Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 13 September 2008

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the Arbcom explanation of sanction on Palestine-Israel articles.

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 6 7 8 9

Template:Multidel

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)

Image deletion

Possible sources

moved to Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Possible Sources

click here to add it to your watchlist

JIDF responds to "Political Discourse" Quote

Hello everyone. The old me would immediately strike that quote from the article upon reading this from the JIDF, but now I'm trying to actually work with people. Apparently it seems the quote was taken out of context? Are we to trust the RS or the context provided by the JIDF? Also, they mentioned that the group in question is now gone. Facebook deleted it. Therefore, this claim about "political discourse" is now rendered inaccurate. Within the past few days it appears that Facebook has concurred that it was, in fact, an anti-semitic group. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The London Daily Telegraph article says "Facebook had declined to take the “Israel is not a country!” group down, saying it did not take action against “legitimate political discourse”, according to the JIDF." That's the source. That's what a neutral press source says they said. Even the JIDF says "Facebook seemed to be treating all of them in general as "legitimate political discourse." The argument of the JIDF seems to be that Facebook was referring to the whole constellation of groups on the subject, not just one or some of them. So I changed "group" to "groups" in the sentence complained about, and put the name of the group in the next sentence since that sentence referred to one group. That should resolve the issue. --John Nagle (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that also brings up the question of whether the numerous complaints we mention were targeted specifically at the IINAC group, or all of these groups in general (I doubt we can know for sure, with our current sources). Ultimately, I have to go with what reliable sources say, and I would consider both the Telegraph and the Post pretty reliable for this purpose. Does Nagle's tweak address this reasonably well? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm taking somewhat of a breather with this article and with Misplaced Pages. This is too frustrating for many reasons. This article (along with many articles on Misplaced Pages) highlights a lot of irrelevant things and doesn't do the subject justice. The entire Facebook intervention section is too long. This article has watered down (not included) important information while simultaneously highlighting unimportant information. One cannot just pull a little detail here and there from various media sources to get an accurate picture of things. It's just a shame how far from the truth Misplaced Pages actually is. I made two minor edits which I feel are important. I am hoping that people don't revert them. First of all, I added what I feel is an important quote from the JIDF regarding their belief that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide."I feel that is important. Secondly, I took out part of the quote from the JIDF about what Facebook DOES go after (porn, etc.) - It veers way of the topic. I feel my edit makes it more concise and are more true to the subject at hand. Again, this is an article about the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just made some more edits which I think make it a lot better. I feel if we are going to spend so much time on Facebook, then that sample image is important since many casual readers might not be on Facebook. Furthermore, was a screenshot of the JIDF website necessary? How many Wiki articles about organizations feature a screenshot of their website? I removed it to make room for the sample, which I think should be fine now that the JIDF released it under the proper license. I really believe my last few edits are important in understanding the JIDF and I'm sincerely hoping that people don't just automatically revert them with either no good reason or just because they feel like it. I didn't take anything out other than what the JIDF claims Facebook does go after. All I have done is try to add more important information so that casual readers can understand more about the JIDF as I feel much of what is happening here is a watering down of sorts as to what they actually do and why they do it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Above, you write "It's just a shame how far from the truth Misplaced Pages actually is". I, in turn, could easily list a hundred truths about this paradoxical surprising world that lie far outside your pale, and that's a shame too. What is needed is an attitude of tolerance and openness, a willing to ACCEPT truths that go against the party line and the conventional wisdom. Truth is LEAST likely to be found in those who approach politics with an indignant censorial attitude.

"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation', which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue." -- Erich Fromm, Man for Himself, 1947, 4

-- NonZionist (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Andre Oboler as "social media expert"

(Aside: User Pldms restored Oboler as "researcher" not "expert," which is consistent w/our previous consensus. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Personally happy either way, the words "social media expert" were a direct quote from a description by the press. The article of consequence is in a footnote some where. I don't think we had a concensus on the third word, though I am glad there is concensus on the "social media" part as while I am also many other things (please don't rise to the bait! ;) ) they are not as relevant in this context. Oboler (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oboler, could you point the way to the references that describe you as being a social media expert? Forgive me if this is a redundant request as I'm a neophyte. aharon42 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching Google for "Oboler" "social media expert". Excerpts:

• "Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org - a website countering on-line hate." Bio from "Oboler.com ", one of Oboler's web sites.
• "Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org - a website countering on-line hate." Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs site
• "Research carried out by Social Media expert Dr. Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor, reveals that it was EI, not CAMERA, that manipulated ..." Zionism on the Web, one of Oboler's web sites.
• "Social media expert Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage fellow at NGO Monitor who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org, acknowledges that CAMERA made novice ..." The Jewish Week.

