Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Palestine drop down paragraph

The paragraph that goes on about Palestine being listed in a drop down and groups for and against it has nothing to do with the JIDF or why it takes over goups. The JIDF didn't form because of this and didn't take over the "Israel is not a country" group because of such debates but because the group was a vehicle for anti-semitism. It has reported as well as taken over many other groups none of which had anything to do with the country listings issue. I don't see any good faith reason to keep this misleading paragraph. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Kuratowski's Ghost. That's what I've been trying to get through to many people for a while. They seem determined to keep this irrelevant information in, (for some reason.) Thank you for also creating a new subject header. I don't have a problem with some Facebook background, but this bit about "Palestine" is completely off the topic of the JIDF and why it took over said group.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's background information which offers additional context to our readers, who I would assume are interested in understanding the issues at hand. Similarly, the statements indicating groups other than the JIDF considered the IINAC group anti-semitic offer important context for readers, but have no direct relevance to the article subject. Are they really so different, in that sense? I can certainly see disagreeing with the inclusion, but saying you "don't see any good faith reason" for it seems to just poison the well. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are different as I have explained over and over and over and over again. The statements about the group being antisemitic tie into why the JIDF took over the group (which has been cited in reliable sources.) The statements about the pull down menu are off topic and irrelevant and have never been mentioned with regard to JIDF actions or activities. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We should justify the actions of one party, but not the other? Why not give readers a complete picture? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

as I have explained over and over and over and over again. The statements about the group being antisemitic tie into why the JIDF took over the group (which has been cited in reliable sources.) The statements about the pull down menu are off topic and irrelevant and have never been mentioned with regard to JIDF actions or activities. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We have it reliably sourced that the IINAC group, which the JIDF targeted, was founded in response to an anti-Palestine group. I see no way in which mentioning this will harm a reader's understanding of the material or the issues at hand, but I do see potential benefit, given the additional context. If you want to silence any point of view not identical to your own, then I respectfully suggest you try a little harder than copy-pasting the same post. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin, you make a point that would be valid IF the article was about the IINAC Facebook group. As this is an article about the JIDF, to explain why the JIDF took down the group and that there are credible sources backing up their assessment of the group as antisemitic at the time they took it down, is not only reliable, but significant. To include other information about the group, how it was founded, etc information that is not related to the JIDF on the JIDF article is undue weight and possibly misleading. It is quite possible the group was set up for another purpose and originally was not antisemitic. That however is not relevant to this article. As discussed in the RS already linked to in the article, it is the content, description etc of the group that made it antisemitic - not simply the groups name.

There is also a context problem here that is partly hidden by the closing of past discussion topics. When those advocating the inclusion of this irrelevant (to a JIDF article) background material have previously tried to push this point, they found there was no concensus to support them. they went away and once it stablised seem to have no come back and tried again. This damages the good faith work of others who have been here consistently. That one of the accounts (NonZionist) looks like it may be a sockpuppet is of further concern. That the discussion in the talk topic above shows a blatant attempt to insert POV, and specifically a POV that pushes to remove or water down evidence that the IINAC group was antisemitic at the time JIDF got involved with it, and does so by making what amounts to an antisemitic claim through a sock puppet ("the background information creates the impression that JIDF is genuinely 'Combating Anti-Semitism'. That impression may well be false: Again and again, we have seen the bogus 'anti-Semitism' charge used to silence critics of Israeli fascism. All claims of 'anti-Semitism' need to be scrutinized.")... calling this alarming may not be going to far. Those who have been editing in good faith I think need to recognise that this latest attack on Wikipedia for what it is - including the racist element in it. Oboler (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The article may not be about the IINAC group, but that particular section is largely about an incident between that group and the JIDF; the background of that incident is clearly relevant in such a section, all apologist arguments aside. Though I should add, in the interest of compromise, that I might be amenable to refactoring the current presentation a bit. Currently: (a) we mention the PINAC group, (b) the JIDF takeover of IINAC, and then (c) mention sources which considered the IINAC group anti-semitic; would the flow of events be more clear if we mention the anti-semitism, earlier (switching order from abc to acb)? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The establishment of the IINAC group occured years before JIDF got involved with it. It is clearly not related to this article. The question at point is not "why was the IINAC group set up?" but rather "why did JIDF target this group?". The answer is that at the time JIDF took action, the IINAC group was already in the press as the primary example of an antisemitic group on Facebook. Please see the last few lines of this version [1]. It puts this in context and is perhaps a better background section (in the order you suggest). The text was

