This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Karen Armstrong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As long as serious criticism of Karen Armstrong and her positions do not appear on this article, the entry will remain hopelessly unbalanced. I also find the dismissal of criticisms by Robert Spencer ideologically motivated, and not based upon the actual substance of his remarks against Ms. Armstrong. This entry about Karen Armstrong cannot be taken seriously as a fair work of reporting until the criticism section is restored and allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teófilo de Jesús ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I support this comment. The main page reads uncomfortably like the result of over-zealous censoring. Karen Armstrong is hugely popular with the public and supporters of a particular view but her work is derided by many who are knowledgeable about history and religion. The article by Hugh Fitzgerald at http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong%3A_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/ illustrates problems similar to those which others identify, including major issues of historical fact and interpretation. If Fitzgerald is largely right, she cannot be accepted as a serious academic or a reliable guide to her subjects. Criticism sections are helpful. They facilitate healthy scepticism, tidy the flow of information and collect in one place the targets for defence. Armstrong is a controversial figure and the article does not reflect that. Martin852 ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
-The article by Hugh Fitzgerald is ridiculous and completely biased and stupid. It is a massive rant by a hugely right-wing anti-muslim person ( Jihad Watch? Oh please...) who has willfully mis-interpreted a Karen Armstrong article, and has torn it apart without references based largely on personal beliefs. Why on earth should that go anywhere near wikipedia? That reads more like a conservapedia article to me... If there is to be a criticisms section, it has to be unbiased and justified. Gorton k ( talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(Though I do think there should be a criticisms section, just that it is a sensible one rather than an unhelpful and divisive rant.) Gorton k ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I just visited this entry for the first time and I completely agree that this entry is a total joke. It takes all of about ten seconds on google to determine that Karen Armstrong is one of the most widely criticized authors writing on the subject of Islam. The above commenter goes out of his way to mention that a particular critic of Armstrong is "hugely right wing"(so what?) and that the criticism looks like it belongs on Conservopedia, as if the fact that a certain critic is conservative or right-wing is automatic grounds for rejecting a particular criticism. He then states that the criticism in question is "stupid" and "completely biased". We are also told the particular criticism "willfully misrepresent[s]" an Armstrong article. No evidence, at all, is given to support these claims. Fitzgerald's criticisms are without merit? Prove it. The majority of the "evidence" provided seems to be that the author is a conservative. To say that rejecting a particular criticism for such a reason is completely unacceptable would be an understatement of epic proportions. Also, the whole "anti-muslim" "justification" is equally without merit. I guess we should go back and excise any criticisms in the entry on the Democratic Party that come from Republicans. And the entry on Mother Theresa, for example? Clearly Christopher Hitchens's criticism should be completely removed, since he was very vocally "anti-Catholic." And any criticism of the Communist Manifesto that comes from anti-communists should obviously be removed this very instant. That a particular individual opposes a particular religion doesn't make his criticisms of Armstrong's "scholarship" any less valid. But this discussion isn't merely limited to Hugh Fitzgerald. Armstrong's critics are legion; that only one of them is mentioned is, in a word, pathetic. The entry contains a perfunctory one sentence criticism of Armstrong that was obviously tacked on in a failed attempted to appease those pointing out that this entry is hopelesly baised. Furthermore, the included criticism fails to address the charge that the vast majority of her critics have levelled against her: shoddy scholarship. And it never ceases to amaze me when individuals who write entries that are little more than hagiographies turn around and assert that a particular criticism is too biased, as if the entry they have written isn't hopelessly unbalanced. Until a more comprehensive criticism section is put back in place, this entry will remain the completely worthless farce that it is. 74.138.40.147 ( talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am writing about this paragraph:
The reference citation given for this quote is erroneous and goes to another article that has nothing to do with Karen Armstrong or anything she said. I did find the quote on a cached page of the History New Network (it is no longer on their website), but it was not by Karen Amstrong, but rather from a commenter on a blog, reporting what Armstrong is alleged to have said, extempore, while commenting on a speach by another speaker. I am not saying she didn' t say this, but I don't believe this meets the wikipedia standard of a reliable source and in any case is no longer available. I am going to remove the false citation and put a notice of "citation needed." However, I would like to add that this appears to be a cherry picked quotation put in my someone who is hostile to Armstrong. It maybe that Armstrong, in making the case that Islam used to be a more tolerant religion than it now appears to be, tends to exaggerate the amount of tolerance present in early Islam. It is my impression that religious toleration is a relatively new thing, historically speaking, and that while it may have been relatively tolerant compared to Roman Catholicism or Judaism, Islam was never really tolerant in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Armstrong is no mindless booster of Islam or anything else, and it is easy to find other sources where she condemns intolerance, whether of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish fundamentalism. Her condemnation of intolerance is what needs to be stressed, not her having found positive qualities in the Moslem Brotherhood (now recognized by the way, by our State Department as a peaceful organization). I recommend that the whole paragraph be deleted. 24.105.128.45 ( talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 173.77.108.172 ( talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I also don't think that an article on a living person should be a forum for those who want to push a particular point of view. The criticism paragraph -- a dubious addition -- should say simply that a there is a vocal contingent of hardliners, among them Pipes, and David Horowitz and their associates, who object to any positive depiction of Islam and are vocal critics of Armstrong. 173.77.108.172 ( talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have trimmed a number of sources for the "Criticism" section because they appear not to be WP:BLP-compliant sources
None of these meet the standard for a biography of a living person, especially not for criticism. Guettarda ( talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism sections are, of course, a blight, a symptom of poor writing. Not that the "views" section isn't equally incoherent, but you need to start somewhere. Right now the section consists of two main statements:
and
So here's the thing: the article doesn't tell us what the "controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe", so the Karsh comment is worse than useless. Similarly, we have Pipes' criticism of her book, but no other information about her book.
Were the responses to these books overwhelmingly negative? If not, there's a serious WP:UNDUE problem here. And what does "former nun with an ax to grind" mean? This isn't an informative comment on Armstrong's book. Guettarda ( talk) 06:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I challenge you to cite me the specific rules ... that the citations violate - please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. (Emphasis added.)
If you want to use these sources, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they meet they meet our requirements. You are the one asserting that they do. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence. Guettarda ( talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Pending the discussion of the criticism section, I've put a tag under the criticism section of the Armstrong article. Sleetman ( talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed self-published criticism, per WP:BLPSPS and WP:QS, yet again. Guettarda ( talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting comments here as to whether or not the criticisms of Karen Armstrong are reliable sources. Sleetman ( talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[3]
[4]
[5] whose quote appeared in a paper published by the Hudson institute.
[6]{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
A coalition of local groups will hold a rally at the Liberty Bell on Sunday, Jan. 20, in support of American and Israeli military policies in the Persian Gulf crisis. "We'll be coming out on Sunday to say 'God bless America and Israel," said Bertram Korn Jr., executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, one of the sponsors of the rally. "The criminal Iraqi war machine must be permanently disarmed," he added.
To encourage effective advocacy on behalf of Israel, the Center for Israel and Overseas of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia will host a daylong program -- its inaugural advocacy event -- on Sunday, Dec. 5, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., at Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania, Steinhardt Hall, 215 S. 39th St. in Philadelphia. In the morning will be a panel featuring representatives from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, all of which will discuss "Methodologies on How to Advocate for Israel...Dr. John Cohn, a local physician named Camera's "No. 1 Letter-Writer" in 2004, will serve as moderator of the panel.
CAMERA is looking for fifteen passionately committed undergraduate students with excellent communication skills who can organize pro-Israel events on campus. Students earn $1000 and a free exclusive trip to Israel in June by becoming a CAMERA Fellows Representative.
Their work undoubtedly has impact, but the non-Israel-related groups do not have the same activist focus. They produce studies and polls. It is for this reason that I think pro-Israeli media watching has an importance beyond the cause of Israel. Efforts that induce better adherence to ethical journalism in one subject area are positive generally in helping to strengthen American democracy, especially, again, as there are no enforceable codes of professional conduct in the media. – CAMERA Executive Director Andrea Levin.
