Jump to content

Talk:Jihad Watch/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.--Mike18xx 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.--Mike18xx 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That logic makes no sense and your cognitive dissonance here shows that you're not impartial enough to be editing this page. Shabeki (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2018 (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.--Mike18xx 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.--Seventy-one 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.--Mike18xx 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 Wikipedia article?--Seventy-one 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because most Wikipedia 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?--Mike18xx 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a separate Wikepedia entry entitled "Criticism of Jihad Watch," as has been done for CAIR? Hectard 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?--Mike18xx 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 Wikipedia 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.--Mike18xx 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; Wikipedia 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.--Mike18xx 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore "Wikipedia 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...?--Mike18xx 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 David Horowitz who want to supress freedom of speech in the USA, there seems to be a fair amount of cross over between Campus Watch, Jihad Watch, Professors Watch and Media Watch and discoverthenetworks.org.[1] This undermines the so called independence of this site. Criticism of this site from reliable sources really does need to be included. Indeed there is a whole article on critisism of CAIR, see Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 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 neutrality 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 personal attack. Any evidence of Sockpuppetry 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 Wikipedia 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 reliable sources, something a google search will not produce.

None of the arguments used by Mike18xx have any basis in Wikipedia 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 neutrality polict to include only information from the site itself or from other sites that support it. Campus Watch has a criticism section. But I note that Media Watch International and Discover the Networks do not, maybe we need to introduce more neutrality accross these articles about the radical right of US politics. Alun 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. Lilraven 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Per Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

66.208.48.126 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. BhaiSaab talk 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 "Muslim Guild" to remove articles referencing annoying criticism of Islam from Wikipedia are duly noted.--Mike18xx 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion as a counterproductive attempt at censorship, by editors who claim to be Muslim. Andrewa 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. Lord Patrick 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I wonder why the links to critical websites were removed. --Reza1 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they are anonynmous blogs. We do not reference anonymous blogs.--CltFn 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
CltFn kindly give link regarding your claim. (LewisRyder 21:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
You can start with Wikipedia:Reliable sources--CltFn 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you want Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided because those sites have not been referenced, just linked. BhaiSaab talk 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article in The Guardian calls jihadwatch notoriously Islamophobic.[2] 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. [3] 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.[4] 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 neutrality, no original research and verifiability from reliable sources. One cannot claim that all sources that criticise Jihad Watch are not reliable. Alun 21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point is correct, however the specific "critical websites" that Reza1 was referring on 30 August 2006 to were anomymous blogs.--CltFn 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.

Where does Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal state in the ACMCU paper that Jihad Watch is islamophobic? AFAIK, he only mentions Jihad Watch once, and even then he is citing some one elses opinion, not even criticising Jihad Watch. Since the entire document is filled with the word islamophobia, could someone specify the page number where he criticises Jihad Watch? I'm going to mark the source dubious for now. 88.115.93.18 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:David Horowitz

Thre's no indication in this article of why it's in Category:David Horowitz. We should indicate the connection in the text. -Will Beback · † · 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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. 82.170.137.201 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a blog link. Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided- #10, I am removing it.--Sefringle 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 Wikipedia 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 ! 62.194.104.78 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.[5]" not believable especially from "spencer" the author of the silly blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.134.202 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

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? Misheu 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. --BozMo talk 09:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If we include one side, we should include the other. Arrow740 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? --BozMo talk 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
the retorts don't actually respond to or refute the criticisms, they just attack the critics. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is on the same level as Whitaker's attempted slam. Arrow740 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. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not a way around anything, and criticism is not the topic of this article. Arrow740 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"It is not a way around anything" - the ad personam arguments i have described above are exactly that. criticism of the website is the subject of the section. ITAQALLAH 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 coatracking. Not every article on Wikipedia has to be a stupid, bloated monstrosity.--Mike18xx 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike, there is no reason to remove the section altogether. --Aminz 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Then criticism of the ugliness of the coats on the coatrack is also permissible.--Mike18xx 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. WP:COATRACK [5]
But that doesn't explain the deletion. "Coatrack" is not a policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 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.--Mike18xx 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You still need a reason to delete sourced criticism. Without all viewpoints represented the artilce is not NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 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? Kaelus 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, CWC 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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? CWC 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hate site"

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. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about the credibility of a site that chooses to name itself Jihad Watch. That would be like naming a kid Jesus Christ and wanting others to believe that the parents are not clinincally insane. Rock8591 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting

So Jihad Watch is now classified as a blog? Wow. And I'm assuming Jew Watch is a news resource now, too? This is utter nonsense. And people wonder why Wikipedia 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.-Rosywounds (talk) 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 Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Call that a website? Something I don't agree with more like! - Joie --91.111.139.85 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (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. thestick (talk) 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. Yahel Guhan 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 WP:FAITH ? thestick (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edits imply otherwise. Adding a category like category:Anti-Islam sentiment is a POV that implies a bigotic connection when one doesn't exist. I think an RFC is the best way to handle this. Yahel Guhan 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
First, mind WP:AGF and WP:STALK. 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. Yahel Guhan 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. Yahel Guhan 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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 islamophobia 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. Yahel Guhan 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. [6] Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. CormHamster (talk) 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. thestick (talk) 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 Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. CormHamster (talk) 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You believe that Brian Whitaker, who holds a degree in Arabic, who is writing in a mainstream reliable publication, is not a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 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. Yahel Guhan 05:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually think his degree in Arabic is relevant here, it merely shows his competence and expertise in the general field. What's of primary importance is that The Guardian is a reliable source, and has always been recognised as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please explain why this instance should be the exception and we shouldn't use this source here. ITAQALLAH 17:13, 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. SmithBlue (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the inclusion of the category since it's relevant.Bless sins (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

cormhamster

who are you? Sennen goroshi (talk) 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? CormHamster (talk) 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. CormHamster (talk) 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. CormHamster (talk) 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? Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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? thestick (talk) 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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 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. Yahel Guhan 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 Sennen goroshi (talk) 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? thestick (talk) 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. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 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.DGG (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What policy solves the problem of a few user(s) going against consensus? thestick (talk) 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? Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm - how about doing what editors are meant to do and form consensus. I suggest the informal WP:MedCab 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! SmithBlue (talk) 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.) CormHamster (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That is probably a good idea. Yahel Guhan 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. Relata refero (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So its clear that there is not consensus for the inclusion of Cat: Anti-Muslim sentiment. You all want to be demi-god editors and get to know how things work so you can blow off time-wasters and improve WP? Even get to be an admin so you won't have to take crap from no-one? Take this chance to learn how to use WP:MedCab. Unless you're all too chicken. The alternative of continuing to edit war (yeah <3 reverts a day is still called edit warring) will get you no-where good. 124.169.199.129 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did request a mediation, though nobody has responded yet. Yahel Guhan 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on taking that step - I looked formal mediation a few weeks ago and then finally saw that I had to have tried a informal mediation process before formal mediation was avaialable. If we get no response soon I suggest we try WP:MedCab WP:RfC or [WP:Third_opinion]] - the informal mediation processes mentioned on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page. SmithBlue (talk) 07:16, 26 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. Epa101 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More information about Fitzgerald can be found at:

http://spencerwatch.com/who-is-hugh-fitzgerald/

Thenerdyhulk (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps at the New English Review. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2012 (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 [Counterpunch], which was considered notable enough for David Horowitz 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 editorial 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. Relata refero (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the sources you provided:
  1. The counterpunch article was written by Shahid Alam, who is an economics professor, and therefore not a reliable source on islamophobia.
  2. 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.
  3. 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."
  4. 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.
  5. Who is Jim Ritter, and what makes him a reliable source? Yahel Guhan 08:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Shahid Alam 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. Relata refero (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't CAIR be considered a reliable source on anti-islam related subjects? thestick (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (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. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't think that Yahel's opinions mean much in wikipedia, despite him having changed his account name from Sefringle, his previous acts are still well known. His delight in gaming wikipedia and making changes purely to antagonise people are equally well known. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid&diff=146044881&oldid=146031410 I say perm block him and make wikipedia a little easier for the legit editors.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What sort of alteration is being sought here? Is it being proposed that the article should explicitly state that JihadWatch is a "hate site"? That phrase is not NPOV and is not used on any other articles that I can see. Even Redwatch does not contain the phrase. There will be sources arguing that it is and that it is not a hate site. I do not see how it should affect the article. Epa101 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The alteration sought is to include this article in Category:Anti-Islam Sentiment . thestick (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just had a look at the category. It is quite small at present, and the criterion for inclusion is not fully developed. There are several articles that would be more deserving of the category than this one; Faith Freedom International being the main one. Jihad Watch obviously does single out Islam in particular, but then it does still have vague hopes of a "reformed Islam" and it had not been involved in anti-Muslim violence as have, say, neo-Nazis, extreme Hindus or extreme Sikhs. It is already listed under the category "Blogs critical of Islam". Is Jihad Watch any more extreme than Little Green Footballs, The Brussels Journal, etc.? Those articles are not classified as "Anti-Islam sentiment". Epa101 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that Jihad Watch, or Robert Spencer, have "hopes for a 'reformed Islam'" is dubious at best--regardless of what they claim. Spencer doesn't miss a beat in criticizing moderate Muslims who try to educate the West about Islamic Extremism., for instance. Instead of supporting these types of groups, he tries to drive home the point that Islam is pretty rotten to the core. A good example is his criticism of one of the founders of the LibForAll Foundation. I think the category should be expanded with bigger inclusion, and not vice versa. Certainly include Spencer and his glorified blog.PelleSmith (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, although it is not really for us to point out the contradictions in his approach here. I have just read the very long discussions on the category; those who voted in favour of keeping it seemed to all have different reasons for doing so, which makes it more complicated. However, the categories for anti-Catholicism, anti-Buddhism, etc. seem to be quite broadly defined, so I suppose that we should do the same thing for anti-Islam. My concern is that every article in the categories "Blogs critical of Islam" or "Critics of Islam" could end up in "anti-Islam sentiment" as well. However, the category has had three votes on its existence now, so it is time to accept its existence. I'll concurr with you and vote for expansion of the category. Epa101 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section deleted

I deleted the quotes section. They should go on Wikiquote - not Wikipedia. Also, note that the third one down about moderate Muslims/moderate Islam was Robert Spencer quoting Ibn Warraq. This is one of Warraq's most famous quotes; I have heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali use it too. It should not be assigned to Jihad Watch but to Ibn Warraq. Epa101 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors willing to enter MedCab mediation on Cat:Anti-Islam sentiment

Please enter your name below if you are prepared to enter Mediation Cabal (informal mediation) on the inclusion/exclusion of this article in/from Cat:Anti-Muslim sentiment.

  1. I'm in . SmithBlue (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yahel Guhan 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. thestick (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. CormHamster (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'd also be willing to enter.Bless sins (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the purpose of mediation on this issue? If something is properly verified as stipulated in WP:V, then what precisely is there to discuss? ITAQALLAH 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to discuss may be, "Is something properly verified as stipulated in WP:V?". Or maybe some editors see another policy as weighing against inclusion. We haven't been able to reach consensus by ourselves so lets see what happens with a neutral mediator. SmithBlue (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the most important reason to go to mediation on a case like this is that WP policy says that consensus is the way to go. So by entering into mediation we try WP policy out, observe, and ask, "Does this work?". SmithBlue (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MedCab request lodged. See top right hand corner of this talk page for link. SmithBlue (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few questions

I'd like to try and help everyone reach an agreement on this article. To start, I'd like to ask three questions. Please keep your answers brief and avoid general commentary or speculation about the topic.

  1. Should categories be added by significant mention in reliable sources, or should they be added only with a consensus or majority among the available sources?
  2. What reliable sources generally support the inclusion of the categories?
  3. How predominant are these views? Are they common enough to support an article category?

Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. A. Significant mention in reliable sources
  2. A. CA Synagogue That Hosted Islamophobe Urged to Invite Muslim Speaker, Council on American-Islamic Relations, November 08, 2005, Drawn conclusions, The Guardian, February 7, 2006
  3. A. Within the range of RS sources on JW these views are a notable proportion. (Factiva gives 11 results for "Jihad Watch", 9 of those from www.Human Events.com("Leading the conservative movement*Since 1944", Google showing that roughly 25% of links to pages that contain "www.humanevents.com" also contain "Robert Spencer"). Taken with related views of JW as a hate-site these sources become an even more significant proportion. SmithBlue (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Qualifying 1.A to "Significant mention in current reliable sources" SmithBlue (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. consensus among Reliable sources.
  2. In my opinion none of them do, as they are all not reliable to make that judgement; they are notable opinions, but not reliable.
  3. Roughly 1/3 of the sources within the article consider it islamophobic, most of them are proof of the notability of the website, but would under normal circumstances not be considered reliable. Most of the other sources are neutral on the issue. In my opinion, that is not enough to warrent the category. Yahel Guhan 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Most of the other sources," with the exception of an interview given by a CNN pundit consist entirely of sites from the conservative blogsphere many of whom take a very openly critical POV towards Islam (like Jihad Watch itself, FrontPage Magazine, Campus Watch, etc.). What on earth is the point of claiming that they don't call Jihad Watch Islamophobic or anti-Islamic?PelleSmith (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We are dealing with a case where the subject is barely notable. When that happens, sources which would normally be unreliable become reliable. A case of bias could easily also be made for the sources which claim isalmophobia. (all the sources seem to be bias in favor of islam and against criticism of islam, only the Brian Whitaker article seems to have borderline scholarship on the issue, and that is very questionable. He even only mentions it in passing. The rest of the sources don't seem reliable to me.) See a pattern? What is my point? My point is that there is no consensus amongst the sources to make a claim of islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1. one reliable/verifiable source is acceptable. 2. the Guardian newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/07/worlddispatch.muhammadcartoons 3. I have no idea how predominant those views are, but there is not a weight of evidence to disprove those views. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I see inclusion in a category as indicating only that RS have so categorized the subject. WP is not saying that this categorisation is Truth. Therefore with what constitutes reliable sources in this field (including Karen Armstrong in the Financial Times,"Like any book written in hatred, ..."[[7]]), WP should follow the RS and place in "Anti-Muslim sentiment". SmithBlue (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would Category:Criticism of Islam be an acceptable alternative? Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For me Cat:Anti-Islam sentiment carries with it similarities to Cat:Anti-Semitism which I think are worthy of note. Cat:Critisism of Islam seems to be like re-naming Cat:Anti-Semitism as Cat:Criticism of Judaism or Cat:Rascist as Cat:Critic of other races. The term Cat:Anti-Islam sentiment carries specific negative connotations that I see as notable. SmithBlue (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For me it is acceptable. Even preferable. The website is critical or islam, not prejudice against islam. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What proportion of reliable sources, roughly speaking, would call Jihad Watch critical of Islam? What proportion of reliable sources, roughly speaking, would call Jihad Watch anti-Islam or Islamophobic? Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Drawn Concl - Iphobe, Letting Bin Laden Define Islam - Anti-Islam, Balancing the Prophet - anti-Islam, The Jihad Against Muslims - Islamophobe and AMuslim, Balancing the Prophet - antiMuslim, CA Synagogue That Hosted Islamophobe .. - Anti-Muslim and Islamophobe. So including cites from JW and RSpencer some 35% say Anti-Islam or Islamophobic. Of material critical of JW and RSpencer - nearer 100% say "anti" or "phobe". SmithBlue (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: redundancy and POV: I agree with several posters above that "Criticism of Islam" is a more neutral term, and renders the non-neutral "Islamophobia" (which is supported by one writer's opinion in a UK paper) unnecessary. Besides, "Islamophobia" is already linked in the article itself. CormHamster (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category discussion

Is the category "Anti-Islam sentiment" appropriate for the article? Would an alternative category suffice? What standards should be used to judge if the article belongs in a category? 07:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that "anti-Islam sentiment" fits this article well, as Jihad watch is probably highly critical of Islam.Ngchen (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, I'd agree. I think it is simply the plain and open facts of the matter. If the term has any modern applicability, it's precisely here. DGG (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is a discussion about this even persisting? This is obvious and third party sources are pretty clear on the description of this website as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic. We need to move on.PelleSmith (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No. All the anti-[nation/relion/ethnicity] sentiment terms are prone to being culture-war propganda. They are are never neutral, and Wikipedia shouldn't be labeling anything with them. Life.temp (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
By that logic you want us to accept Antisemitism as "culture war propaganda". The only culture war propaganda I can see here is the anti-Islamic propaganda of this website, which is quite notably identified as such.PelleSmith (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I said the terms are prone to being used that way. It's a conotation, not an absolute. There are quie a few guidelines for this. Avoid terms that are technically accurate, but imply a negative judgement. See words to avoid. If we shouldn't call the Ku Klux Klan racist, we probably shouldn't be calling anyone anti-semitic either. And yes, "anti-semitism" can be part of a culture-war's rhetoric, e.g. dismissing all concern for Palestinian rights as anti-semitism. Life.temp (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't avoid useful terminology just because it "can be" used in cultural politics. We just keep an eye on how it is used and try our best to keep it reasonable. Hypothetical situations don't change the fact that this is an accurate description of the current entry. If you have a larger issue with these kinds of categories take it the category talk pages and/or to CfD. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The guideline I cited is very straightforward. Avoid labels that are almost always applied by outsiders. Avoid them even if they seem technically accurate. That obviously includes labeling things as anti-Islamic. In any case, my comment was requested in an RfC and I gave it. You must have something better to do than argue with responses to an RfC that aren't what you wanted to hear. Life.temp (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect please refrain from commenting on whether or not other editors have "better things to do", and community discussion is not shunned on talk pages, or during requests for comment. The part of your post that is about this category does not address the specific question of the RfC which is whether this category is appropriate for this entry. You should also be aware that Ku Klux Klan is tagged with Category:Racism. This particular category also specifies that entries so tagged only relate to the subject matter, and not that they are the subject matter. It should also be clear that the RfC question is not about article content, which is what your guideline refers to. However, even in terms of content the guideline you provide also does not say to eliminate these terms entirely in the body of the text, but to attribute them with sensitivity and to try to use neutral language when possible. So to use your example--"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization" is better written according to the guideline as "The KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism."PelleSmith (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} The tag needs to stay. NPOV exists to make sure we don't skew the facts to make one side of an argument appear correct. It does NOT exist to protect people, to keep from "offending". If Jihad Watch doesn't want to be labeled as Anti-Islamic, then maybe they shouldn't post things like this:
For years those who have repeated the simple truth that while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam, have been vilified as bigots and "Islamophobes," and marginalized in the same way by Beltway analysts and the mainstream media (both liberal and faux-fearless conservative) in favor of those who were determined to "engage moderate Muslims."
When I took a look at this case, I was originally expecting, from what I read in the article, for Jihad Watch to be a website that is against Muslim terrorism- which in itself is not Islamophobic. However, I took a look at the blog and it is clear, at least to me, that the website crosses the boundaries into that dangerous mindset that all Muslims are potentially terrorists, which is clearly Islamophobe territory.
It seems to me- and this is my personal opinion- that removing the cat would be against NPOV- not keeping it.
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The category is appropriate. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "anti-Islamism" might be considered. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, so it matches Category:Racism and Category:Anti-Semitism. L'Aquatique[review] 04:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think you misread what Tundrabuggy is suggesting. Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is the functional equivalent of the categories you mention, and it is the category used here. Tundrabuggy claims it is only anti-Islami[ist] sentiment, but as your quote above suggests, Pipes is pretty fundamentally anti-Islam.PelleSmith (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The focus of Jihad Watch is "Islamism" or "Militant Islam" and not Islam and Muslims, thus making it not "Islamophobic". What is interesting is that Daniel Pipes discourages studying the quran to understand Islamism[1] but Ali Sina encourages reading the quran to understand Islamism.[2]Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jihad Watch is much more than anti-Islamist, it is anti-Islamic. At the heart of Pipes' critique is the notion that Islam is itself fundamentally militant and basically irredeemable. For instance, see the quote above, posted by L'Aquatique. Inclusion in the category is also not strictly meant as a label, it means being related to Anti-Islamic sentiment. In other words, someone doesn't even have to be anti-Islam themselves (though Pipes is) to be included. Please read the category provisions. The vast amount of sources calling the website, and Pipes, anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, etc. are all the verification we need. This has been discussed way too many times and its a rather moot point. We need to move on from this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Pipes doesn't operate Jihad Watch and his position doesn't define the site's mission, so I'm not sure what the relevance of his beliefs is to anything. On the other hand, Spencer's position appears to be not that Islam is irredeemable, but rather that it is in need of a deep reform movement, and in particular needs to reject the notion of violent Jihad as ever being acceptable practice. This doesn't make him any more "anti-Islam" than Martin Luther was "anti-Christian"... Though it certainly makes him contrary to the established anti-reform religious elites. --Hiddekel (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1461
  2. ^ http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40121.htm

NOT a hate site according to reliable sources

Umm, describing this site as a hate site is an extremely strong statement that places it in the same category as Stormfront and so on. There is no reliable source that describes them as such, I'm afraid. The only source listed that does is CAIR, which is an advocacy group that is their political opponent. We do not define sites in their infoboxes in their Wikipedia articles solely based on what their political opponents say, I'm afraid. Since this site is run by and very closely associated with Robert Spencer, a living person, this is also a borderline BLP issue, and thus arguably not subject to 3RR. Do not restore this without solid consensus on talk among all involved editors. - Merzbow (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, describing it as a hate-site, would place it in the same category as Stormfront - and seeing that it is a right-wing, racist website, that promotes hate, I do not see any problem with that. And just because it is run by someone who is still alive, does not make it a candidate for BLP style editing - Does the Microsoft article have edits based on BLP, because of Bill Gates? I think not. I don't know about you, but I will certainly be respecting the 3RR, I would suggest that you also do so. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Merzbow. CAIR is not a reliable source to determine whether Jihad Watch is a hate site, especially given their extensive ties to terrorist organizations. Jtrainor (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comment about "terrorist organizations" is both irrelevant and unproductive. I agree that "hate site" is a bit extreme but I really think trolling comments like this are the last thing we need on contentious pages. Lets tone down our own polemics here.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
"Hate site" is too strong. There are plenty of reliable sources calling it variably "Islamophobic" and "Anti-Islamic". Stick to the reliably verifiable terminology.PelleSmith (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
We can't go about calling such sources "reliable" for the purposes of this discussion. The critics of JW are anything but reliable. GeoffP1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.73.85 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Extensive ties to terrorist organisations? they are just claims. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly compromise by mentioning the criticism in the lead (surprised it wasn't there before). Editing to that effect... - Merzbow (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as the CAIR article itself shows, Sennen, a number of CAIR higher ups have been prosecuted for various terrorism-related infractions, and they've been busted funnelling money to Hamas before. So no, they are not just claims. Jtrainor (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I know don't know enough to comment as to how legitimate those accusations are, however I know that CAIR has stated that those claims are false. [8] Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are not false. We can't excuse CAIR on basis of ignorance of the facts. GeoffP1074

Does the participation of the author in a Facebook dedicated to the eradication of all Turks from Turkey, including discussion of "euthanasia" count as re-naming his blog a hate-site? He's the 4th member to sign up for this: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32110371181 FlaviaR (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more of the personal vendetta that has been going on between Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch and Charles Johnson of LGF. This issue has been rebutted in depth by Mr Spencer on JW. GeoffP1974

The obvious answer to that is no, since the Facebook groups Robert Spencer joins are irrelevant to the Jihad Watch website, unless he advocates for them on that site. He did not; in fact, he has already posted an article on Jihad Watch repudiating that Facebook group, as well as far-right/neo-nazi movements in general. This may or may not be worth mentioning in the Robert Spencer article, however. — Hiddekel (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

unbalanced section

I've pov tagged the section "Criticism" since it mostly focuses on critics of the site. Here's the webmaster reply to some of that criticism. (In the site there are dozens more of rebuttals; I'm just picking one.) —Cesar Tort 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, those are all criticisms. If you think there is undue weight in the entry then I understand, but I don't think you're going to get the criticism section to not be critical of Jihad Watch and of Spencer. Maybe you should change the tag to the entire entry, though I'm not sure I think there is a POV problem here. Jihad Watch is notoriously biased.PelleSmith (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This subject can potentially drag us to discuss ad infinitum. And I don't have the motivation to do it (just see the very long discussion in this page about a tiny categorization at the bottom of the article). I'll leave to the widsom of more experienced editors to decide whether or not the section is unbalanced. It looks unbalanced to me, who have spent a whole week reading the site's posts and its linked articles & watching its videos. I wish other editors do the same before reaching a conclusion... Cesar Tort 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just read several archived talk pages on Islam, the Qu'ran and lengthy discussions in the board on reliable sources. Some WP editors labelled Spencer's site as a hate one. They are wrong. Spencer in his own words:


The editors in question cited critics of Spencer. But... they don't seem to have read him directly. Its a very old trick that if you throw much dirt on a person's reputation, some of it will stick. —Cesar Tort 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, David Duke also claims to not be motivated by hate, perhaps his Wikipedia article should just take his word on it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Cesar, I know that you know how we source things here, and its not through our own original judgments based on readings of primary sources ... that would violate WP:NOR. I have read Spencer and frankly I find him Islamophobic. He sees Islam as intrinsically and irredeemably militant and violent. But again, we don't rely on what I think or what you think after we read the primary sources, we rely on the judgments and analysis of published others. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to the (false) accusation of "hate site", which BTW had alredy been addressed way above. Is CAIR a RS? —Cesar Tort 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that using "hate site" in the entry is too extreme and this was dealt with adequately just above. If there is no more concern in that regard then the issue is dead and this is superfluous commentary with no impact on entry content.PelleSmith (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've removed the tag by adding balancing info. —Cesar Tort 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar, I don't agree with that edit. One doesn't "balance" a criticism section by filling up as much or more space on the page with responses to criticism. I note as well that the first quote isn't even a response to criticism, but simply a statement about Islam. Putting it there as a response to criticism is clearly in violation of WP:NOR. Have a look at this section for a more appropriate "balance": Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Criticism. One sentence at the end in normal type would suffice if it directly addresses the criticism itself. I'm going to make the change.PelleSmith (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am leaving the article as you yourself left it in the 244353706 edition, before I made changes. —Cesar Tort 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I also don't agree with the original tag. I tried bringing it up above, but you didn't answer the major problem with it. It is a criticism section. This means it will mostly be a POV "critical" of Jihad Watch. If you think the section itself should go or is UNDUE in the entry as a whole that's different but the POV tag makes no sense.PelleSmith (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag in the critical section made sense. It simply meant that the section is not balanced. You could have discussed a little bit more instead of removing it without consensus in this talk page (this behavior reminds me user:ResearchEditor's).

And now it is time to unwatch this article —and to give up Wikipedia next month. As stated above, I have no time to argue ad infinitum. Not time at all...

Parting word in this article:

Best luck to the editors who want to NPOV this article and many other articles now "owned" by biased editors. This July User:Yahel Guhan has also retired, and for the same very reason: losing patience in precisely these sort of Islam-related articles.

