Talk:Jihad Watch

Due weight tag
In Special:Diff/1213456033, the unbalanced due weight tag was added to the article but no further explanation was provided. As far as I can see, the content and cited sources in the article are representative of the reliable sources that have covered the article subject. Which reliable sources are missing from the article? —  Newslinger  talk   06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Jihad Watch is not Islamophobic, nor a conspiracy blog. The website itself is designed to educate the reader about concerns related to Jihad (a real thing) and what can be done to stop the spread of a totalitarian ideology.  It's not a question of which reliable sources were or were not used, it's about BALANCE.  The tone of the article slams the creators of Jihad Watch to discredit them, while at the same time attempts to elevate Islam above all other religions.  That's where the imbalance is. MusicTree3 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, overwhelmingly agree that Jihad Watch is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory website. See the citations at for details. Jihad Watch has repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories, including the Eurabia conspiracy theory and the love jihad conspiracy theory, which explains why reliable sources identify Jihad Watch as a conspiracy blog. Per the neutrality policy, false balance is prohibited, and there is no valid reason to censor the Islamophobic descriptor from this article, which reflects how reliable sources describe the article subject.
 * This article does not "[attempt] to elevate Islam above all other religions", because there is no text in the article that makes a claim that matches the description of your allegation. The article already mentions Jihad Watch's "portrayal of Islam as a totalitarian political doctrine", and Wikipedia already has an article about jihad. —  Newslinger  talk   06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Newslinger. You just validated my case in your first sentence:  Wikipedia has a  policy which this article violates. It should represent FAIRLY  and without bias ALL the significant views from reliable sources. What is missing is content from other editors which may have an opposing view than the one single view promoted by past editors. My call for a more balanced article is not false.  Perhaps you have a different definition of the word Islamophobic than most people.  Are you saying Jihad Watch's material is irrational or unjustified?  That is your opinion.  I have no problem with calling Jihad Watch a Far Right political publication. But labeling it as Islamophobic is demeaning and inherently elevates Islam above other points of view.  I appreciate your concern and your expertise as an admin for Wikipedia.  But you should be more neutral about this article. MusicTree3 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In your repetition of Newslinger's words, you omitted the word "proportionately". It is the key here. If most reliable sources have one opinion, that is the opinion we most emphasise. Where are the reliable sources that your case is based on? Your personal opinion on the topic, and mine, are irrelevant. Zerotalk 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Zero. However, at the time I placed the unbalanced banner, I had not surveyed all available sources, nor do I intend to. It's not my job to scour the universe to find other reliable sources. Someone else can do that. All I'm doing is pointing out the bias in the tone of the article and inviting others to contribute content with a more neutral point of view thereby bringing the article into acceptable Wikipedia standards.  Yes, this is a contentious topic.  Let's not make it more contentious by insisting the article is fine the way it is.
 * I'm willing to meet you part way and find common ground if the opening sentence could be altered just a little to make it less offensive. Use words like Anti-Islamic instead of Islamophobic, and Conservative instead of Conspiracy Theory. That would be an improvement and I would happily concede.
 * MusicTree3 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to bring it into compliance is to state that "Many consider Jihad Watch to be a Far-right, etc. etc.", or that "It is widely accepted that..." Do you see what I'm getting at?
 * MusicTree3 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In response to "It's not my job to scour the universe to find other reliable sources", Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." If you have not found reliable sources that support your proposed changes, then your proposed changes are not consistent with Wikipedia's policies.
 * The cited sources use both Islamophobic and anti-Muslim to describe Jihad Watch, descriptors that have roughly the same meaning and both redirect to Wikipedia's Islamophobia article. However, the term anti-Islam misses the point of the sources, which clearly elaborate on Jihad Watch's hostility toward Muslims. Reliable sources have provided ample evidence that Jihad Watch has published conspiracy theories, including the Eurabia conspiracy theory and the love jihad conspiracy theory; replacing the term conspiracy theory with conservative does not make sense because conservatives are not necessarily conspiracy theorists.
 * Phrases such as many consider... and it is widely accepted... are unsupported attributions and are generally discouraged in articles. If you have located reliable sources (preferably academic sources, since the descriptors under discussion rely on academic sourcing) that dispute that Jihad Watch is Islamophobic/anti-Muslim or that Jihad Watch has published conspiracy theories, please feel free to share them.
 * Please note that I am participating in this discussion in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. In discussions regarding article content, all editors (including administrators) are considered equals for the purpose of assessing consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Newslinger's final sentence applies to me also. It is an accepted principle that people adding tags provide justifications for them. What would provide a justification in this case would be a reliable source with a non-fringe point of view not currently covered in the article. Just stating your opinion about it is allowed here, but it doesn't provide the justification that the tag needs. Zerotalk 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion has not yielded any reliable sources that dispute the due weight of the descriptors included in the article, I have removed the unbalanced tag. Per WP:TC, "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article." —  Newslinger  talk   20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)