Talk:Jihad Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jihad Watch article.
Article policies
This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] I added a link ...

For objectivity's sake, I added a link to a blog critical of JihadWatch. I urge the numerous JihadWatch fans not to remove this. Since you denounce Islam as not respecting pluralism and imposing intellectual conformity, give the good example and allow criticism of JihadWatch to be read as well. 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Dead links to www.cair-net.org

CAIR seem to have moved to a new website (www.cair.com), and all links to www.cair-net.org are now redirected to the top-level page there. So 2 of the 3 links used as sources in the "Criticism" section are both dead. Could someone please find replacements? CWC 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.wikipedia.org/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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category discussion

A user has requested comment on religion or philosophy for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCreli list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.
A user has requested comment on politics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpol list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


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)