| Revision as of 15:33, 25 March 2008 editSennen goroshi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,008 edits →Reminder and Sources← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:36, 26 April 2024 edit undoNewslinger (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators62,762 edits →Due weight tag: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (381 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{WikiProject Blogging}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|Islam and Controversy=yes|class=B|importance=low|}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{oldafdmulti |
|
{{oldafdmulti |
|
|date=30 August 2006 |
|
|date=30 August 2006 |
|
|date2= 23 May 2007 |
|
|date2= 23 May 2007 |
|
|page2= Jihad Watch (2nd nomination)}} |
|
|page2= Jihad Watch (2nd nomination)}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Jihad Watch/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Due weight tag == |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
== Revert wars == |
|
|
I knew it was going to happen.... |
|
|
...I have no objection to secondary and tertiary entries so long as I don't have to guard the thing 24/7 against vandalism aiming to nerf the entry down to flavorless, factless nothingness.--] 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== CAIR == |
|
|
It's interesting why people desire to list CAIR's "hate site" reference, when, if such POV is kosher, then it's equally kosher for CAIR-detractors to follow up with an examination of all the CAIR critters indicted, tossed in jail, deported, etc., for terrorist-associations, money-laundering, fraud, etc.--] 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism== |
|
|
Why shouldn't there be a section telling the reader that this site has recieved a lot of criticism? The article just spats out quotes from this site and presents it as fact. |
|
|
:No, they are ''not'' presented as "facts"; they are presented as a quotation. Intelligent persons do not have difficulty discerning the difference.--] 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
And its not like its just a couple of people whining here and there, its enough people that Robert Spencer acknowledges them. Its bias not to show that this site has not undergone the success it has had without criticism.--] 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Everybody everywhere has critics, and anyone anywhere can find them with a simple Google search. Wiki bios are about personages, not their critics. If a particular critic is notable in his own right, then he should have his own Wiki entry.--] 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
But doesn't it seem odd that one of the most contreversial sites on the web, has no mention of that contreversy in the Misplaced Pages article?--] 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, because most Misplaced Pages articles are total cat-fights that get reverted twenty to fifty times a day, making it a complete random crap-shoot as to what information any browser is going to get at any time of the day. As for whether or not a blog dealing with Islam is controversial, somebody would have to have a head of solid stone not to be able to deduce that for themselves. As for Spencer's (ubiquitously unnotable) critics, who doesn't know, by now, that Google is their friend?--] 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Why not create a separate Wikepedia entry entitled "Criticism of Jihad Watch," as has been done for CAIR? ] 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
It is clear that this entry currently has zero significance. It simply states "here is a website, come visit it and bolster my hit count". |
|
|
:Leading off with a blatantly false statement like that doesn't inspire confidence for what is to follow.... |
|
|
Creating a website, and listing it on Wiki saying "here it is, I am the author" holds zero merit, and with nothing usefull in it whatsoever. |
|
|
:Are you accusing Wiki editors of creating the website?--] 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
It is obvious that people (including Pro- Jihad Watch) want to show critism and how the website succeeds in the face of it. |
|
|
:It's obvious that (Islamic fanatics?) with fresh-made Wiki accounts without user pages (when they're not simply behind random IP addresses) want to criticize it. In fact, one wonders how you even discovered that Misplaced Pages had an entry for this subject of "zero significance" -- let alone why you would care about it so much -- if mention of it hadn't been dropped on a web-forum ''you like to read''.--] 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Actually, there are lots of critics of JW. Not just Muslims. Maybe not fascist Jewish propagandists that you love, like Pipes, but there are lots of critics including non Muslims. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me remind you of the Wiki five pillars; |
|
|
Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. |
|
|
:The article does have a neutral POV -- it explains exactly what JihadWatch *is*, and nothing more. |
|
|
You keep on reverting the article to hold ZERO viewpoints. |
|
|
:So, you shift your argument from one which insinuates that the JH wiki entry has SOME kind or ''partisan'' viewpoint (and that therefore anti-JH criticism is warranted as some kind of balance) to an argument which declares, in an immediately following sentence, that the JH wiki entry has no viewpoints whatsoever...? You appear to be just making stuff up as you go along.--] 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Furthermore "Misplaced Pages is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes" |
|
|
:And your evidence of "''personal'' promotion" is...?--] 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article needs to include criticism of ''jihadwatch''. There should ''at least'' be a mention of the critisism of jihadwatch that has come from muslims, a quick glance ot the site shows it to be Islamophobic rather than about combating extremist Islam, the home page advertises a book claiming to be about Muhammad ''Founder of the World's Most Intollerant Religion'', says it all really, it's got nothing to do with extreme Islam, and everything to do with religious intolerance. Critisism of this organisation is legitimate, and it is legitimate to include that criticism in this article, indeed it is not only legitimate to include criticism, it is fundamental to the NPOV policy that all POVs be expressed. It is apparent that this organisation, jihadwatch, is associated with people and organisations that have a pro-Israeli and right wing bias, including people like ] who want to supress freedom of speech in the USA, there seems to be a fair amount of cross over between ], Jihad Watch, Professors Watch and ] and ]. This undermines the so called ''independence'' of this site. Criticism of this site from ] really does need to be included. Indeed there is a whole '''article''' on critisism of ], see ]. I'm going to start ot introduce some neutrality into this site when I get some time. Mike18xx has spouted what I can only describe as irellevant nonsense above, much of which are clear breaches of correct wikipedia policies. |
