Talk:Dhimmi Watch

Merge

Can we merge this into Jihad Watch? It is essentially a subsection of the JW page. And if there is going to be revert wars, I'd rather have them on just one page (i.e. Jihad Watch), rather than on both pages. Then from there, we can decide if need be to merge with Richard Spencer. In the meantime, lets merge with Jihad Watch. Pepsidrinka 00:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, they either have some substance (i.e., the stuff Yuber keeps wanting to chop), or they all become redirects to Spencer. Provided they have substance, they should be separate. (Although they are hosted by the same organization, and have button links to each other, their focuses are different, and there's little overlap in the carried material.)--Mike18xx 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can appeal to those who have a problem with the article, as it currently is, to discuss your issues here. Pepsidrinka 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely be merged into Jihad Watch. They are essentially the same website. joturner 00:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CltFn created the stubs; we should wait for him to comment before any redirects.--Mike18xx 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a merge , rather we should develop the article.--CltFn 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

I prefer the article the size it is (ie. succinct), but would oppose merger if the justification for merger is that it reduces revert wars (since under that theory merger then represents appeasement to vandals).--Mike18xx 10:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

just wanted to ask why there is no other point of view on articles on websites such as dhimmiwatch and jihadwatch. There is no response as to why what theyre saying could be wrong. Also you could say how it is linked with blatantly islamophobic websites that call for the expulsion of muslims from the west.

To the poster above, there is no need to post responses as to why "what theyre saying could be wrong," because there is nothing posted to say why what they are saying could be right. It simply states what they say without adding any value judgement. Seems about as NPOV as you could hope to be.

I like the idea of merging. In fact, I would say just merge the two "watch" projects into the Robert Spencer article. --Uncle Ed 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree about merging it. Dhimmiwatch is bascially a subsection of Jihadwatch, so I don't see a reason for separate articles. -Politicallyincorrectliberal 17:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merger. We've been down this road before, with a single, bloated Spencer entry in continuous revert-war all day long. When I hacked it down into just-the-facts,-ma'am, everybody breathed a big sigh of relief and backed away, and the piece was untouched for months. Regards dhimmiwatch and jihadwatch; while they are hosted at the same site, they are distinctly different in their subject matter.--Mike18xx 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spencer scholar?

Is it right to call Robert Spencer a scholar on this page? In the Robert Spencer article it states he has an MA - not in Islamic or Arabic studies. It does not say that he has a PhD or holds an academic post. Author I would say is a correct and neutral description. Itsmejudith 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, holding a PhD is not a requirement for meeting the definition of a "scholar" -- unless one is slavishly beholden to appeal to authority logical-fallacies.--Mike18xx 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)