Hmm. --John Nagle (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "researcher" is both objective and verifiable, whereas "expert" is verifiable but not objective. The term "expert" is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to think that Alan Dershowitz is an expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict whereas Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Jimmy Carter are just a bunch of fools and anti-Semites who pretend to be experts on the subject. Quite obviously, there are people who would disagree and who think the opposite. In the interests of neutrality, I think we should use "researcher" instead of "expert", especially since it is a reasonable, available, and verifiable alternative to "expert". ← Michael Safyan 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the term "expert" is a matter of personal opinion. Think about lawsuits. There are certain "expert" witnesses who give testimony, etc. I personally don't feel that "researcher" is a good term since anyone can be a researcher and it doesn't pay any tribute to Dr. Oboler's expertise. Regarding your comparison of the Chomsky's of the world to the Dershowitz's of the world, it's very much the same in the legal world. One side has set of "experts" representing one side and the other side has the same. While I agree with your opinion of the experts with whom we disagree, we cannot deny that they still have a certain amount of "expertise" on the situation. They are, in fact, scholars or in Carter's case, he has been actively involved in diplomacy. Unfortunately, their credentials make them "experts" even though we disagree with their expert opinions.--Einsteindonut (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the existence of "expert witnesses" has any bearing on the subjectivity/objectivity of the term "expert". Are you suggesting that there is a strict, technical, legal, and -- most importantly -- objective definition of who does and does not qualify as an expert? As for "pay tribute to Dr. Oboler's expertise", this has very little to do with Dr. Oboler. I greatly admire and respect Dr. Oboler. However, my desire to ensure that Misplaced Pages adheres strictly to WP:NPOV trumps my personal feelings regarding Dr. Oboler. Moreover, on several pages in which the subjective wording favored the Palestinian side, I supported a more objective wording, and it would be both inconsistent and hypocritical of me if, when the subjective wording now favored the Israeli side, that I would suddenly tolerate such a violation of WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I made this edit, I'll explain my reasoning here. I came across the reference to Dr Oboler. My field touches upon social media and, since the name was unfamiliar, I thought I'd look him up. My concerns were:

• Only one peer reviewed paper in the right area (and I wasn't sure about that instance either).
• Unable to find talks given at conferences in the field.
• No citations. I didn't find even casual references from other social media people.
• A very narrow focus. No writing about social media which didn't involve Israel / Palestine dispute.

Now 'social media' is pretty vague, and a very immature field of research, but I would have expected more from an expert, and certainly a broader interest. The few explicit descriptions of him as such were short biographical items that might well have come from his web site.

Apologies to Dr Oboler if this feels like I'm denying his expertise. Israel / Palestine and the web is a valuable area of research, and he seems to know his stuff there. But would I seek out his opinion on the spread of rick rolling? Probably not ;-)

I'm not really a wikipedia editor, and am not familiar with this article at all, so take this as the mere opinions of an amateur. shellac (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pldms/Shellac, with all due respect, Dr. Obler has, in fact, given his opinion on this phenomena. You may find it here.

Actually though predictable... that last comment was rather funny. :) As pointed out above, I actually don't mind either way. That said, I am more than happy to answer people's questions about my research. John Nagle has highlighted the RS reference that uses the "Social Media Expert" tag in a suitably independent manner in The Jewish Week. In response to Michael Safyan, using RS references is how we avoid NPOV... so we don't actually have an issue here either way. Pldms, please rest assured that there are other peer reviewed paper currently in review (including one on Misplaced Pages as it happens) another (related to the topic of this article) in fact "in press", i.e. accepted and will be available shortly. As you know, these things take time. A couple of the other piece are clearly published, but as invited contributions rather than peer reviewed contributions. I seperate them on my publications as this is good academic practise, the pieces themselves are however heavily refered to and quite popular. Finally on the question of citations, there is a new report out from the Anti Defemation Commission, please note the two citations in it to my work and the quotations. More on the technology side, please note this news article at O'Reilly. On Conferences, the presentaiton on the internet Panel at the Global Forum has already been discussed and a full list of talks (including a public lecturer at Bar-Ilan University last November) can be found on my website. If anyone speaks Spanish, there is a new source related to the JIDF available here. I obviously have the English, but only the translation is a RS as the English is not yet published. This is I think all unrelated to the article, but it does answer the questions people have raised above. The only other point I'd raise is that the media clearly are relying on me as an expert in this area as evidenced by the various journalists who interview me on the topic. This is a different standard to academia, but just as important for Misplaced Pages which regards both academic publication and media reports as RS. Oboler (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• We could use "Andre Oboler of NGO Monitor" to indicate affiliation. Misplaced Pages already has an article about NGO Monitor, so we have that background already, and that article even lists Oboler. --John Nagle (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish source is not reliable as regards your qualifications which are described differently from the way they are given on your Wiki homepage.

’El doctor Andre Oboler es un experto en Medios de Comunicación Social. Tiene un master en Ciencias de la Computación de la Universidad de Lancaster, Reino Unido, y un Doctorado en Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad Bar-Ilan, en Israel.

’Dr Andre Oboler completed his PhD in computer science at Lancaster University, United Kingdom in 2007. Andre is currently a Post Doctoral Fellow in Political Science’

When I lectured at Oxford before publishing a book which qualified me as an 'expert', I was introduced as a 'researcher', on my own suggestion. There is nothing dishonourable about the term. At least in my area of academic competence, 'expertise' is recognized on the basis of a rather substantial publishing record, preferably including monographs or at least one book-length study that is positively appraised as an original contribution under conditions of peer review.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Researcher is a notable but NPOV term. I can't wait untill I publish this year and present at a conference and then I'll get to be called "Researcher" aharon42 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse John Nagle's suggestion. "Andre Oboler of NGO Monitor" would have provided the context I was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth considering. Though wouldn't that imply Oboler's statement was made in his role as a fellow of the NGO Monitor? And if so, would such an implication be problematic? I'm not familiar enough, offhand, to recognize if that's a potential quagmire or not. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic comment explaining why some people seem determined to erase all useful info. here?