|
|
*''you shift your argument from one which insinuates that the JH wiki entry has SOME kind or ''partisan'' viewpoint'' |
|
|
:This is irrelevant, the ] policy means that we '''should''' include criticism of the organisation, just as there is critisism of other organisations in their articles. If no critisism is made, when criticism clearly exists, then the article is in breach of the NPOV policy. |
|
|
*''The article does have a neutral POV -- it explains exactly what JihadWatch *is*'' |
|
|
:No it doesn't, what JH ''is'' is a matter of POV, so to explain what it ''is'' we need to include all POVs, including those that think it ''is'' a right wing Islamophobic organisation. |
|
|
*''It's obvious that (Islamic fanatics?) with fresh-made Wiki accounts without user pages (when they're not simply behind random IP addresses) want to criticize it.'' |
|
|
:This is close to a ]. Any evidence of ] should be reported, false accusations are extremely poor form. What is the evidence that only ''Islamic fanatics'' want to criticise this article? One can criticise this article and be no sort of fanatic at all, and not even a muslim, it's not a very good article, and is certainly not neutral in tone. |
|
|
*''Everybody everywhere has critics, and anyone anywhere can find them with a simple Google search. Wiki bios are about personages, not their critics.'' |
|
|
:What's this gibberish? This is not a bio, it's an article about an organisation. Because this is an encyclopaedia it needs to include critisism of the organisation. We cannot say in the article ''for critisism do a google''. For one thing Misplaced Pages is supposed to be medium independent, there are CD rom versions for people that are not online, and most of the world is not, let's remember. Also we include only ], something a google search will not produce. |
|
|
None of the ''arguments'' used by Mike18xx have any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. There is absolutely no reason for not including critisism of this organisation in the article. Indeed it is a breach of the ] polict to include only information from the site itself or from other sites that support it. ] has a criticism section. But I note that ] and ] do not, maybe we need to introduce more neutrality accross these articles about the radical right of US politics. ] 11:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This entry in the criticism place: |
|
|
Jihad Watch has often been criticized for its inaccurate and misleading content. It has typically tried to demonize and satanize Muslims even when evidence is lacking. For example Jihad Watch blamed the murder of an Egyptian Christian family on so-called "Muslim extremists" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004740.php) yet later police investigations concluded the family was murdered by non-Muslim American youths for the purpose of robbery. |
|
|
|
|
|
Should be edited, for one thing, the use of language 'demonize and satanise'is not professional, and is repeated anyway later now in the second criticism 'islamophobic and racist'. |
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly, the example given above of 'misleading information' that the site said the family WAS murdered by Muslims is false even going to that link, for that link explicitly says that it received information from a person in regards to its statements. |
|
|
In other words, Jihadwatch is saying that the person whom was a close friend of those killed says Muslims killed them. |
|
|
"A close friend of Hossam Armanious, the Coptic Christian who was brutally murdered in New Jersey along with his family, is the source of this information which comes to you exclusively from Jihad Watch:" |
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell just from that, that whoever put that in is extremely biased towards this site, keep an objective mind and dont include criticism that is in fact easily demonstratibly false, your just undermining the quality this whole wikipedia community is after. |
|
|
] 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notability == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per Misplaced Pages guidelines, shouldn't any news or statements being considered for addition to an entry be subject to the same test of Notability that prospective entries are? If one blogger says something somewhere in cyberspace, does that make that statement notable enough to attribute it in a Misplaced Pages entry? Accordingly, I propose the statement attributed to "TallArmenianTale" be removed. IF one is found that echoes the same sentiment, but attributes a more reputable (or notable) source, I'm all for it's inclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Blogs are not notable unless the source of the text writing it is notable, or the blog has been the subject of some media press. It is best to not use them as a source, generally. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Whenever Spencer is interviewed (which isn't infrequently), he is invariably introduced as the creator of Jihad Watch (and the things he writes there are often the focus of the interview). However, the stalwart efforts of the "]" to remove articles referencing annoying criticism of Islam from Misplaced Pages are duly noted.--] 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I don't see any censorship by Muslims. But I do see lots of censorship by fascist jews of any criticism of judaism, israel, zionism, and the official holocaust story, both here and all over the media. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Try ] as a counterproductive '''attempt''' at censorship, by editors who claim to be Muslim. ] 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Eligibility of a Blog == |
|
|
|
|
|
Going to keep this short, what is the point of this wiki entry? |
|
|
|
|
|
It has one single point of view, to a very suspicious website. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lets wait for an entry to JewWatch which claims that the site is unquestionable and true. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Suspicious"? Mr Spencers website is extremely well researched, well thought out, and actually provides evidence to back up its claims. Also, unlike JewWatch, it is not a site dedicated to hatred of an ethnic group, but criticism of a religion. |