While the the [ sic] pro-Israeli Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or Camera, studies newspapers for evidence of bias, Palestine Media Watch has been monitoring the coverage of newspapers like The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The Thomas Madden quotes seem like they are reliably sourced enough to be ok. The others are problematic. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding random criticisms is extremely poor writing. Please try to improve the article, don't turn it into a set of disjointed quotes. Guettarda ( talk) 15:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My revert of your edit was entirely appropriate, since you were adding blog-sourced criticism that you knew to be problematic. Guettarda ( talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The reliability of the sources on the Karen Armstrong page is being discussed here. Sleetman ( talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the "Views" section is really the best way to write this article. These aren't really the "views" she spends most of her energy on. They are primary-sourced quotes. Two of the five sections are taken from a single, poorly-sourced interview with Omayma Abdel-Latif. Overall there's a serious balance/weight issue here. Where are her views on compassion, to pick one major issue. Why did some editors pick these quotes? Ideally her views should come from secondary sources. Less optimally, they should come from her own writing, where her views are set out in context. Cherry-picked quotes from interviews seem like a bad idea. Guettarda ( talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article should reflect the following
Her thoughts and views
In terms of the reception of her work, there are maybe four strands
Of these, the fourth is the most likely to get heard online, but for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia article, they are the least important. Per WP:GEVAL. Guettarda ( talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Views" section; removed from article, per statement above Guettarda ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ViewsChristianity and IslamIn an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong compared Christianity to Islam, stating that "Islam is a religion of success. Unlike Christianity, which has as its main image, in the west at least, a man dying in a devastating, disgraceful, helpless death… Mohammed was not an apparent failure. He was a dazzling success, politically as well as spiritually, and Islam went from strength to strength to strength." [1] Armstrong also affirms that “Until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.” [2] 2005 London suicide bombingIn an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong blamed the the Suicide bombings in London on July 7, 2005, on Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, characterizing it a political, not a religious gesture:
The PopeA critic of certain aspects of Roman Catholicism, Armstrong characterized the Pope as "the world's last, great, absolute monarch. He not only controls doctrinal and spiritual affairs, but also the political, social and economic fortunes of his church. And because he's believed to be directly guided by God, his decisions have the ring of absolute truth, which is strangely out of kilter with the democratic tenor of today's world". [3] Muslims, modernity, and the mediaArmstrong believes that all sides must learn to deal with extremism in their midst and advance their interests in a peaceful, non-violent manner. In "The feel of religion" (July 2002), an interview of Armstrong by Omayma Abdel-Latif that is widely reprinted on Islamic websites, Armstrong stressed that:In the same interview she continued:
Israeli-Palestinian conflictArmstrong told Omayma Abdel-Latif in 2002 that she believed the Israeli Palestinian conflict was a European political creation and not a clash of religions: "I don't think people sit at home and read the Qur'an and say, yes, I must go and bomb Israel," she continued:
In her opinion, charges of anti-Semitism in Europe play into the hands of the American Israel lobby because "this will discredit anything Europe says. They say Europe is anti-Semitic because for the first time Europe is becoming aware of the plight of the Palestinians. It is part of a campaign to discredit European input in any future peace process." She also believes that part of the problem stems from Jews still considering themselves solely as victims. "The problem with Israel now is that it cannot believe that it is not 1939 any more; the Israeli people are emotionally stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era." [4]
|
The following is a paragraph of Juan Eduardo Campo's opinion of Armstrong:
Juan Eduardo Campo, the author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a "more or less objective" (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America. [1]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Until the the International Journal of Middle East Studies can be proven that it is a reliable source, it can't be used as a Wikipedia source. Sleetman ( talk) 05:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The International Journal of Middle East Studies is one of the most eminent academic journals in the field and its reliability in Wikipedia terms is beyond question. Zero talk 05:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Can anybody explain why Armstrong's version of her Wikipedia page here [19] is being reverted? Sleetman ( talk) 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The question arises of Armstrong's finances. She passes over Muhammadan slavery in silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What? Gorton k ( talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does the reception section currently consist entirely of praise for Karen Armstrong. There is no shortage of criticism of her by reliable sources and notable people. And why has the Criticism section been entirely deleted? This article is currently in my opinion (which I realize is worth basically nothing) highly POV in favor of Armstrong. Criticisms and critical receptions need to be added (or added back, as it seems they existed before but were deleted). Armstrong's views are highly controversial, and certainly not without criticism. Other prominent religious and political commentators articles' include criticisms in some form or another, this article includes absolutely no criticism and only praise. Anon12356 ( talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states that Armstrong is a writer and an "academic". In fact this is where a lot of the controversy over this figure lies, i.e. Armstrong never even studied religion or history, and is pretty far from being an "academic" in any sense of the word. I will change this immediately.