Talk:Karen Armstrong

{{WikiProject Islam|class=start|Muslim-scholars=yes|Muslim-scholars-importance=mid}}

On scholars

"Still, some scholars have attacked her writings for having a bias against Christianity" This form is problematic, since it inevitably invites a judgement on her, based on what may be a small minority. Can anyone indicate what is the consensus among scholars?

Or, given that there is never a consensus among scholars, can anyone expand on who the critics were (if they were themselves fundamentalists, for example), and what other scholars might have said. —195.72.173.51 18:41, 28 July 2005

Non-NPOV sentence relating to academic credentials removed.

History re-defined as Her Story

The journey to seek knowledge is an honorable one as long as it is not clouded by a personal agenda to rewrite history or to commentate away the truth of the event. Sadly Karen Armstrong, in all her knowledge seems to have developed tunnel vision when it comes to the historical accuracy of events surrounding Israel or the Jew. As a result of this selective view of history she has managed to allow herself to used as a pawn in the struggle of mankind’s quest for truth, only she is on the wrong side of truth when it comes to the facts of historical truth or the purposeful omission of certain historical facts dealing with both the Jew and the half brother of Isaac of the Arab people. Other then this propensity to dance around events that might not line up with her preconceived ideologies she does present an adequate overview of the history in the middle east but keep in mind her background, which in my opinion, plays a subliminal part in her view of that history.

If asked the question, what is truth, Karen Armstrong might well find the proverbial question mark pop up over the top of her head and with the times we live today that’s not a recommended source of truth unless your reading a comic book.

Clyde West Heritage-Media.com

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponchowest (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is she a historian? Or a propagandist?

It is a shame that literary critics of Armstrong tend to be chosen among those who either agree with her, or can be trusted not to know anything about the subject. She is simply NOT a historian, but a story teller with a very glaring, grating, and partisan bias. For example, read "Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths" and look up the section about the siege of 1948. At one point, she states, without attribbution, "By March, 1948m 70 Jews and 230 Arabs had died." She provides no source at all. The actual number of Jewish dead, by March 1, was roughly 1500, as reported at the time by the Palestine Post. The sum of 70 dead was surpassed by two bombings, alone -- the Jewish Agency and Ben Yehuda Street. (Eventually 4,000 Jews died in the city, or along the roads leading to it.)

She also accepts the canard that the Hadassah convoy massacre of April 13 was carried out because it was carrying "Irgun terrorists who had been wounded at Deir Yassin" -- and fails to mention that the convoy was moving under a pre-arranged flag of truce.

Armstrong mentions neither attrocity, not even the dynamiting of the Jewish Quarter. They would contaminate her pro-Arab narrative. My personal opinion, speaking as a historian gathering material for a book of my own on that siege, is that she wrote that section of the book off the top of her head. 68.5.64.178 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncited criticism cut to Talk page for sourcing

I've cut the following here as in need of citation. Critics consider her covertly hostile to Jews and Jewish ties to the holy land in such books as Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. Who says this? Is there a reliable source that states that such a criticism is common or from a noteworthy source? Jkelly 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Historians?

Comment from the poster 68.5.64.178 insists that Karen Armstong is no historian, but then goes on to assert that they themself are a historian. Can we have some evidence please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)

We don't normally ask for credentials from our contributors. Expertise can be demonstrated through having reliable sources at hand. Jkelly 14:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't her standing within the 'historian' community slightly irrelevant since she is a widely used text for many basic Islam college courses? I know that she may not be considered a 'true' Islamic scholar by the community, but she is probably one of the most popular and widely read authors for the non-Muslim community. --MrBleu 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminist

Is she really? Widsith 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gospel According to Woman---now out of print, I believe---is unquestionably a feminist book. It stands out as perhaps the least conciliatory, most aggrieved piece of writing she has yet produced. In The Spiral Staircase she backs off a bit from its vehemence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.170.202 (talk)

Yes, she is. Read the Publisher's Weekly summary here, "About the Author" here (those little bios are usually put out by the publisher, which would get the info from Armstrong herself, and just google. Someone has taken this out of the article, saying it was WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. I'm putting it back in and I hope other editors here will watch for further attempts to remove it. — coelacan talk — 07:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Counter-intuitive"?

