Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Google Earth

For my personnal understanding. Why do they focus on google earth ? Can it be "anti-semite" ??? Ceedjee (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see. Ceedjee (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, actually they seem to just follow me around... (that's not entirely true, but the high publicity things tend to be the things I've already commented on). Th Antisemitism 2.0 paper (in the articles references) used both the Facebook group in this article AND Google Earth as more indepth exmaples of Antisemitism 2.0. There is a report I co-authored with staff at Honest Reporting on Wikipedia, and a second much more indepth academic paper in currently in review (probably be months until we hear back on it). As I mentioned on your talk page, I'm happy to be in touch on these things outside of Wikipedia with those that are generally interested in the topic. Oboler (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is another area where outlining why the group would spend anytime on each of Google, Google Earth, Wikipedia, etc. would be helpful. This may just be a sentence or two for each but would help explain this group to those who read the article. Banjeboi 06:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just playing devil's advocate, outside of the JIDF site there is no reference to what JIDF have doen int hese areas. If this is added I'm sure someone will demand a RS backing it up, in which case the material would probably just end up being removed again (after much wasted energy). I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out why I personally am not going there at this point in time (until there are RS on this). Oboler (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I think we actually do have RS that explain why Google Earth is of interest but all editing on this article has been ... "special" so I'm slow to jump in much on digging up and writing here. Banjeboi 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of RS on Google Earth... the problem is that outside of the group in Facebook about Google Earth (which has a JIDF connection) you are unlikely to find a source (never mind a RS) linking JIDF with Google Earth. Feel free to prove me wrong though... but I'd suggest making sure the source linking to JIDF is there before adding Google Earth things to this particular article. Oboler (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The goal here is to help our readers understand the subject. I would want to see a few sentences just on Google Earth, why does this group do anything there? and what do they do? We have RS that explain the situation and we can site JIDF's own archives to show what they state are their concerns. "Google Earth, a site that ___________, has been another online area where Palestine-Israel conflicts have manifested because ________. It is of interest to JIDF which claims ________. They have ________." Banjeboi 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the last bit. They have set up a Facebook group Against the Creation of "Palestine" in Google Earth that has 927 members. The group lists its homepage as the JIDF site and the creator is JIDF's David Appletree. I don't think there is a reliable source that refers to this... so what I've has just said is clearly original research and useless for the article. Incidently on the topic of useless... by looking at the various JIDF groups and who has admin and officer positions it would be possible to get an idea of JIDF leadership / more active members. Again original research. Oboler (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually we can (see WP:Brain), we should avoid OR but we can certainly state all of this using that page and posts as the source. We need to report it neutrally but we can include it. Banjeboi 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy for you to do it... but I'll personally hold back given past discussion and agreement on not including anything not cited by a RS and also passed discussion on using Facebook groups as a source. I'd ask that Puttyschool be consulted as well. Oboler (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I do agree on holding off as the present pitch is not conductive to producing new content. Let's revisit this in a bit and see if the fevered pitch mellows a bit more. Banjeboi 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How this all started

Resolved

 – Sources added, Image dealt with separately. Banjeboi 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I've made this into its own section so the issues can be separated from prior discussion. Banjeboi 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found a reliable press source to how this all started. This 2007 article in the Toronto Star, "Playing Politics on Facebook" makes things much clearer. Facebook has a menu in which users can select their location. One option is "Palestine". Some people didn't like that option being available, and created a "Palestine' Is not a country ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!" group. That's how it started.

Things went downhill from there. From the Star article: "Beyond that, it's a free-fire zone with groups begetting counter-groups begetting meta groups – and yes, this is how kids spell today – "If Palestine is removed from Facebook ... Im closing my account"; "Boo Palestine, Hooray Israel"; "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!"; "ITS NOT `PALESTINE' – IT'S `ISRAEL'"; "Palestine IS a country ... and were gonna kick Isreal's @$$"; "No Such Thing As Palestine!"; "Report the group No Such Thing As Palestine!"; "PALESTINE is a COUNTRY!"; "Against: Palestine is not a country group!"; "Seeing israel and palestine on the same list of countries is a disgrace!!"; "People for the Relocation of Israel"; "Anti Israel"; "ANTI Anti Israel."" The Star's reporter concludes "Facebook was much more fun when it was all about body shots."

