Talk:Jihad Watch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jihad Watch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 23 May 2007, see discussion.
Keep, 30 August 2006, see discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jihad Watch and Israel

[[1]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I think a sentence or two would be more appropriate. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Jihad Watch

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, and if you prefer I can spell people instead of ppl.TVC 15 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TVC 15, the source is available here [2]. 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)[reply]

TVC 15, also I wonder why did you put the scare quotation marks around anti-Islam?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Which quotation is unsupported by the cited sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3]. 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)[reply]

If you evidence that the cited university presses are not peer-reviewed, present it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.”[4]

In reality, the plot was proved in court, and the Muslim conspirators have since been sentenced to prison, as reported by the BBC[5] and on JihadWatch.org[6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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, which is a subset of Genetic fallacy, but we can go with the larger category if you prefer. TVC 15 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 [7] 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)[reply]