I'm a little confused with this; what does we mean, exactly, when we describe her theory of fundamentalism as 'counter-intuitive'? Has it been described in that manner by commentators or reviewers?

If that's counter-intuitive, what's the 'intuitive' or 'default' theory? The Wikipedia article describes fundamentalism as a "fairly recent creation" -- if that's the case wouldn't fundamentalism be, intuitively, a 'modern' movement?

I'm not finding the words 'counter-intuitive' in the linked source under that section, by the way. Tagging it as citation needed for now; if we can't find the source then it might be best to get rid of it — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The intuitive theory would be that fundamentalism is "the way people used to think" and it opposes modernism because that's "the new way people think." Armstrong's theory is counterintuitive because it says that fundamentalism is more "modern" (recent) than modernism. Fundamentalism appeals to heritage, but (per Armstrong) it doesn't reflect the way pre-modern people thought any more than modernism does. I could see someone taking the term as POV and a slight and deleting it for that reason, but I wouldn't. Maybe the answer is to spell it out: Armstrong promotes the theory that fundamentalism, far from being "that old time religion," is actually a reaction to modernism, not a continuity with pre-modern religion. Summarizing the theory ahead of the quote would be a service to the reader and might make the label "counter-intuitive" unnecessary. Jonathan Tweet 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your solution's a better one than what we've got, actually; I'd be bold and take a stab at it now, except that I'm a lazy bastard at work and I don't have any of the necessary sources available right now. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The "counter-intuitive" is rather redundant - Armstrong's description of fundamentalism as a product of and reaction to modernism is quite mainstream. Indeed, you could argue that the section is rather non-notable! 84.92.241.186 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

A heading noting the significant criticism Armstrong has received is warranted. Most other polarizing figures on Wikipedia have similar subsections at least documenting the claims of their ideological rivals. Inoculatedcities 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Please discuss why this is being removed [1]. --Aminz 07:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be balanced with statements to the effect that she is not a scholar of Islam and has a decidely unobjective slant to her writing. Otherwise it's just a POV in the intro that doesn't reflect the article. Arrow740 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say she is an scholar of Islam. It says that she (as a writer) has conveyed the post-19th century scholarship of Islam to a wide range of people. Do you have reliable sources that she "has a decidely unobjective slant to her writing"?--Aminz 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, Aminz has a source. If there are contrary sources, provide them. Jonathan Tweet 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section added

I've added a section which mentions criticism of Armstrong from notable scholars, referenced with URLs. Ysageev (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not WP:RS to be quoted. ~atif ^Talk 08:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

His criticism is notable. He is a reliable source for criticism of Islam as has been established many, many times. He's quoted all over wikipedia for criticism of Islam other such things. He might not be a reliable source by wikipedia standards for Islam itself, but for criticism of Islam he is. Arrow740 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the doublespeak of being "reliable for criticism" or "reliable for his own statements" (!) has been debunked many, many times. if his critique is reported by a reliable third party, then it is noteworthy. quoting websites like FPM and JW however is insufficient. the criticism here is a clear example of a BLP violation. ITAQALLAH 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"[Robert Spencer] has published seven books, including two bestsellers, on topics related to Islam and terrorism." His works have been critically acclaimed. You will add Robert Spencer back to the criticism section or I will tag this article NPOV, because you are in clear violation of it. Just because you do not like Spencer is no reason to omit him. Whether or not Spencer expressed his view in FPM does not make it any less his view.Ysageev (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is a writer. he is not an academic, nor a scholar, nor anyone in a position to attack anyone for their lack of competence Islamic studies, given that he too suffers from the same. that he has two bestsellers (easily achievable if you make your books controversial enough) says nothing about how experts view him on the topic. please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/[[W::::::::::::::::::::::::ikipedia:Verification]], as well as WP:BLP#Criticism - all of which specify the standard of sourcing required, especially on biographies of living people. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ysageev, you also need to lower your tone in the discussion ~atif ^Talk 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that Spencer is not a scholar is your opinion, not a fact. Similarly, your statement that it is easy to write two NYT bestsellers if the work is controversial is also your opinion. If that were true, millions every year would write NYT bestsellers. It is also profoundly disingenuous to claim that there exists any writing about Islam that is not controversial, regardless of whether it is critical of Islam or extols it. This holds true for articles published in scholarly journals as it does for bestsellers. Whether or not you agree with Spencer, he has been supported by a sufficient number of peers to merit his inclusion as a critic. In short, your belief that Spencer violates WP:RS is your assessment, not a fact, and one that many would take issue with. Ysageev (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

if you believe Spencer is a reliable source, please explain how he conforms to the indicators provided in the aforementioned guideline//policy pages. the indications are the opposite.[2] ITAQALLAH 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is clearly very notable. Maybe itaqallah could explain his "per BLP" and forget the rest of this attempt as a waste of time. Arrow740 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the relevant section from WP:BLP has already been provided above. would you like me to quote it in full for you? ITAQALLAH 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain how the inclusion of Spencer violates it, in full. Arrow740 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The views of critics should be represented if they are 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 side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

there you go. is Spencer reliable? no. is Spencer being used as a secondary source for the material? no. are FPM, JW etc. reliable, third party sources? no. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards FPM, if Spencer publishes an article there, it is 100% reliable that he expressed his view 100% as he intended at FPM. I might understand your position on this if FPM itself criticized Armstrong in an editorial. But that is not the case here. If Spencer comments on Islamism in a speech at Joe's Hot Dog Stand, it is not the reliability of JHDS that is up for contention. Secondly, and as I have mentioned here and elsewhere, it is not up to me or you to evaluate the merits of Spencer's positions, but to mention a critic of Armstrong whose criticisms are widely read and commented upon. It should be noted that I did not give my opinion about Spencer either way. Only, Spencer occupies a prominent place in the public discourse about a topic that is inherently controversial, and hence deserves mention in the criticism section.

In response to "atif", I apologize if my tone seemed overly forceful. In my defense, it should be noted that I did not violate edit-warring policies by deleting entire paragraphs from other editors of this entry, as others have done to me. I believe that it is customary to discuss deletions prior to doing so, specifically to avoid edit warring. That courtesy was not provided me, and that may be considered far more "loud" in tone than expressing disagreement on a talk page.Ysageev (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not only a reliable source for his own views (a red herring here- is anyone not a reliable source for their own views??), he is also a 'primary' source for the criticism. that is, he is not a discussing criticism that has been levied against Armstrong (as a secondary source would). the policy extract above specifies that a source must be a) reliable and b) secondary; neither criteria has been met here. furthermore, if there is an attempt to coatrack criticisms, then reliable third-party published sources should be demanded. thus far, none of this has been established.

Ysageev, your general civility and conduct are commendable. biographies of living people are especially important, and material which is unreliably sourced or of poor quality must be removed on sight (see WP:BLP). that might mean reverting editors who continue to restore such disputed material. the conditions for criticism are also much stricter. ITAQALLAH

As Merzbow has explained to you, Spencer is clearly a secondary source. He is a reliable secondary source critical analysis. Your definition of "secondary" is wrong. He is very reliable as regards criticism of Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"He is a reliable secondary source critical analysis. He is very reliable as regards criticism of Islam." Says who? WP:V says reliable sources are sources that have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What sort of reputation does Spencer have? Has his work been published by a university press or another respected publishing house? We have to be extremely careful since Karen Armstrong is a living person.Bless sins (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He is not being used as a source of history. He is an notable source of opinion. Nothing you could quote bars his use in this context. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is being used as a primary source for criticism here. as discussed previously, you can't be reliable for a 'POV' on a topic (no less an academic discipline) - this is your own invention, it has no substantiation in Wikipedia guideline or policy. you have yet to explain how he meets the criteria shown above. ITAQALLAH 13:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"He is an notable source of opinion" Is his opinion about Karen Armstrong notable? Says who? You need a source (generally a reliable secondary source, but reliable tertiary sources also work) to 'prove' that his opinions about Armstrong are notable.Bless sins (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections make for poor articles and are discouraged. We need to integrate material (positive and negative) into a single, balanced, coherent article. Guettarda (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The parenthetic link to the tribe was redundant so I deleted it. We already have one in the same sentence.