Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

JIDF comes out strongly against Obama

Resolved

 – No action needed

Today, on the JIDF web site [1], there's a strong statement against Obama:

"We are an organization which is against antisemitism and terrorism and we do not like Obama's clear ties with antisemites and terrorists. Therefore, our stand on Obama goes hand-in-hand with our stands on everything else. We realize this puts us at odds with a majority of Jews who always vote "democratic." However, it is our hope that they will "wake up" to the many problems with Obama, his connections, and his stands. Our opinion on Obama has nothing to do with his religion or his race. At the end of the day, we just do not believe he is fit to be the leader of the free world (and we feel it is not a coincidence that so many terrorist organizations and dictators support him.)"

Previously, someone with the JIDF had made a similar statement to a somewhat questionable blog, so we had a reliable source problem. Now the JIDF web site itself unambiguously and prominently makes this position statement. What should we say about that? --John Nagle (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John, I would counsel caution here. Thanks for the info. JIDF is somewhat notable based on limited media coverage of a couple Web-related actions. If necessary, we can rely on their blog to fill out our coverage of those sourced actions. However, their blog/website is not well-established as a generator of political opinion, and any factual aspects of their statement can be found in more reliable sources. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 03:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put. If we had a more neutral reliable source, I might be swayed, I don't see the need to provide a platforms for groups as such. Banjeboi 07:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John this is neither recent, nor notable (as it isn't in any RS.) I've been reading the JIDF site for a while and have watched this whole thing evolve over the past months, and their views on Obama have always been strong and consistent (as with many of their other views, which have not been covered by RS.) The JIDF has many stands which would most likely exceed the scope of this article (again, especially considering no "RS" have covered it...) Even in the screencap for the site in our article is a big google ad for McCain. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. It's not really a reliable source issue; the public statements of an organization are valid as sources for its public positions. It's more of a WP:FRINGE issue. See "Do you know enough? The JIDF on Obama", which I can't even quote on the talk page in its entirety without raising WP:BLP issues. --John Nagle (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, sounds like we all agree. Unless I've misinterpreted the thread (sorry!), let's consider this resolved.HG | Talk 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More knowledge

A study deserves time to read! « PuTTY^SchOOL 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. But off-topic, this page isn't a forum for discussing wikipedia generally. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic!!!, Okay I strongly agree so please remove Wikipedia from the article « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are proposing an edit here, please explain your reasoning clearly and unambiguously, thanks. There seems to be an adequate source to mention Wikipedia in the article. HG | Talk 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The study may be useful but ... Banjeboi 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“but what”? This is an academic study and the article mentioned Wikipedia, we have Dr. Oboler a social media researcher, and John Nagle also interested with researches, they can decide, for me is was not a waste of time at all.« PuTTY^SchOOL 07:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

but ... as HG said, do you have something specific to propose be added or changed in this article relevant to this source? Banjeboi 07:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Appletree or the JIDF

Resolved

 – sources added. Banjeboi 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Arutz Sheva, one of the sources, is an article about David Appletree, not the JIDF. It describes actions he took, not those of the JIDF. It is appropriate, then, to attribute those actions to Appletree and not to the JIDF.

