Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:51, 17 August 2008

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

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

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

Template:Icu-triage

Speedy deletion

The article could indeed be classified as "self-advertisement" if it wasn't for the fact several mainstream international news agencies have taken notice of it. Whether or not this group will be making news 20 years from now is irrelevant: it is newsworthy at the present and justifies a Misplaced Pages article on it. As an aside, the article's broken JPost reference URL is now working. Osmos2017 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. The Jewish Internet Defense Force is more than a group, it is an activism website. It is similar to, albeit newer than, HonestReporting, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. It is notable, in that it has made news several times for its activism, in general, and for the stunt in which it took over a Facebook group. Michael Safyan 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like self-advertisement than anything, and does not fit Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. I say delete. MethMan47 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was already proposed that the article be deleted, and the decision was to keep. Please see this diff. ← Michael Safyan 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that articles on less notable topics and with fewer sources have survived deletion attempts. ← Michael Safyan 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I must ask, where is the decision to keep the article? I'm not trying to be smug or anything, I'm just curious where this decision was made. Thanks. MethMan47 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request at the diff cited above by Michael Safyan. That simply means the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. However, there has been no community decision to keep the article, and you are certainly free to take it to WP:AFD for the community to decide.--Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Per this diff and this reversion:

There are a number of issues with these changes, and hence I have reverted them. These issues are as follows:

1. The Arutz 7 source says that at least 28 groups were removed. It may very well be the case that at least 100 groups were removed; however, such a statement must be supported by a source.
2. The sources state that, according to the JIDF, the organization has at least 5,000 members. The sources do not vouch, themselves, for this number -- an important distinction.
3. Misplaced Pages -- most regretably -- has a policy against using the word "terrorism", "terrorist", etc. without attribution (I know, it sucks). Hence, the 9/11 terrorist attacks must simply be referred to as the 9/11 attacks.
4. Replacing "anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" with "pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" is problematic, because:

1. It borders on hyperbole and is unencyclopedic. Just "anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" should be sufficient.
2. It deprives readers of the wikilink to the New antisemitism article.
3. It ungrammatically neglects the final comma which should appear before the "and", since it is a list of at least three items.

For these reasons, I have reverted this edit. ← Michael Safyan 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rescue

The article needs to be completely re-written so as to conform to NPOV. it should not be deleted because its subject matter is notable enough for WIkipedia. — A lizard (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article has been rescued but needs to be fixed still, see below. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this page...

The call for the deletion of this page is anti-semitic, and shows support for terrorist groups calling not only for the destruction of Israel, but the annihilation of the Jewish people.

Let's assume good faith that the nominator actually felt it wasn't encyclopedic enough - we delete articles all the time so let the process run its course and save the politics for other websites besides wikipedia. Banjeboi 11:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; Misplaced Pages's not a battleground and shouldn't be treated as one. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed self-reffing content

I removed the above as it its self-referential to the actual article. This seems circular and POV at best. There are ways of presenting these ideas while still remaining NPOV. I'll help but we have to dial down the heat and what easily can be seen as rhetoric. Also it's better to initially build the article with neutral and reliable sources - specially that it's at AfD. Banjeboi 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. We're not here to regurgitate press releases or blog posts. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of groups removed

The statement "successfully leading to the closure of over 100 of these groups" is cited to two sources: one is Arutz Sheva, which says 28 groups, and the other is the JIDF's own website, which is not a third-party source and therefore can't be relied on. Can anyone suggest another source for the figure? If not it will have to be removed. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the 28+ figure is dated? Best to cite a third party if possible, though, agreed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems perfectly plausible that there are now over a hundred (the cite for 28 is from early April, after all), but without a third-party source saying so we can't make that claim. The question is what to write instead - "28 groups"? "at least 28 groups"? "28 groups (though the JIDF claims over 100)"? "many groups"? 'many' is certainly weasel-wordy and the third is a bit unwieldy (and also suggests their claim is probably false, which we have no evidence of). Anyone got an opinion? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... hm. "In April 2008, Arutz 7 reported that the JIDF's reports had led to the closure of over 28 groups on Facebook; the JIDF itself claims the number has since increased to over 100." maybe? Or is that too wordy? I'd still prefer a more recent third-party source, obviously, but something akin to your "28 groups (though the JIDF claims over 100)" option may work until then. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed, a running count is nice, yet for the sake of brevity an order of magnitude number would seem just fine.Saxophonemn (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What this article will do?

