Talk:Jew Watch/Archive 3

Jew Watch is antisemitic
According to WP:NPOV, wikipedia is not supposed to hold opinions but rather report the opinions of others. Accordingly, I have supported the prior edit that Jew Watch is reported to be anti-semitic. I think this is particularly important since the website actively claims to not be anti-semitic. So I quote from policy:


 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. " ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." ... there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.


 * Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone . So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.

I believe that saying that Jew Watch IS antisemitic violates the NPOV policy. I believe that saying it is REPORTEDLY anti-semitic is directly in agreement. Another editor, Chris, has taken the other view. I would like to hear other comments. I would also like to hear how Chris explains that it is wrong to say that something is reported to be a certain way, when the policy says, that is what should be done. --Blue Tie 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It goes back to the part that says "about which there is no serious dispute". There is no serious dispute that Jew Watch is antisemitic.  Let's make a deal: You find a reliable source that says otherwise and I'll be happy to couch it in terms of "widely considered".  Hell, I'll settle for an unreliable but well known source.  As this site has received a lot of media attention, if there's any serious dispute I'm sure you'll be able to find source.  It's also worth pointing out that the sites' protestations to the contrary are prominently displayed in the very next sentence. Chris Croy 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the serious dispute is from the website itself. It claims to not be anti-semitic. This is important.  It gets to the heart of NPOV. It is not about some other source,  It is sufficient that it is disputed, seriously, by the website authors.  Besides, wikipedia NPOV guidelines are not just caught on the issue of the source having no serious dispute.  It has other features that also make this edit inappropriate. Would you like details or is it enough for you to read the policy?--Blue Tie 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, here is a somewhat reputable source that is saying the same thing as Jew Watch ... namely that anti zionism is not the same as anti semitism: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/04/an_attack_on_free_speech.html --Blue Tie 02:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. On the other hand, groups that are antisemitic often claim that they are merely "anti-Zionist", as a cover:



Furthermore, a perusal of the website indicates that much of the stuff there has nothing even remotely to do with Zionism. What does "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms" have to do with Zionism? Or "Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations"? "Jewish Slavery Industry"? "Jewish Frauds -- Reported by Media"? "Jewish-Christian Murders"? "Jewish Criminals"? "Jewish Pornographers"? "Jewish Capitalists"? "Jewish Entertainment"? Please, let's have no more of this specious "they are anti-Zionists" talk. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sort of irrelevant to the point. Maybe they are lying. Maybe they really believe it.  I do not know.  But WP:NPOV says that we must attribute opinions.  Are you in disagreement with that policy applying to this article?--Blue Tie 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't try to straw man me. As you know, WP:NPOV also says "about which there is no dispute". That's the issue here. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how I was engaging in strawman. I was asking a question and I still do not know the answer.  Do you think that there is no dispute on this matter?  I am not understanding you. --Blue Tie 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which reliable sources dispute the fact that Jew Watch is antisemitic? Please find some soon. If all reliable sources say that Jew Watch is antisemitic, then it is merely stating a fact, rather than a POV. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the issue is this: If the site strenuously denies this claim, does that count as a "Serious Dispute" of the claim.  To me it is a serious dispute.  To you, apparently it is not.  How do we solve that? What reasonable policies apply? --Blue Tie 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) NB: Let me confirm:  You do not like the way the current article reads?  I think it is correct the way it is. --Blue Tie 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The site can make any claim it likes - it can claim that Jews are using pornography to subvert white culture, that the sun revolves around the earth, or that George Bush is actually a robot controlled by gene-engineered Jewish reptilian hominids, but regardless of what it says, is not a reliable source. Its claims are treated as exactly that: claims. Since all reliable sources indicate that Jew Watch is antisemitic, and no reliable sources claim that it is not, Wikipedia should follow policy and simply state the facts "upon which there is no dispute". If no-one can find any reliable sources stating the contrary, I'll provide a couple more reliable sources indicating that Jew Watch is antisemitic, and adjust the text to comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent:First, If that is the way the policies are, I have no problem with it. But I think that if the website itself distinctly denies that it is anti-semitic, then that is a serious dispute. I think this is not really well defined territory in the policies. Second, do you object to the way it is currently worded? I would greatly appreciate an answer to that question because as far as I can tell, you do not object to the way it is currently worded, and neither do I. --Blue Tie 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object to it, because it states fact as mere opinion. Not that it's particularly relevant (given that it's an unreliable source),but where does it "distinctly denies that it is anti-semitic"? Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To say the web site is anti-semitic is not an opinion it is fact.The site promote hate agianst Jews and claim that Jews responsible for every things bad in this world.The site blame Sarkozy the elected president of French only because he is Jewish.The site claim that even though he have been elected democratically,we have a problem.Why?Because he is Jew.It is a fact that that site is anti-semitic.Moreover part of the people that response here and write the information about that site work for Frank.That make them no objective at all.The site refer to Jews only in negative way.Whether it is true or not(it is not) the web site is anti semitic.Just like a web site that contain only negative material about Christians will consider as anti-Christian.Or web site that contain only negative material about the Europe will consider Anti-European websiteEwrd


 * Why did you abandon your User:Oren.tal account? Jayjg (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JewWatch.com is not anti-Semitic. I consider JewWatch.com a great library. I would like to know why Jewish readers like to label JewWatch.com an anti-Semitic site. Is it because Jews hate to hear the truth about their own history and about atrocities Jewish people did? Even in greatest history book - Old Testament, many atrocities are described where Jewish tribes killed men, women and children of entire nations/tribes. Jews should stop using the label "anti-Semite" as they are not only Jews who are Semitic. It is Jews who are anti-Semitic, as they are killing and liquidating Palestinian nation in apartheid called Israel. Now, I will be labeled nazi, child of Hitler, fascist, anti-Semite. By Viking IvoBohus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.46.128 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Anti-semitism," like "anti-Americanism" is often a term used to try and discredit criticisms or negative perceptives or arguments of Israel's or the Zionists' history as well as their military, political, and social pursuits without engaging in debate or providing any evidence. "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair talks about this subject. Norman Finkelstein also talks about this subject, and, as a result, as one may expect, he has been called anti-semitic as well as a holocaust denier, even though he is neither (his parents are Holocaust survivors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.23.125 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More on the mysterious reliable source quotation
” Reliable sources categorize it as antisemitic hate site.[1]

As if that isn't the most POV-loaded sentence of the century. Why not name this "reliable source," and if these sources are so reliable, then why do they resort to emotively-charged newspeak in their description, which presents a clear bias? The site simply lists the number of Jews in various positions of power and influence...is that antisemitic hate? In an effort to avoid becoming the mouthpiece of various political interests, wikipedia has become the mouthpiece of political interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.243.53 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on the footnote for a list of about 15 sources, including a UN report, the Missouri Attorney General, CNET, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Age, and a number of other press sources. That's how attribution is usually done. --Stephan Schulz 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon, here at WP we do not identify reliable sources by their ethnic/religious affiliation or lack thereof. BTW, I'm open to improving the wording in the intro, but I would prefer to avoid WP:WEASEL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if not even a single reliable source contests that definition, then "it is generally regarded" seems satisfactory, if not strong enough. The current wording makes it sound like RSes are alone in doing so, which is of course not the case. Incidentally, 20 GScholar hits for the site, and each one of them says anti-semitic, except for one that says 'white supremacist'. Hornplease 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since not a single reliable source disputes that JW is an antisemitic hate site, we should say that. I don't see how the current wording implies that "RSes are alone in doing so": we do not say "alone" or "only". The expression "generally regarded" is too weak, IMHO. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think 'generally regarded' sounds stronger than the current. How about "nearly universally regarded?" Too weaselly? Hornplease 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is too weaselly. And I think reliable sources is also weaselly and just generally too wikignomish.  I would be interested to know what is wrong with "Generally considered" or "Widely regarded".  I prefer the first one because I think it more expansive than "Widely regarded". It is not a reliable source, but I noticed on Amazon.com that somehow this website got some sort of review and I was surprised at how many people had praise for it.  So, it may not be so Universal.  I would really like a specific quote that would summarize all of the others so that it is not like we were engaging in OR, but in my view "Generally considered" correctly sums up the reliable sources while acknowledging some possibility of disagreement.  And I think a nod to that disagreement is appropriate but should not get a great deal of weight.  This seems to me to fit that approach.