1. - the photo which shows a sampling of the groups the JIDF targets. The JIDF recently re-licensed the image stating: "We, the JIDF, hereby release the following image under the GFDL license" - I believe this should take out all concerns about the photos use.

2. - I feel that it is important to explain the JIDF's thoughts as to why they acted against the group in question, especially since the bit about the "drop down menu" is in here. If that has to be there, then I feel in the spirit of neutrality, so does clarification as to why the JIDF targeted that group. It was not (as some editors have suggested) the extension of some "flame war." According to the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." - and that is why they targeted it. The way we have it now is clearly misleading as we start by discussing some completely unrelated controversy and then mention all these other groups thought the group was "anti-semitic" but we don't fully explain what the JIDF thought and why it acted. I feel w/out stating this, it is very much misleading the casual reader. If we have to include all this "background context" information (which I feel is irrelevant) then we should fully express the real reasons why the JIDF acted IMHO.

I have been trying very hard to not take out the things that other editors feel is important and would appreciate it if others would pay me the same courtesy. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Einsteindonut there is a lot of things you don't understand
i) A self published site even without a known address cannot generate a license, this web site can disappear anytime, and no one knows about the owners!!!
ii) what in "JPost is in-between quotes" and I Think I explained before what is the difference.
« PuTTY 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Putty. I'm not sure if that is correct regarding the license. From my understanding, it should be fine like this. Secondly, I don't think I understand what you are saying w/ regard to the JPost article. I believe it is important to express why the JIDF acted to differentiate from the other context in which the other editors feel is important. In that one paragraph we have all this background information about the flame war (which has nothing to do with the JIDF,) and we have information of how many other organizations thought the group was anti-semitic, but what is lacking is why the JIDF acted. I feel that is extremely important for the casual reader to understand. That is why I added that there. Perhaps others can contribute their thoughts. If we can please discuss it first, I'd appreciate it. I stopped trying to revert everyone else adding information I thought was irrelevant so I'm hoping others can afford me the same courtesy. These are two minor (but important) changes to the article, as I feel JIDF actions might not even be understood by the casual reader unless we provide this useful information.--Einsteindonut (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I left this on Putty's talk page: Putty, I really don't appreciate you reverting that edit without trying to build consensus upon the situation and discussing it. I also feel your comment was anti-semitic (regarding "Jpedia.") Completely uncalled for and I believe you owe me (and all Jews on Misplaced Pages) an apology. My editing had nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish. I am trying to make the article better and to educate readers and you are clearly trying to interfere in my effort to do so, without trying to collaborate or build consensus. Your reversions only inspire edit wars. Many people agreed that the photo was helpful, and now that it has the proper licensing, it should be fine. The other thing I added was important as well. I'm very disappointed that you had to go in and revert this w/out discussing it.--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

what is this cousin!!!! it is very clear that Misplaced Pages is for the whole world, unlike JPost which is for Jews only. i.e. you must wait for the issue to be solved, what make this "anti-semantic", can you explain, or be more reasonable and say anti-Einsteindonut as this was against your wishes.« PuTTY 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JPost, is the largest English newspaper in Israel, it's not only for Jews. The JPedia comment was uncalled for. The image removal seems weak to support.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"JPost, is the largest English" "and respectable" "newspaper in Israel", I agree, all of us know this fact, but not for the entire world like Misplaced Pages, and this what makes JPOST put the words in quotes :-), about the Image after taking in consideration the old discussions about it, at least Einsteindonut must wait for a confirmation about his new ideas, About the photo helpful or not, my comment was we can’t violate the copyright, if you can remember. (+translation)« PuTTY 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, The Jerusalem Post is "not for Jews only." The article is already being referenced many times throughout this article about the JIDF. We've been discussing the issues with the drop down menu and I finally figured a way I could live with that---by further explaining why the JIDF targeted that group. You weren't really part of that ongoing discussion. Again, the image really helps a reader to understand and I do not believe there is a licensing issue. I'd be a little surprised if anyone really had a problem with any of my edits. I thought we were getting places, and now you are reverting my edits again and telling me that this isn't "Jpedia." Perhaps you should read some more about the Jerusalem Post before you start saying that "it is for Jews only." The fact that someone would say that, fling "Jpedia" comments around and be a Misplaced Pages editor is something I find deeply concerning about this whole Misplaced Pages project. Please tell me the specific reasons why you reverted the edits. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the talk page, I did not find a reason, so I removed it, then you revert my edit and added this section after reverting mine not before, so I checked your point of view, I found it unreasonable, so I put my comment then waited for you to revert it back by yourself for more than one hour, finally I reverted it till the issue is resolved. About referancing the JPOST article, the JPOST is a WP:RS but the words you selected from the article was in quotes and this means they are not JPOST words« PuTTY 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was originally deleted because it was not free. Since the source of the image now makes it quite clear that the image is free, the rationale for the image's deletion no longer applies. I think that if anyone believes that there are copyright issues with the image that, rather than relying on a now outdated discussion on the image, that he/she should open a new discussion at WP:NFCC on the image. As for the Jerusalem Post,... it is used as an RS for numerous articles on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be inconsistent for this page to treat JPost any differently than do the other Arab-Israeli conflict articles. ← Michael Safyan 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the image was never deleted (from Misplaced Pages). It was merely removed from this article.

Second, we've already had an outside opinion at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg that there are copyright problems with the logos in the image. I've asked for further clarification, but I don't think the screenshot "owner" can give permission to use the images in the screenshot if the copyright in those images is held by a third party, which is the case in this instance. — ] (] · ]) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The "expert opinion" was that those original arguments to that argument were regarded as "irrelevant" at the time. However, I think it is still up for discussion since the license changed. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had these comments from User:Apoc2400 in mind: Yes, the logos are surely copyrighted. I don't see how the image improves the article anyway. I removed the image because 1) The logos are copyighted as others explained above. 2) This article is about JIDF and the image doesn't show anything about the JIDF.

In any event, I think the matter is still unresolved despite the GFDL license, so I asked for an opinion at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Logo copyrights, a subheader of the previous discussion. — ] (] · ]) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people disagreed with those comments as well and found the photo to be useful. Again, I think it is useful as many people are not on Facebook and don't see how these groups are laid out and with the terrorist logos and everything. If we don't include the sample, perhaps we should provide a list of these examples, so that people understand that they didn't and don't just target one group (as again, that's what this article is obsessing on...) Again, my concern is that this article is having a tendency to mislead casual readers about this organization. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's seems very clear in this edit revolving around this article that some people don't think this article should be here so it seems some are working to ruin any helpful information about the organization whatsoever. It is my hope that this will please stop. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OKay, I was against the first AFD, and my comments almost was about the article contents at the time of this AFD, and a web group is not notable, my POV is that I don’t think that the facebook group "Israel is..." which establish notability to JDIF is even notable (it is a nonsense group). But this does not mean that I’m against the current contents, but I'm aginest ALL facebook groups like this one. By the way, what about the second AFD .)« PuTTY 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think the JIDF is a "web group" or a "Facebook group" perhaps you shouldn't be editing the article. It's very clear through your very first comments that you have issues with this article in general. Anything helpful I have tried to include in this article has been quickly reverted by you without consensus. I'm trying to make people understand more about what the JIDF is. You have had a problem with the JIDF ever since it arrived on Misplaced Pages. The least you can do is either not edit this article, or not revert important edits, or if you are going to work on it, at least try to help improve it rather than quickly reverting anything I am trying to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are losing the way going in subways, anyone can check the article history, sometimes I was returning back you edits, now the discussion is about what you did with the article is it right or wrong, my POV is what you did is something wrong, you believe it is right. what you are trying to convenes me, do I must believe that the JDIF site generates licenses? so let wait for other editors comments, do you want my POV, this article will be nominated for deletion for the third time cause of such behaviors.« PuTTY 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and last time I checked articles cannot be nominated for deletion due to the fact that one editor doesn't like another editor's editing. Your POV is that this article shouldn't exist because you don't like the organization in which it is about. Therefore, it seems you are doing everything in your power to take anything useful in this article out. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop going around facts, and don't talk according to my POV, it is mine and you don't have any right to talk instead of me. Why do I must like or dislike JDIF, it is one of 2,500,000 articles? Also I’m not the one who does not respect the image deletion decision and discussions. What I see like any one, the image is deleted before and you returned according to your POV!« PuTTY 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What facts? The fact that you can't even get J.I.D.F. right and you continue to revert important edits? The fact that you don't approve of this organization and do not want this article to exist? Let's wait for other people to respond and see what they have to say about the new licensing of the photo before you freak out and change important edits. If you look at the discussion you can see most people seemed to think the photo was important, but the license was wrong. However, the license has now changed. Most people would actually agree that this photo is useful information and that the only issue with it was the licensing, which is now resolved. My other edits also help balance out all the irrelevant information which misleads readers as to why the JIDF took over that group. I feel it is very important for the casual reader to understand these things and I have discussed it at great length here.--Einsteindonut (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry as I don’t have enough time to re-invent the weal, the image was deleted before and the discussion was closed, but Einsteindonut Don’t ever think that you can do anything with any Wikipedian article, as you heard before "focus on the contents not on the contributors", you method will not change anything and this is not your article!.« PuTTY 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was not deleted and the discussion was not closed, it was moved

As a neutral editor I can state that it is clear that Putty School does not have a logical refutation of Eisteindounut's position, at least in terms of copyrights issue. I do worry that it might be due to a weakness in forming his comments because of a a language barrier. Eisteindounut makes stakes out clear positions and supports them in a pellucid manner. I am going to go to Puttyschools talk page and offer to help him translate these issues into his native language. But otherwise how can we encourage him (and a little bit Eisteindounut-even if his reverts are a response to Puttyschools intransigence) to desist from edit warring and resolve this here on the discussion page??aharon42 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss how to edit the article. Do not use this page to question the motives or otherwise impugn other editors -- that's a serious violation of our civility standards for cooperative editing. For example, the previous two section headings are unacceptable attacks on a person rather than on article content/edits. Einsteindonut, you really need to go back and change the headings do more neutral wording, about edits and not about any person/user. Also, please desist in arguing ad hominem against your interlocutor. HG | Talk 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, HG. Sorry. I have tried to make things more neutral. It's just frustrating as I have put a lot of thought into these edits and he seems determined to quickly revert anything I try to do. I'm working on my reaction to these things, but I'm also upset that he made a slurt about "JPedia." My motivation is to make this article good, not to hurl ethnic attacks onto others based upon their race, religion, and/or ethnicity. Sorry if my reaction is getting more attention than the original "Jpedia" comment which caused it. I wish I could say that I am surprised that no one has gotten on his case for his comment.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs) are edit warring over inclusion of the questionable screenshot. I thought we'd resolved that issue over in the non-free image discussion. Looking at the JIDF site, their current list of enemies is Hezbollah, MSNBC, Misplaced Pages, Obama, and Stormfront, which is different from the list in the screenshot. Not sure what to make of that. --John Nagle (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, it's actually about a few things. An anti-semitic "Jpedia" comment, and the statement from the JIDF as to why they targeted that group.