This article will open the door for similar articles related to this area of conflict, following the wiki rules is not difficult, publishing in biased news papers is more than easy, collecting single sided references supporting the case will be a fun and finally most users do not want to hear about conflicts in the world.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• As the JIDF conducts activities that are noted on web sites other than its own, it satisfies the notability guidelines. However, the text in it needs to be written according to the and standards in order for it to be an acceptable article. Other articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict written according to the same guidelines and that satisfy notability standards to the same extent are more than welcome here. As to whether or not such articles would desensitize people to conflicts in the world as you suggest, that is not Misplaced Pages's concern: it is meant to be a source of information and it is founded on the principle that there is no such thing as an article on a notable topic that can be harmful to the public. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Presumably you mean "no such thing as a well-written article that..." or "...that can be harmful to the public solely by virtue of its topic" or something similar. Other than that slight but important ommission I agree entirely. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yup. — A lizard (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Intensive Care Unit

While this article has survived the AfD process, it is still not a satisfactory Misplaced Pages article. There are several problems with it that need to be fixed:

1. Readme first before editing--Puttyschool (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Updating the References so that they actually point to articles about the JIDF and not just the various news outlets that ahve allegedly reported on the JIDF at one time or another.
3. Adding more references
4. Organizing the text into a wikified format, including the addition of headings
5. Adding links to other Misplaced Pages articles that are relevant to the subject matter
6. Re-writing the text so that it doesn't resemble the text on the JIDF's web site
7. Continued editing in perpetuity, to update the article about the group's activities so as to attest to the article's continued relevance.
8. Don’t reference GIDF & facebook sites, both are changing rapidly--Puttyschool (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this article survived with only a "weak keep," it is imperative that the article be improved. Failure to do so will likely lend credence to future AfD actions upon it. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated some references so they go to articles, added more references on the antisemitic nature of the group, and removed the JCPA reference which I think was inserted in reference to past work on this topic published by the JCPA (now linked to the article). Please note that the references I added were written by myself or include quotes from me... I'm just declaring that. They are published and notable sources. Oboler (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to give it a nice look, but honestly I don’t know where is the encyclopedic material in this article? I addition still the language of the article looks like something promoting denotations but with less hate than before!--Puttyschool (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannot believe how much time Wikipedians have put into this just to make it worse and worse. Please re-mark it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifixer911 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An article on a notable topic (which this is) should not be deleted solely on the basis of being badly-written. If the article is getting worse and worse, then what it needs is better editing, not deletion. — A lizard (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added {{coi}} to the article;still I can’t make it a neutral point of view.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I cleaned up some of the language in here to make it more neutral and to use fewer loaded terms. I don't have time to check the references and to parley them into an expansion of this article. THe big problem that I see is that it focuses too much on what the JIDF did to one single Facebook group. If the group has shut down other forms of content on other sites successfully, then reports on these in a factual, neutral, and well-written way, need to be added to it.

Right now I don't see Oboler's conflict of interest here; if someone else cited the same thing, then it wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) raise any alarm bells here. But again, I don't have the time to back-check all the references right now. — A lizard (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Things look more or less okay to me, at the moment. Are there any serious problems, currently? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article still needs work. So far, the only JIDF activities cited with references are on FaceBook but the introduction mentions activities on Misplaced Pages, YouTube, and other web sites. This must be rectified. This needs to be fixed by adding references from reliable third party sources (i.e., other than the JIDF web site) to such activities; the activities need to be detailed for at least a paragraph (2 or 3 sentences will do) each.

Also, the "See Also" part of the article needs to have irrelevant links removed. It has a few. — A lizard (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of "walking the walk" on this WICU thing, I added a background section, expanded the "activities" section (a section that I created by adding a header and… not much else), and an image. But we 'still' need to add more referenced activities of the group to make this more than a stub. The JIDF seems to point to their own accomplishments on their site so it can't be too hard to find some. Come on people, dispense with the name-calling and the vandalism and try to improve this article. Maybe we can make it an example of how to fix an article after it survives an AfD. — A lizard (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Completed the WICU entry for this article. — A lizard (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Help in stoping vandalism

Dear All

• Please help in stopping vandalism issues.
  

There is guide for writing, I can’t use words as "terrorist" "hate" “violence” “murder” “genocide “… only as they are stated on self published reference.