 * I would not mind saying that it is "Generally Regarded" or "Widely Regarded" as anti-semitic. But I think that saying it is a hate site, should be separated -- a second sentence saying that "A UN report categorizes it as a hate site", so that the source of the opinion is expressed.  I do not think that in the info box it should be just declared to be a hate site.  I am curious to know what other "types" of website exist and if there is a description in regular use that would also fit. --Blue Tie 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Generally considered" and "Widely regarded" are just as weaselly as 'reliable sources' if not more. You simply cant back up a claim of wide regard. other than some kind of wide ranging opinion poll --Neon white 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, there are 23 reviews here. 14 of them are "positive". Have you actually looked at them? Most of them are full of paranoid ramblings (the media is censored, "The Jews" controlled the Soviet Union and tortured 10000000 "White Christians", ...). This is in no way representative, but a highly self-selected sample of completely braindead idiots (words used after careful consideration and in lack of stronger ones). Nothing in these reviews is a remotely reliable source on the general perception of the site. --Stephan Schulz 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not read them all, because actually I do not care that much! I do not recall whether they are paranoid ramblings or not.  And again, I do not care if they are.  As you point out, this is far from a Reliable Source.  But I was genuinely surprised to see the number of favorable comments.  I did not expect to see any.  But both here on wikipedia and there on Amazon, as well as the website itself, which I deem to be reliable enough, there is some question about the matter.  I think a nod in that direction is reasonable.  And so, I think the current wording is fine.  Except that I do not like "Reliable Sources".  Not because I think that they are unreliable, but because it sounds wrong.  It sounds wonkish.  Wikignomish.  Weaselly.  I don't hate it.  I just think that "Generally considered to be" is stronger and sounds "tighter".  I like "Generally Considered" more than "Widely Regarded" because it seems to me to be a wider space of people -- which I think is right. On the other hand, I do not believe it is universal. --Blue Tie 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nearly always the best thing to do is to be as accurate as possible, rather than generalizing, then visitors to the page can see who exactly refers the site as 'anit-semitic' and who doesnt. The use of 'Reliable sources' seems to be redundant as, according to guidelines, all souces should be reliable or not included. I propese 'The UN high commissioner for human rights and sections of the media categorize it as an antisemitic hate site' --Neon white 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a bit to weak. As far as we can tell, all the reliable sources that comment on the issue at all agree, or at least none disagrees. --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Neon white, something along the lines of "Many, including the UN commish...have called the site antisemitic and racist."... --Geekish 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The words "many", "widely", "generally", etc. imply that there is a small number of reliable sources that dispute the categorization of JW as antisemitic. Without seeing a single one, I will oppose such WP:WEASEL wording. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not be even more specific: "The site has been described as antisemtic by the UN high commissioner for human rights[ref], the Missouri Attorney General[ref], CNET[ref], the San Francisco Chronicle[ref], The Age[ref] and other sources[restofcurretmegaref]. --Stephan Schulz 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links on JewWatch
The article talks about YouTube links on Jewwatch. I could not find these. I saw a few youtube weltner videos and started to watch one but became bored. It is hard to verify the information described in the article. --Blue Tie 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate site
To call Jew Watch a "hate site" is extreme and itself calls into question the motives of the accusers. I would challenge any fair person to visit Jew Watch and look around. Most of the articles are written by Jews in the New York Times, ADL, Washington Post, and Jerusalem Post. Each citation contains the URL or page # so it can be verified. The problem is that the accusers may have a great deal to hide, and because Jew Watch archives its work for scholars, they have a very difficult time covering their criminal tracks. For a thug who has always been guaranteed anonymity which Jew Wath no longer allows him/her, this is a frightening prospect. The truth will come out, and Jew Watch is all about the truth. In addition, Jew Watch's "Philosophy" is a terrific essay on human rights, including Jewish rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.73.23 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This description is biased and uncyclopedic. It should be changed or removed. --jm4847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.28.71 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it biased and unencyclopedic? It is what it is.  That's like saying calling a apple a fruit is biased.  It is what it is. Elhector 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is one difference. The apple does not claim it is not an apple.  Jew Watch states that it is absolutely not a hate site and it discourages hate, hateful behavior, attacks or revenge on jews.  For many people this would suggest it is not a hate site. --Blue Tie 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so they're contradicting themselves. You can't make up a bunch of disinformation to try to portray a group of people in a unfavorable light and then turn around and say you don't "hate" the group and that you don't condone harming them when the information your spreading is harming them by making ignorant people beleive ignorant things.  L. Ron Hubbard claimed he wasn't a quack, but that doesn't mean he wasn't.  Same goes here, JewWatch.com claims there not a hate site but they are.  If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and looks like a duck... Elhector 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And for many more it would suggest they are liars. Find me a single hate site that says "hi, we're a hate site." --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the notion that they are lying about that is original research. If you really want to go by original research, find me a hate site that condemns hatred of the thing it is identified as hating. Find even one other--Blue Tie 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Let's start with, which includes "Judaism is satanic". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And where is that site declared to be a hate site? Also, where does it say that Judaism is satanic"?  I did not see that.--Blue Tie 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In both cases, do your own research. Google's "search within site" may help you with the latter; it's much more pleasant than actually reading through the contents of that vile site. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lacking fundamental Frank Weltner history
Print Weltner's years of civil rights work as well as his other website, http://www.civilrights.name, whose domain Weltner owns. The readers are mislead by this Wikepedia hatchet job on Weltner. At his civil rights site, Weltner's philosophy of protecting the rights of all races, creeds, colors, nationalities, etc. are stated. When I read the citation on Weltner, all I could think of is, "where do these people come from?". My answer is that they are somehow connection with known disinformation agencies such as the Mossad, ADL, SPLC, CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Justice and other occult operatives who are piloted by known deceivers and liars which is easily seen in their histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.73.23 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The history of Frank Weltner has left out a fundamental point that he was in the Freedom Riders human rights group in mississippi in the 1960s, and helped black people register before the federal marshals. Furthermore it states he is a member of the National Alliance, which is a factual fallacy, as he never has been. Please provide proof that the current Frank Weltner history is correct, as it is not proved. Otherwise it must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.84.2 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a article on Weltner, but on his site. The National Alliance membership is doubly sourced, both to the SPLC and to Weltner's own statement on his own web site. If you have something to add and reliable sources for it, do so. --Stephan Schulz 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If its not an article on Weltner, why does it have some of his history? :) As far as the SPLC go, by definition they cannot be trusted due to their vested interests in assassinating Franks character.  As far as franks 'admission' to being in the National Alliance, thats taken entirely out of context, and on its own is a falsehood. While i could simply link and quote to prove you wrong, the Burden of Evidence is on you im afraid, so unless you can prove this NA claim then it's gotta go. :)


 * Furthermore, this article does not have a right to mention anything about connections with NA, without balancing it with the fact that he was a known Freedom Rider, and helped black people.


