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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Reliable Sources

Andrew's and Daniel's pipes are not considered reliable sources. These should be removed per WP:RS. Please remember our duty as WP editors is first to the users of WP who need actual and reliable info. NiceAdam (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editors have long considered the author to be reliable on the topic at hand. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, they don't pass the test of WP:RS. But professor Carl Ernst does. Why does someone keep deleting his references? I will provide reference from his book if that helps. This article also does not pass the NPOV.--NiceAdam (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes has the appropriate degrees in this area, has published books over 4 decades, published articles, held academic positions, and is invited by reliable sources to give his opinion. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conservative opinions are both RS, and it is likely Carl Ernst is, but the quote you gave from him was not in the source given, perhaps the wrong url? Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner42:Thanks for feedback. Trying to understand how and when did these fringe publications became RS at WP? And, Huffington Post is not. And, a credentialed professor at a major American University is not.--NiceAdam (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added yet another non-RS source: Andrew Bostom and Am Thinker. All three opinions praising the book are all non-RS citations need to be removed ASAP because these are fringe publications and the articles are written by non-experts. In addition, the NRO opinion piece is not even about this book.--NiceAdam (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

these non-RS need to be removed per wp:rs. No one has proven otherwise.--EddEnter (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have a consensus to clean up misplaced praise.--JtThere (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Referenced Info

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as an editor is doing. Thank you --EddEnter (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]