|
|
] 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why the links to critical websites were removed. --] 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Because they are anonynmous blogs. We do not reference anonymous blogs.--] 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: CltFn kindly give link regarding your claim. (] 21:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
::: You can start with ]--] 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, you want ] because those sites have not been referenced, just linked. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article in ] calls jihadwatch ''notoriously Islamophobic''. I think the good old Guardian is exceedingly reputable, and eminently citable. Here's another article in the Guardian that mentions Jihad Watch, though the article is about how right wing Americans want to restrict academic freedom. CAIR is not an anonymous blog, I'm don't know much about this, but it seems at least equally respectable as ''jihadwatch.org''. Given that ''jihadwatch.org'' has posted anti-CAIN material on it's site, it would seem fair to include criticism of ''jihadwatch.org'' by CAIN. This is an encyclopaedia, it needs to be ballanced, not all of the criticism of this organisation is by anonymous bloggers, nor is it all by people that are not reliable sources. Jihad Watch itself seems to be a somewhat unreliable sort of ''organisation'', but that's not relevant, what is relevant is ], ] and ] from ]. One cannot claim that all sources that criticise ''Jihad Watch'' are not reliable. ] 21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your point is correct, however the specific "critical websites" that ] was referring on 30 August 2006 to were anomymous blogs.--] 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The last cited example of Jihadwatch 'censorring free speach' is wrong, for the article itself cites a person who is in some way affiliated with Jihadwatch offhandedly, but the article does not talk about Jihadwatch, nor mentions it as censorring free speach. |
|
|
It is talking about that person. |
|
|
Be very careful of linking websites that offer extremely thin straws supporting some criticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Category:David Horowitz == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thre's no indication in this article of why it's in ]. We should indicate the connection in the text. -] · ] · 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I added a link ... == |
|
|
|
|
|
For objectivity's sake, I added a link to a blog critical of JihadWatch. I urge the numerous JihadWatch fans not to remove this. Since you denounce Islam as not respecting pluralism and imposing intellectual conformity, give the good example and allow criticism of JihadWatch to be read as well. ] 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is a blog link. Per ]- #10, I am removing it.--] 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is crap: Jihad Watch is a blog itself. Look wat Sefringle has to say on his own user page : "I believe people need to see all sides of contravercial issues. It is my belief that Misplaced Pages should have unbaised articles, not just articles that praise one side while ignoring the other side. I believe wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, and be accurate." So please, back off ! ] 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== nonsense == |
|
|
"Less than a year later the Jihad Watch site is getting between 600,000 to 1 million hits a day, according to Spencer." |
|
|
not believable especially from "spencer" the author of the silly blog. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Criticism, yet again== |
|
|
I added references to the criticism against Jihad Watch as it gives the article context, but now I realize that these links had been in and out of the entry for a long time. The reason Jihad Watch deserves an entry is because it is so controversial and brought up by CAIR as an example of popular websites. If you take that away, why should there be an entry on a blog nobody cares about? ] 08:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion == |
|
|
As per edit summary may I suggest we don't include marginally notable criticism of other parties than the article subject? We have an article on Spencer and Spencer's attack on a guardian journalist on a TV show isn't really about Jihad Watch. Otherwise we will end up with long and silly lists of insults in the article. --] ] 09:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:If we include one side, we should include the other. ] 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It starts to cheapen the whole thing if we bother to report retaliatory sniping, especially if it isn't actually on the Jihad watch site but it by someone who apparently merits his own article on a TV show. I don't think it is encyclopedic in nature to list "he said /// she said" etc. There isn't actually a material counter accusation here is there? --] ] 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::the retorts don't actually respond to or refute the criticisms, they just attack the critics. ] 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is on the same level as Whitaker's attempted slam. ] 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::the website (i.e. the topic of this article) has been criticised for being Islamophobic. a retort would be to assert why it isn't, or why such neologisms might be inappropriate or inapplicable, or anything else that debunks the criticism. spiteful attacks against those forwarding the criticism is just a way around actually addressing it, and as such is extraneous to the discussion of the criticism. ] 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is not a way around anything, and criticism is not the topic of this article. ] 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"It is not a way around anything" - the '']'' arguments i have described above are exactly that. criticism of the website is the subject of the section. ] 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Then we should just dump the useless and diverting criticism section, since (A) it's already obvious, from the nature of the article's subject, what kinds of people aren't going to like it, and therefore (B) indulging in it is just ]. Not every article on Misplaced Pages has to be a stupid, bloated monstrosity.--] 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Mike, there is no reason to remove the section altogether. --] 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Then criticism of the ugliness of the coats on the coatrack is also permissible.--] 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why was the criticism section just deleted? The edit summary was |
