Talk:The Jawa Report

Abject Bigotry
Why is this not included in some sort of category for racism and bigotry? Perhaps something like Islamophobia? (If such a category exists.)

I got this from Google's search results page for mypetjawa.mu.nu:

'Jan 22, 2011 ... A weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas and containing criticism and satire of Islamic traditions and beliefs.'

This is undeniably a hate site and not "political" or "news" as it has been categorized. Bigotry toward Muslims and abject racism against Middle Eastern ethnicities is widespread on the internet, particulalry amongst these supposed anti-Jihadi websites. As a frequent poster on various websites, including YouTube, I find almost exclusively racist users using mypetjawa as a source. -- Contrite Contrarian (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC) -- Contrite Contrarian (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, for good measure, here's the google search results page. See for yourself what the operators of the website have search engines display for them. (I made a screen capture just in case one of their admins watches this Wikipedia page and tries to save face.)


 * No, you're making the mistake of confusing Muslims with Islamic extremists. There's a difference.  You need to understand that not all Muslims are jihadis who want to kill people.  The Jawa site pokes fun at the extremists.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid you are making a mistake. Allow me to quote the website again:


 * "Jan 22, 2011 ... A weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas and containing criticism and satire of Islamic traditions and beliefs."


 * They are not making fun of Jihadists, or terrorists, or fanatics, they are making fun of "Muslims" and "comparing [them] to Jawas." Jawas being a mischievous robed and hooded desert alien race from Star Wars.


 * This is abject bigotry.


 * If, for instance, the website said "comparing Jews to the money grubbing Ferengi alien race of Star Trek" you would certainly consider it an antisemitic hate website, and rightfully so. Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples who dress in desert garb should be afforded the same dignity. This is racism and bigotry.
 * -- Contrite Contrarian (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quoting the Google directory, not the Jawa site. The Google directory entry was made by some ignorant person.  It has no real expertise or authority.
 * The Jawa site is just fine with ordinary, peace-loving Muslims and recognizes that they're victims, too, as many were here.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jawas are known for their characteristic desert attire--hoods and robes. So what you are saying is that only Islamic extremists wear cloths on their heads and desert robes, and Middle Eastern people who are not Islamic radicals, or of another religion, do not dress in such a way? The comparison is obvious. And it is obviously racist and bigoted.


 * Ferengis from Star Trek are known for having bulbous hooked probosces, on top of having avaricious, greedy, and stingy personalities. I'm sure if someone set up a website called "My Pet Ferengi" with the caveat "only criticizing Zionist politics" it would still be considered and antisemitic hate site. Muslims and Middle Eastern people deserve the same standard of dignity. This is a hate website.
 * -- Contrite Contrarian (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The links I just gave you show they are not bigoted.
 * Your comparison is nonsense. You're using vulgar stereotypes about people, including such cartoonish physical traits.
 * The comparison to the Jawas is described here. It's an obvious satire comparing the Jawas to the situation regarding Israel.  There's nothing said about Muslims as people in a way comparable to "greedy, and stingy personalities."
 * As the Jawa report says in the link I gave earlier, "the group who suffers the most from al-Qaeda's murderous acts are Muslims."
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

<-If there are notable commentators in reliable sources who have have described the Jawa Report as bigoted/not-bigoted etc you can add the opinions attributed to the commentators to a reception section in the acticle per WP:DUE. That's a prerequisite for opinion based categorization because "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" per WP:CAT. The article can't be put into contentious categories that label the site as this or that unless there is a consensus in reliable sources that they are this or that. There's no point discussing whether they actually are bigoted/not-bigoted etc on this talk page as if it is a matter of fact. We just have to follow the WP:NPOV policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Jawa Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026121129/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7060959.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7060959.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)