Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Facebook Hacking

The BBC uses the term hacking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7827293.stm

The telegraph article already cited in the article uses the terms hijack and hacker: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2478773/Facebook-Anti-semitic-group-destroyed-by-Israeli-hackers.html

I intend to [call a spade a spade]

Israel National News, which has a zionist leaning, also uses the term hacking: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/150523. Hacking is not a derogatory term, it is not a POV term, it is an accurate term. If we were to judge their actions and refer to them as "cyber-terrorists" or "online freedom fighters", that would be POV. Referring to them as hackers is not, and I will continue to revert edits that remove this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.154 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC page does use "hacking" and related terms but I can't see anything which states outright that the JIDF are hackers. It's there in the subtext but it runs into WP:Original research to claim that the BBC actually believe that the JIDF are hackers. The Telegraph is an oddity in that "hackers" is part of the web address for the page you give, but the article itself doen't use the term - it does use the "hijacked" which I therefore left in your text. The INN link is the only unequivocal link of the three and should probably be specifically referenced to justify use of the term, considering that the JIDF have denied hacking and phishing in what they told the Telegraph. That denial would probably need to be linked too. Having witnessed a number of JIDF-accounts interfere with this page while denying being anything to do with the JIDF, I don't entirely believe their denials, but for purposes of article content we need to be careful. Anyway, let's see what other people have to say.

BTW, have you considered creating an account? It's hard to know which of the two IP addresses is the best one to send a message to. Or are you an existing user and not wanting to have more than one account with all the usual repercussions?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

From the BBC source" "Andrew Silvera, who is active on several pro-Palestinian groups on Facebook, was one of those targeted. He said that his account was hacked after he responded to a Facebook request from another user, inviting him to be an administrator of a similar group". So while they do not say "JIDF are hackers" they do report on an individual targeted by the JIDF claiming that they hacked his account. The telegraph, yes, is an anomaly, while the INN article is already cited elsewhere in the article (current citation 4 I believe). Their denials, I think, are probably down to semantics. "Hacking" may be perceives by them as having negative connotations. Regardless of their dislike for the term, what they did, if you are to base your definition of hacking around the wiki article, was hacking "break[ing] into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls". Their denial would be akin to Ronaldo denying that he is a football player, and instead claiming to be a professional tactical sphere transporter. Tomayto, unclear euphemistic tomahto. I recently deleted my account in order to limit my time spent editing wiki, and do not intend to create an account again in the near future. 149.157.1.154 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The JIDF has gone on record in many places to say that they are not hackers. Any activities on Facebook which could be considered "hacking" were minimal, and from my understanding, were more publicity stunts than anything else. They have done many other things on Facebook, such as create the "United Against Holocaust Denial on Facebook" group (and many others). They have a Facebook page, where they share news and updates. It's unfair to create a header that says "Facebook hacking" when the group itself does not claim to be hackers, and when their activities on Facebook are wide-ranging. Also, it appears that this article is completely out-of-date. The JIDF recently updated their "press" section on their site: http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/press.html - It would be helpful if anonymous IP editors would stop trying to insert their POV into this article, and if seasoned editors could update the article to reflect many of the JIDF's other activities. This article used to be protected or semi-protected. Can that be done again? --HappyGoLucky1212 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection was there partially to deal with the activities of you and your friends. Problematic behaviour on this page is too sporadic to justify protection. I've had page protection requests rejected where there has been a lot more consistent activity than this. The activity on this page that I've recently reported to Spartaz goes back as far as February with there not being that much IP activity in that time and most of the SPAs only making one edit.

BTW, I don't mind most of the changes you have made to the page this time, but conflict of interest issues are best dealt with by your raising things you dislike on the talk page rather than you rushing in and changing things yourself and then pretending yet again to be a third party rather than a JIDF activist yourself. And your edit history with this account elsewhere indicates that you're still capable of problematic behaviour with the peculiar pattern of edits and self-reverts and the spelling editor introduced to John the Baptist. If the JIDF really are switching to being purely a campaigning group rather than a direct action hacktivist one, then there's no need for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IP, could you explain your recent revert of today's edit by the HappyGoLucky sock - the bits I had decided to leave stand? I don't see anything objectionable there. As for the removal of the date by the other suspiciously new id user, of course we need the year there. And the issue of hacking needs to be discussed and specifically referenced in text and not in a header because of the JIDF denial. And, finally, you've violated WP:3RR.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I give up. 149.157.1.184 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of a diff -

Hi, I've been monitoring some of the stuff happening on this page. If we could please look at this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=307064645&oldid=306937824

It seems to me that many of "HappyGoLucky's" edits were just fine. Besides aparent sockpuppetry, can you please explain to me why they were reverted? Is the goal of Wikipedia not to improve? There were even grammatical errors that were, and continued to be, reverted back into the article! Now there is an anonymous IP determined to get rid of "online activism" (what the JIDF is known for most) and replace it with "hacktivism" in the categories. This seems unfair. Also, I thought "reports" was more neutral and fair as opposed to "seeks to remove," since the JIDF mostly has its members report material which is against the rules. It is then up to companies to decide what to do with that material. "Hijacking" is less neutral than the word "takeover." The "Criticism" section seems to contain a lot of irrelevant information both about the FAZ article, and about a website that the JIDF has nothing to do with (besides linking to it), and then even goes on to quote an anonymous source about a "victory" against the JIDF. How does any of that have to do with "criticism" of the JIDF? It seems that Wikipedia editors are trying to "beef up" this section. Meanwhile, I noticed that "HappyGoLucky" posted this this article on the JIDF site, which shows that there's been a lot more news about the JIDF that is not in this article.

Could editors please try to keep their biased POV out of this piece and instead, please try to make it fair an accurate? --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two sets of problems here. One is the IP editor who is using two addresses in Ireland. They are inserting material giving a particular interpretation of the JIDF's activities without referencing the most controversial material, specifically the allegations of hacking. Further, they are reverting material without reading the contents properly and therefore, as you pointed out, reinserting spelling mistakes etc. They are also violating 3RR by using multiple ids.

