Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Intensive Care Unit

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

This discussion has been collapsed, issue have been highligted in WICU template. Banjeboi 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Readme first before editing--Puttyschool (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Updating the References so that they actually point to articles about the JIDF and not just the various news outlets that ahve allegedly reported on the JIDF at one time or another. Adding more references Organizing the text into a wikified format, including the addition of headings Adding links to other Wikipedia articles that are relevant to the subject matter Re-writing the text so that it doesn't resemble the text on the JIDF's web site Continued editing in perpetuity, to update the article about the group's activities so as to attest to the article's continued relevance. Don’t reference GIDF & facebook sites, both are changing rapidly--Puttyschool (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Since this article survived with only a "weak keep," it is imperative that the article be improved. Failure to do so will likely lend credence to future AfD actions upon it. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I've updated some references so they go to articles, added more references on the antisemitic nature of the group, and removed the JCPA reference which I think was inserted in reference to past work on this topic published by the JCPA (now linked to the article). Please note that the references I added were written by myself or include quotes from me... I'm just declaring that. They are published and notable sources. Oboler (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I tried to give it a nice look, but honestly I don’t know where is the encyclopedic material in this article? I addition still the language of the article looks like something promoting denotations but with less hate than before!--Puttyschool (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Cannot believe how much time Wikipedians have put into this just to make it worse and worse. Please re-mark it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifixer911 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) An article on a notable topic (which this is) should not be deleted solely on the basis of being badly-written. If the article is getting worse and worse, then what it needs is better editing, not deletion. — A lizard (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I added {{coi}} to the article;still I can’t make it a neutral point of view.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I cleaned up some of the language in here to make it more neutral and to use fewer loaded terms. I don't have time to check the references and to parley them into an expansion of this article. THe big problem that I see is that it focuses too much on what the JIDF did to one single Facebook group. If the group has shut down other forms of content on other sites successfully, then reports on these in a factual, neutral, and well-written way, need to be added to it. Right now I don't see Oboler's conflict of interest here; if someone else cited the same thing, then it wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) raise any alarm bells here. But again, I don't have the time to back-check all the references right now. — A lizard (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Things look more or less okay to me, at the moment. Are there any serious problems, currently? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The article still needs work. So far, the only JIDF activities cited with references are on FaceBook but the introduction mentions activities on Wikipedia, YouTube, and other web sites. This must be rectified. This needs to be fixed by adding references from reliable third party sources (i.e., other than the JIDF web site) to such activities; the activities need to be detailed for at least a paragraph (2 or 3 sentences will do) each. Also, the "See Also" part of the article needs to have irrelevant links removed. It has a few. — A lizard (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, for the sake of "walking the walk" on this WICU thing, I added a background section, expanded the "activities" section (a section that I created by adding a header and… not much else), and an image. But we 'still' need to add more referenced activities of the group to make this more than a stub. The JIDF seems to point to their own accomplishments on their site so it can't be too hard to find some. Come on people, dispense with the name-calling and the vandalism and try to improve this article. Maybe we can make it an example of how to fix an article after it survives an AfD. — A lizard (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Completed the WICU entry for this article. — A lizard (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Facebook groups NOT a reliable source

Resolved

 – Per Reliable sourcing policies self-published sources are acceptable as a subject is considered an expert on themselves - "I was born in France", etc.; however independent reliable sources are better when offering more controversial information. Also per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV we don't need to give equal weight to all counterarguments, just that they exist is sometimes all that's needed. Banjeboi 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

This is a general comment that may be of interest else where later. Facebook groups IMHO are NOT a reliable resource, even when reporting about themselves. If a Facebook group is quoted in a RS that is ofcource acceptable. I believe this is the case because: 1) Facebook groups CHANGE rapidly and unlike Wikipedia, there is no history function 2) A Facebook group is NOT an organisation, it is a random here today, gone tomorrow, set up by anyone, potentially admined by anyone... collection of personal comments. 3) As the hosting etc is done by Facebook, and anyone can add content, this is less reliable than a personal website. 4) It is closest to a blog... but with the exception that ownership can rapidly change, so owning the group doesn't mean much or give someone the right to speak on behalf of the group (unless the group belongs to an established organisation perhaps and the admin is a recognised spokesperson otuside of Wikipedia). In this case the statement on the group could be considered on the same level as some random posting in a forum. If this is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source... things are going down hill fast. IF the comments are republished in a reliable source, then by all means someone should include them. Otherwise they are simply a primary source someone might comment on in a reliable sources, mean time citing this person who happens to have taken control when JIDF lost it, is giving the comment undue weight. Specially when the comment itself (from a non expert unreliable source) claims the group is not antisemitic against numerous third party reliable source accounts saying it is. In this particularly case this looks like an attempt to move from fact based on RS to a POV with little support. This example may be useful in other cases where Facebook comes up. Oboler (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC) You're right about one thing -- I should have linked the page to a google cache rather than the more protean actual Facebook site. Otherwise, I would beg to differ with your logic. It's acceptable practice to use blogs and related items as sources, if our purpose is to convey the publicly-stated views of their author/s, which is what was done here. At present, this article features several condemnations of the "delist Israel" group, no response from the group itself, and no indication that it was a response to "delist Palestine". Do you think this is balanced? CJCurrie (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC) There were over 48,000 members in the group, the majority of whom, were deleted by the JIDF. The new message from Madeline Nassar or any of the few admins is hardly representative of all the people who were in the group. If providing Facebook groups is a valid source for an official "response" (which it is not) then clearly the new groups which cropped up against "the incident" would be a clearer indication of the actual response. Besides, this is supposed to be an article about the JIDF, not about the group they took out and not the questionable nature of why that group was formed. Facebook group descriptions change constantly and that statement was never in there until after the JIDF takeover and the people who wrote that statement are not even the original creators of the group itself. Clearly, this should not count as a good source for Wikipedia.--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I would prefer to avoid using self-published sources whenever possible -- that goes for both the JIDF and groups it interacts with. It may be reasonable to quote the admin of the group in this specific case, but I'd really prefer to do so with an RS. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC) CJCurrie, this is an article on the JIDF, not on the Facebook group. The nature of the group is explained in relation to the JIDF and its goals. What the group things about that it not really relevant. What the group or members of the group (since the group is not an entity that cna have a collective opinion) thinks of the JIDF would be relevant if it came from a RS. Citing the group's info is like citing a comment in a blog, the person who posted that was NOT the original admin, they speak on behalf of no one but themselves, and as explained I feel this is less even then a blog. A blog is owned by someone and that someone doesn't usually change. Even then only a notable blog would be cited even about itself... and the unless you propose that the group is notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia page, it is off topic for this article. (Please lets not create Wikipedia pages for every Facebook group mentioned in the press.) Thinking about it, the closest example to citing a Facebook group is citing a Wikipedia talk page as a RS for an article. The underlying motivation is I think still a larger problem that you and I have not reached any agreement on. My view is that in an article on Skittles we do not need to balance with equal content on M&Ms, this would be undue weight and cause confusion. Your view seems to be that we can't say Skittles advertise themselves as having more flavour than M&Ms (this is hypothetical!) without then getting in an M&M counter claim on the skittles articles... making the article not about Skittles but about the disagreement. Oboler (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

neutrality disputed - does anyone agree with CJCurrie?

Resolved

 – Please keep comments and discussion on content and not contributors. Self-published sources are acceptable but not for contentious information. Also per WP:Cite each reference should be formatted so that other editors can verify the sourcing. In this case even the changed websites can be accessed for what they stated on the date in question; it's more likely that these self-referencing sources are all less desirable than more neutral reliable sources. Banjeboi 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

Just wondering what concensus is. Having been asked to comment by a number of editors who seem to be working in good faith... I was under the impression we were making good progress with his article and disputes were being sensibly resolved between editors. If that is the case, this including of "neutrality disputed" simply means CJCurrie feels it doesn't present his POV and he is annoyed that a number of other editors have reverted or reincluded things he wanted deleted, and prevent him including original research. That's not grounds for a "neutrality disputed" flag. Neither is not liking the facts. In such a short article this flag seems a little silly IMHO. What do others think? And if you do have a neutrality concern, what is it? Oboler (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I would very much welcome interventions from neutral and uninvolved parties, and I'm prepared to have my actions and statements held up to scrutiny. My neutrality concern has to do with the fact that (i) several aspects of the article seem to be a less-than-subtle defence of the JIDF's work, and (ii) there is no response from the group they've most prominently targeted. CJCurrie (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC) There is no such thing as a "neutral" or "uninvolved" party since everyone has an opinion on the conflict in the Middle East. Again, there is no valid way to get a "response" from the group they targeted as it is not an official organization, nor does it have any true representatives. One cannot even send a message to the current admins, who again, are merely admins and certainly are not representative of all the current (and former) members of the group in question. After having carefully studied many of CJCurrie's edits and actions [1] (thanks to the JIDF actually,) I do not question the neutrality of this article at all, but rather, question the neutrality of CJCurrie as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Einsteindonut “There is no such thing as a "neutral" or "uninvolved" party since everyone has an opinion on the conflict in the Middle East” If this is base then don’t force your opinion. “official organization”!!! What do you mean exactly by an official organization??? Can you explain what this link means? Carefully check your words!!!, We must question your neutrality before anyone else. --Puttyschool (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I guess in the Aryan Nation page we need to have a defense as to how they are the master race. You sound extremely ridiculous, as the page is quite moderate and you wish to debase it. The chronology of which delist group came first is irrelevant. Delisting a real country is anti-Semitism as opposed to delisting a pseudo land. CJCurrie should stick to writing about Canadian politics and get out of Israel related pages. Your responses and admissions demonstrate a far left wing bias in the area.Saxophonemn (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Saxophonemn Delisting X equals Anti-Y, else we are using double standers. Even if we assumed the your party is form one side, and CJCurrie ALONE is from another side, still the articles you are talking about will not be completely neutral, what we care about is the final article, if a lot of participating editors from both sides have a conflict of interest, the final article will be good, but not as much neutral as if it was written by a person out of the conflict, and thanks you (you don't use loaded words this time).--Puttyschool (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Puttyschool, I mean no offense by this, but I am lost. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Based mainly on Oboler and CJCurrie talks I’m against the use of self published sites, AS “JIDF” and the “Facebook”. JIDF site is changed after each edit of this article, and the facebook group can be changed. This old revision (No 1) which is mostly written by user: A lizard with a remarkable touch in the lead by user:Olaf Davis and I removed some words (I don’t think that anyone can argue about them), is neutral, in addition; each word is selected carefully, based on a reliable source(NOT a “POV”) and encyclopedic. This one (No 2) which is written by user: CJCurrie can be viewed as neutral, as he tried to address both sides, but his research was based on a self published site, even if it is a fact, then we need a reliable source, I think in this case what is valid is to add the site link at the end of external links, or another alternative. This one (No 3) which I can describe it as, Dr. Oboler took what he want from No 2, then start to repeat the same meaning over and over, using weaker references, is not neutral also un-encyclopedic and wastes casual reader time. Finally this is the wrong place for such “political” discussions; and I believe that all of you wasted a lot of time to fill this talk page, and according to my POV user Einsteindonut started by waving hands. Have time and don’t want watch TV, hear is the alternative Start from hear --Puttyschool (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Dr. Oboler actually included an important perspective on the problem of that particular anti-semitic Facebook group, because the group itself is notable in that many established organizations (not just the new JIDF) considered the group in question a "hate group." Not sure about your POV regarding "political discussions" - one has to understand there's quite a history there between Oboler and CJCurrie, which seems to have carried on a bit here. And I have no clue, again, what you mean by me "waving hands" but sure, I'll wave my hands at you! ::waves:: --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC) "I'll wave my hands at you!" No Comments from me, But I want Dr. Oboler comments, And I’ll respect it--Puttyschool (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Puttyschool, thanks for the vote of confidence but I'm not sure what you are asking me? My own edits there worked from the current version at that time and reinserted (then generally cleaned up) content that I believe is reliable and relevant but which had been removed. I also addressed the original research issue by removing the Facebook reference. The substantive question (for this article) is "i) what does the group say it does, ii) what does the group do / has it done that is of note, iii) what is its impact, iv) what do others say about it (i.e. praise and critisism sections)". That would seem the general pattern for this sort of article. (i) we can take from the JIDF site or better from statements made in the press (ii) this so far needs to mostly focus on the Facebook "no a country" group as that is what has put it in the press, whether the group is more widely regard as antisemitic is a critical aspect of whether the JIDF is doing what it says, or perhaps doing something else entirely - in this case the evidence says that this group IS widely regarded as a hate site and as such the JIDF is acting within its stated objective (iii) in this case it will be merged into ii (for now) as I don't think there is comment on the JIDF's wider impact yet outside of this Facebook group, again I have a paper that will be out next month or the month after that goes into this a bit, part of the impact is the question of the correct response to online hate and the role of the community vs the organisation... but to include this now would be OR :) (iv) Mostly there is reporting on the JIDF... not so much praise and critisism outside of blogs, when there is, it should be included. Facebook groups that say they hate the JIDF are not a RS for this, nor are myspace pages, nor are blogs or comments on Wikipedia. There WILL however be comments at some point. Hope this helps, if not... please clarify the question Oboler (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweet tweet, everyone out of the water

Resolved

 – Discussion is gaining in productivity and archiving talk threads can be helpful to keep dialog current and productive. Banjeboi 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

OK, I've boldly archived some threads that seem to have run the course or been replaced with more current ones. I've marked a few above with relevant policies in hopes to calm the waters a bit. As this is a highly personal and sometimes emotional subject we should all strive to keep in mind that we ourselves would prefer to be spoken of with respect even if someone honestly felt we were _____. As such reliable sources are the best friend to editing here and more neutral language is called for, we can state that some is disputed but we don't have to work at labeling groups of people with inflamatory terms. One suggestion that may help here is some content about how Facebook has approached content disputes of a political/social nature in the past and how were those attempts received. Banjeboi 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Also, per the idea that we need to fix anything "now" - we're not in a rush and articles are continually worked on so we should strive to find ways to work with each other first to resolve issues and improve the article step by step to keep the stress lower for all concerned. Banjeboi 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I really wish you'd not archived some and hidden more of the discussions there've been. It makes it much more difficult for outsiders to get a feel of what what's been covered. This very, very commonly accessed board is currently 472Kb, over 10 times bigger than what we've got here (I un-hid this page temporarily to see it all - but then struggled with two different sizes of text). If this page were to be disfigured by anti-policy activity such as Personal Attacks then it's particularly important that admins be given the opportunity to see what's happening. Please empty the archive back here and remove the "hide" code. PRtalk 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Completely and respectfully disagree. Anyone can read through the archives and unhide the previous talk threads. Admins, in particular, should have no issue finding offending posts if needed. We're trying to keep this productive and take the heat out of personalizing or politicizing what is arguably a sensitive subject. The size of that incredibly active admin board is no reflection on how big article talk pages should or could be. Per WP:Talk we should be considerate of access issues, personally I'm not able to even edit some very large articles as they are simply too large. So, I never even look at them, my system is not that old but is far better than the majority of our readers who we are here to serve. Talk pages are not a forum but simply someplace where editors can thoughtfully work together to improve the article. I've cleaned up a lot of talk pages and just like people don't always agree on content they also don't agree on archiving. We've had a lot of bold changes and now discussion is moving forward on improving the article. The archive has threads which do seem to have run their course and the above discussions are fresh with at least one currently in use. Instead of rehashing a thread that may be losing steam it might be wise to start a new thread if you feel soemthing in the article needs to be addressed and isn't. Banjeboi 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I agree, some parts of the discussion are pure political discussion, un-sourced, and un-related to the article, then why to keep them?--Puttyschool (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I misread this for a minute... I thought we were talking about the article, "pure political discussion, un-sourced..." comments like that are scarey! Thank goodness it is only about the talk page. The article itself doesn't meet that description at all... which is a very good thing! :) Oboler (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Resolved

 – NPOV tag removed and concerns addressed. Tag(s) can certainly be re-added but should also be accompanied by thoughtful discussion about improving the article. Banjeboi 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

Neutrality tag was placed[2] so I'm starting a specific thread on what specifically should be address. Please try to be brief and if there are specific quotes that apply make suggestions on how they need to be improved so others can address the concerns. Banjeboi 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) It was related to this facebook group, But as long as we are depending only on WP:RS (not the facebook group or the JIDF sites) while writing this article, I think "nothing is wrong with neutrality as long as this rule is applied".--Puttyschool (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with Puttyschool... if those are the standard there doesn;t appear to be any outstanding neutrality issue (IMHO). Oboler (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Speaking of which... "The JIDF (which has a name that is similar to the Israeli Defense Force)" was just tagged by Malik Shabazz as possible OR. I'm not sure it is if the group itself says so in a statement on their website... BUT if we are only allowing RS, then I have just looked and besides blogs quoting JIDF (even less reliable) there is not another source. Choice are to leave it in until such time as someone picks it up from the JIDF site and publishes it in a reliable source, or to remove the line all together. I have no opinion on this but I suggest we take a decision here and either delete or open a new section and document that we're waiting for a better source. Oboler (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Dr. Oboler, Please remember that this group can put a big question mark on the fidelity of WikipediA, so you must handle this subject from WikipediA POV As well--Puttyschool (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I think I rolled back a vandalism, so please revise this paragraph "successfully leading to the closure of over 100 of these groups.[7][1] The JIDF says they began taking control of a number of groups, most notably the Facebook group "Israel is ..." i.e go around.... :)--Puttyschool (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Puttyschool, I'm not following you. I don't see how the above comment of mine is not handling things from a Wikipedia POV. More to the point.. I was actually saying I was neutral on whether that sentence should stay or go and was simply pointing out that I looked for a RS reference and didn't find one. I'm happy either way, but we have all the information we need in order to take a decision on this sentence... so I suggest people take it. (As I say, I'm happy either way.) As to the 100 groups thing... That is one part of the article I've never edited. :) My personal opinion however is that it is sourced to a RS so is ok. Unless there was other vandalism in this section that is no longer there? Sorry, I'm confused again! :) Oboler (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I'd noticed that "similar name" line as well. I'd be comfortable using the JIDF site as a ref for that, possibly rephrased a touch, if they say so someplace on there (they haven't, as far as I've seen). Getting back to the subject of the {{POV}} template, I've currently removed it as there doesn't seem to be an obvious problem or other justification on this talk page, at the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Good morning all of you; seams this day is a cloudy from the early morning, sorry Oblear as your are confused; and sorry Luna Santin as I completely and respectfully disagree with you; now we are not solving. Oblear , I was depending on historical roots; i.e. we are smart like each other and you will figure it easily :) but I was not inspecting a shock that leads to this kind of Confusion. Check this edit of the article just before the {{NPOV}} [3] the editor start the lead by reference from the JIDF site; then ends the article by a reference to this group. the rule was “we are depending on self published sites”, with more focus, you will notice that there is no notability in this edit, anyone can nominate it for deletion. The article is completely based on this group, and says that GIDF closed this group, but if you open the group link, you will find the group contents is completely different than what stated by article contents, and the group is not closed, “this what I mean by Wikipedia fidelity”, so I suggested to go around this point, it is not a matter of 1, 28 or 100 group closed, the references are outdated, but the neutrality of the article is disputed for this reason, so please Luna return the {{NPOV}} till we go around it, the article was more neutral with this tag and rephrasing is not difficult.--Puttyschool (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) The reference appears to be outdated. Yet there are still some remnants of JIDF activity on the page. Archived/cached pages should be used as backup references. The funny thing is now that the group has a clause to be nice what are they going to discuss. Additionally the groups usage of a map that replaces Israel with "Palestine" is indicative of a group that would prefer not to live with an Israel.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) A Nice comment, but let us concentrate on the main issue, Oboler Please rephrase to go around the point above, with this point and WP:RS no one can claim about neutrality--Puttyschool (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)