Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Undid some deletions

The article had settled down for a few days, but today, in this edit, an editor deleted two cites. That seemed inappropriate, so I reverted it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, I deleted according to my comments as I posted in my edits comment section, and my discussions in talk page, Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view, according to my POV what I deleted is against Wikipedia neutral point of view. a) Do you think that we (Wikipedia) can ask facebook this question? b) Or paste from the JPOST article what they wrote according to MR X POV? Also the article was not stable as you said, it was pending discussion in AN/I. Please explain more the reason for reverting my edits.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first item deleted was "The JIDF also "created a Facebook group entitled "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?", cited to the Jerusalem Post at [1]. The Jerusalem Post article says "His (David Appletree's) first move was establishing a group called "FACEBOOK: Why Do You Aid And Abet Terrorist Organizations?" At the Facebook group (Google cache: [2]), the "basic info" for the group gives a link to the JIDF, so the info appears to be correct. What's the problem? --John Nagle (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle :) for point (a) Do you think that facebook actually aid and abet terrorist? Is this a fact? Think from the point "this article is a Wikipedian article", What if facebook revert the question to Wikipedia?« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We're documenting an action of the JIDF, not of Facebook management. The text doesn't just read "Facebook has a group 'FACEBOOK: Why Do You Aid .. Terrorist Organizations'". It says that the JIDF created such a group. That's proper, because they did and we have a reliable source that says they did. This comes up all the time with advocacy organizations. On Wikipedia, when discussing political subjects, we have to distinguish carefully between "Y is true" and "X says Y is true". That's been done here. See Attributing and substantiating biased statements. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, at least you stated that point (b) must be deleted, but for the time being check this till we continue again Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms and Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words « PuTTY^SchOOL 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle didn't write that anything should be deleted. Puttyschool, please read WP:NPOV and WP:V carefully. As Nagle wrote, Wikipedia can't say Y is true, but it can certainly say that X says that Y is true. If you delete this from the article again, it will be considered vandalism. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik this is point (b) (The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide."), please tell me how this can be considered vandalism, and how this is matching WP:NPOV and WP:V ??? « PuTTY^SchOOL 23:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because, precisely as you wrote, a RS wrote that the JIDF accused the group of promoting hatred, violence, etc. Wikipedia is maintaining an NPOV by repeating the assertion as coming from the JIDF.

And I didn't write that the sentence is vandalism. I wrote that deleting it from the article would be considered vandalism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please note that the article isn't saying that the group promoted hatred, etc. It is saying that the JIDF says so. The distinction is an important one. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was discussing with Nagle, (when discussing political subjects, we have to distinguish carefully between "Y is true" and "X says Y is true". ) I did not wrote, a RS wrote...., Also it is apparent that what I mean is deleting is the vandalism. The purpose of the article is not to say what JDIF said, so I think we must revise all WP:XX references above then continue this discussion. « PuTTY^SchOOL 23:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I too remain unconvinced by Putty's arguments and think the text should remain. The disputed sentences are examples of what JIDF does and claims and so appropriate in an article about them.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For sentence (a) I half agree, for sentence (b) I complete disagree, but till now I did not receive Nagle comments« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool. Since you disagree (it is extremely difficult for several of us to understand why) with John's Nagel's restoration of relevant sourced material bearing on the JIDF, I suggest you ask for a vote on the propriety of the measure. The point of your objection seems to me to ignore standard Wiki procedures of evaluation, but rather than repeat yourself, it would be more efficient to put this to a vote. Nagle and Malik are editors of acumen and experience, and, you would do well at this point to ask outside friendly advice, is you cannot understand why we agree with John Nagle's edit. (Tiamut has, for one, in welcoming you, said she is available if you want some input and assistance. She has great experience and is Palestinian as well). Thank you Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you dropping a conclusion in order to guide future readers, I don’t need help from X or Y, (I’M NOT WORKING IN GROUPS like many other editors, or using mails like many others) Nagle revert my edits, and I’m negotiating with him why he did so, I can revert his edits as well, and it is not vandalism as Malik tried to say, and for the sentence (B) it is very clear that it is a PPOV, this claim is not true, and not related to the article or wikipedia, also we can judge the neutrality of the WP:RS referance, but till now I did not agree or disagrees with Nagle.« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What is clear to you, is not clear to John Nagle, Malik Shabazz and Peter cohen, all experienced users in good standing for balanced editing. Your objection so far seems to make sense only as a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The passage you would elide is not endorsed, as a truthful fact, by anyone. It is simply registered because it documents what the JIDF says, in RS.

You can revert a single editor. You do well not to revert one if his/her call is backed by a rough consensus, as appears to be the case here. I don't work in groups, refuse to activate email, and try to help when I see conflict in the air. There's no plot afoot.If it's any help in understanding where I come from, my father volunteered in WW2 on day one, aged 36, over the age-limit, simply because he thought the army would pay for him to visit Egypt, a civilization he loved but couldn't afford to qualify as an expert on. Weighing up the risks of dying in war against a chance to glimpse a world he loved, he accepted the risk. That sentiment is one I share. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, now you are out of line, please continue your father story in my talk page, I liked it. But also follow the article history, sentence (a) and (b) are always added them removed, then finally added by a COI editor, so this is why I’m deleting, not as I like or dislike as you tried to prove, but there is no need for them. Also if you have time and check the references posted above, you will find “it is better not to use them”. Also compared with Nagle, I did not revert his edit before discussing with him.« PuTTY^SchOOL 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What you or I personally think is immaterial. I quietly followed most of this thread without intruding, and thought the original edit proper, irrespective of conflict of interest or who put it there. Precedent is not grounds for keeping things as they were, if in the meantime consensus changes. When this material was re-examined, and John Nagle reintroduced it, I thought it not only proper, but necessary. When Malik Shabazz and Peter cohen agreed, I did my sums and calculated, after considerable mental strain, that four people thought the evidence should be on this page. You alone challenge this. It is not a battle between you and the person, John Nagle, who reverted you. These things are not personal battles. It is a matter of consensus. For the moment, the consensus reads, as people in the editorial business put in the margins of manuscripts under revision, stet. I.e. it stays, until a later consensus challenges it. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me, my friend, put this another way, if, as I intuit, you have a commendable sensitivity to the honourable application of rules. You had edited the text out, and expected that the proper procedure for John Nagle should have been to canvas the community here, and see if there was a relevant majority that might approve of his reverting you, and re-introducing the material. This certainly was one possible way of going about it (one I myself, as an editor, preferrred to employ when active in actually editing pages, and not, as now, simply advising). You are both within your rights, but it has since emerged that John Nagle's reintroduction of the material is what most of the editors now active here approve of. So, even were he to, as a gesture to you, to self-revert to your edit of the 6th. and await consensus by calling for a vote, the result would be the one we have now. I.e. four editors would say that the material you elided is well-sourced, and germane to a full understanding of the JIDF, and therefore would be put back in. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this is a tempest in a teapot. The JIDF is just barely notable, with very limited press coverage. It has critics, but they're even less notable. Facebook's position seems to be to ignore both sides. So we don't have a "criticism" section with excerpts from reliable sources criticizing the JIDF. This makes the article look rather pro-JIDF. This bothers some people. Of course, last week we had people complaining the article wasn't pro-JIDF enough. Which means Wikipedia is working. --John Nagle (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be working, but just barely. We are gravely handicapped, because we tend to take heavily loaded words at face value. We become easy prey for ruthless belligerents who deliberately twist their words. For example, one belligerent claims to "Fight Terror". We are unable to subject that claim to the scrutiny it deserves. Thus, we unwittingly legitimize the belligerent. What would we have done seventy years ago, when Hitler claimed to be "Fighting Terror"? Would we have dared to confront the big lie head-on? Or would we have deferred to the appeasement-oriented Establishment? How DO we cut through the politically correct lies?

We have spent a lot of time on this JIDF "teapot" because it is a test case -- a petri dish where we can develop strategies for dealing with large-scale outbreaks of disingenuous censorship and defamation. The favorable treatment of the JIDF indicates to me that we are badly in need of sharper editing knives. I fear that we are too trusting. Just as we foster boldness in editing, we need to foster SKEPTICISM. In this age of fascist propaganda, editors need to be ferociously skeptical. -- NonZionist (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with the 'Truth', but with representing all verifiable and notable claims about a subject in a neutral way so that readers can trust it to provide them with most relevant information on any topic of interest. What you take as a 'too trusting' attitude is simply the fact that we register what this fringe high octane activist group claims about itself. You, I and many others may 'see through' the hype ('grassroots', 'administrators' who wear Irgun-pseudonyms, etc.,) but to assume that the average reader cannot be in a position to make similar deductions from what is a relatively neutral survey of its various claims, is to underestimate the reader's intelligence. An obvious, if rather jejune, threat of sorts existed: it has been dealt with coolly and with some analytical care, by editors who may otherwise stand on different sides of the I/P border. The article could be improved, but since it is a barely notable group, good sources are hard to come by. I would still insist that since the organization does use pseudonyms for most of its administrators, a question remains as to whether its founder should be referred to as 'David Appletree' or David Appletree. I hope Dr. Oboler, when he returns, will clarify the point. This is not a matter of 'outing' DA. but of determining if the text registers a falsehood (confusing a potential pseudonym with a real person).Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, Wikipedia is not a democracy, I’m not collecting votes, I’m discussing with Nagle, after tracing his long history I respected his POV, and I believe it is un-appropriate to revert his edits without discussions, especially compared to him, I joined Wikipedia from about 3 month. Collect votes on what, we have two sentences and a set of WP:XX ??? and I think I said before; when I returned back Oblear edits; that I prefer to work as WP:XX machine.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that, after the threats and assault on JMCurrie, the JIDF has now chosen to attack you, and offend both you and your country. Don't rise to the bait. That is what these groups feed on. They start by baiting and badgering people, and when their intended victims react under provocation, shift the goalposts and start using that reaction as the basis for further insulting interpretations, even more provocative, to elicit outbursts they then endeavour to engineer into some kind of anti-Israel antisemitic threat. Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean they will guide WikipediA with their site?« PuTTY^SchOOL 09:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of editors. The number of technically adept, informed, intelligent editors on call to handle any threat is very large. It is furthermore a voluntary global organization of high profile, unlike the semi-anonymous, nano-marginal shoe-string operation we are talking about. No one guides Wikipedia. The thread's history shows how well just a handful of astute wikipedians have handled the affair. It is a storm in a teacup, and there is no call for alarm here. I don't want to create a thread, so suggest you examine this link's remarks to understand, analogically, certain things Ian Lustick on the concept of triggers and vortices, handling things in a more mature, measured way.. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

you know it is the same WP:OR language that we hear, here few days ago;) People visit Wikipedia, but is this site rated? By the way I was before CJ .), do you want my advice, sometime it is better to ignore trivially« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

After this long discussions, now for three days long, I did not find any strong reason to keep the two sentences, if anyone has a strong reason to keep on them, please post it hear, please no personal POVs« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Puttyschool. You haven't presented a single reason to delete them except that you don't like them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe there's any demonstrable consensus to remove those two sentences. Given this article is primarily about the JIDF and its activities, I'm not sure why we would remove text explaining or documenting those activities. Stating "Group X founded Group Y" implies nothing about that group's credibility, for or against. The latter sentence, about the JIDF's claims regarding the IINAC group, seem quite relevant, as it helps explain why they targeted the group -- it may be reasonable to refactor that particular piece of content, however. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Luna, for sentence (a) I said my reason above, also said I half agreed with Nagle, i.e. my POV it better to remove than include, but for sentence (b) it is clearly un-verified claim, and makes the article looks like pro« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Luna, I do not know too much about the group history, or even facebook(my first visit was from this article), but when CJ posted the group link, I found that the group is saying nothing more than we are Palestinians and we also have the right to live (N.B. at the time I visited the group)« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(b) being the JIDF's brief statement about the IINAC group, I think? If so, I think we should include that in some form, but would be quite amenable to refactoring so that it's not so highlighted. But do remember, we're not verifying the JIDF's claim, only that they made the claim. Readers are free to make of that what they will. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, go-ahead, show us how this can be done, but remember; these rather inflammatory words “violence, murder and genocide” have nothing to do with the article, they can be used to increase the denotations with no real value to Wikipedia« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

It might be a good idea to delete/bar the external links as they link to sites that promote hatred/racist views and therefore Wiki is helping advertise those views by hosting the links

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's standard practice to link to an organization's website, regardless of the organization's political viewpoints. Even Stormfront (website) links to that group's vile website. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was wondering. It does present an interesting ethical dilemma for the project.ie Is it really supposed to be a place where people can find easy access and links to Nazi and/or racist/hate based organizations such as the one this page deals with.

One further issue is that the main site encourages JIDF supporters to target Wiki editors, that is another interesting dilemma. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's some drama from that site. See WP:TROLL and ignore the drama. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Malik and John, I generally prefer to link to an article subject's website when possible, absent some very compelling reason not to (issues that impact readers are more compelling than issues that impact WP only, I think -- browser security and such, say). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23's last point is a good one. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links, should we be linking to a site that attacks individual Wikipedia editors by name? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On further research, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#Key guideline points says:

Web sites that do not routinely harass have in the past become engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor. It is not normally necessary to remove such links. Removing links to the official website of an article subject due to side-effects of a single dispute is rarely necessary and may be unwise. Consider whether removal may draw more attention than calm discussion. (emphasis added)

This is the second dispute, but maybe we should leave it as is. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, ignore their whining and just write the article. Clear, consise, and to the point. This group is stub worthy, nothing more. Their moaning should not enter into our consciousness. --mboverload@ 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is growing increasingly clear that harassment of Wikipedia editors is not "an isolated or specific dispute", but rather a pattern of behavior at the JIDF. I think we should consider removing the link to their website per Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing it, but per NPOV I prefer to avoid removing links to sites without a content-related reason. One link on one very specific page isn't going to change much -- they're going to keep right on writing regardless of whether we link to them, I imagine, so I'm honestly confused as far as what removing the link would accomplish. For comparison, see links at Encyclopedia Dramatica and Perverted Justice. Discussion at the EncDramatica page in particular was quite verbose. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Honest Reporting in see also

I notice we've been slowly going back and forth with the link to Honest Reporting in See also -- various links have included [[Honest Reporting]], [[Honest Reporting|Honest Reporting (website)]], [[Honest Reporting]] (website), and so on. I believe some editors are concerned that the bare link may carry an unintentional implication (it's not immediately clear that the words "honest reporting" refer to an organization, which might leave readers to infer we mean the concept). Don't recall this issue getting much discussion on this page, just yet.