The other problem I see is the JIDF editing material directly without declaring its conflict of interest. At least some of those accounts making the edits are the previously blocked editor who first appearedabout a year ago with accounts such as "Einsteindonut" and "PeterBergson". ShoshannaLandau's edits are also problematic in themselves as they are replacing referenced material with Hossannas for the organisation. It so happens that apart from her edits, I don't have a great deal of problem with the content of JIDF's recent contributions. However there is always the issue of conflict of interest and, as I have frequently told you and your colleagues, it is better to handle this by raising issues on the talk page here than making edits to the article yourselves except for the most uncontroversial ones such as fixing spelling mistakes.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of the JIDF. If that's a conflict of interest, guilty as charged. I won't touch the article (except to fix minor mistakes and revert vandalism) if you can be reasonable and see that what is happening in this article is not fair at all. They are not a "hacking" organization. They have categorically denied those charges. Just because supporters of their organization may or may not have done things without the JIDF's permission, and in the JIDF's name, it does not mean the JIDF are "hackers." The majority of what the JIDF actually IS is not even expressed in this article. You have stated that you are "anti-Zionist" in the past. Could you please help me get some people who might be slightly more supportive to help collaborate on this article, including NEW information, in a fair, balanced, and objective way? What we have here now is not fair to the JIDF at all. They got the ball rolling on a major campaign against Holocaust denial on Facebook. They currently have a "Tweet4Shalit" campaign going in which they are enjoying widespread support. They are posting important news and information on Twitter and Facebook. They took action against "Hate Israel" groups on Facebook. Recently, a Nasrallah page was removed on Facebook, thanks to a JIDF campaign, which inspired Israeli knesset. Wikipedia editors are so focused on trying to criticize the JIDF and label this as some sort of "hacking" organization, that they aren't bothering to even correct basic mistakes or add new/relevant information! What's fair is fair. You either care about this encyclopedia, or you don't. If you're an anti-Zionist, then you don't like the JIDF. If you don't like the JIDF, perhaps it's not very fair of you to be inserting or maintaining bias in the article about them. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my edits to this page this month, you'll see that I've expended at least as much effort contering the IP as countering JIDF-related accounts. Yes, I suggested that "HappyGoLucky" be edit blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user, but I also put up the request this morning for an admin to semi-protect the page after the IP's activities continued despite claims yesterday of "giving up". I therefore feel that I've shown myself to be capable of avoiding bias with regards to this page despite being listed on the JIDF's attack page about and having received hate mail. That said, portraying the JIDF in a good light is not the highest priority I have in the world. As far as getting other editors involved is concerned, a lot had this page on watch a while ago. User:Malik Shabazz obviously is still around as he has reverted some edits by the IP user in the last couple of days. I haven't noticed him as being particularly alligned with one side or the other either with regard to opinions on the JIDF or the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. The other way you can do things is to post drafts of what you want included in the article and if nobody comes up with coherent objections in a week or makes changes to the article based on what you suggest, then you can make the changes and say you've done so on the page. Wikipedians as a rule general hate underhand edits by people affiliated with a particular organisation. Any such editing is therefore likely to backfire. The article on one American government agency, for example, now has material in it talking about how computers using that agency's IP address tried to slant the article in their favour.

Another thing to be aware of is that multiple accounts working in an organised way to slant Wikipedia in a particular direction are disliked. One of the noticeboards had a recent alert noting that there was an attempt somewhere to recruit pro-Palestine editors for a drive to change Wikipedia's reporting of a particular issue, I think to do with the status of Jerusalem. Last year, I think, a pro-Zionist organisation made a similar effort and several editors were banned. I assume that you and Shoshanna turned up here as the result of a post to a JIDF alert board somewhere. Turning up mob-handed in response to an issue can be counter-productive for what you want to achieve. I suggest you look at WP:Meat and encourage your colleagues not to behave in such a way as to be seen as violating that policy.

Having said that, I think it is a relief to have a JIDF supporter who is open about their affiliation and therefore allows the potential of a more constructive working relationship.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hacktivism" as "type of site?

Hello, I believe it is unfair to have the JIDF site listed as a "Hacktivist" site when they clearly stated in the BBC piece referenced, "We are not hackers. We are also not involved with phishing. We do not break the law for our work."

Can someone please remove this unfair label? Anyone who reads the JIDF site will never see one shred of information about any JIDF "hacking."

Here on Wikipedia editors are trying to damage the JIDF that way. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. At some point there should be a discussion in the article body mentioning the INN use of "hackers" and the JIDF's denial. I'm not sure whether and when I'll get round to adding it.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Full disclosure: I know writers at INN. If needed, I'm thinking they would or could probably write a letter to Wikipedia on behalf of the JIDF explaining that they used an attention-grabbing headline and that they were unaware if any real "hacking" was involved. I personally know how the groups were taken over, and can tell you that nothing illegal or of any questionable morality or ethics was involved whatsoever. It's a term that is often thrown around lightly, but in this case, it was not the best term to describe what happened, or why it happened. The best and fairest term to describe what happened is "takeover." --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that there is some means that certain admins use to confirm the identity of some users. However, I've only seen it used for such things as checking that someone really is the originator of a picture giving permission for its use or for confirming that someone claiming to be a notable person who is the subject of an article really is that person. I'm not sure how getting INN to send us an email or to edit this talk apge conforms to WP:OR as it would be soliciting the creation of primary material which wouldn't necessarrilly be already in the public domain. We would need to check somewhere to see what other editors think. A footnote added to the original article would be a lot clearer though obviously third parties might see INN producing somethign at the JIDF's request as an opportunity for propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP removes cited, well-sourced information

If someone could please make sure this cited information is put back in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=307139607&oldid=307139143

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=next&oldid=307139607

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=next&oldid=307139808 (though the word "hijacking" should be removed, due to POV. Consider "takeover")

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the third item's significance to the content of this article. It would in any case require checking on whether there is a copyright violation involved, as Wikipedia policy is not to link copyvios.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding a lot of that back in. Regarding the 3rd item, it was originally added by Oboler here. I'm pretty sure he went around to announce the new section he added at the time and there was some amount of discussion about its inclusion, and consensus on it was formed. As I mentioned, my only objection with the 3rd item is the use of "hijacking"--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that we mention both the ADL's and Jewish Week's views, I don't see what it is gained by mentioning another group that does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I agree that "takeover" is a more neutral term to "hijacking" but in this case it appears in the Telegraph article's name, so we wouldn't be able to replace it.--14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Do we really need: "Most of the article contains similar material to that found in other articles on the subjects. However, the final section entitled "From fighters against online-hatred to anti-Islamism" contains criticism of the JIDF." This seems to be added just to add heft to this section. It's unnecessary. Is Wikipedia a place where we offer a synopsis of articles?

