Talk:While Europe Slept

A fact from While Europe Slept appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within was described both as "well written and well informed" and as using "wildly exaggerated statistics"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

Books

This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This seems familiar...

Was there a book very similar to this published in Canada in 2009? I seem to recall a major flap that made its way all the way to The Agenda. Maybe it was this book, but I don't think so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a different book.There are many books written on the subject, but this book is different because the author wrote another book against Christian fundamentalism, which means that he is impartial. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, or partial against fundamentalism perhaps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues after re-write

This piece " This was the second book Bawer wrote about religious fundamentalism, following Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, a 1998 critique of fundamentalist Christianity. " should stay. There was absolutely no reason to remove it. It is mentioned in the most sources, and this is an important piece because it shows the the author is against any religious fundamentalism.
this reference has no word "racism" . The word "racism" is a very strong word, and if you write: "endemic racism in Europe", it should be supported better by the sources IMO.
This piece "He also concentrates on what he perceives as the dangers that Europe is facing because of its supposed tolerance of Radical Islam:
A swarming menace called radical Islam, he writes, rings Europe's cities in smoldering Muslim ghettos, provoking everything from so-called honor killings and political assassinations to the Madrid subway bombings and the massacre of school children in Beslan.
should stay. It is important quote from the book, and there's no reason to remove it.

Those are my main issues. I might add something else later on.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just quickly - the last quote I removed because it isn't at all clear in the original article whether the author is directly quoting the book or characterizing (perhaps lampooning) its arguments in his own words. Since there are plenty of other references covering essentially the same ground that don't have this problem, I couldn't justify its inclusion. I also think, quite frankly, that it's a needlessly provocative quote that the article would be better without.

Re: the "racism" quote - it could be I need an extra reference for that. Sometimes in putting together an article I will lose track of where one or two quotes come from. I'll see if I can remedy that, but I may not be able to do so tonight.

Re: Stealing Jesus - I simply couldn't see the point. It's not about this book, it's about the author, and that info is already contained at his own page. Apart from which, I couldn't find a practical way to work it into the text. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said most of the sources about the book mention "Stealing Jesus". It is important, it is a fact, has nothing to do with POV. It should be in the article.

About the quote for honor killings and Beslan. This quote is used in those reliable sources that give the book overview. It should be added back in because without it the article looks like all problems the author has are only about European politicians, and radical Islam is yet another innocent victim of "endemic racism in Europe".--Mbz1 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you would have to come up with a credible source that directly quotes Bawer using the term "swarming menace", because I very much doubt he used that phrase in his book. In regards to honor killings, that practice is already referred to in Bawer's quote at the end of the article.

As for Stealing Jesus, I really can't see the point and I thought the article was long enough already. But since you've brought it up, I might have another look at the article to see if I can find a practical way of including it. It's going to have to wait until tomorrow though because I'm too tired to do any more now. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Gato, since when we started to worry about length of the article? As I said almost all reviewers include mention of "Stealing Jesus". Even the authors of the most critical reviews have it [1]

About the quote. It comes from this source. It is a reliable source of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the source is reliable, but the phrase in question is not in direct quotes, so it's unclear whether Bawer actually used it. As for "Stealing Jesus", I said I would try and find a way to integrate that into the text tomorrow, but I haven't the energy to do so tonight. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is another RS with the same quote. This quote is important, if for nothing else then simply so show what this book has to do with Islamophobia as some say it does.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just quoting the same Publisher's Weekly review. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you are an author, and you wrote a book,and Publisher's Weekly review claims that you wrote something that you did not, would you keep silent? Anyway, if you would not like to have this well sourced quote in the article, it is OK. Could you please remove your opposition from DYK hook?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident the quote is not in the book. But in response to your request, of course, I'll do that now. Thanks once again for your co-operation. I do think your suggestions above have led to an improved article, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, but how about this "racism" thing. The word "racism" is not in the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just recalled you brought that up yesterday. I have tweaked that statement to more accurately represent the author's statements, and added a cite for it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Twice now the claim has been made that since the author wrote a book about two religions, this somehow make him immune to claims of being biased. How does that work exactly? This simply suggests he is biased against more than one, right? Hating two things makes you more of a hater, not less of one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz doesn't see it that way. I don't think the mention of the other book is doing the article any harm, anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, Gato. It is not only me, who believes the fact about this other book should be mention in the article. Most of professional reviewers did it, why should wikipedia be different?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say mention of the other book doesn't do the article any harm. You have a valid point about the multiple mentions in reviews. The difference is that an individual review can cover many different aspects of a topic while in this article we are trying to briefly summarize the most important points made by reviewers, and I didn't see mention of the book as one of them. Either way however, it's not something I'm inclined to quibble about. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]