The "Israel is not a country…" group had previously been explorer and described as anti-semitic in an report as well as in the press. Since the JIDF intervention the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism (CFCA) has highlighted the issue by including a Telegraph article on the topic in its archive. The Anti Defamation League (ADL) cite the group as an example of anti-Semitism on Facebook and describe it as "strongly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic". The press have also increased coverage.

There were issues with this text that have since been resolved, but the temporal nature of events has been lost, as perhaps has the direct relevancy of these events to the JIDF (both as a rational for targetting this group, and as impact of the JIDF action). This is all relevant background to the JIDF in a way that the establishment of the group is not. Oboler (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I managed to fix may major objection by including a few words. Oboler (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler's little fix seems fine with me, though I trimmed it down. Have a look. HG | Talk 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you took out the key part I wanted included. The point is not just that it grew, but that it then changed in nature to become a key place of antisemitic activity on Facebook. This context is important in introducing the group. As the charge that it is antisemitic clearly need heavy validating with RS, what follows is then in context and provides more depth on the issue as it relates to the JIDF. Could you please revert? It you can think of a better way of describing it than "hot bed" that would obviously be better... "hot bed" is a bit editorial. Oboler (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We can explore particular wordings a bit, but I do agree it's important to convey that. Does this get us heading in that direction? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. But if the point is that it was labelled antisemitic beforehand, why not put Luna's "Prior to this action..." sentence before the JIDF action as part of the background paragraph? Less confusing and it's background. I'll try it and you all either revert or fiddle w/it. My edit here. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to respond to Oboler's charge -- "That one of the accounts (NonZionist) looks like it may be a sockpuppet is of further concern. That the discussion in the talk topic above shows a blatant attempt to insert POV". We ALL have POV's, even Dr. Oboler. NPOV, if it is achieved at all, depends on a BALANCE of competing perspectives. I attempted to participate in the discussion, in that spirit. Discussing and inserting are two different things: As a newbie, I made NO attempt to do the latter. My orientation is libertarian anti-fascist: Not everyone who opposes censorship is "anti-Semititic". The promiscuous mis-use of the "anti-Semitic" charge to silence critics of Israel has rendered the charge meaningless and libelous.

