing with controversial subjects relating to the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jews, and Arabs, and particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, and all the articles pertaining to Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame, the Plame Affair, Lewis Libby, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and United States v. Libby are repeatedly engaged in violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view without any kind of meaningful check from actually-neutral administrators.

The administrators themselves, acting in consort, gang up on those who attempt to edit articles to make the articles neutral by following Wikipedia's own stated and linked guidelines on talk pages. In my own attempts to bring neutrality to the presentation of sources, for example, by providing full citations (full disclosure of the publication details of the sources), I have been confronting immense antagonism and horrendous incivility from administrators who believe that they own the articles that they edit, with complete disregard for both WP:OWN and Wikipedia:NPA. When I have complained about such personal attacks, they have dishonestly backed up each other's claims that they are not engaging in such attacks. But their incivility and descending to attacking contributors and not focusing on content should be clear to any neutral observer.

There is no point in my doing any further work on articles over which those administrators and such editors aim to take control. In my own view, such behavior as theirs makes a disgrace out of Wikipedia; they should be ashamed of themselves. I am, however, proud of my contributions, stand by them, and am glad that I do not edit the way that they do. But I have no interest in engaging with any of those types of administrators and other editors any further. They have made my experience in Wikipedia enormously unpleasant, proving to me that anything that I have contributed to this project may be a total waste of my time. Generously, I donated my time and energy to this work, and I have been maligned and insulted. Their behavior is their problem, not mine. I leave it to them to sort out the damage that they have created. (Updated). --NYScholar 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

I just wanted to leave you a msg letting you know I want to follow through with our discussion. I personally found it difficult to find the information you referred to in the article due to the length of your comments. No offense, but you would have better results if you were brief. Could you leave me a link or two on my talk page so I can get the ball rolling? I apologize for bothering you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not "brief" because of the extreme complications of that situation. I am unable to take the time to post any further explanations of my complaints about that article and the reversions of my (what I consider to be) improvements to it. I do not want to engage in further discussion with you (given your previous response to what I said, which I have taken offense to) on your talk page or on the talk page of the article. I have made very clear ("elucidated") as best I could (which took time and space). You need to look at the linked material ("Other references for further reading") in my archive page 2 (See archives box above: the link is right there, and it is also in Talk:Daniel Pipes [several times]).

I have already provided a headnote that is both clear and brief to the section that I worked on: called "Other references for further reading" (see archive box above and the talk page of "Daniel Pipes"). You need to go to it and see how I have already given editorial changes of that portion for the article. If you need to print out my comments and the material to work with it, then I suggest doing that. Not everything can be read solely online. It needs to be looked at in print as well perhaps too. (I myself do not have trouble doing this online, but perhaps you do.) I've already gotten "the ball rolling" with archive page 2 (which, in previous versions was in the article on Daniel Pipes, but reverted; then I provided the material for discussion in the talk page, and Jayjg deleted it and moved it; follow the editing history and the talk page and the editing history of the talk page of "Daniel Pipes" and you will see that. I cannot take any more time with the article; I will not enter the article editing mode due to lack of impartiality and lack of neutrality among those continually reverting my attempts to fix its problems of missing citations and faulty format. Over five days of my life have been taken up by this miserable mess, and I have other more pressing work to do. I cannot and will not devote any more of my own time and energy to that article (as I have already stated at the end of the talk page.) Dealing with the others reverting my changes to that article has been an enormously distressing and exhausting experience. --NYScholar 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I may have some questions later. —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: I cannot and will not take my time to answer any more "questions" about this article. Please do not post them here. As I say on the talk page (a few times) in that article, you are on your own. I've done all that I can and am willing to do. Please do not use my talk page as an extension of the discussion of this article. I am archiving this also. --NYScholar 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)