Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 15

More information
According to footnote 8 of

Andre Oboler, The Rise and Fall of a Facebook Hate Group, Covenant - Global Jewish Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 1 (August 2009), Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya.

The deleted anti-semitic group: "Israel" is not a country!... ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!" ...was at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2221448894

The new group is: "Israel Is NOT A Country, Delist It from Facebook As A Country!" This new group is at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55153379953

Presumably the new group does not violate Facebook terms of service, whereas (also presumably) the old one, which Facebook deleted, does.

This issue seems to have been removed from the article already, but I just wanted to pass this along to show why I thought it wise to delete it while I researched further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Choice of primary quote
I see that there was some back-and-forth about an anti-Islamic quote recently. I tinkered with it just a little.


 * Introduction to the quote: the group's web site "explains" precious little at all, including what the "archive" actually archives. The newsletter (as I called it, solely as a guess) is written as a definitive statement by the group.  Yet a disclaimer on the same page says that the content is "not necessarily" reflective of the group's views!  So I just describe it as an issue of the group's newsletter that says this stuff, which seems at about the right distance for now.


 * Body of quote: I tried to change this to complete sentences, except the wordy part about if you studied upon Islam, etc. I thought the quotes as previously introduced were chosen to emphasize the controversy of the quote, but not its logic.  I firmly believe that if you are going to quote an editorial, it should be apparent to the reader what point the editorial wanted to get across, not just the point you want to get across.


 * Choice of quote: This is one issue of the newsletter from two years ago .  Is it representative to choose this one part of this one article?  Maybe - they do seem pretty outspoken about a lot of things.  But there might be some reason to worry that showcasing this one point could distort the impression given of the group.  I never like to delete stuff, so I favor the idea that additional quotes about important priorities of the group should be found. Wnt (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one issue of the newsletter from two years ago. If this is the quote about the genocidal false prophet mohammed etc..., it's from August 14, 2010 and remains the second post at the jidf.org website, which describes itself here as a private, independent, non-violent protest organization representing a collective of activists That is, it's not a newsletter. It's the homepage of an organization (at least in his/their words).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got the 8 and the 10 mixed up. I was thinking about moving the primary quotes to the bottom and adding them as bullet points, i.e.


 *  Views 


 * In October 2008, the German newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) called the JIDF "self-appointed warriors against online-hatred." The article said the JIDF site provided links to a website which "draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred". CNN wrote that the JIDF is "sometimes guilty of sweeping generalizations", and offered up as evidence an article published on Facebook critic Brian Cuban's site in 2008 in which a JIDF representative was quoted as saying "99.9 percent of Muslims hate us", and "We hope to continue to highlight the issues surrounding [then-candidate Barack Obama's] terrorist connections as well as his racist and anti-Semitic church, which has supported Hamas and the Rev. Louis Farrakhan." CNN quoted a JIDF "spokesperson named David, who requested his last name be withheld because his group has received death threats," as saying "he would rather people not focus on those specific quotes for several reasons, including the fact that it was an "informal interview" and Cuban 'would not let us correct any of our statements after we quickly answered him to help him meet his deadline.'"


 * Some examples of these sentiments which can be found in unsigned articles on the organization's web site include:
 * In an article discussing Obama's support for the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", the organization displayed an image of Obama removing his shoes to pray at Turkey's Blue Mosque, and editorialized, "we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol) Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did." and "The [Islamic] ideology itself is clearly one of hatred and violence, which is declaring war against the entire non-Islamic world... it is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was."
 * In a subsequent article, they distributed a Wikiislam "Questionnaire for Muslims seeking U.S. citizenship" with items such as (citing Qur'an 2:282) "Shariah law which holds that in all cases of law the testimony of two women is necessary to equal that of one man. Do you repudiate the principle in the Qur'an which requires that it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man in a law court? YES / NO"


 * But I'm not sure this is a good idea, and in a nod to "general sanctions" I'll mull it over here first. The problem here is that we have all kinds of issues in these archives, all with a lot of interesting nooks and crannies... if we can pick some out representatively, or at least representatively of points first made by secondary sources in the top part of the text, then we could provide a useful "view from the ground".  But if we're just picking some stuff that seems outrageous, titillating, etc., then we risk saying more about our own sense of politics and/or humor than JIDF's.  How do you pick representative snowflakes when no two are the same?  Yet people do. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortable about the current wording. But that one worries me more; it is heavy WP:OR to highlight these as examples of these sentiments. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 19:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike the hate mongering about Islam, including it here with out a third party sources is unaccetpable WP:OR. Give them WP:ROPE some one will eventually notice it and comment on it but until then it is WP:OR of primary source And I am against its inclusion as is. An honestly As much trouble as we have had lately here I am slightly shocked any of us are playing fast and loose with primary sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case I'll get rid of the primary quote in there now. It was awkward to deal with it, since there wasn't any proper way to introduce it. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been out of it for a few days, so I'm unsure if the quote discussed here is the one that I recommend be inserted, see below. Wnt, my view is that the views of this organization are relevant and encyclopedic - when I go to read about an activist organization, one of the main things I want to know is what they advocate, what they believe.  It's important to establish that, and I don't think it is original research to quote directly from their website.
 * Now, having said that, it is of course possible to cherry pick inappropriately, or to quote from comments posted on the website in a misleading way, etc. Of course.  But just as it is perfectly fine to describe the mission of, say, the Red Cross by quoting from their website, it's perfectly fine to do the same in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, deleting the quote was really a deviation from my usual inclusionist tendency, so I'm not disappointed to be overruled here. This should also mean that other articles and other quotes from the JIDF site can be added, including some that provide rationales for JIDF's views. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and the views of thereligionofpeace.com
I want to strongly object to including the views of thereligionofpeace.com in this article, which is about JIDF. It is the worst form of POV pushing to write an article in this fashion. I call on Bali Ultimate to stop doing this, please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the right way to write a section on the Views of the JIDF - stick to what they actually say on their own website. This is pretty easy to do, as the website is quite explicit and clear about their views. It is not necessary to quote negative news articles regarding what other people, not the JIDF, believe, on the thin premise that the jidf website links to them. They link to a lot of things - this does not imply endorsement.

The quote that I removed established that an unrelated organization, thereligionofpeace.com, "portrays Mohammad as a supporter of murder and paedophilia," among other things. That's completely irrelevant to the JIDF. A far better quote to use would be directly from the JIDF website: "Please note, Mohammed was a genocidal pedophile who murdered people who didn't think like he did, or believe the things he believed. Millions of Muslims promote the idea that if we 'insult' him (despite the fact that he's dead), that we should be killed." This is a direct quote from the JIDF, and therefore establishes their views directly and without the implausible stretch.

It's worth stepping back to consider why any of this is relevant. I think it is, but there are plausible arguments to the contrary. In essence, I think the views of the JIDF are relevant insofar as this is an activist organization openly pursuing a particular agenda. To establish their views is not difficult, and will be helpful for the reader trying to understand the organization. By using an incredibly roundabout and fallacious way of establishing what their views might be, we run the risk of a reader coming away with the wrong idea, i.e. the idea that maybe the JIDF doesn't have these views, and maybe someone is just out to smear them by association with a website that they merely link to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We are including it because FAZ linked this website to them. Since apparently the JIDF's own website is off limits for an article about the JIDF and only "reliable sources" are to be used, then we're stuck with the FAZ article -- which found the link to that website concerning, and explained why. We quote the FAZ directly on the matter -- they directly linked one thing with the other, not me. That is, it's a "reliable source" making the connection. Something you are not. As for you other comments: stick to what they actually say on their own website. This is pretty easy to do, as the website is quite explicit and clear about their views. Yes, it is. But i've been told that the website is off limits for edits such as this  because it's a "primary source." (i.e. The JIDF Websites says "we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol) Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did... the [Islamic] ideology itself is clearly one of hatred and violence, which is declaring war against the entire non-Islamic world... it is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was.") This edit was rejected, with your support I believe as, "undue." I would argue that the views of a website involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict on the nature of Islam at root, are quite due. Wouldn't you agree?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Making a contentious claim with a primary source is usually risky business thus i expressed concern dislike for using a primary souce for that. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo wants the primary sources and has taken me to task for using a newspaper. Do we have any doubt that that is appletree's website and those are the views that his organization holds? is anyone "contending" that the website is not the JIDF website, or those quotes are not accurately drawn from there? Really don't see how this stuff could be "contentious." JIDF website posts stuff saying this is what they believe about once a week; and "Appletree" constantly reiterates it on his twitter feed.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the religionofpeace mention should go. But the FAZ article is a good source for their views. I think primary sourcing their views is difficult because their views are so extreme - and so either we end up spouting their rhetoric or we cherry pick stuff that looks overly bad. It's just a minefield. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bali, I see no problem then, I just felt uncomofrtable about it and said a secondary source would be preffered for such a thing. An Morton brings back up my reasoning for it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@errant.
 * Ok, you don't want to use primary. Understand your position there (though i don't agree with it). Why do you want to limit what can be used from the FAZ article -- they explicitly linked JIDF to religionofpeace and pointed out why that was objectionable. We're told that can't be used because it's guilt by association or something. Then we find more or less precisely the same language about Islam on the JIDF official website and we're told that can't be used -- because it's a primary source. This is frankly absurd. An endless loop of bureaucracy holding out important information about this group (it's views on one of the largest faiths on the globe, en toto).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do see what you are saying; I don't have a specifically major objection to the mention of the link to that site - other than that it is a vague connection that FAZ seems to be making to invalidate JIDF's stated claims (rightly or wrongly, who knows) and put forward the POV that they are extremist (again, rightly or wrongly). I suppose it comes down to; is FAZ a neutral enough source from which to take such claims - or do we treat it as a POV source? Which becomes a problem; who do you believe and why? I'd argue this is a very very difficult section to write because what we need to do is:
 * Represent their stated views (of fighting anti-semitism or w/e)
 * Deal with their extremist views of Islam
 * Deal with critical analysis of them and their aims (FAZ article etc.) in a way that is not attacking but does deal with the fact that their are in a contentious arena
 * I don't think, ultimately, there is a way to do this "fairly" that will appease everyone. I do not think we should be overly concerned with JIDF's opinion of the article; in fact I think that outside any BLP concerns (which are minimal here) we should ignore them entirely. In terms of where to source their views I think we can make it a lot more neutral/abstract and simply "state the obvious" supported by FAZ and CNN (and, where required, JIDF) sources. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand Bali Ultimate's frustration here, but good editing takes time, and getting it right will take a bit more dialog and discussion.
 * What I think we all agree on are these things: (1) some explanation of the views of JIDF is encyclopedic and noteworthy. An activist organization deserves to have its views explained, and there's no problem with that.  (2) Cherry picking random extreme statements, whether done by us or a handful of newspaper sources risks WP:UNDUE weight given to those statements.  (3) At the same time, omitting what their views actually are, stated on multiple occasions, is also not valid.
 * I think Errant is right - this is a very very difficult section to write. But I'm optimistic that we can do it in a satisfactory way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As much We appreciate your guidance Jimbo, we all want an article that is accurate as possible with the most reliable sourcing possible. Considering the As this whole last incident started when someone raised the concern it sounded like an advertisement and certain IPs & several now blocked users insisted it was neutral. I personally doubt that we can create one to please all parties. Since i feel to stongly  issue to be neutral in my writing about it I am limiting myself to the talk, Bali has done a great job with clean up and hopefully we can up to B-class in few days here.  Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jimbo; agreed. At the end of the day we have to invoke WP:SPADE - the site does promote some extremist views, particularly about Islam, and it would be silly to avoid mentioning that. On the other hand such content would have to be well sourced - and that is proving problematic. Certainly there is little on the major news sites (understandably so) beyond the CNN article. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The JIDF's Twitter feed
From the JIDF's Twitter feed: --John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * HELP THE JIDF: Create accounts on Wikipedia, make 10 simple edits over a few days' time and send login details to: admin@thejidf.org #tcot    about 5 hours ago  via web
 * Here's a static link: ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Jimbo can help, given that holding this guys hand has been his focus lately.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying my best to get him to stop. I asked him to at least take Hanukkah as a holiday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't want to wait till December! It's Rosh Hashana today, not Hanukah. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL. I'm an idiot, typing too fast.  But I am also encouraging him to engage in the WP:Standard Offer so, Hanukkah would be a good start!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shana Tova roland. On a serious notes on the sock and meat puppetry from the pseudonymous person, it can only be dealt with as and when it comes up.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More from DavidAppletrees twitter feed today. "Considering Islam is a hateful, violent, and evil death cult that preaches terrorism, people are going to burn the Qur'an. Get over it." Yes, this is definitely the kind of editor wikipedia needs more of.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bali, Wikipedia is open, meaning Appletree should be able to edit on here regardless of whether or not you agree with his views.Surfthetsu (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my views. As for "wikipedia is open, meaning Appletree should be able to edit here" you might want to do a little more research on that. Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You made it clear it does have to do with your views by saying that the type of person who believes "Islam is a hateful, violent, and evil death cult that preaches terrorism, people are going to burn the Qur'an. Get over it." shouldn't be "the kind of editor wikipedia needs more of." As for him being banned, I already knew that, I guess I kind of forgot. My bad. But why are you trying to prevent people from making 10 legitimate edits on here?Surfthetsu (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Facebook page, in response to Appletree's request for login details of new accounts, someone has written "mine is princesspatch, will send later".User:Princesspatch account created on 3 September. RolandR (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we can go ahead and tag it as a sock? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You realize you can make an anonymous posting to Facebook and get anyone banned this way? The game of cracking down on sock puppets and trying to ban people from Wikipedia rather than accounts was never winnable, and should never have been played.  Unfortunately, it looks like Wikipedia is about to find this out the hard way. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather more simply, I'd suggest we wait and see what happens, and just stick to our policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of socking, JIDF has advertised tactics intended to be deliberately disruptive to Wikipedia. A banned editor is publicly canvassing for sockpuppet accounts. That may deserve a mention in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs a WP:RS though :D --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 22:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... JIDF's own twitter feed isn't a reliable source for their tweets? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the fact he tweeted it, the significance, though, probably needs a secondary source --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It is, but it is a primary source. Technically, advancing a position about JIDF using only primary sources is generally considered wrong. I don't think these rules were originally meant for such a situation, but nowadays they are applied strictly and that's probably a good thing overall. On the other hand, I can't immediately find a passage in WP:NOR that makes it impossible to mention this. Hans Adler 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, there is nothing considered wrong about citing what a primary source says about itself, given proper attribution and no interpretation. For example, "JIDF has called for supporters to provide Wikipedia accounts for JIDF to use" needs no secondary sourcing; the primary source is the most appropriate source for claims an organization makes about itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

edit request
editprotected Elsewhere on the Web Section: Wiki-link JTA -> Jewish Telegraphic Agency The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. JTA is a disambig page. --John Nagle (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Undid edit
Undid some edits on May 5, 2011, which deleted some references. Too big a change on a controversial article without discussion on talk first. --John Nagle (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit
Why shouldn't it be called a Zionist organization? It seems to focus on the portrayal of Israel more than Jews or antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.18.115 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply put, you need a reliable source that describes the group as a Zionist organization. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hacktivist"
If the article is to describe the JIDF as a "hacktivist" organization, it needs to be attributed. It shouldn't be said in the encyclopedia's narrative voice as if it were a fact. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? It is a fact. A fact referenced to two reliable sources. Why would this particular fact need to be attributed but others in the article don't? That would be absurd. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a fact; it's an opinion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires that "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Do you have any reliable sources that dispute their being a hacktivist group? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, every source in the article except the two that use the term. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not using a description is not remotely the same as disputing that description. Do you have any reliable sources that represent the point of view that "JIDF is not a hacktivist organization", or something along those lines? Also, could you avoid calling me stupid in your edit summaries? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's rich, coming from an editor who called me a liar. In any event, if you read the edit summary with care, you would see I never called you stupid, I said you asked a stupid question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You said in your edit summaries that I had violated 3rr. That was a lie. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't leave fake warnings. Just because you dislike having to answer questions does not make the question stupid. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC
Should we simply say that they are a hacktivist organisation -as they have been described by various reliable mainstream news outlets- or say that their "work has been termed "hacktivism" by some media outlets", as the article currently reads? I don't understand why a fact referenced to reliable sources should be presented as if it were simply a fringe opinion. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPOV: "Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words.... Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How is "hacktivism" loaded?89.100.207.51 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, that same section says to avoid expressions of doubt. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "hacktivism" has WP:NEO problems. Also, widespread use of the term postdates the JIDF's active period, which was some years ago. --John Nagle (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how NEO applies. Hacktivist has been included in the OED since 2006, where it's listed as first having been used in 1995. It's an established, mainstream term that best describes the group and their activities. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to devote attention to this article? The organization has zero hits in Google News. Their last significant news coverage was in 2010. There's no notable new information. --John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't tend to often be new information on historical events either, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the articles. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not use Hacktivist - For many of the same reasons used above. "eliminate expressions that are ... vague ... Strive to eliminate expressions that are ... clichéd" & WP:NEO. Saying that "hacktivist" has been in OED since 2006 doesn't completely allay these concerns. NickCT (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is hacktivist vague or clichéd? And what part of NEO makes hacktivist unacceptable? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What word that's been around for less than a decade isn't vague? Not everyone is going to be familiar with the term. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1995-2012 is 17 years. That's almost 2 decades. How can you object to a more specific description by calling it "vague"? Just because not everyone is going to be familiar with a term doesn't mean we should avoid it when it's the most appropriate term. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even the article here states it is branded by some and does not mention by whom. Should be careful as this is a fairly new term, not by the fact of age but by fairly low usage in the common English language. This does not rule it out for use but it does make it an unnecessary step for the common reader; even if this is not the SEW, it is still applicable to WP:NEO and hacktivism gives off a slight negative air by NPOV. Judicatus | Talk 06:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if it's a fairly new term, that's only because what they do is fairly new, and fairly uncommon. It's not as if there's an older, more widely used, term that describes what they do. This is really the only word that we can use that in any way accurately describes what they do. How does the term "hacktivism" give off a negative air? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hacking has never had a general consensus of being accepted as morally upright within most national communities, especially Western nations (our general readers). To bring even an element of the term hacking into the article is not without risk of bias or harm overall. Perhaps a singular word does not exist, I agree with you there, but perhaps a description of their activity is better in this case than possible harm by a blanketing terminology. The term can easily put them into a bad "light" in terms of a normal reader who, upon seeing "hack", will think of the harm of another (hacking) for one persons idea of proper or right (activism). Again, a risk unwarranted for such a task as simply describing the activities of this group. Judicatus | Talk 11:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The link Judicatus posted leads to an interesting piece (and what seems to be one of very few reliable secondary sources that mention the "JIDF". In that document, the JIDF is discussed in the context of cybercrime. Overall this article seems to draw way too much from that the group says of itself, rather than what reliable sources say of the group. More specifically to the question posed, I think "hacktivism" is a rather obscure term and it would make IMO more sense to describe the group in plain English, if we decide to keep this page in the first place. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Founder's name
There seems to be a campaign to name the founder of the JIDF ss evidenced by an edit to this article earlier today. The edit leaves the sentence looking referenced but the source at the end of the sentence does not name Appletree. I am therefore reverting until we identify a reliable source. The name given is also spelt slightly different from one I had seen before.

The name given has a number of hits. But are any of them reliable? Some of the bloggers e.g. David Icke are obviously unreliable. Anyone know who Richard Silverstein is and if he is reliable?

The alternative spelling has fewer hits https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=%22David+brodsky%22+&as_epq=&as_oq=Appletree+JIDF&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights= the leading ones relating to "Kung Fu Jew" who produces Prasnis Warszawa. Does anyone know who this is and if they are reliable?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Silverstein. I assume Tikun Olam doesn't meet the WP:BLP requirements.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Tikun Olam is a WP:SPS that doesn't satisfy WP:IRS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another non-reliable blog source. Other than occasional mentions in obscure blogs, nobody seems to be covering the JIDF any more. Nothing much to do for this article. --John Nagle (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The content of the various blogs seems to be par for the course based on my experience of being threatened by "Appletree" and the appearance of my name on a Kahanist hate list. I'm pretty sure that someone either here or on WR produced a reliable source that indicated that Appletree's first name really was David, that his surname began with B and that he worked as a producer as described. I might look for the evidence at some point.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JIDF anti-islam
in this tweet (official account) the JIDF is clearly stated anti-islam.

https://twitter.com/JIDF/status/19305771688 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.134.209.9 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't quite what the tweet says, and in any event tweets are not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, in fact the JIDF's official Twitter feed would be no less a reliable source than the JIDF's website, which is currently used as a source in the article. Primary sources are acceptable for referencing what the subject itself has stated, this has been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.254.4 (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There has to be evidence in the form of secondary source coverage that someone cares about things like tweets. Information has to be notable enough to be included per WP:DUE and any conclusions based on that information have to come from a reliable source per WP:OR.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request edits
The recent edits seem to be breaking BLP rules, OUTTING rules, and rules regarding the use of reliable sources. I barely edit Wikipedia, so I can't undo these recent edits, but I don't believe they are "in good faith" and they are not from reliable sources at all. FYI the one source is a blog which is extremely controversial. And the other source is a fake new agency called "Israel News Agency" -it, and the guy behind it were banned from Wikipedia. UPDATE: I was able to fix this myself somehow. So I did. I hope it stays that way as it appears that the harassment and defamation campaign against this org, its founder, and other innocent people is stretching onto Wikipedia, which wouldn't be very good. --Bobhope101 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The above account is an obvoius sockpuppet of banned user:DavidAppletree or user:Einsteindonut and should be blocked as such. 172.56.13.28 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is highly biased
Information about Appletree is inaccurate and the article about his Facebook deactivation was not properly summed up in this article. This article falsely accused David Appletree of accusing Facebook of antisemitism. What the article actually said was that Appletree maintained "he’s being targeted while Facebook turns a blind eye to other users who likewise fail to comply with this rule."

A simple search for fake names on Facebook confirms that Facebook does indeed allow many other people to have fake names on the site.

There's many other problems in this article, especially with regard to the "views" section, which focuses almost entirely on views that can be perceived as negative. The JIDF has expressed many different views, but only the more controversial ones are explored here.

Here's an article which I believe states the most about the JIDF and its views, and is it even cited here?:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137769  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.134.216 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The anon above has a point; "Appletree" did not explicity accuse Facebook of antisemitism in the Jewish Weekly article. I put in the exact words he's quoted as using: "because I’m a big Jewish activist and they don’t like my views". As for updates, the JIDF has fallen out of Google News. The JIDF just isn't newsworthy any more. John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed this up more, but I think all of this about Appletree is irrelevant to the article about the org, and may be subject to BLP rules. Also, I fail to see how your personal opinion of the organization is relevant. There are still articles that appear about them in the Google News archive. This article continues to be biased and unfair against Appletree, and the organization as a whole. I believe Wikipedia should strive to be more objective. It seems most of the folks involved in editing this article do have strong views against this organization. I think maybe we should invite people who can be more objective about them to help make this article more fair and objective. --66.55.135.220 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Views and Criticism" Section changed to "Criticism"
This section, as it currently stands, is clearly not objective and is painting the org in a very negative light, IMHO. If we want to be fair to their views, I think we should create a separate "Views" section, and pull information that reflects their actual views. For example, this article: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137769 - has many of their views, and was not even included in this article until now. --66.55.135.220 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

socks
Why does wiki allow banned user to Whitewash the article about his group? Carryepr12 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a martial court and even if JIDF attacked wikipedia and some wikipedia's contributors with virulence, we still have to comply with WP:BLP (by respect) and WP:OUTTING (because we are not here to take revenge) as well as WP:V (because many stuff added are often not sourced from WP:RS).
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not the problem. Appletree sock puppet is not fixing biography issues or other policy problem it is making edits to make This article more like Appletree wants it. The notice on this talk page says Appletree cannot edit because banned but he just makes more accounts and edit anyway and this is ok? Carryepr12 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this article is followed by many contributors.
 * What information would you like to add and or what edit would you like to revert ?
 * Before publishing information on this talk page, please be sure this complies with BP:BLP.
 * nb: If the information that you want to add was reverted and then deleted, eg by Malik Shabbaz, I think there is a problem with the information before all. But I don't know what's the problem you refer to.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Tens of thousands of edits have been made to articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area by hundreds of sockpuppets of blocked or topic banned users via accounts or IPs, many of which were subsequently blocked. Organizations such as CAMERA and NGO Monitor have broken the rules to infiltrate Wikipedia and engineer content making thousands of edits in the process. Sockpuppets are active everyday in the topic area. So I wouldn't be too concerned about one man and one low importance article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete this article
Malik Shabazz Sir, It's just a Talk page, and why you removed that question without giving proper explanation, Actually the JIDF is a Fake Organization,

SAJEEVJINO (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)SAJEEVJINO


 * I'm sorry SAJEEVJINO. I meant to leave a message on your Talk page, but my computer crashed. I deleted your message because perhaps without meaning to, you outed an editor.


 * As you wrote, there have been reports that the JIDF is a one-man operation. As far as I can tell, however, none of those reports come from reliable sources. That leaves us in a difficult situation: we can't include those reports in the article, but we do include reports—possibly false reports—about the size of the JIDF that appeared in reliable sources.


 * If you're interested in pursuing the matter, I recommend trying an AfD. It's been seven years since the last AfD and maybe people would feel differently about keeping this article. It might be worth a try. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 07:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * AfD discussions are worth trying.
 * If somebody launches the process, can he leave a message on this talk page for information ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Internet Defense Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111104349/http://www.briancuban.com/inside-the-jewish-internet-defense-force/ to http://www.briancuban.com/inside-the-jewish-internet-defense-force/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017
Please somebody remove these unnecessary and redundant quotes since they are already attributed ("what it describes as...")--Jo.souza Souza (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for your message. I removed the "scare quotes", which were unnecessary and inappropriate. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Internet Defense Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917064143/http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/05/01/1004826/jtas-100-most-influential-jewish-twitterers to http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/05/01/1004826/jtas-100-most-influential-jewish-twitterers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda Company
No Encyclopedic value — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.213.75 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean but the only thing necessary for an article is notability, and it's clearly notable. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

dead
The last thing on JIDF's web page was almost four years ago and basically says "we won't tell you what we are doing but give us money anyway". It seems to me that it has morphed from trivial activist group (probably the work of one or two people) into a scam. Zerotalk 12:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost one year later, the web site has disappeared. Moreover, the Internet Archive says "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." Zerotalk 07:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Past tense verbiage, yet no citations on end of activity?
This article is written in the past tense and claims the JIDF is a "was", yet there is no explanation as to what supposedly happened to it. This should be discussed as if the JIDF is no longer operational, that is worth noting, and if if it is, the wording of this article would be a dishonest description.


 * The problem is that we need a "reliable source" to say what happened to it. We can't include our own observations on that. If you know of a source, please tell us. Personally I don't think this article ever had a right to exist. Zerotalk 04:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete
This article should be deleted. There's plenty of verifiable information online to bring the legitimacy of the "group" into question as a sham invented and operated by a single person who happened to have knowledge of SEO and how to trick media outlets into covering him as though he was a large organization... who then took donations from people for personal enrichment. It makes Wikipedia look like basic rubes covering this like a legit group. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iggy pop goes the weasel If there is verifiable information from reliable sources about this, then please share those sources. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

JIDF on youtube
I can't believe there is no mention of their thuggish mob style attacks against people on youtube that were uploading videos showing IDF and settlers terrorizing and physically attacking palestinians! They would not only bomb the video ratings, but also mass reported them as "hate speech" to get them removed and the uploaders banned!

97.107.37.1 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)