Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Vandalizing through "Citation Needed" Tags?

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked for a month. We can work on sourcing concerns in the meanwhile. Banjeboi 23:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that is the case. There are citations and references for this entire article and it seems Ashley is going through (repeatedly) to add that every statement needs a citation. Typically, the sources are at the end of paragraphs. I'm not sure if Ashley has taken the time to read all the RS on the issue, but she'd see that everything is cited. Again, I'm new here so I'm not sure if this is common practice that nearly every single sentence needs some sort citation after it. From what I have seen, I rarely see this in any articles. This seems to be extremely politically motivated vandalism. If I broke the 3RR rule I'm sorry, but whatever she is doing does not seem to be in the name of WP neutrality.--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is reasonably well cited. Compare Internet Haganah, which badly needs citations. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to research you'd know I was male....I know what the article claims but there is still no evidence in the article to say that those claims are remotely a reality...It is neutral adding citation needed, especially when a citation to back up is needed. All the evidence points to this group being smoke and mirrors....

The citations are to go at the end of a sentence the citation used only says that the "group" claims to target certain things. That claim does not mean that the "group" is either capable of targeting or has targeted. Therefore a citation is needed to establish that the "group" has targeted. Other wise it is an intention of the "group" to target, this would mean that when the group has targeted you can report on its actions or you're only posting a Santa wish-list.....

If you're worried about pro-Israeli (most articles on the mid-east are badly in need of citations, both pro Israel and pro Palestinian) articles try adding citations to the pro-Israeli articles and be constructive by acknowledging that there is valid opposition to the pro-Israeli rational and that opposition is not all anti-Israeli but is pro-Palestinian....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You were putting citations after mere words and the fact that the JIDF say that they target Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Google Earth was established in a RS. Therefore, I think it was an active of vandalism to say that a citation was needed after each and every single group. Everything else you are saying is mere speculation on your behalf as far as what the JIDF is or is not. It has nothing to do about the article and is not helpful. On final note, to be pro-Palestinian means to be anti-israel by its very nature. In any event, if you don't trust the RS, perhaps find other RS's to back your claims and/or issues with the JIDF in general. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for page protection?

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for a month, everyone else seems ready to discuss issues. Banjeboi 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been a huge flurry of warring edits in the past few hours. I'm pretty sure that two editors have broken WP:3RR. Another is doing rollbacks to versions of pages many edits earlier and, I strongly suspect, has not evaluted all the individual edits of the editors who have contributed in the mean time. Does an admin need to lock the page for a few days?-Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have to familiarize myself with what the rule means entirely. If I broke it, I am sorry. I wanted to share the link to the article with a friend and was appalled at what had happened after all our hard work (with "citation needed" everywhere and taking out important well sourced facts) done by Ashley Kennedy. Not sure how to react to that but it was as if all our hard work and cooperation was going down the drain. What does page protection entail? Could it still be edited after that point? There has been some vandalism, but there has also been much well-sourced improvement as well. Not to mention the fact that many of the original edit wars died down. It's a shame that someone new can come in (with a very strong political bias) and create new problems. --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection comes in two forms full and semi-. Semi-protection just prevents anon and extremely new accounts from editing (you would be okay). Full prevents all non-adminstrators from editing and it would be bad-form for an admin to do it except for very specific reasons. The idea with full-protection is that we would spend the duration of the protection discussing the issues and thrashing things out hereon the talk page, so that, when the protection is lifted, we would then be able to improve the article wihout edit-warring. That's the theory anyway :-).--Peter cohen (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, by definition, if the page is protected, it will be protected at the m:The Wrong Version.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. someone has to complain about 3R rule before any notice is taken of the 3R rule. 2. I do not use complaints to admin as a method of getting my point across. 3. You logic of putting a claim by the group as though the group has carried out any action is faulty. Tell me/the world about what the group has achieved not what future plans the group has. or put it in a section entitled Grandiose Plans for the future....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Who was that aimed at? I might have thought 1 was aimed at me, but I can't relate 3 to any of my contributions. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Maybe she meant to post it elsewhere?--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Peter's original message: It looks like the edit war has stopped. If it resumes when the 24 hours is up, I would agree that edit protection is in order. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why protect? Just report edit warriors for blocking. Currently I've reported Ashley at WP:AN3, since this is hardly the first (or even only recent) time he seems to have had a problem with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashley might be the most extreme case here, but he isn't the only one that is pushing the boundary. The rollback I complained about, for example, reverted your quite appropriate change to the screen-capture caption. The editor who made the rollback made no attempt to avoid undoing your work or to reinstate it. Although I've not broken WP:3RR, I'm just waiting for tomorrow to reinstate edits I made earlier that have been reverted. (This is likely to be the fisrt one.) This sticking to the letter and nto the wpirit of the rule is regarded as dubious behaviour. So, when several people are acting out, I favour a "collective punishment" rather than just picking on one. Not that I'm going to go over to WP:AN3 and plea Ashley's case. Anyway the existence of this section may tone behaviour down on its own.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen Check the history I rolled it to the last stable version, which is not wrong--Puttyschool (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer science researcher?

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for a month, everyone else seems ready to discuss issues. Banjeboi 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, ok this is getting very awkward, I won't get into why but I believe I can help a little here with clarity about by own qualifications. This shouldn't be needed as a peer reviewed paper on a topic is RS and academics often do work in interdiciplinary areas. The norm in such cases is for the the work to be checked by people in all fields being covered. Again you can see some of the top experts in computer science, antisemitism, and political science reviewed the paper in question. Comments in the media on the topic someone is known as an expert in are different from random comments in another dicipline.

As to what I could be described as... I have been described as "a social media expert" this was first done by a journalist here. The above source also notes that I am "post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy". If you look at another source, for example this one I am described as "a post-doctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan University". The Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the world top conference on antisemitism) lists me as a speaker in the program. (Word of warning, they messed up my bio... the middle of my bio as given there is copied and pasted from someone else... so despite this being a RS, I am not "Vice-President of the German Bundestag" or "a Member of its Council of Elders".) At any rate this should all suggest that saying "computer science researcher" is slightly missing the point and perhaps misleading people through wp:undue qualification. Unless the topic is the article myself, none of this shoudl be relevant. On a whacky note, there is no RS that describes me using the words "computer science researcher", partly because that is a very generic lable. Oboler (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

With the flurry of activity since last night, I hadn't noticed that. I'll take it out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps all of this should make you notable enough to have your own Wiki article? Furthermore, someone had described your "Zionism on the Web" site as a "campaign site." I had never heard such terms used before except in reference to politicians, but I do not think you are one.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a computer scientist speaking about a subject not in his sphere of expertise/training...on the whaky note see the end of the article quoted says the qualifications.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from the way in which the sources describe him that Oboler is not speaking from expertise in computer science. One source describes his field as political science and the other as online public diplomacy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the article quote as written by Oboler says computer science....

Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org and is a post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy at Bar-Ilan University. Andre Oboler, a post-doctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan University and Legacy Heritage Fellow at the NGO Monitor watchdog group. Dr. André Oboler Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor

anti-semitism is not his sphere. on line diplomacy is.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you changed "post-doctoral fellow in the political science department" into compsci, though... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Andre Oboler is a postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He received his PhD in computer science in 2007 at Lancaster University, UK. From his own article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV banner

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for a month, everyone else seems ready to discuss issues. Banjeboi 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