On a related note, I'm not actually quite clear on why we're linking Honest Reporting. I notice that article links back here, also without any obvious context. I assume there is some reason, though, whatever it is.

Seems to me that both of these issues could be cleared up if we simply linked HR in this article's prose, with context as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

edit

Since I was the one who added the link (I believe the external link was in the original version of the article), I can explain why I put it there... The connection between HonestReporting and the JIDF is that both are pro-Israel, Jewish organizations which concern themselves with how Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict are portrayed in various forms of media. The two organizations share criticisms and efforts with respect to how the Arab-Israeli conflict has been and continues to be portrayed on the Internet, especially on interactive websites with user-generated content. To be sure, whereas the JIDF has focused almost exclusively on online media, HonestReporting has focused predominantly on more traditional forms of media. Also, HonestReporting is a larger, more notable, prominent, and well-established organization. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The original link went to HonestReporting, without the space. If you visit the HonestReporting website (http://www.honestreporting.com/) you will notice that they do not put a space between the two words. I really do not understand why the Wikipedia article has the space and the redirect doesn't and not vice-versa. Also, without the space HonestReporting is clearly a proper name. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. :) I wasn't sure if there might be a specific/direct connection, so it's good to have that cleared up. A CamelCase link like you mentioned might work. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easier just to delete from both pages . There is no sensible reason to debate or to have SEE ALSO fior all pro Isreal/Isreali/ pro Zionist pages on the site. There is no direct reason to have it in see also unless it is e.g. run by the same people. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Does everyone commenting here really need to Wiki link honest reporting. We get the point!!!!! Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any documented connection between the JIDF and Honest Reporting? I haven't seen much, although they did cite the Jerusalem Post article on the JIDF.[3] But it looks like Honest Reporting was mostly promoting their own Facebook group there. We also have a vague connection to NGO Monitor via Andre Oboler, but it's not really good enough to use in the article. I'd be inclined not to mention Honest Reporting unless we get a better cite. --John Nagle (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted it and second issue is Oboler notable? ie is there any need for his name in the article if it is merely as an author of a cited ref. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently we're working to attribute all quotes and sources, in the interest of making it clear who claim(ed|s) what; Oboler is the author of at least one cited source, and is mentioned in several others. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly want to attribute these sort of claims. It needs to be clear from where in the political spectrum claims like this come. Oboler is certainly potentially notable. I haven't chased up references to him in other literature but he does get mentioned in some of the sources used here.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I will check him on Lexus Nexus later. However as some of the sources used on this article are little more than blogs there is a big question mark there.

• It also seems that editors aree insisting that the article must parrot waht the sources say rather than condense , explain it. That is not what is going to happen here. This is not a place to post press releases or to re report the conte,nts of individual articles. The article on JIDF merely needs to tell a reader what they are, what they do and why they may be notable.

Furthermore an article mentions second intifada without explaining what it is and this artile refs same WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO the sources information if an explaination helps the article. Undoing that revert now Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's appropriate to summarize what the sources say, but Opiumjones is misrepresenting my actions. She/He "summarized" a source by writing her/his own (invented) account of the Facebook controversy, and I reverted it with the edit summary "reverting this section; we have to stick with what the source says, not what we wish it said". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there -- inventing is not summarizing. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether it is in the interests of any reputable source to encourage readers to visit "HonestReporting". It appears to specialise in hateful denial and smears of anyone reporting honestly on the Middle East. eg The Independent, 8 May 2008 "I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred ... Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. ... little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile "pro-Israel" writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh". Wikipedia is much, much bigger and more significant than groups like this and we're working on it having a much better reputation. We damage the cause of good encyclopaedic writing (indeed, cause ourselves problems) by associating ourselves with such. There's no world shortage of integrity, lets stick with sources that have it. PR^talk 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Inventing Luna? What am I inventing? the Israeli/Palistinian conflict that led to a Second Intifada i.e. a Palistinian Uprisng? Though I assume good faith I am begining to presume you are either a further sock or a meat puppet of blocked users Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well, which blocked user do you think I'm a sockpuppet of? And more importantly, why do think this is the case? I'd be very curious to know the basis for that presumption, if any. Malik has already explained what we mean by "invention" above. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re the page

The page should do away with all the self serving no notable quotes. It reads like a press release not an encyclopaedia entry. I will attempt in ten when I have some chicken soup. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look. Some of the refs are to own site of JIDF so they go along with that info!!

Others seem like blogs , some are real sources but they don't list the info that the page claims they do. So are we in agreement on deleting all the "soft" p.r. quotes that make no real sense to have here and write a short stub that tells people what the JIDF are and are notable/or claim to be notable for? Seems easy to end this debate by doing that.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Tightened the prose and added some explanations , more needs to be done. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond to such a vague proposal. Did you have any specific quotes in mind, to discuss? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All the article quotes should be rewritten in ordinary prose form unless they are specifically important, famous notable eg "I have a dream" in MLK would be notable. But merely cobbling together non notable quotes is bad, not good writing or a good way to disseminate the info needed on the page. Operation re write should digest not parrot. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Digesting" information sounds like original research. "Parroting" reliable sources is in fact exactly what we should be doing on controversial subjects. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect on both points User:Luna Santin. digesting is exactly what encyclopaedias entries do. ie you don't have to read the 400 page history book to get the gist/essential points. Sources are cited to indicate where this information has been found/digested from, for both verification purposes and in case a reader wishes to delve further into the subject.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's useful in controversial Wikipedia articles to stick very closely to the source text cited, rather than "summarizing". This sometimes yields "quote farm" problems, but cuts down on edit wars. Most of the edits since September 6 haven't improved the article much. --John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If a piece of information can't be referenced to a source, it follows that it is our own synthesis, and therefore original research. The easiest and least controversial way to ensure we follow sources is by quoting them, as is pretty standard practice across a variety of controversial subjects on this wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro Zionist

I am at a loss as to how using the term pro-Zionist would violate WP:NPOV. Are JIDF not pro Zionist? That is certainly the impression that one gets from reading about them. It seems to explain their actions as regards objecting to Palestine being listed as a country on Facebook. Who else would object to such a thing except a Zionist? Really there are a lot of editors here with hidden agendas. This page needs clear info!!! If the user is talking about my POV I have no axe to grind!!! Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing would help. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear from the sources that the if JIDF are trying to stop people saying they are from Palestine on Facebook they are not merely an organisation that is campaigning against anti Jewish or Israel/Israeli stuff on the web.. In fact it seems clear that they are campaigning against Palestine being an entity whether in reality or virtually. Is that not part of Zionism and therefore Zionist? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Zionist" verges on original research, unless cited. Still, with a logo of a fighter aircraft in front of an Israeli flag, we really don't need to say much more about their positioning. We already have Category:Zionist organizations, so that's covered. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You said, "Seems clear from the sources that the if JIDF are trying to stop people saying they are from Palestine on Facebook..." Which source said that? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"It asks its 8,300 members to demand that Zuckerberg remove Palestin" see note 7 , The TO Star it seemsOpiumjones 23 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence refers to "'Palestine' Is not a country ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!", not the JIDF. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to come back on that, as I did not add it originally but rather tighten the prose so it can go? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not brush this under the rug: as far as I can tell, you just based your core point in this thread on a serious misreading of sources. As far as why the PINAC group is mentioned, there's extensive discussion on that point in Talk:The Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 9. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not doing that,Is it not true then that JDIF created a page trying to delist Palestine from Facebook? If no source says that then most of the page should be deleted Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(Hmm... indenting is getting a bit confusing, here.) That's probably a question for another thread. I highly suggest you read Archive 9 at least, seeing as we've hashed over this argument very recently, and I don't think you've added anything related to that point that hasn't already been said, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was whether saying they are Zionist is original research which of course it is not, it is a logical conclusion and we already have them in Zionist cat. It would also appear that JIDF don't feel comfortable re being called Zionist (see their website as of this date). They seem to think the label implies WP:NPOV. I am concerned that on this page are aping their concerns so exactly, have all the socks been cleared? If so then we are in meat puppet land. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are very serious. I'd like to remind you that this article is subject to Arbcom sanctions and I recommend that you consider your words very carefully before you make personal attacks on this page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seen Malik. But it is worth bearing in mind I shall strike through but the user is echoing a JDIF point made today on their website re my edits . Opiumjones 23 (talk)

