Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog)

Navigation template removed

Yikrazuul (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and unmotivated removed the navigation template. Please explain your actions here before doing it again. // Liftarn (talk)

Please you do so. Why do you template a website which rather belongs to the category Blogs critical of Islam? Politically Incorrect (blog) does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While it does not self identify as islamphobic, that is how it is described in reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

You did not address my point. Care to? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that the blog does not self identify as islamophobic ("does not define itself as islamophobe") and I replied that it is not necessary. It is enough that is is called that in reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Added it back before I was aware of this, now at WP:NPOVN/ Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it, as you lacking in arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. I gave my reason in the edit summary, and you read my post above that it was at NPOVN (where I also give my reason) before you deleted it. Please stop this. If a consensus develops at NPOVN that it should be removed, fine, then it can be removed. I wouldn't expect the blog to identify itself as Islamaphobic. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed it again. On balance, adding the template, controversial as it is, seems harsh and POVish: Yes, it is true that the blog is widely criticized for "Islamophobia" in the mainstream media, but it is also defended as legitimate Criticism of Islam, not just by conservative media but also by none less than the federal government of Germany which has reviewed the blog in the process of parliamentary inquiries several times and made its stance each time clear. And while the Bavarian Verfassungsschutz observes PI, their judgment is far outweighed by the position of central Federal Office according to which the blog does not incite hatred and is not unconstitutional. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for the guideline which holds that templates can be added even when there is no clear consensus in the sources (not to mention among the users). Meanhwile, I would like to point out that this template has not once been voted "keep", only ever "no consensus", meaning its existence has not even been accepted by the community. In view of this, I find the repeated attempts at its inclusion pretty uninformed, if not a touch aggressive. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the last spin 'round the block on this issue. The template lists the blog under the blog section; clearly the blog is part of Islamophobia. I cannot see your argument as anything but dislike of the label "Islamophobia". I'm sorry, but scholars have been discussing this issue and this blog together, commenting on the Islamophobic characteristics of the blog. It's as simple as that. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no consensus to remove it either. And Gun Power Ma seems to have a severe case of WP:OWN. And it's in the template unless the community decides not to have organisations in the template. Pretty silly not to use the template when this article is in the template. And it shouldn't be removed from there during an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

When does this RfC end? In general, where does the debate take place to put an article in a template: article's talk or template's talk. For a category it is in the article's talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it just has Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_110#RfC:.22Should_organisations_be_included_in_templates_such_as_Islamophobia.2C_Racism_and_anti-Semitism.22 and it has specific criteria for inclusion. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not observed by Verfassungsschutz

Restored this sentence. The link was broken, fixed it with wayback machine. The citation refers to this part of the article:

Nach Einschätzung des NRW-Verfassungsschutzes ist PI nicht rechtsextremistisch. Die Argumentation der Verfassungsschützer: "Schon alleine mit der Selbstdarstellung" - pro-amerikanisch, pro-israelisch, für Grundgesetz und Menschenrechte - grenze sich PI "von Anti-Islam-Seiten aus dem rechtsextremistischen Spektrum ab."

The Verfassungsschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen is a branch office of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. We don't need a further, official source, because WDR is already a reliable source. Besides, the Verfassungsschutz lists only organizations and websites which it observes. Since it does not observe PI, it does not list it and we cannot expect to list it (the search for http://www.pi-news.net/ in the field Web-Link yields no results).

So how did they comment on PI at one time nonetheless? I believe they probed PR following an initiative by Sebastian Edathy but they never got far because it is obvious that PI is not old-style far right (antisemitic, authoritarian etc.), but has a very different, a classical new right agenda: anti-Islam and pro-democratic (and pro-Zionism). Therefore, they aren't observed by the Verfassungsschutz. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This fact is verifiable and definitely deserves a mention. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect is actually observe by German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution in the Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, reported [here] by Süddeutsche Zeitung on April 12th 2013. --91.33.216.12 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true, only in Bavaria. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mugs and t-shirts

