User talk:Aviefar

Campus Watch

If you want to add to Campus Watch then by all means do so. It could, for example, have more on the campaigns the organisation has run.

However, your clumsy editing look like worthless propaganda. Only hard-core propaganda sites label as a "scholar" a man who writes like this: "[Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations. Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity."[1].

Even the heavily Zionist dominated Wikipedia is uneasy about Pipes, it says:

Criticism of Pipes' views

In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose." James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans". Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, has also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursues an intolerant agenda, "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP." While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion."

In addition, Pipes has sparked local controversies as an invited speaker at college campuses. When Pipes was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005, a letter from professors, staff and students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist [speeches] that goes back to 1990."University officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.

Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". Esposito writes that Pipes' methodology "is as legitimate as equating all American Jews who have emigrated to Israel with Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the American physician who emigrated to Israel and later slaughtered some 25 Muslims at prayer in the Hebron mosque. Pipes knows much better."

The above is quite mild - another editor proposed to write:

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."

It must be difficult to explain why the more detailed version isn't being used - if antisemites were to use words such as "troublesome", "barbarians" and "potential killers" I feel sure such language would be prominent in their biography. It is only fair to add that the Zionopedia lists several others who support Pipes right to speak, but there seems nobody reputable supporting his views which are widely seen as extreme and offensive. Your attempt to label him a "scholar" is pretty transparent. Toolbox 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)