Logical conclusions from texts are synthesis and therefore 'original research'. Secondly, the strong Irgun allusions in the pseudonyms justify one's guarding against deductions that they can be called 'Zionist', since that term covered the Irgun's historical adversaries, and the JIDF's uncomfortableness with the label would be consistent with this distinction. Nagle's point is well taken.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If an article says that a guy from Norway in the 10 century sailed to France and raided for gold and I said he was a Viking that would not constitute original research it would merely tighten and explain more simply Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23, I agree with a lot of the points you brought above (still the article is representing a single point of view), at the same time this article is very important to another set of wiki editors(and we have to respect their POV as well, not socks, socks are discovered easily), so I think it is better to rephrase you words in terms of WP:XX, else we will take the personal like/dislike way (N.B. This is not more than My Personal POV after I quickly glanced the long takes above, as I don’t have enough time right now)« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::That would be WP:NPOV for a start . What is a surprise is that it reaches Admin level. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still making vague accusations without any supporting evidence, I see. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I was the one who removed the term "pro-Zionist", allow me to explain why "pro-Zionist" stands in violation of WP:NPOV. Firstly, even assuming "pro-Zionist" weren't in violation of WP:NPOV -- which it is as I will soon explain -- the term is redundant given that the organization was already described as "pro-Israel." Secondly, the term "Zionist" has been used by Palestinian sources as a pejorative for long enough that the term "Zionist" (and combinations of the word thereof) have come to take on a negative connotation for most speakers of English. Most Israel and pro-Israel organizations -- with a few exceptions, of course -- have no problem using the word "Zionism" but steer clear of the word "Zionist" for exactly this reason. Just as most Jews do not say "I am a Jew" and instead say "I am Jewish", due to the repeated use of the term "Jew" in a negative manner, so too do most Israelis and their advocates describe themselves as "pro-Israel" or "believing in Zionism" and not as "being a Zionist". Where there are potential POV problems with a term, the policy on Wikipedia is usually to -- in lieu of using the term -- give details illustrating what would be meant by the term if the term were used. So, for example, if the organization were considered to be "pro-Zionist" because it opposed the listing of Palestine in the list of country networks in Facebook, it is better to state "the JIDF opposed the listing of Palestine in the list of country networks" rather than state "the JIDF is a pro-Zionist organization." With regard to meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and the JIDF expressing their disapproval of this term on their website... I am neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet of the JIDF. Nor am I a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of Einsteindonut who has been suspected to be a member of the JIDF. It should be quite obvious, simply from my style of writing, that I am not a sockpuppet of Einsteindonut. As for meatpuppetry and the statement of disapproval on the JIDF website,... the use of the term "pro-Zionist" is so glaring that I assure you I would not need someone else to raise their objections to the term. I would do the same thing if I saw the term "Jew" used where it could be reworded so as to use the term "Jewish". Hope that clarifies everything. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it help to know I like the Beastie Boys? I see what you are saying but I presume that a for lots of Palestinians and others Isreal/ Isreali are used pejoratively too. Next we will have to preface with "the exceedingly nice" Isreali or something in case someone takes offence at the use of the word. But thanks for the explaination . Perhaps you can look at the comment under references. That is more relevent. Also why did you take Isreal Palistinian conflict out of the article? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is "Israeli" not "Isreali". Please spell this correctly. And no, it will not be necessary to preface Israeli with "the exceedingly nice". Simply "Israeli", the official term for a citizen of Israel and the term used by citizens of Israel in describing themselves, will suffice. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who took it out today, and I did so because it was unnecessary in light of the Wikilink at Second Intifada and its description as a Palestinian uprising. If a reader wants to know more about what the Second Intifada is, she or he can click on the Wikilink. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better left on the page myself. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The current text which I think OJ added ("...a Palestinian uprising which began in September of that year.") seems fine to me; I believe that's the snippet the two of you are talking about? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz; readers who are interested in learning more about the Second Intifada may do so by following the wiklink. There is no need to put down the details here, especially when it is possible for the description at Second Intifada to change (there was an editing dispute, which has yet to be resolved, with regard to calling the Second Intifada a "Palestinian uprising" or not.)

← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This "lets not call them Zionists because everyone now realises it's an ideology" really won't wash. The word was invented by and extensively by Zionists themselves. We don't avoid the word antisemite because it was invented - nor because it universally became a term of serious abuse over 60 years ago. Nor do we avoid using it because people never self-identify as antisemitic. We don't even cry "Original Research" when articles use "antisemitic" about someone who denies they are! (The word itself is even inaccurate).

The objection to using the word "Zionist" is a setup for a slur, an attempt force ideological opponents to use the word "Jews" - when they will immediately be accused of antisemitism themselves. (I'm not interested enough to check, but I've just spotted that argument used on the web, I'm sure it's in RS somewhere).

In any case, according to "WakeUpFromYourSlumber", the JIDF started using "Zionist" to refer to itself. "(JIDF) has also changed the group's administrator titles to read 'Mossad Zionist'". WUFYS is 7 times more significant than the JIDF (according to Google) - we'd avoid depending on it for anything "surprising", but it's no problem here. "Zionism on the Web" hails the work of the JIDF, I don't think that's an unfair linkage (unlike many other instances of the same thing!). I just don't understand why we're diluting our effort on an article this trivial. PR^talk 08:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingpoints esp last sentence. See below.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, firstly "Zionist" is not an ideology. A Zionist is someone who believes in "Zionism" (a person cannot be an ideology). Whether you think "Zionism" is an ideology or not, I really don't care and really won't attempt to argue the point. However, you are wrong in that I am forcing Wikipedia to say "Jew". If you look at the edit history, you can see that rather than call the organization "pro-Israel" and "pro-Zionist", I am suggesting that the article simply refer to them as "pro-Israel", since "pro-Zionist" is redundant in this instance and merely evokes the negative associations created by the pejorative use of the term "Zionist." As for "Zionism on the Web", I also believe you missed my point where I said that, just as Jews favor the term Jewish, so too do Zionists favor the term Zionism. There is nothing wrong with the use of the term Zionism, just with the term Zionist. Lastly, whereas there are reliable sources for using the term "anti-Semite" to describe Adolf Hitler and the like, there are no reliable sources for using the term "pro-Zionist" in connection with the JIDF. Please keep in mind that we are on Wikipedia, where articles are written according to Wikipedia guidelines, not your personal views on a particular issue. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone in Israel supports the same things the JIDF supports, so calling the JIDF "pro-Israel" is misleading. In fact, JIDF actions are arguably damaging to Israel, inasmuch as they may foster anti-Semitism.