If we can't use the blog's website as a source, then why were the other citations to it left in the article? We can, of course, use the blog as a source for itself, we do this in many articles and to remove it because it's a primary source shows a misunderstanding of our sourcing policy. I've replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one reason why this addition is open to objections. First, I cannot see much encyclopedic value in informing the user about what items the online store offers. Frankly, this is quite an eccentric angle to determine the character of a website and consequently hardly found in similar articles. We don't derive the character of a website from the items it offers online: by this logic, Amazon could be classified as a pornsite on the grounds of offering vibrators, porn movies as well as mugs and t-shirts with pornstars. Additionally, the online store is a WP:primary source and some may think it has also a touch of Wikipedia:Advertisements. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is true we can't use the blog's website as a source then we have problems. I've brought this up at WP:RSN since you've reverted it twice. Your comparison with Amazon is just silly. This seems to be more to do with your posts above, especially where you say it "does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". I'd like to see these similar articles, ie political blogs with online stores. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it as I've found that the first part of the article in WDR that you mention above actually starts off with the sentence "" Islamophobic and proud of it ", steht auf T-Shirts , Tassen und Buttons , die im Internet-Shop des Blogs " Politically Incorrec t" (PI) angeboten werden." If it's important enough to be in the first sentence it seems pretty relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, we routinely use the website of the subject of an article for a source. And in this case it confirms that the items are still being sold, which was my concern. Removing it is just wrong and unhelpful. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment that this is too close to WP:primary source and Wikipedia:Advertisements to be helpful; we have a secondary source saying just as much. In the end you got what you wanted – buttressing the controversial Islamophobia template by referring to these online shop items. It was never about the mugs and T-shirts themselves, as we both know, so why not letting it go now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

One Drop Rule for Inclusion of Template?

Is there a one drop rule for the inclusion of the Islamophobia template? If so, please provide the relevant guideline saying so. While the German mainstream media indeed widely regards PI as Islamophobic, particularly left and far left newspapers, parts of the English-language conservative media which have reported on PI emphatically disagree with this label, rather qualifying them as conservative. More importantly, the German governement has officially designated them to be "Islam-critical" in a number of parliamentary inquiries despite political pressure from SPD and The Left. This view has been long supported by the federal domestic intelligence whose very business is to identify and monitor racially or religiously motivated hate inciting news outlets.

So, opinions are certainly divided, and on balance there is not enough evidence to label PI WP officially as "Islamophobic", particularly considering how controversial the template itself has been viewed in the WP community. As of now, the sum of the evidence only would warrant an inclusion into a to be created template named and based on Criticism of Islamism, but not one based on Islamophobia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Took this to NPOVN. I don't see it as labeling, simply as relevant. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Just let me address the other - minor - issues separately here:

1. "opposed to the Islamisation of Europe", not to "Islam in Europe" is the correct term, see the slogan in the infobox
2. I don't quite see why we should single out Soeren Kern of Gatestone Institute of all. The article text cites no other journalist by name and Kern is neither notable nor unnotable enough to be treated differently in my view. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually they claim to be "opposed to the Islamisation of Europe". It is their claim. It is not the same thing as the truth. // Liftarn (talk)

The motto "Islamophobic and proud of it" pretty much establishes PI's position. I don't understand the hand-waving hyperbolic reaction to this template. In Gun Powder Ma's most recent reverts, both the motto and the template were removed. The motto is certainly one of PI's, so why remove it? The motto establishes beyond a shadow of doubt the rectitude of the Islamophobia template. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Cf. the website where the slogan is on top. It does not say "Islamophobic and proud of it". Also, your googled Esposito source does not even support your claim. This article already has had its fair share of sloppy editing, please move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You have set up the question "what are the official slogans". That is not the question being asked by the infobox parameter. That parameter is filled with the most important slogans which may be observed in primary and secondary sources. You are pointing only to the primary source. Everybody else points to the secondary sources which make a big deal out of the slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it". I don't care one bit whether this slogan is official or not; it is part of the website's culture and it is very well sourced.

The Esposito book assumes the reader already knows the provenance of the popular slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it." It establishes that the well-known phrase is indeed a slogan of Islamophobia. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)