Bye right now :)

—Cesar Tort 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, at least make an argument. You can't just tag entries and then evade discussion. The POV tag doesn't make sense in a criticism section. If you think that the criticism section unbalances the entry then its another matter. I get it, you think Spencer gets a short stick, but you know what? Scholars think he's nothing but an anti-Islamic polemicist. I am a bit surprised at your lack of AGF here and your comparison between myself and RE. You might want to consider what I was being vigilant about on that other entry and think again about that. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there. "Scholars" think he's nothing but an anti-Islamic polemicist? This is a slanted position, period. Some scholars do indeed think that. Some do not. Some think that islam is by definition expansionist and violent. You need to be a bit more careful about expressing a bias in the underlying subject. This is not an acceptable statement. GeoffP1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.73.85 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JW includes Islamic hate comments and discussions

Just had a look at Jihad Watch. This site includes the comments of its readers. These are often clearly "Islamic hate" comments. We don't just look at Spencers work; this article is about the whole site. Example of page from site containing "Islamic hate" http://jihadwatch.org/archives/023067.php SmithBlue (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls make comments on lots of sites, including wikipedia. I've seen plenty of what some people call "hate" speech in Wikipedia comments but that doesn't make the wiki a hate site. 173.110.211.53 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusive comments on WP can be removed by any editor. Abusive comments on Jihad Watch are left there at the choice of the site owner. The proportion of "hate coments" on Jihad Watch is orders of magnitude above those that remain on WP. JW functions to a significant extent as a "hate" site. SmithBlue (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to illustrate that with some statistics, which would also presumably take into account the number of editors with WP and the number of editors at JW. GeoffP1974 —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

"CAIR NOTE" - out of place?

I removed the "CAIR Note" as this article is about Jihad Watch and including criticisms/warnings of CAIR is out of place and redundant. Council on American-Islamic Relations and Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations are the place for these warnings/criticisms. If we include criticism of B in article A, then we need to include auguements in support of B in article A as well. And that appears very off-topic and unencyclopedic. SmithBlue (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

what is jihad? in indian senario is used to abuse muslims and make a harmful surroundings around them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.213.215 (talk)

see Jihad Sean.hoyland - talk 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this BLOG deserve a wiki article ?

I think this is a blog and it does not deserve an article even an external link to personal article is not allowed [[wp:elno}} How can I nominate this article for deletion ?--Notedgrant (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank You --Notedgrant (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re jihad watch article

1) how do we know (as the ip claims) it is by spencer? I see it is by "richard", but not that that is spencer. 2) it does not characterize the league as the IP has sought to. 3) plus, I have no idea what the IP's "irrelevant" tag refers to, or what its basis is. 4) I suggest, unless there is a consensus against, that this page be archived save for the most recent and current comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is by "Robert" Spencer, and the EDL is a far-right nationalist organisation which engages in street fighting. The current wording is irrelevant, the important thing is that he endorses the organisation. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
That's non-responsive; synthesis or OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you write in English please? --95.148.159.110 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You can't input into an article what you "know". It has to be referenced to a reliable source. And if it is an opinion, indicated as such.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You are using the same source, I don't understand what you are saying here. --95.148.159.195 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Refer to my initial questions above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1) I will replace Spencer with Jihad Watch. 2) I'll remove the description of the EDL as "far-right nationalist". --95.148.159.195 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Both those changes look fine to me. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jihad Watch a hate site.

Jihad Watch undoubtedly is a hate site promoting islamophobia. If the case is "Its just article entries" then why is Jew Watch labeled as a "Hate site" even though it is a just a archive of official documented articles?Starpluck (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Jew Watch is labeled a hate site because it has many, many reliable sources that describe it as a hate site including the UN I seem to recall. Things aren't as clear from the sources for Jihad Watch. There would need to be consensus in the sources that Jihad Watch is a hate site for it to be described that way here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I guess it'd be hard to find sources proving so since it really hasen't gained any major publicity, I think. Though Jew Watch was a hot topic in the media for a while, judging from the Jew Watch wiki, and especially http://www.google.com/explanation.html

So the only way to change its classification is reliable sources proving so?

Thanks for the swift response

Starpluck (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Unless there is consensus objection, I will archive entries where the last response is older than 21 days.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mumbo-jumbophobe on the bibliograph

Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC) PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY The bibliography provided for critique of Jihad Watch is phony. Most of the books and articles cited make no mention of Jihad Watch or R Spencer. Here is my list and critique of the items cited as serious academic stuff: Authors cited as academic critics of R Spencer in Wikipedia article on Jihad Watch: …. “It has repeatedly been criticised by numerous academics who claim it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories.[10][11][12][13][14][15]” AUTHORS MY REMARK ON EACH Note 10 ^ a b c Arun Kundnani (June, 2012). "Blind Spot? Security Narratives and Far-Right Violence in Europe" (pdf). International Centre for Counter-terrorism. Retrieved July 23, 2012. Note 11 ^ a b John L. Esposito (2011). "Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism in the 21st Century - Introduction". Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University. Retrieved 2012-08-27. Note 12 ^ a b Ismael, Tareq Y.; Rippin, Andrew, eds. (2010). Islam in the Eyes of the West: Images and Realities in an Age of Terror. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. p. 104. ISBN 0-415-56414-X. cited from Webb, E. (2012). "Review of Tareq Y. Ismael & Andrew Rippin (eds.), Islam in the Eyes of the West: Images and Realities in an Age of Terror". Contemporary Islam. doi:10.1007/s11562-012-0196-9. edit Note 13 ^ a b D'Annibale, Valerie Scatamburlo-D’, ed. (2011). "Campus Cons and the New Mccarthyism". Cold Breezes and Idiot Winds. Rotterdam: SensePublishers. ISBN 978-9460914072. Note 14 ^ a b Varisco, D. M. (2009). "Muslims and the media in the blogosphere". Contemporary Islam 4: 157–177. doi:10.1007/s11562-009-0106-y. edit Note 15 ^ a b Topal, S. (2011). "Everybody Wants Secularism—But Which One? Contesting Definitions of Secularism in Contemporary Turkey". International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 25: 1–3. doi:10.1007/s10767-011-9114-z. edit FN AUTHOR MY REMARK 10 Arun Kundnani Names R Spencer twice, does not cite his ideas or offer counter-arguments 11 Esposito (ed.) In his intro, Esposito makes no reference to Jihad Watch or to Robert Spencer. In the whole book there are 2 mention each of Jihad Watch and of Spencer, but Spencer’s ideas are discussed in 5 lines in the book, on p 84, using loaded terms like “malign”. No counterarguments are offered: “Outfits such as … Jihadwatch.com, … promote the premise that Islam and Muslims are … threatening …. They actively work to malign organizations, political and civic leaders, and academics who counter their Islamophobic rhetoric.” Note the lie that their “premise” is that Islam is a threat. That is utterly false. On the contrary, it is their CONCLUSION, derived from purported facts! 12 Ismael, Rippin (eds.) [p 103, article by Abdel Salam Sidahmed] Makes a single cite from Jihad Watch, namely a policy recommendation, unrelated to Spencer’s critique of Islam. This cite can certainly be regarded as extremist. However it is irrelevant. On the basis of this single cite, the author dismisses Jihad Watch as a crackpot site, stating: “… Jihad Watch is too crude to be taken seriously in a solemn discussion …” Webb (Review of Ismael) Makes no reference to Jihad Watch or to Robert Spencer. 13 D'Annibale (ed.) Makes no reference to Jihad Watch or to Robert Spencer. 14 Varisco Mentions Spencer and Jihad Watch once. His only remark is: “he has a political agenda.” 15 Topal Article about internal Turkish politics, relevance questionable Who writes this garbage? This article about Jihad Watch is nothing but cheap propaganda!Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is almost impossible to read, but " D'Annibale (ed.) Makes no reference to Jihad Watch or to Robert Spencer." is just wrong. P. 147: "Spencer is the founder of the notoriously Islamophobic website j|had Watch and a regular contributor to Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine." Kundnani calls Spencer a conspiracy theorist (I have no idea what the comment about counter-arguments means). Esposito certainly does mention Jihad Watch but only in terms of Horowitz sponsoring it. No time to trace anymore, but the counterarguments and 'malign' stuff are irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a note that evidently the person who posted the above believes that it was archived. It obviously wasn't. I don't reply to emails about things that belong on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique, ladies and gentlemen.

Now, three months later than envisaged, you have finally read my note, become cognizant of its contents, and are prepared to discuss its assertions!

Wonderful! Better late than never, as I incessantly say.

Dougweiller, I don’t understand your jargon or your justifications for your alleged actions. Either write in English, explaining on what basis you make decisions, or refer me to a glossary and a set of rules where all this is explained. I am fed up with your bureaucratic obstructionism.

For example: “What is OR and what is wrong with OR?”, etc.

1. Dougweller: “This is almost impossible to read …”

Mumbo-jumbophobe: It is difficult to explain complex issues like those dealt with in my PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY note, within the tight constraints imposed by plain text format. Consequently, reading my PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY note is difficult.

However, now that my PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY note has mysteriously re-emerged from the talk page archive where it was so artfully concealed, lo! these many months, I note that it is much easier to read than when it was in the archive: firstly more accessible and secondly more legible.