Furthermore, the JIDF does not have a "current list of enemies" on their site. I think you must be confusing their newsfeed and/or recent blog posts with what you interpret as a "list of enemies" for some reason. That image is on their site as an example of Facebook groups they target. It is also on their Facebook group page and their Facebook fan page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What usually happens with contentious articles on Misplaced Pages is that the article gets hammered down to bare, verifiable facts from neutral sources, plus carefully cited and attributed quotes from partisan sources. Bear in mind how thin our information about the JIDF really is. We have maybe three mainstream press references where the reporter actually collected information, rather than reprinting something. We've never been able to get solid sources for basic who/what/when/where info about the organization. If they get more press coverage, the article can be improved. Until then, we've sort of exhausted the available reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with the current version of the article, so long as the screen shot turns out to be Kosher (as I feel it will be.) I was able to reconcile my differences with the "drop down menu" problem with one sentence explaining why the JIDF took action. If you read all my thoughts on the matter, I just believed that the article didn't properly explain the JIDF's motive and it was making it appear as if this was an extension of a "flame war" which it was not. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for ] (] • ])
Hi Malik, Comparing your last edit of the article with my last edit, I want to make sure that you agreed upon the following points.
You agreed upon:

1. Keeping an image just deleted few days ago as it was violating copyright.
2. Removing a fact “The organization's web site was created in May 2008”
3. Adding a “liable” sentence "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?"
4. "… hatred, violence, murder and genocide” do you believe these are encyclopedic words and we must include in Misplaced Pages and they appeared "within quotes" in JPOST.

Care to comment on this« PuTTY 13:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to justify not deleting material that was added to the article by other editors, but the information in question is supported by reliable sources. I've written about the image and it is under discussion. — ] (] · ]) 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images

I have listed Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images Its entry is at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images/2008 September 6#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg. The reasons are the same as when I removed the image from the article a while ago:

1. The logos in the image are not free, and JIDF cannot change that. The current GFDL tag is wrong.

2. This article is about JIDF and the image doesn't show anything about the JIDF. This article is not about anti-semitism online in general. Also, it is not our job to convince readers that JIDF's work is righteous or important. Keep that on your own website.

I would also like to say that:

3. The JIDF does not own this article. Misplaced Pages does, so it must have a Neutral point of view. If you are editing this article solely to make it show JIDF in a better (or worse) light, then you are not helping.

4 Don't call other editors anti-semites or anything like that. This should be obvious, but we also have policies about Civility and No personal attacks. Especially, off-wiki Harassment is completely unacceptable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your help, Apoc2400, on pt #1 and I agree on 3, probably 2 and esp 4. HG | Talk 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Apoc, with all due respect, I don't think I've seen you around and I'm confused- are you the decision maker? How is the decision made? With regard to your points, it is also not Misplaced Pages's job to mislead readers. I see no indication that that Misplaced Pages is serving as a platform to convince readers that the JIDF is doing righteous or important work. However, the work they are doing must be accurately portrayed by Misplaced Pages and the proper motivations for their work must be cited properly. With regard to your third point, my own interest in this article is to make it accurate. And finally, anti-semitic comments should NOT be tolerated by Misplaced Pages. No one is calling anyone any names, but when there are anti-semitic (ie. "Jpedia") comments being flown around, then that in and of itself flies in the face of WP rules regarding Civility. I'm not sure what all these points you have made have to do with the photo at hand.--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: An editor has proposed deleting the image from Misplaced Pages. To add your comment, go to Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 6#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg. — ] (] · ]) 02:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I've posted elsewhere, a naturalistic screen shot which might include the Hamas or Hezbollah logos might be illustrative. But this image is not naturalistic; it's constructed by JIDF in the hope that we include it. It is therfore propaganda or advertsing not something informative through being representative.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the current GFDL it is a fake license, and the image will be deleted soon, What gives a self published site the rights to generate licenses, I did not remove it from the article only as Apoc2400 added a link under the image to follow the deletion discussion page.« PuTTY 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Found JIDF officer list on Facebook group

Not sure what to do with this, but we have some names at .

Admins:

• David Appletree (Israel) (creator)
• Malchiel Gruenwald (Israel) (May be pseudonym; famous name, see Malchiel Gruenwald, deceased.)
• Peter
• Ben Hecht (Los Angeles, CA) (May be pseudonym, famous name, see Ben Hecht, deceased.)

There's also a long list of "Officers", which includes Andre Oboler. --John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An "officer" but also an "external advisor" which doesn't sound very compatible. It does neverthe less mean that he needs to be careful of COI issues over here. I wonder whether Peter is "Peter Bergson" a user with that id ws responsible for the following diffs and --Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UThttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&action=edit&section=10C)

PeterBergson (talk · contribs) == Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) Not sure if this will make it more clear but Check the == Relation« PuTTY 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say that. However, according to our article, the historic (now dead) Peter Bergson worked with the historic Ben Hecht which means the use fo the name looks to follow a pattern.-Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than invoke Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, perhaps it would be best to see if HG can sort out the obvious problem here, which is rather delicate. One must, at any rate, commend Dr.Oboler for not using a pseudonym, as evidently appears to be the case with the senior administrators of the JIDF. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was raising COI as something for people to be careful about. I haven't gone to the board. If you look at Talk:David Langford and User Talk:Rplowright you can see that I have history of looking for pragmatic solutions to COI issues.

As a published academic researcher, AO is already "out" under his own name. The core admins may not wish to be so, hence the pseudonyms. BTW, comparing the ;ist of officers with the editors of this page, there is a third name that has caught my eye.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be sensitive to COI but isn't the proper cure to this problem just to insist that everyone make proper edits, provide evidence, and refrain from doing edit wars. Otherwise, it begins to take on a tone (even if it is unintended) of "Let's expose the JEWS". And believe me, sooner or later, that is going to be very newsworthy. It will distract from the goals of WP. So we should be very strict about following WP guidlines, but not so quick to expose and inadvertently censor. Maybe we could even offer to help rephrase an editors position in a kind and supportive way so that it is NPOV. aharon42 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to give one example. Malik SHabazz is very consistent about helping, guiding, insisting on staying on point, and only then does he warn. He is fairly consistent in his logic. Others here would benefit from modeling their editing after him. I say this even though I have disagreed with a couple of his editing decisions ( But agree with the vast majority of them). aharon42 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point to be clarified, (I am not familiar with the whole thread), is whether or not Dr.Oboler stated his conflict of interest as an officer of the JIDF before editing this article on the JIDF, or do we know this only by virtue of John Nagle's link? Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If Dr. Oboler is a JIDF "officer" or at least "External Advisor," then might this alter our usage of him as a reliable source on the JIDF? Well, at this point Dr. Oboler is only quoted regarding the anti-semitism of the targeted Facebook group. But if he is a JIDF officer, then his view isn't much different than simply JIDF's same assertion that the group should be targeted as antisemitic. HG | Talk 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG. So why not just ask him? aharon42 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. I agree that there is an issue if Oboler is an officer in JIDF. But I do not agree that there is a COI issue necesarily if he has acted as an external advisor. WP would be then penalizing him for being an expert in his area and for giving his expert advice to a group, even though we are ok with him giving his advice to us. By the way, would it help if we also had other references that opine in a similar way to Oboler to buttress his comments? aharon42 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to address the source issue (i.e., Oboler as source) separately than the COI issues. Users are not required to declare a COI (re: Nishidani's q above). Moreover, Einsteindonut has been pretty upfront about his point of view. As WP:COI says: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair." Nonetheless, if Oboler and/or Einsteindonut have an interest in this article as JIDF officers (or advisors), then their approach to editing should probably be different. The guidelines states: "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." This means that those w/COI should give us info, on Talk, but let the editing be done by users w/o a COI. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the "officer list" has been deleted, and an official JIDF statement and explanation with regard to this thread is here. Furthermore, my one hour or so usage of the "sock" name "PeterBergson" doesn't mean a thing except for my regard for Peter Bergson. I tend to agree w/ the JIDF about this new direction. Seems highly speculative, based upon original research, outside of the scope of Misplaced Pages rules, etc. I thought we have already established that Facebook groups are not reliable sources. If that is not the case, then we could gather a lot more info. about JIDF activities and start including them into the article. Speaking of JIDF activities, while I do not know Spanish, I think it would be interesting to read the most recent piece about the JIDF as it appears to be about the big Hezbollah group they also targeted on took control of. I feel that it would make sense to get that into the article, if possible, but I am not sure about Wiki's rules with regard to non-english language sources. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the link. I read it, and was bemused to find that consulting the JIDF's Facebook page to ascertain something of it relevant to the description of it on Wiki, is regarded as 'snooping', and 'original research'. This is to put it mildly, placing a weird, rather paranoid, cast on what editors are supposed to do in Wiki. When I read:

It's very disappointing (yet not surprising) that some of them would stoop so low as to potentially threat, harass, and/or possibly try to hack into our computer systems in order to gain information about us.

My reaction is mainly stylistic (a) 'threat' = 'threaten', and(b) 'to stoop so low as to potentially threat(sic), harass, and/or possibly try to hack into our computer system' is a non-sequitur. One cannot be 'disappointed' that people ostensibly stoop so low as to do something that they have never done (potential,possible). One can only imagine, with such slipshod language, that the disappointment lies in not having elicited the kind of 'scandal' about the fringe, little-known, JIDF, that would do its notability profile a world of good as publicity. Threats, harassment and assaults by ostensible antisemitic hackers in Wiki have been vigorously imagined, and, when the crucial test came, nothing of the sort emerged.