• Another important point, such words which are added by user user:J Hoffer (Special:Contributions/J Hoffer) in the comments field "puttyschool has a conflict of interest, as he is from Egypt--a place inundated with anti-Israel and antisemitic, pro-Jihadist propaganda (see JIDF site, siting MEMRI/EGYPT))" are not only vandalism issues, such words are against the policies of Israel and Egypt, and if listed by JIDF site as he said, I think this gives Egypt the right to close this organization.--Puttyschool (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the above comment, I think this one is more accurate "I think this can give Egypt the rights to request validation of this data or other appropriate actions."--Puttyschool (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please also check this words "maybe in Egypt you can't. You are only telling 1/2 the story. Get it right!"--Puttyschool (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In Egypt the government can stop only un-verifiable words, This does not mean “Anti Freedoms”--Puttyschool (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The group claims to combat pro-terrorist messages; I can't speak for or against that claim, but we may as well include it in the article, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I insert this word "terrorism trends", it is sufficient, also used before by one of the references--Puttyschool (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I might be lost as I don't see where this is relevant to the article... but there is significant press coverage about Egypt arresting people for being members of certain anti-government Facebook groups. I can go find the references if people want... but they certainly exist and the NGOs have also commented on it a number of times. Again though... why is this relevant to THIS article? 77.127.186.142 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Rolling back J Hoffer words “violence” and “terrorism”

Sorry J Hoffer whoever you are, we don’t appreciate this, The references that we can consider reliable for this articles are “Arutz Sheva”, “The Daily Telegraph”, “The Jerusalem Post” and “Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs”, You are trying to use words that every editor takes care of them, “violence” and “terrorism” as you can see the four references take care of using them, the JIDF site is considered as a self published site and we are not repeating sites in WikipediA, so if you want to use this words you must provide a reliable source, we will not be the first source, I left “terrorist” not because not a part of the lead, but as it is included in a group name, so it can pass.
As JIDF takes care about anti-Semitic material. we must take care about our materials.--Puttyschool (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism should stand on the grounds that some of the groups mentioned had support for known terrorists. It seems rather interesting to have to cite facebook groups themselves is this even possible as this would provide the evidence. --Saxophonemn (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The word “terrorism” has a lot of constrains to use it, I suggested “terrorism trends”, it was listed in one of the references and can be a “go around solution”.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well specifically the groups fall in the following categories: support/glorify for someone who went out to specifically kill Jews (real succinct, no obfuscation), groups that deny aspects of the Holocaust, those who call for the destruction of Israel, those who support movements who call for the destruction of Israel, and groups that are related to White Power Movements, and groups which make blood libel like claims about Jews. They are loaded terms for sure, but the people in the groups are on the fringe. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Still I can’t map your heavy loaded terms to what is currently happening, I was searching the JIDF site, The first title in the home page, is “A Terrorist Group Planning and Calling for the Bombing of Egyptian Border (on Facebook...)
The translated group name by JIDF is "Arab and Muslim crowd to blow up the Rafah crossing"
Check it you will find Egyptians closed it at creation
This is the translation of the first two discussions made by Egyptians,

1. “We will inform the Egyptian public authorities about anyone who join this group.”
2. “Shit you dogs, with your terror.”

here is the summary of the group posts "The group has 76 posts, 71 posts from the Egyptians "posting a lot of dirty words against this group and Mobilizing peoples not to join it, the first 4 posts seems from the guys who created this group then disappeared, 1 seams from JIDF members (number 25 from top by Kay) notifying facebook administrators to close it." Hear is the group link, a lot of peoples watching this page can read Arabic

This is what currently happening, How can I relate it to your heavy loaded words, I don’t think this even give notability to the JIDF, we can summarize this as “someone created this group, and Egyptians closed it before JIDF hears about it”--Puttyschool (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Misplaced Pages's golden standard is actually not truth, but verifiability (WP:V). We shouldn't get too closely involved in deciding what the JIDF does or doesn't do, but rather we should look to see what reliable sources have to say about the matter. The current lead appears to be sourced adequately. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I’m not against notability or current contents, but I’m against the use of heavy loaded word, which all studied concluded that they promote violence, every day someone tries to insert un-sourced materials, believing if he glanced it on a site changing everyday, then it must be in Misplaced Pages as well.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"against the use of heavy loaded word"...."all studied concluded that they promote violence..." I'm against poor grammar and nonsensical thinking but you don't see ME kvetching about it (oh wait...n/m) --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back to user Saxophonemn edit (20:07, 15 August 2008).

for user:CJCurrie

For these reasons I rolled it back
For both of you, Best Regards--Puttyschool (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC) I don’t know too much about facebook!can anyone explain?--Puttyschool (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What the ... ? CJCurrie (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Oboler: If Misplaced Pages's article on the Jewish Internet Defense Force is to include the JIDF's assertions about the "delist Israel" Facebook group, then we should also be willing to indicate the "delist Israel" group's response. We're not using them as a "reliable source" for anything aside from their own position on the matter, which is permitted.

I'm still confused about the previous exchange, btw. CJCurrie (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Einsteindonut: You've written "M. Nassar" is your source. She is no longer admin of the group in question. What on earth are you talking about? My source is an official statement form the "delist Israel" Facebook group, as it existed two days ago.

Please note that I don't endorse either the "delist Israel" or "delist Palestine" groups on Facebook, but I'm more than a bit troubled by the apparent efforts of some editors to make this page as one-sided as possible. CJCurrie (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have done your part for the past 4 years to add your own biased personal point of view on a number of articles which are similar in nature, as the JIDF has proven . Adding an out-dated source by someone who has promoted Hamas on Facebook ] is hardly making this neutral, but rather, giving a platform for hatred (the very thing the JIDF fights against.) Learn the difference between making this one sided and providing a platform for hatred, as you are trying to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to CJCurrie You've written: "My source is an official statement form the "delist Israel" Facebook group, as it existed two days ago." - Did you bother reading the statement? It is clearly written by M. Nassar: (ie. "Anyways I'm the only Madeline Nassar.") It is in the statement itself. She wrote it and was recently disabled on Facebook. You are missing the point entirely about what was happening in the group. After Facebook took the group back from the JIDF and left it up for grabs, Nassar got it and tried to "water down" the group, by closing it and changing the group description, etc. By adding their "response" you are failing to understand what existed in the group prior to the JIDF takeover. When so many sources explain that this group was, in fact, antisemitic, you are remiss in your duty as a neutral Misplaced Pages editor to continue to take that out. Furthermore, you do not appear to be a neutral source on these matters as you went to great lengths to remove Dr. Oboler's contributions to Misplaced Pages after he exposed Electronic Intifada's influence upon it. It seems you have taken sides here as the JIDF has proven that you go to great lengths to defend people like Norman Finklestein on Misplaced Pages and you have an issue with labeling terrorism, "terrorism," etc. Therefore, through your veiled attempt to try to remain "neutral" you are actually projecting your own point of view onto a number of Misplaced Pages articles (not just this one.) Furthermore, the "response" to the JIDF taking over that group should hardly be limited to a link to the group in question. In fact, there has been quite a response including: The JIDF are nothing but Jewish Troublemakers, All Against Zionist JIDF Organization!!!, FUCK FOR THIS SITE: (( the jewish internet defense force )), The International Commission for the Liberation of Palestine-67 borders. -Each were created as a "response" to the JIDF taking down the group in question.There has also been quite a "response" from various "white pride" forums, and Islamic forums, which would be more of an accurate reflection of the actual "response." Again, going to the group in question for an accurate response is not neutral, since it was given to someone who obtained more moderate views (after the fears of being linked with Hamas set in.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds

Thank you for your detailed response, Einsteindonut. Let's see if I can respond in a point-by-point fashion:

(i) It's true that I've been on Misplaced Pages for four years, although you might be interested to know that I only started to edit Israel-Palestine articles on a regular basis in 2006. Since then, I've sometimes been described as being part of a "pro-Palestinian" or "anti-Israel" group on Misplaced Pages. This is not accurate. It would be more correct to say that I've opposed the actions of some editors who have attempted to skew articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict in an openly pro-Israel direction. I do not apologize for doing this, although I must admit that it's become rather tedious by this point.

More than once, I've wondered if some pro-Israel editors were operating in a coordinated fashion. It would seem that this concern was not entirely misplaced.

(ii) Turning to the specific matter at hand ...

a) Yesterday, I cited a public statement from the "delist Israel" Facebook group. My intent was neither to condemn nor endorse the Facebook group in question, but to provide readers with that group's response to the JIDF's actions and accusations. How this constitutes "providing a platform for hatred" is a mystery to me.

I have never heard of Madeline Nassar before, and I have no way of confirming your assertion that she has "supported Hamas" or deliberately "watered down" the site. If you're going to make these claims, some evidence might be useful.

For the record, I do not support the delisting of either Israel or Palestine from Facebook, but I think it should be intuitively obvious that one such group was created as a reductio ad absurdum response to the other. Also, I chose to include a response from the modified "delist Israel" group, rather than the extremist sites you've listed, for the simple and obvious reason that the former group was a successor to a Facebook group targeted by the JIDF, and the latter were not.

b) You write: When so many sources explain that this group was, in fact, antisemitic, you are remiss in your duty as a neutral Misplaced Pages editor to continue to take that out.

My response: This isn't exactly correct. This encyclopedia entry is not an article about the "delist Israel" group -- it's an article about the JIDF. As such, it's not immediately evident how the remarks of various other groups concerning "delist Israel" would be relevant here. (However, if specific newspaper articles mentioned these remarks in the context of the JIDF's campaign, then the material may be relevant.)

(iii) I'm quite familiar with Dr. Oboler's report on the Electronic Intifada, wherein he documented a pro-Palestinian conspiracy so insidious that no-one has yet uncovered evidence it had any influence on anything. I'm also familiar with the fact that a number of people included some highly questionable citations to his "Zionism on the Web" site on a variety of WP articles. For the record, I did not remove all of Andre Oboler's contributions to Misplaced Pages; I removed a series of inappropriate links, and I don't apologize for doing so.

(iv) The fact that the JIDF has a file on me comes as little surprise, and the fact that they regard this edit as inappropriate strikes me as sufficient grounds to ignore their concerns.

(v) Now, to a more general comment ...

In general, this is the sort of thing that Misplaced Pages should be moving beyond. To be perfectly frank, I'm becoming tired of fighting the same unrewarding battles over and over again. I'm also tired of having my own views caricatured by people who are all too quick to rush to the worst possible assumptions. (For the record, I don't support Hamas. I never have.)

Misplaced Pages does not need more self-styled defenders of Israel, Palestine, Zionism, political Islam, or any other cause that one could care to name. Misplaced Pages needs people who are interested in writing credible encyclopedia articles about difficult subjects, and who are willing to accurately convey multiple perspectives on contentious issues. I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that there does seem to be a willingness on the part of many WP editors to address these issues in a serious manner, and to move away from the propagandizing that has too often tainted this project.

Btw, since my personal views seem to be at issue, let me state the following: (i) I believe that Jews, Arabs, and all other residents of Israel and Palestine should be able to lead peaceful lives in economically viable communities, (ii) I support secularism and oppose religious nationalism, and (iii) I believe that any constitutional settlement for the area must have the support of both the Israeli and Palestinian people. You may also wish to know that most of my personal contacts on this issue are with figures on the Jewish left (some Zionist, others not), and that I don't consider myself to be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. I welcome dialogue with all people who are serious about discussing these issues, regardless of their ideological background.

I hope I'm not simply writing into a vacuum. CJCurrie (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, as documents in the ArbCom evidence , you removed ALL references to Zionism On The Web, not just "some" as you maintain. Many were made by well respected administrators, and some edits that you deleted as "spam" were in the original edits on those pages, suggesting the pages were BASED on research at Zionism On The Web. What you did is far more serious than you try and make out. Specially as there was discussion about it on the Admin's Notice Board where there was objection to your proposal to get support for wiping all references. You tried to lable it an unreliable source, and that didn't fly so you acted unilaterally. Even your edit that did include me here (and your talk page comment above) attempts to water down the research which was published as a full length academic paper - it is not just commentry. It was also peer reviewed by some of the top people in both the antisemitism field and the computer science field, and (though I can't give you evidence for this) presented to the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism - the top conference on the topic. After all this you then go and try use a Facebook message as reliable research? More on that below. As a final comment... the evidence (from many sources) that the group the Jewish Internet Defense Force removed was considered antisemitic by third party experts is CRITICAL to understanding the nature of the group, and hence is a vital part of this article. Although they were reverted, I don't see how you could have suggested removing such content in the first place. It shows an attempt to push a POV onto this article by removing external evidence and replacing it with (weak) original research based on an unreliable and rapidly changing (with no archives) source. Oboler (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(i) The "ArbCom evidence" that User:Oboler refers to was submitted by User:Oboler, and was ignored by the arbitrators, (ii) the objections on the Admin's Notice Board that User:Oboler refers to were made by User:Oboler, with what can only be described as uncharacteristically tepid support from User:Jayjg, (iii) I'm aware that you appeared on a panel discussion at the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism as a representative of the group NGO Monitor, but I'm not convinced this makes you a reliable expert on the subject and, anyway, I removed the link because it was of dubious relevance to this particular article, (iv) I agree that the remarks of other groups toward "delist Israel" are relevant to this article -- if and only if they were referenced by reliable sources in relation to the JIDF, (v) see here for the broader perspective on ZotW, (vi) we've been through most this before and there's not really anything new here. CJCurrie (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Facebook groups NOT a reliable source