A significant number of Jews, with very good reason, regard Zionism as inimical to Judaism. They are profoundly offended when Zionists pose as The Representatives or The Protectors of "The Jews". When we accept this pose at face value, we are being unfair to Jews in general, because the pose enables Zionists to hide behind the good name of Judaism.

Members of the Israeli peace movement, for example -- Jews who reject war and ethnic supremacy -- might object to being associated with the JIDF. That's WHY we need a separate term to distinguish fascistic or hyper-militaristic ethnic-supremacist Israeli organizations from Israelis and Jews in general, just as we need a separate term to distinguish the followers of Cheney from Americans in general, or the proteges of Al Capone from Italians in general.

Calling the JIDF "pro-Zionist" is like calling Netanyahu "Likudist". Netanyahu does not represent all of Israel: He represents a particular party or ideology. The same applies to the JIDF. -- NonZionist (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Michael Safyan: "the term 'Zionist' has been used by Palestinian sources as a pejorative". // It has been used UNIVERSALLY as a pejorative, Michael, just as the terms "racist", "anti-Semitic" and "fascistic" have been used as pejoratives. "Pejorative" does not imply "groundless" or "baseless": Some things are genuinely bad, and deserve to be characterized as such. If it is appropriate to characterize the KKK, for example, as a "racist organization", then surely it is appropriate to characterize the JIDF as a "Zionist organization".

Our conflict, is due to differing perceptions of Zionism. An analogy with Communism might help. From the inside Communism looks perfectly innocuous and wonderful: Who could object to "sharing"? Someone on the outside, however, has a very different view, because he sees not only the ideal but also the gruesome practice. We on the outside see how Zionism is practiced, and no amount of campaigning by the JIDF and similar organizations can unring that bell. Seeing the practice, we are led to doubt the original ideal as well. Is it really such a good idea to create a wall between Jews and non-Jews? Is it really such a good idea to replace the market with a command economy? But when we voice these doubts, the proponents of the failed ideology do not hesitate to attach their pejorative labels to us! -- NonZionist (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the JIDF using the phrase, and I don't see anybody notable using it about them. Someday the JIDF might grow up to be a Zionist organization, but they haven't achieved enough recognition to be called one yet. We can put them in Category:Zionist organizations as a convenience, and that's probably enough. By the way, it can't be much of a pejorative term if the Zionist Organization of America uses it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us keep the discussion on topic. I would rather not argue about what Zionism is and whether Zionism is or is not good. Please keep in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about these topics, but rather a discussion about how to improve the article. With regard to John Nagle's comment, while I said that for the most part Jewish/Israeli organizations avoid the term "Zionist" but are willing to use the term "Zionism," there are some exceptions -- most notably the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and also the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). That doesn't mean, however, that the term "Zionism" isn't preferred over the term "Zionist," and that the latter is generally avoided. Also keep in mind that the WZO and ZOA are very old organizations and were established before "Zionist" came to take on a negative connotation in English. If you would like to discuss what Zionism is or isn't, please take that discussion onto my talk page, since that is not really relevant to improving this particular article. Also, if, as NonZionist has suggested, the term "Zionist" is akin to "racist", "anti-Semitic", "fascistic", and "communist", then clearly, in the spirit of words to avoid: "terrorism", "extremist", etc., the use of the term must be accompanied by explicit attribution, along with a citation to a reliable source. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Einsteindonut has pointed out an important new source which states re groups political and Zionist position "It’s political views place it on the Zionist right." see [4] I think that solves the issue. Thanks for everyone's input. Malik can you work that in too? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

References

On looking through the sources there seems to be a circle of information based on very little, a press release and an interview , papers quoting other papers e.g. the Telegraph quoting the Jerusalem Post online quoting a press release and an interview. All this is based on very little actual material. It is like the whole thing was dreamed up in someone's bedroom with a web site spreading links to sites at the back of it. I have already discussed about the promotion of hate on Wiki so no point in going into the issues re JIDF spreading its own hate message. However, an analysis of the sources indicates that this page subject is indeed pretty non-notable or at best of low impotence. I suggest stubbing the page to two or three sourced sentences. If the JIDF website continues to harass Wiki Users of line that link from here at least should be severed. I think that if the admin who is pushing the JIDF POV keeps commenting here then that status /position should be reviewed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your theory that the sources quote one another? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Once again, I caution you against personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Caution noted thanks but which personal attack?? That was a legitimate comment not a personal attack , That is strangely slow. Proof is in the reading of the cited sources. They all are about the same incident, The Telegraph quotes JPost. There is another article ~from JPost containing info that contradicts the first re origin, but there are very few sources. Some of the sources are POV pushing sites that are not good sources for use on Wiki. The only non Israeli source is the Telegraph quoting an Israeli source. The whole thing is based on a few press releases at most and a phoner (a phone interview in journalist parlance). I presume someone has substantiated that they actually did take over some Facebook page? Do we know that the page existed or that they did not set it up themselves. It is all hype i.e. press jargon for a non story being made a story. Not very notable Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What? You couldn't push through the changes you wanted, so now you'll make vague threats until we stub the article just the way you like? Please, either add some substance to your repeated accusations or stop wasting our time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not an admin. Second, I think referring to an editor as "the admin who is pushing the JIDF POV" is a personal attack.

Finally, what quotation(s) does the Telegraph take from the Jerusalem Post? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:55, 13

September 2008 (UTC)

Ok In the Telegraph it states "David told the Jerusalem Post newspaper that it managed to take control of the Facebook...." This indicates that all the quotes in the Telegraph indeed the whole article is a lift from the Jerusalem Post. This is a common practice in journalism but in this case is being used to prove notability etc . Opiumjones 23 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow your point; if one source is quoted in others, it seems to me that should generally enhance the credibility/notability of the source being quoted, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Not in this case. If two sources independently report the same quotation, then it enhances the credibility. However, if one source echoes a quotation found in another source, then it does nothing to enhance the credibility. That is, if A reports Z and B reports Z, then we have two sources agreeing that Z is the case. However, if B reports Z and A reports that B reports Z, then we still only have it from B that Z is true. That is essentially the difference between direct and indirect sourcing (in this case, we have the Telegraph citing indirectly through JPost). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Firstly I would like to apologise to Luna and Malik. I got the wrong end the stick there. I have struck through or deleted any claims. If there are more remind me or just delete. I noted from the Jidf site yesterday that they are a low traffic site, their videos get hits in the 10s not the 100s. Therefore I doubt their membership claims , they seem to be an org run by one, possibly two people, so lets not fuel his/her ego and make them seem more important than they are by wasting our time here.

One more point THEY ARE A COMMERCIAL SITE you cannot avoid they paypal donation buttons top and bottom of their main page. They are using this controversy here to make themselves seem important and TO COLLECT DONATIONS. They use their attacks on Wiki users to COLLECT MONEY so let us all be sensible here. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My POV is, if they have a real case, they will dedicate the site and all of their time supporting it, not targeting Wikipedian editors, I hope my friend(OR) can understand something from my words.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish fundamentalist

"I see my activism as…prayer" says Appletree does that make him a fundamentalist and should he be described as such? He also reports to intelligence services "CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, and Israel Intelligence" should that not be noted on the page. Source [5]Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful in the use of the word "fundamentalist". According to WP:AVOID#Fundamentalist:

"The word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists (of which there are many). If a group does not do so, it is better to use their own self-description, within reasonable limits, or to use a more specific description, since this represents them as they see themselves. If others criticize this, or label them as "fundamentalist", then this can be cited and the term attributed to that source."

Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Low edit quality - revert?

There have been a large number of edits in the last few days, and they haven't accomplished much. Take a look at what has changed since September 6. [6]. The differences are mostly stylistic, with text from editors substituted for quotes, occasionally to the detriment of the article.

I'd like opinions from editors, other than those editing since September 6, on reverting back to this version and going forward from there. We might then delete the "Honest Reporting" link, since there was consensus that there wasn't much of a connection with Honest Reporting, but other than that, the article seemed better written back then. --John Nagle (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle This version was the most stable one, anyone can check the article history « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a few, but an increasingly small proportion, of the recent edits have been improvements. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New Info. on the JIDF

Just an FYI, there has been a new RS on the JIDF which we might wish to consider to try to work into the article somehow. I have also heard that there will soon be some other sources as well. Not sure what happened to that page where we were adding more sources of info. Anyway, this was from the Jewish News Agency in Argentina and written by Dr. Oboler. It can be found here [7] (where one can also find the original link to the Argentinian news source. The following information is in the article which refers to the JIDF:

The first example was the antisemitic Facebook group “Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country”. Facebook’s failure to act caused Jewish activists to take matters into their own hands. The Jewish Internet Defense Force, an organization with around 5,000 members, managed to take control of the Facebook group and then systematically removed members from it. Though they later lost control of the group, in the three days the JIDF worked around the clock to reduce the Facebook group’s membership numbers. Based on their past growth, it would have taken the group a year and half to re-build their numbers after the JIDF’s intervention. Numbers are important as they effect the impact of a group in spreading its message. Even more effective however is when the platform provide shuts them down permanently for breaching the terms of use which generally place prohibitions on racism and hate speech.

Months after the JIDF action, discussion about the JIDF action and the “Israel is not a country” group in a Wikipedia article seems to have caught Facebook’s attention. After the various expert sources that listed this group as antisemitic (including not only my own work, but also reference by the ADL, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism and others) the group, as of this week, seems to have finally been shut down by Facebook. It is however only one of a larger number of hate groups. Facebook’s action while welcome, and indeed a validation of the action the JIDF took against this group, it comes only after a large part of the danger has already been removed by the JIDF’s non-violent protest. It would be more useful if Facebook responded when users first raise concerns, and before the JIDF has to invest volunteer time in such activism. In the last week the JIDF took over another group, this one had 118,000 members, the group’s name (translated from the original Arabic) is “Let’s see if it’s possible to get a million Arabs against Israel in 90 days”. What does one do with a million people against a country? (Not against a government policy, but against an entire country?) This group is now down to 55,905 members and each day the JIDF remove more. Facebook themselves could remove them all with one click.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs)

That's just Oboler's blog. It's not a reliable source. (Is Agencia Judía de Noticias a newspaper, or just a press release distribution service or aggregation site?) Oboler does have some articles there. [8]. Here's the Spanish version there.[9]. It's just a rehash of Oboler's "Antisemitism 2.0" paper, which we have. Another Oboler article on the site [10]identifies Oboler as a professor at Hebrew University. ("Andre Oboler, profesor de la Universidad Hebrea Bar Ilán y miembro de la ONG "Monitor" que promueve el debate crítico de los derechos humanos dentro del conflicto árabe-israelí, advirtió, en exclusiva para la Agencia Judía de Noticias (AJN), sobre el manejo “sin control” que Google ejerce en la utilización del programa.") Is that correct? --John Nagle (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize it is his site, but it was the translated copy of the version which appeared here (as you mentioned). I don't know to much about ANJ. I tried looking for some stuff on it, but it was all in Spanish. In any event, it's decent "context info" if the AJN doesn't pan out to be an official RS for some reason. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this nonsensical group “Let’s see if it’s possible to get a million Arabs against Israel in 90 days”, taking in consideration that Arabs are about 400 millions, i.e they were seeking only 0.25% from all Arabs and they failed Shamefully, even failed to collect 10% of Palestinian people who are about 10 millions, i.e. the final conclusion based on statics(not on a personal POV) is that it was not possible to collect 0.25% but it was possible to collect only 0.025%, so don't waste our time with this 0.025%, and you have to pay special thanks to facebook, as he brought to us this conclusion(which it was not possible) in less than three month. « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "murder and genocide"

I disagree with the latest edit by User:Puttyschool. I think the original text -- "The JIDF claimed the group 'actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide.'" -- should be restored. The claim of "murder and genocide" helps the reader to assess the JIDF properly -- as an organization that indulges in paranoid delusional rhetoric. -- NonZionist (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this edit is quite unhelpful. We're entitled to know (and JIDF presumably want us to know) their claims/beliefs. PR^talk 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, regardless of politics, the two words looks ODD in wikipedian article, especially I replaced by “...”, It is strange that both sides want to add them. :-( « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated many times and consensus has agreed upon it. Putty has tried to take it out many times for some reason. In fact, Malik Shabazz rightly claimed[11] that any further efforts to have it removed would be considered "vandalism." --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This wiki link can solve 10 days conflict « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, there is a difference between using that word ourselves, as Wiki editors, and taking a direct quote from a reliable source. However, I have made a note of this and will try to look at the article in a way which might avoid the use of that term. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty after understanding your point, I made the following edit[12] which I hope you will appreciate. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

for me I'll appreciate replacing them by three dots, as I did, and keeping on you last very good edit(is According to Neutral?). But I’m confused as I don’t know why both sides insists on using these two words, at the same time I believes it is is our(the peaceful word) article not an article related to an area of conflict « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page and in the talk page here, my original problem was that the "drop down menu" business is completely irrelevant to why the JIDF acted. They acted for the reasons they stated they acted, which is that they felt the group promoted hatred, genocide, murder, etc. Therefore, to leave that out, would be to mislead Wikipedia readers. If we take out that important quote, then we should also take out the drop down menu stuff. Since no one agreed with me about the drop down menu stuff, I added that quote for clarity and for balance. It is very important that casual readers understand the precise reasons why the JIDF acted. There is an attempt here to make it appear that the JIDF acted as part of "an extended flame war." From everything I have read (and I've been keeping up on this group) there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it is true. No reliable sources mention the JIDF with regard to drop down menus and these groups. Again, accuracy is very important. We must be fair to our subjects, even if we don't like what this group is about, we must properly explain their own motivations for acting. Again, even if we disagree with them and do not like the group. It is a direct quote from a reliable source and again, many people agreed that it should stay. Even if the words are "uncyclopedic" in your opinion, it does not matter, since it is a direct quote from the JIDF explaining the reasons why they acted. Nothing in the "drop down menu" sentence is even about the JIDF, but people insisted that it should stay, so it is staying. Certainly something directly related to the event, quoting the organization in which this article is about, and taken from a reliable source, should stay. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to what your referenced from my talk page , what you stated above and the facebook group "Palestine Is ..." , if this claim is true about IINAC then it is also true PINAC as well, but what is absolutely true is that this claim is not correct, especially for the two words I removed. Maybe I don’t like these two words as you said, but I'm not the only one, BILLIONS like me don’t like to hear them except when they are facts. At the same time if we analyzed the discussion from the start of this thread, this claim has a double sided motives, each side can judge it according to their motive, So I replaced what can be confusing by dots « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, Putty. One minute you have an issue with the word "claim" and the next minute you put it back in [13]. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this wiki link, we have to avoid claims, if not the we can put it in one of “Acceptable use:” forms, except Legal claim as the Microsoft example, so replacing the “claim” by “according to”, was very strange, but as I found you Insisting to add this claim, so I tried to use one of the acceptable forms, which makes it as if it is not our POV, but still I'm aginest the two words, But respecting other editors POV as well « PuTTY^SchOOL 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase you're trying to use, "According to the JIDF claims", suggests that the JIDF has filed a legal claim. They haven't filed a legal claim, which is why the use of the word "claims" is inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much pointless editing.

Take a look at this diff. [14]. In five days of frantic editing, we're just about back to where we started. Give it a rest. Go edit Internet Haganah for a while. That article needs work, and Internet Haganah has sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post which need to be cited and quoted properly. --John Nagle (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The diff is a deceptive because yesterday Einsteindonut reverted the article and undid all the changes that were made while he was blocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik This diff is not a deceptive because it is what happened since your last edit ;-) « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Will you please explain the "COI" tag, Puttyschool? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems he's been attempting to damage this article ever since it appeared since he does not like the organization. I'm not saying this to not AGF, I'm saying it because his edit history on the article proves it. If needed, I will provide all the "diffs" to back my point. The possible COI's have been discussed here for quite some time. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI In order to minimize editing follow ... « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That link does not explain your COI tag. It's a baseless claim against me but perhaps a legitimate claim against you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We can read and we can think a little. :-) :-) :-) « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Source on the JIDF

Hello all, since all my edits are quickly reverted by everyone thereby defeating my entire purpose of trying to contribute to the Wikipedia project, I don't do much anymore. However, I did find a new source about the JIDF which I feel should be included into the article somehow. Here one may find it. I might try to add something from the piece(only to see how quickly it gets reverted)--Einsteindonut (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a very important source. Is it a sister publication of the TO Star? I particularly found their in depth research into the US elections very important and ground breaking. Such polls really help define the importance of the source [15] Opiumjones 23 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at summarizing the new information from the Canadian Jewish News article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool Malik , the source also has a very important story as its lead for Canada news can we work it in too? [16]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about the source are getting tiresome. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Irony is not lost on you Malik I was getting worriedOpiumjones 23 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The new section omits a key piece of hard news in the article cited. The Canadian Jewish News actually contacted Facebook and got a reply: A Facebook spokesperson responded to queries from the CJN with an e-mail that stated, “Facebook carefully reviews the notices we receive regarding groups that may violate our Terms of Use (ToU). In this particular case, the ‘How Many People Hate Israel’ group [one of four The CJN asked Facebook to comment on] does not violate our ToU, because the group attacks Israel and Zionism, not Israelis or Jews. As stated in our ToU, we make a clear distinction between countries or ideas and people: groups that express views on a particular country or idea are permitted, while groups that explicitly threaten people are regarded as a violation of our ToU and are subsequently taken down. --John Nagle (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While that is important, I believe putting in the context of the following (which is more relevant to the JIDF and their actions) is also important:

“The JIDF was concerned with the proliferation of hatred and the promotion of Islamic terrorism within Facebook,” stated an e-mail reply to CJN questions. “Our early attempts to intervene involved the creation of groups that listed these hate groups. The JIDF pointed Facebook staff to these groups and asked them to take action. In some cases they did. In many, they did not, or the progress was taking many months, allowing the hate material to circulate. Eventually the JIDF responded and took matters into our own hands, since Facebook seemed disinclined to take the needed action,” stated the e-mail from a group representative who gave his name only as “David.” JIDF claims that clients on Facebook, a social networking website, spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, demonizes Zionists, praises attacks on Israeli or Jewish civilians, promotes violence, hatred and Islamic jihadist propaganda, recruits people to Islamic terrorist organizations and supports white supremacy and Nazi groups.

Also, I'm not sure if the new header "subsequent Facebook actions" is really necessary. Doesn't it all fall under the umbrella of "Facebook intervention?" --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I added what I thought was the most important point: The JIDF had taken a second news-worthy action. Please add whatever else in the CJN article you think is appropriate.

2) I added the header to accentuate the fact that there was a second action. Remove it if you don't like it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sick of the lies promoted by editors here. A group that fights anti-Semitism and lies about Israel and Jews is not an Israel advocacy group. It is neutral humanistic organization trying to stop lies and innuendo. That is what JIDF does. That is what CAMERA does. CAMERA should be a Grade-A reliable source on Wikipedia and it is biased policies that have prevented it from being so. Their advocacy is against lies. Advocating against racism and lies by telling people and translating hate-filled propaganda is RS, not POV. Sposer (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Hasbara