|
|
:*''It is either acceptible to critique the ugliness of the coats on this rack, or the coats get tossed into the garbage. ]'' |
|
|
:But that doesn't explain the deletion. "Coatrack" is not a policy. ]] ] 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::You're absolutely right! Editors are, upon occasion, permitted to use their own logic in the determination of what is garbage, and proceed accordingly.--] 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You still need a reason to delete sourced criticism. Without all viewpoints represented the artilce is not NPOV. ]] ] 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hmm... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me preface this by saying that I have little to no familiarity with the website or its operation, so be patient with me, eh? But I am wondering how this controversial David Hurwitz is even remotely involved with this website; from checking the endnote, and then following the information trail, it appears to me that he isn't involved. But rather, the creator of the website joined an independent organization launched by David Hurwitz, but that the latter has no editorial or administrative capacity regarding Jihad Watch. Please do correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like this is a bad-faith edit, and simply hasn't been looked into because it contains a citation (that apparently does not even support the information it is supposed to)... Opinions? ] 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== quotefarm tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
The {{quotefarm}} tag has been added to this article several times, only to be removed each time. I'd like to start a discussion about whether "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." |
|
|
|
|
|
My view: assuming these quotes are representative (I haven't checked), they tell the reader a lot about Jihad Watch and the views it espouses in a fairly vivid way. What do other contributors think? Cheers, ] 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dead links to www.cair-net.org == |
|
|
|
|
|
CAIR seem to have moved to a new website (www.cair.com), and all links to www.cair-net.org are now redirected to the top-level page there. So 2 of the 3 links used as sources in the "Criticism" section are both dead. Could someone please find replacements? ] 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Hate site" == |
|
|
|
|
|
*''Many describe JihadWatch as a ].'' http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/courses/2004/026/001/spencer.htm |
|
|
I removed this because the source does not call the site a "hate site", and it certainly doesn't say that "many" call it that. If we can find a source which does say so I have no objection to restoring it. ]] ] 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Very interesting== |
|
|
So ] is now classified as a blog? Wow. And I'm assuming ] is a news resource now, too? This is utter nonsense. And people wonder why Misplaced Pages is never taken seriously within academia or treated as a reliable resource. This is clearly POV-pushing. '''Robert Spencer himself doesn't even deny that he's anti-Islam.''' I think it's clear as day what this site is.-] (]) 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To call something a 'blog' is hardly giving it an air of respectability. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Category Anti-Islam sentiment== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm adding the cat since it's relevant and belongs in the category, those who need a RS check out the guardian reference in the article. To those who still want it removed inspite of the RS, please don't edit based on your personal opinions. ] (]) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please don't edit based on your personal opinions. Just because you don't like the content of the website, and you think it is islamophobic, doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean the article should be labeled with the category. '''] ]''' 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually i like the content of the website and find it quite humorous - but i still don't edit based on my personal opinions, only wikipedia policy. BTW did you read ] ? ] (]) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your edits imply otherwise. Adding a category like ] is a POV that implies a bigotic connection when one doesn't exist. I think an RFC is the best way to handle this. '''] ]''' 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Yahel, after seeing your edits on the Stormfront article and the Dan Black article, I am a little curious as to the motives behind your edits on this article, if it was not for me having good faith in all editors, I might come to the conclusion that you have some sort of bias/agenda, and that you were letting your personal feelings come in the way of NPOV. ] (]) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::First, mind ] and ]. I added Reliable sources to that article, to represent the majority view of Don Black. I have no agenda here except to insure articles present the truth as represented by the reliable sources. '''] ]''' 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: seeing the previous quality of your edits, I thought it might be sensible to see which other articles you were working on. I was not wikistalking, that would require some form of malice. As for faith, I think I have already stated that I have good faith in all editors. From your previous edits, I have come to the conclusion that you think it is OK to use terms such as hate-site for a site that is a pro-white however, if there is an anti-muslim site, then it is merely "critical" You also seem to like the terms Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist. With all due respect, is there any reason for your dislike of Muslims and Pro-Whites? Are you sure you are not letting your personal feelings get in the way of your edits? Personally, I am neither Muslim, Jew nor Christian, nor do I give a flying fuck about any of the pre-mentioned religions, my edits are based purely on what I consider to be good for wikipedia, if Stormfront is a hate-site, or white-supremacist (which honestly is a pretty apt description) then Jihad Watch is most certainly an Anti-Muslim site. ] (]) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::First of all, I do not consider myself to be anti-muslim, and I find the accusation to be rather insulting. I do not like racism, and that is why I oppose white supremacy (or