This is an archive of past discussions about The Exodus Movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I can’t seem to find any information about Elizabeth Pipko’s religious beliefs. She is a religious studies major at Harvard and speaks Hebrew, but I can find no source actually stating that she is Jewish. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
She appears eligible for inclusion in The Chanukah Song. This article in Forward says she was married by the same rabbi her married her parents, and has more details. [1]. Also she's a Harvard Extension student.--Milowent • hasspoken17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Pipko is not a Harvard Student, she is associated with the Harvard Extension school, which is non-degree and does not require an application to partake in. PaulSampson79 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Because it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not here to host Stormfront's narrative of which Jew did what. It's repulsive and inhumane. Chris Troutman (talk)21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Why doesn’t this article mention that it is run by the Trump campaign and that Trump has a long history of anti-semitism and defending white nationalist groups? It also, doesn’t mention that the vast majority of American Jews don’t vote Republican and don’t support Trump and that Trump's Jewish support has decreased since 2016? All of this is in reliable sources, but none of it is in this article. I sense pro-trump POV pushing going on here. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
CNN analyst Susan Hennessey tweeted that it’s offensive due to the actual Exodus narrative. Implication is that Jews are slaves and freedom means leaving the country altogether. Term politicizes a name of a book of the OT. Sounds a bit much like “execution.” Hyperbolick (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trump is the whole reason this article is even notable. The two founders work and get paid by Trump’s campaign, as cited in reliable sources. I get that including this may offend some pro-trump editors, but Wikipedia is not censored. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We have an entire article on Racial views of Donald Trump. Again, this article is about Jexodus - it is not a coat rack for content about Donald Trump. Again, NOTCENSORED means that "being offensive" is not a reason to delete content, but that's not why other editors have been reverting you. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There are literally two references already in the article which describe it as an astroturfing organization. This isn't conservapedia. PaulSampson79 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Specific area for improvement: 'astroturfing' in Wikipedia's voice
The article WalkAway campaign is a better example of neutral coverage of a controversial org. Note the part that says Competing sources disagree over the extent to which WalkAway was an example of Astroturfing rather than a genuine grassroots movement. Instead, here we have a flat statement that this is an astroturfing org, based (?) on two op-eds. Although I can't find the word "astroturf" in either one of them. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That's right. This article has a serious WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issue from the very first line. A shambles. I've tagged for OR but actually the other tag should simply be NPOV in my opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Second area for improvement: "only find one person associated with the group"
This statement stating only Elizabeth Pipko is "associated with" the group is contradicted by the very next paragraph which mentions a second person, Jeff Ballabon, who supposedly created it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Explanation
Barkeep49 Just to explain this revert a bit more, "term that can describe Jewish Democratic voters becoming Republicans or the the political effort to convince them to do this" - I don't see that sources describe it like that. Jexodus refers to a specific and very new group, and I don't see that it has become a generic term. "According to Pew Research Center between 1994 and 2017 the share of Jews affiliated with the Democratic party fell from 69 to 67 percent and the share of Jews affiliated with the Republican party rose from 25 to 31 percent." doesn't give the context that Vox gave (that jews still clearly support Democrats, and the recent trend is for Jews to move towards the Democratic party, not away, etc). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Galobtter I won't argue your revert of my change to the lead. I agree with you that context as to what is happening is important. The previous source and phrasing did give context but obviously not to your liking. So I choose a new source to give context. I would still suggest the 25 year timeframe is the better one - there has been a shift but it's small for Republicans and within the margin of error for Democrats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Astroturfing
After seeing the tag placed next to 'Astroturfing' in the lead, I was also thinking it was an improper synthesis of the info, though I was paywalled by the Washington Post article. The Times of Israel article doesn't mention astroturfing. After a search of the two terms, a few articles do mention Jexodus being an astroturfed movement: Splinter and The New Civil Rights Movement. Does anyone mind if I replace the first two sources with the Splinter and TNCRM sources, thus letting us remove the improper synthesis tag? --Kbabej (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Neither the WP or Jerusalem Post article mention astroturphing. And yes, I would object to those two sources as substitutes as they are not WP:V sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Trying to find sources to support a sentence is going the wrong way about it; the article (and sentence) should be written to reflect the highest quality sources (with WaPo being among them) per WP:NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to remove Jexodus from Astroturfing, but was reverted immediately. Why it appropriate using the same exact sources to describe Jexodus as an instance of Astroturfing on one article and not on another? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added three refs for astroturfing. From the Esquire: Jewish people supposedly leaving the Democratic Party—a "Jexodus" that invokes "Blexit" and "#Walkaway," in that they are social-media campaigns that smell strongly of astroturf and the Times of Israel: Further making clear that this is likely a clumsy astroturf effort rather than an actual grassroots movement is the fact that the Jexodus.org website was registered all the way back on November 5, 2018, before Ilhan Omar and others being accused of anti-Semitism had even been voted in, let alone entered Congress. And GQ: it’s an operation entirely engineered by conservative flacks, doing its best to masquerade as an authentic grassroots movement, which almost exactly matches the definition of astroturfing in the first sentence of our Astroturfing Wikipedia article. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
Please note, in case you miss the big notice at the top of this page or the editnotice on this page and the article, that I have imposed a 1RR restriction and enforced-BRD restriction on this article and talk page. Please work together collegially to resolve article content questions. GoldenRing (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That picture
Please don't restore it without explaining here a) why it is relevant, b) why its inclusion/caption does not violate WP:NPOV, and c) why its inclusion/caption does not violate WP:SYNTH. Fish+Karate12:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Departure of the Israelites, by David Roberts, 1829, portrays the actual departure of Jews in The Exodus, a core foundational story of the Jewish religion, as opposed to the 2019 "Jexodus" story, which currently has one confirmed member. Does Jexodus have one member or not? Is it a crass name derived from Exodus, so crass that the New York Times asked if "Jassover" was next? I can understand people disagreeing on the picture and caption but it did stick around for many days so obviously some poeple liked it. (I posted the last removed version to the right for ease of viewing.)--Milowent • hasspoken13:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The caption is factually incorrect, as Exodus is generally considered by modern scholars to be a mythical non-factual event (Israelites arising organically in the highlands of Israel). Furthermore, we should note, that even if we accept the biblical narrative of Exodus calling the fleeing Israelites Jews is problematic as the Israelites accepted the word of god at Biblical Mount Sinai (which may be in Saudi Arabia - the vagaries of ancient biblical geography) well after they left Egypt (fleeing through the parted sea, and so on and so forth). Thus, while Jexodus has at least one member (are we sure about the just one?), that is significantly more Jews than the number of Jews who partook in Exodus according to all accounts. Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Only one member of Jexodus has been verified. Of course the Exodus is mythical but it is still a core foundational story of the Jewish religion, its historicity is not the point. I will add that there was some back and forth on the caption which arrived at that version. I admit my first attempt went too far but collaboration reached a consensus, albeit apparently brief. (Original added at right.) Departure of the Israelites, by David Roberts, 1829, portrays the actual departure of Jews in The Exodus, a core foundational story of the Jewish religion, as opposed to the 2019 "Jexodus" story, an accurate painting of which might portray one person in a MAGA hat entering Mar-a-Lago.--Milowent • hasspoken13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Per The Exodus, the Israelites weren't Jewish until Mt. Sinai, thus the caption is incorrect even if we were to accept this narrative - "actual departure of Jews" - Israelites weren't Jewish when they (allegedly) departed. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I invite you to correct and restore it to the article. All those who wish for the restoration of the picture are hereby dubbed Jionists.--Milowent • hasspoken13:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Strongly support inclusion - the pro trump POV pushing is strong and all material even a little critical of trump is being censored. This is not conservapedia!!!! 97.118.143.21 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Really, the only thing more obnoxious than the right wingers who think everyone left of Fox News is a communist are the left-wingers who think failure to bash all conservative viewpoints at all times is pro-Trump. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is any content critical of Trump being removed from this page? It doesn’t even mention that Pipko worked for Trump’s campaign, declared an intention to work for him again, was married at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort, received thousands of dollars from the Trump campaign and that multiple white nationalists are associated with this group and it’s goals. Someone even removed the fact that this is a clear case of astroturfing. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
All this is information on Pipko, not Jexodus: "Pipko worked for Trump’s campaign, declared an intention to work for him again, was married at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort, received thousands of dollars from the Trump campaign." --Kbabej (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Jexodus is mentioned in Astroturfing, content I did not add. I’d say if stating that the New York Yankees are a baseball team doesn’t need a citation, then I’d say that this doesn’t need an explicit citation stating the obvious fact that this is astroturfing. Wikipedia reflects reality, not ideology. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed it from that article too - the citation there did not supports its contention or inclusion as an example of the concept. It is not as obvious as the Yankees being a baseball team which because of its obviousness would be easy to find citations of. So far, from what I'm seeing, high quality RS are not calling it astroturfing so neither should we. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There are no references at all in the header for New York Yankees. It seems to be consensus that it is so obvious that the New York Yankees are a baseball team that citation is unnecessary, or there is some POV pushing going on there and the header should be removed because nothing in it is cited by reliable sources. There seems to be a contradiction here. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to about the header. My point was not to discuss the Yankees but to explain that an obvious fact can actually be easily cited. Whether it's easy or not, do you have an RS that suggests Jexodus is astroturfed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It obvious based on reliable sources, eg Washington Post and Haaretz, that Jexodus is astroturfing. Haaretz literally said that the organization was founded by a Trump advisor and republican lobbyist and the spokesperson who is receiving money from the trump campaign, all of which is in the sources cited. Why is it okay to call the New York Yankees a baseball team without a source, but it’s not okay to make the obvious statement that this is an incidence of astroturfing? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added that Pipko is a Trump supporter as that is well-sourced; "astroturfing" is not. That has to be specifically alleged. We can't just make that determination based upon our analysis. See WP:OR. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Coretheapple I object to your having removed the broader context for Jewish support - without having really tried this broader context was found in two different RS sources (RS per WP:RSP) which covered this topic. Pipko doesn't get to set the scope of this - RS do. I do however agree that the sourcing provided for astroturfing is completely inadequate and the sentence should be removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
She’s not just some random Trump supporter though, she worked on the last trump campaign, will likely work on the next one, as she has announced, receives money from the trump campaign through her husband who also works for trump and got married at trump’s resort in Florida. She’s not some low level random trump supporter who came up with this on her own. The reliable sources cited in this article back all of this up. There shouldn’t be any downplaying of the clear involvement, as stated in reliable sources, that the trump campaign invented this organization. I’m tired of the pro-trump POV pushing going on here. This isn’t conservapedia. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No mention of Pipko being a former Trump campaign employee?
There seems to be a consensus here among editors, as well as among reliable sources, that Jexodus is not grassroots. In fact, most seem to think of it as astroturfing, which by definition would be "an organization". It has a web page, a domain name, founders, and all the trappings of an organization. It doesn't need members per se other than the founders. What exactly is lacking in its composition that makes you think it is not an 'organization'? Do you have reliable sources which support your assertion? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