As to the privacy, there has been absolutely no invasion. I, and I think the several older hands who have worked here to help an imperilled article (fringe) gain some semblance of stability in Wiki, couldn't personally care a whit who is behind the JIDF. The information on its ideological position is upfront, for all to see, as contained in the pseudonyms David Appletree, Malchiel Gruenwald, Peter Bergson, Ben Hecht, borrowed from figures in the radical Zionist tradition associated with Ze'ev Jabotinsky, its militant underground arm, the Irgun, and the post-war fringe opposition to a secular democratic state. It is deliciously appropriate (though one cannot rule out coincidence) that the real historic David Apfelbaum (Germ.=Appletree), who fell in defence of the Warsaw ghetto, was, apart from his martial prowess as a valiant officer in the Polish army, director of the department of communications of the ŻZW (Jewish Military Union). Much else can be inferred but, as they say in Madrid, a buen entendedor, pocas palabras. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. A word of advice. The link you direct us to, after it insinuates wiki workers are engaged in some dastardly plot, ends with a threat

We intend to to do everything in our power to defend and protect the people and things which are important to us. When we are hit, we hit back harder---with every resource at our disposal. We are fans and supporters of disproportionate response.

That is on record. This is a very large and democratic community and looks on this stuff as both puerile and, if pursued, sanctionable.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't known about Dawid Moryc Apfelbaum. Thanks for the link. Regarding all the proofreading, not sure why that is needed. Perhaps the JIDF should send their stuff to you first for editing. Also, not sure how Misplaced Pages can put sanctions on the JIDF. If you meant that I could be sanctioned, that seems to be the ongoing threat around here with regard to anyone who supports the unpopular POV. If it happens for some reason, it happens. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut you removed my comment from admin noticeboard, two comments from two different places, it is not by mistake, so I suggest to block your account forever« PuTTY 12:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note to Einsteindonut should be moved to his talk page. It is not germane to this page. Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To this page may be, but it is a complement to this section« PuTTY 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This section appreciates it very much. Regarding these allegations, it's all been thoroughly explained on my user page and on the admin board itself. It was all an accident and Putty's comments weren't the only one's which were butchered. I come here to make as many innocent mistakes as possible apparently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, it looks like the JIDF now says "David Appletree" is a pseudonym. At one point, I had put "(pseud?)" after the name, but that was taken out. Should it go back in? Is there a template for "possible pseudonym"? --John Nagle (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No source of course, just the fact that the names used by three administrators are all self-evident pseudonyms. One of them you yourself used. No one cares who he really is, if he is using a pseudonym, as appears probable. But a formal acknowledgement by someone in the know, like yourself or Dr Oboler, would help us register the name correctly. I.e. David Appletree or 'David Appletree'. People intent on getting things correct on the JIDF should not acquiesce knowingly in a possibly misleading impression given by the text they have helped to edit.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishdani, you are correct that Wp editors should refrain from obfuscating any information we are trying to clarify. JIDF howerver is not obligated to tell us their names. If those names are pseudonyms (and they probably are) then we should note that in the article itself. And let's all stay very focused on improving the article, not casting dispersions aspersions (thanks to Nishidani) . I know that sometimes its due to an editors poor grasp of English or informal logical fallacies but I once again extend an offer to help any struggling editor with these problems if they will help me become a better Wikipedian. SO many help pages to read, so many. aharon42 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

.You are saying exactly what I said. I fail to see the point about 'casting dispersions', (casting aspersions). I don't edit any more, but am quite happy to help if people think I can be helpful.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue, but it appears from the sources that he just goes by "David" now, and while the blog posts did used to say "by David Appletree" now they say something like "The JIDF felt Compelled to Share this at..." or something. From one of the sources I think it said says that he wanted his last name withheld. It seems to be more of a collective thing and giving more anonymous credit where it is due by just saying "The JIDF" now. Regarding the use of "pseudonyms" I'm not sure if we can do that or not since Facebook is not a reliable source and we are unsure who is behind those accounts and we cannot necessarily prove that those aren't their names (though they most likely are not all things considered.) It all seems like too much speculation to me and I believe we need to stay with what we know from the RS--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When I lasted looked, the essays were signed by a David Appletree. It still remains true that it makes a small but important difference whether Wiki writes this as a real name or a pseudonym. If no evidence is forthcoming from RS, I venture to say the default writing should be 'David Appletree'. For there is no evidence that David Appletree is a real person, whereas there is indirect evidence that strongly suggests it is a pseudonym. When one is faced with this dilemma, one goes with whatever evidence, indirect or otherwise, there may be, and one does not assume something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have to stick with RS, don't we? I'm not sure we can assume anything based upon "whatever evidence, indirect or otherwise" other than what is on their site and/or from a RS.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that link interesting. However there are a couple of points I wanty to make.

1. The JIDF would be wise to look at National Institute on Drug Abuse#NIDA and Misplaced Pages. Attempts to directly modify your own entry could produce this sort of negative publicitly. On the other hand, an overt precense here on the talk page with or userid of "JIDF" or "David Appletree" or whatever "saying you've got this fact wrong." or "I think you're being unfair to us when you say..." might actually faclitate better communications than the rather arcane communication process currently being used. Obviously, we as Misplaced Pages editors have a right to disagree with your suggestions but it would make everything look cleaner and mroe above board.

