Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Opening sentence

The opening statement is unsubstantiated..."praises terror and racial hatred" so far I have seen anywhere where the group does anything but promote Israeli interests and there is the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state logically it could be said that the group is promoting terror......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel a terrorist state? You're frankly not going to get very far, here, if that's your opening claim -- Wikipedia is not here to serve as a proxy battleground for any side or sides in this dispute. Otherwise, you seem to be ignoring the full sentence, specifically including the preceding text, "...which its members believe..." It may not be a perfect lead, but it's been argued over a fair amount and this is the current compromise version. What changes, if any, would you propose? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be revisiting the lead, I should say I support this edit which removed apparently unsourced content, am less sure about this one which removes reference to "racial hatred" and "anti-Israel" while introducing some iffy grammar, and then this one which further degrades our grammar (though I'd be fine linking to new antisemitism directly if it works linguistically). – Luna Santin (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Einsteindonut; Please reference talk page before reverting the article--Puttyschool (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF vs. Obama

Resolved

 – If and when reliable sources are available we can vet them for use regarding JIDF's political opinions. Per WP:Talk this is not a forum. Banjeboi 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

In this article from Brian Cuban [1] (a pundit who has appeared on Fox News), Cuban claims to have interviewed a representative of the group"on the condition of anonymity." Most of the info there we've seen before, but there's also this: "One of our short term objectives is to expose Barack Obama and prevent him from winning the Presidential election. ... We hope to continue to highlight the issues surrounding <libelous statement removed> his racist and antisemitic church which has supported Hamas and The Reverend Louis Farrakhan." This may be entirely bogus. Cuban is not a reliable source. But it's important. Can anyone find a confirmation or denial? --John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Please remember that WP:BLP applies to Talk pages as well as articles. I removed a portion of your message that was libelous and completely unsubstantiated. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I think we are completely losing the direction, from my POV it is better to remove the whole section--Puttyschool (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Interesting, but not a reliable source, I agree. Has this been picked up or otherwise republished by a publication with some editorial oversight, that anyone knows of? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Still I can relate this section to the article, maybe I’m wrong as I believe removing it is better than collapsing the section “Let us solve it NOW”--Puttyschool (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The JIDF web site itself has some strong anti-Obama statements. "As many of you know, the JIDF is extremely anti-Obama".[2] "A vote for Obama clearly defies all common sense, morals, and logic."[3]. They even have an article category "Obama's terrorist ties".[4]. --John Nagle (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I think this is a miss use of the talk page--Puttyschool (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It needs to be pointed out that the groups ethics are negative they are anti this and anti that. Has anybody got anything positive to say about them?...Is there any evidence of attacks on Google, Wiki, or Youtube or is someone just putting up the groups wish-list with no substantiation?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) There is evidence of this, but it's not in RS. They have initiated campaigns with regard to all of those, though again, no real media attention on it yet. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The group's ethics are negative? Sources? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It should be pointed out that unlike most extremist groups this group doesn't even make a claim of promoting truth or factual accuracy, a claim that even CAMERA and MEMRI make.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It should be point out that you regard the JIDF, CAMERA, and MEMRI as "extremist groups?" -Perhaps in your opinion, but no RS have discussed this.--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Why? They're openly a pro-Israel group, which we can make clear. We shouldn't express any opinion on whether this is good or bad, in and of itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC) There is no proof that this "group" is anything by 2 activists trying to talk themselves up.... There is no evidence that this "group" have done anything...There is more evidence that I have targeted political discussion forums in the last three years to clear political forums of extremist pro-Israelis but I don't expect a wiki entry...CAMERA and MEMRI are very pro-Israeli JIDF is naught but a pair of people with a one horse spiel...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Again, your clear bias and ad hom. attack against the subject of this article might not make you the most neutral to be editing it constantly with "citation tags" and the like. If you go to their wide assortment of Facebook groups you can see that this is more than 2 people as you claim.--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Additionally, this has no clear relation to the topic of this thread. And again, sources? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC) digital clones do not make for real people...the article is displaying clear bias...It's people like me from the opposing political spectrum who can tell you when your bias is showing....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC) at the top of this page is "This is not a forum for general discussion of The Jewish Internet Defense Force." - are we talking about the article and reliable sources or are we going to start bringing in non-reliable blogs? From what I can tell, the JIDF and Obama are never mentioned together in any RS, so why this is a discussion point at all is beyond me. Furthermore it says "Any such messages will be deleted." -if that is true, then it seems this entire section should be deleted.--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Also it is not a general discussion about United States presidential election, 2008--Puttyschool (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some notes on sources

We really have only two reliable sources of information on this organization - the Telegraph article and the Jerusalem Post article. We also have the organization's own web site.

A little bit further down in reliablity, we have the Israel National News article. [5]. They have a bit more info, including the name of the "David" behind the organization; they identify him as David Appletree, and give some of his personal background. We need to be a bit careful about WP:BLP here; the JPost and Telegraph articles don't give his last name. However, he's on Facebook under that name, and the Jewish Chronicle talks about him under that name.[6]

The organization claims to have been in existence for eight years and claims to have 5000 members. But they had no press coverage until a few months ago. They don't seem to be tied in with any of the major pro-Israel organizations.

This may just be one guy on Facebook with a few thousand names on his buddy list. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, did some basic Who-What-When-Where-Why work. Added an "Organization" section, with founding date of site, head of organization, claimed membership, and press cites and quotes for that info. Moved press references up to organization paragraph. Deleted line "The press has also increased coverage" used as a hook for citations after moving those citations to locations after items quoted from them. Cleaned up some reference formatting. --John Nagle (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

John, nice work. :) My only additional comment is... why isn't The Jewish Chronicle article you mention above [7] included in the main article? It is a RS on JIDF. Well spotted by the way! Oboler (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle article doesn't actually mention the term "Jewish Internet Defense Force". It's about David Appletree and his efforts on Facebook, but it appeared one day after "thejidf.com" domain was registered (anonymously, by the way), so the article probably predates the web site. It looks like that's when the name "Jewish Internet Defense Force" was first used; I can't find any press cites to it before that. So I stuck to the sources that actually mentioned the JIDF. It's not yet clear whether "David Appletree" is a real name or just an account name, so I don't want to put in biographical info from the Jewish Chronicle article until that's settled. Meanwhile, I put "(pseud?)" after the name. (Is there a template for pseudonyms?) --John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Treat as his actual name until a reliable source suggests otherwise. If we later find out it's not we can amend as appropriate. I think that article should be used to greatly expand that section as it helps place a context of motivations and resources. Banjeboi 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

???Please don't forget the rule WP:RS!!!--Puttyschool (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The founding date is an issue. The Jerusalem Post is careful to say that the organization says it was founded in 2000. They don't state it as a fact. Because the JPost qualified that statement, so should we, and I tweaked the text accordingly. The domain was registered on May 28, 2008, (is there some way to cite WHOIS data?) and I can't find any press citations to JIDF prior to that date. Citations to Appletree's activities on Facebook do exist. --John Nagle (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How about <ref>[http://whois.domaintools.com/thejidf.org Whois of TheJIDF.org] (see [[WHOIS]])</ref>?

The above is rendered: Whois of TheJIDF.org (see WHOIS) ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 08:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Self published reference, C can claim!--Puttyschool (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a concern of using the "spokesman's" real name? It gives an individual publicity. Additionally the name sounds fake, and its removal doesn't take away from the article. - Saxophonemn (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the name is fake, my family tree contains both oak and walnut "grafts" i.e. I had grandparents born as Eichenbaum and Baumwurzel. If someone decided to anglicise a similarlu formed name of Apfelbaum, then Appletree coudl be reached.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, put domain info in with a "cite web" to DomainTools. They're a good secondary source for domain registration info; they archive it and keep history information. Moved activity-related stuff from "organization" to "activities" section, and removed the "expand" tag from the "organization" section. I still can't find anything to indicate this is more than one guy with a web site and some Facebook accounts, though. --John Nagle (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... that still looks like OR. The press treat it as a group and nothing has been published suggesting otherwise. If it was just one person that still couldn't be put in here with out a source, and logic indicated that one person couldn't do all this alone. All that said, the group clearly has a single spokes person (David Appletree) and that is not his real name, the source on that is a radio interview on "The ZOA Middle East report", WNWR Radio, July 8 2008. The archive can be accessed here [8]. Oboler (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that David Appletree is a pseudonym, and that the radio broadcast is a source for that? I started to listen to the thing, but it's an audio recording in a player that doesn't have controls, and the Appletree part isn't near the beginning. Would someone listen to the audio and summarize, please? As for "one person doing all this alone", the site is just a Blogger-driven site with one or two short posts per day; no big effort there. If the JIDF gets more press, some reporter will eventually address the actual makeup of the organization. --John Nagle (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That we suspect the group is one person is beside the point. We go on verifiability not truth. If you have a reliable source that this is only one person then present it here otherwise this is something that will have to be back-burnered for if and when those sources manifest. Banjeboi 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More NPOV issues

Can someone who makes this statement really be considered fair and neutral? He wants to call the underage victims of a terrorist attack "terrorists" themselves and he wants to rationalize the attack, water it down, and not even label it a massacre or "terrorism." Not sure if this person is capable of being neutral and it does not appear that he is trying as he is trying to claim that the Yeshiva itself was "extremist" in nature.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashley is a he not a she apparently. Also now banned for a month. I would suggest forgetting that for now. If you want to discuss this sort of thing, I would suggest user talk pages or finding a WP:Project to do so in rather than in other article pages. WP:Israel would perhaps be up your street.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement that editors be considered fair and neutral. Please read WP:NPOV. In your own way, Eisendonut, you are no more fair and neutral than Ashley. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the king of neutrality what are you talking about? ;) Guess he got banned so I can't apologize to "him" for calling him a her. sigh. Still learning the ropes around here. I just didn't like that he was undoing all the good we had done by making this political rather than about the JIDF, which it seems many are trying to do. It also seems many of the edits are happening b/c people do not like what the JIDF is doing or what it is about. To me, that doesn't seem to help the project much especially and it serves as quite a distraction from good work and progress.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor doesn't have to like, agree with, or support an organization in order to want to improve the encyclopedia article about it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but the question is whether or not someone who is so adamantly against an organization is really here to improve upon it? Obviously the person has had some issues with these things in the past, which is why they are now banned for a month, so I think I might have had a point. Everything he seemed to be doing was out of pure speculation and anger at what the JIDF was about itself. Sorry, sometimes it is impossible to "assume good faith" when you can see people patterns and history. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't judge someone as having no good intentions just as you wouldn't want to be seen in that light. There are processes, which have occurred in this case, to sort out disruptive behaviours and similar actions from that editor will likely be dealt with in the same manner. I'd say bringing in outside support was a good call and let admins look at their contributions as either helping or not. Banjeboi 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit

Resolved

 – done. Banjeboi 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion from the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit tag has been archived (not sure for how long or when this happened)... the article quality seems good enough now to perhaps remove the WICU tag. 1) What do people think? 2) If you disagree, what specifically still needs addressing? (not to make it perfect, but to take it out of intensive care) 3) How do we remove WICU? Should the person who put it there be contacted? Or is there a process? Or is it just removed if there is concensus here? Oboler (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I archived it as the tag itself at the top of the talk page summarized the changes needed, all of which seem to have occurred. i would support removing them. Banjeboi 00:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is a procedure... see Wikipedia:Intensive_Care_Unit I left a comment there requesting closure. It seems we should wait two weeks or until the resolution of an AfD... in this case I think when the DRV closes we would be safe removing. Speaking of which... how long does that stay open for? Seems to be consensus there as well. Oboler (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

caption on Facebook groups linked by JIDF image

Resolved

 – Image replaced, caption issue moot. Banjeboi 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a good idea, specially for the time being, also your replacement of “a” by “the” is not neutral, and the sentence is not neutral --Puttyschool (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it is "not neutral"? This is a matter of grammar, not neutrality. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi and Michael Safyan, sounds like an improvement. Just had an edit collision with Michael (comment above) where he picked up the point on grammar. I was trying to post: Puttyschool - I went to check the article again in light of your comment... using "a" or "the" does not change the meaning at all, however using "the" in this instance is better English. If the question was not provided as a quote, then "a" would be more correct. I'm not sure I am being clear... for clarity both of these sentence are grammatically correct: "Under each link is the rhetorical question '[Is this] legitimate political discourse?'" and "Under each link is a rhetorical question." Oboler (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Under each link is the rhetorical question "[Is this] legitimate political discourse?"! all we have is an image, is this POV(I showed in italic) a matter of grammar, or neutral?--Puttyschool (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the part in your italics is a statement of fact, it accurately describes the question that follows as rhetorical. It's like saying the JIDF logo is "a coloured picture of a plane on a blue background" and what we are discussion is whether the word coloured is POV. The picture is in colour - that is not opinion or POV but fact. If the fact that the question is rhetorical something worth highlighting? Different question, and perhaps this is the real issue. It could as easily say "Under each link is the question '[Is this] legitimate political discourse?'" The question then is whether the JIDF's use of rhetoric is important. It may be as it helps explain their approach. I'd vote a weak keep on the word rhetorical. :) If I've missed your point entirely, please do clarify. Oboler (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questionable citations

Resolved

Two questionable citations in the article:

1) Does the Jerusalem Post use the word "hijack" to refer to the JIDF's actions?

2) Does the Jewish Week refer to "Israel is not a country..." as antisemitic?

Any takers? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the only time Jpost refer to hacking is when pro-Israeli sites got hacked. Otherwise in relation to JIDF it uses "takes control of"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, hacking by definition requires gaining unlawful access. Could you Ashley, substantiate instances of JPost's labeling use of hacking? --Saxophonemn (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

JW only generalities, implies but does not say directly....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I agree with Ashley about JW. It's in the subtext but needs to be explicit before we can claim it says so.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm... the JW mention is worth taking a closer look at, though I think the intention is pretty clear from context. The FB group is mentioned in the opening line of an article titled "Anti-Semitism 2.0...". The first three paragraphs appear to offer examples (including the FB group, among others); the fourth paragraph, apparently referencing the above three, says clearly "This is the new face of anti-Semitism...". – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would try to find a link because there is a link between denying Israel as a country and anti-Semitism. The most vocal proponents against Israel are not known as Jew lovers by any means, aside from a few fringe Jewish guys. Essentially a tell-tale sign of anti-Semitism is against a Jewish State in the Jewish homeland, unless they are against all states. Anti-Semitism does exist, and there are criteria for what makes something such. Any thoughts? -- Saxophonemn (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of reasoning would constitute WP:Original research. I think an explicit statement in the paper would be needed to justify the claim that they have described. the group as antisemitic. And described is the word in our text. For this reason I am about to remove the mention.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Given what I mentioned above, what other plausible interpretation could one possibly make? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Denying the existence of Israel is considered to be antisemitic by the European Union. Search for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)'s reports on it. There are sources on this. Furthermore, my original research proves to me that the majority of people who are against Israel go to great lengths to try to create that separation and to pretend that they are not against Jews. It's funny when people try to overcompensate for their own disdain toward the Jewish people. History proves that the majority of people hate Jews. Since Jews are now in Israel, people hate Israel. It's such a problem that millions upon millions claim that Israel does not exist (yet simultaneously) wish to wipe it out. It's the same "logic" used by Ahmadinejad, denying the Holocaust on one hand, and promising the REAL one onto Israel. It's sad that these facts even require discussion, but hopefully people are actually learning something here. Every country has problems and does things worthy of criticism. No country in the world is as highly criticized as Israel. They talk of human rights of Israel obsessively but fail to look at the abuses in Arab and Muslim countries. The same double standards and singling out is happening online. All these people are hyper critical of Israel and pretend to be "pro-Palestinian" but they rarely look at the abuses of Hamas/Fatah and other Arab/Muslim regimes. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place for your rants, or your "original research". Let's keep the discussion limited to specific changes to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should cite the EUMC definition of anti-semitism.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Luna Santin is right: The Jewish Week describes three websites and calls them "the new face of anti-Semitism". I'm going to put it back as a source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this resolved now? Banjeboi 06:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would still prefer an explicit statement rather than an implicit one, but I'm not going to change the text again.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When an editor says it's not their first choice/preference, but they can accept the situation, that's a good sign for consensus building. Thanks, Peter. Sounds resolved. HG | Talk 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)