Also, please see WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY regarding the preference of secondary sources (Arutz Sheva) over primary sources (the JIDF). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to fix this here since I believe the article should be more about the JIDF itself than Appletree. The original Arutz Sheva article does not even mention the JIDF.--Einsteindonut (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eisendonut, maybe we should see what other editors think before deleting the whole paragraph. Some of us think that Appletree is the JIDF. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then shouldn't there be a separate bio of him? I didn't delete the whole paragraph--just parts as i felt that this was supposed to be about the JIDF and the one Arutz Sheva piece didn't even mention the JIDF. It was just about Appletree. I don't see any RS directly expressing Appletree's involvement, yet the fact that some of you think "Appletree IS the JIDF" for some reason is leaking into this article completely and it's becoming more about him, and less about the organization. So shouldn't it be separate? I was acting too quickly perhaps as I saw the fact that Shabazz made a good point. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a newspaper interview doesn't make you notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. See WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, that's part of the reason I deleted the references to Appletree, since I don't think I've seen any RS actually tying "Appletree" to the JIDF within the article itself. There was just the one link from within the one Arutz Sheva article to another article which does not mention anything about the JIDF and only talks about Appletree. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few quotes from Appletree to add context. Banjeboi 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's blog says "Andre Oboler discussed the matter with JIDF's David Appletree shortly after the take over. "[2]. But Oboler's blog is not a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We have some RS sources to satisfy that he is with the group in some way and has acted as a spokesperson in some regard but these don't define him as the spokesperson or negate that others are involved so I'm unclear what needs to change until another source is presented to provide clarity. Banjeboi 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but Zionism On The Web is a website (both technology wise and by clear references in the press, not to mention in terms of content) and not a blog. It is also not "my website", I mean I am CEO of it, but my person website is somewhere else (and can be found by those wanting to look for it). The notability and RS nature of the site is an open issue it keeps coming up for discussion and so far keeps ending up at the position "well someone could make a page for it I guess" it would be either a weak keep or a weak delete in an AfD I suspect. At any rate I have spoken with David Appletree on the radio so at minimum I can say he definitly exists and definitely speak on behalf of the JIDF :) I have the recording of that and another radio interview I gave (related to Wikipedia not JIDF) I will at some point upload them to "my" "possibly reliable" website ;) Not sure if that would be of any help? Oboler (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing (I think) we the previous two comments -- Appletree is clearly connected with JIDF and has at least some capacity to speak/act on their behalf, per the stronger sources. It's within our editorial orbit to recognize his role because he is the creator of the Facebook sites (now associated w/JIDF), the contact person on the JIDF website, the person cited by Morrison as starting the Facebook campaign = JIDF's campaign, and most directly: Arutz Sheva links its statement that "The JIDF was founded by an American Jew " to the Morrison article on Appletree. If need be, this compelling evidence can be footnoted. We also have supporting evidence from Oboler's blog -- which is not reliable enough for the article, but I don't see why it can't help confirm our editorial judgment of the situation.

• Therefore, I propose that we change the phrase "Appletree, a Jewish activist who has specialized in Facebook groups" to something more apt. For instance: "Appletree, an activist who founded the JIDF" or the like, footnoting th 7-27 Arutz Sheva piece. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unclear that we have strong RS that he founded the group although I would support Appletree, a Jewish activist who has specialized in Facebook groups and has spoken on behalf of JIDF. Banjeboi 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. If possible, could you articulate what you find unclear about the Arutz Sheva link above? Anyway, I don't mind the second half of the clause. But "specialized in Facebook" strikes me as bit puffed up. (Maybe it's from one of the articles?) I mean, it's not like a professional or academic speciality, it's simply one of his activist foci. Thanks, be well, HG | Talk 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if reference both articles it could work. Banjeboi 10:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I appreciate your flexibility/responsiveness, good for you. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 10:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I didn't notice the link from the one Arutz Sheva article to the other. It would still be better if one source stated that ____ founded ____ but as long as both are used to ref this information it would seem fine. Both articles, BTW, would help add to the context the organizations founding. Banjeboi 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added to lead that JIDF founded by Appletree. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again... (sorry all)