In 2007, Hasbara Fellowships called for volunteers to counter what it described as a "dangerous trend" of Wikipedia entries portraying Israel in a "negative light". Interested readers were encouraged to consider "joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately"......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Still no connection whatsoever to the JIDF which is a grassroots organization not affiliated with "Hasbara" in any way. No sources mention this connection. It's never mentioned on the JIDF site. I don't really care one way or another, I just think it's funny that certain editors with an opposing view really want this in here for some reason. What exactly is the reason? I don't really feel it serves much of a purpose, that's why it shouldn't be there. It's a funny connection people are trying to make and I just don't see it. Can you explain why it's so important to have this here? The JIDF is concerned with anti-semitic and pro-terrorist trends which break the rules of companies like Facebook and YouTube, etc. - not necessarily the ever-so-common trend of portraying Israel in a negative light. No RS discuss the JIDF as some sort of PR agency. If anything many people have claimed that the JIDF has hurt Israel's image through their actions of taking over groups. They're not an organization which wastes time trying to explain things to people who are uninterested in listening. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar attributes: Israeli advocacy and attacks on wiki editors/editing.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Nothing in any RS about the JIDF indicates "Israel advocacy" nor "attacks on wiki editors/editing" - neither Hasbara nor the JIDF has been cited as doing that. I have seen some of the posts regarding WP on the JIDF site and I would not consider them "attacks" but rather, analysis of problems on WP. However, that still doesn't really warrant this connection in my mind since it's not like Hasbara asking for people to get involved with WP is akin to the JIDF pointing out flaws on their website. Again, I really don't see the link. Perhaps others can offer up an opionion. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ESD both JIDF and Hasbara are Israeli advocacy groups both JIDF and Hasbara are attacking wiki....they both share those attribute and then the Andre Oboler angle can be added...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, nothing has ever said that the JIDF is either "Israeli" nor specifically an "Israeli advocacy group." Furthermore, I see no evidence of either Hasbara or JIDF "attacking wiki." I also do not have a clue as to what you mean by the "Andre Oboler angle." Does he have some sort of official connection to "Hasbara" that I don't know of? Other than his commentary on the JIDF on his site and in the press, I don't see him being connected with the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ESD they both say wiki is a focus to push Israeli POV, they are both Israeli advocacy groups.....Andre Oboler...if all the articles from Andre Oboler are removed from JIDF you end up with a husk...Andre Oboler at the introduction of this very article to wiki declared an interest....if he was not connected why declare an interest....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, I don't see either claiming to "push Israeli POV." And again, the JIDF has never been defined as an "Israeli advocacy group" - (it's not even based in Israel!) Considering Dr. Oboler's interests it's not that great of a stretch as to why the JIDF might be of interest to him, but if you look on his site, he's hardly focussed on it. Anyway, that's fine. You seem to repeating the same things. Let's just leave it at that and wait for some others to chime in because I just do not see these same connections anywhere that you see which would make it appropriate to try to link Hasbara with the JIDF. These "connections" you are spotting just do not exist for many reasons. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an advocate of Israel is by definition "pushing Israeli POV"....or are you trying to suggest that Hasbara and JIDF are neutral over Israeli issues????...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, talking in circles. Where--in any RS does it say that the JIDF is "an advocate of Israel." Also, I think Michael makes great points below as to what Israel advocacy means. Therefore even if it was true, that the JIDF is "an Israel advocacy organization" - that doesn't necessarily mean that they "push Israeli POV" nor that they "attack WP and WP editors" as you falsely claim. Btw, what exactly IS Israeli POV? I know of Israelis who are more anti-Israel than the enemies of Israel themselves! The Israeli POV is incredibly diverse. I think it's unfair of you to claim that there is just one Israeli POV. That borders on generalizations and hate speech. If my memory serves correctly, you yourself have used many "Israeli POV" organizations like B'tselem to back your points. There are many Israeli doctors who treat Arabs. They certainly have a differt POV than other Israelis. There are Israelis who want to talk with Hamas and others who don't. While the enemies of Israel overwhelmingly all have the same goal (to wipe out Israel) - Israel, by contrast, is a country with many diverse people and viewponts. Therefore, there's no such thing as the "Israeli POV" unless, of course, that POV is just about Israel's basic right to exist. How do you feel about Israel's basic right to exist, Ashley? If you don't think Israel should exist, then any remotely pro-Israel editor will seem like they are "attacking" you, when in reality, it's self-defense. --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an advocate of Israel is not by definition "pushing Israeli POV"; being an advocate of Israel could, for example, mean correcting misstatements about Israel and trying to maintain balance and neutrality on Wikipedia pages. More importantly, though, you should realize that the vast majority of the Jewish community finds Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as slanted in favor of the Palestinian point-of-view. CAMERA, HonestReporting, the Anti-Defamation League, the JIDF, and Hasbara have all taken issue with the way that Israel and Jewish issues are portrayed on Wikipedia. Taking issue with Wikipedia may mean a similar viewpoint, but it certainly does not imply any form of cooperation. While cooperation is possible, taking similar actions or feeling the same way about Wikipedia is insufficient for drawing conclusions about whether any form of cooperation took place. As Einsteindonut has noted, you need a reliable source to make any statement about cooperation between these agencies. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: With regard to your statement about the "Oboler angle", apparently you have never played Jewish geography before. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously independent agencies, that say the same thing and draw on the same sources to make the same points, not of wiki but virtually of every agency reporting on Israel. This is natural. In Japan, the same formal and informal institutions exist, to survey everything that is said that might be thought injurious to the national image, discover who said it, what institution he or she belongs to, and publicize their research. Virtually all large powers do this. That is why one prizes an independent academic world and press, whose minds are not necessarily tethered to these informal and formal national interest lobbies, think tanks and informational control networks.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'an advocate of Israel could, for example, mean correcting misstatements about Israel and trying to maintain balance and neutrality on Wikipedia pages. '

An important remark, Michael. It means also that being an advocate of Palestine and its people could mean correcting misstatements about that occupied country and its people and trying to maintain balance and neutrality on Wikipedia pages, with the one difference that the former is an occupying power, the latter the occupied part(y). All the more reason for one to exercise extreme caution in advocacy for Israel, as one must take into consideration what historians call the preponderance of narrative power in an asymmetrical relationship in order to secure NPOV, fundamental to wiki. That does not absolve those of us who are advocates for Palestine from the obligation to exercise great caution. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"occupied country" - interesting. So there was once a country called "Palestine?" That's news.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:See also, links in the "See also" section may include "subjects only peripherally related to the one in question", although "whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". Thus, Einsteindonut, a reliable source is not required to make the explicit connection between the JIDF and hasbara. On the other hand, I don't think we have a consensus whether the link is appropriate. I'm on the fence on the question of whether the link adds any "value" to the reader. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik, I was curious about the "see also" section. Still, I don't think the two are really connected. The JIDF has a focus on the internet and is not about "Israel advocacy" necessarily. The JIDF has no connection to the Israeli government (which people seem to want to believe for some reason.) From what I have read about Hasbara, the two really don't seem to have much to do with one another. Maybe organizations like the ADL or Jihad Watch or Terrorism Awareness Project, but I just don't see the connection to Hasbara. My natural inclination is to fight it since so many people who are clearly against the JIDF and Israel want it in there, despite the fact that to me, and to many other pro-Israel people and Jews, it really doesn't make sense. I highly doubt Hasbara officials would like the link either. I could probably come up with ten other orgs which would make more sense thant Hasbara. Again, it's really not a huge deal to me, I just think it is out of place and wonder why it's such a big deal to others who are quite clearly anti-JIDF and anti-Israel. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless a specific link is found, I think it better not to make the connection, and concur with Einsteindonut. An article like this should adhere strictly to evidence, of which there is hardly any, but 'hasbara' links look like editorial inferences. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The specific link is andre Oboler without whom the JIDF is a husk.....A specific link is unnecessary...there is no specific link to Honest reporting or CAMERA....in most cases of see also there is no specific link....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the JIDF was featured by HonestReporting here and here, and CAMERA articles are all over the JIDF site. I see how Oboler is externally linked to the JIDF (in no official capacity other than the fact that he has provided a bit of commentary here and there in articles and on his site) but do not see where Oboler is linked to "Hasbara" - and even if Dr. Oboler is linked to "Hasbara," that still does not mean that the JIDF is. It's two degrees of separation. The JIDF seems to me to be more of a grassroots endeavor. Hasbara is official and governemental. It's really like mixing meat and dairy. HonestReporting and CAMERA are more grassrootsy in nature as well. HR, CAMERA and the JIDF all encourage email campaigns (among other things.) I'm not sure what Hasbara does exactly. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oboler works for NGO Monitor, which is partially funded by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and CAMERA, and generally considered to be a Zionist advocacy organization. --John Nagle (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise? See Also link? Hasbara is not the same as JIDF, and it should not be written about in the article, but there is probably some overlap at least in their ideology. Sposer (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

the notability of JIDF would be sub-zero if we were operating anything remotely approaching regular WP policies. PR^talk 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Their notability is that they stand for what is right and should be given an award for taking over the facebook accounts IMO. I agree less with their tactics on wiki (they should not attack individuals in my opinion), although I do see editing issues that they see too. Just the fact that groups like CAMERA are seen as POV, rather than the bastions of truth that they are, is a clear example of this.Sposer (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Their notability derives from three newspaper articles about the organization and its activities. If you don't think this makes them sufficiently notable, try another AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Candian Jewish News

I notice that the two main protaganists of the previous section have now "disappeared it". I just want to record my agreement with John Nagle that the source is reliable for factual content but may be partisan and therefore opinion needs to be attributed.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a protaganist « PuTTY^SchOOL 11:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Antagonist, then.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I don’t know what you mean exactly by "Antagonist", but I'm not an Enemy « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)