 * This wiki just smacks of delusions, ignorance, bias, and bitterness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.84.2 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please supply source to your claim.No point to continue the discussion if you don't supply any source to your claim that he worked for the black.87.69.77.82 08:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
Frank believe it is Jewish organization.source: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-organizations-splc.html

It should be mention in the article.87.69.77.82 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he believes that because the founders and the heads of SPLC - Morris Dees and Joe Levine are jewish. There is also many jews in the leading positions in this organization . But may be he is wrong. Because we don't know if you can call someone jewish if you don't know if they visit synagogues, unlike the people that died during WWII. --Ram2006 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Southern Poverty Law Center has nothing to do with Jews (it don't have to be mention in the article).Second because this organization fight against white supremacist organizations and it look like more than coincidence that this web site call it Jewish organization.It is part of the theory of this web site just like communism was Jewish plot,Z.O.G. etc.So I believe we should add this to thing he believe.87.69.77.82 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He believes a lot of stupid stuff; I don't see what's particularly worthy about this one. Others might disagree. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * you are right but I checked his channel in you tube http://www.youtube.com/user/cpotato2004 and he say "nformation on News of Zionism, Israel, Neocons, U.S.S.R., Communism, Nazism, Judeo-Bolshevism, ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center." with mean this organization is important to him MORE than other thing that he don't mention in his description.I mean he believe in many many stupid thing but he don't mention all of them in the description of his channel.And also look like this subject is actual for him right now.He didn't mention it before.87.69.77.82 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what we'd need to include this information would be a reliable source indicating that his opinion of the SPLC is in someway relevant to anything. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.But I think it is relevant because look like that every organization that act against white nationalist is labeled as Jewish organization.I also find his opinion about that organization more actual today than his opinion about communism as Jewish plot.But on the other hand he speak more about communism.So maybe we should wait to see if start to speak a lot abut this organization.87.69.77.82 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OSCE about Jew watch
http://www.osce.org/documents/cio/2004/06/3127_en.pdf http://www.osce.org/publications/rfm/2004/12/12239_94_en.pdf I believe the opinion of this important organization shoul be mention in the article.Oren.tal 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then be bold and write it up and add it to the article. I might suggest that you take a look at some of the general guidelines for Wiki-editing and also make sure to run your addition through a spell check and grammar check first as well.  Good luck! Elhector 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I find this book that mention Jew watch: http://books.google.com/books?id=r59bGyH4lOAC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=racist+anti+semitic+%22jew+watch%22+org&source=web&ots=E4fJmoo3Ir&sig=hnCpv5QSjXtOm1V0iRS554dVzg0#PPR1,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And this : http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn329.pdf Oren.tal 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial anti-Semitic
What about saying that in the description. Here is the source for it: http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39120280,00.htm http://judaism.about.com/b/2004/04/18/anti-semitic-site-kicked-off-the-top.htm

Since there are very reliable sources about it we should say Controversial anti-Semitic.It is not an opinion since it can be citing.132.72.70.183 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we still discussing if it's ok to call the page controversial and anti-semitic? Elhector 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * yes.I suggest to call it Controversial anti-Semitic and not anti semitic or Controversial.The fact is it is true and we have more than enough reliable source to back it up.Oren.tal 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was previously a long discussion about this and the wording was somewhat settled by consensus at the time. If the issue is going to be re-opened we need to initiate another Request for Comment. I would note that just because an opinion is cited that does not make the opinion a fact. The wikipedia policy is that, for it to be a fact, it must not be something that is disputed and that label is disputed.  --Blue Tie 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you have seen I have just reopen it.Second it is not opinion but a fact that can be cited.Therefore it sould be mention.calling it opinion when the fact are clear will make it ridiculs.But regarding the fact term I must say the political part are lablled in wikipedia as right,center,left.This also can be consider as opinion,however when you have enough reliable source you can mention it.Here we have more than enough reliable source.132.72.70.222 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look to see the reopening of the Rfc. However, things are not Facts on wikipedia unless they are verifiable and not disputed.  You mention that it is a fact because it can be cited but you do not include the second part of the issue that it is disputed.  The current wording is a very good way of describing the opinion that it is anti-semitic. --Blue Tie 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * disputed by who?Oren.tal 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jew watch clip were banned from you tube
I believe it should be mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate site redux
While I have no wish to see the description of this site watered down, I'm uncomfortable with "type of site=hate site" in the info box. Here at Wikipedia we try to steer clear of bald binary categorisation - i.e. it's either a hate site or not. In the main body of the text we can say things like "The UN High Commissioner called it a hate site" and we don't need to have the argument about what exactly constitutes a hate site.

Can I suggest we find another descriptor for the site for the infobox (would "antisemitic" be uncontroversial?) and keep all the "hate site" quotes from significant people in the main text? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO the term "Hate Site" has a pretty clear cut definition. I also think this site more than meets the definition.  I don't have a problem with changing to something like "antisemitic" though, maybe it will help cut down on the edit warring that seems to be occuring on this issue now.  Although it might spark a new one too.  I say be bold and throw it up there and see if it sticks :-) Elhector (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Good suggestion. --JeremyStein (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And the result was that JpGordon reverted it. I agree with him about this. There is no need to change the wording. : Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually fine with the Hate Site wording too, I just thought maybe we could avoid some of the back and forth by changing it, guess not though :-) Wasn't there and RfC on this a while back?  The consensus was "Hate Site" was fine, right? Elhector (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the reversion there; I don't like doing that when a discussion is underway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the article carefully avoids saying directly that the site is a hate site. Instead it shows that so many reputable sources have called it a hate site. Yet at the same time, the infobox out and calls it a hate site. If we're not willing to start the article with "Jew Watch is a hate site that...", then the infobox shouldn't do it on the sly. --JeremyStein (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. I think you're right. But how to characterize it, then? Or should we at all in the infobox? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should remove it from the infobox. The article itself does a pretty good job of accurately portraying the site as it is.    It might help keep the article more stable.  Lets see if anyone else objects or has any other ideas. Elhector (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the way it is handled in the article is, if not right, at least close to right. In particular, wikipedia does not call the site "anti-semitic" or a "hate site" but does support the fact that many people think it is one.  The infobox on the other hand, speaks in wikipedia's voice and so it is probably a bit over the top. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think wikipedia should call it what it is anti semitic web site.Oren.tal (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources characterize JW as a hate site and this is what we say in the lead. Speaking of which, I think the phrase "Many, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have categorized it as an antisemitic hate site." could and should be improved, because it suggests that there are credible sources that categorize it differently. This has been discussed here for months now, and no evidence was ever presented despite repeated requests. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How interesting -- you're suggesting that quoting a reliable source actually weakens the claim. How about "The site is widely categorized as an antisemitic hate site."  The footnote says the rest. --JeremyStein (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeremy, I like your answer.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Blue Tie. I've decided to be bold, which often means be reverted, but time will tell... --JeremyStein (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Elhector, I tried to take your suggestion and remove the type from the infobox, but it's a required field. So, I'm out of suggestions. --JeremyStein (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a question. I question the validity of the term "hate site". Seems like a judgment call.  What other websites are labeled with an info box as "hate site"s?  If this is the only one then it should not remain.  But if there are many (I do not know how many is many but I would think more than 3), then I would tend more to agree with JPGordon on the label being (at least) valid terminology.  (Frankly I think though, that the site should be labeled "anti-zionist) rather than anti-semitic or "hate site").  I also would like to know, what are the objective criteria for a website earning this description.  If such criteria exist and they can be applied we would have an airtight reason for this label. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anti-Zionist"? What gives you that idea? They're not writing about Zionism, they're writing about Jooooz. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mainly because the website claims to be anti-zionist but not anti-jew. But that is really secondary. My question is really: Are there any other websites that have a label of "Hate site" on wikipedia.  If not, then we are treat things website in an exceptional manner and that suggests POV and OR.--Blue Tie (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * then why the website call itself Jew watch and not Zionist watch.about the second question I do believe that website like David duke should be labeled as such.132.72.151.98 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK lets see if I have heard you correctly, It is only not pov to call a hate site a hate site, if there is already another hate sight that wiki refers to as a hate site. Yikes: Is that what you are saying ?? If so, then one is left to wonder how one would ever get to label a hate site as a hate site   ???