code words to disguise white supremacy such as white pride and white nationalism). I don't see a comparision between stormfront and jihad watch. Their methods, message, and purposes is completely different for both, and I feel the label is just an attempt to dismiss their criticism of islam as racism, something I do strongly disagree with. '''] ]''' 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: So what you are trying to say is that while you are offended by people removing terms such as "white-supremacy" in order to disguise what you consider to be the true nature of organisations/sites such as Stormfront, you are also against people using terms such as "islamphobic" and "anti-islamic" because they may give exactly the same implication as "white-supremacy" does for the stormfront site. Make your mind up please. Do you feel strong terms such as "white-supremacy" and "islamphobic" are acceptable or not? or are they only acceptable when dealing with certain races/racism? Are there some secret double standards, that I was unaware of? Personally, I am pro-white, pro-muslim, pro-jew, pro-everyone. I have no bias, no agenda and I am white, so I do not fall into the categories that either Jihad-Watch nor Stormfront seem to disapprove of. Can you say the same? Do your edits have no bias? Are they based purely on your opinions, or are they based on something else? I await your reply. ] (]) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I have no problem with terms such as islamophobic, white supremacist, racist, prejudice, etc. when the organization in question actually is bigotic. When the organization is not bigotic, I do have a problem with using the terms to describe it as such. I do not consider Jihad watch to be a bigotic website, and labeling it as such is a POV. Everyone has a bias, whether they choose to admit it or not. Jihad Watch does not self-identify as an islamophobic website; they deny it alltogether, stating it is an attempt to dismiss their opinions as racism (which is partly why ] is a controversial concept in the first place). But to label the website as bigotic clearly shows a bias, especially since it is not the generally recognized view. Just because there are a couple of organizations who label it as such does not make it so. '''] ]''' 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::: Is the Guardian a reliable source? it is not a blog, it is an internationally known newspaper, it is most certainly not a sensationalist tabloid. The following statement is available online "Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch" - so going by your comments on other articles, there is a reliable source, therefore it should not be removed. Feel free to correct me, if you think the Guardian is not a reliable source. ] (]) 04:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the "anti-Islam sentiment" category and "Islamophobia" link again on POV grounds. I believe the accusations are groundless when one actually looks at Spencer's work and reads his own writings. ] (]) 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hello CormHamster, as you can see these aren't 'accusations' and are backed by reliable sources, also read over the discussion and see they have been included in accordance with wikipedia policies. Your personal observation when you go through spencer's work is .. not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I agree with Thestick 100%, A reliable source refers to the site as Islamophobic (the Guardian newspaper) while you don't believe it to be Islamophobic, based on your own original research. You are trying to give more importance to your own original research than to a reliable source. Please don't remove information that is reliably sourced again, especially when you are basing your edits on your own opinion/research. thanks ] (]) 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I agree with Yahel's response above. Additionally, I find the Guardian citation to be one case of anecdotal evidence; indeed, is it the opinion of the paper, or one writer? And common sense is not original research. Islamophobia is a flimsy, politically charged construct, and assigning that label to Jihad Watch is a matter of point of view. ] (]) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Of course the Guardian article is the view of one person, what do you require, that any newspaper article that is used as a citation, is written by a team of 20 writers and co-signed by each and every one of them? A shared opinion based on common sense is of course acceptable, "water is wet" does not require a citation and is hardly original research, however when your version of common sense is not shared by other users, then it is un-verifiable and original research. To use the term islamophobic is not POV, it is a correctly cited term, from a reliable source, as per wikipedia guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
BTW you seem to have a single purpose account, you started editing wikipedia on the 7th of March, and have only edited two different articles, the jihad watch article and the article relating to its owner. Why is that? Did you/do you edit wikipedia using another account? You seem to be aware of wikipedia guidelines which is a little strange for someone who has been editing for about 3 weeks. ] (]) 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where is the reliable source calling JW as a Islamophobic or Anti-Muslim? If you're going to apply logic like that, we would also add a "Wife beating", or "possible scientific errors" in the Quran article. This is OR, please do not add these categories unless a RS talks about it and even then you an only add a category if critics dispute it. Labelling a website as Islamophobic is a controversial accusation because the term itself is controversial and there is disagreement over its use. This is also like adding "Violence towards women" category in the Quran article since reliable sources talk about that. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You believe that ], who holds a degree in Arabic, who is writing in a mainstream reliable publication, is not a reliable source? ] 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::His editorial is not a reliable source to justify its inclusion. A degree in arabic does not make one an expert on what is and is not islamophobic. '''] ]''' 05:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I suggest that all involved editors consider the possibility that edit warring is occurring. And then use the established dispute resolution mechanisms: RfC(article), MedCab, etc, etc. My view: I consider 4 sources listed in the "Criticism" section, and the lack of contrary sources, as sufficient evidence to place this article in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. ] (]) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== cormhamster == |
