Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 1

Speedy deletion
The article could indeed be classified as "self-advertisement" if it wasn't for the fact several mainstream international news agencies have taken notice of it. Whether or not this group will be making news 20 years from now is irrelevant: it is newsworthy at the present and justifies a Wikipedia article on it. As an aside, the article's broken JPost reference URL is now working. Osmos2017 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. The Jewish Internet Defense Force is more than a group, it is an activism website. It is similar to, albeit newer than, HonestReporting, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. It is notable, in that it has made news several times for its activism, in general, and for the stunt in which it took over a Facebook group. Michael Safyan (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks more like self-advertisement than anything, and does not fit Wikipedia notability guidelines. I say delete. MethMan47 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was already proposed that the article be deleted, and the decision was to keep. Please see this diff. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also keep in mind that articles on less notable topics and with fewer sources have survived deletion attempts. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I must ask, where is the decision to keep the article? I'm not trying to be smug or anything, I'm just curious where this decision was made. Thanks. MethMan47 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy deletion request at the diff cited above by Michael Safyan. That simply means the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.  However, there has been no community decision to keep the article, and you are certainly free to take it to WP:AFD for the community to decide.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion
Per this diff and this reversion:
 * There are a number of issues with these changes, and hence I have reverted them. These issues are as follows:
 * The Arutz 7 source says that at least 28 groups were removed. It may very well be the case that at least 100 groups were removed; however, such a statement must be supported by a source.
 * The sources state that, according to the JIDF, the organization has at least 5,000 members. The sources do not vouch, themselves, for this number -- an important distinction.
 * Wikipedia -- most regretably -- has a policy against using the word "terrorism", "terrorist", etc. without attribution (I know, it sucks). Hence, the 9/11 terrorist attacks must simply be referred to as the 9/11 attacks.
 * Replacing "anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" with "pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" is problematic, because:
 * It borders on hyperbole and is unencyclopedic. Just "anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" should be sufficient.
 * It deprives readers of the wikilink to the New antisemitism article.
 * It ungrammatically neglects the final comma which should appear before the "and", since it is a list of at least three items.
 * For these reasons, I have reverted this edit. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rescue
The article needs to be completely re-written so as to conform to NPOV. it should not be deleted because its subject matter is notable enough for WIkipedia. — A lizard (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been rescued but needs to be fixed still, see below. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this page...
The call for the deletion of this page is anti-semitic, and shows support for terrorist groups calling not only for the destruction of Israel, but the annihilation of the Jewish people.
 * Let's assume good faith that the nominator actually felt it wasn't encyclopedic enough - we delete articles all the time so let the process run its course and save the politics for other websites besides wikipedia. Banj e  b oi   11:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Wikipedia's not a battleground and shouldn't be treated as one. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed self-reffing content
In a response to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, the JIDF emphasized that it does not protest "legitimate anti-Israel content" such as policy critiques of the state of Israel, but rather it protests doctrines denying the existence of Israel, clearly anti-Semitic content, or content which promotes violence and Islamic terrorism."
 * I removed the above as it its self-referential to the actual article. This seems circular and POV at best. There are ways of presenting these ideas while still remaining NPOV. I'll help but we have to dial down the heat and what easily can be seen as rhetoric. Also it's better to initially build the article with neutral and reliable sources - specially that it's at AfD. Banj e  b oi   11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds appropriate. We're not here to regurgitate press releases or blog posts. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of groups removed
The statement "successfully leading to the closure of over 100 of these groups" is cited to two sources: one is Arutz Sheva, which says 28 groups, and the other is the JIDF's own website, which is not a third-party source and therefore can't be relied on. Can anyone suggest another source for the figure? If not it will have to be removed. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly the 28+ figure is dated? Best to cite a third party if possible, though, agreed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems perfectly plausible that there are now over a hundred (the cite for 28 is from early April, after all), but without a third-party source saying so we can't make that claim. The question is what to write instead - "28 groups"? "at least 28 groups"? "28 groups (though the JIDF claims over 100)"? "many groups"? 'many' is certainly weasel-wordy and the third is a bit unwieldy (and also suggests their claim is probably false, which we have no evidence of). Anyone got an opinion? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... hm. "In April 2008, Arutz 7 reported that the JIDF's reports had led to the closure of over 28 groups on Facebook; the JIDF itself claims the number has since increased to over 100." maybe? Or is that too wordy? I'd still prefer a more recent third-party source, obviously, but something akin to your "28 groups (though the JIDF claims over 100)" option may work until then. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed, a running count is nice, yet for the sake of brevity an order of magnitude number would seem just fine.Saxophonemn (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What this article will do?
This article will open the door for similar articles related to this area of conflict, following the wiki rules is not difficult, publishing in biased news papers is more than easy, collecting single sided references supporting the case will be a fun and finally most users do not want to hear about conflicts in the world.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the JIDF conducts activities that are noted on web sites other than its own, it satisfies the notability guidelines. However, the text in it needs to be written according to the [wikipedia:original_research|OR] and [wikipedia:neutral_point_of_view|NPOV] standards in order for it to be an acceptable article. Other articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict written according to the same guidelines and that satisfy notability standards to the same extent are more than welcome here. As to whether or not such articles would desensitize people to conflicts in the world as you suggest, that is not Wikipedia's concern: it is meant to be a source of information and it is founded on the principle that there is no such thing as an article on a notable topic that can be harmful to the public. — A lizard (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean "no such thing as a well-written article that..." or "...that can be harmful to the public solely by virtue of its topic" or something similar. Other than that slight but important ommission I agree entirely. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. — A lizard (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Help in stoping vandalism
Dear All
 * Please help in stopping vandalism issues.
 * There is guide for writing, I can’t use words as "terrorist" "hate" “violence” “murder” “genocide “… only as they are stated on self published reference.


 * Another important point, such words which are added by user user:J Hoffer (Special:Contributions/J Hoffer) in the comments field "puttyschool has a conflict of interest, as he is from Egypt--a place inundated with anti-Israel and antisemitic, pro-Jihadist propaganda (see JIDF site, siting MEMRI/EGYPT))" are not only vandalism issues, such words are against the policies of Israel and Egypt, and if listed by JIDF site as he said, I think this gives Egypt the right to close this organization  .--Puttyschool (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the above comment, I think this one is more accurate "I think this can give Egypt the rights to request validation of this data or other appropriate actions."--Puttyschool (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also check this words "maybe in Egypt you can't. You are only telling 1/2 the story. Get it right!"--Puttyschool (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In Egypt the government can stop only un-verifiable words, This does not mean “Anti Freedoms”--Puttyschool (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The group claims to combat pro-terrorist messages; I can't speak for or against that claim, but we may as well include it in the article, no? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I insert this word "terrorism trends", it is sufficient, also used before by one of the references--Puttyschool (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be lost as I don't see where this is relevant to the article... but there is significant press coverage about Egypt arresting people for being members of certain anti-government Facebook groups. I can go find the references if people want... but they certainly exist and the NGOs have also commented on it a number of times. Again though... why is this relevant to THIS article? 77.127.186.142 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Rolling back J Hoffer words “violence” and “terrorism”
Sorry J Hoffer whoever you are, we don’t appreciate this, The references that we can consider reliable for this articles are “Arutz Sheva”, “The Daily Telegraph”, “The Jerusalem Post” and “Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs”, You are trying to use words that every editor takes care of them, “violence” and “terrorism” as you can see the four references take care of using them, the JIDF site is considered as a self published site and we are not repeating sites in WikipediA, so if you want to use this words you must provide a reliable source, we will not be the first source, I left “terrorist” not because not a part of the lead, but as it is included in a group name, so it can pass. As JIDF takes care about anti-Semitic material. we must take care about our materials.--Puttyschool (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism should stand on the grounds that some of the groups mentioned had support for known terrorists. It seems rather interesting to have to cite facebook groups themselves is this even possible as this would provide the evidence. --Saxophonemn (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The word “terrorism” has a lot of constrains to use it, I suggested “terrorism trends”, it was listed in one of the references and can be a “go around solution”.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well specifically the groups fall in the following categories: support/glorify for someone who went out to specifically kill Jews (real succinct, no obfuscation), groups that deny aspects of the Holocaust, those who call for the destruction of Israel, those who support movements who call for the destruction of Israel, and groups that are related to White Power Movements, and groups which make blood libel like claims about Jews. They are loaded terms for sure, but the people in the groups are on the fringe. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still I can’t map your heavy loaded terms to what is currently happening, I was searching the JIDF site, The first title in the home page, is “A Terrorist Group Planning and Calling for the Bombing of Egyptian Border (on Facebook...) The translated group name by JIDF is "Arab and Muslim crowd to blow up the Rafah crossing" Check it you will find Egyptians closed it at creation This is the translation of the first two discussions made by Egyptians,
 * “We will inform the Egyptian public authorities about anyone who join this group.”
 * “Shit you dogs, with your terror.”
 * here is the summary of the group posts "The group has 76 posts, 71 posts from the Egyptians "posting a lot of dirty words against this group and Mobilizing peoples not to join it, the first 4 posts seems from the guys who created this group then disappeared, 1 seams from JIDF members (number 25 from top by Kay) notifying facebook administrators to close it." Hear is the group link, a lot of peoples watching this page can read Arabic
 * This is what currently happening, How can I relate it to your heavy loaded words, I don’t think this even give notability to the JIDF, we can summarize this as “someone created this group, and Egyptians closed it before JIDF hears about it”--Puttyschool (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember that Wikipedia's golden standard is actually not truth, but verifiability (WP:V). We shouldn't get too closely involved in deciding what the JIDF does or doesn't do, but rather we should look to see what reliable sources have to say about the matter. The current lead appears to be sourced adequately. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m not against notability or current contents, but I’m against the use of heavy loaded word, which all studied concluded that they promote violence, every day someone tries to insert un-sourced materials, believing if he glanced it on a site changing everyday, then it must be in Wikipedia as well.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "against the use of heavy loaded word"...."all studied concluded that they promote violence..." I'm against poor grammar and nonsensical thinking but you don't see ME kvetching about it (oh wait...n/m) --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back to user Saxophonemn edit (20:07, 15 August 2008).
for user:CJCurrie So I concluded that all your work was inaccurate, without going into further details. But I took in consideration one point which let me concluded that "It is more neutral when the users follow this reference from the beginning"; Check history!
 * 1) "grassroots organization" not listed in a reliable source
 * 2) About your words "The administrators of the Facebook group ""Israel" is not a country!... ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!" have indicated that it was created in response to an earlier Facebook group that sought to delist Palestine as a country. They also assert that racism toward Jews, Muslims and Arabs will not be tolerated on the site, and are critical of the JIDF for creating fake administrator accounts."Israel" is not a country!... ... Delist it from Facebook as a country! accessed 16 August 2008." The group name we are talking about was "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" not ""Israel" is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country", Check the quotes you added Sorry Sorry something is wrong, I don’t know how to get the original group link--Puttyschool (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Also you can get this message easly, which was written by the creator of the original group by replacing the word “Country” by a “State” in the original group name, The message is "The original group was attacked by zionists with a double standard. The original group consisted of 40,000 members and we will rebuild the group to its original glory!", try to help me with what he means by "original glory" after "attacked"!--Puttyschool (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

for user:Oboler For these reasons I rolled it back For both of you, Best Regards--Puttyschool (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC) I don’t know too much about facebook!can anyone explain?--Puttyschool (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) you tried to add more references to "Israel is not a country…" group as anti-semitic, but this turns the document to be un-encyclopedic, you added about three more lines repeating the same meaning.
 * 2) at the same time you kept on most of damage caused by CJCurrie.

What the ... ? CJCurrie (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Oboler: If Wikipedia's article on the Jewish Internet Defense Force is to include the JIDF's assertions about the "delist Israel" Facebook group, then we should also be willing to indicate the "delist Israel" group's response. We're not using them as a "reliable source" for anything aside from their own position on the matter, which is permitted.

I'm still confused about the previous exchange, btw. CJCurrie (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Einsteindonut: You've written ''"M. Nassar" is your source. She is no longer admin of the group in question.'' What on earth are you talking about? My source is an official statement form the "delist Israel" Facebook group, as it existed two days ago.

Please note that I don't endorse either the "delist Israel" or "delist Palestine" groups on Facebook, but I'm more than a bit troubled by the apparent efforts of some editors to make this page as one-sided as possible. CJCurrie (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have done your part for the past 4 years to add your own biased personal point of view on a number of articles which are similar in nature, as the JIDF has proven. Adding an out-dated source by someone who has promoted Hamas on Facebook [] is hardly making this neutral, but rather, giving a platform for hatred (the very thing the JIDF fights against.) Learn the difference between making this one sided and providing a platform for hatred, as you are trying to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to CJCurrie You've written: "My source is an official statement form the "delist Israel" Facebook group, as it existed two days ago." - Did you bother reading the statement? It is clearly written by M. Nassar: (ie. "Anyways I'm the only Madeline Nassar.") It is in the statement itself. She wrote it and was recently disabled on Facebook. You are missing the point entirely about what was happening in the group. After Facebook took the group back from the JIDF and left it up for grabs, Nassar got it and tried to "water down" the group, by closing it and changing the group description, etc. By adding their "response" you are failing to understand what existed in the group prior to the JIDF takeover. When so many sources explain that this group was, in fact, antisemitic, you are remiss in your duty as a neutral Wikipedia editor to continue to take that out. Furthermore, you do not appear to be a neutral source on these matters as you went to great lengths to remove Dr. Oboler's contributions to Wikipedia after he exposed Electronic Intifada's influence upon it. It seems you have taken sides here as the JIDF has proven that you go to great lengths to defend people like Norman Finklestein on Wikipedia and you have an issue with labeling terrorism, "terrorism," etc. Therefore, through your veiled attempt to try to remain "neutral" you are actually projecting your own point of view onto a number of Wikipedia articles (not just this one.) Furthermore, the "response" to the JIDF taking over that group should hardly be limited to a link to the group in question. In fact, there has been quite a response including: The JIDF are nothing but Jewish Troublemakers, All Against Zionist JIDF Organization!!!, FUCK FOR THIS SITE: (( the jewish internet defense force )), The International Commission for the Liberation of Palestine-67 borders. -Each were created as a "response" to the JIDF taking down the group in question.There has also been quite a "response" from various "white pride" forums, and Islamic forums, which would be more of an accurate reflection of the actual "response." Again, going to the group in question for an accurate response is not neutral, since it was given to someone who obtained more moderate views (after the fears of being linked with Hamas set in.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CJCurrie responds


 * Thank you for your detailed response, Einsteindonut. Let's see if I can respond in a point-by-point fashion:


 * (i) It's true that I've been on Wikipedia for four years, although you might be interested to know that I only started to edit Israel-Palestine articles on a regular basis in 2006. Since then, I've sometimes been described as being part of a "pro-Palestinian" or "anti-Israel" group on Wikipedia. This is not accurate.  It would be more correct to say that I've opposed the actions of some editors who have attempted to skew articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict in an openly pro-Israel direction.  I do not apologize for doing this, although I must admit that it's become rather tedious by this point.
 * More than once, I've wondered if some pro-Israel editors were operating in a coordinated fashion. It would seem that this concern was not entirely misplaced.
 * (ii) Turning to the specific matter at hand ...
 * a) Yesterday, I cited a public statement from the "delist Israel" Facebook group. My intent was neither to condemn nor endorse the Facebook group in question, but to provide readers with that group's response to the JIDF's actions and accusations.  How this constitutes "providing a platform for hatred" is a mystery to me.
 * I have never heard of Madeline Nassar before, and I have no way of confirming your assertion that she has "supported Hamas" or deliberately "watered down" the site. If you're going to make these claims, some evidence might be useful.
 * For the record, I do not support the delisting of either Israel or Palestine from Facebook, but I think it should be intuitively obvious that one such group was created as a reductio ad absurdum response to the other. Also, I chose to include a response from the modified "delist Israel" group, rather than the extremist sites you've listed, for the simple and obvious reason that the former group was a successor to a Facebook group targeted by the JIDF, and the latter were not.
 * b) You write: When so many sources explain that this group was, in fact, antisemitic, you are remiss in your duty as a neutral Wikipedia editor to continue to take that out.
 * My response: This isn't exactly correct.  This encyclopedia entry is not an article about the "delist Israel" group -- it's an article about the JIDF.  As such, it's not immediately evident how the remarks of various other groups concerning "delist Israel" would be relevant here.  (However, if specific newspaper articles mentioned these remarks in the context of the JIDF's campaign, then the material may be relevant.)
 * (iii) I'm quite familiar with Dr. Oboler's report on the Electronic Intifada, wherein he documented a pro-Palestinian conspiracy so insidious that no-one has yet uncovered evidence it had any influence on anything.  I'm also familiar with the fact that a number of people included some highly questionable citations to his "Zionism on the Web" site on a variety of WP articles.  For the record, I did not remove all of Andre Oboler's contributions to Wikipedia; I removed a series of inappropriate links, and I don't apologize for doing so.
 * (iv) The fact that the JIDF has a file on me comes as little surprise, and the fact that they regard this edit as inappropriate strikes me as sufficient grounds to ignore their concerns.
 * (v) Now, to a more general comment ...
 * In general, this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be moving beyond. To be perfectly frank, I'm becoming tired of fighting the same unrewarding battles over and over again.  I'm also tired of having my own views caricatured by people who are all too quick to rush to the worst possible assumptions.  (For the record, I don't support Hamas.  I never have.)
 * Wikipedia does not need more self-styled defenders of Israel, Palestine, Zionism, political Islam, or any other cause that one could care to name. Wikipedia needs people who are interested in writing credible encyclopedia articles about difficult subjects, and who are willing to accurately convey multiple perspectives on contentious issues.  I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that there does seem to be a willingness on the part of many WP editors to address these issues in a serious manner, and to move away from the propagandizing that has too often tainted this project.
 * Btw, since my personal views seem to be at issue, let me state the following: (i) I believe that Jews, Arabs, and all other residents of Israel and Palestine should be able to lead peaceful lives in economically viable communities, (ii) I support secularism and oppose religious nationalism, and (iii) I believe that any constitutional settlement for the area must have the support of both the Israeli and Palestinian people. You may also wish to know that most of my personal contacts on this issue are with figures on the Jewish left (some Zionist, others not), and that I don't consider myself to be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine.  I welcome dialogue with all people who are serious about discussing these issues, regardless of their ideological background.
 * I hope I'm not simply writing into a vacuum. CJCurrie (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CJCurrie, as documents in the ArbCom evidence, you removed ALL references to Zionism On The Web, not just "some" as you maintain. Many were made by well respected administrators, and some edits that you deleted as "spam" were in the original edits on those pages, suggesting the pages were BASED on research at Zionism On The Web. What you did is far more serious than you try and make out. Specially as there was discussion about it on the Admin's Notice Board where there was objection to your proposal to get support for wiping all references. You tried to lable it an unreliable source, and that didn't fly so you acted unilaterally. Even your edit that did include me here (and your talk page comment above) attempts to water down the research which was published as a full length academic paper - it is not just commentry. It was also peer reviewed by some of the top people in both the antisemitism field and the computer science field, and (though I can't give you evidence for this) presented to the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism - the top conference on the topic. After all this you then go and try use a Facebook message as reliable research? More on that below. As a final comment... the evidence (from many sources) that the group  the Jewish Internet Defense Force removed was considered antisemitic by third party experts is CRITICAL to understanding the nature of the group, and hence is a vital part of this article. Although they were reverted, I don't see how you could have suggested removing such content in the first place. It shows an attempt to push a POV onto this article by removing external evidence and replacing it with (weak) original research based on an unreliable and rapidly changing (with no archives) source. Oboler (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (i) The "ArbCom evidence" that User:Oboler refers to was submitted by User:Oboler, and was ignored by the arbitrators, (ii) the objections on the Admin's Notice Board that User:Oboler refers to were made by User:Oboler, with what can only be described as uncharacteristically tepid support from User:Jayjg, (iii) I'm aware that you appeared on a panel discussion at the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism as a representative of the group NGO Monitor, but I'm not convinced this makes you a reliable expert on the subject and, anyway, I removed the link because it was of dubious relevance to this particular article, (iv) I agree that the remarks of other groups toward "delist Israel" are relevant to this article -- if and only if they were referenced by reliable sources in relation to the JIDF, (v) see here for the broader perspective on ZotW, (vi) we've been through most this before and there's not really anything new here. CJCurrie (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(CJCurrie is indented, italicized and in quotes...)
 * Einsteindonut responds to CJCurrie


 * "I've sometimes been described as being part of a "pro-Palestinian" or "anti-Israel" group on Wikipedia."

So it is safe to safe say that this is not the first time that your own neutrality on the issues has been called into question.


 * ''"I've opposed the actions of some editors who have attempted to skew articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict in an openly pro-Israel direction."

'' Interesting, as it seems many of your edits are a clear attempt to skew the articles to a veiled anti-Israel direction.


 * "I must admit that it's become rather tedious by this point."

Stalking Dr. Andre Oboler and going through to systematically delete over 200 links from Wikipedia? I can only imagine. Where do you find the time?


 * "More than once, I've wondered if some pro-Israel editors were operating in a coordinated fashion. It would seem that this concern was not entirely misplaced."

You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of a conspiracy.


 * "Yesterday, I cited a public statement from the "delist Israel" Facebook group. My intent was neither to condemn nor endorse the Facebook group in question, but to provide readers with that group's response to the JIDF's actions and accusations. How this constitutes "providing a platform for hatred" is a mystery to me."

First of all, you are citing a Facebook group which has been deemed by numerous sources (in which you took the liberty to delete) as promoting hatred and violence. Furthermore, things constantly change in Facebook groups. The person you are quoting has supported Hamas. 


 * "I have never heard of Madeline Nassar before, and I have no way of confirming your assertion that she has "supported Hamas" or deliberately "watered down" the site. If you're going to make these claims, some evidence might be useful."

The "evidence" to prove that she has done this would not suffice for Wikipedia standards, just as Facebook groups do not, as the evidence can be found in various Facebook messages, which could be provided, if needed, but again--- it's "original research" and does not stand up to Wikipedia standards.


 * "I do not support the delisting of either Israel or Palestine from Facebook, but I think it should be intuitively obvious that one such group was created as a reductio ad absurdum response to the other."

That may or may not be the case. The fact of the matter is that this article is supposed to be about the JIDF and its activites, not about the motivations behind the creation of certain groups.


 * "Also, I chose to include a response from the modified "delist Israel" group, rather than the extremist sites you've listed, for the simple and obvious reason that the former group was a successor to a Facebook group targeted by the JIDF, and the latter were not."

Again, you cited one person's response as the admin of the group and it hardly reflects the response of the current or former members. Furthermore, the person who wrote it (M. Nassar) is no longer the admin of the group, nor is she a member of Facebook. However, the FB group in question is not an official organization and the admins are not its leaders. FB groups constantly morph into different things with different statements.


 * "You write: "When so many sources explain that this group was, in fact, antisemitic, you are remiss in your duty as a neutral Wikipedia editor to continue to take that out." This isn't exactly correct. This encyclopedia entry is not an article about the "delist Israel" group -- it's an article about the JIDF. As such, it's not immediately evident how the remarks of various other groups concerning "delist Israel" would be relevant here. (However, if specific newspaper articles mentioned these remarks in the context of the JIDF's campaign, then the material may be relevant.)"

Seems you have missed the point completely. In your quest to put your biased POV into this article, you deleted many reliable sources and added an unreliable source (ie. a Facebook group.)  Ironically, you claim that this article is not about the "delist Israel" group, yet weren't you the one (see ii a) who wants to include it as a source? Which is it? You claim: "if specific newspaper articles mentioned these remarks in the context of the JIDF's campaign, then the material may be relevant"   Yet no specific newspaper articles mention the remarks in which you tried to quote!


 * "I did not remove all of Andre Oboler's contributions to Wikipedia; I removed a series of inappropriate links, and I don't apologize for doing so."

Yes, it's a shame you have shown such little respect for his scholarly research and contributions to the Wikipedia project. Your actions in which you proudly display no remorse actually hurt the entire neutrality of the Wikipedia project. It seems very wrong for someone to go to such great lengths to do what you did and that you'd show such little regard for the scholar so as to put research in your own scare quotes - the non-neutrality of your POV is quite obvious here.


 * "The fact that the JIDF has a file on me comes as little surprise, and the fact that they regard this edit as inappropriate strikes me as sufficient grounds to ignore their concerns."

Personally, I find that edit to be very telling. A supporter of a figure like Finklestein can hardly be considered "neutral" with regard to Wikipedia standards.


 * "This is the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be moving beyond. I'm becoming tired of fighting the same unrewarding battles over and over again."

I'm sorry you are tired, perhaps take a break from Wikipedia? Trying to defend over 42,000 non-neutral Wiki edits over the past 4+ years must be tiring.


 * "I'm also tired of having my own views caricatured by people who are all too quick to rush to the worst possible assumptions.....Wikipedia needs people who are interested in writing credible encyclopedia articles about difficult subjects, and who are willing to accurately convey multiple perspectives on contentious issues. I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that there does seem to be a willingness on the part of many WP editors to address these issues in a serious manner, and to move away from the propagandizing that has too often tainted this project."

Again, from the look of your edits, perhaps you should think about this statement and have a real close look in the mirror?


 * ''"i support secularism and oppose religious nationalism"

'' Perhaps this could help explain the non-neutral viewpoint you are trying to project all over Wikipedia? How can one who clearly opposes religious nationalism try to contribute a neutral POV into an article about a group which supports it? How could you possibly be fair, balanced and neutral about anything remotely tied to religious nationalism whatsoever? How does your clear opposition to "religious nationalism" impact your Wikipedia editing skills? Again, to me this would mean that none of your edits about anything involving religious nationalism could possibly be neutral.

It's very kind of you to admit the crux of the problem though and should serve as a benefit to the Wikipedia community that you admit your shortcomings on neutrality so openly.


 * "I hope I'm not simply writing into a vacuum."

Me too!--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Einsteindonut, you seem to be fairly new to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies concerning civility and personal attacks. Discuss the content, not the contributor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shabazz, my apologies if it seemed I was being uncivil or personally attacking anyone. Next time I will spend considerable time removing valuable chunks of information from contributors with whom I disagree or with whom I wish to have a personal vendetta.  I suppose only overt attacks and incivility are not tolerated here.  You are absolutely right, I have a lot to learn.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have complaints about another editor's incivility toward you, please take it to the appropriate forum. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies again. What if I have complaints about another editor's incivility toward another?  Where might the appropriate forum be found?  Something must be done about this injustice.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)