Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 25 August 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Internet Defense Force. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Internet Defense Force at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Template:Icu-saved

Archives
2008 1 2 3 4 5

Template:Multidel

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. . 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.

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 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> (see ])</ref>?

The above is rendered: Whois of TheJIDF.org (see WHOIS) ← Michael Safyan 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 . 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)

Add to lede

Per WP:lede I think we need to expand the lede at least a little bit. I suggest adding a sentence about their most notable accomplishments - their work on Facebook - something like "JIDF gained media attention themselves when they overwhelmed and effectively took control of other groups on Facebook in 2008." It would also be a place to summarize any notable criticism of the group. Banjeboi 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Go for it. ← Michael Safyan 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

caption on Facebook groups linked by JIDF image

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 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 ' 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 " 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 ' 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)

Appletree or the JIDF

Please note that Arutz Sheva, one of the sources, is an article about David Appletree, not the JIDF. It describes actions he took, not those of the JIDF. It is appropriate, then, to attribute those actions to Appletree and not to the JIDF.

Also, please see WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY regarding the preference of secondary sources (Arutz Sheva) over primary sources (the JIDF). — ] (] · ]) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to fix this here since I believe the article should be more about the JIDF itself than Appletree. The original Arutz Sheva article does not even mention the JIDF.--Einsteindonut (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eisendonut, maybe we should see what other editors think before deleting the whole paragraph. Some of us think that Appletree is the JIDF. — ] (] · ]) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then shouldn't there be a separate bio of him? I didn't delete the whole paragraph--just parts as i felt that this was supposed to be about the JIDF and the one Arutz Sheva piece didn't even mention the JIDF. It was just about Appletree. I don't see any RS directly expressing Appletree's involvement, yet the fact that some of you think "Appletree IS the JIDF" for some reason is leaking into this article completely and it's becoming more about him, and less about the organization. So shouldn't it be separate? I was acting too quickly perhaps as I saw the fact that Shabazz made a good point. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a newspaper interview doesn't make you notable enough to get a Misplaced Pages article. See WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. — ] (] · ]) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, that's part of the reason I deleted the references to Appletree, since I don't think I've seen any RS actually tying "Appletree" to the JIDF within the article itself. There was just the one link from within the one Arutz Sheva article to another article which does not mention anything about the JIDF and only talks about Appletree. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few quotes from Appletree to add context. Banjeboi 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's blog says "Andre Oboler discussed the matter with JIDF's David Appletree shortly after the take over. ". But Oboler's blog is not a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We have some RS sources to satisfy that he is with the group in some way and has acted as a spokesperson in some regard but these don't define him as the spokesperson or negate that others are involved so I'm unclear what needs to change until another source is presented to provide clarity. Banjeboi 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questionable citations

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? — ] (] · ]) 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. — ] (] · ]) 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. — ] (] · ]) 23:36, 24 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. — ] (] · ]) 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. — ] (] · ]) 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)

Misplaced Pages Intensive Care Unit

The discussion from the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages with those that are generally interested in the topic. Oboler (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again... (sorry all)

Nagle, the "social media expert" was an attribution in the Jewish Week by the journalist concerned. I started using it in my by line after that. Incidently op-ed by lines ARE written by the author as part of the piece. So the logic you provide is additionally flawed. I personally think the journalists decision to use "social media expert" is the most accurate, more indepedent and most verifiable out of the options we have. Most importantly however, it is the most relevant. On that note I open the floor to others... again. Oboler (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "social media expert" to "postdoctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan" which seems a bit pointy and clumsy. Perhaps researcher would be better than expert" Banjeboi 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" sounds good. I agree that "Postdoctoral fellow ..." is silly. — ] (] · ]) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" does not sound accurate considering his credentials. There are many "researchers" who are not published and who do not have PhD's. "Sounds good" and "silly" are personal opinions. If we are striving for neutrality, we should go for what is ACCURATE, not how we feel about how things sound.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"social media authority"?, or is "social media expert" the most accurate. Banjeboi 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's affiliations are all advocacy organizations. He's with NGO Monitor (part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and partially funded by CAMERA). Even Bar-Ilan University is something of an advocacy organization.. The affiliation information should perhaps reflect this. I don't see anywhere that Oboler has been listed as a "social media expert" in any context outside Israel advocacy. --John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he's an expert, we call him an expert. If it calls him something else, we call him something else. We don't make that decision ourselves. IronDuke 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he is an expert, then we can say that the source says he is an expert, but shouldn't go beyond that. This is an ongoing headache with pundits and op-ed types. --John Nagle (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you help me find "social media expert" in the Jewish Week article? — ] (] · ]) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF posts image for Misplaced Pages

Here's a situation I found intriguing. The JIDF blog specifically posted an image to put on this Misplaced Pages article. The heading currently reads "Better Sample of the Groups We Target (For Misplaced Pages)." This strikes me as problematic. At the very least, it gives the appearance of Misplaced Pages coordinating with JIDF to promote JIDF, or cooperating with JIDF's self-promotion. (From what I can tell, our image is downloaded from the blog image by Einsteindonut 8-22-08.) I'm sorry if you've already come to consensus about the inclusion of the image in the article, but I did want to mention this interesting nuance. Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way the JIDF is manipulating this article, posting messages for Misplaced Pages that are then being used as sources. I wish there was some way to put an end to it, but I think a blog is a WP:RS for what it says about the organization that sponsors it. — ] (] · ]) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles