Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:23, 1 September 2010 editConcernedAboutContent (talk | contribs)8 edits →Edit warring/BLP/POV Pushing and Vandalism Concerns: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:24, 1 September 2010 edit undoConcernedAboutContent (talk | contribs)8 edits →Edit warring/BLP/POV Pushing and Vandalism ConcernsNext edit →
Line 127: Line 127:


* At least 13 reliable sources and a lot of cited information from them has been removed in a very short period of time * At least 13 reliable sources and a lot of cited information from them has been removed in a very short period of time
* A Palestinian narrative has been included from an article from 2007, which has very little to do, if anything, with the organization in which the organization is about. (Also, the our organization didn't go public with its name and activities until 2008) * A Palestinian narrative has been included from an article from 2007, which has very little to do, if anything, with the organization in which the organization is about. (Also, the organization didn't go public with its name and activities until 2008)
* Information from the organization's website has been selectively chosen for the article, despite the fact that it is not from reliable sources. * Information from the organization's website has been selectively chosen for the article, despite the fact that it is not from reliable sources.
* Other seemingly more relevant information been excluded * Other seemingly more relevant information been excluded

Revision as of 22:24, 1 September 2010

Skip to table of contents
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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jewish Internet Defense Force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis 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:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups
WikiProject iconThis 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:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

* Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Template:Multidel

Possible sources

moved to Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Possible Sources

click here to add it to your watchlist

NOTE just nominated the above sub-page at mfd. Misarxist (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Change

I have changed "racial hatred" in the lede to "antisemitism" as that seems more in line with this group's stance and activities. Kindzmarauli (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This reads like an advertisement

Almost a hagiography. Cherchez la Femme (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is almost no mention of their criticism, their open war against islam as a whole, how they were banned from operating on numerous sites, and ample negative reactions it has received to date. --386-DX (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find much argument from the genuine Wikipedians who hand around here. If you look at the history of the article and talk pages and various excursion to the drama boards and user talk pages, you'll see that every now and then "David Appletree" looks at the article, finds something that implies he might not be the Messiah and then gets his puppets to edit war things back to how he likes. It remains unclear whether all the puppets agreeing with each other are "Appletree" himself or whether they include some acolytes who like to gather at the feet of the master waiting to be told what their next holy mission will be.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not appreciate these comments and attacks. --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this sounds like an advertisement. Peter Cohen has had a long history of attacking the JIDF. 386DX is bringing up his own original research, none of which is documented by reliable sources. Removing the template until people without such clear hostility against the organization opine. --174.140.161.31 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You're clearly a sockpuppect of banned user:Einsteindonut aka David "Appletree". You are acting against the consensus of legitimate Misplaced Pages users and have a conflict of interest. Clear off. Or are you going to post to one of your pathetic action lists again and have your minions come and salve your hurt ego by edit warring again?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You're clearly edit warring and breaking AGF, BLP, and original research rules. Enough with your personal anti-Zionist/anti-JIDF agenda, already. For all we know, Cherchez, and 386DX are your puppets. I do not feel that this article reads like an advertisement. Therefore, there is no "consensus." --213.229.87.47 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not my puppets. If you want to raise an SPI against me then go ahead. But then it will emerge that these IP edits to undermine the consensus all are masterminded by David "Appletree" from his basement in Texas.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in a basement, nor in Texas. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about where I live, or the conditions therein, or how that helps this project, but I'd appreciate it if you would stop. --DavidAppletree (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
After several years, no one other than "David Appletree" (pseud.) has surfaced as associated with the JIDF. They've mostly dropped out of the news. Does anybody care at this point? --John Nagle (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There's plenty beyond me who are associated with the JIDF and there's been some recent news about us, actually. I can help provide it to you, if you would like. Thanks! --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it still matters people who are trying to litter/vandalize this article with irrelevant templates. I do not feel that this reads like an advertisement. It simply explains what the organization is about and everything in it is from reliable sources. There's even a criticism section. What type of advertisements contain criticism of their product? This is just an attempt by the same anti-JIDF people to damage this article. If you feel it reads like an advertisement, at least specify what it is, exactly, you are talking about. There nothing to back up the false claims that this reads like an advertisement. It's an article about an organization and all the information in the article is taken from reliable sources. Nagle and Cohen's remarks are unhelpful. As it says at the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Jewish Internet Defense Force." Why you two continue to insist on being so negative about this organization does not make much sense to me, especially as it shows you have an agenda with this article. If you don't like the work of the JIDF, that's fine, but Misplaced Pages should be about objectivity and not trying to put your own personal POV into the project. --Mreditguy (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making accusations of vandalism against other editors. I agree that the page does not read like an advertisement, but adding a cleanup template due to perceived issues is not vandalism. The page might be slightly pro-JIDF (perhaps too many quoted statements) though. Please do not edit war over the template. I suggest using an {{NPOV}} until this is resolved. --Yair rand (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As an outsider observer, new to Misplaced Pages, I agree that this page does not read like an advertisement. --Miamiville (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No. You also made it obvious you are a sock puppet. Hinata talk 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues to resolve