Also, is this really "criticism?"

"Haaretz notes that Facebook groups with the same names and similar content to deleted groups have appeared, albeit with substantially reduced membership from the originals. One of the people who campaigned for Facebook to allow the relaunch of the "Israel is not a country" group told Haaretz that their success was "the first victory against the JIDF.""

What is the point of mentioning some anonymous person's claim of "victory" against the JIDF? Seems irrelevant to the "criticism" section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainessnobjectivity (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've partially removed each of these. It's some time ago but I think I put in the first text you highlight because I wanted to make clear that the FAZ article was not purely devoted to criticising the JIDF. The section title is however an indication of the criticism they do have. The first sentence of the second quote is relevant as the question of how well JIDF actions stick is relevant to its assessment. In the mid-term this material should be better integrated into the article as separate criticism sections are not considered the best way of presenting material (WP:Criticism).--Peter cohen (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More ideas to expand/update article

The JIDF recently changed it's press section which added some very helpful headers describing their many campaigns. While I feel what we have currently does help explain their "Getting issues of Antisemitism and Terrorism 2.0 on the Map" phase, a lot of the new information out there about the JIDF seems to have been neglected by Wikipedia.

This includes:

-Their Solidarity with Israel during Cast Lead (many articles)
-Their designation as the "Most influential Jewish Newswire on Twitter"
-Their campaign against "Hate Israel" groups on Facebook
-Their campaign Holocaust Denial material on Facebook
-Their campaign Against Nasrallah on Facebook (in which Israeli knesset got involved)
-Their current Twitter Campaign for Gilad Shalit (which is enjoying widespread support from many different organizations around the world

If you visit the JIDF Press Page you can find articles about all of these topics.

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a lot of hard work to organise. I'm not going to do the donkey work for that, though in principle I'm prepared to comment on a draft.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I have a paper coming out in a month or so that addresses the Holocaust Denial work. It might save the leg work on that particular topic. I'll drop a note back here when it is public if you like? I personally don't have any research on the others, though some of it I have certainly heard about. Oboler (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that covers JIDF actions rather than the phenomenon in general? BTW I notice that there's a related article by you on the Guardian Comment is Free site. Did that actually appear in print? I'm not quite clear whether CiF is purely on the website or whether the articles also go in the paper.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Source and a request

Hi all, I have two things I'd like people to consider, as they involve me I'd rather not make the changes myself. The first is an academic article that was "in press" at the time this page was first put together. As this is a journal article about the JIDF and freely available I'd suggest it is included. It also contains additional information not available here. The article is published by First Monday (journal) and is available here [1].

Secondly, I'm not happy with the "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher who was at the time working on Web 2.0 issues for NGO Monitor". The two key pieces I wrote on this topic clearly indicate that my primary affiliation in this work was as a "postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University" [2][3]. Both do also mention I was working at NGO Monitor at the time, but reversing the affiliation is misleading (as the affiliation indicates, this was university research). Now if people insist, I'd be happy with either "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher", or "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher and postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University", or if you insist "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher and postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University who was at the time working on Web 2.0 issues for NGO Monitor"... but that last option is a bit of a mouthful. Oboler (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How about saying instead that your main piece was published by the JCPA instead? I have a thing about wanting authors' leanings and political affiliations made clear when they are mentioned. (Over at Talk:Seven Jewish Children someone thought that my addition to the first sentence that Caryl Churchill was a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign was intended to add weight to claims that the play is anti-Semitic. As far as I was concerned it was worth having that information there so that readers would know that she didn't have a sudden political conversion when the Gaza War broke out but had already been critical of Israel.) Actually I'm not sure whether we need mention you at all. That particular Facebook group is old news. Why do we need to mention that three different people or groups with pre-existing interests in highlighting anti-Semitism are in agreement about it? Gideon Levy or Tony Lerman agreeing with the JIDF on this would be far more interesting and worth noting than the ADL, Jewish Week and you doing so, though I know that there are political differences between the four of you.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's important to have as much support for the claims that this was, in fact, a hate group, especially considering that many people think the JIDF just arbitrarily took it over, and considering how much this article obsesses over the old news. Again, I would love to see just some of the news (not having to do with any early "takeover" campaigns) brought into this article, as the JIDF has done far more than take over one Facebook group. Also, what the organization is actually about is barely represented in this article. The first line, "is an online organization that seeks to remove material from the Internet...." also seem incredibly inaccurate. They do a lot more than that and that is not their entire reason for being. It would be great if someone could work some of the language in the "organization" section into the intro.--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

possible new section on holocaust denial?

the following is from the Facebook page on Wikipedia, perhaps we should include some of it here?

Holocaust denial groups

JIDF an activist group fighting Antisemitism has criticized Facebook for condoning and hosting Holocaust denial groups on its network, which are in violation of Facebook TOS. David Appletree the founder of JIDF states, “Holocaust denial is hate speech and Antisemitism.”

Prominent technology bloggers are also joining in to criticize Facebook. Brian Cuban the brother of Mark Cuban the owner of Dallas Mavericks in his blog post says, “Holocaust denial is repulsive and ignorant” and calling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to remove the groups. Techcrunch CEO Michael Arrington says Facebook’s stubbornness on not removing the groups is wrong and offensive. Cnet’s writer Chris Matyszczyk calls Facebook’s , “Holocaust denial repulsive and ignorant.”

--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Andre Oboler has said above that he will cover this. Let's give him a bit of time. Actually, I'm surprised that so much web-sourced material is being used as references in what you quote as they don't obviously meet WP:RS etc. But Facebookis not a page I want to get involved with.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweet4Shalit activism campaign by JIDF

I would like to add this text that comes from Gilad Shalit article to the JIDF article here

Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) organized in August 2009 pro-Gilad Shalit campaign on the social networking site Twitter. During the Tweet4Shalit activism campaign Twitter users drove the Gilad Shalit name to the second highest trend on the day of his 23rd birthday. Tweets for Shalit ranged from the demand "Free Schalit" to requests for international supervision of the case.[4]

Igor Berger (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 79.97.166.36

79.97.166.36 (talk · contribs) has been deleting some referenced material without discussion.[5]. That IP address has been previously blocked for similar deletions. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look above for the discussions in August, you'll see some similar ground covered. Skimming back, I seem to have previously restored some of the same material after a request by a JIDF-supporting user following deletion by this same anon user.

When I previously asked that user to create an account, they said that they had given up their previous account in an attempt to cut down on their Wikipedia time. Looking at the amount of activity on that account, I suggest a reconsideration. (Unless, of course, they are banned/long-term blocked.)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the facebook page is not a reference. It is an advertisement. The rest of the material is original research. Removing it. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's cited, it's generally not original research. I'm not even clear what point the IP editor is trying to make. Is this just straight vandalism, or attention-getting behavior? Actually, though, we could probably drop the "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?" link, because it's just a link to a dead Facebook group. There's a one-line Facebook post by "David", the JIDF guy, which links to that defunct group, but that's all the information available from that source right now. The history of the domain is worth keeping, since it's one of the few pieces of third-party info about the JIDF. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck do you assume that my behaviour has to be either vandalism or attention-seeking? Do you not think it might be remotely possible that edits in opposition to your own are constructive rather than vandalism or attention-seeking? Even if the facebook group were not dead, there is no need to link to it. Such a link serves only as an advertisement, as the article linked to mentions the facebook group. I've got no problem with information on the facebook group coming from a third party source. Nor do I have a problem with information on the domain's history. However, whois is not a published source, it is a research tool, and as far as I can tell any info coming from it would count as original research. The link to the "sample email activism letter" again, is not a reference. It is a sample letter. The linked page does not contain information which backs up what is said in the article, it is a blog page containing a sample letter for jidf members to use. And someone had extrapolated from the existence of this sample letter what activities the jidf are involved in. That is original research. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

i made changes

this article has been neglected and the JIDF has done so much more than take over the one big group in the summer of 2008. i've been restructuring some things so that it flows better. i feel no one is really doing much work on this article and no one has been updating it, so i thought i'd at least get things structured so as to tell the JIDF story more properly. once the structure is in place, i'm sure folks will have some issues with some of my edits, but we can discuss them. i've added a lot that was missing. there's even more well-sourced material we should be adding. --Mreditguy (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is incredibly POV now. I will be making some major revisions once I have the time. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing beneficial to the article was added, so I have reverted the rewrite wholesale. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

actually, a ton of well-sourced material was added. i reverted what appeared to be vandalism and removal of well-sourced material. --93.104.213.192 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare the two versions of the article and tell me that mreditguy's revisions are not massively biased in favour of the jidf. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

while that may or may not be true, please work it here, as opposed to removing chunks of well-sourced material. --93.158.114.84 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What well sourced material? If you wish to add any neutral, well sourced material, be my guest. But I will not allow this article to become a propaganda page for the sake of "well sourced material" (which I can not actually see in the article). 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

please stop your vandalism. each time you revert back, you're taking out a lot of well-sourced material. if you can't see that, it's vandalism. try editing the article as opposed to reverting back to something prior to the addition of important material. --93.104.213.175 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)--93.104.213.175 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is an intentional act. Failure to see something is not intentional. Therefore, failure to see something can not lead to vandalism, as vandalism is an act carried out intentionally and in bad faith. Please stop reverting to a POV version of the article. Each time you do, you're re-adding in a lot of poorly sourced, biased material. If you can't see that, well, I don't know. Try discussing a contentious major rewrite to the article on the discussion page first rather than re-adding POV material then reporting an opposing editors good-faith edits as vandalism in order to have your version of the article protected. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see that you were removing well-sourced material, vandalizing, possibly breaking the 3RR rule, and edit warring here, then i don't know what to tell you. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove well sourced material. You need to learn what qualifies as well sourced. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your first accusation is a lie. I did not vandalise. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism...", Your second accusation is a lie. The 3RR "states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring". I made three reverts. Three is not more than three. The minimum criterion for more than three is four. The last of those three was a revert to an edit made by a bot, in which I maintained the intended action of the bot (removal of a link), so was not a revert in the usual sense. I therefore made two reverts. Two is half of four. I was only halfway towards being in breach of 3RR. Your third accusation is a lie. Two reverts is not an edit war. "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking.". A major edit was tried out. I voiced my objection to it on the talk page. I voiced my intention to carry out a major revision. Having read through the new revision, I concluded that there was nothing worth saving, and therefore reverted. I reported all of this on the talk page. Was consensus sought? No. If you can't see that you're full of shit, then I don't know what to tell you. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Right. I'm going to request changes be made, but first need to build concensus here. How do people feel about restoring the article to howw it was before the rewrite? As it is now, the article is completely and utterly biased in favour of the jidf. The only new material that has been added is quotes from jidf members supporting the new leaning of the article. The facebook section has been changed so that information on the removal of palestine as a country from the site's options is now gone, now only groups demanding the removal of israel as a country are mentioned, without context as to what the groups were created in response to. This is no longer an article, it is an advertisement. Let me know what you think. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing well-sourced and important material, as you were trying to do. If you feel there is bias, we can work to remove it together, but there was a lot of important information added to this article. --93.104.213.199 (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Facebook section has been changed so that information on the removal of Palestine as a country from the site's options is now gone, now only groups demanding the removal of Israel as a country are mentioned, without context as to what the groups were created in response to. Good point. In general, we need more info from reliable sources. This article from Time [6] may be helpful: "Hamzeh Abu-Abed, who created a Facebook group titled "Let's Collect 500,000 Signatures to Support the Palestinians in Gaza," says he has received similar hate mail. "They said I am a terrorist who should die," says Abu-Abed, an accountant from Jordan. "We have been harassed by Zionists who hacked our group and called themselves the Jewish Internet Defense Force." --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

John, I personally think that information about the flame war you mentioned is absolutely irrelevant to the JIDF. They never discuss those groups. No sources about the JIDF ever talk about that. Therefore, I think it's off topic. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oboler, who is semi-affilated with the JIDF, discusses them.[7] --John Nagle (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a very tiny point within the scope of all JIDF activities. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any important or well sourced information. Give me one example of this well sourced information you keep harping on about. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at your edits and see the chunks of new material you removed. You did, in fact, remove new information and important sources. We shouldn't have to point it out for you. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove anything per se. I reverted to an earlier version, from which material had been removed to fit with the leaning of the new rewrite. There was no new beneficial additions made. What is this "we"? I am asking you, in the singular, to point out what important well sourced information I removed, as you continue to accuse me of having done so, when in fact I have not. Information is not in and of itself sacrosanct. My reverts brought the article back to where it was previously, which involved restoring some material and removing other. What was removed, was pov and/ or poorly sourced. And why is nagle's comment off topic? Because the jidf don't talk about the issue themselves? I think I'm starting to see why you have such a problem recognising what is and is not pov. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could someone please get rid of the new pov slant of the article and revert to the version before the major rewrite was carried out by mreditguy? 79.97.166.36 (talk)

Sorry, I appreciate your efforts in talking this through, but I'm not seeing sufficient consensus for this yet. Please continue the discussion and replace the request when you have an agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you consider lowering to semi-protection? We have had one IP user (usually 79.97.166.36 but sometimes uses another address) who was pushing things towards a more critical stance The changes without discussion were objected to by some of the regular watchers of the page. John Nagle, "Malik Shabazz" and I have all reverted this user at different times. What then happenned is that a JIDF activist who watches the page posted an alert on one of their lists and an IP and a couple of new ids came along to make the page more favourable to them. If you look at threads above you can see that some of the new material was discussed before. The original IP user is correct in saying that the new version is biased in favour of the JIDF, but I don't think a mass revert is the right answer. However I think the regular users can be left to sort things themselves under a semi-protect with id blocks if necessary if oen of the new ids reveals itself to be User:Einsteindonut or otherwise disrupts things.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with the protection level. I believe consensus should be formed before people start butchering this article, as has happened many times in the past, and the names you mention, while they have tried to "protect" this article from time to tim, have also done their fair share of adding anti-JIDF POV into this article. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, some of the new material is worth keeping. I therefore think that a more systematic review is needed working section by section, if nto paragraph by paragraph. Starting with the lead, only one thing really stands out to me as problematic: the claim of general anti-racist activity. The ADL does campaign on racism in general, but I've seen no evidence that the JIDF does so. There have even been claims online by a disgruntled ex-member of racism within the JIDF. Also, as noted by the FAZ, the JIDF site does link to some dubious sites. I think the reference to campaign against racism should be changed to saying that the group campaigns against anti-Semitism. There is plenty of evidence of this.

Comments? And anyone willing to make a start on proposing changes to the next part?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of the new material is worth keeping. The cases of any disgruntled ex-members of the JIDF is original research, not documented in any reliable sources whatsoever. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some issues. First, the lede says this is an "organization". Actually, the JIDF is at best an online organization. It has no physical location, members, meetings, or legal existence. From the sources we have, the JIDF consists of a web site, some Facebook groups, and the anonymous "David". No source mentions anyone other than "David" associated with the JIDF. The article gives the misleading impression that the JIDF is an operation on the scale of the ADL. The text should at least read "online organization". --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

i have no issues with "online organization," though they have organized things offline as well, including counter protests in January, which have been documented in reliable sources, I believe. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So how about the following as a lead paragraph:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is an internet-based pro-Israel advocacy organization which shares news and information with members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism, is antisemitic or is hostile to Israel, and seeks to "create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.

--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't like "internet based" - why not just "online organization." so howabout:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online advocacy organization which shares news and information to members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web.[2] It also seeks out, exposes, and reports online material which is against the Terms of Service of internet companies. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism and racial hatred, and "believes in direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online, and to create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service.[3] The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook,[4] [5] Myspace,[6] YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.[7]

--95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Pro-Israel online advocacy organisation" but not so happy with the rest of your differences from my version. First, you've still produced no evidence of general anti-racist activities by the JIDF as opposed to anti-anti-Semitism. Second, I don't see why Terms of Services need mentioning twice in the lead paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference to "members" of the JIDF is not really correct. There's no documented way to "join" the JIDF, although people can donate to them or buy their stuff, or friend them on Myspace or Facebook. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Anyone who supports the JIDF in any way is a member. It's a voluntary grassroots effort and people "join" them by signing up to their updates, by sharing their content, by following them on Twitter, or on Facebook, etc. --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The JIDF is now on "blogradio.com".[8] It's "David Appletree" talking. This week (2009-10-06) he's saying 1) that he's been kicked off of Facebook for a "real name violation", 2) that he's not getting support from mainstream Jewish organizations, 3) people are sending him stupid Twitter messages, 4) he's trying to get some government to issue him a government ID with the name "David Appletree", 5) he has "personal issues" with Brian Cuban (long rant about this), 6) something about Noah David Simon, Lauren Feldman, cybersquatting, Verizon, and a conspiracy to get him off of Twitter, and 7) "huge fan of individualism", read The Fountainhead at an early age. Around 18 minutes in, he's done whining and starts talking about antisemitism, propaganda, and Israel. But by minute 19, he's talking about himself again: "My people would go out of their way to hurt me", and he's back on Cuban, Simon, and Feldman again. Minute 21, more complaining about Facebook "There are Hezbollah spies on Facebook". He doesn't like Facebook's non-anonymous culture. Urges people to get off of Facebook. Complains you can't search messages on Facebook. "I'm very anti-Obama, I'm very pro-Israel" at 23:30. Complaining that Facebook allows Palestine as a country. At 24:23, says that the Simon Wiesenthal Center is in collusion with Facebook. Complains that Wiesenthal Center and ADL are not helping him and his cause. "All they do is hit people up for money". At 26:30 he starts taking phone calls (it's a call-in show). There's a full hour of this, but I bailed at this point. --John Nagle (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You actually listened to this meshugeneh ranting for almost half an hour? Is his voice particularly hypnotic?Is this something semi-permanent we can ref for his attacking the ADL and SWC? And it sounds like confirmation that "David Appletree" is a pseudonym with Facebook dumping him and his wanting ID in the name?

So how about the following as lead paragraph:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online advocacy organisation which shares news and information with supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism, is antisemitic or is hostile to Israel, and seeks to "create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.

--Peter cohen (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the one posted above yours better, Peter, as you're leaving out what seems to be important information regarding exposing and reporting material which is against TOS, which is the main thing the JIDF does. by the way, i think both you and Nagle are breaking BLP rules. --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a biographical article. (Unless, of course, the JIDF is really just "David Appletree"; no other person has ever been clearly associated with the organization.) If the spokesman for an organization says something on the record, we're entitled to note that. There's a WP:SELFPUB issue, though. We have to say "David Appletree said", not include anything he says as a fact. --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP rules apply to ALL pages. Whereas you didn't do anything "wrong" per se, Peter Cohen did, by labeling Appletree "crazy." --216.155.158.139 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The "D" in "Denial" in the section name here should not be capitalised. Please make it lower case. This is per this and this. When the phrase "Holocaust denial" in used in the content, the "d" is not capitalised.--Rockfang (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about recent article w/ regard to david appletree

A recent Online internet article on david appletree claims: "Appletree founded JIDF shortly after 9/11. “Some Facebook groups were celebrating [the terror],” he said. “It was so revolting.” - I'd like to point out that Facebook was not created until 2003-2004. And certainly was not worldwide until a year after that. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone were "celebrating" 911 by then, especially since most of the critics of US policies by then were focusing on wether there was evidence for 9/11 being an "inside job" or false flag operation by then. I myself have witnessed the JIDF vandalising group facebook pages put up simply to support Palestinians, Gaza, Palestinian villages or imprisoned loved ones. Their activity seem to have wholly and mainly centered around DOS attacks (denial of service) on palestinian and muslim sites. An activity which in itself is illegal in most if not all parts of the world on a par with theft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 02:42, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comment. As a recipient of JIDF hate mail, I share your scepticism about them but Wikipedia editorial policy relies on evidencing material to "WP:Reliable sources and avoiding WP:Original Research. This unfortunately means that personal experience does not provide grounds for including material in the article. If you are able to point out material published in well-known newspapers or work by reputable investigative journalists etc. that supports what you say above about "David Appletree" and the JIDF, then I'll happily include it. If you can't find such sources, then the JIDF supporters who watch this page will revert any additions you make and none of the long-standing editors who attempt to keep this page vaguely neutral would be prepared to revert them.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe BLP rules do apply here and the original headline is untrue, so I removed it. It's important to know that the ARTICLE claimed that Appletree founded the JIDF after 9/11. He specifically told the reporter that the terrorist pages in response to the terrorist attack at the Yeshiva were revolting. In short, the reporter got it wrong. There is also no evidence of the JIDF launching any DOS attacks or illegal activity whatsoever. --95.154.230.74 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reference to them as hackers in mainstream media. Hacking is generally illegal. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also plenty of reference to them explaining and clarifying that nothing they have done is illegal whatsoever. --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources must be neutral, reliable, and preferably third party. Claiming that nothing they have done is illegal does not make it so. The bbc and the telegraph have both referred to the jidf as hackers, and they would both be considered reputable sources. This is not to say that any or all of the jidf's actions are immoral, unethical, or unjustified; it is merely to say that what they have done is hacking, a term which encompasses all manner of unauthorised actions which circumvent computer security. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hacking" implies illegal and unethical activity. I do not think it would be fair to label it as such, since the JIDF has categorically denied it. I'm not sure that they referred to the JIDF as "hackers" but they mislabled one JIDF action as "hacking" --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Please see WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

it is not verified that the JIDF are "hackers." thus, they should not be labeled as such. --93.158.114.99 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"verifiability... is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source"

"Reliable sources

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

Reliable, third-party pubished sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have referred to the jidf's actions as hacking. Therefore, referring to them as hackers is verifiable. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, especially when reliable 3rd party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy have quoted the JIDF as saying that they are not hackers. it's POV by both the media and by wikipedia editors. if the JIDF has not been charged with doing anything illegal or anything unethical and if they categorically deny being involved in any such activity, WP should not be a place where we try insert this biased POV against them. i believe this has already been discussed extensively on this page already. --216.244.65.79 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, 216.244.65.79. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original)

Of course we need to exercise common sense, and we don't want to print lies, but if reliable sources are referring to the JIDF as hackers—and they are—we may refer to them as hackers, so long as we cite those sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject was already broached (I suppose you archived all the past discussions in order to hide that fact). Recent sources are and have not referred to the JIDF as hackers. They refer to one activity of the JIDF as "hacking." Thus, to label this organization as one of "hackers" is wrong. --216.244.65.79 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I archived discussions from last year because the page was getting too long. And I added a search bar so readers can search all 12 Talk archive pages. Is that because I'm trying to hide something? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has archived past discussions to hide anything. The previous discussion is section three of this talk page. If reliable sources have reported that the jidf deny being hackers, well then that is verifiable. The denial, that is. If they have been reported both to be hackers/ engaged in hacking, and reported to have denied being hackers, then the fact that they have engaged in hacking and the fact that they have denied it are both verifiable. However, saying that their denial of being involved in hacking equates to their not being involved in hacking is interpretation, which is not our remit. For example, a politician may deny allegations of, say, bribe taking, but we do not then report that they have not taken bribes. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "fact" that the JIDF ever engaged in "hacking." It has not been verified in any sources. --216.155.158.139 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Israel National News, The BBC, The Telegraph. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While some of those early articles might have described one early JIDF activity as "hacking," it's absolutely unfair to label the organization as "hackers." The "hacking" references were specific to one early event. Perhaps it should be in the article, but to make the JIDF out to look like some gang of online hackers would not be beneficial to the Wikipedia project. --96.31.87.249 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like being described as a hacker, write a letter to the editor of a newspaper that so described the JIDF. It's not our job to decide whether something is "fair", but to report what reliable sources are saying. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles about the JIDF make no mention of any "hacking." Thus, if it's to be included in the article, it should be kept at a minimum, along with the JIDF's firm denial of any hacking or illegal activity. To focus on that activity is in and of itself biased POV, trying to highlight one small detail/mislabeling of an organization doing many different things. --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantify "vast majority", will you? There have not been very many articles published by third party, neutral, reliable sources, at any rate. The references to hacking are by no means related to only one incident. Furthermore, the suggestion that they were mislabeled is not verifiable. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty of articles that dismiss "hacking" claims and any mentioning of the JIDF as "hackers" has been very minimal, actually. --64.120.158.118 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, and wrong, actually. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim "Appletree founded JIDF shortly after 9/11." may be spurious. This article says it was founded in 2008.[9]. A founding in 2001 would predate Facebook (2004). --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That was already discussed and was most likely a mistake by the reporter. --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section should be upmerged

Generally criticism and "controversy" sections are discouraged. They imply POV/bad writing and tend to be drama magnets. As this entire article seems to be a drama vector it makes sense to upmerge the content to weave it into the main article. If there is notable criticism the WP:Lede should indicate so if it doesn't already. -- Banjeboi 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "notable criticism" but the criticism currently in this article does not belong in the lede whatsoever. --96.31.87.249 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion yet as to criticism of this group but we do include notable criticism in the lede per NPOV. The lede should accurately overview the entire article. By my quick reading the criticism needs to be cleaned up and woven into the rest of the article. -- Banjeboi 09:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles on Wikipedia which don't do that. Most of the editors here have continuously tried to shed the worst possible light on the organization as possible. --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article is rather favorable to the JIDF. Unfavorable would be "The Jewish Internet Defense Force is a one-man on-line "organization" which attempts to remove content unfavorable to Israel from web sites, and engages in on-line flame wars on Facebook. The "organization" has no legal existence or physical offices. The person behind the organization is not publicly known but uses the pseudonym "David Appletree". The organization is not supported by mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL or the Simon Wiesenthal Center." All of that can be sourced. --John Nagle (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nagle actually it cannot, and the JIDF has coordinated with many mainstream orgs in various campaigns. If you're just here to try to damage the JIDF, perhaps your biased POV is best served elsewhere on the site. --216.155.158.152 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

John Nagle, just because the JIDF is led by one person, it does not mean there's just one person behind it. The number of different types of followers, supporting the organization for a wide variety of reasons and doing different types of things for the organization seems clear to me and to anyone else who is not intent on trying to minimize what the JIDF is, and has done. --64.120.158.122 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems the same personalizing of content issues that existed here in the past has not ebbed. That's unfortunate. More people might need to be banned and the talkpage semi-protected if folks can't dial it all the way down. Comment on content and not contributors. This is also, as the notices on top make clear, not a forum for general discussion on the subject or its members. I'm not sure why the page was protected in the first place but I'll be happy to merge the criticism myself once it is lifted. As someone who's put in a lot of work in the past I think I'm somewhat able to suss out where to weave it in and I can post the bits that seem soapboxy to the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're volunteering to merge the minimal amount of "criticism" in this article into the lede (as you suggested), then I'm not in support of that, nor do I think it would improve the article much. --64.120.158.118 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably better than a specific criticism section 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the "criticism" currently in the criticism section is notable enough to be in the lede. --98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism is not needed, but the "criticism" is so little and not notable, that I hardly think it would be fair to throw it in the lede for the sake of throwing it in the lede. There should be no criticism section, but the material in that section should be at the bottom of the article (if anywhere) given the fact that it's not even really "criticism". --69.4.233.164 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So there should be no criticism section but all the material from that section should be in one place? That's utterly nonsensical. The criticism definitely belongs in the article, just not in a section of its own.

I don't believe this is even criticism or that it belong in this article.--98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm volunteering to take the current criticism section, rip it apart to see what the sources state and try to neutrally use the encyclopedic bits that seem notable in the rest of the main text. If there is notable criticism it should certainly be mentioned in the lede as well but until I look at everything it's rather hard to say if nothing or something would even be needed. -- Banjeboi 15:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in all that. From how it appears, a lot editors worked together to build consensus and work it into the current version of the criticism section. Personally, I think it should be left alone. I've read all the sources on the JIDF and have seen a lot of the drama unfold here on Wikipedia and it doesn't seem imperative to begin swatting away at a hornets nest. If you absolutely must do this, perhaps begin by working out ideas here first, but again, I don't think it makes sense to bother. I agree with the others that nothing in the current criticism section belongs in the lede. It doesn't even seem to be too critical.--69.4.233.161 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS, on some articles criticism sections can be appropriate. On most, however, they are sign of bad and/or POV writing. That seems the case here. I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it except the rest of the article is generally acceptable. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the criticism section could go and the content there doesn't belong in this article, since it's mostly derived from just one source. --98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Until the article is unprotected and I have a look at what the sources state I have to suspend opinion if any criticism is warranted or not. -- Banjeboi 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

the article doesn't have to be unprotected in order to see the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.163.74.156 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Being derived from one source doesn't make something non-notable, once that source is reputable. And given the dearth of reputable sources on the jidf, I think almost any info gleaned from them belongs in the article. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the information gleaned from various sources is redundant. I believe Wikipedia should be a place where people can and should use caution when adding information from various sources. We don't want to be redundant. Much of the time, "reliable" sources make mistakes. If the subject at hand has pointed out mistakes in the reports about them, then I think we should be sensitive about those mistakes. --64.120.158.122 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not our remit. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamophobia

A cursory examination of the content of the blog shows a great deal of openly islamophobic material, in contrast to JIDF's self-published description as being an anti-Semitism watchdog on the web and even the moderate material is overtly slanted in a hateful direction. For example, a headline in response to the Fort Hood massacre is "It's Islam, Stupid". It also supports conspiracy theories that Obama is a "secret muslim" [10]. There was previously a photoshop of Obama wearing a turban which has since been removed. It also shows extremist Kahanist sympathies, posting memorials to controversial, racist anti-Arab figures such as Meir Kahane.

So far the JIDF has managed to fly under the radar, but it is only a matter of time before notable sources pick up on the hateful content of this site. This can and will be reported on Wikipedia. Until then, taking it's self-published "mission" at face value is unwise and overly credulous. The current, overly positive wikipedia page is a disappointing whitewash. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment of the JIDF, there is a problem with sourcing. The FAZ article did mention links to a "dubious" anti-Islam site and anti-Obama campaigning is also referenced in our article. While "Appletree" has complained about lack of support from the likes of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the ADL, they don't seem to have gone on record as to why they don't want to be associated with the JIDF.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your assessments of the JIDF and Peter is right, none of Factsontheground's claims are in any reliable sources. If we're going to use this space to break Wikipedia's guidelines for talk pages and rules regarding "no original research" then if we're going to mention "Islamophobia" you should at least reference another piece on their site, a test, asking, "Are You an Islamophobe?" I also don't think Appletree complained so much about a "lack of support" from the ADL and SWC as he did just mention the fact that they are not involved in the online battle against anti-semitism and the promotion of Islamic jihad. Also, I don't think Factsontheground is taking into consideration the legal disclaimer on their site, which reads as follows:

The views expressed, by the authors on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of this website. The content of the blog is the opinion of the blogger(s), and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company or individual. The blogger’s intention is to do no harm. To not injure others, defame, or libel. All data and information provided on this site is for informational and/or entertainment purposes only. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) makes no representations as to accuracy, currentness, correctness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use, or access to this site. We are not responsible for translation or interpretation of content. We are not responsible for defamatory statements bound to government, religious or other laws from the reader’s country of origin. All information is provided on an as-is basis with no warranties, and confers no rights. We are not responsible for the actions, content, accuracy, opinions expressed, privacy policies, products or services or for any damages or losses, directly or indirectly, caused or alleged to have been caused as a result of your use or reliance on such information on the Jewish Internet Defense Force site. This Website/Blog includes links to other sites and blogs operated by third parties. These links are provided as a convenience to you and as an additional avenue of access to the information contained therein. We have not reviewed all of the information on other sites and are not responsible for the content of any other sites or any products or services that may be offered through other sites. The inclusion of these links in no way indicates their endorsement, support or approval of the contents of this site or the policies or positions of the JIDF. We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable. These Terms and Conditions of Use apply to you when you view, access or otherwise use this blog and the Website.

Therefore, to jump to any conclusions about the JIDF or Appletree because of a few postings which may or may not represent their views, is wrong. Also, as I previously mentioned, we must stick to what reliable sources say. Also, it might be necessary to remind you both of the talk page guidelines:

'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, but for evaluating the use of information derived from secondary sources.

You should also be aware that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Please see: Wikipedia:No original research, as it is not allowed, even on talk pages:

This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. --216.155.158.190 (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Outsider's view

As someone who has never contributed to this article or the discussion, but was drawn to it by its tagging as a 'problem article', I can only say that:

• The article contains a significant amount of editorializing, in particular the use of words and phrases which are not as neutral as possible. Just one example is the use of "exposes" in the lead paragraph. This is specifically warned against at Words to avoid.

• As with many contemporary organizations and groups, there just are no reliable third party sources (e.g. articles in academic journals, books by historians or social scientists) which can be used as sources. Sadly, reports by journalists even in 'quality' papers don't seem to be based on as much research as in the past (a drawback of 24 hour rolling news perhaps). So it's hard to see how accusations of POV by one side or the other can be countered by the use of reliable sources, as would be possible for more established organizations.

For what it's worth, having known nothing about the group and having quite ambivalent views on the Israel/Palestine issue, I found the the article (a) informative and therefore intrinsically worthwhile (b) somewhat biassed in favour of the group and hence leading me to react negatively towards it. Those who wish to push views re the Israel/Palestine issue should note that for people without strong views either way, any appearance of bias is totally counterproductive. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments. I have also added a {{find}} tag atop that does link to sources searches and th news one in particular does churn up some possibilities including a Time mention. -- Banjeboi 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested addition

{{editprotected}} Please add the following template to the article:

79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not protected anymore. However, it would be better to actually discuss any issues you have here before adding a potentially controversial template to a controversial article. What in the article do you feel is not neutral? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Amorymeltzer, that IP was one of the reasons the page got protected in the first place, and from their comments on this talk page, it's clear that they would like to insert bias against the organization into the piece. --64.120.158.5 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If an article is disputed people should know about it to give their reading context. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the following template to the article:

I added it myself, but someone then removed it, tagging it as "vandalism". I would appreciate if it could be readded, as I find the present article highly POV. 79.97.166.36 (talk)

I don't think littering an article with such tags is appropriate just because one person (who has vandalized it in the past and broke Wikipedia guidelines/rules on this page) believes the article is "highly POV." If you have specific problems with the article, you discuss them here, and form consensus. If others believe the article's neutrality is in question, then the tag should be considered. However, a much better way to go about it would be to discuss SPECIFIC CHANGES you think should be made, or SPECIFIC ISSUES you are having. --64.120.158.36 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The very point of such a tag is for when someone believe's an article is pov. If you would take the time to read the tag, you would notice that it says "do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Removal of the tag was vandalism. I have not vandalised the article in the past. Do not tell me what to do, meat puppet. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point of the tag is for when there is a general belief that an article is not neutral. One person can add it but only if there is a corresponding on-going dispute. In fact, this tag is only to be used along with lengthy discussion on the talk page. As you (the template adder) did not do so, the removal of the tag was acceptable, although not vandalism. The current notice regarding full protection actually covers most of what you wanted to do, so I should think you content. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article has been discussed ad nauseum. Take a look at heading thirteen on this page. The current notice merely alludes to disputes, not to disputed neutrality. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No consensus was formed. People were using original research and their own opinion about the organization. There didn't seem to be much consensus at all about the "neutrality" of the article, actually, from people with a real objective stand on this article. It seems the majority of the people opining (yourself included) seem to have some personal issues with the organization. --216.244.65.118 (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of the organisation until I came across this page. I just can't stand pov articles claiming to be otherwise. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I am declining the request above because of the lack of support for it. Please take up the other editors' invitiations to discuss the specific part(s) which you feel are not neutral. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)