Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 13 October 2009

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the Arbcom explanation of sanction on Palestine-Israel articles.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Internet Defense Force. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Internet Defense Force at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] Discrimination [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives
2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Template:Multidel

Possible sources

moved to Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Possible Sources

click here to add it to your watchlist

Further reading

I've seen this section added. Does someone have an address for a translation of the FAZ article?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. FAZ? The "further reading" link is in English. — ] (] · ]) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung interviewed "David". It was discussed on User Talk:Nishidani - now in User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_6#JIDF_update and lower threads. for the original article. An unofficial translation is here .--Peter cohen (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have much the same content as the last time someone (Haaretz?) interviewed "David". It's a softball interview. Not much new. --John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your softball metaphor. The FAZ does explicitly report that the JIDF has a political agenda opposed to land for peace and that it links to anti-Islamic hate sites. This is harder commentary than anything we have cite up to now. BTW, I notice that the unofficial translation is now scored out as a sop to the FAZ. Presumably, they'll object tothis as inadequate.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

rm comment by blocked user

So what do you think the FAZ is saying with

"So kommt es, dass die selbsternannten Kämpfer gegen Online-Hass ihre eigene Homepage mit einer dubiosen Seite namens thereligionofpeace.com verlinken. Der Name ist purer Sarkasmus. Die Seite stellt Mohammed als Befürworter von Mord und Pädophilie dar, zeichnet ein Bild vom Islam als einer Religion des Hasses und vergleicht sie mit dem Ku-Klux-Klan oder der spanischen Inquisition - mit dem klaren Ergebnis: Der Islam ist viel schlimmer."

translated as

"Thus the self-defined fighters against online hatred have linked their homepage to the dubious site of thereligionofpeace. The name is pure saracasm. The site portrays Mohammed as an advocate of murder and paedophilia, draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred and compares it to the Ku-Klux-Klan or to the Spanish Inquisition – with the clear result: Islam is much worse."

except that your lot link to a hate site?(Yes I know WP:DNFTT).--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

rm comment by blocked user

POVPusher, you've just reversed both my edits today to the main page. You seemed certain what the FAZ article said when you challenged me above. Now you claim you can't be sure what it says even though the literal translation that I've provided, has the sense as the unofficial translation you have access to. The other edit you deleted is referenced to the Haaretz article. Haaretz is a WP:RS, and not even an anti-Zionist one, and if you want to say that they have got it wrong, then you have to provide references to other WP:RSs that confirm your claim. Also be aware of WP:3RR and other anti-edit-warring policies. Come up with acceptable - under Misplaced Pages policy - evidence that backs your criticisms of my edits or leave them alone.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

JDIF Page Lists "AntiIsrael" wiki editors

This Oct 4 page lists "List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Misplaced Pages Editors **UPDATED**" - evidently a lot who have edited this page, and others. Anyway, FYI since I didn't see this in the article or on the talk page, in case anyone wants to put it in this article. Carol Moore 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Internet Defense Force. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Internet Defense Force at the Reference desk.

This has been discussed on admin boards and, AFAIK, all those targeted have been informed. I don't think we need dignify the attack page with a mention in the article unless a reliable source analyzes it.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ignore it. To some extent, WP:TROLL applies. Yawn. --John Nagle (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

I'm glad to hear this issue has been thoroughly discussed in appropriate circles since I'd only seen one reference in one place and only one or two people responded. I was not sure fact they have such a list belonged in "organization" section (even if some WP:RS did not mentioned it) because it is an organization's description of one of its own projects. However, perhaps its best not to mention it until there is some WP:RS commentary on JDIF's "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages" - i.e., per WP:Troll. Carol Moore 15:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

comment removed

Reverted back to "21:52, 16 November 2008 Peter cohen", due to deletion of "Criticism" section. Please discuss first. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

There was an imbalance in that all the body of the article had been about the Facebook actions. WP:Lede says that the lead section should be a summary of the article. So it is good that there is now something in the body corresponding to the last part of the lead. I still don't think that the attack page on Misplaced Pages editors is the most appropriate source to use for Misplaced Pages content being part of JIDF's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

Machine translation of possible reference

• google translation PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comment by blocked user

From WP:NONENG

Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Misplaced Pages editors.

There isn't equivalent critical coverage to the FAZ article in English. The likes of the Guardian or Independent which might have written critiques haven't chosen to cover the JIDF. In my translation of the quoted clause, I've gone for a literal translation and have preserved the word order except for changing the structure "their own homepage with a dubious site link" to "link a dubious site from their own homepage" as that is better English. The machine translation allows people to check whether my translation, and my other references to the article, are totally off the wall but it has its limits. "Antiislamismus" was not in its dictionary and the ernannten (= named) got omitted from the translation of "selbsternannten Kämpfer" (=self-named fighters). An advantage that German has over Hebrew or Arabic material for ourreaders is that the alphabet is similar to ours and therefore words related to their English translations such as dubiosen and online-Hass can be made out an undestood by an English-speaker not familiar with the language.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One issue with the FAZ article is that it's mostly an interview with "David". We have to distinguish between what FAZ says as reportage and what "David" says as JIDF PR. --John Nagle (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help clarify the issues here. I do not believe the FAZ says that the JIDF links to "hate sites" or a "hate site." They only refer to "thereligionofpeace.com" as a sarcastically titled "dubious" site. Considering this organization fights hatred online, we must be very careful not to jump to false conclusions that they promote hate sites, as I feel was done w/ a fuzzy translation. Perhaps we should contact Mr. Gunkel of the FAZ directly for clarification and see if "thereligionofpeace.com" has ever been widely regarded as a "hate site" by any other RS before we label it as such in this case. --Howdypardner (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't think what I posted had any problems that way. But, yes, not just the FAZ but most of the material here is sourced from interviews with David or the JIDF site.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdypardner, I've redone the text in that section to use actual quotes from the translation, an accurate translation does say it is a "dubious site" that "draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred". Now that is not QUITE the same as saying it is a hate site, but whether it is or not is pure pedentry when we can just use that quote and let readers to draw their own conclusions. The translation is aproved by Mr. Gunkel. Oboler (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

thereligionofpeace.com as "hate site?"

Comment from blocked user removed

I've reinstated the previous version as it puts the quotes in context.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of it. It must be clear that the JIDF is not linking to a "hate site" and that FAZ did not label thereligionofpeace.com as a "hate site." --Howdypardner (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording reflects the wording in the FAZ article. If the close placing of "fighters against online-hate" next to "dubious site" makes you think that it is being implied that thereligionofpeace.com is a "hate site, then that apparent implication is in the original. What I have done is translate the original words and any subtext in my translation is in the original too.

Anyway, both you and I are at our 3RR limits. It would be nice if someone else here started expressing their opinion so that we have a chance of seeing where consensus might lie.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen is of course right. It's blatantly obvious that thereligionofpeace.com is about indiscriminate dehumanization of muslims, not about convincing muslims to be peaceful. It's also obvious that the FAZ author has seen this, too. This is a very high quality source, and it is being used adequately and moreover for sourcing facts that are verifiably correct. If anything, the current wording is too weak. E.g. "he same article also notes that the JIDF is not apolitical" is absurdly defensive, given the anti-Obama hate piece "Why I Voted For Obama (Satire)" on the JIDF website .