  • First, there's this cumbersome statement: "the JIDF and Avi Dichter successfully reduced Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's social media presence as they successfully led a campaign for its removal." Aside from the wording, the reference link is broken. The correct link is: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=206
  • The second reference there is a link to the jidf website itself. It is apparently meant to support the claimed size of the hizbollah group, but the jidf is not a reliabe source on this. At any rate, the information is reproduced in the jpost article, so that reference should be removed.
  • ""R.I.P. ALA'A ABU DHAIM," founded in honor of the Mercaz Harav terrorist" - No. Just, No.
  • Section headings: "Countering Islamic Militants on Facebook", etc: clearly POV and promotional. Need to change.
Comment Can you explain to me how that is clearly POV and promotional? Seems clear cut to me. --DavidAppletree (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Countering Holocaust denial on Facebook" - referencing in this section is incredibly unwieldy. Needs to be cleaned up. Also, the section consists almost entirely of statements by the jidf. These need to be drastically scaled back, with the vast majority of the section being neutral description supported by reliable secondary sources.
  • "Action Against "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" Group on Facebook" This section is entirely POV. If it can't be rewritten, it should be removed. For example, saying that content found in the group was considered antisemitic by organizations that tend to consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic without offering a counterpoint gives the impression that there was a widespread belief that the group was antisemitic. That may or may not be true, but it's unsupported by the current sources.
Comment Considering this was one of the first things to give us any exposure, I'm not sure it should be removed. I also disagree with you that the other organizations cited "consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic." Actually, many of the organizations listed, including my own, are critical of Israel themselves (and are not antisemitic). --DavidAppletree (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Criticism" section should probably be removed, and criticisms integrated into the relevant sections themselves. Just as it is inappropriate to have a "Praise" section, it is also inappropriate to have a criticism section if that information can be included in a neutral and objective manner. Rather than have the sections be glowing praise of their actions and then a criticism section at the end, it is far preferable to have each of the sections be neutral and balanced. Also, with the exception of Haaretz, almost all of the sources are cut from the same ideological cloth as the jidf. It is important to find more neutral, less biased sources if we are to rescue this article.

That's what I have so far. Feel free to make any additions or comments you feel are necessary. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't agree with the last point, about the 'Criticism' section - how do you propose to 'integrate these criticisms into the relevant sections'? They're not criticisms of individual campaigns by the JIDF (which are what the sections are about), they're criticisms of the overall organisation. It's not inherently POV to have a 'Criticism' section; on articles like this one, it's a good approach. It's neither required nor feasible to introduce artificial 'balance' into each individual section (and I think this article is actually pretty well-balanced at the moment, in any case). As for 'almost all of the sources are cut from the same ideological cloth as the jidf' - would you care to elaborate further? What specific sources would you propose to add? Robofish (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of the subject, most of the sources that talk about it will tend to have one ideological bent or another. It's nice to have the bbc there, but we can't count on neutral, disinterested coverage. It rests upon us therefore to find sources from both sides of the issue and try to hack out a fairly neutral article that is neither effusive in its praise nor damning in its criticism. We need to scrub the article of as many "judgement words" (some of which I've made note of above) as possible, and rely mainly on neutral, descriptive ones. Even sentences that are prima facie neutral can, when taken together, paint a non-neutral picture. As for the criticism section, it doesn't work as the article stands, because it comes across as an afterthought. The addition of a criticism section does not negate the pro-jidf slant in the rest of the article. If we can make the rest of the article neutral, then I'd be much happier having a neutral section simply describing how the jidf has been received and described by others. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is non-neutral, and needs considerable work. It is a quote farm - and, as stated in that link, quotations should not be used when they presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject . As an example, the entire "Elsewhere on the Web" section is a quotation. Chzz  ►  11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Multiple sources say that one "David Appletree" is the founder of this group, though as this article says he "will not say if that is his true surname." An edit with this information, pointing out that the identify of the person who runs the website is unclear should be made. I propose an edit in the second section after the lede say "A number of publications focusing on Jewish issues say "David Appletree" founded the group and website, though it's unclear if that is his real name.

