Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Nomination for deletion

Resolved

 – AfD speedy closed and DRV, presently linked on the article mainpage, is in process. Banjeboi 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok people we have a problem. I personally find it a little distateful that someone could add both a "totally disputed" tag AND nominate for deletion at the same time. It makes it look like the deletion is due to disagreement with content (and POV motivated) rather than due to article quality or notability. I am further concerned at how all the early pro-delete votes seem to come in at about the same time and how none of the major contributors to this article seem to have been notified of the deletion nomination. In short I am concerned (after putting in significant effort to this article and finally getting some where) that this action is both vandalism and coordinated vandalism. Anyway no point talking about it here I guess, but please DO GO AND VOTE on the AfD request if you have an involvement in this article. Oboler (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that too, all of a sudden the page has more flags and deletion threads. There was no signature as to who did that. Is that normal?--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler, don’t miss the good point, the articles is enhanced after each AFD :)--Puttyschool (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obler, please WP:AGF. The AFDs were based on notability. If they had not been, the AFDs would have been immediately closed and the nominators warned. Please stop assuming conspiracies. Also, your plea above for people to go vote at the AFD reads like an attempt at vote stacking, which isn't cool. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to ask people on an articles talk page to go an vote on an AfD on that article. I did not ask people to vote in any particular way, however those editing an article deserve to be consulted and have more right to a say on the topic than anyone else. Specially a week after a previous AfD when they have been working to resolve issues. The claims against notability did not stand up and the comments about other sources in the background etc were red herrings designed to confuse people and ignore the sources that DID discuss JIDF. On a question of notability it is not a matter of how many sources in the article do not directly refer to the topic, it is a matter of whether their are sources quoted that do. And those were not refered to. The process of this AfD was highly irregular. Oboler (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect: BS. There were no "red herrings", the claims against notability didn't stand up because the first AFD was a circus and the second was closed before discussion was complete, nobody "deserves" to be notified of an AFD any more than anyone else (this is the definition of vote stacking on Wikipedia), and the AFD was not out of process. Your continued assumptions of bad faith are distasteful and against policy. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country"

Resolved

 – Content trimmed. Banjeboi 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is one third of the article about what third parties have to say about "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country"? Isn't this an article about the Jewish Internet Defense Force?

I can see mentioning a single third party that described the group as antisemitic, but as it's currently written the article seems to focus nearly as much on "Israel is not a country! ..." as it does on JIDF. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Seems like so much of the focus (both in the article and in this discussion) is on one Facebook group and not so much about the JIDF itself. Thank you for breathing some fresh air into here. While their seizing of the one group was what helped make them more notable, it appears there is more to them than that. However, not sure how much of it has made it into reliable sources. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz and Einsteindonut, please see my comment in the section above. It directly addresses this. The problem is that this is the only really notable (in terms of press) incident involving the JIDF. I'm sure other cases will be added as and when they occur and get the press coverage required to make them notable enough for inclusion. As to why so many references on the antisemitic nature of the group are needed, this is important as it shows there is a concensus on the nature of the group (something that might be disputed, and indeed was by CJCurrie's edits) and as a result it shows what JIDF is doing. I.e. it is (in this case at least) trying to remove a demonstratably antisemitic group. If this wasn't said, the article could over time be rewritten to suggest that the JIDF did not target antisemitic groups, but rather targetted legitimate (i.e. non racist) groups it took issue with for whatever reason (e.g. political, national, religious, etc). That would put an entirely different spin on the JIDF, and one I'm sure many would prefer... though it is not supported by the sources. If it WERE supported by the sources such an alternative view should ofcourse be included (as well) - but removing references in order to make a factual point less clear is not the way to go and this is what removing these sources would do. Wikipedia generally does nto support the removal of references, but the text can always be reduced. If people prefer saying "the group was widely regarded as antisemitic" and then just list the references that would be quite ok with me. Oboler (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

True or not, stating that people belonging to a given group are antisemite is dangerous for wikipedia and in contradiction with WP:BLP. We must deal this with the highest care.

Given we cannot take party, it is also important we do not emphasize only the arguments that would make believe one side or the other is right or acted legitimately.

Finally, let's not forget wikipedia is not a political tribune but a project of (free) encyclopadia.

There lacks wp:rs secondary sources from academic scholars who studied this "facebook" phenomenon to talk about this. Even the "pertinence" of JIDF's article could be discussed. A fair treatment would be to merge this somewhere.

NB: Just in case of : Israel is (and should and will) remain a country, by the way democratic, and with international recognition; whoever is against that should not edit wikipedia.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the importance of expressing that many RS have noted this group as "anti-semitic," absolutely. However, I could see M. Shabazz's point about it taking up so much of the article. Perhaps something like the following could suffice?:

The JIDF has described "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" as "one of the most vile, antisemitic, pro-terrorist sites on the internet" and "the most active hate group of all." Their view on it would concur with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs[5], The Jewish Week, [6][7] The Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism[8], and the Anti Defamation League[9]-all of whom have also described the group as antisemitic ''

(unsigned comment by Einsteindonut)

I think this fits wp:policies. Ceedjee (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, small clarification... "stating that people belonging to a given group are antisemite is dangerous for wikipedia" - agreed... but I don't think anyone said that (unless I missed it?) It is quite possible for the group to be an antisemitic group without all the members in it being antisemitic. In fact it is even possible for the group to be antisemitic yet not now (or ever) have contained a single person who was themselves antisemitic. This is because racial hatred can indeed be transmitted and added by someone who is innocent of what they are saying and why it would be offensive. As to "There lacks wp:rs secondary sources from academic scholars" umm... (waves hand about) :) Oboler (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us solve it NOW

This discussion has been collapsed

I agree with all Ceedjee points and I want to add another important point, “this discussion is also dangerous for Wikipedia”. For me, still I believe that this edit was the best edit for the article, and goes around all points stated above by a smart encyclopedic mean, then the article is rapidly changed in two different directions in less than 55 min, check the history of the article. I recommend, reverting the article to this edit, and cleaning the discussion page, keeping only materials relevant to enhancements and guide lines for further edits. So please, I encourage all participants to show their point of view about reverting, hear in this section, in a matured way without being aggressive. And if anyone do not agree, please suggest a solution beside telling us why you don’t !--Puttyschool (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Hi, Puttyschool. I agree that these editing disputes should be resolved as quickly as possible. Before discussing that, though, I would just like to point out that "cleaning the discussion page" is not how things work on Wikipedia; old discussions are archived, and are only deleted in rare instances (e.g. in the case of violations of no personal attacks). I personally prefer this version of the Wikipedia article, although I think it would be good to keep the information in the last paragraph of the current version, which puts the position of the JIDF in the larger context of statements made by such groups as the JCPA, the ADL, and the CFCA. I think that both the current version as well as the one proposed are problematic for having unsourced statements. Additionally, a quote in the proposed version contains a wikilink, in contravention to Wikipedia policy. Ideally, every sentence will have at least one source, and all statements will be phrased in such a manner that is objective, indisputable, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. If the article were larger, I think it would be appropriate to have a brief summary of social networking websites. However, with such a small article, I think it would be unseemly for such a large portion of the article to deal with that topic. For the size of the article, I think a wikilink to social networking, user generated content, and/or Web 2.0 would be sufficient. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, Fine, reasonable more than enough, but What I actually recommended was ONLY cleaning--Puttyschool (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with Michael Safyan and was actually just going to make the same point about the antisemitism paragraph needing to be included. I do recognise that the original version has content that is not there now... this is content removed by CJCurrie and which was not restored by me immediately afterwards. I have no objection to this content being added back in, I just didn't do it and chose to reinclude content rather than do a whole sale revert. Perhaps I was wrong to do that as now User:Puttyschool's version and the current version need to be manually merged. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the flow... I almost feel this one facebook group should be listed as a "campaign" or "notable event" in which case the antisemitism paragraph can go under this heading two (as it refers specifically to this group). Problem is the article as it stands is too short for this structure to work. User:Puttyschool I'd encourage you to re-add the missign content (and restructure if you like) without removing the existing content. I think this can be done. I can try if you prefer? Oboler (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Till now I don’t know how this can be done, but here is my point of view a) We need to wait at least for 24 hours for more comments, in order to finish it right, and stop editors from hacking it. Especially I left a request for all Wikipedians that signed this take page in order to share their point of view. b) I’m against the use words that can promote violence, hear is a set I cut and paste form Michael Safyan edit ("clearly promotes violence and Islamic terrorism" | described by the JIDF as "one of the most vile, antisemitic, pro-terrorist sites on the internet. Moreover, it was the most active hate group of all----promoting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide....| In a response to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, the JIDF emphasized that its focus "is NOT legitimate anti-Israel content, but rather, clearly antisemitic content and content which clearly promotes violence and Islamic terrorism") except if taken form a RS, we can’t depend of the JIDF site, and if we depend on it, hundreds of editors will claim about it. I don’t want to say "must be from a RS and at the same time encyclopedic", but let us for the time being depend on RS. c) Wikipedia is quite different than newspapers, we can’t say something like this “A member of the JIDF identifying himself as David told us……” the newspaper can makes the Original David sign the article before publishing, but we can’t. d) About adding more references, for the same description, I’m not opposing only I can’t figure the reason why other editors oppose. e) I think for the time being we can start by an edit like this one(A stub for further editing) then start to change step by step after establishing a guide. Time by time, editors will forget about it and will be like any other article. f) Other enhancements you proposed above I think will make it a very good article. q) I think the best editor for this article, is the one who will match all WP:XX at the same time meet all points of views.--Puttyschool (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC) The article as of now is pretty good, the beginning is a little vague though. I would go in more detail as to the JIDF's mission in a sense as to what types of pages they target. For example "what its members believe" is a stretch a no one would doubt a a group dedicated to the suicide bomber of Sbarro's Pizza would be a target of the JIDF. There are no incidents when the JIDF has targeted an innocent group. So, I would suggest taking sample groups that were targeted with short explanations, probably can't be cited properly here though.--Saxophonemn (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you to Puttyschool for bringing this new stuff to my attention. I am very busy in the "real world" as of late, so cannot respond much. It seems that as of right now, some of the non-neutral edits have been reversed which is good. I believe it would be good to see more about the JIDF in general. Other than their site and many of the sources here, I was able to find this, which gave a bit more "inside info." into the group, but I'm not sure if that blog would be considered a "reliable source." --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I think this “Healthy environment” will improve the article very much.--Puttyschool (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Background

Why does the article need a background section? The relevant information could be included in the first sentence or two of the section on activities. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A good question. I wasn't convinced either before (which is why I didn't restore it initially) but looking at it now it contributes significantly to the article. Without this background what follows makes less sense. Perhaps the lead should be more specific and say the JIDF seeks to remove user generated content (rather than internet material more generally)... then the background could be renamed "Racism and terrorism in user generated content". Without this primer it is hard to put the JIDF in content. Perhaps that section will eventually become it's own article and can just be linked to... but right now it is too short for that. If you agree with changes suggested here, please feel free to make them. :) Oboler (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too thrilled with it at first, either (seemed very much like WP:OR), but it's fleshed out a bit, since then, and isn't so bad. Makes more sense in a the context of the greater article, at least. I still worry about OR, but I'd just as soon pick my dragons. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Even so, this can’t be a reason for deletion--Puttyschool (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

??? If it is OR, then that certainly is a reason for deletion? And Background as a separate section certainly looks a mess to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be cleaned up then, I think a brief discussion on how Facebook works, how they address these issues and a general overview of "hate speech". or whatever the best term is, on the WWW is quite helpful. The Southern Poverty Law Center specializes in these issues. And online activity is the new bastion for hate groups of all kinds. The section should remain neutral and avoid OR, of course. Banjeboi 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it was not clear, Even if the section is WP:OR we can delete the section not the article--Puttyschool (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not clear about the purpose of the material. Is it to pad the article? To "put the JIDF in context" we use tighter prose and Wikilinks, so readers who don't understand a term can click through and read the article.

I'm going to take a shot at rewriting the beginning of the activism section to eliminate the need for the background section. If you don't care for it, revert it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel we lost something by removing that content, though the activism section looks good. As a result I don't want to revert, but would like the background bit restored. Here is an additional link on the topic [1] that could be integrated. Oboler (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Oboler above. Many casual readers are unfamiliar with many social networking utilities, so I believe to have some BG info. on them will help put what the JIDF is doing into better context, though I'm trying to exercise a bit more discernment with my edits as I continue to learn. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With full respect to Dr. Obler point of view, we must respect other editors point of view, WP:OR is a wiki rule, we can’t vote (or COLLECT votes) on rules. At the same time, I think I noticed a comment that the current edit is fine (I don’t have time to check it all or even if current edit changed after the comment), so I recommend if someone has a point of view about changing or adding a section to this edit, he can create a section in talk page, use it with other editors as a sandbox for her/his new edit, after they finished the work all editors can vote on pasting their final edit to the article.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, we don't need to go there. Anyone reading the talk page is likely more interested in other opinions and open to improvements whereas the vast majority of editors don't seem to use article talk pages. If someone has a draft they want input on than fine but let's not develop a process when one isn't greatly needed. Consensus is also built by bold, revert, delete where anyone can add or subtract and others can revert. This section has been cleaned up and present consensus suggests it should be left for now. Banjeboi 02:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to collect more votes for the following reasons:
a) Most editors who edit this article signed the talk page as well.
b) The process of bold, revert, delete caused a lot of damages to the article history, what I’m suggesting is recording history in talk history not in article history.
--Puttyschool (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start a new thread and label something like "proposed 'Background' section". Write what you think should be added just as it would appear in the article. Personally it's unclear to me how this group operates but it does seem they've some success. Are they the first to use these methods? Malik Shabazz may be correct that whatever useful information could be integrated into the other sections better. In all things we serve our readers so they may know a subject. Banjeboi 20:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Different sample of the groups they target?

Resolved

 – Image updated. Banjeboi 08:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed they have different screen caps on their site and thought this one might be more appropriate as it also includes the types of terrorist groups as well? Not sure how to add photos. I think I tried posting this before and it's not in my history and it disappeared from the talk page. Is that possible or maybe I just clicked "show preview" and forgot to save? Anyway, does anyone have thoughts about this and how to change the sample? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there is already an image, I don't think an additional image is necessary. Furthermore, it would probably be better to use the screenshot of links posted by the group's owner, rather than by some other individual. In any event, you can add an image by typing [[Image:name_of_image.jpg|frame|right]], using the preview button, clicking (and opening in a new tab/window) on the broken image, and then uploading the image at the link target. Once the image has uploaded, you will see it when you attempt to preview the original page again. Be sure to comply with WP:COPYRIGHT when uploading images. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. Looks like they are keeping track of what is happening here as there is a new sample on their page. I'm going to try to figure out how to add it into WP - seems a lot more accurate considering the names of their Facebook groups and the material they target.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Fair play. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Resolved

 – Article moved. Banjeboi 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), should this article be located at The Jewish Internet Defense Force or simply Jewish Internet Defense Force? I don't have a particularly strong opinion, currently, but figure it doesn't hurt to ask. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't have "The" at the beginning of the title. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NAME:

"If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name."

I think that the article should be entitled "The Jewish Internet Defense Force" and not merely "Jewish Internet Defense Force", because the article "the" is not merely a grammatical construct, but rather part of the name of the organization. This can bee seen by their choice of website -- www.thejidf.org and not www.jidf.org --, by the title of their homepage as given in the <head> section of the page, and by the title of their Facebook group. Note that, because the article "the" is a part of the organization's name, the "the" would be capitalized, even in running text. Therefore, the current title is consistent with WP:NAME. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Nobody has capitalized the definite article in running text, nor are they likely to. "According to The Jewish Internet Defense Force"? No. "According to the Jewish Internet Defense Force".

Their choice of URL is driven by the fact that somebody else is using jidf.org. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note this post, which uses a lower-case "the". Also note this post and this one, which use JIDF in their headlines without "the". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I was not suggesting that "the" be capitalized before the abbreviation "JIDF", but rather that "the" be capitalized when the organization's name is spelled out in its entirety (i.e. in "The Jewish Internet Defense Force"). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's fine where it's at. If the article goes to FA these are valid points for intense discussion but I have no doubt that readers looking for the article will find it here without problem. Banjeboi 23:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)