8 dead is not a massacre...not unless you'd like to re-name Deir Yassin as a "bloody massacre" some people have a very low threshold of what constitutes a massacre...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree on the massacre/attack change, pending discussion to the contrary. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mercaz HaRav massacre was a school shooting spree like the Columbine High School massacre or the Dunblane massacre. Comparisons to Deir Yassin are off-base. I recommend that you read Talk:Mercaz HaRav massacre. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

that makes shelling beach parties massacres, that makes shelling houses in Gaza massacres etc etc etc. I suggest you get used to the reality that emotive language will only make the "blood debt" greater leaving Israel to answer for 20 "massacres" for every one "massacre" committed against Israel....the choice is yours.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS columbine is not an extremist school that teaches soldiers....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

nice to see we have our own little rationlizer of terrorism right here on wiki.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that somebody still hasn't read WP:CIVIL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for jingoism, Ashley. If you can't hold in your anger, find somewhere else to vent. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ashley: I fail to see how those actions are analogous to individuals entering schools and shooting students. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Do you have an argument that's relevant to the killings at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiv? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

either we reduce all incidents where 8 or more die to the term massacre or emotive language gets reduced... in the Mercaz HaRaz the emotive term terrorist is used and the extremist nature of the yeshiv is missing and the links of that particular yeshiv to settler "terrorism", the emotive language can be used but remember that emotive language is a double edged sword.... in particular 8 dying in one incident is not, to my mind a massacre but if you say it is then all incidents with 8 or more die will be termed massacres....and obviously any incident where 100 or more die ends up as a "bloody massacre" 500 or more must be "genocide", 1000 gets to be "bloody Genocide"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

sources

I find this comment (see history) very distateful. It is inaccurate given that the UKs Telegraph is certainly either Israeli nor Jewish... but that is besides the point. My concern is that qualifying newspapers as "Jewish or Israeli" either leads to, or reflects racism. For Wikipedia purposes the requirement is that the sources are reliable. To place extra demands or "qualify" the sources in some way in the text is to suggest a higher standard applies when sources come from certain countries - this is not Wikipedia policy. To suggest a higher standard applies when the paper is in say the education field (e.g. Time Higher) or a paper for a specific community (e.g. the Church Times) would be absurd (if the paper is not a high quality publication that is another story and related to RS policy) - why then should the Jewish Press be treated any different? Attacking both the Jewish Press and the Israeli press at the same time... hmm. Oboler (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, fully agree with Oboler (and I hope you don't mind and that it is not in bad form, but I took the liberty to correct a couple minor typos in your statement.) By the logic of that comment, would all reliable sources owned or created by Jews which are about Jewish or Israel issues, etc. have to be qualified as "Jewish?" If that became precedent, I'd imagine a TON of Wikipedia editing would be in store (this statement does not lend credence to the stereotype that "the Jews own the media" - however, one cannot deny their contribution to the field of journalism.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This really should be addressed on a user level at their talkpage unless there is a pattern of comments in the edit histories from multiple editors, in which case it still should be addressed at a user level. If the comments are on this talk page then both places are fine. Banjeboi 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Partisan sources, and these are partisan sources, are not ones suitable for drawing impartial conclusions. In fact they are just one partisan source. Andre Oboler is the author of the report, and one of the articles and the other is alrgely based on an interviw with him. Saying that a report and the press-actually an opinion piece have described something as anti-Semitic without acknowledging that these were all sourced toone author who is an active campaigner is highly misleading.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I think you are confused. The JPost article on the JIDF (what we are talking about) is a news source. They happen to interview me, but as an academic in the field and one of the few experts in this area that is hardly suprising (even less so when you realise I write for the JPost on occasion). The Telegraph article is neither Jewish nor Israeli nor anything to do with me (a rather large hole in your argument). The antisemitism article referenced is an academic report, some of the experts who reviewed drafts are thanked at the end of the piece... you can't dismiss this scholarship... but it is also not about JIDF so now what we were talkign about. The JPost piece is indeed an op-ed, I have a paper copy of it. This counts as a RS. Also not specifically on JIDF, so not what we are talking about. You forgot to mention that the Jewish Week story (it was a front page story) also quotes me and indeed was partly based on a draft of my report. There is also a Jerusalem report cover story with my picture in it (at least in the paper version) it too quotes me. There is another Jewish Chronicle piece on the Facebookgroup, also quoting me. It is hardly my fault I am the expert in this field and all these quotes in the press simply support that (as does the report). In light of that, your comments ammount to little more than a personal attack, not on me as an editor, but as an academic. That could be considered defamation of a living person. I'll leave it for the uninvolved editors to comment further. Oboler (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I've just spent some unpleasant time battling with an IP editor on the Holocaust Denial article, who insisted that the 17 reliable sources there stating that Holocaust Denial is antisemitic weren't really reliable, because they were all Jewish. It looked ugly there, and it looks ugly here. Sources are not inherently unreliable on any topic merely because they are "Jewish or Israeli", and they certainly don't need to be yellow badged. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it is inappropriate to identify the sources as "Jewish" or "Israeli", Oboler is mistaken when he writes that an op-ed is a WP:RS. Absolutely not, except as a source for the author's opinion. From WP:RS#News organizations:

Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. (emphasis in original)

Describing this as an example of "the press" labeling the Facebook group antisemitic is incorrect. According to the guideline, it's an example of an individual author labeling the group antisemitic. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. It's in especially poor taste for the writer of the op-ed piece to present it as a hard news story when it's not. The hard-news stories that appear in the Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post are fine, and there's nothing really inherently wrong with using Obler's op-ed piece, but the sentence should be revised to state that the group was labeled antisemetic by the writer of the op-ed piece. Saying the press insinuates a foregone conclusion, which the references must support. (Get additional reliable references that say they're antisemetic and you're probably ok.) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about things overnight, as far as I am concerned there are two possibilities with this sentence.

1. Remove it altogether.
2. Decide that User:Oboler is WP:notable in his own right and describe things as his opinion, red linking him for now, but hopefully providing an article on him relatively soon.

I am inclined towards the first. It is about a third party item and not about the subject of the article itself. Also an argument saying it is anti-Semitic because it ejects the propaganda concept of the Right to exist isn't a very powerful case. (I see that people have found a reference to the Young Turks using the concept, but in post-war times it is exclusive to Israel, I haven't come across it used in relation, for example, to the three Ks of Kurdistan, Kosovo or Kashmir or even to the idea of a Palestinian state.) I am therefore removing it.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the group being labeled "anti-semitic" - I do believe denying the existence of the state of Israel is regarded as anti-semitic under the EUMC Definiton of anti-semitism [1], "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determinition" - is a way in which anti-semitism manifests itself. Furthermore, there was an overwhelming amount of user generated material in the group which, under the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism, clearly qualifies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, not really for me to comment on the notability of myself... however, I should point out that the JPost piece "opinion" is supported by the research report I wrote (which you also removed and which is definitely a RS). This was peer reviewed and published academically, which indicates it is more than simply an opinion. There are additionally other sources (cited in the final paragraph). Your deletion removes two important sources (which have already been discussed on talk after CJCurrie tried removing them due to a personal issue he has with me) and the concensus was to keep them in. A third option would be to reword the sentence... I think saying the "group had previously been explored and described as antisemitic in a report[7] as well as in the press.[8][9]" is actually ok.. the "opinion" was after all made IN the press. It doesn't say the press made the claim, it said the claim was made IN the press (i.e. published in the media) and one of the media references (also removed) is indeed an article. This looks like a round abotu way to remove Jewish and Israeli soruces... if I didn't have a COI in reverting it, I would. I ask that others consider rolling back as this edit removed important sources. Oboler (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources concern the target of one set of actions. There is already somethign in saying that the ADL consider the group anti-Semitic. Proliferating opinions about a third party that is not the subject of the article is excessive.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, this is WP:undue, the topic of the group is notable because of the report (and the front page coverage in the Jewish Week). The report is a far more substantive item than the ADL reference, but the ADL reference serves as validation (you were previously arguing the source was invalid). You have taken out two strong references with details and left in one reference based entirely on the credibility of the organisation as the source doesn't give an explanation (as it in turn is based on the sources you removed). This is a way of hiding the facts. There is also nothing wrong with extra reference if they contribute to the understanding of the issue (which they do) and don't take up much space (which they don't). Oboler (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I’m contributing like a WP:XX machine, and I agree it is WP:undue, by the way till now I didn’t not find anything about biased sources in the definition of WP:RS--Puttyschool (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1 there is no such beast as an impartial source on any middle east topics.