-- Birdtread ( talk) 14:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Armstrong being called a "Scholar," here's some food for thought: "The word "scholar" is best applied to people who devote themselves to study of focused material, and achieve certification from others who have studied and gained expertise in that same material. Scholars perform original research. Scholars produce original, peer-reviewed publications. Scholars are circumspect about the public statements they make on which they claim authority. A scholar might say, "My research has been on medieval knighthood; therefore, I am not qualified to speak about soldiers in the Roman Empire." Armstrong does not meet any of these criteria of scholarship. Armstrong was, first, a nun. She left the convent and attempted to embark on an academic career. She tried to write a dissertation about the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Her dissertation was rejected. She did not receive her desired degree. She left the university. Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages. She does not publish with university presses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference relating to Armstrong and the Crusades as it is little more than a character assassination on her and does support the point it is supposed to make about her credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.24.97 ( talk) 12:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong told Salon that Bill Maher's criticism of Islam is "the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe. This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe." Bill Maher, in response to Armstrong pulling the Hitler card on him called her out on it to the more than one million readers of Vanity Fair (magazine). And Salon published it too. Karen Armstrong certainly isn't denying her inflammatory remarks to Salon... because they happened. But when I posted the exchange on this page, it got reverted, despite being exactly relevant to this page and in accordance with all Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. I'm sorry if this is negative, but it's true and relevant and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK Karen Armstrong does not consider herself a Christian. The second sentence needs a rewrite. -- 2A00:801:320:DDB2:EC0A:AE3F:5D3C:B0FE ( talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karen Armstrong. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Karen Armstrong. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Karen Armstrong. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://kunskapspriset.se/2011/10/internationella-hederspriset-2011-gar-till-karen-armstrong-3/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karen Armstrong. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mohr.de/en/religious-studies/subject-areas/all-books/buch/plaedoyer-fuer-gott.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the list of her books, I did not see "The Lost Art of Scripture" that according to the programme Sunday on Radio Four on June 9 2019 she had written. Vorbee ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bill Maher quote appears to be more about him than Armstrong. In both sources it is presented in the context of a petition against Maher from being able to speak at Berkeley. And in the quote itself Maher defends his own views more than tackling Armstrong's. I think this information should be moved to Bill Maher. VR talk 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not the article to get into minority arguments about whether or not Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic - Armstrong's book is about them as monotheistic religions. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Karen Armstrong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As long as serious criticism of Karen Armstrong and her positions do not appear on this article, the entry will remain hopelessly unbalanced. I also find the dismissal of criticisms by Robert Spencer ideologically motivated, and not based upon the actual substance of his remarks against Ms. Armstrong. This entry about Karen Armstrong cannot be taken seriously as a fair work of reporting until the criticism section is restored and allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teófilo de Jesús ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I support this comment. The main page reads uncomfortably like the result of over-zealous censoring. Karen Armstrong is hugely popular with the public and supporters of a particular view but her work is derided by many who are knowledgeable about history and religion. The article by Hugh Fitzgerald at http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong%3A_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/ illustrates problems similar to those which others identify, including major issues of historical fact and interpretation. If Fitzgerald is largely right, she cannot be accepted as a serious academic or a reliable guide to her subjects. Criticism sections are helpful. They facilitate healthy scepticism, tidy the flow of information and collect in one place the targets for defence. Armstrong is a controversial figure and the article does not reflect that. Martin852 ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
-The article by Hugh Fitzgerald is ridiculous and completely biased and stupid. It is a massive rant by a hugely right-wing anti-muslim person ( Jihad Watch? Oh please...) who has willfully mis-interpreted a Karen Armstrong article, and has torn it apart without references based largely on personal beliefs. Why on earth should that go anywhere near wikipedia? That reads more like a conservapedia article to me... If there is to be a criticisms section, it has to be unbiased and justified. Gorton k ( talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(Though I do think there should be a criticisms section, just that it is a sensible one rather than an unhelpful and divisive rant.) Gorton k ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I just visited this entry for the first time and I completely agree that this entry is a total joke. It takes all of about ten seconds on google to determine that Karen Armstrong is one of the most widely criticized authors writing on the subject of Islam. The above commenter goes out of his way to mention that a particular critic