That's where the "Israel is not a country" group came from. A flame war over a menu item.

I think we've been had. --John Nagle (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there any evidence that JIDF-associated people started that anti-Palestine groups? I just looked at one, started in July '06, but no indication that it is related to JIDF. Just checking. HG | Talk 10:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not how the JIDF started. I don't understand your remark about "being had." We've already had people trying to go back in time to talk about the creation of the group. The fact of the matter is that it evolved into something many RS regarded a major hate site on the internet and the creation of the group in which the JIDF took over has nothing to do with the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with both of you. The Star article does provide some relevant background to the JIDF campaign. However, it may not explain the group's creation per se. (But "we've been had" seems unnecessary or antagonistic. This simply shows that a flame war on Facebook can garner attention from major media.) Pls propose a sentence, based on the Star, that can be inserted in our article's account. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle, you're jumping into the story half way through. Not your fault, the Toronto Star article also jumps into the story half way through. Without pre-publishing original research here (which is in any case in press and will be available soon enough) the Facebook group in question started around January 2007, in response to another facebook group, which was in responce to action taken by Facebook itself, undoing an action facebook had previously taken. All of this is however slight irelevant to an article on the JIDF. The point about this Facebook group is that at the time the JIDF removed it, it has become a hate site (as referenced in the sources in the article). Full points for trying though. :) HG: Fair comment. This article should be referenced. Oboler (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of peoples know this scenario of creation, but is this article from a WP:RS it looks like WP:OR« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is OR as it is covered (with suitable sources) in the article I'm waiting to be published! :) At any rate the research as included here now is not only wrong but largely OR based on interpretation of the source (which is in any case mistaken, even if it is reliable) Oboler (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's from the Toronto Star, which is a respected newspaper and a neutral source on the subject. I put a somewhat quote-heavy paragraph in the article to cover this background. It's clearly relevant to the JIDF, since the JIDF's notable activities revolve around the "Israel is not a country" Facebook group. --John Nagle (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth IINAC recording it as set up in response to a Palestine INAC with this ref. We've got the accusations that it is antisemitic which are not about JIDF and the half a line if background will give an explanation for its existence other than pure anti-Semitism.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The group is not the topic of the article. The fact that the group may not have been set up for antisemitic purposes is irrelevant to the argument that at the time of the JIDF action it was known for antisemitism. Likewise the nature of the group in the future is irrelevant to this article as the facebook group itself is not the subject of the article. This has all been discussed before and the arguments against including it are clear, even without getting into the factual specifics (which are also a problem in this case) Oboler (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

just an FYI, it seems the screencap was originally taken from the posted items of this screen - and can be found both on the JIDF site (in the posted items area) as well as in the JIDF Facebook group (as an uploaded photo)....--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good

The article looks basically OK at the moment. Thanks, everyone. We may be done, until the JIDF does something new that gets press attention. --John Nagle (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One quarter of the article is fluff about the Facebook group JIDF removed... this is not relevant to the article (as I explained in the talk section above). One may as well include a history of the creation of Facebook as well... it is just as tangentially relevant. Otherwise, yes, it is lookign good. Oboler (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The press reports about the Facebook flap are the the only thing that makes the group notable, per WP:ORG. --John Nagle (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly short article, as other content is added the Facebook "flap" will be less prominent. It seems reasonable to me. Banjeboi 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can be archived. The discussion of the context for the Facebook flap continues below. HG | Talk 01:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook background