This is a general comment that may be of interest else where later. Facebook groups IMHO are NOT a reliable resource, even when reporting about themselves. If a Facebook group is quoted in a RS that is ofcource acceptable. I believe this is the case because: 1) Facebook groups CHANGE rapidly and unlike Misplaced Pages, there is no history function 2) A Facebook group is NOT an organisation, it is a random here today, gone tomorrow, set up by anyone, potentially admined by anyone... collection of personal comments. 3) As the hosting etc is done by Facebook, and anyone can add content, this is less reliable than a personal website. 4) It is closest to a blog... but with the exception that ownership can rapidly change, so owning the group doesn't mean much or give someone the right to speak on behalf of the group (unless the group belongs to an established organisation perhaps and the admin is a recognised spokesperson otuside of Misplaced Pages).

In this case the statement on the group could be considered on the same level as some random posting in a forum. If this is what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source... things are going down hill fast. IF the comments are republished in a reliable source, then by all means someone should include them. Otherwise they are simply a primary source someone might comment on in a reliable sources, mean time citing this person who happens to have taken control when JIDF lost it, is giving the comment undue weight. Specially when the comment itself (from a non expert unreliable source) claims the group is not antisemitic against numerous third party reliable source accounts saying it is. In this particularly case this looks like an attempt to move from fact based on RS to a POV with little support.

This example may be useful in other cases where Facebook comes up. Oboler (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right about one thing -- I should have linked the page to a google cache rather than the more protean actual Facebook site. Otherwise, I would beg to differ with your logic. It's acceptable practice to use blogs and related items as sources, if our purpose is to convey the publicly-stated views of their author/s, which is what was done here.

At present, this article features several condemnations of the "delist Israel" group, no response from the group itself, and no indication that it was a response to "delist Palestine". Do you think this is balanced? CJCurrie (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There were over 48,000 members in the group, the majority of whom, were deleted by the JIDF. The new message from Madeline Nassar or any of the few admins is hardly representative of all the people who were in the group. If providing Facebook groups is a valid source for an official "response" (which it is not) then clearly the new groups which cropped up against "the incident" would be a clearer indication of the actual response. Besides, this is supposed to be an article about the JIDF, not about the group they took out and not the questionable nature of why that group was formed. Facebook group descriptions change constantly and that statement was never in there until after the JIDF takeover and the people who wrote that statement are not even the original creators of the group itself. Clearly, this should not count as a good source for Misplaced Pages.--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

neutrality disputed - does anyone agree with CJCurrie?

Just wondering what concensus is. Having been asked to comment by a number of editors who seem to be working in good faith... I was under the impression we were making good progress with his article and disputes were being sensibly resolved between editors. If that is the case, this including of "neutrality disputed" simply means CJCurrie feels it doesn't present his POV and he is annoyed that a number of other editors have reverted or reincluded things he wanted deleted, and prevent him including original research. That's not grounds for a "neutrality disputed" flag. Neither is not liking the facts. In such a short article this flag seems a little silly IMHO.

What do others think? And if you do have a neutrality concern, what is it? Oboler (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would very much welcome interventions from neutral and uninvolved parties, and I'm prepared to have my actions and statements held up to scrutiny. My neutrality concern has to do with the fact that (i) several aspects of the article seem to be a less-than-subtle defence of the JIDF's work, and (ii) there is no response from the group they've most prominently targeted. CJCurrie (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "neutral" or "uninvolved" party since everyone has an opinion on the conflict in the Middle East. Again, there is no valid way to get a "response" from the group they targeted as it is not an official organization, nor does it have any true representatives. One cannot even send a message to the current admins, who again, are merely admins and certainly are not representative of all the current (and former) members of the group in question. After having carefully studied many of CJCurrie's edits and actions (thanks to the JIDF actually,) I do not question the neutrality of this article at all, but rather, question the neutrality of CJCurrie as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess in the Aryan Nation page we need to have a defense as to how they are the master race. You sound extremely ridiculous, as the page is quite moderate and you wish to debase it. The chronology of which delist group came first is irrelevant. Delisting a real country is anti-Semitism as opposed to delisting a pseudo land. CJCurrie should stick to writing about Canadian politics and get out of Israel related pages. Your responses and admissions demonstrate a far left wing bias in the area.Saxophonemn (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference jidf_responsetowikipedia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• 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