 * A Google advanced search of Hate Sights with the words Jew Watch produced approx. 18,000 matches. Jew watch is an antisemitic hate sight and I would be truly shocked if you or anyone else were able to create a consensus to the contrary. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. That is OR.  I do not think anyone will contest that it is often considered a hate site.  Whether it actually is a hate site might be disputed.  But more importantly, is any other website on wikipedia considered a hate site or is this the only one in that group?  If so, then perhaps this special treatment should not be accepted. Wikipedia should have standards, especially when an article speaks with the authority of wikipedia's voice. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Google searches are used quite frequently here at Wikipedia, and they are not often considered to be OR. Decisions such as what is OR are made by what Wiki refers to as consensus. The arbitration committee almost never (if ever) decides a content issue. Consensus decides these things. It is maddening but none the less so. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes they are often used and never with good validity. And there are objective standards regarding OR in some cases, not just consensus. But for some reason you seem to be ignoring my real point. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess the conversations over. You are not going to gain consensus on this matter, but feel free to try and convince the arbitration committee or the wikipedia foundation that you are correct but good luck with that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about but you are needlessly prickly. First of all, conversations are not over. Second, you are not the arbiter of consensus.  Third, there is no arbitration committee or wikipedia foundation involvement.  So, nothing you said made sense.  Were you simply trying to insult me? --Blue Tie (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My end of this conversation is over. If someone else wants to discuss these thing with you then I am sure they will feel free to do so. As for me I choose to ignore you until further notice. Good luck with all of your endeavors. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Until further notice? So, you will randomly pay attention on and off? Everyone gets to choose.  Anyway... to help you in the future to understand the weaknesses of Google Count as a source for wikipedia, consider reading WP:GOOGLE.  And to get along with editors better, consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic site" would be a less ambiguous term, since that is what it is. Moreover, "Jihad Watch," which was once classified as a "hate site" has now been reclassified as a "blog," so I don't think this article should get special preferences in that regard. I don't think Wikipedia commonly uses the term hate site. "Anti-Semitic site" still gives one the picture, but it should still be sourced (which would be easy to do). Google counts are not accurate methods to test for this. Google counts over 168,000 sites that consider Jihad Watch to be a hate site, also. That doesn't really affect wikipedia. Further, until the petition was created, "Jew Watch" was the #1 page to show up on Google for a "jew." Search engines are easy to manipulate. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
The page is loaded with highly-emotive pov, which is why it was protected, despite the fact that wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Notorious for showing up as number 1? According to whom? Obviously, according to whoever wrote that. The description "hate site" is laughable. To invoke hate may be the intention, but that is a call nobody can make except the site's author. "Hate site" is a judgement made by the person who decided to call it a hate site...again, pov. It does not matter how many ADL, JDL, anti-racism or Yad Yashaven, et al. sites that person references, because these sites all share his or her political position. If the page cited only sites that agreed with the content on "Jew Watch" the same mass bias would occur. Shame on you wikipedia, "the encyclopeida for like-minded cultists to edit"...--91.89.131.219 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this point was discussed,so you didn't have to open a new subject.In any case you can read the talk and get the full explanation.This site is far more than saying opinion by the way.It contain "information" that is absolutely lie and that were design to create hate.but in any case no need to continue the discussion here as the subject above is about the same thing.Oren.tal (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why hate site?
I'm asking seriously. Why Jew Watch a hate site? All it does is to say the truth. 201.143.121.73 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but they only tell lies. First of all, they keep saying Jews are Communists, and I am a Jew and I am highly anti-Communist. Also, it keeps saying how Zionism is evil and promotes genocide, but I am a Zionist and I suport a homeland for Palestinians and for Jews. Unfortunately, some people only want war. Idontknow  610 TM 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Truly A Hate Site
"Jew Watch" is indeed a hate site that seeks to defame the Jewish Community. It makes fantastical claims and conspiracy theories, it attempts to spotlight how evil the Jewish Community is. There are individuals who are sympathetic to this point of view and try to defend it. Those who agree with "Jew Watch" try to legitimize their bigoted point of view by declaring they are stating the truth. At one point they must be told that such views are hateful and bigoted and rooted in LIES. Not the truth. LIES. But that's just my point of view, right? When hate groups create an infrastructure of like minded individuals and organizations they create resources they can quote and reference. It's all a bunch of nonsense. I am just going to add my name to the list that believes in this case Wikipedia did a good job in labelling "Jew Watch" a hate site. Buddmar (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)buddmar

Jew Watch is not a hate site, and only speaks the truth
Can we remove the box calling it a hate site? Jew watch is a useful resource documenting the actual, unreported crimes of the Jews against White people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.63.202 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking skin -- hey, I'm white as all hell! And Jewish too! Are bigots color-blind? Oh wait! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews are not White, they are Jews. You hooknosed parasites are a race not a religion. Jews want to rule the entire world from Tel Aviv and Jewwatch frightens them because it mentions this.

If no one else is willing to change it within 24 hours, I'll be signing up and altering it myself. —Preceding

??? Confused.. no, seriously: Jew Watch proclaims that Roosevelt and Eisenhower for example were jews. So, if people who look like Eisenhower and Roosevelt are not white.. who the hell IS white?

unsigned comment added by 79.77.81.215 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we already do rule the world from Washington DC. Now go away. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[Offensively anti-semitic comment removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.81.215 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jew watch is a useful resource documenting the actual, unreported crimes of the Jews against White people"


 * so um... there are these "unreported crimes" against white folks committed by those evil evil Jews, and you're very sure that those evil Jews actually committed these evil crimes because are plenty of accurate historical records documenting the crimes, right?


 * oh wait, the crimes are "unreported" ... Philosophy.dude (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.254.121 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewwatch and Zionism
It is curious that this article does not mention the anti-Zionist content of Jewwatch. Jewwatch asserts that the US Government is the Zionist occupied government, that Leon Trotsky was a Zionist (news to Trotskyites) and similar bizarre content that deserves comment. Mewnews (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Jewwatch gone from Google
As of March 15, 2009 I could not find Jewwatch listed among top sites for Jew or International Jew. This may be temporary or regional. USA users should check. I could not find anything on the Web about this. The site is still there. Mewnews (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)]]
 * google totally removed it from their search engine, even if you search for "jewwatch" you wont get it.94.159.161.27 (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jewwatch is back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.108.57 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to website?
Did I miss something? How can you have a whole article written about a website, without a link to that website? Unless I missed it.216.222.254.1 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, but i added it.Lihaas (talk)

Edit request from 99.163.171.59, 3 May 2010
Revelations is mispelled twice as "Relevations"

99.163.171.59 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Far-Right
I think this article belongs in the "far-right" politics category, but it is currently protected so I can't add it. Could someone with the ability to do so do me the favour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it far-right ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.210.219 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it really is. 90% of hate groups are defined as far-right because they certainly aren't far-left. 76.178.228.63 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a far right site. I agree that some of the far right support the view that Jews are disproportionately over represented in high places due to nefarious means, a view that this site endorses, but I have looked at a few articles on this site and it doesn't appear overly Right. It seems like the man behind the site is a member of the National Alliance, but I don't think the site itself is Right, just anti-Jewish. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to enjoy watching the funny videos by Frank Weltner. Never did I hear him say anything hateful about the Jewish religion or the Jewish races. So why is this anti Jewish? Even Jews themselves brag that they own Hollywood for example. Weltner criticized things like Israels treatment of Palestinians & international banking. It's not his fault, that the people involved happen to be Jews. --Rittmeister (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really that ignorant? 8.19.92.169 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jew Watch not a hate site
I am aware of the topic below me, but it is outdated, thus I created a new section.