I left the discussion precisely because I had no more light to contribute, only heat. That you see me as a "sockpuppet" suggests paranoia. That NEEDLESS paranoia and distrust is one of the evils that develop when we put ideology above humanity. -- NonZionist (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) (I mean the fiddling!) I think that was a good addition as well as the edits before whcih are effectively the lead for the section. I've editing it a bit more, please take a look. I think we are getting some where. In fact... this bit may not be good. The problem is the rest of the section isn't up to the same standard and need work. Does someone want to try make the rest flow? (I'm popping out for 20 mins) :) Oboler (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC) You probably mean "may be good" rather than not(?). Thanks muchly! HG | Talk 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, in editing Luna, I removed an intermediate edit by Oboler. The only difference in meaning, I think, is that Oboler suggested that the prior finding was: "a significant source of antisemitism." Significant is better than hotbed. But do the sources justify "significant" or is that a Wikipedia interpretation? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to this irrelevant nonsense about the "Palestine drop down menu" - It is now interesting that this is irrelevant info from 2007 is taking up 25% of the article about the JIDF - which did not take over the group in question for those reasons. It's very sad to watch this situation just get worse despite the fact that I feel myself and others have provided valid reasoning as to why this is 100% irrelevant to this article. Again, this also goes back to original work on this article about providing quotes from the group in question, etc. The same editors are trying to add a non-neutral POV it seems. Not quite sure how many times I need to re-emphasize this point. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the series of edits to the section by editors with a range of personal POVs has made the text more punchy. It tells a story of group creation in 2007 against a background that explains its name - criticism as antisemitic in first half 2008, direct action by JIDF in July that makes things much more comprehensible than the original version. (What has struck me in preparing this is that actually JIDF is an NVDA group, just with different politics form most groups that fall under that lable. If only there were a reliable source that pointed that out.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit it's not AS annoying as it was, but it's still completely irrelevant to the JIDF and the JIDF's action to seize that group. Since when does Wikipedia become a place where we create histories of Facebook groups? Besides, shouldn't there be more than one source on this drop down menu if we are going to discuss it? Is it really a notable piece of history that should be included in this article? Does it not detract from the subject at hand? The story is really about, first there was an anti-semitic Facebook group, then the JIDF took it over. The end. Or it can be the converse: The JIDF took over a Facebook group. It was anti-semitic.... this "Palestinian" pull down menu bit is nonsense. No offense, people. Don't go all ArbsCom on me. I just tell it how it is. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the sole source of the JIDF's notability appears to be their spat with this IINAC group, it seems helpful to explain the circumstances of that incident; such an explanation can reasonably include a brief explanation of the nature and history of both groups, especially where that information is not available in another Wikipedia article. Apparently you believe the only explanation needed is "the group was anti-semitic," but several of your fellow editors feel that "the group was anti-semitic, and was founded in response to this other group" is a more complete and helpful explanation for our readers. I'm not aware of any reason to doubt the information as it's cited, nor of any way in which it could harm a reader's understanding of the material. You've repeatedly claimed that a POV is being inserted -- what POV is that? The content as it exists right now is clearly not "nonsense" as it rather obviously relates to the topic at hand; do you have any other objections of a more logical nature? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very reasonable. This is not helping a reader's understanding of the issue at all. It is actually serving to mislead a reader as it makes it appear that this "Palestinian drop down menu" nonsense had something to do with JIDF action, which it did not. It is a completely un-related fact to the JIDF, why they took over the group, and therefore, to this article. If this "drop down menu" issue was mentioned in any of the sources with regard to the JIDF's notability as to why they acted to take over the group, then it would make sense to have it there. That was never a motivating factor for them and I highly doubt the JIDF even knew about this non-issue/barely reported non-event before they acted. So, again, this does not serve to give readers any historical information about the JIDF or why they acted. It serves to mislead readers. I do not appreciate you attacking my logic. You claim that this relates to the topic at hand. What is the topic at hand? The JIDF, no? OK - so what made the JIDF notable? You said it was taking over a group. Why did they take over the group? Was it because of this drop down menu? Was this ever mentioned in relation to the reasons which have been stated and cited as to why they took it over? Is there anything about this "Palestinian drop down menu" in that particular group anywhere on the JIDF website? The answer to all these questions is "no." Therefore, this relates zero, zilch, not one iota- to the JIDF or to this article. I just find it very sad that there seems to be an effort to "beef up" a virtual non-issue and give it a prominent position in this article as if it has any relevance to the JIDF or the problems with the IINAC group. It's very sad indeed especially of what seems to be an epidemic of this same trend and pattern happening with this article. It all seems to be part of the same campaign to me, but I have no logical arguments apparently. I'll make the point I made before---keeping this in is about as relevant as giving an entire history of Facebook itself. Or the history of how Facebook added the "groups application." You might as well discuss rainbows and unicorns because they are about as relevant to this article as this "Palestinian" drop down menu issue. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, please avoid using all-caps. What you write can be understood in normal casing. The use of all-caps makes it appear that you are shouting and is not conducive to a relaxed and calm atmosphere. Also, please stick to the edit in question and not the editors. It is difficult to collaborate when discussion is about "I" vs. "you", and when one frequently uses "I" contrasted with "you", it tends to make other editors highly defensive and disinclined to agree. Please don't think about Wikipedia as a battleground where there are two teams fighting it out; instead, please try to think of Wikipedia as a group project for school, where the professor assigned the groups. The editors on Wikipedia are your classmates; to be sure, you may not always agree with them, you might even think they are incompetent (no offense to the other editors present), but if you want to accomplish the group project, you will need to get along with them and work with them. The other editors will go along with you if you convince them that you are right; accusing them or attacking them won't accomplish anything. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael, thank you. I appreciate your mentorship and am still trying to tone it down. I didn't think I was attacking other editors here, but tried to change it/water it down even more, and I have removed the all caps.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't recall ever vandalizing this article with swastikas, and I'd be rather inclined to block or ban anyone who did. You seem to have me confused with someone else. Implying that an editorial opinion -- one developed collaboratively by several users with diverse viewpoints -- is in any way analogous to that sort of trash is quite offensive, indeed. Thank you for retracting that particular comparison. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Luna, I believe I might have deleted those comments. In any event, I was not accusing you of vandalizing the article with swastikas. There are enough people chipping in to this article where it gets very confusing. One person adds a swastika, another person removes a photo which shows the groups the JIDF targets, another person feels it is important to bring the "Palestinian" group POV into this. I openly admit that I am a supporter of the JIDF, so I feel I need to do what I need to do to defend this article from all such attacks. Some are overt attacks, others are much more subtle, but I feel they are attacks nonetheless. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything Luna, I was probably speaking of how it feels in general. My apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm having a difficult time keeping track of all these conversations.--Einsteindonut (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your view. You say, "That was never a motivating factor for them and I highly doubt the JIDF even knew about this non-issue/barely reported non-event before they acted." I'm curious: How do you know this? Do you have any evidence? It seems to me that evidence is needed to back this up, because activists generally gather some information before they launch a campaign. In addition, I see that David Appletree is a member of the "Palestine is not a country. Delist it from Facebook as one!" Facebook group. So it looks like he did know about that issue. HG | Talk 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if DA is in that group. How do you know that? Is that relevant? There appears to be a statement on the JIDF site currently which backs my claim. To answer your question, I have been a reader of the JIDF site for a while and have been reading about the JIDF and this whole "point" about the DDM was never mentioned. The first time I have heard of this (and I have been following these issues for a while) is right here on Wikipedia. I have also not heard of this issue from the group admins of the main group which went up against this group with whom I have also corresponded via Facebook group discussion areas. It was always about the content. Never was it about this pull down menu. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd respectfully submit that just because you did not know something (drop down menu dispute), or didn't happen to inquire about it, does not mean that it isn't important and that other people (e.g. Appletree, our readers) would want to know. It's only relevant to debunk your assertion that the "Palestine is/isn't a country" debate does not belong in the article. Anyway, I checked it myself on Facebook via the "Groups" listed in Appletree's (public) profile. I didn't get a screenshot and I'm not claiming it should be in the article (No!), but you can go check it yourselves (unless he changes his profile). Take care, HG | Talk 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's only relevant to debunk test your assertion that the "Palestine is/isn't a country" debate does not belong in the article." I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. People might very well want to know this out-dated, irrelevant information. However, they can search for it on their own, and it does not need to be in an article about the JIDF (not about the history Facebook groups in which the JIDF targets.) I checked his profile and it does not appear that one can view his groups (unless you are his friend.) In any event, I believe which groups DA may or may not be a part of in Facebook is outside the scope of this article and even this talk section itself. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "debunk" was too harsh. I just mean that it's data to feed into the competing grounds for whether or not to include the context. BTW, when I checked yesterday, anybody w/a Facebook profile could see his groups. He can change those settings at any time. Whatever, it's not such a big deal anyway, don't sweat it. HG | Talk 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. I find the context helpful to understanding what JIDF is and does. I don't feel we belabor the point. Banjeboi 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a quote from the JIDF which I think helps the situation. My problem is that this "context" makes it appear that the JIDF targeted the group due to some "flame war." That was not the case. Please do not revert this important quote as, to me, it helps make this even more neutral and makes it very clear why that group was targeted. I do not want casual readers to be misled into thinking that JIDF action was just part of some ongoing flame war, because it wasn't and that is hardly the only group which has been targeted and "seized." It was just the only one which received media attention. That is part of the frustration here. The media has only chosen to cover one small aspect of the JIDF with regard to this one group. The JIDF seized another group more recently which was a promotion of Hezbollah, yet received no media attention unfortunately, so that part their story doesn't make it into Wikipedia. They were also influential in having pro-terrorist t-shirts removed from Urban Outfitters, Amazon.com and other retail outlets, but no media. My point is that this organization has done more than what they are "notable" for so to see this article make such a big deal out of such a minor part of what the JIDF does and is about is a bit of a shame. Again, the quote and the photo sample of the groups the JIDF targets really help this article I think. Or at least makes me feel that we are doing more justice to the subject at hand. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring thoughts on the Facebook Intervention section

I've looked at this yet again and if the irrelevant section has to stay in that's one thing. However, this seems out of whack and too wordy for various reasons so I wanted to work it out here and get some thoughts. Here is what I propose:

During 2007, a controversy on Facebook was reported involving the removal of the Palestine option from "the drop-down list of places members can use to show where they live."[9] Petitions for and against this removal were sent to Facebook and Facebook groups formed on both sides of the issue. Facebook responded by saying: "As long as the groups meet our terms of use, they can stay up. But we encourage users to report anything that is racist or objectionable."[9] In early 2008, content found in the "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" group was described as antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Jewish Week, and Andre Oboler, a social media expert.[10][11][12][13][14]

In July 2008, "despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months,"[5] Facebook declined to shut the group down.[5] The group continued to grow, and the JIDF "seize[d] control" of it.[6] According to the JIDF, "The terms say that 'one cannot ... make available any content that we deem to be harmful, ... hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable.'"[3] The JIDF added, [Facebook] "is negligent in going after these pro-terror and anti-Semitic groups praising Adolf Hitler."[3] Since the JIDF intervention, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism (CFCA) has highlighted the issue by including a Telegraph article on the topic in its archive.[15]''

thoughts on this simplification and re-working? i think it flows better like this. can't we just say "facebook" instead of brining "hicks into the picture? And just substitute JIDF for "appletree?" also, why specify that this group represents the "palestinian" side? is that not obvious by the group title? furthermore, there were a lot more people from all over the world, so that statement isn't entirely accurate.

the way we have it now doesn't seem to tell the story in order very well..in the spirit of WP "collaboration" thought i'd post my thoughts here, since every edit i try to make in an effort to improve this article seems to just get automatically reverted for some reason.--Einsteindonut (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, not sure I have strong thoughts about the proposal, just want to applaud you for trying to find middle ground with the other editors. Good going, thanks, HG | Talk 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I'm pretty happy with the changes to the first paragraph; it cuts down on verbiage nicely. A few points about it, mostly small ones:

• "Petitions for and against this removal were sent to Facebook and Facebook groups formed on both sides of the issue." Seems a bit awkward. Maybe something like "Several Facebook groups formed to support or oppose this removal."
• "Facebook responded..." Attribution might be useful. "Facebook staff" or "Facebook's Matt Hicks" could work (no strong preference, on my part).
• "In early 2008, content found in the..." Definitely it was in 2008, but was it in early 2008? I ran into a spot of trouble with this, earlier.

And then some points on the second paragraph, probably a bit more substantial:

• "In July 2008... Facebook declined..." I believe the July 2008 date refers to the JIDF's takeover, in the current version?
• "...despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months." In the current version, I believe that quote is attributed to the JIDF. Maybe... "In spite of what the JIDF described as 'thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months,' Facebook declined to shut the group down. The group continued to grow, and in July 2008 the JIDF 'seize[d] control'..." (and so on from there)?
• I'm not sure if I have a particular opinion, as far as removing mention of Appletree, but it may be a point of contention for others.
• Finally, what about moving that last sentence about the CFCA to a third paragraph? I know it's currently in the second para. Just a thought.

Anyhow, thanks for the effort. I appreciate it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think we need to keep Appletree as the one stating those quotes - he's not identified as representing JIDF - even if we think he was. Banjeboi 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If Appletree isn't representing the JIDF, then does the quote belong here at all? I think we need to decide whether Appletree does or does not represent the JIDF. If he does, then it makes sense to -- as Einsteindonut suggested -- simply write "JIDF"; if he doesn't, then anything attributed to David Appletree is irrelevant to the article and should be excluded. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of some stuff right now, so will have to get back to Luna's more pin-pointed remarks in a bit. Regarding Appletree, I believe he does represent the JIDF, but he doesn't love to call attention to it (being that there have been death threats and all.) Regarding Hicks, there are many people at Facebook and there have been a lot of changes. I personally believe it is better to regard both "Facebook" and the "JIDF" as an entities among themselves w/out quoting said representatives. It helps clarify the actual issues and cut out some of the fat. The issue is about a company and an organization which has problems with the company. I believe specifying names of spokespeople (who often change) gets a bit confusing for casual readers and might not be very relevant to the issues at hand. Thoughts? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine w/o Hicks in the main text. Appletree himself has thrust his name into the spotlight, and he seems to be the key player, so I'd be inclined to keep him in. HG | Talk 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually more clear to state who said what rather than eliminating key people and facts. Previous discussion was that if we combine two refs we could surmise that Appletree founded the group, unsure if he was the sole founder. Previous discussion also affirmed that he did at times represent the group but that distinction isn't always clear. When I added those quotes I qualified them as from a Jewish activist who specialized in Facebook groups to add context. I still whole-heartedly disagree with what seems to me to be a campaign of deleting useful information. It's continued to keep this article and talk page on a less-than-cordial tone and, IMHO, made improving the article an uphill battle and driven away editors who are likely weary of such debates. Banjeboi 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is in reference to me, but I am not part of "a campaign to delete useful information." I do think it is important to not include irrelevant information though. I was very against the very clear campaign of having this entire article deleted. I just feel this article lacks focus and clarity and seems to go into tangents which are beyond the scope of what it is supposed to be about. There's plenty of useful information to be found all over Wikipedia. The point I'm trying to make is that I feel this should be primarily about the JIDF and not about individuals or about the history of one single Facebook group. It loses a lot of focus when we focus on these things.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside our various intentions, it does seem that much of the content is about Appletree or presented through him. Yes, I certainly believe that this kind of article should be about (and titled) the organization, not the person, but the person here is quite active. Also, we're starting to repeat ourselves, because we've already had threads about, or premised on, the inclusion of Appletree in the article. Thanks, HG | Talk 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Luna or somebody else could put the proposed redraft together here, in one piece, for us to look at again? HG | Talk 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I propose, bringing in the majority (if not all) of Luna's suggestions:

During 2007, a controversy on Facebook was reported involving the removal of the Palestine option from "the drop-down list of places members can use to show where they live."[9] Several Facebook groups formed to support or oppose this removal. A representative from Facebook responded by saying: "As long as the groups meet our terms of use, they can stay up. But we encourage users to report anything that is racist or objectionable."[9] Content found in the "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" group was described as antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Jewish Week, and Andre Oboler, a social media expert.[10][11][12][13][14]

According to the JIDF, "despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months, Facebook declined to shut the group down."[5] The group continued to grow, and in July 2008 JIDF "seize[d] control" of it.[6] According to the JIDF, "The terms say that 'one cannot ... make available any content that we deem to be harmful, ... hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable.'"[3] The JIDF added, [Facebook] "is negligent in going after these pro-terror and anti-Semitic groups praising Adolf Hitler."[3] Since the JIDF intervention, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism (CFCA) has highlighted the issue by including a Telegraph article on the topic in its archive.[15]

thoughts?--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again. :) Made two minor tweaks to this latest ("representatives" -> "a representative" and "and the in" -> "and in"), but otherwise this seems to address most of what I said above. I'd say we can probably go ahead and insert this, for now, and edit as needed from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One comment: In the quote "one cannot ... make available any content that we deem to be harmful...", it appears that the "we" refers to the JIDF, even though JIDF is quoting the Facebook terms of use and "we" actually refers to Facebook. The quote should be rewritten as "one cannot ... make available any content that [Facebook] deem[s] to be harmful..." to preserve the quote's meaning. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Michael and Luna make good points. I just wanted to help re-work it. I will not be making the official edit, as I'm sure it will automatically be reverted or something. I have tried to collaborate here and change my ways a bit. If others feel it is better this way, then go for it. I'm afraid to try to do anything official on here lately. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping the cite to Oboler, since we have cites from two reliable sources for that material. Also, the "Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism" sentence is marginal; all they've done is archive the Telegraph article. They haven't endorsed the JIDF, which would be a significant event. --John Nagle (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think these elements are important. Originally, there was a push to make it appear that the JIDF just decided that this group was "anti-semitic" on their own. I think it's important to show that there was a wide variety of consensus about the group in question and that the JIDF didn't just decide to act because they subjectively determine what is and what is not a hate group. The fact that they are a new organization who see eye-to-eye with many other more established groups and professionals is important, I think. Unfortunately, there are many who have put their personal feelings about the group itself into the article. Even CJCurrie on his user page calls them "ultras" and in recent complaint to the admins expressed that he thinks they are "a couple of extremist kids." I don't say this in an attacking manner, or to cause any problems, but to make a point---He is not alone in wishing to label and/or categorize this group that way, which is why I feel it is important to stick to as many reliable sources as possible so as to curtail people's personal judgment and bias impacting the truth of the matter in this article. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we need to move the quotation mark in the first sentence of the second paragraph, because it looks like a direct quote, but it isn't. It should read:

According to the JIDF, "despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months", Facebook declined to shut the group down.[5]

An alternative might be:

Despite what the JIDF described as "thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months", Facebook declined to shut the group down.[5]

I think keeping Oboler's paper is fine, but I tend to agree about the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism. Who are they? What is the significance of the fact that they've reprinted a news article? As far as I can tell, they seem to be a forum for reprinting news articles about antisemitism. Is there some significance to being mentioned on their site? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned this, Malik. I'd thought of it and didn't know how to articulate it. I'm wary that we're using JIDF's claims almost as (reliable?) evidence of the complaint and response info. Thanks, HG | Talk 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HG I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Malik, to answer your question, from their "about us:"[2]

The Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism is a state forum that monitors antisemitic activities throughout the world. It coordinates the struggle against this phenomenon with various government bodies and Jewish organizations around the world.

Members of the forum are as follows: the Education and Foreign Ministries, the Prime Minister's Office/Information Centre and Government Secretariat, the Jewish Agency, ADL, World Jewish Congress, B'nei Brith, The Community Security Trust (CST) of Britain and Academic research institutes- the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel Aviv University and the Vidal Sasson Institute of the Hebrew University. The Forum receives information on antisemitic activity from a variety of sources, checks this information and publishes it in regular reports. The Forum convenes periodically to hear updated reports and establish policy on how to counter different forms of antisemitism. Israel, as the Jewish State gives the highest priority to the security of Jewish communities around the world and has undertaken to do everything in its power to eradicate anti-Jewish activity. The struggle against antisemitism must unfortunately persist and requires our constant attention. This entails learning and understanding the extent of the phenomenon and recruiting all the relevant resources to fight it wherever and whenever it appears. Our Website:

As part of the above effort the Forum receives information on anti-Semitic activity from a variety of sources, checks this information and publishes it on our website that has set up to serve as a tool in struggle.

Our website has the largest and most comprehensive data base of anti-Semitic incident reported throughout the world and is updated daily with reports, pictures, video clips and statistics. The incidents in our archive can be accessed by date, location and/or category. The site also offers information on the ongoing struggle against anti-Semitic and related articles.'

I think all that being said, the fact that they provided the information makes it important to keep it in as it lends credence to JIDF Facebook activities and to the fact that this was an anti-semitic hate group in question. The fact that many established Jewish institutions recognized JIDF activity enhances JIDF notability IMHO. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a real issue, and has WP:SYN problems. Putting that in Wikipedia does "lend credence to JIDF Facebook activities". Have "established Jewish institutions" really endorsed the JIDF? I haven't seen any reliable sources for this. Trying the search box at "www.adl.org", no results are returned for "JIDF" or "Jewish Internet Defense Force". I'm not seeing indications of this in Google. Being in the Coordination Forum's archive may be like being in Digg; the Coordination Forum does some news aggregation and picked up the Daily Telegraph article, but didn't do more than provide a summary of it. They seem to try to archive anything that hints of antisemitism. --John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It lends credence to the fact that the JIDF was not alone in labeling the group in question as "antisemitic" and that while those organizations may or may not officially endorse the JIDF, they have at least recognized something the JIDF has done- at least through this organization, which seems to me to be an umbrella organization which reviews all the material on there. I'll have to review the WP:SYN stuff. It appears to me that they archive a lot of information which does not necessarily "hint" of anti-semitism, but which at least has something to do with the struggle against it. I believe it is notable that they have archived the information about the JIDF.--Einsteindonut (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Appologies I've been away, I spent the last three days at the Stephen Roth Institute's 9th biannual antisemitism conference... at it happens with all the people involved in the CFCA. They are not an automatic news agregation service, and the decisions of what to include are made by researchers. The archive contains the background to antisemitic incidents, groups etc that for the basis of research into antisemitism in a number of countries. The inclusion is therefore both intentional and significant. I can also say the JIDF's activities did come up in discussion (as did many other things)... there is no source on that, but the CFCA inclusion of the information is a significant sign of the antisemitism monitoring communities interest in the topic. Oboler (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the previous "trimming" deleted the fact that this controversy started when someone created a "Palestine is not a country" group, and that the "Israel is not a country" group came after that. So I put that back in. --John Nagle (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of Einsteindonut's compromise proposal (at the top of this section) was that we remove that discussion as irrelevant to the basic facts concerning the JIDF intervention. The JIDF intervened specifically because the "Israel is not a country" group became a forum for antisemitism, not because of the tit-for-tat over the competing groups. The discussion of the competing groups is of interest primarily because of Facebook's comment that it would tolerate the various groups so long as they remained within the TOS. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The source for this info is this article in the Toronto Star. Whose opinion is "The JIDF intervened specifically because the "Israel is not a country" group became a forum for antisemitism, not because of the tit-for-tat over the competing groups."? --John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments at #Palestine drop down paragraph from Kuratowski's Ghost, Einsteindonut, and (to a lesser extent) Oboler. I don't think anybody's questioning the history of the "Israel is not a country" group, only the degree of detail that's necessary to help the reader understand the JIDF intervention. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle, please review all the cited sources and quote from the JIDF regarding why they seized the group. It's not an opinion, it's explicit in ever single RS about the event as to why they seized the group. If that drop down menu was a reason, certainly it would have been listed in the RS about it. It is not. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)