Resolved

 – Issues discussed, content reworked and new threads started. Banjeboi 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Facebook background was discussed in a (messy) thread above -- but, since the background was just deleted, I'd like to continue the discussion. As several of us said, this info really helps explain the context into which JIDF got active. Plus, it is adequately sourced info on the target(s) of the JIDF campaign. Let's discuss this, keeping in mind whichever Wikipedia editing policies may support our view. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that deletion. It's properly cited material, from a reliable source, the Toronto Star, not involved with any side in the debate. So we don't have an "reliable source" problem. The background is quote-heavy, to avoid any claims of "original research". It's directly on topic for the activity that got the JIDF mainstream press attention, the Facebook flame war. (Which is the JIDF's only real claim to notability; otherwise they'd fail WP:ORG.) --John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nagle and HG on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The deletion of the background information creates the impression that JIDF is genuinely "Combating Anti-Semitism". That impression may well be false: Again and again, we have seen the bogus "anti-Semitism" charge used to silence critics of Israeli fascism. All claims of "anti-Semitism" need to be scrutinized.

The article DOES offer one-sided background information supportive of the JIDF -- the "thousands of user complaints". Is this a legitimate user outcry, or simply astroturf? We're not told how many thousands of users opposed JIDF censorship. The Facebook position is not presented and is pejoritively characterized as "inaction" -- It might equally well be characterized as an ACTION in defense of freedom. NonZionist (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I am suspicious of JIDF's claims. However, WP:No original research means that we can't just come out and state those suspicions in the article. If you can find reporting in a WP:Reliable source of Facebook's position on this group, or that the IINAC group was not anti-Semitic, or that JIDF is distorting the truth in its claims, then the content of the article can be shifted towards the position that you prefer. However, WP:Neutral Point of View does not mean that we can invent a critique of the group even when we can't source the critique to reliable sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by WP:Reliable source and the WP:SPS ban on blogs. There is, for example, the Brian Cuban interview with a JIDF representative, cited at the JIDF site itself. Numerous other blogs repost this article, and Cuban appears to match WP:SECONDARY criteria. Would Cuban constitute a WP:RS? In this interview, the JIDF calls for "transfer" (ethnic expulsion). That goes far beyond a mere campaign against anti-Semitism; to the contrary, it is almost calculated to engender MORE anti-Semitism. Perhaps the wikipedia article could quote more from the JIDF site, and in that way better convey the true character of this militantly pro-Israel group. NonZionist (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay within the blogs rule. We already discussed whether to report JIDF's views on Obama, and its views on transfer etc would seem to fit in this category. Please read that archived discussion. You can start a new section but I seriously doubt we'll report anything on JIDF that isn't deemed worth mentioning in (non-blog) secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does WP:SELFQUEST not apply here? That issue was not raised in the archive that addresses the JIDF position on Obama. Shouldn't the views of a group be pertinent to an article about that group? The views are expressed both at the JIDF website and in the Cuban interview that the JIDF site links to. -- NonZionist (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This material has nothing to do with the JIDF why should it be in the article? I am removing it again, please stop reverting. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with all of you which is why I deleted it. The discussion of the formation of one facebook group is not relevant to the JIDF and should not be in this article. It's just one of their actions that they have taken and they did not do it because of the fact it was created, but what it became. Having this background info. on that one group just serves to dismiss the other information which backs up the fact that the group was antisemitic. In other words, this is just watering down what the group was and taking away from what the JIDF did and why it did it. Again, I do not believe it belongs here.--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Pls let me clarify the editing expectations for this article. This applies to Einsteindonut and everyone. ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions on Israel/Palestinian-related articles in order to stop edit-warring and other disruptive conduct. So we should be making an extra effort to collaborate. Now, in regard to this disputed paragraph: Einsteindonut, you've deleted the text once (after discussed above) and now you've deleted it again, despite the effort to work this thru via discussion and contrary to the clear reasoning by a number of users. Trying to get your way by removing sourced material, during a discussion of the text, is inappropriate. You are really welcome to work this out with fellow editors. But please self-revert and, if somebody else reverts, pls do not delete it again until/unless the consensus moves in your direction. Thanks for you consideration. HG | Talk 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you get to do that, if anything it should be offline until it's officially resolved. It doesn't help the article as it skews the idea of what is going on by a heavily publicized event.--Saxophonemn (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. "Watering down what the group was and taking away from what the JIDF did and why it did it" is not generally considered grounds for deletion of cited material. See WP:LUC: "If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." This isn't material from opponents of the JIDF (which might well be included if a reliable source provided it.) It's not even something that makes the JIDF look bad. What's the big problem? --John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Einsteindonut -- that this information is not really relevant to the Jewish Internet Defense Force, which is the subject of the article. That said, it is completely inappropriate to remove material as well as to change from the established version to a new, contested version of the article, when the change in question is being discussed on the talk page. Therefore, Einsteindonut, and anyone else who intends to delete the material, I implore you to refrain from removing this content until the discussion has been closed with consensus that the material should be removed. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Michael -- disagreeing on substance, but agreeing with me on our editing process. I hope I didn't come across too harshly, just wanted to be firm about it.

fyi, I see that CJCurrie restored the paragraph w/"Sorry, but this context is rather important."

Michael, don't you think some lead-in context would help? I think John's point is that those JIDF-targeted Facebook group didn't pop out of nowhere. This shows that JIDF intervened (i.e., neutrally described) in an ongoing controversy, with a known problem seen w/the targeted sites. Doesn't this context paragraph allow the readers to put the picture together for themselves? HG | Talk 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between this paragraph and the last two sentences of the article? Those sentences aren't about the JIDF, but according to consensus they provide useful information concerning the group the JIDF took over. I see the same thing in the first paragraph of the section: useful information that provides a context for the JIDF action. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning that the incidents with the JIDF did not occur in a vacuum and that there have been Israeli-Palestinian flame wars on Facebook for some time. It is not so much that context is presented, but rather the amount of background in proportion to the rest of the article that bothers me. Perhaps if the article were longer, and the background section were small in comparison, then it wouldn't matter. However, with such a small article, a background section should not be as large as the current one is. Perhaps there is a shorter alternative, or perhaps we could use a wikilink to a more extensive article on the Facebook flame wars. Whatever the case may be, the vast majority of the article should be about the JIDF, itself, and not some other -- albeit related -- topic. Just my two cents. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is based mainly on facebook group, also JIDF focus on facebook and this group was the reason of creation and what established notability. From my POV now the article shows the complete history from the early beginning till now, giving the reader the complete information about the subject using a neutral POV and WP:RS. This is something very good compared to showing him the last part of the movie.« PuTTY^SchOOL 06:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can achieve a compromise solution that satisfies more/most editors? Michael suggests that we give the Facebook context with a "shorter alternative." Can we work on drafting altnerative language here? Here's a first stab at it, I'm not wedded to it:

During a controversy in 2007, various Facebook groups were formed for and against Facebook listing either Palestine or Israel as countries, such as "No Such Thing As Palestine!", and "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!". Facebook officials stated: "As long as the groups meet our terms of use, they can stay up. But we encourage users to report anything that is racist or objectionable."[8]

This is shorter. I do admit that it does not really explain the delisting issue in full, but might this kind of thing be sufficient (for those who want the background) yet shorter (for those who prefer little or no background)? (Actually, it's even shorter insofar as the group name no longer need to be repeated fully in the succeeding sentence. Thanks. HG | Talk

"To against"? Anyway, it's probably better to stay close to quotes from the news article in the Toronto Star. This avoids accusations of "original research". --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"...for and against" (corrected above - thanks!)

I'm confident that we have the ability to summarize reliable sources in an encyclopedic manner. But if we fail, I do agree quotes are a good fall back. Anyway, how might you revise the above draft? HG | Talk 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this article is pretty short. I found the disputed information helpful to understanding the issue(s) and explaining why it was an issue. Frankly, I think many of our readers would also appreciate more context than less. Banjeboi 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with this as it takes up 20% of an article which is supposed to be about the JIDF, not pay tribute to the Facebook group which the JIDF tried to take down. It wasn't so much that the group was created that was a problem, it was the overwhelming amounts of hate content within the group. That is why the following explanation explaining that many sources believed the group was antisemitic is important. The background of why the group was created is absolutely irrelevant. The JIDF recognized this group as a very active hate group. This goes into deep background information which is dated before the JIDF even had a website. If an explanation HAS to be there (which I don't think it does) it shouldn't be more than 1 sentence. Again, the JIDF didn't target the group because it was created, they targeted it because of what it became. This is taking this entire article into an entirely different tangent. It would make sense if you want to write a new article about that Facebook group, but this is not about the history of that group. This is about the JIDF. If we're going to go into deep background irrelevant stuff then why not cite a lot more from the original Morrison piece? I'll tell you why, because it is more about Appletree than the JIDF. By the same token, this other source has more to do with a Facebook group than it does the JIDF. It's veering way off topic. Perhaps the Facebook group itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. I do not feel this article does the JIDF justice if you're going to make 20% of this focused on the history of an anti-semitic Facebook group. The fact that many others considered it to be anti-semitic is important though. The reason for its creation is not. I mean, why don't we start talking about the history of Facebook then too? And when they added the "Groups" application? All I'm saying is that this is a tangent and it is irrelevant---again, especially since the group in question was formed before the JIDF even had a website. And I'm sorry if it bothers some people that I keep deleting it. I don't think it should be there until it is fully worked out here---ESPECIALLY if editors like CJCurrie. From my understanding, he is on something called revert parole because of his actions on Arab-Israeli related articles. I'm not sure if he is even allowed to make such reversions. It's interesting that he thinks THIS is relevant, but went to such great length to remove Dr. Oboler's "Zionism on the Web" presence completely from Wikipedia. I don't know much about the rules here, but it seems clear to me that he ought to be sanctioned for this continued behavior. He has such an obvious anti-Israel agenda on Wikipedia that it isn't even funny --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I re-arranged the paragraph in question to make it appear that this article is still about the JIDF. I also took out some of the padding. Why we have to list all these groups is beyond me. This is such a tangent. (Might as well talk about how Facebook was founded @ Harvard in this article too.) These people who have issues with Israel and the JIDF are coming in here to try to bring in the "Palestinian" point of view and it really doesn't apply. Here's the story: There once was an antisemitic Facebook group. It was antisemitic because of the content of it, not merely the title. The JIDF tried to take it over. The end. To bring up the fact that there are other Facebook groups with other anti-"Palestine" names is 100% irrelevant to this article about the JIDF and is just the work of people with an agenda. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you didn't get the message the first few times, so I'll repeat it. Discuss content, not the contributor. If you continue to make changes to this material without consensus, you may be subject to sanctions, as noted at the top of this page. If you can't contribute to Wikipedia without making snide comments about other editors and what you perceive to be their agendas, maybe you shouldn't be here. I'm sure Conservapedia can use another editor. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll do as a please. If you continue to revert important edits, you may be subject to sanctions as well. I really don't care as I will prove that all of you are conspiring to put your own non-neutral point of view into this article. I made a valid edit and you reverted saying what I did was just as good as deleting it. I beg to differ. Did you even bother to see what I did? Let me explain. First of all, you inspiring an edit war. I placed it properly in the article and trimmed it and I believe edits can be made without getting "consensus" from a bunch of people who have proven to have something against the organization in which the article is about. Wish you would have referred to what I added in the "talk" section regarding my edit before you took the liberty to revert it. The article is about the JIDF, not about a Facebook group. That section should be about what the JIDF did first, and then if background info is needed, it should be provided. We don't start that section saying the group was antisemitic. For the same reason, we shouldn't start that section with a history of the group. Since the article is about the JIDF, it should start with what the JIDF did, and THEN go into the background (if it's even needed.) The way the people who take issue with the JIDF have it now is not doing justice to the article.

