This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Jawa Report article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The Jawa Report appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 March 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
<-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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Jawa Report. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Jawa Report article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The Jawa Report appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 March 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
<-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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Jawa Report. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)