{{resolved.Sources found and added as appropriate. Banjeboi 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}} Nagle, the "social media expert" was an attribution in the Jewish Week by the journalist concerned. I started using it in my by line after that. Incidently op-ed by lines ARE written by the author as part of the piece. So the logic you provide is additionally flawed. I personally think the journalists decision to use "social media expert" is the most accurate, more indepedent and most verifiable out of the options we have. Most importantly however, it is the most relevant. On that note I open the floor to others... again. Oboler (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "social media expert" to "postdoctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan" which seems a bit pointy and clumsy. Perhaps researcher would be better than expert" Banjeboi 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" sounds good. I agree that "Postdoctoral fellow ..." is silly. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" does not sound accurate considering his credentials. There are many "researchers" who are not published and who do not have PhD's. "Sounds good" and "silly" are personal opinions. If we are striving for neutrality, we should go for what is ACCURATE, not how we feel about how things sound.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"social media authority"?, or is "social media expert" the most accurate. Banjeboi 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's affiliations are all advocacy organizations. He's with NGO Monitor (part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and partially funded by CAMERA). Even Bar-Ilan University is something of an advocacy organization.[3]. The affiliation information should perhaps reflect this. I don't see anywhere that Oboler has been listed as a "social media expert" in any context outside Israel advocacy. --John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he's an expert, we call him an expert. If it calls him something else, we call him something else. We don't make that decision ourselves. IronDuke 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he is an expert, then we can say that the source says he is an expert, but shouldn't go beyond that. This is an ongoing headache with pundits and op-ed types. --John Nagle (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler wrote above that the by-lines on op-ed pieces are written by the author. The only news source that mentions him (The Jewish Week) describes him as "a Legacy Heritage Fellow who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org and is a post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy at Bar-Ilan University". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you help me find "social media expert" in the Jewish Week article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. It is a different Jewish week article, not the one referenced in this article. Here is the quote: "Social media expert Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage fellow at NGO Monitor who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org, acknowledges that CAMERA made novice mistakes in its approach, the most serious of which was trying to get involved in Web 2.0". The source is here [4]. This article incidently is about Wikipedia itself. :) Oboler (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked Nexis. In a letter to the Times (London), you're self-listed as "Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor, Jerusalem." By the way, you have more listings than JIDF, which only has 1 (one). The scarcity of Nexis cites of JIDF does raise q's of its notability. I'm not sure notability should be established via your (Oboler's) op-eds or its (relatively small) presence on Facebook. So maybe JIDF should get it's wish about deleting the article after all. But I see you all have been thru an AfD, so it's premature to re-open this discussion now. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, surely letters to the editor don't count! :p If they do there is one in the Wall Street Journal as well. ;) At any rate both the letter are written in a work capacity and that is my title at work. The other stuff is not done in a work capacity. The Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor is not I think particularly relevant here, though it is as true as saying I am an ambassador to Israel, see Time Higher (also irrelevant!). On John Nagle's comments... this is actually full of conspiracy theories and innaccuracies. I don't think this is the place to correct them all... but I find it concerning the way Jewish and Israeli (or Israeli based or focused) sources are attacked on Wikipedia. This is the third time on this talk page, and in each case there seems to be a questionable motivation. Oboler (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me back up a bit. I don't want to discourage or offend Dr. Oboler, but now that I look again at the sentence in the article, I would like to suggest something. In many cases, WP articles don't cite sources in the encyclopedia text, only in footnotes. The source is cited usually when the source only represents one view. However, I don't see that there's any controversy among the sources about whether the Facebook group is antisemitic. So, if you don't mind my saying so, the article text need not mention Dr. Oboler. Furthermore, the article cites the ADL. As I assume Oboler would agree, the ADL is considered a pretty strong authority on what constitutes antisemitism. It's unnecessary to even footnote the Jewish Week or other sources, because the ADL stands well enough on its own. Hope you don't mind, but I think this may be the best way to handle the article. HG | Talk 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to removing sources and hav modified to "social media researcher". Banjeboi 06:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere, but why are you opposed to removing sources generally? This isn't about removing a sourced statement, but merely an extra source for the same statement. Second question, do you object to moving the sources to a footnote and, if so, why? (If you'd rather not belabor this point, say so pls.) Thanks, HG | Talk 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because generally we need to adhere to verifiability policies and sources are how we do that. This is contentious information and having an extra sourc is much better than having one too few. If there were compelling reasons to somehow merge into a footnote, then maybe but I see no reason not to leave as is. I've see multiple refs condensed into a footnote but generally because they were so many good ones which is not the issue we see to face on this article. Banjeboi 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. It is better to have more sources than fewer sources, even if one source would suffice. There are a number of reasons why one should stick with more sources. Firstly, I don't know if this applies to other readers, but at least for me, when I see a statement with multiple citations I am more likely to trust that it is true than if I see a statement with only one citation. Secondly, Wikipedia is often used as a starting point for finding more information, and additional citations are incredibly useful for such readers. Thirdly, keeping the sources allows the sentence to be rephrased in the future, with possibly more information included; by removing sources, it limits changes to the sentence to only that which can be supported by the remaining source. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Which sources in article. Obolers title perhaps still an open question

Ok, I accept keeping the sources, incl Oboler, per Benjiboi and M Safyan. If more sources are added, I would want to revisit question of moving them to a footnote. Thanks for your responses. HG | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF posts image for Wikipedia

Resolved

 – JIDF's wishes for this article don't trump policies on verifiability and neutrality. Banjeboi 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a situation I found intriguing. The JIDF blog specifically posted an image to put on this Wikipedia article. The heading currently reads "Better Sample of the Groups We Target (For Wikipedia)." This strikes me as problematic. At the very least, it gives the appearance of Wikipedia coordinating with JIDF to promote JIDF, or cooperating with JIDF's self-promotion. (From what I can tell, our image is downloaded from the blog image by Einsteindonut 8-22-08.) I'm sorry if you've already come to consensus about the inclusion of the image in the article, but I did want to mention this interesting nuance. Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way the JIDF is manipulating this article, posting messages for Wikipedia that are then being used as sources. I wish there was some way to put an end to it, but I think a blog is a WP:RS for what it says about the organization that sponsors it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That's interesting. The JIDF is only marginally notable (only two major press citations have been found), and being in Wikipedia increases the visibility of the organization. Wikipedia usually doesn't display web site screen shots. Usually an article gets a logo, if that. Also, we have a third-party cartoon in that image without copyright clearance. Maybe we should drop that image. --John Nagle (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the JIDF doesn't want to be on Wikipedia after all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At this juncture, Malik, their opinion about whether to be on Wikipedia strikes me as irrelevant. (I'm assuming that WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, right?) However, if the screenshot is unusual for an article of this size, then I'd be interested in hearing the pro's and con's for keeping the image. (Aside from the promotional concern I've floated above.) Tx, HG | Talk 03:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be copyright problems, because (for example) the Hamas logo is subject to copyright. I've brought the question up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and CAMERA Wikipedia pages don't have screenshots. They don't even have pictures other than the logo, and those are organizations with physical offices, known officers, and big real-world events. The page for Facebook has a picture of Facebook HQ (although, amusingly, that picture is actually of the Japanese restaurant that occupies the ground floor) and a screen shot of the home/login page. Miniclip has a screen shot of their huge home page in their info box. LinkedIn just has a logo. Myspace has a logo and a picture of the headquarters building. None of these Wikipedia pages have screenshots of interior web site pages. Wikipedia doesn't usually do that. --John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But John, this image serves a different function. It displays the Facebook groups that were the target of JIDF activities. So it seems directly related to the notable aspect of the group's activity. Is it relevant that the screenshot is taken from the JIDF Facebook page or blog sites? After all, it could as well be an independent screenshot of the targeted group, without JIDF as the source. See what I mean? HG | Talk 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there was already a sample up. I read the blog and they made a point saying that the original sample only showed anti-semitic groups and not the terrorist groups, and I wanted to learn how to add an image, so I replaced it. I don't care if there's a photo up or not, but I do feel if there's going to be one, that it should be the most accurate to show what the JIDF is targeting. i doubt the other organization mentioned here have their "whois" info. in their WP article. I'm all for scaling this article way back (especially in light of the fact that the JIDF doesn't even want to be in here anymore...) However, if the article is to remain, it should be accurate. If people are going to post photos, then they should be accurate, etc. Not to change the subject, but if we are going to talk about what isn't needed, I don't find "whois" info. to be very relevant and I don't think I've ever seen it on any other Wikipedia page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my (internet?) ignorance here, what is the "whois" info that is being disputed? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, you mean the source for the start of the JIDF website? Hmmm. I guess the question is whether both the JIDF and its website are relevant. Is there are reliable coverage (or evidence?) of the JIDF active before 2008? Is the website itself worth mentioning or just the JIDF campaign activities? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Einsteindonut is disputing the whois info; rather, he seems to be saying that the info is not relevant to the article and, therefore, should not be included. Did I understand your position correctly, Einsteindonut? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Michael. That was my point. It makes it appear that the JIDF is lying since the decision to go public and to create a site was created 8 years after it began to take shape. Furthermore, the "whois" info. does not show anything except when they created that particular website and registered that particular name. From my understanding they had http://thejidf.blogspot.com before they registered that domain and they do have at least one post which goes back to 2002 (and others prior to 2008) which would seem to contradict this information that they registered a domain in 2008 --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the organization was a corporation, or had offices, employees, known officers, or meetings, we wouldn't need WHOIS data. But this organization seems to exist only on line, so the usual sources of basic who/what/when/where data about organizations aren't giving us much. --John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)