Oh, and by the way, your personal attack regarding "Conservapedia" is noted and it does show from where you're coming. Thanks for the confirmation. What I am doing is trying to improve the article. What is happening is that people aren't bothering to even comprehend what I'm doing or why. There has been an effort to take out important information (like the photo sample which I added) and to include irrelevant information (like the background information of a Facebook group which is taking up 20% of this article.)

I really shouldn't have to spell it all out to you, and I don't. Because it is very clear to me what you are doing and why. But, again, please see my explanation for my edit above. It was REASONABLE. It is my hope that you can see that and stop personally attacking me and reverting my edits. Also, your suggestion that I don't belong here doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia either. I will be reviewing this with my Wikipedia mentor to see how to proceed with regard to your personal attack, reversion of common sense edits, and suggestion that I should essentially "get lost" and to see if I need to register a complaint about it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see part of the problem. The article doesn't have much solid info about the JIDF. That's because the available reliable sources are very limited. We've been struggling to find out basic information about the JIDF, without much success. We don't have reliable sources for where they are, for who runs them, for their financial information, for anyone other than David Appletree being involved, or for any existence other than their web presence. That's quite unusual for any organization notable enough to make it into Wikipedia. The Daily Telegraph calls them a "secretive organization". So complaining about lack of detail from a pro-JIDF perspective is a bit much. We could put in more information about their positions on subjects other than Facebook, but there were objections to mentioning their position on Obama, so that's out. --John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, you may want to look at these words of wisdom, specifically the idea that if you start whipping up ideas of conspiracy it might inspire all those you accuse of such to actually gang up on you. I personally don't spend time on Facebook and I think it's fair to say the majority of Wikipedia readers also don't. We can certainly fill out this article with more content but every edit is met with such passion that I'm cautious about doing any serious research to add content. Frankly I think another sentence should be added to explain that amongst Facebook options ____ and thus the larger issues of the conflict started to rage on facebook. Sadly, I think you'll find, in sweeping general terms, Americans dable a bit less culturally in world affairs and this is more true with younger generations. Thus many Facebook users themselves may never have understood the issues much as many folks don't understand many of the nuances of the larger struggles. This article is not a soapbox for any views one way or another, it is however a gateway for many articles concerning the subjects discussed including online activism and every wikilink in the piece. Better and thoughtful writing should enrich a reader's understanding of the subject. If we have to explain a concept than so be it - let's do it well.

John Nagle, IMHO, we shouldn't create a soapbox but we could explain more how the JIDF operates such as - "The JIDF post updates to it's websites several times a day on subjects concerning US media, world politics and ______". Then add refs to some examples that illustrate that they do indeed do that. For Google Earth and the other sites the group operates on it would be helpful to summarize what change they effect and how they do it. Banjeboi 09:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nagel and Benjiboi, you seem to have missed my points. Again, the section in question begins with a paragraph which is about a Facebook group. It takes up 20% of the article which is supposed to be about the JIDF and mentions 2 groups which have nothing to do with the JIDF. The article cited also does not mention the JIDF. Providing one or 2 sentences of NEUTRAL background information AFTER explaining that the JIDF took over the group is more fair, more honest, and shows more justice to our subject, which is the JIDF---not Facebook groups. When 20% of an article goes into a tangent which has nothing to do with the JIDF or why they did what they did, I find that extremely problematic, which is why I have worked to delete it. When many of you complained and reverted, I edited it with the following:

In 2008, the JIDF took control of the Facebook group, "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country", after Facebook administrators did not take action to shut the group down.[8] According to Appletree, "The terms say that 'one cannot ... make available any content that we deem to be harmful, ... hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable.'"[3] Appletree added, [Facebook] "is aggressive about pornography and people abusing the site's privileges, but negligent in going after these pro-terror and anti-Semitic groups praising Adolf Hitler."[3]