2. Dougweller: “… (I have no idea what the comment about counter-arguments means)…. … the counterarguments and 'malign' stuff are irrelevant.”

Mumbo-jumbophobe: “Counter-argument”, which you call “irrelevant”, means a critic’s argument against the arguments expounded by the criticized or critiqued.

Counterarguments are a required ingredient of any serious critique of an argument. Only by plausibly calling into question the precise statements of one’s adversary can one legitimately weaken them. Dougweller: “::Just a note that evidently the person who posted the above believes that it was archived. It obviously wasn't. I don't reply to emails about things that belong on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Mumbo-jumbophobe: I am “the person who posted the above”, as Dougweller charmingly calls me. Dougweller’s use of the term “believe” reminds me of his use of the terms “POV" and “opinion”, i.e. implying some completely subjective notion that cannot be taken seriously or even rationally discussed.

The reason I KNOW FOR A FACT (NOT “believed”) that my “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY” note was archived is that, yesterday 12 February 2013, when I searched for the term “PHONY” on the Jihad Watch talk page, the search machine took me to the “Archive”, and that is where I found my note, whose name is “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY”, completely inaccessible to a casual passer-by and rendered totally illegible by removal of all formatting.

However, this morning, shortly after I announced the existence of my “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY” note, it mysteriously re-emerged onto the talk page, as if nothing were amiss, and is now even listed in the Table of Contents [however no hint of the term “phony”] and conveniently numbered to make it appear that it was NOT the last item added. Fast work, Dougweller! You appear to be covering up your tracks pretty well.

Dougweller's denial will force me to dig out the download I made of the talk page several weeks ago to prove that my note was discarded amid general indifference. A brief comment attached to my “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY” note, in the Archive, said something to the effect that “if nobody has any reply to this, I shall archive it.” I didn't see any identification of the writer, however.

So it seems that “nobody had any reply” to my “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY” note denouncing a piece of mischief very akin to forgery. Thereupon, with unseemly haste, my denunciations were consigned to oblivion by an unknown hand.

Then, after a three-month (3 –MONTH!) grace period, on seeing that my note had met with general indifference, I decided to simply go ahead and implement the necessary changes so that the article ceased to emanate authority misappropriated from writings that said nothing about the article’s subject matter, or at least nothing of substance.

WITHIN SIX (6!) HOURS of my edits, Dougweller reverted them, mumbling something about “point of view” and “opinion”, and referring the issue to a committee known only by the mysterious initials “bla bla bla bla bla”, with no indication of how to get in touch with this august body. In the Indian Civil Service they used to call Dougweller 's gambit “bureaucratic obstructionism”. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some tips. Read Help:Page history and then look at this page's history. Read WP:TALK. Don't talk about yourself. Don't talk about other editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Don't talk about yourself. Don't talk about other editors." Why not? If what I and others do is an essential part of the issue, I MUST write about it. I read the page history and understood nothing. Dougweller has neglected to reply to my message. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Read what you wrote. Comments like "Wonderful! Better late than never, as I incessantly say." or "Thereupon, with unseemly haste, my denunciations were consigned to oblivion by an unknown hand." aren't about improving the article content based on Wikipedia policy. This page is just for proposing and discussing changes to the article content based on reliable sources and policy. It isn't a blog. The issue is the article content, not what you have imagined an editor has done. For example, Dougweller hasn't "neglected" to reply to your message. They simply haven't replied to your message. The perceived "neglect" is in your mind and irrelevant. Editors often don't reply to comments that are personalized, combative and not about article content.
Also you have completely misunderstood. That is understandable because you are new, but writing things like "I KNOW FOR A FACT (NOT “believed”) that my “PHONY BIBLIOGRAPHY” note was archived" is not useful at all. Nobody archived your comment. It didn't mysteriously reappear.
  • The link [10] shows what you added to the talk page at 2012-11-12T15:09:44. Note that it was you who added it to the section titled "Archive". It was you who didn't format it correctly (because you are new). The talk page header explains how to use the talk page (e.g. "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.") but you didn't see it or follow it because you are new.
  • Your comment remained there untouched until 2013-02-14T17:01:44 when Dougweller gave it a section title "Mumbo-jumbophobe on the bibliograph" and replied. He didn't change any of your formating. See the link [11] At 2013-02-14T18:29:31 he added another comment. See link [12] again without any archiving or changing what you wrote in any way at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

More visits than Daily Kos & some other blog in August 2010...

That was a truly bizarre fact to include, when the site had constantly less visitors then both two other sites every other month. I removed that self-aggrandizing part and did a general clean-up of non-notable stuff whose only source was the blog itself. 126.109.231.168 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You've removed Jihad Watch's response to criticism. They are reliable for their own views and their view is inherently notable given the subject of the article. I think the removal reduces NPOV compliance. It would be better if their response to criticism could come from a secondary source rather than a Wiki editor taking it from what is in effect a primary source, the website itself, but I think having no response is worse than what was there. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I restored the response statements here pending their replacement with content from a secondary source. Simply removing the response is inconsistent with WP:NPOV in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jihad Watch and Israel

[[13]] is an article about Pamela Geller, not Jihad Watch. What is due weight for an article about Geller, an ardent Zionist, may not be due weight for a wikipedia entry on Jihad Watch. Thus, I removed the sentence that says some of the supporters of Jihad Watch also support the Israel right. There is no context for such an extraneous remark as Jihad Watch is about Islam, not Israel, Jews, or Zionists. I suggest we remove this undue WP:UNDUE remark. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement "It has also received funding from donors supporting the Israeli right" is just a simple, uncontroversial fact about Jihad Watch published by a reliable secondary source, The New York Times. As this wiki article makes clear-ish, Jihad Watch is a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and most of the funding for Jihad Watch comes from Aubrey and Joyce Chernick via the Freedom Center. See the funding section based on the Politico article here which was also covered by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in the article "Major pro-Israel giver funding Jihad Watch" (September 4, 2010), republished by The Jerusalem Post here. The Chernick's Fairbrook Foundation has funded a number of "pro-Israel" organizations that can very reasonably be described as supporting the Israeli right wing e.g. American Friends of Ateret Cohanim that funds funds Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem and other pro-settlement/pro-Israel organizations such as as Zionist Organization of America, Central Fund of Israel, StandWithUs, CAMERA etc (see the Politico article update here). Some, such as Richard Silverstein, regard some of the recipients as "far right" organizations (see here). I think the NYT statement is a reasonable shorthand summary of the funding situation that became clear a month before the NYT article was published via the various Politico/JTA/Jpost articles. It's certainly not "an extraneous remark" in any sense. It's not a minority view, it's just a simple fact, it's clearly a significant piece of information that meets the requirements of WP:DUE given it's coverage by RS, and I'm not aware of any dispute or controversy over the information. It's an aspect of Jihad Watch that we are required by WP:NPOV to give due weight and in fact already address in the funding section.
I'm not sure I follow your "What is due weight for an article about Geller, an ardent Zionist, may not be due weight for a wikipedia entry on Jihad Watch" argument. The information in the NYT article is about the funding of Jihad Watch. It's hardly surprising that it would appear in an article about Geller in addition to all the other articles. As it says in JPost "Jihad Watch, founded by Robert Spencer, has in recent months taken on board Pamela Geller". You only need to do a Google search "Pamela Geller" site:www.jihadwatch.org to see the extent of the collaboration. Additionally, they are coauthors of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, they co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America and appeal for funding together on Jihad Watch ( see here for example).
Having said all that, perhaps the NYT summary statement is more appropriate to the funding section. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sean on this. Also, I believe the section heading of this talk topic is making the issue larger than it is. It's a question of a specific political group supporting particular Israeli groups as well as Jihad Watch, and not a broad connection between Jihad Watch and Israel in any general sense.
As funding is a key part of any venture's organisation, I've made the funding section a subsection of the organisation section.
Best regards, benjamil (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
All of Sean's references repeat the claim of Politico that the $920k (over 3 years) is earmarked for Jihad Watch. The tax return (in our article's reference) only says that the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) raises $4.5 million (per year) and it funds Jihad Watch. Thus, everyone is repeating an unsubstantiated claim by Politico that Chernick is funding Jihad Watch when in fact the evidence only shows at $300k (a year’s worth) of the $4.5 million is added to the general funding of the DHFC. (Correct me if I’m not reading this correctly.) It would seem appropriate for Politico’s speculative claim to get one sentence. In addition, most of the Ken Vogel quote is about the DHFC funding and that should be in the DHFC article. The current weight and repetition makes it appear as if it is some kind of “Jewish conspiracy” when in fact Jihad Watch had long been in existence prior to DHFC, its focus is not on Israel or Jewish issues, and is basically Spencer’s platform for daily commentary. Thus, I suggest a single sentence about funding in the organization section, leaving the DHFC funding to the DHFC page. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to fairly dramatically reducing the wordiness of the Politico quote as I agree it's a bit over the top and strays off topic. I don't know about the 'current weight and repetition makes it appear as if it is some kind of “Jewish conspiracy”'. Appear to whom, neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists perhaps, but thankfully the NYT, JTA, Jpost and Politico aren't in the anti-Semitism business and neither is Wikipedia. Joyce Chernick's ethnicity is irrelevant to this funding issue anyway. She could just as easily be an American Christian evangelist and donate to the same causes and of course the Fairbrook Foundation can donate money to whatever it wants, nothing wrong with that. But the nature of the causes supported by a major contributor apparently is relevant as far as RS are concerned, and that's both Israeli and non-Israeli, Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Our assessment of Jihad Watch's focus isn't relevant. We aren't RS. Given that multiple RS have reported this information, we are required to follow the sources, and it's not particularly complicated, it can probably be covered in one or two sentences. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think a sentence or two would be more appropriate. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've pruned it. I didn't actually read the article, though, so please check over the section to make sure that it makes sense. benjamil (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's much better. It's ironic, however, that the Politico article's them is "two can play this game." It is a response to the opponents of Park51 who cite the "foreign" funding sources and the Politico article discusses them. It proceeds to ask the question, but who funds the opponents? I question whether we should be playing this game. The article on Park51 leaves out the actually names of those purported to be funding the mosque ("$900,000, that the government of Qatar and a foundation run by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal" according to Politico.) The Park51 article merely mentions that critics use the funding ploy and counters with those who respond with those who object to such an inquiry. Perhaps the Politico article should be used in the Park51 article or in neither. I'll leave that for others to debate. I have to attend to other matters. Thanks for the vast improvement to this article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Small changes

I cleaned up the article and made it a little more readable but the prose is horrendous. I will see if I can get some time to expand some of the sections to actually be more than just a few block quotes. On that note I will probably expand all sides though not just the current ones so let me know thoughts as I work. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Jihad Watch which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://web.archive.org/web/20070312064636/http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1853&theType=NR
    Triggered by \bcair-net\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jihad Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jihad Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV Required

The current entry reads that Jihad Watch is a hate group of conspiracy theory islamophobia. The facts are the opposite. Any reader serious to read the aggregated news, Robert Spencer's posts and books would see that that view is false. The current editing is pathetic. e.g. above - "POV means what is and I know what is." Bring authoritative sources. Where disputed bring other sides sources. And no the Guardian is not a credible journalistic source but a biased voice of own agenda.Yohananw (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources cited in the lede for the description are a Princeton University Press book, a NYU Press book and Foreign Policy magazine. The body also appears to cite a number of academic publications (with the disclaimer that I have not clicked them and am not familiar with the journals). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Good disclaimer. Intrigued, I clicked them, and found they did not say what the intro said. I have edited accordingly, quoting a different WP:RS.TVC 15 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogan and Doug Weller oversighter make wiki into pravda. Your first line of entry "Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog" is incorrect. You conflate anti-Islamic jihad with anti-Muslim. See Spencer on difference: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/robert-spencer-talks-about-islamophobia-on-what-do-you-meme Jihad Watch is far more than a blog -- (see WorldCat for which of his books have been translated into other languages). The conspiracy to suppress information is yours, political correctness editors. The credibility of your sources is also disputed.-Yohananw (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Describing jihadwatch as an "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog" is factually wrong, biased, and unprofessional. 92.238.89.128 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That's, just, like, your opinion, man. The cited reliable sources are what we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There can be reliable sources that still spew nonsense - and calling a "conspiracy blog" is one of them. What would the conspiracy be about exactly? Criticising Islam - and not "Muslims" clearly - is not a conspiracy, it's a legitimate political opinion. Being slandered by a reliable source is still slander. Why would that be against "Muslims" in the first place? It's made absolutely clear throughout the website that the ideology of Islam is the target. This is Wikipedia, not a Tumblr blog - we need to be intellectually honest about what we write, and especially be Neutral. Immanuel797979 (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand how "neutrality" works on Wikipedia. As a new user, I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV. We are required to balance reliable sources, but if reliable sources say something, we go with that. Doesn't matter if someone doesn't like it. The cited academic sources here are impeccable. That you don't like them is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The introductory sentence is unsupported by the links at the end of it. If ppl want to call the site something, then please quote what WP:RS say, rather than what you might wish they had said. Meanwhile, I will remove the challenged assertion until someone can link a WP:RS saying it (and preferably not one that simply links back to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a source).TVC 15 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

TVC 15, Did you check what the sources say?. I doubt that someone who types ppl instead of people would want to do any effort to check what the sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and if you prefer I can spell people instead of ppl.TVC 15 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Types of sources
TVC 15, we have a solid peer-reviewed source written by Christopher Bail, a professor of Sociology, Public Policy, and Data Science at Duke University, that says "The mainstream of anti-Muslim organizations coincided with the rise of internet as primary source of information for most Americans. These organizations developed considerable Internet infrastructure such as JihadWatch.org. The David Horowitz Freedom Center(DHFC)..."--SharabSalam (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Your quotation does not mention the word "conspiracy", and besides I cannot find that quotation, so please use a quotation that can be verified. Also, please stop edit warring with reversions; if you want to assert something, the burden of proof is on you to cite WP:RS links that say what you want to say.TVC 15 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, the source is available here [14]. Didnt you read that it is a book and that it is not available? Also you made a bold edit, you got reverted then you should discuss not to continue reverting. It is bold, revert, discuss not bold, revert, revert, revert. You are the edit warrior here.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, also I wonder why did you put the scare quotation marks around anti-Islam?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I used quotation marks because I was quoting, but we can remove the quotation marks if you prefer.TVC 15 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, that's not how quoting work. Those are obviously scare quotes. Also you still have not responded my previous comment.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the quotation marks, lest they scare anyone. I tend to quote and link wherever possible; it's nothing specific to this particular article, but I do understand WP has a policy on quotation marks. The Christopher Bail book you linked says, "At present, more than six thousand other sites are linked to JihadWatch.org, and it is currently the second result of a Google search for the term "jihad" - behind only Wikipedia... For example, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Center for Security Policy, and the JihadWatch.org website repeatedly insisted that “jihad” requires all Muslims to commit violence against infidels or “nonbelievers.” While violent extremist groups such as Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda regularly use the term in this manner...." (If Bail had written the book more recently, he might also have included Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi PhD, the late Caliph of the Islamic State.) Such prominence suggests it is a mainstream site, as the book title implies.TVC 15 (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
​The book explicitly says that Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim. You are misrepresenting what the source is saying. It says "The mainstream of anti-Muslim organizations coincided with the rise of internet as primary source of information for most Americans. These organizations developed considerable Internet infrastructure such as JihadWatch.org. The David Horowitz Freedom Center(DHFC).."--SharabSalam (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I have quoted the book. It says also, “JihadWatch.org has become one of the most popular sites about terrorism on the Internet.” Again, that sounds mainstream. If you want to add a section about the history of the site, and its origins more than five years ago (whenever the Internet became a primary source of information), then that would become relevant. BTW, although published by Princeton University Press, the book combines fact and opinion, and one author's opinion of the site five years ago does not really define the site today.TVC 15 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, so? thats irrelevant! I am quoting the source as well and it says that Jihad watch is anti-Muslim.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I clicked through to linked sources and the WP:RS did not say the things that were attributed to them. For example, Snopes.com had a page for a topic but no article on it; one of the anonymous user comments said what the WP article said; an anonymous user comment is not a WP:RS. Another was a monograph, not an article published by a WP:RS with a fact-checking department. Again, please read WP:RS.TVC 15 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont see the claimed NPOV issues here, the WP:RS seem to be pretty unanimous about the whole islamophobia and conspiracy theories thing. Attempts to push personal POVs aside there doesn't actually seem to be a policy based objection to the status quo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please quote even one WP:RS that calls the site an "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog"? Per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."TVC 15 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, the source says "The mainstream of anti-Muslim organizations coincided with the rise of internet as primary source of information for most Americans. These organizations developed considerable Internet infrastructure such as JihadWatch.org. The David Horowitz Freedom Center(DHFC)..." how many times should I repeat this?--SharabSalam (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, your quotation does not even say "conspiracy", and regardless of what it says about other organizations 16 years ago (when the site was founded) that does not define the site today. Please comply with WP:SYNTH. Also, while I question whether the opinions of that one author belong in the lede, he calls the site "one of the most popular sites about terrorism" and notes thousands of other sites link to it; in other words, mainstream.TVC 15 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be mistaken, Bail’s Terrified is dated 2014, not 2003. Please seek to build consensus rather than what could be perceived as tendentious editing. It seems that your issue could be solved by adding a comma, no? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, the site that is the subject of the article was founded in 2003. Bail's 2014 book describes what he claims to have been the historical antecedents that led to the formation of the site. Bail acknowledges that by 2014, it had become a mainstream site. Also, regarding tendentious editing, you have now restored a source link to an anonymous comment on a website, not even an article; anonymous user comments on websites are definitely not WP:RS, and your insistence upon using such a thing is terrible for WP. As for consensus, at least four editors have called the article biased in violation of WP:NPOV, while two (you and SharabSalam) have insisted on reverting tendentiously to keep it in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RS. I have proposed a compromise that was actually supported, but you two insist on reverting. And no, a comma would not solve the problem.TVC 15 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Is that genuinely what you think is happening here? Please re-read this talk page section. I have rewritten the lede to comply more with WP:LEDE. Any contribution you have would be appreciated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, that is what I think is happening here. Please WP:AGF. Again, you have restored as a source link an anonymous user comment on a website as if it were a WP:RS, and you have violated both WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. I contributed a sourced compromise, but you have reverted that. Please acknowledge your error about the dates (the site was founded in 2003) and undo your reversion.TVC 15 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no further replies, I have edited to comply with WP:NPOV and remove violations of WP:SYNTH. I remind all editors, per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you cannot quote it from a linked source, then you cannot make WP say what you wish the linked sources say, when they do not say that.TVC 15 (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

TVC 15, the lead section should summaries what the body of the article says see MOS:LEAD. You are not making any objective arguments and keep deleting the fact that this is an anti-Muslim blog that is sourced to a very reliable source which I mentioned above.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have not deleted what you claim, I left that in the Content section, so your statement is a blatant misrepresentation. Also, please comply with WP:SYNTH.TVC 15 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, You removed the anti-Muslim from the lead. This is against what most editors here have said like Horse Eye Jack and Snooganssnoogans. let's start with what you added recently. You added that Jihad Watch follows usually with a linked excerpt from a news website and then all the sources are from Jihad Watch. This is original research. We don't analyze here. You should cite a secondary source that says this and mention this explicitly. If you keep ignoring these rules and trying to not seek consensus then I predict a block.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, you are misrepresenting. Snooganssnoogans said (s)he had not even clicked on the linked sources. As for the links that I added, they go directly to articles that quote the named sources. You can see them for yourself, no need to do any analysis or original research, it's right there. If you persist in misrepresenting and reverting, then I agree with the prediction of a block, but I think you will be the one blocked, and rightly so. TVC 15 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
You do not have consensus for your proposed changes and you cannot simply force them through on your say-so. Your options are to either open an RFC or to drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15 You have no consensus, people stoped engaging with you because you stopped being reasonable and working towards a consensus not because they agreed with you. Given the opinions already given consensus leans towards inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack wrote that "consensus leans towards inclusion". The latest reversion deleted a well sourced sentence that I had added. I will try restoring that, by itself, to see if it gets reverted also. BTW, the article includes currently a purported quotation, in quotation marks, that does not even appear in any of the linked sources to which it is attributed. I think an RFC will be necessary because any edit I make seems to get reverted, but I want to clarify whether that applies to every edit or only deletions. TVC 15 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Which quotation is unsupported by the cited sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The purported quotation "deliberate mischaracterizations" does not appear in any of the linked sources to which it is attributed. Also, none of the linked sources calls the site "an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog." Per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Every time I try to address that, someone reverts every edit I have ever made to the article. BTW, one of the linked sources presented for "conspiracy blog" says the site is among the most popular Google search results on terrorism and that 6,000 other sites link to it; I have to ask whether Google and all those other sites are part of the alleged "conspiracy", or is someone waging a misguided keyboard jihad against Jihad Watch? TVC 15 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the "deliberate mischaracterization" section, I will take a look - if you're right, the quote should be removed or modified. As for "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog," that is not a quote and it does not violate WP:SYNTH - there are a wide array of sources describing the site as such, and it is of course acceptable to paraphrase the conclusions of reliable sources in our own words. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I just picked one source out at random, which says She also tweeted links to jihadwatch.org, an anti-Muslim hate site run by Robert Spencer, a prominent anti-Muslim activist who is banned from the United Kingdom for his Islamophobic and racist rhetoric. Based on that source, we could even add to the description - we could call it an anti-Muslim hate site too. Would that satisfy your concerns? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It would mainly reinforce the conversion of a WP article into a lopsided echo chamber of polarization. Snooganssnoogans deleted as "redundant" a sentence showing what the blog says in reality, with multiple links, but left in a sentence of WP:SYNTH with links only to critics. How is that WP:NPOV? This is the basic problem with the article: deleting what the subject site says in reality, omitting objective facts about it, and then synthesizing the (often biased) critics to form an article and a lead based on them. That is neither encyclopedic nor WP:NPOV. It becomes a panic-driven, sometimes hysterical effort to libel the site and discourage people from even looking at what it says in reality, which is mainly to compile articles from sites I listed (ABC News, AFP, AFP, BBC, NY Times, and so on). Are you dismissing all those sites as "fake news"? TVC 15 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Throwing around nonsense catchphrases like "libel" (there is literally nothing legally libelous here) only makes your overheated rhetoric less persuasive. It's clear that you don't like what the reliable sources say about this site. We cannot "fix" that "problem" - our task is to write encyclopedia articles based on reliable sources. Sorry, but you may be on the wrong encyclopedia project. If you want a place where Trumpist ethnonationalism and xenophobia are treated as normal, Conservapedia might be more your style. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple RS say it's anti-Muslim. Multiple sources say it's known for pushing conspiracy theories, falsehoods and disinformation against Muslims. Therefore, for the sake of concision we describe it as an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You deleted as "redundant" a sentence showing what the blog says in reality, with multiple links, but left in a sentence of WP:SYNTH with links only to critics. How is that WP:NPOV? This is the basic problem with the article: deleting what the subject site says in reality, omitting objective facts about it, and then synthesizing the (often biased) critics to form an article and a lead based on them. That is neither encyclopedic nor WP:NPOV. TVC 15 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The content that was deleted for links to a dozen or more Jihad Watch posts, which added literally nothing of value. And no, the lead is not based on what "critics" says. It's based on RS, including peer-reviewed academic sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Please note a difference between peer-reviewed journals vs monographs written by someone in academia. In the name of free speech, a think tank or a university press can agree to publish a monograph, but that does not convert such a monograph into a peer-reviewed journal article. To the contrary, some of this stuff reads like the California professor who was also in AntiFa and was convicted of violent battery [15]. Especially in recent years, some people have become increasingly polarized and frankly unhinged, even in academia. That does not convert their opinions into facts. TVC 15 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If you evidence that the cited university presses are not peer-reviewed, present it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's unclear to the point of misdirection what anything in this article has to do with a California professor who was also in AntiFa. Academic works from academic presses are considered highly-reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you wish to argue that they shouldn't be, the Reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
JihadWatch's own posts are primary sources - just as an article published in The New York Times would be a primary source for our article on The New York Times. By foundational policy, Wikipedia articles are primarily based on reliable secondary sources. JihadWatch's own posts can be used for some purposes, but we are not primarily interested in what the site says about itself - because of course they are self-interested. A laundry list of JihadWatch commentaries is not useful or meaningful to this article. We aren't here to linkfarm their blogposts. We're here to write an encyclopedia article about them. That you disagree with what the reliable sources say about JihadWatch is of no particular importance here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The sentence you deleted did not rely on what the site says about itself, but rather showed links to where the site gets its information. The links showed plainly that the news reports came from ABC News, AFP, AP, CNN, NY Times, Reuters, and so on. As for what the reliable sources say, I agree the site is among the most popular Google search results on its topic and that thousands of other sites link to it, so why is that not in the article? Instead, the article leads with a synthesis of negative opinion while excluding (by omission and then deliberate deletion) objective facts. TVC 15 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have added the facts noted above. Since certain editors have insisted on citing a particular book to support their WP:SYNTH, I thought it would be reasonable to include some facts that the book says actually. BTW, I do agree that the bias in the article is nothing like rocket science; if rocket science were anywhere near as biased, then all rockets would veer off and crash without ever getting anywhere. TVC 15 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help to focus briefly on just one of the reference links for the article's “anti-Muslim conspiracy blog” assertion. “The Daily Beast” said:

“A misleading post from Jihad Watch, a website that frequently posts anti-Islam disinformation, spread across social media... Following the fire, Jihad Watch posted an article with a headline that made it appear like the content was directly connected to the fire. It's not. An update on the post says, "This is not a post about the fire at Notre Dame," but readers can see that only when they click on the story. The incident in question is the same one from 2016 that accounts on Twitter attempted to spread. Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, later tweeted that the post was scheduled before the fire.”[16]

In reality, the plot was proved in court, and the Muslim conspirators have since been sentenced to prison, as reported by the BBC[17] and on JihadWatch.org[18]. Literally the only “conspiracy” involved was the Muslim conspirators had in fact conspired to car bomb the cathedral. Jihad Watch did not “make it appear” otherwise, and the Daily Beast cites no sources or examples to support its other accusations (“frequently posts anti-Islam disinformation”). It does not even say what the WP article says (“anti-Muslim conspiracy”), but the WP article presents this as proof of “an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.” Directing people to Conservapedia and complaining about “Trumpist ethnonationalism” does not really help; it merely drives polarization (you're with us or you're with the terrorists, if we like the facts then the messenger is one of us, but if we don't like the facts then the messenger is our enemy). Anyone reading the actual Jihad Watch articles would know the conspiracy had been proved in court, and the Muslim conspirators duly sentenced. Anyone reading the WP article would see only the opposite, and so polarization and cynicism deepen, as each faction accuses the other of “fake news”. At the suggestion of a WP editor above, I looked at the Conservapedia entry for Jihad Watch; it calls the site “conservative” but cites no sources for that either. Jihad Watch is mostly a messenger, compiling information from other sites, but people seem to project their own emotions about the message onto the messenger. The WP article presents one-sided opinions (mostly contrary to observable fact) as if they were facts, and gets dismissed as biased and fake WP:SYNTH instead of WP:NPOV. TVC 15 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