of Armstrong is "hugely right wing"(so what?) and that the criticism looks like it belongs on Conservopedia, as if the fact that a certain critic is conservative or right-wing is automatic grounds for rejecting a particular criticism. He then states that the criticism in question is "stupid" and "completely biased". We are also told the particular criticism "willfully misrepresent[s]" an Armstrong article. No evidence, at all, is given to support these claims. Fitzgerald's criticisms are without merit? Prove it. The majority of the "evidence" provided seems to be that the author is a conservative. To say that rejecting a particular criticism for such a reason is completely unacceptable would be an understatement of epic proportions. Also, the whole "anti-muslim" "justification" is equally without merit. I guess we should go back and excise any criticisms in the entry on the Democratic Party that come from Republicans. And the entry on Mother Theresa, for example? Clearly Christopher Hitchens's criticism should be completely removed, since he was very vocally "anti-Catholic." And any criticism of the Communist Manifesto that comes from anti-communists should obviously be removed this very instant. That a particular individual opposes a particular religion doesn't make his criticisms of Armstrong's "scholarship" any less valid. But this discussion isn't merely limited to Hugh Fitzgerald. Armstrong's critics are legion; that only one of them is mentioned is, in a word, pathetic. The entry contains a perfunctory one sentence criticism of Armstrong that was obviously tacked on in a failed attempted to appease those pointing out that this entry is hopelesly baised. Furthermore, the included criticism fails to address the charge that the vast majority of her critics have levelled against her: shoddy scholarship. And it never ceases to amaze me when individuals who write entries that are little more than hagiographies turn around and assert that a particular criticism is too biased, as if the entry they have written isn't hopelessly unbalanced. Until a more comprehensive criticism section is put back in place, this entry will remain the completely worthless farce that it is. 74.138.40.147 ( talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am writing about this paragraph:
The reference citation given for this quote is erroneous and goes to another article that has nothing to do with Karen Armstrong or anything she said. I did find the quote on a cached page of the History New Network (it is no longer on their website), but it was not by Karen Amstrong, but rather from a commenter on a blog, reporting what Armstrong is alleged to have said, extempore, while commenting on a speach by another speaker. I am not saying she didn' t say this, but I don't believe this meets the wikipedia standard of a reliable source and in any case is no longer available. I am going to remove the false citation and put a notice of "citation needed." However, I would like to add that this appears to be a cherry picked quotation put in my someone who is hostile to Armstrong. It maybe that Armstrong, in making the case that Islam used to be a more tolerant religion than it now appears to be, tends to exaggerate the amount of tolerance present in early Islam. It is my impression that religious toleration is a relatively new thing, historically speaking, and that while it may have been relatively tolerant compared to Roman Catholicism or Judaism, Islam was never really tolerant in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Armstrong is no mindless booster of Islam or anything else, and it is easy to find other sources where she condemns intolerance, whether of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish fundamentalism. Her condemnation of intolerance is what needs to be stressed, not her having found positive qualities in the Moslem Brotherhood (now recognized by the way, by our State Department as a peaceful organization). I recommend that the whole paragraph be deleted. 24.105.128.45 ( talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 173.77.108.172 ( talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I also don't think that an article on a living person should be a forum for those who want to push a particular point of view. The criticism paragraph -- a dubious addition -- should say simply that a there is a vocal contingent of hardliners, among them Pipes, and David Horowitz and their associates, who object to any positive depiction of Islam and are vocal critics of Armstrong. 173.77.108.172 ( talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have trimmed a number of sources for the "Criticism" section because they appear not to be WP:BLP-compliant sources
None of these meet the standard for a biography of a living person, especially not for criticism. Guettarda ( talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism sections are, of course, a blight, a symptom of poor writing. Not that the "views" section isn't equally incoherent, but you need to start somewhere. Right now the section consists of two main statements:
and
So here's the thing: the article doesn't tell us what the "controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe", so the Karsh comment is worse than useless. Similarly, we have Pipes' criticism of her book, but no other information about her book.
Were the responses to these books overwhelmingly negative? If not, there's a serious WP:UNDUE problem here. And what does "former nun with an ax to grind" mean? This isn't an informative comment on Armstrong's book. Guettarda ( talk) 06:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I challenge you to cite me the specific rules ... that the citations violate - please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. (Emphasis added.)
If you want to use these sources, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they meet they meet our requirements. You are the one asserting that they do. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence. Guettarda ( talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Pending the discussion of the criticism section, I've put a tag under the criticism section of the Armstrong article. Sleetman ( talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed self-published criticism, per WP:BLPSPS and WP:QS, yet again. Guettarda ( talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting comments here as to whether or not the criticisms of Karen Armstrong are reliable sources. Sleetman ( talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[3]
[4]
[5] whose quote appeared in a paper published by the Hudson institute.
[6]{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
A coalition of local groups will hold a rally at the Liberty Bell on Sunday, Jan. 20, in support of American and Israeli military policies in the Persian Gulf crisis. "We'll be coming out on Sunday to say 'God bless America and Israel," said Bertram Korn Jr., executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, one of the sponsors of the rally. "The criminal Iraqi war machine must be permanently disarmed," he added.
To encourage effective advocacy on behalf of Israel, the Center for Israel and Overseas of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia will host a daylong program -- its inaugural advocacy event -- on Sunday, Dec. 5, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., at Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania, Steinhardt Hall, 215 S. 39th St. in Philadelphia. In the morning will be a panel featuring representatives from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, all of which will discuss "Methodologies on How to Advocate for Israel...Dr. John Cohn, a local physician named Camera's "No. 1 Letter-Writer" in 2004, will serve as moderator of the panel.
CAMERA is looking for fifteen passionately committed undergraduate students with excellent communication skills who can organize pro-Israel events on campus. Students earn $1000 and a free exclusive trip to Israel in June by becoming a CAMERA Fellows Representative.
Their work undoubtedly has impact, but the non-Israel-related groups do not have the same activist focus. They produce studies and polls. It is for this reason that I think pro-Israeli media watching has an importance beyond the cause of Israel. Efforts that induce better adherence to ethical journalism in one subject area are positive generally in helping to strengthen American democracy, especially, again, as there are no enforceable codes of professional conduct in the media. – CAMERA Executive Director Andrea Levin.
While the the [ sic] pro-Israeli Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or Camera, studies newspapers for evidence of bias, Palestine Media Watch has been monitoring the coverage of newspapers like The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The Thomas Madden quotes seem like they are reliably sourced enough to be ok. The others are problematic. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding random criticisms is extremely poor writing. Please try to improve the article, don't turn it into a set of disjointed quotes. Guettarda ( talk) 15:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My revert of your edit was entirely appropriate, since you were adding blog-sourced criticism that you knew to be problematic. Guettarda ( talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The reliability of the sources on the Karen Armstrong page is being discussed here. Sleetman ( talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the "Views" section is really the best way to write this article. These aren't really the "views" she spends most of her energy on. They are primary-sourced quotes. Two of the five sections are taken from a single, poorly-sourced interview with Omayma Abdel-Latif. Overall there's a serious balance/weight issue here. Where are her views on compassion, to pick one major issue. Why did some editors pick these quotes? Ideally her views should come from secondary sources. Less optimally, they should come from her own writing, where her views are set out in context. Cherry-picked quotes from interviews seem like a bad idea. Guettarda ( talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article should reflect the following
Her thoughts and views
In terms of the reception of her work, there are maybe four strands
Of these, the fourth is the most likely to get heard online, but for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia article, they are the least important. Per WP:GEVAL. Guettarda ( talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Views" section; removed from article, per statement above Guettarda ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ViewsChristianity and IslamIn an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong compared Christianity to Islam, stating that "Islam is a religion of success. Unlike Christianity, which has as its main image, in the west at least, a man dying in a devastating, disgraceful, helpless death… Mohammed was not an apparent failure. He was a dazzling success, politically as well as spiritually, and Islam went from strength to strength to strength." [1] Armstrong also affirms that “Until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.” [2] 2005 London suicide bombingIn an interview with Bill Moyers, Armstrong blamed the the Suicide bombings in London on July 7, 2005, on Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, characterizing it a political, not a religious gesture:
The PopeA critic of certain aspects of Roman Catholicism, Armstrong characterized the Pope as "the world's last, great, absolute monarch. He not only controls doctrinal and spiritual affairs, but also the political, social and economic fortunes of his church. And because he's believed to be directly guided by God, his decisions have the ring of absolute truth, which is strangely out of kilter with the democratic tenor of today's world". [3] Muslims, modernity, and the mediaArmstrong believes that all sides must learn to deal with extremism in their midst and advance their interests in a peaceful, non-violent manner. In "The feel of religion" (July 2002), an interview of Armstrong by Omayma Abdel-Latif that is widely reprinted on Islamic websites, Armstrong stressed that:In the same interview she continued:
Israeli-Palestinian conflictArmstrong told Omayma Abdel-Latif in 2002 that she believed the Israeli Palestinian conflict was a European political creation and not a clash of religions: "I don't think people sit at home and read the Qur'an and say, yes, I must go and bomb Israel," she continued:
In her opinion, charges of anti-Semitism in Europe play into the hands of the American Israel lobby because "this will discredit anything Europe says. They say Europe is anti-Semitic because for the first time Europe is becoming aware of the plight of the Palestinians. It is part of a campaign to discredit European input in any future peace process." She also believes that part of the problem stems from Jews still considering themselves solely as victims. "The problem with Israel now is that it cannot believe that it is not 1939 any more; the Israeli people are emotionally stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era." [4]
|
The following is a paragraph of Juan Eduardo Campo's opinion of Armstrong:
Juan Eduardo Campo, the author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a "more or less objective" (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America. [1]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Until the the International Journal of Middle East Studies can be proven that it is a reliable source, it can't be used as a Wikipedia source. Sleetman ( talk) 05:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The International Journal of Middle East Studies is one of the most eminent academic journals in the field and its reliability in Wikipedia terms is beyond question. Zero talk 05:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Can anybody explain why Armstrong's version of her Wikipedia page here [19] is being reverted? Sleetman ( talk) 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The question arises of Armstrong's finances. She passes over Muhammadan slavery in silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What? Gorton k ( talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does the reception section currently consist entirely of praise for Karen Armstrong. There is no shortage of criticism of her by reliable sources and notable people. And why has the Criticism section been entirely deleted? This article is currently in my opinion (which I realize is worth basically nothing) highly POV in favor of Armstrong. Criticisms and critical receptions need to be added (or added back, as it seems they existed before but were deleted). Armstrong's views are highly controversial, and certainly not without criticism. Other prominent religious and political commentators articles' include criticisms in some form or another, this article includes absolutely no criticism and only praise. Anon12356 ( talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states that Armstrong is a writer and an "academic". In fact this is where a lot of the controversy over this figure lies, i.e. Armstrong never even studied religion or history, and is pretty far from being an "academic" in any sense of the word. I will change this immediately.-- Birdtread ( talk) 14:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Armstrong being called a "Scholar," here's some food for thought: "The word "scholar" is best applied to people who devote themselves to study of focused material, and achieve certification from others who have studied and gained expertise in that same material. Scholars perform original research. Scholars produce original, peer-reviewed publications. Scholars are circumspect about the public statements they make on which they claim authority. A scholar might say, "My research has been on medieval knighthood; therefore, I am not qualified to speak about soldiers in the Roman Empire." Armstrong does not meet any of these criteria of scholarship. Armstrong was, first, a nun. She left the convent and attempted to embark on an academic career. She tried to write a dissertation about the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Her dissertation was rejected. She did not receive her desired degree. She left the university. Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages. She does not publish with university presses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference relating to Armstrong and the Crusades as it is little more than a character assassination on her and does support the point it is supposed to make about her credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.24.97 ( talk) 12:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong told Salon that Bill Maher's criticism of Islam is "the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe. This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe." Bill Maher, in response to Armstrong pulling the Hitler card on him called her out on it to the more than one million readers of Vanity Fair (magazine). And Salon published it too. Karen Armstrong certainly isn't denying her inflammatory remarks to Salon... because they happened. But when I posted the exchange on this page, it got reverted, despite being exactly relevant to this page and in accordance with all Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. I'm sorry if this is negative, but it's true and relevant and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK Karen Armstrong does not consider herself a Christian. The second sentence needs a rewrite. -- 2A00:801:320:DDB2:EC0A:AE3F:5D3C:B0FE ( talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karen Armstrong. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Karen Armstrong. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Karen Armstrong. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://kunskapspriset.se/2011/10/internationella-hederspriset-2011-gar-till-karen-armstrong-3/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karen Armstrong. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mohr.de/en/religious-studies/subject-areas/all-books/buch/plaedoyer-fuer-gott.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the list of her books, I did not see "The Lost Art of Scripture" that according to the programme Sunday on Radio Four on June 9 2019 she had written. Vorbee ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bill Maher quote appears to be more about him than Armstrong. In both sources it is presented in the context of a petition against Maher from being able to speak at Berkeley. And in the quote itself Maher defends his own views more than tackling Armstrong's. I think this information should be moved to Bill Maher. VR talk 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not the article to get into minority arguments about whether or not Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic - Armstrong's book is about them as monotheistic religions. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)