During 2007, a controversy on Facebook was reported involving the removal of the "Palestine" option from "the drop-down list of places members can use to show where they live."[9] Facebook groups formed for and against the issue, including "Against delisting Palestine from Facebook,", and "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!". Facebook's Matt Hicks was quoted in the press as saying "As long as the groups meet our terms of use, they can stay up. But we encourage users to report anything that is racist or objectionable."[9]

A Jerusalem Post article said the JIDF "seize[d] control" of the Facebook group.[6] According to the JIDF, Facebook's inaction came "despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months".[5] The "Israel is not a country..." group had been described as antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Jewish Week, and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher.[10][11][12][13][14] Since the JIDF intervention, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism (CFCA) has highlighted the issue by including a Telegraph article on the topic in its archive.[15]

As you can see, first I told the story of the JIDF taking control of the group (since this is about the JIDF), THEN comes the background. I still think there is too much about the "controversy" and that should be minimized, since no articles about the JIDF mention this controversy and this controversy was not the motivation for the JIDF taking control of the group, but rather, the fact that it was antisemtic WAS.

As you can see, I left in the part in which we are SUPPOSED to be discussing here. It was quickly reverted by Shabazz who wrongly claimed that what I had done was "as good as deleting it" - certainly anyone who is honest and non-biased in this situation would disagree. I merely placed the paragraph in question into a different area and trimmed it a bit. Unless someone was determined to make this paragraph more important than the action of the JIDF (as I am claiming) than the statement about me doing something as bad as deleting it would not be true. Therefore, I feel there are hostile intentions here and I'm not concerned about people with whom I do not respect nor with whom I feel do not have good intentions ganging up on me. I can handle it. Also, I've been thinking about it. Since Shabazz essentially told me to get lost, I think I'm going to stick around and get LOUDER. Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved---because this is F'in ridiculous. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fordmadoxfraud (talk · contribs) just tightened up the language a bit. That cut down the size of the introductory paragraph without cutting it out. Happy now? --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, really, you should dial it down, wikipedia is a collaboration and not a battleground. We could "hear" you better if you could drop out the personalizing and passion and simply state "I don't think we need to mention the two other groups in the same paragraph". Volume does not equal quality. Others may agree or disagree but really I don't see any covert attempts here. I've been naive about such things before, but I will continue to assume good faith. Rallying friends, who, unlike the rest of us - have your respect and do have noble intentions - seems like a recipe for disaster. Banjeboi 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, as it says at the top, please limit discussion to improvement of this article. There are too many people involved in this article who are intent upon collaborating in that they are reverting every single one of my edits, which I feel have been reasonable and with good purpose. And John Nagle, I'm still not happy as it is at the beginning and is still pretty large and it has nothing to do with the reasons why the JIDF took control of the group, so it's not relevant at all. If you all could focus on my suggestions for improvement of the article instead of automatically reverting and altering all my edits and expressing all the problems with you seems to have with the way I express myself here, I believe we might actually get somewhere. Until then, I'm getting a little tired of being told what to do. You can send me all the wikipedia rules you want, I'm only listening to my mentor. Not people who are determined to not comprehend the reasons why I am trying to make certain edits and who continue to revert my work here. As far as "assume good faith" - I do not, especially when someone feels the need to chime in about a group which is fighting anti-semitism, or when someone has shown a systematic willingness to wipe out every single reference to "Zionism on the Web" in Wikipedia (CJCurrie) - and others who back them. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing about Benjiboi's post that was egregiously off-topic. Really, talk pages should be used to facilitate the process of drafting and managing articles, and discussion between editors working on those articles which pertains to that process can therefore be quite relevant. Just as other users should consider that discussion may be more fruitful if they pay more attention to the content-relevant substance of your messages instead of expressing tangential concerns over your choice of expression, you may want to bear in mind that those other users will be less likely to express such concerns if you try to address them. I'm not saying any one person here is right or wrong, more trying to encourage everybody to meet a bit closer to halfway -- compromise on tone needs to come from both sides, ideally. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)