Jew watch is not necessarily a hate site, but a scholarly research archive of articles. All the content within the site is a collection of documented official articles. The website does not personally "bash" the Jewish religion. Why is Jihadwatch not labeled as a hate site even though the is self-evident that its intentions are to promote islamophobia.

What I am trying to say is, Jihadwatch promotes the same message as Jew Watch yet, its not labeled as a hate site, why should they be different.

I added a "neutrality disputed" POV link to the page, since opinions about Jew Watch can never be neutral. Many people certainly don't consider it to be a "hate site". --Rittmeister--Rittmeister (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (Note: When Rittmeister wrote "below me" in this post, he inexplicably put his new section in the second-to-last position. I moved it to the bottom, where new posts should be, so to see what he's talking about, check the section above.)
 * The fact that Jew Watch is a hate site is referenced to a reliable source. On the other hand, the edits you made are referenced to a bullshit source (a forum at Vanguard News Network, another hate site) and have been reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, there's obviously a dispute what is a 'reliable' source. Also, why did you revert my correction to the ownership of Jewwatch, you can read it on Jewwatch itself that Frank Weltner is no longer the owner. So you reverted the state of this page back to wrong Information. I did not delete your "fact" that Jewwatch is a hate site, I just added the true fact that there is obviously a dispute over that. The link to vnn is the only source I found that explains why Weltern sold the website. It is meant as additional info. I expressed the unreliability of the link by using "allegedly", so if you do not like this link remove it, and not the whole edit about the ownership. --Rittmeister (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's no dispute about whether the site you linked to is a reliable source. It's an online forum, which clearly fails WP:RS. It would fail even if it weren't a disgusting, racist hate forum, which it is. Furthermore, Jew Watch is in no sense a "scholarly research archive of articles". Have you looked at it? Saying that it is brings up serious questions as to whether you have the ordinary common sense necessary to be a productive editor on Wikipedia. Explicitly antisemitic editing has gotten other editors banned. How would you like to be next? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your whole rant missed the target because you failed to understand that I was not referring to the vnn forum, but the UN paper that is sourced to justify labeling Jew Watch as a hate site. Please understand, that many people do not acknowledge the UN or the SPLC as a final authority to decide what is a hate site and what is not. Since you obviously wont even allow a "neutrality in dispute" label, and even went so far to check out my contributions to Wikipedia and messed with my edit about the Hezbollah song The_Hawk_of_Lebanon, at least be so kind to fix up the spelling mess you created in this article. Your hard-nosed obvious attempts at censorship and erasing different viewpoints wont do a good service to the neutrality of this site. --Rittmeister (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:RS. The sources used are considered reliable by Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, still it doesnt mean it is a reliable source. Wikipedia also is not considered a reliable source by many :)--Rittmeister (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, including by Wikipedia -- we don't use Wikipedia as a source within articles. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published
I've removed a large bunch of self-published sources, and am considering removing more. Before, half the references went to the website. The big ref should probably also be trimmed because it's unnecessary and makes editing difficult. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the big ref by moving it to the references section. You should probably consider doing that for other long refs. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Article to be written in
There is an online article here:. I would reference the URL myself, however, I'm not auto-confirmed yet. Could someone ref. the site, please.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. Not a reliable source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say that. It, in fact, is both published and fact-checked. The web-site invests time and money into such investigations- look up the amount that members pay!- in fact, if there could be a more reliable source, I would like to see it! Do not be put off by the fact that it says "awful" in it's title, please.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I'm not very familiar with that site. If you want to discuss it further, WP:RSN would be a good place to start. However, I'm not sure what info from that site you think belongs in the article. It seems like a fairly typical description of how messed-up JewWatch is and it's pretty brief. It doesn't really look as if it provides any new info. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, and it doesn't add any valuable information as far as I can see. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does quote the site. Information from the somethingawful domain is available through free commons license, I would think, so some of the quoted info could be used. (Also we profit from not directing people to an anti-Semitic site to prove a point.) :P. (Edit) I just would like to add that I wondered if a discussion about the sites (ie. SOmething awful's) use in articles could be opened up by one of the contributors to this page. I am not auto-confirmed yet, and am not fully aware of the entirety of the rules ATM. --Martin Hal-fead (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think the link meets the criteria for a reliable source - as it appears to come under the self published blog rule Reliable_sources. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, as we keep trying to explain, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements, so we can't use it. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

High risk of vandalism?
In my opinion, vandalism is not likely. Relatively few people pay attention to this site. I don't believe that the lock on it is necessary.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jew watch automatically anti-semitic?
I'm not supporting the site or anything like that I'm just wondering why you can call Jew watch anti-semitic and not call Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs Islamophobic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.232.114 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "automatic" about it. If you check the footnote in the main article, you'll find about 15 sources describing it as such. We follow reliable sources in this case. If there is a similar preponderance of sources for Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs (isn't that just a bad book?) it would be appropriate to describe them as the sources do. But also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a project currently developed by independent crowds of people, so consistency is hard to achieve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with 175.107.232.114, even though this site makes wild claims (eg. Jews Rule the world)and it promotes Discrimination against Jews, Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs also state Muslims are planning to take over America (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/stealth-jihad-fbi-chief-mueller-says-the-truth-about-islam-is-inappropriate-and-offensive.html and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/government-sponsored-silicon-valley-stealth-jihad.html and http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/newsweek-stealth-jihad-what-stealth-jihad.html and http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/spencer-stealth-jihad-makes-inroads-in-australia.html and if you open up either site you will see a banner for "Creeping Sharia") and they advocate discrimination against Muslims The Following Major organizations list Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer) and Atlas Shrugs (Pamela Geller) as Islamophobic:
 * Anti-Defamation League (http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/washington-post-adls-abe-foxman-denounces-pamela-gellers-sioa-anti-mosque-rally-on-911-as-un-american-geller-threatened-violence-by-including-british-edl-thugs/)
 * Southern Poverty Law center (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle)

P.s. you should also read this (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/sotu-translation.html)... it's hilarious and proves that she should be put in a mental asylum. Jojo897 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL are pro extreme leftist bias and not a "major organisation" nor a reliable source since they have implication of anti-semetic rhetoric due to their hatred of 1 christians, to prevent christian zionism and do a divide and conquer of christians and jews, while cliaming they are pro-jewish. 2 hating david horowitz, a jewish scholar fighting against islamic belief and propaganda that kills jewish children, often settlers in israel.79.138.2.131 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The original anonymous IP who posted this question is wrong about Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugged. They're against jihadists, not Muslims in general. As for that comment on the 2012 State of the Union address, it seems relatively valid to me.... at least in the second paragraph. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the SPLC and ADL are not "pro-extreme leftist," and are major organizations, the ADL being more prominent than the SPLC, which is leftist, but not as extreme as another anonymous IP claims it is. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

bias
kind of one sided, eh? heavily biased and such. footnotes linking to seriously non-objective sources, the article-writer's opinions being presented as fact, presenting some things as facts about the site while ignoring other parts of the site that contradict those things - picking and choosing controversial parts of the site to vilify everything on it, and such. it's ok to disagree with some or all of the stuff on the site, sure, but to paint the site as pure evil isn't really what an encyclopedia article is all about, yeah? 209.33.7.28 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOTFORUM, please discuss specific changes to the article. What is one area you think is problematic, and what is your specific proposal for addressing it? Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

One way to is write it considering what anti-non semetic things are correct or not on the site. such as there are both jews and self hating non jews alike who deny that jews were involved in communism, or that actual events where a group of jews did try to lobby for media control. if its true that gentiles can lobby, so can jews. in this case the source jewwatch try to state that the different here is that jews who try to lobby and control media forms are more religious and ethnicly reasoned behind it.

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America for example with this information

"In an April 2008 article, the pro-Palestinian online publication[66][67] Electronic Intifada revealed the existence of a Google group set up by CAMERA.[68] The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors".[69] Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged".[70] Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at the Israeli non-governmental organization NGO Monitor, responded that "Electronic Intifada is manufacturing a story."[71]

Excerpts of some of the e-mails were published in the July 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine under the title of ″Candid camera″.[72] In April 2008, CAMERA's "Senior Research Analyst" Gilead Ini would not confirm that the messages were genuine but maintained that there was a CAMERA email campaign which adhered to Wikipedia's rules.[73] In August 2008, Ini argued the excerpts published in Harper's Magazine were unrepresentative and that CAMERA had campaigned "toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy".[74]

A group of Wikipedia administrators strongly believed an editor on Wikipedia to be Gilead Ini and blocked that user account indefinitely.[71][75] In April 2008 Gilead refused to say whether he was behind the Gni account,[73] and in May 2008 he denied that the account belonged to him.[71] Andre Oboler alleged that groups such as "Wikipedians for Palestine" have engaged in similar practices.[71] Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah insisted that his group would never encourage a similar e-mail campaign.[69]"

thus, I would ask wikipedians to check if its POV or not to add this information. as fitting or non fitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.3.117 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What the hell does any of this have to do with Jew Watch? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Basicly, it means that while jewwatch for example claims that its because they are jewish, either geneticly or because of their religion they behave like this, while I would like to add to the article its not because of their jewishness they do in some cases try to control media like for example the CAMERA incident on wikipedia with users like zay or jayjg, but rather because of culture.

Thats why discussing whats to be put into the article, why you steven or some others can say that just like when non-semites are trying to lobby for media control like the war in iraq was heavely non-semetic lobby group, they didnt do it because of their gentileness, but because they were in a corrupt culture. hence the reason why we can try to find some fair and equal RELIABLE SOURCE saying that the jews that done this is because they are in a corrupt culture. if gentiles can lobby, so can jews, but its not because of their jewishness, but because, just like gentiles, they, the 1%, are corrupt.

This can be put into CRITICISM section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.3.117 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making no sense whatsoever. If you have some language to propose for the article, put it here, but nothing you've written is even vaguely relevant to Jew Watch. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)