|
|
|
|
|
who are you? ] (]) 07:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Well, I like cats, coffee, Thai food, handmade Swedish shoes, and the writing of Robert Spencer, among many others. I have edited before -- over a year and a half ago -- but clearly, I am not sock-puppeting. I am here in a good-faith effort to balance the article. Reasonable people can disagree, and I'm disagreeing. You'll note I've only taken issue with a few things, and have not tried to turn the entry into an exercise in hagiography. |
|
|
|
|
|
: So, what's your agenda? ] (]) 13:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: nice bio, it was also nice to know that you are a fan of Robert Spencer, which would in turn explain your eagerness to remove negative comments about him and his dubious website. Don't you think that as a fan of Robert Spencer, your edits might be just a touch biased? I have no opinions about the guy, neither do I follow any religion, so I would consider myself able to give a balanced edit, you however are a self-confessed fan of his - why not try editing an article that you are able to edit while showing a NPOV? |
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I would have imagined that you would be aware of how wikipedia works, seeing that you have previously edited it - but seeing that you blindly revert every other editor, it might be nice of me to give you a little help - Consensus is very important for wikipedia articles, you may of may not have noticed, but now many different editors have put back the comments that you are blindly removing, are you under the opinion that as far as wikipedia goes, your opinion is worth more than that of other editors? Is there something more valid about your opinion regarding one of your favourite writers? I suggest you read a little more about wikipedia, and start editing again, once you are able to do so, without showing a POV and when you are able to respect the opinions of others. ] (]) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I don't think the fact that I enjoyed a couple of his books makes me automatically unreasonable. You asked who I am, and I could have told you I'm the ghost of Conway Twitty if I felt like it, but as a token of the fact that I am here in good faith, I mentioned the reason for my interest in the entry and a balanced presentation therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I also think it's disingenuous for you to claim you have no opinion. If that were the case, you wouldn't be pushing the Islamophobia issue so hard when the topic is already linked in the area that mentions the Guardian article. Besides, if all Wiki users only edited entries for which they had no opinion, it would be a much smaller site. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Lastly for now, I don't think having a few active users with an agenda constitutes consensus. The discussion above shows there has been vigorous discussion and the topic has not been put to rest. I do think the link already present next to the Guardian article is a reasonable compromise. ] (]) 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I think you have made too many reverts within the last 2 or 3 days. 3 reverts is not a right, perhaps it might be best for you to leave the article alone for a while. ] (]) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. ] (]) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::: That is great to know, so do you intend to push 3RR as far as you can, while remaining just outside of the 24 hour period/ just within the allowed 3 reverts? ] (]) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::: OMG ..not another revert? I will step back for a moment, I dont wish to involve myself in a silly edit-war. ] (]) 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::@Cormhamster - "I don't think having a few active users with an agenda constitutes consensus." - Could you elaborate on what 'agenda' you're talking about? If other editors include something based on reliable sources, that means they have an agenda? ] (]) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Well, as per his own comment, Cormhamster is a fan of the owner of the "Jihad Watch", so you can draw your own conclusions regarding his political beliefs and opinions regarding Islam - therefore it is possible that he views anyone who does not share his views regarding Islam as having an agenda. ] (]) 15:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Attempting to label organizations as prejudice when their actual purpose is to criticize islam does constitute an agenda; to make people who read this article think it is somehow a racist website. And a few bias editorials do not make reliable sources enough to state that somehow this is the generally accepted view. '''] ]''' 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I am sorry, I did not realise that you were in a position to judge and comment on the true purpose of certain organisations, did I miss something? Is there some reason for you being able to judge these things, while the rest of us have to rely on mere quotes from newspapers? I also am amazed in the way you can judge a newspaper and say it is biased, without ever violating the NPOV that wikipedia finds so important. Here I am having to search online to find reliable sources, when all I needed to do was contact Yahel Guhan, and ask "is Jihad Watch a racist/critical/islamophobic website" and "is The Guardian a reliable source, or are they biased?" and once you answered me, I could have quoted you and used you as my reliable source. Wow editing wikipedia is going to be so easy, now that I know I can just ask you, whenever I need a reliable source. (I am sorry if my sarcasm offends, but humour is not one of my strong points) As it stands, Islamophobic has been reliably cited. End of story - until such time as you find some equally reliable sources that state Jihad-Watch is not islamophobic ] (]) 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I agree with what Sennen goroshi said. Also, while completely irrelevant, can you provide an example of an islamophobic website according to your viewpoint Yahel Guhan? ] (]) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:This section is not supposed to be here, it is supposed to be on cormhamster's talk page. Someone please move the topic there. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Warning== |
|
|
Everyone is warned about both literal violations of 3RR and repeated reverts that violate its intent. Admins such as me will block in either case to prevent further edit warring.''']''' (]) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What policy solves the problem of a few user(s) going against consensus? ] (]) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I know it is not the correct way, but if a few users revert the single rogue user, then they will be unable to revert everyone due to the 3RR, however there must be a better solution. Perhaps reporting them on the ANI for disruptive editing? ] (]) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Hmmmm - how about doing what editors are meant to do and form consensus. I suggest the informal ] as a good start. If it becomes obvious that some editors are not following guidelines and not seeking consensus then formal mediation is available and then if necessary ANI. Please assume good faith for your fellow editors. Mediation is fun! ] (]) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I would welcome mediation, but am unfamiliar with the WP Medcab. I'll familiarize myself with it. And I will reiterate that there is not a consensus. There are two of you (The Stick and Sennen Goroshi), and now two others -- Yahel as well as myself -- who disagree with you. There certainly needs to be more discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I noticed that "Criticism of Islam" has appeared as a category on Spencer's site. I find this neutral wording preferable. Would that be a reasonable compromise? (And, again, "Islamophobia" is already linked in the body of the article.) ] (]) 02:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: That is probably a good idea. '''] ]''' 06:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Nope, there's a difference between "criticism" and "Islamaphobia" in the eyes of these sources, so it wont e sufficient. ] (]) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hugh Fitzgerald== |
|
|
Is it possible to find more information on Hugh Fitzgerald? The article barely mentions him at present. Does he show his face in public? I cannot find any images of him online nor much information. Perhaps, he tries to keep a lower profile than Robert Spencer. ] (]) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reminder and Sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
Aside from the sources in the last paragraph, including the Guardian, a little looking around provides these: |
|
|
*A well-known essay in the polemical journal ], which was considered notable enough for ] to spend at least a couple of pages debunking it in ''The Professors''; The essay calls JW a "hate website". |
|
|
*According to Diana West: ''Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Spencer reports he's "never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once." These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government. Reason given? Some Internet providers deem the factually-based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be "hate speech."'' |
|
|
*An in the Washington Times confirms (and condemns) this general belief. |
|
|
*Apparently CAIR is pushing this strongly, so perhaps that could be mentioned if a reliable source is found. |
|
|
*Jim Ritter, "Muslims See a Growing Media Bias", Chicago Sun-Times. |
|
|
|
|
|
There's little or no justification for removing the cat. We go on what the sources say, not our own beliefs. ] (]) 07:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:To respond to the sources you provided: |
|
|
:#The counterpunch article was written by ], who is an economics professor, and therefore not a reliable source on islamophobia. |
|
|
:#I'll emphasize your quote provided: "'''''Some Internet providers''' deem the factually-based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be "hate speech.''" "Some internet providers" are not reliable sources to label an organization as islamophobic. |
|
|
:#The washington times editorial is again, an editorial, thus it is someone's opinion (whom seems to be anonymous). The author also doesn't really take a stance on the issue of islamophobia "''Various and sundry pro-Islamist Internet opinionists slap the "hate speech" label repeatedly, hope it sticks and sometimes, it does. But with a counter-campaign, their work can be undone.''" |
|
|
:#CAIR certianly is not a reliable source to make such claims, considering their controversies. They are mentioned in the controversy section, and that is all the weight their opinion should be given. |
|
|
:#Who is Jim Ritter, and what makes him a reliable source? '''] ]''' 08:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::#] specialises in comparative systems and imperialism. I don't want to press it, because I don't believe CounterPunch is particularly reliable, but the point is that the article was notable enough for Horowitz to reply- and he's not a reliable source either, but you understand what I mean. |
|
|
::#You miss my point with the WashTimes editorial and Diana West. They do disagree with the label, but the point is that they acknowledge that it is widely believed, which is what is relevant. Not only by "internet providers", but by the organisations they name, including the federal government. |
|
|
::#I don't want CAIR to be seen as a reliable source here, I want any discussion of this in the article to include the fact that it is part of CAIR's campaign, so readers are aware of the political pressures involved. |
|
|
::In all this, it has merely been demonstrated that this is a widely-held opinion, regardless of its merits. I see no reason why the cat is irrelevant. ] (]) 10:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In ], the {{tl|unbalanced}} ] tag was added to the article but no further explanation was provided. As far as I can see, the content and cited sources in the article are representative of the ] that have covered the article subject. Which reliable sources are missing from the article? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Why shouldn't CAIR be considered a reliable source on anti-islam related subjects? ] (]) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Jihad Watch is not Islamophobic, nor a conspiracy blog. The website itself is designed to educate the reader about concerns related to Jihad (a real thing) and what can be done to stop the spread of a totalitarian ideology. It's not a question of which reliable sources were or were not used, it's about BALANCE. The tone of the article slams the creators of Jihad Watch to discredit them, while at the same time attempts to elevate Islam above all other religions. That's where the imbalance is. ] (]) 05:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::: This is getting a little silly, if this was an anti-black/jewish/white website and was run by a Muslim, it would have been called a racist hate-site a long long time ago. There are reliable sources, there is no evidence against those sources, the only thing in the way of this being over and done with are a couple of editors who for whatever dubious reasons they may have, don't like the idea of their favourite writer and his site being labeled in a manner that is thoroughly deserves to be. This does not requre mediation or compromise, it needs people to check their personal opinions at the door, or quit editing wikipedia. What is going on is pure disruption of wikipedia and a waste of time. ] (]) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::On Misplaced Pages, ] entails {{xt|"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant ] that have been ] on a topic"}}. ], including ], overwhelmingly agree that Jihad Watch is an ] ] website. See the citations at {{slink|Special:Permalink/1211499887#cite_note-anti-Muslim-10}} for details. Jihad Watch has repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories, including the ] and the ], which explains why reliable sources identify Jihad Watch as a conspiracy blog. Per the neutrality policy, ], and there is ] the ''Islamophobic'' descriptor from this article, which reflects how reliable sources describe the article subject. |
|
|
:: This article does not {{!xt|" to elevate Islam above all other religions"}}, because there is no text in the article that makes a claim that matches the description of your allegation. The article already mentions Jihad Watch's {{xt|"portrayal of Islam as a ] political ]"}}, and Misplaced Pages already has an article about ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you, Newslinger. You just validated my case in your first sentence: Misplaced Pages has a {{NPOV}} policy which this article violates. It should represent FAIRLY and without bias ALL the significant views from reliable sources. What is missing is content from other editors which may have an opposing view than the one single view promoted by past editors. My call for a more balanced article is not false. Perhaps you have a different definition of the word ] than most people. Are you saying Jihad Watch's material is irrational or unjustified? That is your opinion. I have no problem with calling Jihad Watch a ] political publication. But labeling it as Islamophobic is demeaning and inherently elevates Islam above other points of view. I appreciate your concern and your expertise as an admin for Misplaced Pages. But you should be more neutral about this article. ] (]) 23:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: In your repetition of Newslinger's words, you omitted the word "proportionately". It is the key here. If most reliable sources have one opinion, that is the opinion we most emphasise. Where are the reliable sources that your case is based on? Your personal opinion on the topic, and mine, are irrelevant. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I see your point, ]. However, at the time I placed the unbalanced banner, I had not surveyed all available sources, nor do I intend to. It's not my job to scour the universe to find other reliable sources. Someone else can do that. All I'm doing is pointing out the ] in the tone of the article and inviting others to contribute content with a more neutral point of view thereby bringing the article into acceptable Misplaced Pages standards. Yes, this is a contentious topic. Let's not make it more contentious by insisting the article is fine the way it is. |
|
|
:::::I'm willing to meet you part way and find common ground if the opening sentence could be altered just a little to make it less offensive. Use words like ] instead of ], and ] instead of ]. That would be an improvement and I would happily concede. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 21:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Another way to bring it into compliance is to state that "''Many consider'' Jihad Watch to be a Far-right, etc. etc.", or that "''It is widely accepted'' that..." Do you see what I'm getting at? |
|
|
::::::] (]) 21:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::In response to {{!xt|"It's not my job to scour the universe to find other reliable sources"}}, Misplaced Pages's ] states that {{xt|"All material in ], including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an ] to a reliable source that directly supports the material."}} If you have not found reliable sources that support your proposed changes, then your proposed changes are not consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies. |
|
|
:::::::The cited sources use both '']'' and '']'' to describe Jihad Watch, descriptors that have roughly the same meaning and both redirect to Misplaced Pages's ] article. However, the term '']'' misses the point of the sources, which clearly elaborate on Jihad Watch's hostility toward Muslims. Reliable sources have provided ample evidence that Jihad Watch has published ], including the ] and the ]; replacing the term ''conspiracy theory'' with ''conservative'' does not make sense because conservatives are not necessarily conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
:::::::Phrases such as ''many consider...'' and ''it is widely accepted...'' are ] and are generally discouraged in articles. If you have located reliable sources (preferably academic sources, since the descriptors under discussion rely on academic sourcing) that dispute that Jihad Watch is Islamophobic/anti-Muslim or that Jihad Watch has published conspiracy theories, please feel free to share them. |
|
|
:::::::Please note that I am participating in this discussion in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. In discussions regarding article content, all editors (including administrators) are considered equals for the purpose of assessing ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{Re|MusicTree3}} Newslinger's final sentence applies to me also. It is an accepted principle that people adding tags provide justifications for them. What would provide a justification in this case would be a reliable source with a non-fringe point of view not currently covered in the article. Just stating your opinion about it is allowed here, but it doesn't provide the justification that the tag needs. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Since this discussion has not yielded any reliable sources that dispute the ] of the descriptors included in the article, I have removed the {{tl|unbalanced}} tag. Per ], {{xt|"Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent ] to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of ] about an article."}} — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
.svg){kind=icon}