"Appletree" also has some rather extreme views (if there are other "members" they may do as well, though it's not clear if there are any other formal members). This release on the organization's website from August 14 makes this clear. Quoting: "As we have mentioned, we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol), Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did. Before you claim that we are bigots who are against all Musilms, please note, we are talking about the ideology, not those who may or may not representative of it. The ideology itself is clearly one of hatred and violence, which is declaring war against the entire non-Islamic world. If you take the time to study Islam, you will see that it is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was."

I propose the following edit, perhaps in a section titled "Views on Islam," cited to the press release.

  • "The website, responding to the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy in New York, said in August 2010 that the organization is "against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol) Mohammed." The group said the "ideology" of Islam is "clearly one of hatred and violence" and argues that the faith "is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was." REF .

support as proposer.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali, I find the view as disgusting as you as the press release is a primary source, we should rely on Secondary source to say whether it is important. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the lede current says the following, cited to the JIDF website: The group uses "direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online." The few reliable sources available simply mirror what the group "says" it does. Now, we also have very clear hate speech contradicting their position, from the same source currently being used. The problem here is that we have an online self promoter who hasn't accomplished much except getting written up a few times (the facebook group he targeted is still in business, for instance) and there have been almost no truly independent assessments of what he's up to. It's thin gruel for an encyclopedia article, but good luck getting it deleted. So what then? If the website can't be used to to determine it's own statement of purpose (it very clearly says it exists, in part, to oppose "all mosques") what can it be used for? And if it can't be used, what on earth can be done to fix this article. Reliable sources? Almost all of the "reliable" sources simply confirm what the site asserts, i.e. "The JIDF says it supports x, y and z" vs. "The Jerusalem Post reported that the JIDF asserted x, y and z on its website." A real pickle there. Let me show how absurd this can become. Here's a highly reliable source that reports the website called naming of a Muslim woman "Miss USA" a "dark day for America" (just that, no further commentary). So we could report that, but not more fully their own self-expressed views of matters of clearly more importance (beauty pageants vs. their views on one of the four largest faiths on the globe)? . Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm we might need to think about stubifying and rewriting the thing from scratch. I frankly dont see how we can fix it otherwise as adding in More primary sources will not seem to help. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That (starting over), is in fact what needs to happen. I may go ahead and do a draft accomplishing just that in the next week (in my userspace or whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many s\reliable sources available! Here is an article about Appletree and that sign on the photo is a Kahane symbol according to the ADL , so the article should include information about this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.111.155.242 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, those aren't much good for anything except that a pseudonymous person named "David Appletree" was dumb enough to go to a press complaints commission because he claimed that his pseudonym was misidentified as being from Texas. The Kahanist stuff involving a screen cap? OR.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was a smart move, for many reasons you might not be privy to, nor understand. I do not appreciate this attack. --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate

The personal attacks and assumptions made about me on this talk page. I'm the founder of the JIDF. If you have questions about me, or my work, I'm happy to answer them. I'm not sure if reducing the article about my organization to a stub is the best solution. --DavidAppletree (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Please confirm what other accounts you have registered and whether any of those accounts are blocked or banned. For privacy reasons you can email me. Spartaz 08:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring/BLP/POV Pushing and Vandalism Concerns

As I'm many of you I'm sure know, there's been a lot of drama around JIDF and its founder here on Misplaced Pages lately and it appears in the last 24 hours, there's been about 100 major edits on the article, from a lot of different editors with a lot of conflicting agendas. The diff showing before/after the edit warring shows significant changes in the article happening, despite absolutely no discussion or real consensus building on the article's talk page. It seems in the last 24 hours, the following has occurred on the article:

  • At least 13 reliable sources and a lot of cited information from them has been removed in a very short period of time
  • A Palestinian narrative has been included from an article from 2007, which has very little to do, if anything, with the organization in which the organization is about. (Also, the organization didn't go public with its name and activities until 2008)
  • Information from the organization's website has been selectively chosen for the article, despite the fact that it is not from reliable sources.
  • Other seemingly more relevant information been excluded
  • It seems much of the editing has been done by people with a clear agenda against the organization because of its controversial viewpoints

I'm hoping that some some uninvolved, objective editors and possibly admins get involved to try to make reasonable and objective edits and try to restore at least the important sourced information which has been stripped out in this short period of time?

Thanks. --ConcernedAboutContent (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories: