Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 13

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

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

I intend to [| call a spade a spade]

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


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


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

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


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


 * The semi-protection was there partially to deal with the activities of you and your friends.  Problematic behaviour on this page is too sporadic to justify  protection. I've had page protection requests rejected where there has  been a lot more consistent activity than this. The activity on this page  that I've recently reported to Spartaz goes back as far as February  with there not being that much IP activity in that time and most of the  SPAs only making one edit.
 * BTW, I don't mind most of the changes you have made to the page this time, but conflict of interest issues are  best dealt with by your raising things you dislike on the talk page  rather than you rushing in and changing things yourself and then  pretending yet again to be a third party rather than a JIDF activist  yourself. And your edit history with this account elsewhere indicates  that you're still capable of problematic behaviour with the peculiar  pattern of edits and self-reverts and the spelling editor introduced to John the Baptist.  If the JIDF really are switching to being purely a campaigning group  rather than a direct action hacktivist one, then there's no need for  that.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I see two sets of problems here. One is the IP editor who is using two addresses in  Ireland. They are inserting material giving a particular interpretation  of the JIDF's activities without referencing the most controversial  material, specifically the allegations of hacking. Further, they are  reverting material without reading the contents properly and therefore,  as you pointed out, reinserting spelling mistakes etc. They are also  violating 3RR by using multiple ids.
 * The other problem I see is the JIDF editing material directly without declaring  its conflict of interest. At least some of those accounts making the  edits are the previously blocked editor who first appearedabout a year  ago with accounts such as "Einsteindonut" and "PeterBergson".  ShoshannaLandau's edits are also problematic in themselves as they are  replacing referenced material with Hossannas for the organisation. It so  happens that apart from her edits, I don't have a great deal of problem  with the content of JIDF's recent contributions. However there is  always the issue of conflict of interest and, as I have frequently told  you and your colleagues, it is better to handle this by raising issues  on the talk page here than making edits to the article yourselves except  for the most uncontroversial ones such as fixing spelling mistakes.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


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


 * If you look at my edits to this page this month, you'll see that I've expended at  least as much effort contering the IP as countering JIDF-related  accounts. Yes, I suggested that "HappyGoLucky" be edit blocked as an  obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user, but I also put up the request this  morning for an admin to semi-protect the page after the IP's  activities continued despite claims yesterday of "giving up". I  therefore feel that I've shown myself to be capable of avoiding bias  with regards to this page despite being listed on the JIDF's attack page  about and having received hate mail. That said, portraying the JIDF in a  good light is not the highest priority I have in the world. As far as  getting other editors involved is concerned, a lot had this page on  watch a while ago. User:Malik  Shabazz obviously is  still around as he has reverted some edits by the IP user in the last  couple of days. I haven't noticed him as being particularly alligned  with one side or the other either with regard to opinions on the JIDF or  the Arab-Israeli  conflict as a whole. The other way you can do things is to post drafts  of what you want included in the article and if nobody comes up with  coherent objections in a week or makes changes to the article based on  what you suggest, then you can make the changes and say you've done so  on the page. Wikipedians as a rule general hate underhand edits by  people affiliated with a particular organisation. Any such editing is  therefore likely to backfire. The article on one American government  agency, for example, now has material in it talking about how computers  using that agency's IP address tried to slant the article in their  favour.
 * Another thing to be aware of is that multiple accounts working in an organised  way to slant Wikipedia in a particular direction are disliked. One of  the noticeboards had a recent alert noting that there was an attempt  somewhere to recruit pro-Palestine editors for a drive to change Wikipedia's  reporting of a particular issue, I think to do with the status of  Jerusalem. Last year, I think, a pro-Zionist organisation made a similar  effort and several editors were banned. I assume that you and Shoshanna  turned up here as the result of a post to a JIDF alert board somewhere.  Turning up mob-handed  in response to an issue can be counter-productive for what you want to achieve.  I suggest you look at WP:Meat  and encourage your colleagues not to behave in such a way as to be seen  as violating that policy.
 * Having said that, I think it is a relief to have a JIDF supporter who is open about their affiliation and  therefore allows the potential of a more constructive working  relationship.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

Anonymous IP removes cited, well-sourced information
If someone could please make sure this cited information is put back in:

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Also, is this really "criticism?"

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

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


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


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

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

This includes:

-Their Solidarity with Israel during Cast Lead (many articles)

-Their designation as the "Most influential Jewish Newswire on Twitter"

-Their campaign against "Hate Israel" groups on Facebook -Their campaign Holocaust Denial material on Facebook

-Their campaign Against Nasrallah on Facebook (in which Israeli knesset got involved)

-Their current Twitter Campaign for Gilad Shalit (which is enjoying widespread support  from many different organizations around the world

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

possible new section on holocaust denial?
the following is from the Facebook page on Wikipedia, perhaps we should  include some of it here?

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

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

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


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

Tweet4Shalit activism campaign by JIDF
I would like to add this text that comes from Gilad Shalit article to the JIDF article  here

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

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


 * Go for it. — Malik Shabazz  05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


 * John, I personally think that information about the flame war you mentioned is  absolutely irrelevant to the JIDF.  They never discuss those groups.  No  sources about the JIDF ever talk about that.  Therefore, I think it's  off topic.  --98.143.144.103 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oboler, who is semi-affilated  with the JIDF, discusses them. --John Nagle (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

Could someone please get rid of the new pov slant of the article and revert to the version before  the major rewrite was carried out by mreditguy? 79.97.166.36 (talk)
 * Sorry, I appreciate your efforts in talking this through, but I'm not seeing sufficient consensus for this  yet. Please continue the discussion and replace the request when you  have an agreement. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk)  09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * So how about the following as a lead paragraph:

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

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


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

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online  advocacy organization which shares news and information to members and  supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and  other popular areas of the web.[2] It also seeks out, exposes, and  reports online material which is against the Terms of Service of  internet companies. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism and racial hatred, and "believes in direct  action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online, and to  create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the  needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service.[3]  The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook,[4] [5]  Myspace,[6] YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.[7]

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


 * I'm happy with "Pro-Israel  online advocacy organisation" but not so happy with the rest of your  differences from my version. First, you've still produced no evidence of  general anti-racist  activities by the JIDF as opposed to anti-anti-Semitism. Second, I don't see why Terms  of Services need mentioning twice in the lead paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to "members" of the JIDF is not really correct.  There's no  documented way to "join" the JIDF, although people can donate to them or  buy their stuff, or friend them on Myspace or Facebook. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's absurd.  Anyone who supports the JIDF in any way is a member. It's a  voluntary grassroots effort and people "join" them by signing up to  their updates, by sharing their content, by following them on Twitter,  or on Facebook, etc.  --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * So how about the following as lead paragraph:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel online  advocacy organisation which shares news and information with supporters  through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other  popular areas of the web. The JIDF focuses upon material that promotes or praises Islamic terrorism, is antisemitic or is hostile to Israel, and  seeks to "create the publicity that will cause internet companies to  take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service. The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.
 * --Peter cohen (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally like the one posted above yours better, Peter, as you're  leaving out what seems to be important information regarding exposing  and reporting material which is against TOS, which is the main thing the  JIDF does.  by the way, i think both you and Nagle are breaking BLP rules.  --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a biographical article.  (Unless, of course, the JIDF is really  just "David Appletree"; no other person has ever been clearly associated  with the organization.) If the spokesman for an organization says  something on the record, we're entitled to note that. There's a WP:SELFPUB issue, though. We have to say  "David Appletree said", not include anything he says as a fact. --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP rules apply to ALL pages. Whereas you didn't do anything "wrong" per se, Peter Cohen did, by labeling Appletree "crazy." --216.155.158.139 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected The "D" in "Denial" in the section name here should not be capitalised. Please make it lower case. This is per this and this. When the phrase "Holocaust denial" in used in the content, the "d" is not capitalised.--Rockfang (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


 * There is also plenty of reference to them explaining and clarifying that nothing they  have done is illegal whatsoever.  --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources must be neutral, reliable, and preferably third party. Claiming that nothing they have done is illegal does not make it so. The bbc and the telegraph have both referred to the jidf as hackers, and they would both  be considered reputable sources. This is not to say that any or all of the jidf's actions are immoral, unethical, or unjustified; it is merely  to say that what they have done is hacking, a term which encompasses all  manner of unauthorised actions which circumvent computer security. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hacking" implies illegal and unethical activity. I do not think it would be fair  to label it as such, since the JIDF has categorically denied it.  I'm  not sure that they referred to the JIDF as "hackers" but they mislabled  one JIDF action as "hacking"  --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are  able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been  published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Please see WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * it is not verified that the JIDF are "hackers."  thus, they should not be labeled  as such.  --93.158.114.99 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"verifiability... is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia  has already been published by a reliable source"

"Reliable sources

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

Reliable, third-party  pubished sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have  referred to the jidf's actions as hacking. Therefore, referring to them as hackers is verifiable. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No it's not, especially when reliable 3rd party published sources with a reputation  for fact-checking  and accuracy have quoted the JIDF as saying that they are not hackers.   it's POV by both the media and by wikipedia editors.  if the JIDF has  not been charged with doing anything illegal or anything unethical and  if they categorically deny being involved in any such activity, WP  should not be a place where we try insert this biased POV against them.   i believe this has already been discussed extensively on this page  already.  --216.244.65.79 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, 216.244.65.79. Per WP:V,  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers  are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been  published by a reliable  source, not whether we  think it is true." (emphasis in original)
 * Of course we need to exercise common sense, and we don't want to print lies, but if  reliable sources are referring to the JIDF as hackers—and they are—we may refer to them as  hackers, so long as we cite those sources. — Malik Shabazz   06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject was already broached (I suppose you archived all the past discussions in order to hide that  fact).  Recent sources are and have not referred to the JIDF as  hackers.  They refer to one activity of the JIDF as "hacking."  Thus, to  label this organization as one of "hackers" is wrong.  --216.244.65.79 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I archived discussions from last year because the page was getting too long. And I  added a search bar so readers can search all 12 Talk archive pages. Is  that because I'm trying to hide something? — Malik Shabazz   03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has archived past discussions to hide anything. The previous discussion is section three of this talk page. If reliable sources have reported that the jidf deny being hackers, well then that is verifiable. The denial, that is. If they have been reported both to be hackers/ engaged in hacking, and  reported to have denied being hackers, then the fact that they have  engaged in hacking and the fact that they have denied it are both  verifiable. However, saying that their denial of being involved in hacking equates to their not being involved in hacking is  interpretation, which is not our remit. For example, a politician may deny allegations of, say, bribe taking, but we do not then report that  they have not taken bribes. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "fact" that the JIDF ever engaged in "hacking." It has not been verified  in any sources.  --216.155.158.139 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Israel National News, The BBC, The Telegraph. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While some of those early articles might have described one early JIDF activity as  "hacking," it's absolutely unfair to label the organization as  "hackers."  The "hacking" references were specific to one early event.   Perhaps it should be in the article, but to make the JIDF out to look  like some gang of online hackers would not be beneficial to the  Wikipedia project.  --96.31.87.249 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't like being described as a hacker, write a letter to the editor of a  newspaper that so described the JIDF. It's not our job to decide whether  something is "fair", but to report what reliable sources are saying. — Malik Shabazz   04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles about the JIDF make no mention of any "hacking." Thus, if it's to be included in the article, it should be kept at a minimum, along with the  JIDF's firm denial of any hacking or illegal activity. To focus on that activity is in and of  itself biased POV, trying to highlight one small  detail/mislabeling of an organization doing many different things. --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantify "vast majority", will you? There have not been very many articles published by third party, neutral, reliable sources, at any rate. The references to hacking are by no means related to only one incident. Furthermore, the suggestion that they were mislabeled is not verifiable. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been plenty of articles that dismiss "hacking" claims and any mentioning  of the JIDF as "hackers" has been very minimal, actually. --64.120.158.118 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and wrong, actually. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim "Appletree founded JIDF shortly after 9/11." may be spurious. This  article says it was founded in 2008..  A founding in 2001 would predate Facebook (2004).   --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was already discussed and was most likely a mistake by the reporter.  --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section should be upmerged
Generally criticism and "controversy" sections are discouraged. They imply POV/bad writing and tend to be drama magnets. As this entire article seems to be a drama vector it makes sense to upmerge the content to  weave it into the main article. If there is notable criticism the WP:Lede should indicate so if it doesn't already. -- Banj e  b oi   18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "notable criticism" but the criticism currently in this  article does not belong in the lede whatsoever.  --96.31.87.249 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion yet as to criticism of this group but we do include notable criticism in the lede  per NPOV. The lede should accurately overview the entire article. By my  quick reading the criticism needs to be cleaned up and woven into the  rest of the article.  -- Banj e  b oi   09:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles on Wikipedia which don't do that. Most of the editors here have continuously tried to shed the worst possible light on  the organization as possible. --96.31.87.208 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article is rather favorable to the JIDF. Unfavorable would be "The  Jewish Internet Defense Force is a one-man on-line "organization" which attempts to  remove content unfavorable to Israel from web sites, and engages in on-line flame wars  on Facebook.  The "organization" has no legal existence or physical offices. The  person behind the organization is not publicly known but uses the  pseudonym "David Appletree".  The organization is not supported by  mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL or the Simon  Wiesenthal Center."  All of that can be sourced. --John Nagle  (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nagle actually it cannot, and the JIDF has coordinated with many mainstream  orgs in various campaigns. If you're just here to try to damage the JIDF, perhaps your biased POV is best served elsewhere on the site. --216.155.158.152 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * John Nagle, just because the JIDF is led by one person, it does not mean there's  just one person behind it.  The number of different types of followers,  supporting the organization for a wide variety of reasons and doing  different types of things for the organization seems clear to me and to  anyone else who is not intent on trying to minimize what the JIDF is,  and has done.  --64.120.158.122 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Seems the same personalizing of content issues that existed here in the past has not ebbed. That's  unfortunate. More people might need to be banned and the talkpage semi-protected if  folks can't dial it all the way down. Comment on content and not contributors. This is also, as the  notices on top make clear, not a forum for general discussion on the  subject or its members. I'm not sure why the page was protected in the  first place but I'll be happy to merge the criticism myself once it is  lifted. As someone who's put in a lot of work in the past I think I'm  somewhat able to suss out where to weave it in and I can post the bits  that seem soapboxy to the talkpage.  -- Banj e  b oi   15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're volunteering to merge the minimal amount of "criticism" in this article  into the lede (as you suggested), then I'm not in support of that, nor  do I think it would improve the article much.  --64.120.158.118 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably better than a specific criticism section 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the "criticism" currently in the criticism section is notable  enough to be in the lede.  --98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the criticism is not needed, but the "criticism" is so little and not  notable, that I hardly think it would be fair to throw it in the lede  for the sake of throwing it in the lede.  There should be no criticism  section, but the material in that section should be at the bottom of the  article (if anywhere) given the fact that it's not even really  "criticism".  --69.4.233.164 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So there should be no criticism section but all the material from that section  should be in one place? That's utterly nonsensical. The criticism  definitely belongs in the article, just not in a section of its own.


 * I don't believe this is even criticism or that it belong in this article.--98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm volunteering to take the current criticism section, rip it apart to see  what the sources state and try to neutrally  use the encyclopedic bits that seem notable in the rest of the main  text. If there is notable criticism it should  certainly be mentioned in the lede as well but until I look at  everything it's rather hard to say if nothing or something would even be  needed.  -- Banj e  b oi   15:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in all that.  From how it appears, a lot editors worked  together to build consensus and work it into the current version of the  criticism section.  Personally, I think it should be left alone.  I've  read all the sources on the JIDF and have seen a lot of the drama unfold  here on Wikipedia and it doesn't seem imperative to begin swatting away  at a hornets nest.  If you absolutely must do this, perhaps begin by  working out ideas here first, but again, I don't think it makes sense to  bother.  I agree with the others that nothing in the current criticism  section belongs in the lede.  It doesn't even seem to be too critical.--69.4.233.161 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRITS, on some articles criticism sections can be appropriate. On most, however, they are sign of bad  and/or POV writing. That seems the case here. I wouldn't have bothered  mentioning it except the rest of the article is generally acceptable.  -- Banj e  b oi   14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the criticism section could go and the content there doesn't belong in  this article, since it's mostly derived from just one source.  --98.143.144.111 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Until the article is unprotected and I have a look at what the sources state I  have to suspend opinion if any criticism is warranted or not.  -- Banj e  b oi   18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * the article doesn't have to be unprotected in order to see the sources.  —Preceding  unsigned comment added by 213.163.74.156 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Being derived from one source doesn't make something non-notable, once  that source is reputable. And given the dearth of reputable sources on the jidf, I think almost any info gleaned from them belongs in the  article. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree.  Some of the information gleaned from various sources is redundant.  I  believe Wikipedia should be a place where people can and should use  caution when adding information from various sources.  We don't want to  be redundant.  Much of the time, "reliable" sources make mistakes.  If  the subject at hand has pointed out mistakes in the reports about them,  then I think we should be sensitive about those mistakes. --64.120.158.122 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not our remit. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamophobia
A cursory examination of the content of the blog shows a great deal of openly islamophobic material,  in contrast to JIDF's self-published description as being an anti-Semitism  watchdog on the web and even the moderate material is overtly slanted in  a hateful direction. For example, a headline in response to the Fort Hood massacre is "It's Islam, Stupid". It also supports conspiracy theories that Obama is a "secret muslim". There was previously a photoshop of Obama wearing a turban which has since been removed. It also shows extremist Kahanist sympathies, posting memorials to controversial, racist anti-Arab figures such as Meir Kahane.

So far the JIDF has managed to fly under the radar, but it is only a matter of time before  notable sources pick up on the hateful content of this site. This can and will be reported on Wikipedia. Until then, taking it's self-published "mission" at face value is unwise and overly credulous. The current, overly positive wikipedia page is a disappointing whitewash. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your assessment of the JIDF, there is a problem with sourcing. The  FAZ article did mention links to a "dubious" anti-Islam site and  anti-Obama  campaigning is also referenced in our article. While "Appletree" has  complained about lack of support from the likes of the Simon Wiesenthal  Centre and the ADL, they don't seem to have gone on record as to why  they don't want to be associated with the JIDF.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with both of your assessments of the JIDF and Peter is right, none of  Factsontheground's claims are in any reliable sources. If we're going to  use this space to break Wikipedia's guidelines for talk pages and rules  regarding "no original research" then if we're going to mention  "Islamophobia" you should at least reference another piece on their  site, a test, asking, "Are You an Islamophobe?"  I also don't think Appletree  complained so much about a "lack of support" from the ADL and SWC as he  did just mention the fact that they are not involved in the online  battle against anti-semitism  and the promotion of Islamic jihad.  Also, I don't think  Factsontheground is taking into consideration the legal disclaimer on  their site, which reads as follows:


 * The views expressed, by the authors on this website do not necessarily reflect the  views of this website. The content of the blog is the opinion of the  blogger(s), and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group,  club, organization, company or individual. The blogger’s intention is to  do no harm. To not injure others, defame, or libel. All data and  information provided on this site is for informational and/or  entertainment purposes only. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF)  makes no representations as to accuracy, currentness, correctness,  suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be  liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any  losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use, or access  to this site. We are not responsible for translation or interpretation  of content. We are not responsible for defamatory statements bound to  government, religious or other laws from the reader’s country of origin.  All information is provided on an as-is basis with no warranties, and confers  no rights. We are not responsible for the actions, content, accuracy,  opinions expressed, privacy policies, products or services or for any  damages or losses, directly or indirectly, caused or alleged to have  been caused as a result of your use or reliance on such information on  the Jewish Internet Defense Force site. This Website/Blog includes links  to other sites and blogs operated by third parties. These links are  provided as a convenience to you and as an additional avenue of access  to the information contained therein. We have not reviewed all of the  information on other sites and are not responsible for the content of  any other sites or any products or services that may be offered through  other sites. The inclusion of these links in no way indicates their  endorsement, support or approval of the contents of this site or the  policies or positions of the JIDF. We have the right to edit, remove or  deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion,  unacceptable. These Terms and Conditions of Use apply to you when you  view, access or otherwise use this blog and the Website.


 * Therefore, to jump to any conclusions about the JIDF or Appletree because of a few  postings which may or may not represent their views, is wrong.  Also, as  I previously mentioned, we must stick to what reliable sources say.  Also, it might be necessary to remind you both of the talk page guidelines:


 * 'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a  subject, but for evaluating the use of information derived from  secondary sources.


 * You should also be aware that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia.  Please  see:  Wikipedia:No  original research, as  it is not allowed, even on talk pages:

''
 * This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of  published material that serves to advance a position. This means that  Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences,  arguments, or conclusions.  Citing sources and avoiding original  research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not  presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are  directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support  the information as it is presented. "No original research" is one of  three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and  verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of  material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted  in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize  themselves with all three.  --216.155.158.190 (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Outsider's view
As someone who has never contributed to this article or the discussion, but was drawn to it by  its tagging as a 'problem article', I can only say that:


 * The article contains a significant amount of editorializing, in particular the use  of words and phrases which are not as neutral as possible.  Just one  example is the use of "exposes" in the lead paragraph. This is  specifically warned against at Words to avoid.


 * As with many contemporary organizations and groups, there just are no reliable third  party sources (e.g. articles in academic journals, books by historians  or social scientists) which can be used as sources. Sadly, reports by  journalists even in 'quality' papers don't seem to be based on as much  research as in the past (a drawback of 24 hour rolling news perhaps). So  it's hard to see how accusations of POV by one side or the other can be  countered by the use of reliable sources, as would be possible for more  established organizations.

For what it's worth, having known nothing about the group and having quite ambivalent views on the  Israel/Palestine issue, I found the the article (a) informative and  therefore intrinsically worthwhile (b) somewhat biassed in favour of the  group and hence leading me to react negatively towards it. Those who wish to push views re the Israel/Palestine issue should note that for  people without strong views either way, any appearance of bias is  totally counterproductive. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your comments. I have also added a find  tag atop that does link to sources searches and th news one in  particular does churn up some possibilities including a Time mention.  -- Banj e  b oi   22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested addition
Please add the following template to the article:

79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is not protected anymore. However, it would be better to actually discuss any issues you have here before adding a potentially controversial template to a controversial article.  What in the article do you feel is not neutral? ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Amorymeltzer, that IP was one of the reasons the page got protected in the first place, and from their comments on this talk page, it's clear that they would like to insert bias against the organization into the piece. --64.120.158.5 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If an article is disputed people should know about it to give their reading context. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add the following template to the article:

I added it myself, but someone then removed it, tagging it as "vandalism". I would appreciate if it could be readded, as I find the present article highly POV. 79.97.166.36 (talk)


 * I don't think littering an article with such tags is appropriate just because one person (who has vandalized it in the past and broke Wikipedia guidelines/rules on this page) believes the article is "highly POV." If you have specific problems with the article, you discuss them here, and form consensus.  If others believe the article's neutrality is in question, then the tag should be considered.  However, a much better way to go about it would be to discuss SPECIFIC CHANGES you think should be made, or SPECIFIC ISSUES you are having.  --64.120.158.36 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The very point of such a tag is for when someone believe's an article is pov. If you would take the time to read the tag, you would notice that it says "do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Removal of the tag was vandalism. I have not vandalised the article in the past. Do not tell me what to do, meat puppet. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the tag is for when there is a general belief that an article is not neutral. One person can add it but only if there is a corresponding on-going dispute.  In fact, this tag is only to be used along with lengthy discussion on the talk page.  As you (the template adder) did not do so, the removal of the tag was acceptable, although not vandalism.  The current notice regarding full protection actually covers most of what you wanted to do, so I should think you content. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article has been discussed ad nauseum. Take a look at heading thirteen on this page. The current notice merely alludes to disputes, not to disputed neutrality. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No consensus was formed. People were using original research and their own opinion about the organization.  There didn't seem to be much consensus at all about the "neutrality" of the article, actually, from people with a real objective stand on this article.  It seems the majority of the people opining (yourself included) seem to have some personal issues with the organization. --216.244.65.118 (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of the organisation until I came across this page. I just can't stand pov articles claiming to be otherwise. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I am declining the request above because of the lack of support for it. Please take up the other editors' invitiations to discuss the specific part(s) which you feel are not neutral. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)