TVC 15, reliable solid sources say that they are anti-Muslim yet you keep removing it without giving any reason why you removed it. Waffling is not helpful in this discussion. Do you have a reliable source that disputes that Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim? (as reliable as the book by Christopher Bail, a professor of Sociology, Public Policy, and Data Science at Duke University). Also, you keep saying SNYTH but you(the same you who talks about SNYTH) added 3000 bytes of original research content to the article!. You should put your own house in order before accusing others of original research, that way I would take your accusation of original research seriously.--SharabSalam (talk)
What you call "3000 bytes of original research" was actually one sentence with a list of reference links; essentially the same sentence appears now in the article, without any links to support it. Also, you seem to focus on the phrase "anti-Muslim"; several sites call it "anti-Islam", but perhaps you conflate the two in your WP:SYNTH. With respect to WP:NPOV, I think the issue comes down to observable facts vs opinions that seem emotionally overwrought. The article reads like an ad hominem screed against the subject site, rather than an enyclopedic summary of what the site is and does. The site has compiled so much well sourced material that it has become one of the world's most popular sites on its topic. Consider the example of Amazon.com: back when it was losing money, pundits opined that the site was not a real business and would soon go broke; those gloomy opinions have been disproved by the success of the site. Jihad Watch is in a similar position: it continues publishing objective facts, and the hostile opinions look increasingly deranged. The WP article insists on your ad hominem assertion about being "anti-Muslim", but does not provide the neutral balance of an encyclopedia providing objective information. TVC 15 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Point of order An ad hominem attack against a non-person is impossible. If you want people to work with you in the way you expect don't insist on arguing from such a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. From perusing your talk page it seems your issues with tendentious editing go back years, if this aggressive and caustic style of editing didnt work for you before so why would you presume it to work now? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree respectfully with your limitation on the definition of ad hominem, but we can substitute genetic fallacy if you prefer; either way, the substantive issue is that the current article substitutes opinions for evidence, and attacks the alleged motivations behind the origin of the site rather than addressing the substance that the site presents. BTW, you mention WP:FRINGE, but your limitation of ad hominem to exclude a non-person seems rather fringe in itself; you might similarly claim that an ad hominem attack against a woman is impossible. If you dismiss the NY Times as "fake news" as a way of dismissing whatever the NY Times reported, that would commonly be called ad hominem, or more precisely (and obscurely) a genetic fallacy, but we can go with the gender neutral category if you prefer. As for my WP Talk page, most edits don't generate controversy and thus don't generate Talk; you can read elsewhere about the "backfire effect" of online discussion, which seems to be happening here, and conclude that such discussions are useless as people retreat into their own confirmation bias, but I think the exchange can be useful. TVC 15 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, the only problem here is you not accepting "objective facts" that the sources make clear I gave you a scholarly reliable source that says "The mainstream of anti-Muslim organizations coincided with the rise of internet as primary source of information for most Americans. These organizations developed considerable Internet infrastructure such as JihadWatch.org. The David Horowitz Freedom Center(DHFC)..." and there are tons of other sources like [19] which says "jihadwatch.org, an anti-Muslim hate site run by Robert Spencer, a prominent anti-Muslim activist who is banned from the United Kingdom for his Islamophobic and racist rhetoric. " Also the NYT says "xenophobic and conspiratorial sites, such as JihadWatch.org...
We have a problem, its you not getting it--SharabSalam (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated and inflammatory language
Thanks for the NYT link, that was an interesting article. I guess the issue I see is in the comparison between what the site says in fact vs the opinion that you present. For example, today's headline, "Turkey is allowing senior Hamas operatives to plot jihad attacks against Israel from Istanbul".[20] The article quotes The Telegraph. How is that an "anti-Muslim conspiracy"? Should no one report on such plots? TVC 15 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Another headline from today says, "UK: Muslim rape gang jailed for sexually abusing girl who was “passed around like a piece of meat”".[21] The quotation comes from the BBC, which the Jihad Watch article links to. Is the BBC part of the alleged "anti-Muslim conspiracy"? TVC 15 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, Most of their reports are anti-Muslim. Let's talk about the report from the BBC. The BBC never said they are Muslims. The Jihad Watch calls them "Muslims gang" in the title. Although Islam has nothing to do with these crimes and their religion is not known. Imagine if newspapers put "Christian gang" in the title of articles about crimes committed by allegedly Christians. Or if newspapers kept putting "Jewish" next to Jeffery Epstein crimes. These types of reporting, brainwash the ordinary uninformed public and make them anti-Muslim. This organization is paid millions of dollars to spread this anti-Muslim propaganda.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you accusing Mohammed Ali Sultan and Mohammad Rizwan of not being Muslim? Before answering, please note another defendant was deported to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where apostasy can have grave consequences [22], so please be careful about accusing them of apostasy. As reported on ITV and elsewhere, nearly 100% of the UK "grooming" gang rapists have been Muslim, and some read from the Koran to justify raping infidel girls of any age. (See this example, quoting The Independent.[23]) The BBC calls the Pakistani Muslims "Asian men," a bizarre obfuscation that Jihad Watch points out. The obfuscation reminds me of when the previous POTUS claimed the Islamic State had nothing to do with Islam, even though its Muslim caliph had a PhD in Islamic studies. Regarding the examples you mentioned, if Epstein had read from the Torah to justify his crimes, or a Christian gang had read from the New Testament to justify raping girls, then it would be relevant, and I would expect to see it reported; I would certainly not call such a report an "anti-Christian conspiracy blog". TVC 15 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
TVC 15, I am a Muslim, an Arab Yemeni Muslim. I read the Quran all the time, there is no place in the Quran that justifies raping infidel women. Also, do you have a proof that they are Muslims? Do you have proof that they used the Quran to justify what they did?
You don't seem to be informed well about what you are talking about. And Pakistan doesn't consider apostasy a capital crime. There is a term in Arabic for this type of unawareness (ignorance), I don't know what is the English equivalent for this term but the transliteration of this is that there are two types of unawareness 1) a simple unawareness and 2) a complex one. The simple one is when someone is just unaware of something but the complex one is when someone is unaware about something and he is unaware that he is unaware. In your case you have a "complex unawareness".--SharabSalam (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
In any case, this discussion is over and you're transforming it into |a forum because you obviously have got no objective arguments.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mulhall article

Joe Mulhall's "The British Counter-Jihad Movement ..." article (archive) does not call Jihad Watch far-right (which is what it was cited for); however, its description of the blog's influence on the British counter-jihad movement is informative and it may deserve to be cited for that. Therefore I have left it there but marked it with Template:Failed verification, following that page's instruction to do this if, despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:46, 11 August 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1038319330 by Böhm-Bawerk (talk) - unfortunately for your beliefs, that's not what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, not your beliefs.)


There is no belief, nor personal opinion, when something is clearly visible ( just check on Jihadwatch website to check the links to their sources) and no need to use other sources which are not objectively more reliable. The reliability of the source is indeed an opinion. ( is buzzfeednews.com considered a reliable source? by who? and is it objectively more reliable than AlJazeera?)

If you check yourself the website /www.jihadwatch.org/ they post links to other websites where they took the news in the first place, they don't create news, or fake news, they just report news from other sources as : Aljazeera or MailOnLine. This is also clarified in the Wikipedia article creating then a contradiction within the same page.

There is no conspiracy theory, by definition "The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties;" Reporting News has nothign to do with conspiracy, so Jihad watch cannot be described as a "conspiracy blog".

I dispute also the other adjectives as far-right and anti-Muslim because reporting the truth and reporting other news, has nothing to do with politics and anti-Muslim position.

Böhm-Bawerk

The cited reliable sources speak for themselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Böhm-Bawerk NorthBySouthBaranof
3O Response: Declined; not enough discussion or even to a standstill. Please discuss more and attempt to come to a consensus before requesting again. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not balanced

This is a completely one sided page. If you go to the site, it collects news about attacks by jihadi. It is not inventing the attacks, just collecting them in one place. How is that a conspiracy or far right? Rustygecko (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: Can you provide any instances of reliable sources describing the website otherwise? Snuish (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I will look for more. This is just about their finances

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200699967 Rustygecko (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/government-censoring-jihad-watch-andrew-c-mccarthy/ Rustygecko (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Charity Navigator is only useful for "s insights into a nonprofit’s financial stability, adherence to best practices for both accountability and transparency, and results reporting." If you want to use it for the mission claim, you can't. The National Review article fails as a reliable source for this. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't comment about how jihad watch is pro israel

I tried many times to post that they're a pro Israel group. But Wikipedia wouldn't let me put that information for some weird reason 143.92.181.234 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because you were trying to add some material referenced to a deprecated source? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
In any case, it notes in the funding section that it has received financing from the Israeli right. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is Iskandar323 and why is he given so much leeway to change Jihad Watch?

suspicions about Iskandar323 84.70.98.118 (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is I, the great and powerful Iz. Which of the edits I have wrought is it that displeaseth thou so? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jihad_Watch/Archive_1&oldid=1213522305"