Hello, Cnemore! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Daniel Pipes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Wellertalk 09:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doug:
This is in response to the deletion of my edits to the Daniel Pipes page.
The page that has been on-line for sometime is a very biased, one-sided critique of Mr. Pipes that attempts to paint him as a hater of Islam. The purpose of my edits was to balance this, using links to articles he wrote.
One example to begin with: in paragraph 3, it says: "Pipes is a prominent critic of Islam". This was changed to say that he is "a prominent critic of radical Islam." In other words, he is not anti-Islam; in fact, he supports moderate Islam. He's against Islamic extremists and radicals. I added the word "radical" to make that distinction clear, yet it was deleted.
The best source for this distinction is the Wikipedia article itself:
The article quotes Pipes' position (which contradicts the claim that he is a "critic of Islam"): "It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution."
So the article that has been on Wikipedia for some time says in the third paragraph he opposes "Islam", and yet in the text makes clear he only opposes radical or militant Islam and believes moderate Islam is the solution. Clearly someone who "opposes Islam" doesn't believe "moderate Islam is the solution."
Another example, also from the third paragraph: "Pipes has made false statements about alleged "no-go" zones" in France. Is it appropriate in Wikipedia to state as a fact that some statement is "false?" The claim that this is false is supported with a citation to an article, but if you look at the article, all the article says is that Pipes' statement is false; it doesn't say why it's false or attempt to show evidence that it's false. So the claim in Wikipedia that it's false is supported simply by an article saying it's false. The claim that it is a "false" statement appears to be an opinion, and therefore inappropriate.
In general, the sourced quotes about him are all one-sided; very negative. The article should be balanced with quotes from the numerous sources that are positive toward his work, and also not delete the references to his own writings.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Daniel Pipes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)