Besides, Howdypardner, if you want to attack the translation, you should start by reading and understanding it. Currently it's not clear to me that you have even so much as understood the (simple) sentence structure of the English version. In any case it's a blatant misrepresentation of sources to make the impression that the FAZ described the JIDF as "self-styled fighters against online" and that they also called the JIDF "a 'dubious site' called thereligionofpeace.com". In case you are not aware: there are people who deliberately mess up legitimate Misplaced Pages content which they don't like so that they can proceed to "repair" it. You had better avoid any appearance of this kind of impropriety if you don't want to be banned (not just blocked) quickly. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the land for peace stuff was what FAZ mentioned not the anti-Obama stuff. Given how prickly things are around this article, I wanted to avoid going "The FAZ say that the JIDF is not apolitical. In fact, they have run material against Obama.", as I might then be accused of claiming FAZ said something about JIDF's stance on Obama. The FAZ comments are as much as any reliable source I know has said about the JIDF being part of the Zionist right and not connected with a more mainstream form of Zionism alla Peres or Olmert.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

About the quotes from the religion of peace site, this disclaimer is surely the mirror image of some of the sites that the JIDF attack. They say they are not antisSemitic, this site says it doesn't dislike Moslems. In fact they say somewhere that they don't allow third party comments on their page because an allied site had done so and people started added attacks on Moslems which then led to that site being accused of being an anti-Moslem hate site. This sounds awfully similar to how the JIDF, Andre Oboler and the ADL accuse sites of being antisemitic because some of the third party commentators who visited those sites said something antisemitic. Now, I don't think it an accident that "David" accused the person who praised the terrorist of being a "pig", just as I don't think that it is an accident that both the JIDF page and the anti-Zionism talk page have had Nazi stuff appear. The perpretators in both types of case knew of a weak spot that the other side had because of their ethnicity and went straight for it, using language that they might not have if their interocutors had had another ethnicity. The accusation in FAZ of anti-Islamism rings true for me, just as accusations of the person who added the nazi stuff being anti-Semitic rings true to me too.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Added 11/17/08 6:36 by User GR: The FAZ article itself is dubious. It erroneously states, for example, that TheReligionofPeace.com refers to Muhammad as a "pedophile." No where is this found on the site, however. The site's page devoted to Muhammad's sex life directly references Sahih Bukhari (the most reliable Muslim source for Muhammad's life) in saying that the prophet of Islam slept with a 9-year-old. However, the same article also presents the case that this does not necessarily mean the Muhammad was a pedophile, even if it indicates bad judgment.

TheReligionofPeace.com states very clearly that Muslims as a people are not to be confused with the ideology of Islam. To quote the site:

"The Muslims that you know are not terrorists. More than likely their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children. They should neither be shunned, mistreated nor disrespected merely because of their religion. Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of their sacred book be vandalized.

"Pre-judging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals nothing about them. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds."'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.11.41 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What you forgot to quote from the site:

The Myth: Muhammad Condemned Pedophilia

The Truth: The legitimacy of “marrying” pre-pubescent girls who have not yet had their “monthly courses” is established both in the Qur’an and in the "perfect example" set by Muhammad for his Muslim followers.

…

Lest there be any doubt by what he meant by “young,” Muhammad set the example by marrying and having sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old:

…

According to the most reliable traditions, Aisha brought her dolls to Muhammad’s house for play (Muslim 3341) and he would fondle the little girl in the tub while taking baths with her (Bukhari 6:298). Aisha was just a teenager by the time Muhammad died, but she had already spent over half her life in marriage to him

…

So, no... Muhammad did not condemn pedophilia.

Not even close.

I am not sure that we have been reading the same article. The article that I have been reading does not " the case that this does not necessarily mean the Muhammad was a pedophile, even if it indicates bad judgment", although it does quote Bukhari. And it wasn't hard to find. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comments by blocked user

Let's look at this in slow motion (all italics are mine):

• thereligionofpeace.com: "… sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old …" – "Muhammad did not condemn pedophilia. Not even close."
• FAZ: "Die Seite stellt Mohammed als Befürworter von Pädophilie dar."
• Translation: "The site represents Muhammad as a supporter of pedophilia."
• 74.244.11.41: "The FAZ article itself is dubious. It erroneously states, for example, that TheReligionofPeace.com refers to Muhammad as a 'pedophile.' "
• Howdypardner: "Claiming that someone does not condemn pedophilia and describing their actions with youngsters is not quite the same as labeling them a pedophile."

In a nutshell: 74.244.11.41 attacked a stronger statement than the FAZ article actually made. The stronger statement would have been arguably correct (as a plausible evaluation of the site's intention). Apparently the author chose to tone it down so as not to actually claim that the site labelled Muhammad as a pedophile. That's clearly not "erroneous", and certainly no reason to call the article "dubious". Now you seem to have the same problems with reading comprehension that 74.244.11.41 had. I find it hard to believe that we have two editors who can't see that thereligionofpeace.com arguably does label Muhammad as a pedophile, and at the same time claim that the FAZ article says that the site labels him that way when the FAZ actually does no such thing.

When in a content dispute, please make sure that your concentration is commensurate with your zeal. Or was your point that the article is "dubious" because the author was suspiciously careful to get all the details right? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped on a landmine here, but given we do now have access to an authorised translation, I've reworked this section trying to (a) use the authorised English text, quoting where possible (b) Not change the content from what was here before. The nature of the site being linked to is really not relevant to this article, what is relevant is what FAZ said about it, and why FAZ said this. Specifically the fact that they said it "draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred" and juxed-opposed this to the JIDF calling themselves "warriors against online-hatred". I hope people agree that is the real meaning of that paragraph and that these edits have improved this section of the article. Comments welcome. Oboler (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've reworked slightly for grammar, added a ref at the end of each para, removed the reference to "pure sarcasm" when we no longer give the name of the site and removed the German now that there's an authorised translation.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've edited it a little more... there were still some minor problems (missing spaces etc) but also David's comments again the saudi users were missing context, I've added that now, though I think that line could perhaps be worded better, it looks a little clunky. Have a go? I think it needs to state that the person was Saudi (yes that is Arab, but FAZ doesn't say Arab so I think we should stick with what they used) and that David called them this after they were congratualting themselves on setting up a group to praise a terrorist. How to say that sucinctly is another story... but I hope you can do a better job than I did. :) Oboler (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing today

Could I just note that my edit's from yesterday have again been reverted. Material from Haaretz saying that groups had been restored to their original owners has been censored. Claims are made that the FAZ never accused the JIDF of anti-islamism when the word "Anti-Islamismus" appears in a header over the section where the referenced material comes from. Could other people please join in editing away the half-truths being added by the JIDF's latest mole and reinstating the referenced material that they have removed?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since a major disturbance is underway, and it's getting messy, I think the long-term editors should be notified, Peter. But notification only leads to suspicions of tagteaming (whereas the issue is one of having long-term wikipedians of good standing looking at what's going on. I can't edit it back, as I am on the JIDF's target list, and this means I would appear to have a conflict of interest in their view were I to intervene. But, having checked, it certainly looks like your legitimate edits have been damaged by an interested JIDF-linked SPA party.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Some long-term editors should be watching here. I've prodded in IPCOLL as that is non-partisan. Any individual prodding should be non-partisan perhaps with an exclusion of those who have been blocked for their work here.

You've got your standards of ethical behaviour and I'm not going to try to talk you out of them. However, if the JIDF decided to act on this and add me and John and Hans and anyone else who criticises them, or reverts POVPusher/Howdy/ED's edits, to their list of anti-Israel editors in the hope of shutting us up... Well I would not allow myself to be stopped by such a ploy. All the comedy articles about The Wrong Version, cabals etc. apply in that an organisation from the extremes regards any criticism from the centre as coming from those with minds closed against them and as motivated by malice. Hence their attacks on ARBCOM.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any of several very fine editors will be identified as anti-Israeli ratbags like some of us. A little patience, Peter. I'm already somewhat ashamed, at giving an ethical reason for not doing the edit I think required in support of you, since often 'ethical' stances can hide mere cowardice, as with many pacifists, of which I am one. Some people may be just busy. . .Well, fuck it, if nothing is done by tomorrow, I'll edit-war on this, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope it doesn't come to that.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm targetted by these people too. However, I might raise my head above the parapet to go with an AfD. PR 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comment by blocked user.