• 2 There will always be doubts about the sanity of a group that uses the phrase "Coordinating Concerned Citizens Globally" (since when was there a one world government to be a citizen of, concerned citizen is part of the phraseology of self appointed right wing activist groups and means nothing, 5,000 out of the world populations means that they a very small minority of "world citizens" laying about 5 millionth is world ranking, there are golf clubs higher in ranking.)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashley
Please if you want to contribute, follow the discussion in the page from the beginning, check archives--Puttyschool (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Everyone needs to be aware that quite a few folks are watching these pages and when one users actions are looked at everyone else's also comes under scrutiny. I've refactored the title of this section as really the issue is sourcing. Unfortunately many publications, that are reliable sources blur the line of what is news and what is opinion. If there is a question then ask what most reasonably editors would think. If that ins't clear enough we can get more informed opinion on how wikipedia looks at a source at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In any case we should work to avoid edit warring, it's not too helpful. We can, by the way, use opinion pieces and we state according to _____ the group ___ is considered _____. Relying on a neutral point of view, we also can buffer that with something like - the group's webpage instead states they "_____". We don't have to solve this instantly and all our effort will be improved upon by others. Aim to get it right so that our readers are served by a well-written and accurate article. Ashley kennedy, I agree in part with Puttyschool, although I don't think you have to read the archives to know that comments like that are rather unhelpful. There certainly are reliable sources on middle east topics and in the absence of truly reliable sources we work with the ones we have to find the NPOV content and present it as neutral as possible. Comments should be specifically addressing improving this article - everything else can be seen as disruptive to the process. Banjeboi 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I Think my comment was clear, no one should complain about the source from which side, all we have is it a reliable source or not--Puttyschool (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not always quite so clear, often the question is is ___ a relaible source to support ______. For instance IMDb is a movie resource that is extensive but their sourcing isn't the best so it can be utilized for general statements but anything controversial needs better sourcing. In our case here JIDF's own website is a great source for stating what they state they are and do - and we should be clear in our editing that it is their words not ours. Banjeboi 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the question, it is the matter of the answer which depends on every one POV, but my question always has one answer, and this will simplify a lot, anyway this is my POV.--Puttyschool (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Op-ed as reliable source

Regarding the Jerusalem Post op-ed, Oboler wrote "the JPost piece 'opinion' is supported by the research report I wrote". Nobody is questioning whether your opinion is a valid one — everybody is entitled to an opinion — the issue is that it's your opinion. It's not a fact reported by the Jerusalem Post, and the article currently misrepresents it as such.

I think the article should either say "Andre Oboler describes the group as antisemitic" or "according to Andre Oboler the group is antisemitic". If it says that "the press" calls it antisemitic, it should cite a news article. And being coy and putting the sentence in the passive voice ("described as antisemitic ... in the press") is not a reasonable means of skirting Wikipedia's clear guideline that opinion columns are not reliable sources (cited above). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We were not talking about the contents of the article; the claim was about adding Oboler papers to the list of reference, revise discussions above, biased means Oblear wants to add his paper--Puttyschool (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds, punditry, and other opinion pieces should generally be cited as "xxx claims/says yyy", not "yyy" without qualification. --John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So far you have only put what the group is against and missing what the group promotes.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)