1. WP:NORapplies to the content of articles. Finding things out on your subpages and mentioning them here on the talk page are not violations of that rule. Saying here that, given JIDF's overt mission to change what it sees as hostile coverage on the net and that JIDF is watching this page, it is highly likely that JIDF members are active here does not violate WP:NOR. Putting it in the article would violate it. Sayign that users and are clearly JIDF stooges and therefore we shouldn't believe a word they say, in fact we should ban them here and now, might violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but it does not violate WP:NOR.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr Oboler has had the integrity to use his own name. I trust in his demonstrated bona fides to be so kind as to clear up a trivial matter that involves absolutely no invasion of privacy. He should know since he read without objection a JIDF page listing him as an 'officer' and 'external advisor', a position one would not accord without some extensive contacts with the administrators. True today we have been given a denial that he is 'formerly' (correct, (eheu, as often one must JIDF articles in English) to 'formally') associated with the JIDF. I presume this hopelessly messy and self-contradictory retraction is pro forma, for whatever motives. The article simply requires, to meet standards of quality of accurate information, a word that enables us to write either (a) David Appletree or (b) 'David Appletree'. If one wants a proper page on Wiki, one should defer to its insistence on precise information, particularly since the request is absolutely innocuous.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Things generally work out better when those with a COI wear it on their sleeve, as I believe Oboler has. At least one other editor has not, unfortunately. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK Fine, you got me. I admit it. There is a serious COI here. I'm very interested in accuracy and NPOV, ya see. As I've stated, the article looks pretty good as we have it now. However, I have done some completely original Facebook research. It's unreliable, but I think Putty and at least a few other editors (NObodyOfConsquence, NonZionist, etc) might have been members of the "IINAC" group. Then there are those who probably still wish it was around. Of course, I'm only speculating like the rest of you and it's not based upon anything. (Hoping you have a sense of humor and don't throw another rule book at me.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to tell our WP:OR editor, that I never joined any facebook group before, but most of his sock-puppets are members of the facebook group “FUxx Isalam”. What a great researcher, I think 50 like such WP:OR editors each with his own socks can destroy the great WikipediA in few months« PuTTY 12:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said I meant you? Guilty conscience, have we? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Luna. It was obvious to everyone that you were referring to Einsteindonut. ← Michael Safyan 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What was "obvious" about that? Seems to me that you're predisposed toward that conclusion, which I admit I find interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious, because everyone here realizes that only Einsteindonut seems to take personal offense from misstatements -- or perceived misstatements -- about the JIDF on this page. That said, I would avoid accusing Einsteindonut of a conflict of interest and take is word for it that he is just an avid fan of the JIDF. Also, given that he also seemed to take personal offense on the Hebron article for what he perceived to be misstatements there, it may simply be his personality... since he's new here, one never knows. In any event, absent definitive proof the contrary, let's assume that issues of COI have been adequately addressed. If it turns out I'm wrong,... well, we'll deal with it later. ← Michael Safyan 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

EinsteinDonut writes "NonZionist ... might have been member of the "IINAC" group". What leads him to make that false insinuation? Is it my opposition to fascism, racism, war, terror, censorship and ethnic supremacy? Could it be that his wrong assumptions stem from a xenophobic bellicose ideology? Of course that is just speculation. I hope EinsteinDonut finds it humorous. (For the record, I've never been ON Facebook or even NEAR Facebook.) -- NonZionist (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I have been reading some Misplaced Pages rules lately and I feel that this thread might wish to be a bit more careful with regard to WP:BLP as these rules apparently apply to ANY Wikipage? Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A small point, half of the time, wiki rules are flagged around at others merely for their symbolic value as rhetorical gambits. If anything violates or looks like violating a rule, it is more convincing to provide a diff, or cite the phrase, along with the appropriate rule. Otherwise, the reader is tempted to dismiss this as just a bit of monitory waffle devoid of substance .Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To continue the COI discussion: I'll have to disagree with Michael Safyan above. At this juncture, it seems to me that there are enough signs to be concerned about Einsteindonut's interest in JIDF, including the use of the SOCK, for which he's been blocked, his editing pattern, his work in promoting and posting the disputed images, his one-sided argumentation here, and his apparent link to JIDF (as noted via Facebook). Of course, there's no need to "prove" COI because having a COI is not itself prohibited. The problem is how the editor handles their interest. It doesn't need to be big deal and there need not be a bad reflection on the user; for instance, Dr. Oboler seems to be handling it quite well. All that's needed is for Einsteindonut to make editing suggestions through the Talk page and let the editing of the article be guided by consensus. I encourage Michael to continue to serve as Einsteindonut's mentor, if that's still feasible. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. Of previous COIs that have come across, User:DeafMan aka David Langford is an example of someone who handles the COI well, using the talk page to point issues out and to bring attention to when he has changed the article directly; User:Rplowright was problematic being an agent trying to portray a client Rosalind Plowright in a good light and removing critical material devrived from Reliable Sources rather than producing evidence to show that this material was wrong. User:Oboler is closer in conduct to the former example; User:Einsteindonut and socks to the latter. And whether ED is identical with the "Peter" listed as an admin of JIDF or merely a fanatical supporter doesn't matter, he's still clearly conflicted and is letting his support for the organisation get in the way of neutral editing.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second

Why are we "investigating" this group? Misplaced Pages does not do that, external reliable sources do. I think we are wasting time on these people. They continue to throw fits on on their blog about their Misplaced Pages page. --mboverload@ 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the article itself is a waste of our time, but tend to agree that the squabbling of late is pretty pointless. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

a source of troubles to WikipediA ;) « PuTTY 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Undid some deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest Reporting in see also

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

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

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

edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro Zionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability

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

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

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

Jewish fundamentalist

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

Low edit quality - revert?

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• 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