The amusing thing about all this is that the article is rather pro-JIDF. It doesn't view them as a censorship organization or a group of "hackers" defacing web sites. It doesn't view the whole thing as silly, as the Toronto Star article does. It doesn't cover their big attack on Obama. It doesn't suggest that the JIDF is probably very tiny; it's entirely possible that the whole thing is just "David". The article takes the JIDF seriously, as if it were a significant organization like the ADL or Aish. --John Nagle (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems pro-JIDF. With respect to Obama, I don't think the group's attacks got any press attention, so they're not notable for WP purposes. — ] (] · ]) 23:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by blocked editor removed

WP:EVADE . --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash As I suspected, John Nagle and I have been added to the attack list and if you look at User:StopMessing's (aka EinsteinDonut) page you will see this being used against me. AT the moment Hans has not been added.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is punishing me with lack of attention for being too placable. I have had similar experiences with anti-Jewish POV pushers, and also with pro- and anti-homeopathy POV pushers. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. How about 48 hours of semi-protection, so we can go do something else for a while? --John Nagle (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New Editors

It is extremely suspicious that 3 new editors have chosen to work on this article today. Given that there have been recent bans/blocks for a couple of individuals who have been POV pushing on the article and that one has already been found to be socking I'm pretty sure that these are not new editors. Although we have a CU in for them, I thought I should comment that the edits to this article are being monitored and that obvious socks will not last long. I'm reluctant to semi-protect the article at this stage but I don't think it will take much further disruption before that becomes an attractive option. Spartaz 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Make that 4 socks in one day. All controlled by the same sockmaster. There is absolutely no history of valid editing of this article by unregistered users. Its quite clear that we are facing a determined attack by offwiki POV pushers to control this article. I simply see no benefit from allowing them to do this so I have semiprotected the article for a significant period. Hopefully that will reduce the wear and tear on regular editors' time and energy. Spartaz 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

JIDF's latest complaints

The first aricle here (unless they've added something else) records the JIDF's complaints about our latest updates to the articles. I'm posting the link in case anyone considers any of the complaints valid.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Internet Defense Force. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Internet Defense Force at the Reference desk.

Whatever. They have such a long "enemies list" now that it's hard to take them seriously. They had their fifteen minutes of fame, and it's over. Now they're attacking in all directions, hoping to get attention again. WP:TROLL applies. --John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that they're trolls. (Trolls who happen to support a right-wing terrorist organisation which is responsible for the deaths of more Israeli Prime Ministers than any of the Palestinian groups.) But there is an element of doing the right thing. I'm providing an audit trail where people approaching this article can see the JIDF's complaints about our portrayal of them and see that we are not coverign them up. BTW, you should be aware that User:Nobody of consequence did receive threatening emails or posts to his webpage (I can't remember which) after the JIDF posted information about him. Both you and I are more public about our identities than he was but, on the other hand, we didn't post Nazi logos on the JIDF page. So we may not made ourselves quite so much of a target. I don't know whether anyone else they have featured has received threats, though I see that Fayssal is no longer active on ARBCOM.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed one section above, so that if it becomes necessary, it can be oversighted without further collateral damage to the edit history.

Could we please push the pause button on this for the moment..? It has been sent to Oversight, I have commented on the matter to the oversight team, and I've been waiting for feedback before taking the next step. I'll notify everyone involved when we have a path forward, so that the conversation can resume if that is how things pan out. Sorry about this. John Vandenberg 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This matter was referred to Arbcom; I am not sure what they are doing about it. All I can suggest is to stick to reliable sources, and dont include personal details unless they are highly relevant to the topic. John Vandenberg 11:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, John. I had been wondering why there was no decision yet.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it and thinking about it. I don't think that edit is oversightable, it is more nasty political comment than release of personal information. Its content is basically useless in terms of discussion of the content of the article, so its removal is appropriate. The person has made only one edit anyway, so unless he creates a family of user accounts there is little point in blocking or engaging in dispute resolution with him. Fred Talk 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When I saw that comment, I moved it to a separate section, because it was top-posted, but otherwise ignored it. Both the pro and anti JIDF factions seem to want attention more than substantive changes to Misplaced Pages, so WP:TROLL applies. --John Nagle (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-opening an archived issue

Hi all, I've been on a Wikibreak as I've been moving my life between countries, in my absense it seems there was some discussion over the nature of my role with respects to JIDF and some wrong assumptions have been made and archived here . I've already addressed the issue in "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" see however I think people here should be notified as well, and I'll also like to know how the misinformation, or at least a right of reply can be included on the archived page. As I am a real person editing under my real name, speculation and misinformation are a real problem. I'm not suggsting any particular resolution, but I'm open to any reasonable suggestions.

As to the issue of my involvement with JIDF, I'll copy what I've already put on the "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" page. "I do answer question put to me by people involved in various organisation. Orgnisations I have provide advice to on Web / antisemitism / IT security issues include: universities, government departments, Jewish commnity organiations, security organisations, think tanks, political parties, charities, journalists and newspapers and student groups. I have consulted for / assisted these and other groups on other issues (a bit of background research will show I'm also heavily involved in interfaith work, diversity work, education policy, student representation, process improvement, and research productivity). The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations. I do not agree with the JIDF on all issues, however I feel the the work they are doing on the topic of antisemitism and combatting the promotion of terrorism is important. You'll note that with the exception of work I have done ON the JIDF, it tends to be the JIDF following my research and not the other way around. If they find it of use to them, then good for them. Likewise for anyone else who finds my work of use and wishes to follow up on any of it."

I'll add a post there shortly as well. I was invited to the Facebook group of the JIDF, which I accepted as I do wish to be notified on what they are doing. The administrator made me an officer, I wrote to them and said I wasn't willing to be an officer of their Facebook group unless it was made clear that I was not a JIDF official. The solution hit upon was to make the position "external consultant". I was not an admin of the group, nor was I an office holder (or indeed member) of the JIDF itself. I am not aware of having ever been listed on the JIDF website in any capasity other than as an author of work they have reproduced. As a profeshional it would be wrong for me to disclose what information I have given any of the people who ask me for advise. What I can say is that I disagree with certain positions taken by a number of organisations I provide advice to. In the case of JIDF I support their efforts in monitoring online hate (including antisemitism and pro-terrorism content), as my latest article makes clear, this is something I think the big organisations should start putting resources into. Similer views have now been expressed by other experts . Do I need to declare an interest because I've shared a panel with Chris Wolf and been in discussion with his organisation (the ADL) on new approaches to combat this problem? I hope not.

Oboler (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing I posted on this issue was wondering how you could be in a list of officers but be an external advisor. Thank you for clarifying that you were the latter and not the former. The JIDF has deleted from public view the page where you were listed but several us saw the contents after Nagle brought it to our attention. Maybe they have it archived and can supply it to you.

If you want the material "disappeared" from the Misplaced Pages archive, then WP:Oversight seems to be the way to do it, provided they accept it is appropriate. If your're wanting just to clarify things in the archive, then I don't see why you can't add a statement to the archive, provided you clearly label your addition as a later addition. If you want a more complex or subtle change to the archive, then Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is where you can find the experts who know about Misplaced Pages custom and practice on thsi.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler's issue is with the JIDF, not with Misplaced Pages. They listed him on their masthead. While the extent of his association with the JIDF is unclear, his papers , web site , radio show and interviews have generally promoted the JIDF. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect Nagle, my issue is with Misplaced Pages. If someone could point me to a page on the JIDF site that wrongly included my name, then I agree I would have an issue with them as things stand if there was such a page it was removed before I became aware of it so is an non-issue. As to the links you provide... that is very sloppy research. The first link points to an article that has no mention of the JIDF, indeed in some sense it predates the JIDF (at least in its current form / name adopted after the Yeshiva attack).

As for saying "the extent of his association with the JIDF is unclear", I don't see how you can say that immediately below a post where I have just clarified the issue.

As to the connections you attempt to draw, that borders on a conspiracy theory and makes no sense at all. How does the JIDF using an article (or any other group using that article) months after I publish it (I refer to the first item you cite) say anything about a connection between me and them? If I told you the paper was also published by the Israeli Government as a reprint, would you claim I was now a Mossad spy? The second link is a news item at Zionism On The Web, it notes that I spoke to JIDF and questioned them on what they did. The reason for this is obvious, the news item itself gives my profeshional opinion that they acted within the rules, and I used this information in an op-ed Jerusalem Post then published. It's called research and fact checking, and is I believe something Misplaced Pages strongly supports, specially when it leads to RS publications that can help improve articles. The third item is the op-ed - already explained. You haven't linked the best one, my piece which actually focuses ON the JIDF action, it is here . Again though, this is published in a peer reviewed journal and the JIDF and the Facebook group are the subjects of the research. It would be a little rich for anonymous Misplaced Pages editors to specifically complain about people publishing in RS on their field of expertise.

The JIDF have done some good work in the area of combating online antisemitism and against the promotion and praising of terrorism. This is important and as an expert in the field I make no apologies for praising their work specifically in this area, or for criticizing other organizations who should be doing this work and are not. Oboler (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the link, I've asked for advice here: . Oboler (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Oboler's summary of his history above. It looks like the JIDF claimed him as an "external adviser" at one point, which was not something Dr. Oboler wanted. That's between him and the JIDF. The Misplaced Pages issue, back when this came up, was WP:COI -- was there a conflict of interest because, as Oboler (talk · contribs), he was editing the article extensively while appearing to be associated with the JIDF? When his name popped up on a JIDF page as an "external adviser", that raised red flags. Dr. Oboler has now been open about his position on the JIDF, and I don't have a problem with that. --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, I have no problem with your comment above, but I do have a problem with your comment on it promotes both the idea there was a COI (which there was not) and the idea that I was an office holder in the JIDF (the very issue I'd like resolved in the archive). I'm asking for the biography people's advice on how to proceed, i.e. which of the options which Peter has outlined above, or which other options, would be the least damaging and most normal way to proceed in this instance. My issue is purely the fact that I am wrongly said to be an office holder of the JIDF and that this could be used by some sloppy journalist who doesn't check their facts at some point in the future. I think there is a concensus that it should somehow be fixed, the question is how. Also in the above you say it was on a JIDF page, I am aware of it being on the Facebook group, I am NOT aware of it being on a web page. Facebook page are not RS, but in this case there is a specific reason for that. Organisational Facebook groups are typially not seen as an official platform of the organisation. They are more like "supporters clubs", if you want to know what an organisation is up to, join their Facebook group. The group admins may in fact be people who are not staff or officials in the organisation. It is quite common. Again it is the admins who run the groups, the officers of a facebook group are purely symbolic / a way of highlighting particular people's membership of the Facebook group. Oboler (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is now fixed... so I think this section can be archive now Oboler (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Final quote and link to JIDF Guide to[REDACTED] Editors

post by sockpuppet of banned user removed

Linking to a page that attacks Misplaced Pages editors in good standing is highly inappropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your last point. But it is not for you to make this editorial decision, since you have a conflict of interest per the duck test. I will not revert that part of your edit again, but it was unwise, and another editor may choose to revert it.

The link was added by User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER (possibly you?) with this edit. It was removed half a week later with the edit summary "Remove link to attack page". If you don't understand what that means, read the policy section WP:NPA#External links in connection with the guideline WP:Linking to external harassment. See also WP:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site.

The JIDF are obviously not the first non-notable or barely notable individual or group trying to pull that stunt: Attacking individual Misplaced Pages editors on an external website, and trying to get traffic to that from Misplaced Pages. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed Saltonsea (talk · contribs) = Photouploadrr (talk · contribs) = Whataretheyhiding? (talk · contribs) = Freaginantisemites (talk · contribs), all are a  Likely match for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I interpret an email that I received from Einsteindonut referring to this section as implicit confirmation that Saltonsea=Einsteindonut. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another of the gang has also been sending me silly emails.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To Einsteindonut: I can only reply to you here, because I am not going to keep our discussion private and your talk page is protected. I did not delete your post. As far as addressing original points is concerned, apparently you still haven't understood that running campaigns against Misplaced Pages editors, and particular trying to out pseudonymous Misplaced Pages editors is so far outside the norms on which Misplaced Pages has been built that you do not have the slightest chance of succeeding. Not listening to this is not a new strategy, and it won't take you anywhere. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If I get any further emails from you or any other "JIDF" (by now I am pretty sure it's a one man operation) sockpuppet, I reserve the right to publish it onwiki. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: You suggested using something like WP:ANI instead. No. I am not going to give you any more publicity there. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity after your comment that you felt forced to go to AN/I for the vandalism here. I opted to go via the sockpuppet board as it's less prominent.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert, Block, Ignore

I think the sockpuppetry on this page would be reduced if we simply applied WP:RBI to the socks as they appear. There is no benefit for allowing an aggressive and harassing sockmasters to disrupt our work so just revert them and report then to WP:AIV for blocking citing this message to explain the immediate block. Thanks Spartaz 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Facebook Hacking

The BBC uses the term hacking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7827293.stm

The telegraph article already cited in the article uses the terms hijack and hacker: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2478773/Facebook-Anti-semitic-group-destroyed-by-Israeli-hackers.html

I intend to

Israel National News, which has a zionist leaning, also uses the term hacking: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/150523. Hacking is not a derogatory term, it is not a POV term, it is an accurate term. If we were to judge their actions and refer to them as "cyber-terrorists" or "online freedom fighters", that would be POV. Referring to them as hackers is not, and I will continue to revert edits that remove this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.154 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC page does use "hacking" and related terms but I can't see anything which states outright that the JIDF are hackers. It's there in the subtext but it runs into WP:Original research to claim that the BBC actually believe that the JIDF are hackers. The Telegraph is an oddity in that "hackers" is part of the web address for the page you give, but the article itself doen't use the term - it does use the "hijacked" which I therefore left in your text. The INN link is the only unequivocal link of the three and should probably be specifically referenced to justify use of the term, considering that the JIDF have denied hacking and phishing in what they told the Telegraph. That denial would probably need to be linked too. Having witnessed a number of JIDF-accounts interfere with this page while denying being anything to do with the JIDF, I don't entirely believe their denials, but for purposes of article content we need to be careful. Anyway, let's see what other people have to say.

BTW, have you considered creating an account? It's hard to know which of the two IP addresses is the best one to send a message to. Or are you an existing user and not wanting to have more than one account with all the usual repercussions?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

From the BBC source" "Andrew Silvera, who is active on several pro-Palestinian groups on Facebook, was one of those targeted. He said that his account was hacked after he responded to a Facebook request from another user, inviting him to be an administrator of a similar group". So while they do not say "JIDF are hackers" they do report on an individual targeted by the JIDF claiming that they hacked his account. The telegraph, yes, is an anomaly, while the INN article is already cited elsewhere in the article (current citation 4 I believe). Their denials, I think, are probably down to semantics. "Hacking" may be perceives by them as having negative connotations. Regardless of their dislike for the term, what they did, if you are to base your definition of hacking around the wiki article, was hacking "break into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls". Their denial would be akin to Ronaldo denying that he is a football player, and instead claiming to be a professional tactical sphere transporter. Tomayto, unclear euphemistic tomahto. I recently deleted my account in order to limit my time spent editing wiki, and do not intend to create an account again in the near future. 149.157.1.154 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The JIDF has gone on record in many places to say that they are not hackers. Any activities on Facebook which could be considered "hacking" were minimal, and from my understanding, were more publicity stunts than anything else. They have done many other things on Facebook, such as create the "United Against Holocaust Denial on Facebook" group (and many others). They have a Facebook page, where they share news and updates. It's unfair to create a header that says "Facebook hacking" when the group itself does not claim to be hackers, and when their activities on Facebook are wide-ranging. Also, it appears that this article is completely out-of-date. The JIDF recently updated their "press" section on their site: http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/press.html - It would be helpful if anonymous IP editors would stop trying to insert their POV into this article, and if seasoned editors could update the article to reflect many of the JIDF's other activities. This article used to be protected or semi-protected. Can that be done again? --HappyGoLucky1212 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection was there partially to deal with the activities of you and your friends. Problematic behaviour on this page is too sporadic to justify protection. I've had page protection requests rejected where there has been a lot more consistent activity than this. The activity on this page that I've recently reported to Spartaz goes back as far as February with there not being that much IP activity in that time and most of the SPAs only making one edit.

BTW, I don't mind most of the changes you have made to the page this time, but conflict of interest issues are best dealt with by your raising things you dislike on the talk page rather than you rushing in and changing things yourself and then pretending yet again to be a third party rather than a JIDF activist yourself. And your edit history with this account elsewhere indicates that you're still capable of problematic behaviour with the peculiar pattern of edits and self-reverts and the spelling editor introduced to John the Baptist. If the JIDF really are switching to being purely a campaigning group rather than a direct action hacktivist one, then there's no need for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IP, could you explain your recent revert of today's edit by the HappyGoLucky sock - the bits I had decided to leave stand? I don't see anything objectionable there. As for the removal of the date by the other suspiciously new id user, of course we need the year there. And the issue of hacking needs to be discussed and specifically referenced in text and not in a header because of the JIDF denial. And, finally, you've violated WP:3RR.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I give up. 149.157.1.184 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of a diff -

Hi, I've been monitoring some of the stuff happening on this page. If we could please look at this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=307064645&oldid=306937824

It seems to me that many of "HappyGoLucky's" edits were just fine. Besides aparent sockpuppetry, can you please explain to me why they were reverted? Is the goal of Misplaced Pages not to improve? There were even grammatical errors that were, and continued to be, reverted back into the article! Now there is an anonymous IP determined to get rid of "online activism" (what the JIDF is known for most) and replace it with "hacktivism" in the categories. This seems unfair. Also, I thought "reports" was more neutral and fair as opposed to "seeks to remove," since the JIDF mostly has its members report material which is against the rules. It is then up to companies to decide what to do with that material. "Hijacking" is less neutral than the word "takeover." The "Criticism" section seems to contain a lot of irrelevant information both about the FAZ article, and about a website that the JIDF has nothing to do with (besides linking to it), and then even goes on to quote an anonymous source about a "victory" against the JIDF. How does any of that have to do with "criticism" of the JIDF? It seems that Misplaced Pages editors are trying to "beef up" this section. Meanwhile, I noticed that "HappyGoLucky" posted this this article on the JIDF site, which shows that there's been a lot more news about the JIDF that is not in this article.

Could editors please try to keep their biased POV out of this piece and instead, please try to make it fair an accurate? --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two sets of problems here. One is the IP editor who is using two addresses in Ireland. They are inserting material giving a particular interpretation of the JIDF's activities without referencing the most controversial material, specifically the allegations of hacking. Further, they are reverting material without reading the contents properly and therefore, as you pointed out, reinserting spelling mistakes etc. They are also violating 3RR by using multiple ids.

The other problem I see is the JIDF editing material directly without declaring its conflict of interest. At least some of those accounts making the edits are the previously blocked editor who first appearedabout a year ago with accounts such as "Einsteindonut" and "PeterBergson". ShoshannaLandau's edits are also problematic in themselves as they are replacing referenced material with Hossannas for the organisation. It so happens that apart from her edits, I don't have a great deal of problem with the content of JIDF's recent contributions. However there is always the issue of conflict of interest and, as I have frequently told you and your colleagues, it is better to handle this by raising issues on the talk page here than making edits to the article yourselves except for the most uncontroversial ones such as fixing spelling mistakes.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of the JIDF. If that's a conflict of interest, guilty as charged. I won't touch the article (except to fix minor mistakes and revert vandalism) if you can be reasonable and see that what is happening in this article is not fair at all. They are not a "hacking" organization. They have categorically denied those charges. Just because supporters of their organization may or may not have done things without the JIDF's permission, and in the JIDF's name, it does not mean the JIDF are "hackers." The majority of what the JIDF actually IS is not even expressed in this article. You have stated that you are "anti-Zionist" in the past. Could you please help me get some people who might be slightly more supportive to help collaborate on this article, including NEW information, in a fair, balanced, and objective way? What we have here now is not fair to the JIDF at all. They got the ball rolling on a major campaign against Holocaust denial on Facebook. They currently have a "Tweet4Shalit" campaign going in which they are enjoying widespread support. They are posting important news and information on Twitter and Facebook. They took action against "Hate Israel" groups on Facebook. Recently, a Nasrallah page was removed on Facebook, thanks to a JIDF campaign, which inspired Israeli knesset. Misplaced Pages editors are so focused on trying to criticize the JIDF and label this as some sort of "hacking" organization, that they aren't bothering to even correct basic mistakes or add new/relevant information! What's fair is fair. You either care about this encyclopedia, or you don't. If you're an anti-Zionist, then you don't like the JIDF. If you don't like the JIDF, perhaps it's not very fair of you to be inserting or maintaining bias in the article about them. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my edits to this page this month, you'll see that I've expended at least as much effort contering the IP as countering JIDF-related accounts. Yes, I suggested that "HappyGoLucky" be edit blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user, but I also put up the request this morning for an admin to semi-protect the page after the IP's activities continued despite claims yesterday of "giving up". I therefore feel that I've shown myself to be capable of avoiding bias with regards to this page despite being listed on the JIDF's attack page about and having received hate mail. That said, portraying the JIDF in a good light is not the highest priority I have in the world. As far as getting other editors involved is concerned, a lot had this page on watch a while ago. User:Malik Shabazz obviously is still around as he has reverted some edits by the IP user in the last couple of days. I haven't noticed him as being particularly alligned with one side or the other either with regard to opinions on the JIDF or the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. The other way you can do things is to post drafts of what you want included in the article and if nobody comes up with coherent objections in a week or makes changes to the article based on what you suggest, then you can make the changes and say you've done so on the page. Wikipedians as a rule general hate underhand edits by people affiliated with a particular organisation. Any such editing is therefore likely to backfire. The article on one American government agency, for example, now has material in it talking about how computers using that agency's IP address tried to slant the article in their favour.

Another thing to be aware of is that multiple accounts working in an organised way to slant Misplaced Pages in a particular direction are disliked. One of the noticeboards had a recent alert noting that there was an attempt somewhere to recruit pro-Palestine editors for a drive to change Misplaced Pages's reporting of a particular issue, I think to do with the status of Jerusalem. Last year, I think, a pro-Zionist organisation made a similar effort and several editors were banned. I assume that you and Shoshanna turned up here as the result of a post to a JIDF alert board somewhere. Turning up mob-handed in response to an issue can be counter-productive for what you want to achieve. I suggest you look at WP:Meat and encourage your colleagues not to behave in such a way as to be seen as violating that policy.

Having said that, I think it is a relief to have a JIDF supporter who is open about their affiliation and therefore allows the potential of a more constructive working relationship.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hacktivism" as "type of site?

Hello, I believe it is unfair to have the JIDF site listed as a "Hacktivist" site when they clearly stated in the BBC piece referenced, "We are not hackers. We are also not involved with phishing. We do not break the law for our work."

Can someone please remove this unfair label? Anyone who reads the JIDF site will never see one shred of information about any JIDF "hacking."

Here on Misplaced Pages editors are trying to damage the JIDF that way. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. At some point there should be a discussion in the article body mentioning the INN use of "hackers" and the JIDF's denial. I'm not sure whether and when I'll get round to adding it.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Full disclosure: I know writers at INN. If needed, I'm thinking they would or could probably write a letter to Misplaced Pages on behalf of the JIDF explaining that they used an attention-grabbing headline and that they were unaware if any real "hacking" was involved. I personally know how the groups were taken over, and can tell you that nothing illegal or of any questionable morality or ethics was involved whatsoever. It's a term that is often thrown around lightly, but in this case, it was not the best term to describe what happened, or why it happened. The best and fairest term to describe what happened is "takeover." --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that there is some means that certain admins use to confirm the identity of some users. However, I've only seen it used for such things as checking that someone really is the originator of a picture giving permission for its use or for confirming that someone claiming to be a notable person who is the subject of an article really is that person. I'm not sure how getting INN to send us an email or to edit this talk apge conforms to WP:OR as it would be soliciting the creation of primary material which wouldn't necessarrilly be already in the public domain. We would need to check somewhere to see what other editors think. A footnote added to the original article would be a lot clearer though obviously third parties might see INN producing somethign at the JIDF's request as an opportunity for propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP removes cited, well-sourced information

If someone could please make sure this cited information is put back in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=307139607&oldid=307139143

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=next&oldid=307139607

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=next&oldid=307139808 (though the word "hijacking" should be removed, due to POV. Consider "takeover")

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the third item's significance to the content of this article. It would in any case require checking on whether there is a copyright violation involved, as Misplaced Pages policy is not to link copyvios.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding a lot of that back in. Regarding the 3rd item, it was originally added by Oboler here. I'm pretty sure he went around to announce the new section he added at the time and there was some amount of discussion about its inclusion, and consensus on it was formed. As I mentioned, my only objection with the 3rd item is the use of "hijacking"--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that we mention both the ADL's and Jewish Week's views, I don't see what it is gained by mentioning another group that does not currently have an article on Misplaced Pages. I agree that "takeover" is a more neutral term to "hijacking" but in this case it appears in the Telegraph article's name, so we wouldn't be able to replace it.--14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Do we really need: "Most of the article contains similar material to that found in other articles on the subjects. However, the final section entitled "From fighters against online-hatred to anti-Islamism" contains criticism of the JIDF." This seems to be added just to add heft to this section. It's unnecessary. Is Misplaced Pages a place where we offer a synopsis of articles?

Also, is this really "criticism?"

"Haaretz notes that Facebook groups with the same names and similar content to deleted groups have appeared, albeit with substantially reduced membership from the originals. One of the people who campaigned for Facebook to allow the relaunch of the "Israel is not a country" group told Haaretz that their success was "the first victory against the JIDF.""

What is the point of mentioning some anonymous person's claim of "victory" against the JIDF? Seems irrelevant to the "criticism" section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainessnobjectivity (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've partially removed each of these. It's some time ago but I think I put in the first text you highlight because I wanted to make clear that the FAZ article was not purely devoted to criticising the JIDF. The section title is however an indication of the criticism they do have. The first sentence of the second quote is relevant as the question of how well JIDF actions stick is relevant to its assessment. In the mid-term this material should be better integrated into the article as separate criticism sections are not considered the best way of presenting material (WP:Criticism).--Peter cohen (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More ideas to expand/update article

The JIDF recently changed it's press section which added some very helpful headers describing their many campaigns. While I feel what we have currently does help explain their "Getting issues of Antisemitism and Terrorism 2.0 on the Map" phase, a lot of the new information out there about the JIDF seems to have been neglected by Misplaced Pages.

This includes:

-Their Solidarity with Israel during Cast Lead (many articles)
-Their designation as the "Most influential Jewish Newswire on Twitter"
-Their campaign against "Hate Israel" groups on Facebook
-Their campaign Holocaust Denial material on Facebook
-Their campaign Against Nasrallah on Facebook (in which Israeli knesset got involved)
-Their current Twitter Campaign for Gilad Shalit (which is enjoying widespread support from many different organizations around the world

If you visit the JIDF Press Page you can find articles about all of these topics.

Thank you. --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a lot of hard work to organise. I'm not going to do the donkey work for that, though in principle I'm prepared to comment on a draft.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I have a paper coming out in a month or so that addresses the Holocaust Denial work. It might save the leg work on that particular topic. I'll drop a note back here when it is public if you like? I personally don't have any research on the others, though some of it I have certainly heard about. Oboler (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that covers JIDF actions rather than the phenomenon in general? BTW I notice that there's a related article by you on the Guardian Comment is Free site. Did that actually appear in print? I'm not quite clear whether CiF is purely on the website or whether the articles also go in the paper.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Source and a request

Hi all, I have two things I'd like people to consider, as they involve me I'd rather not make the changes myself. The first is an academic article that was "in press" at the time this page was first put together. As this is a journal article about the JIDF and freely available I'd suggest it is included. It also contains additional information not available here. The article is published by First Monday (journal) and is available here .

Secondly, I'm not happy with the "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher who was at the time working on Web 2.0 issues for NGO Monitor". The two key pieces I wrote on this topic clearly indicate that my primary affiliation in this work was as a "postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University" . Both do also mention I was working at NGO Monitor at the time, but reversing the affiliation is misleading (as the affiliation indicates, this was university research). Now if people insist, I'd be happy with either "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher", or "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher and postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University", or if you insist "and Andre Oboler, a social media researcher and postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University who was at the time working on Web 2.0 issues for NGO Monitor"... but that last option is a bit of a mouthful. Oboler (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How about saying instead that your main piece was published by the JCPA instead? I have a thing about wanting authors' leanings and political affiliations made clear when they are mentioned. (Over at Talk:Seven Jewish Children someone thought that my addition to the first sentence that Caryl Churchill was a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign was intended to add weight to claims that the play is anti-Semitic. As far as I was concerned it was worth having that information there so that readers would know that she didn't have a sudden political conversion when the Gaza War broke out but had already been critical of Israel.) Actually I'm not sure whether we need mention you at all. That particular Facebook group is old news. Why do we need to mention that three different people or groups with pre-existing interests in highlighting anti-Semitism are in agreement about it? Gideon Levy or Tony Lerman agreeing with the JIDF on this would be far more interesting and worth noting than the ADL, Jewish Week and you doing so, though I know that there are political differences between the four of you.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's important to have as much support for the claims that this was, in fact, a hate group, especially considering that many people think the JIDF just arbitrarily took it over, and considering how much this article obsesses over the old news. Again, I would love to see just some of the news (not having to do with any early "takeover" campaigns) brought into this article, as the JIDF has done far more than take over one Facebook group. Also, what the organization is actually about is barely represented in this article. The first line, "is an online organization that seeks to remove material from the Internet...." also seem incredibly inaccurate. They do a lot more than that and that is not their entire reason for being. It would be great if someone could work some of the language in the "organization" section into the intro.--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

possible new section on holocaust denial?

the following is from the Facebook page on Misplaced Pages, perhaps we should include some of it here?

Holocaust denial groups

JIDF an activist group fighting Antisemitism has criticized Facebook for condoning and hosting Holocaust denial groups on its network, which are in violation of Facebook TOS. David Appletree the founder of JIDF states, “Holocaust denial is hate speech and Antisemitism.”

Prominent technology bloggers are also joining in to criticize Facebook. Brian Cuban the brother of Mark Cuban the owner of Dallas Mavericks in his blog post says, “Holocaust denial is repulsive and ignorant” and calling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to remove the groups. Techcrunch CEO Michael Arrington says Facebook’s stubbornness on not removing the groups is wrong and offensive. Cnet’s writer Chris Matyszczyk calls Facebook’s , “Holocaust denial repulsive and ignorant.”

--Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Andre Oboler has said above that he will cover this. Let's give him a bit of time. Actually, I'm surprised that so much web-sourced material is being used as references in what you quote as they don't obviously meet WP:RS etc. But Facebookis not a page I want to get involved with.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweet4Shalit activism campaign by JIDF

I would like to add this text that comes from Gilad Shalit article to the JIDF article here

Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) organized in August 2009 pro-Gilad Shalit campaign on the social networking site Twitter. During the Tweet4Shalit activism campaign Twitter users drove the Gilad Shalit name to the second highest trend on the day of his 23rd birthday. Tweets for Shalit ranged from the demand "Free Schalit" to requests for international supervision of the case.

Igor Berger (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. — ] (talk · contribs) 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 79.97.166.36

79.97.166.36 (talk · contribs) has been deleting some referenced material without discussion.. That IP address has been previously blocked for similar deletions. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look above for the discussions in August, you'll see some similar ground covered. Skimming back, I seem to have previously restored some of the same material after a request by a JIDF-supporting user following deletion by this same anon user.

When I previously asked that user to create an account, they said that they had given up their previous account in an attempt to cut down on their Misplaced Pages time. Looking at the amount of activity on that account, I suggest a reconsideration. (Unless, of course, they are banned/long-term blocked.)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the facebook page is not a reference. It is an advertisement. The rest of the material is original research. Removing it. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's cited, it's generally not original research. I'm not even clear what point the IP editor is trying to make. Is this just straight vandalism, or attention-getting behavior? Actually, though, we could probably drop the "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?" link, because it's just a link to a dead Facebook group. There's a one-line Facebook post by "David", the JIDF guy, which links to that defunct group, but that's all the information available from that source right now. The history of the domain is worth keeping, since it's one of the few pieces of third-party info about the JIDF. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck do you assume that my behaviour has to be either vandalism or attention-seeking? Do you not think it might be remotely possible that edits in opposition to your own are constructive rather than vandalism or attention-seeking? Even if the facebook group were not dead, there is no need to link to it. Such a link serves only as an advertisement, as the article linked to mentions the facebook group. I've got no problem with information on the facebook group coming from a third party source. Nor do I have a problem with information on the domain's history. However, whois is not a published source, it is a research tool, and as far as I can tell any info coming from it would count as original research. The link to the "sample email activism letter" again, is not a reference. It is a sample letter. The linked page does not contain information which backs up what is said in the article, it is a blog page containing a sample letter for jidf members to use. And someone had extrapolated from the existence of this sample letter what activities the jidf are involved in. That is original research. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

i made changes

this article has been neglected and the JIDF has done so much more than take over the one big group in the summer of 2008. i've been restructuring some things so that it flows better. i feel no one is really doing much work on this article and no one has been updating it, so i thought i'd at least get things structured so as to tell the JIDF story more properly. once the structure is in place, i'm sure folks will have some issues with some of my edits, but we can discuss them. i've added a lot that was missing. there's even more well-sourced material we should be adding. --Mreditguy (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is incredibly POV now. I will be making some major revisions once I have the time. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing beneficial to the article was added, so I have reverted the rewrite wholesale. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

actually, a ton of well-sourced material was added. i reverted what appeared to be vandalism and removal of well-sourced material. --93.104.213.192 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare the two versions of the article and tell me that mreditguy's revisions are not massively biased in favour of the jidf. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

while that may or may not be true, please work it here, as opposed to removing chunks of well-sourced material. --93.158.114.84 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What well sourced material? If you wish to add any neutral, well sourced material, be my guest. But I will not allow this article to become a propaganda page for the sake of "well sourced material" (which I can not actually see in the article). 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

please stop your vandalism. each time you revert back, you're taking out a lot of well-sourced material. if you can't see that, it's vandalism. try editing the article as opposed to reverting back to something prior to the addition of important material. --93.104.213.175 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)--93.104.213.175 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is an intentional act. Failure to see something is not intentional. Therefore, failure to see something can not lead to vandalism, as vandalism is an act carried out intentionally and in bad faith. Please stop reverting to a POV version of the article. Each time you do, you're re-adding in a lot of poorly sourced, biased material. If you can't see that, well, I don't know. Try discussing a contentious major rewrite to the article on the discussion page first rather than re-adding POV material then reporting an opposing editors good-faith edits as vandalism in order to have your version of the article protected. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see that you were removing well-sourced material, vandalizing, possibly breaking the 3RR rule, and edit warring here, then i don't know what to tell you. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove well sourced material. You need to learn what qualifies as well sourced. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Your first accusation is a lie. I did not vandalise. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. ...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism...", Your second accusation is a lie. The 3RR "states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring". I made three reverts. Three is not more than three. The minimum criterion for more than three is four. The last of those three was a revert to an edit made by a bot, in which I maintained the intended action of the bot (removal of a link), so was not a revert in the usual sense. I therefore made two reverts. Two is half of four. I was only halfway towards being in breach of 3RR. Your third accusation is a lie. Two reverts is not an edit war. "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking.". A major edit was tried out. I voiced my objection to it on the talk page. I voiced my intention to carry out a major revision. Having read through the new revision, I concluded that there was nothing worth saving, and therefore reverted. I reported all of this on the talk page. Was consensus sought? No. If you can't see that you're full of shit, then I don't know what to tell you. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Right. I'm going to request changes be made, but first need to build concensus here. How do people feel about restoring the article to howw it was before the rewrite? As it is now, the article is completely and utterly biased in favour of the jidf. The only new material that has been added is quotes from jidf members supporting the new leaning of the article. The facebook section has been changed so that information on the removal of palestine as a country from the site's options is now gone, now only groups demanding the removal of israel as a country are mentioned, without context as to what the groups were created in response to. This is no longer an article, it is an advertisement. Let me know what you think. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing well-sourced and important material, as you were trying to do. If you feel there is bias, we can work to remove it together, but there was a lot of important information added to this article. --93.104.213.199 (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Facebook section has been changed so that information on the removal of Palestine as a country from the site's options is now gone, now only groups demanding the removal of Israel as a country are mentioned, without context as to what the groups were created in response to. Good point. In general, we need more info from reliable sources. This article from Time may be helpful: "Hamzeh Abu-Abed, who created a Facebook group titled "Let's Collect 500,000 Signatures to Support the Palestinians in Gaza," says he has received similar hate mail. "They said I am a terrorist who should die," says Abu-Abed, an accountant from Jordan. "We have been harassed by Zionists who hacked our group and called themselves the Jewish Internet Defense Force." --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

John, I personally think that information about the flame war you mentioned is absolutely irrelevant to the JIDF. They never discuss those groups. No sources about the JIDF ever talk about that. Therefore, I think it's off topic. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oboler, who is semi-affilated with the JIDF, discusses them. --John Nagle (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a very tiny point within the scope of all JIDF activities. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any important or well sourced information. Give me one example of this well sourced information you keep harping on about. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at your edits and see the chunks of new material you removed. You did, in fact, remove new information and important sources. We shouldn't have to point it out for you. --98.143.144.103 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove anything per se. I reverted to an earlier version, from which material had been removed to fit with the leaning of the new rewrite. There was no new beneficial additions made. What is this "we"? I am asking you, in the singular, to point out what important well sourced information I removed, as you continue to accuse me of having done so, when in fact I have not. Information is not in and of itself sacrosanct. My reverts brought the article back to where it was previously, which involved restoring some material and removing other. What was removed, was pov and/ or poorly sourced. And why is nagle's comment off topic? Because the jidf don't talk about the issue themselves? I think I'm starting to see why you have such a problem recognising what is and is not pov. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could someone please get rid of the new pov slant of the article and revert to the version before the major rewrite was carried out by mreditguy? 79.97.166.36 (talk)

Sorry, I appreciate your efforts in talking this through, but I'm not seeing sufficient consensus for this yet. Please continue the discussion and replace the request when you have an agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you consider lowering to semi-protection? We have had one IP user (usually 79.97.166.36 but sometimes uses another address) who was pushing things towards a more critical stance The changes without discussion were objected to by some of the regular watchers of the page. John Nagle, "Malik Shabazz" and I have all reverted this user at different times. What then happenned is that a JIDF activist who watches the page posted an alert on one of their lists and an IP and a couple of new ids came along to make the page more favourable to them. If you look at threads above you can see that some of the new material was discussed before. The original IP user is correct in saying that the new version is biased in favour of the JIDF, but I don't think a mass revert is the right answer. However I think the regular users can be left to sort things themselves under a semi-protect with id blocks if necessary if oen of the new ids reveals itself to be User:Einsteindonut or otherwise disrupts things.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with the protection level. I believe consensus should be formed before people start butchering this article, as has happened many times in the past, and the names you mention, while they have tried to "protect" this article from time to tim, have also done their fair share of adding anti-JIDF POV into this article. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, some of the new material is worth keeping. I therefore think that a more systematic review is needed working section by section, if nto paragraph by paragraph. Starting with the lead, only one thing really stands out to me as problematic: the claim of general anti-racist activity. The ADL does campaign on racism in general, but I've seen no evidence that the JIDF does so. There have even been claims online by a disgruntled ex-member of racism within the JIDF. Also, as noted by the FAZ, the JIDF site does link to some dubious sites. I think the reference to campaign against racism should be changed to saying that the group campaigns against anti-Semitism. There is plenty of evidence of this.

Comments? And anyone willing to make a start on proposing changes to the next part?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of the new material is worth keeping. The cases of any disgruntled ex-members of the JIDF is original research, not documented in any reliable sources whatsoever. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some issues. First, the lede says this is an "organization". Actually, the JIDF is at best an online organization. It has no physical location, members, meetings, or legal existence. From the sources we have, the JIDF consists of a web site, some Facebook groups, and the anonymous "David". No source mentions anyone other than "David" associated with the JIDF. The article gives the misleading impression that the JIDF is an operation on the scale of the ADL. The text should at least read "online organization". --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

i have no issues with "online organization," though they have organized things offline as well, including counter protests in January, which have been documented in reliable sources, I believe. --95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So how about the following as a lead paragraph:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is an internet-based pro-Israel advocacy organization which shares news and information with members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism, is antisemitic or is hostile to Israel, and seeks to "create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Misplaced Pages.

--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't like "internet based" - why not just "online organization." so howabout:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online advocacy organization which shares news and information to members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web. It also seeks out, exposes, and reports online material which is against the Terms of Service of internet companies. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism and racial hatred, and "believes in direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online, and to create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Misplaced Pages.

--95.154.230.121 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Pro-Israel online advocacy organisation" but not so happy with the rest of your differences from my version. First, you've still produced no evidence of general anti-racist activities by the JIDF as opposed to anti-anti-Semitism. Second, I don't see why Terms of Services need mentioning twice in the lead paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference to "members" of the JIDF is not really correct. There's no documented way to "join" the JIDF, although people can donate to them or buy their stuff, or friend them on Myspace or Facebook. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The JIDF is now on "blogradio.com". It's "David Appletree" talking. This week (2009-10-06) he's saying 1) that he's been kicked off of Facebook for a "real name violation", 2) that he's not getting support from mainstream Jewish organizations, 3) people are sending him stupid Twitter messages, 4) he's trying to get some government to issue him a government ID with the name "David Appletree", 5) he has "personal issues" with Brian Cuban (long rant about this), 6) something about Noah David Simon, Lauren Feldman, cybersquatting, Verizon, and a conspiracy to get him off of Twitter, and 7) "huge fan of individualism", read The Fountainhead at an early age. Around 18 minutes in, he's done whining and starts talking about antisemitism, propaganda, and Israel. But by minute 19, he's talking about himself again: "My people would go out of their way to hurt me", and he's back on Cuban, Simon, and Feldman again. Minute 21, more complaining about Facebook "There are Hezbollah spies on Facebook". He doesn't like Facebook's non-anonymous culture. Urges people to get off of Facebook. Complains you can't search messages on Facebook. "I'm very anti-Obama, I'm very pro-Israel" at 23:30. Complaining that Facebook allows Palestine as a country. At 24:23, says that the Simon Wiesenthal Center is in collusion with Facebook. Complains that Wiesenthal Center and ADL are not helping him and his cause. "All they do is hit people up for money". At 26:30 he starts taking phone calls (it's a call-in show). There's a full hour of this, but I bailed at this point. --John Nagle (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You actually listened to this meshugeneh ranting for almost half an hour? Is his voice particularly hypnotic?Is this something semi-permanent we can ref for his attacking the ADL and SWC? And it sounds like confirmation that "David Appletree" is a pseudonym with Facebook dumping him and his wanting ID in the name?

So how about the following as lead paragraph:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online advocacy organisation which shares news and information with supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism, is antisemitic or is hostile to Israel, and seeks to "create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Misplaced Pages.

--Peter cohen (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The "D" in "Denial" in the section name here should not be capitalised. Please make it lower case. This is per this and this. When the phrase "Holocaust denial" in used in the content, the "d" is not capitalised.--Rockfang (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about recent article w/ regard to david appletree

A recent Online internet article on david appletree claims: "Appletree founded JIDF shortly after 9/11. “Some Facebook groups were celebrating ,” he said. “It was so revolting.” - I'd like to point out that Facebook was not created until 2003-2004. And certainly was not worldwide until a year after that. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone were "celebrating" 911 by then, especially since most of the critics of US policies by then were focusing on wether there was evidence for 9/11 being an "inside job" or false flag operation by then. I myself have witnessed the JIDF vandalising group facebook pages put up simply to support Palestinians, Gaza, Palestinian villages or imprisoned loved ones. Their activity seem to have wholly and mainly centered around DOS attacks (denial of service) on palestinian and muslim sites. An activity which in itself is illegal in most if not all parts of the world on a par with theft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 02:42, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comment. As a recipient of JIDF hate mail, I share your scepticism about them but Misplaced Pages editorial policy relies on evidencing material to "WP:Reliable sources and avoiding WP:Original Research. This unfortunately means that personal experience does not provide grounds for including material in the article. If you are able to point out material published in well-known newspapers or work by reputable investigative journalists etc. that supports what you say above about "David Appletree" and the JIDF, then I'll happily include it. If you can't find such sources, then the JIDF supporters who watch this page will revert any additions you make and none of the long-standing editors who attempt to keep this page vaguely neutral would be prepared to revert them.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe BLP rules do apply here and the original headline is untrue, so I removed it. It's important to know that the ARTICLE claimed that Appletree founded the JIDF after 9/11. He specifically told the reporter that the terrorist pages in response to the terrorist attack at the Yeshiva were revolting. In short, the reporter got it wrong. There is also no evidence of the JIDF launching any DOS attacks or illegal activity whatsoever. --95.154.230.74 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reference to them as hackers in mainstream media. Hacking is generally illegal. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The rise of Hate 2.0
2. JIDF Letter to Facebook Regarding Illegal Content
3. Holocaust Denial on Facebook is just the Tip of the Iceberg
4. Facebook: Holocaust Denial Should Be Discussed Openly
5. Open Letter To Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
6. Facebook Remains Stubbornly Proud Of Position On Holocaust Denial
7. Facebook: Holocaust denial repulsive and ignorant
8. http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html About the JIDF]
9. ^ [http://www.thejidf.org/2008/08/current-response-to-wikipedia.html - "JIDF Response to Misplaced Pages -"]. -. 2008-08-05. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |title= at position 30 (help); line feed character in |url= at position 69 (help)
10. ^ Morrison, Sarah (2008-03-04). "Jewish Activist Battles For Israel on Facebook". Israel National News. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
11. ^ Morrison, Sarah (2008-07-27). "Jewish Activists Hack Anti-Semitic Facebook Group". Israel National News. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
12. ^ Cite error: The named reference jpost1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. ^ Cite error: The named reference JIDF_telgraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html About the JIDF]

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles