Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 4

Vandalizing through "Citation Needed" Tags?
It seems that is the case. There are citations and references for this entire article and it seems Ashley is going through (repeatedly) to add that every statement needs a citation. Typically, the sources are at the end of paragraphs. I'm not sure if Ashley has taken the time to read all the RS on the issue, but she'd see that everything is cited. Again, I'm new here so I'm not sure if this is common practice that nearly every single sentence needs some sort citation after it. From what I have seen, I rarely see this in any articles. This seems to be extremely politically motivated vandalism. If I broke the 3RR rule I'm sorry, but whatever she is doing does not seem to be in the name of WP neutrality.--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is reasonably well cited. Compare Internet Haganah, which badly needs citations. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to research you'd know I was male....I know what the article claims but there is still no evidence in the article to say that those claims are remotely a reality...It is neutral adding citation needed, especially when a citation to back up is needed. All the evidence points to this group being smoke and mirrors....

The citations are to go at the end of a sentence the citation used only says that the "group" claims to target certain things. That claim does not mean that the "group" is either capable of targeting or has targeted. Therefore a citation is needed to establish that the "group" has targeted. Other wise it is an intention of the "group" to target, this would mean that when the group has targeted you can report on its actions or you're only posting a Santa wish-list.....

If you're worried about pro-Israeli (most articles on the mid-east are badly in need of citations, both pro Israel and pro Palestinian) articles try adding citations to the pro-Israeli articles and be constructive by acknowledging that there is valid opposition to the pro-Israeli rational and that opposition is not all anti-Israeli but is pro-Palestinian....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You were putting citations after mere words and the fact that the JIDF say that they target Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Google Earth was established in a RS. Therefore, I think it was an active of vandalism to say that a citation was needed after each and every single group.  Everything else you are saying is mere speculation on your behalf as far as what the JIDF is or is not.  It has nothing to do about the article and is not helpful.  On final note, to be pro-Palestinian means to be anti-israel by its very nature.  In any event, if you don't trust the RS, perhaps find other RS's to back your claims and/or issues with the JIDF in general.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for page protection?
There has been a huge flurry of warring edits in the past few hours. I'm pretty sure that two editors have broken WP:3RR. Another is doing rollbacks to versions of pages many edits earlier and, I strongly suspect, has not evaluted all the individual edits of the editors who have contributed in the mean time. Does an admin need to lock the page for a few days?-Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I have to familiarize myself with what the rule means entirely. If I broke it, I am sorry.  I wanted to share the link to the article with a friend and was appalled at what had happened after all our hard work (with "citation needed" everywhere and taking out important well sourced facts) done by Ashley Kennedy.  Not sure how to react to that but it was as if all our hard work and cooperation was going down the drain.  What does page protection entail?  Could it still be edited after that point?  There has been some vandalism, but there has also been much well-sourced improvement as well.  Not to mention the fact that many of the original edit wars died down.  It's a shame that someone new can come in (with a very strong political bias) and create new problems.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Page protection comes in two forms full and semi-. Semi-protection just prevents anon and extremely new accounts from editing (you would be okay). Full prevents all non-adminstrators from editing and it would be bad-form for an admin to do it except for very specific reasons. The idea with full-protection is that we would spend the duration of the protection discussing the issues and thrashing things out hereon the talk page, so that, when the protection is lifted, we would then be able to improve the article wihout edit-warring. That's the theory anyway :-).--Peter cohen (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and, by definition, if the page is protected, it will be protected at the The Wrong Version.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. someone has to complain about 3R rule before any notice is taken of the 3R rule. 2. I do not use complaints to admin as a method of getting my point across. 3. You logic of putting a claim by the group as though the group has carried out any action is faulty. Tell me/the world about what the group has achieved not what future plans the group has. or put it in a section entitled Grandiose Plans for the future....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? Who was that aimed at? I might have thought 1 was aimed at me, but I can't relate 3 to any of my contributions. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Maybe she meant to post it elsewhere?--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Peter's original message: It looks like the edit war has stopped. If it resumes when the 24 hours is up, I would agree that edit protection is in order. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why protect? Just report edit warriors for blocking. Currently I've reported Ashley at WP:AN3, since this is hardly the first (or even only recent) time he seems to have had a problem with that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ashley might be the most extreme case here, but he isn't the only one that is pushing the boundary. The rollback I complained about, for example, reverted your quite appropriate change to the screen-capture caption. The editor who made the rollback made no attempt to avoid undoing your work or to reinstate it. Although I've not broken WP:3RR, I'm just waiting for tomorrow to reinstate edits I made earlier that have been reverted. (This is likely to be the fisrt one.) This sticking to the letter and nto the wpirit of the rule is regarded as dubious behaviour. So, when several people are acting out, I favour a "collective punishment" rather than just picking on one. Not that I'm going to go over to WP:AN3 and plea Ashley's case. Anyway the existence of this section may tone behaviour down on its own.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen Check the history I rolled it to the last stable version, which is not wrong--Puttyschool (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer science researcher?
Hi all, ok this is getting very awkward, I won't get into why but I believe I can help a little here with clarity about by own qualifications. This shouldn't be needed as a peer reviewed paper on a topic is RS and academics often do work in interdiciplinary areas. The norm in such cases is for the the work to be checked by people in all fields being covered. Again you can see some of the top experts in computer science, antisemitism, and political science reviewed the paper in question. Comments in the media on the topic someone is known as an expert in are different from random comments in another dicipline.

As to what I could be described as... I have been described as "a social media expert" this was first done by a journalist here. The above source also notes that I am "post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy". If you look at another source, for example this one I am described as "a post-doctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan University". The Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the world top conference on antisemitism) lists me as a speaker in the program. (Word of warning, they messed up my bio... the middle of my bio as given there is copied and pasted from someone else... so despite this being a RS, I am not "Vice-President of the German Bundestag" or "a Member of its Council of Elders".) At any rate this should all suggest that saying "computer science researcher" is slightly missing the point and perhaps misleading people through wp:undue qualification. Unless the topic is the article myself, none of this shoudl be relevant. On a whacky note, there is no RS that describes me using the words "computer science researcher", partly because that is a very generic lable. Oboler (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the flurry of activity since last night, I hadn't noticed that. I'll take it out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Perhaps all of this should make you notable enough to have your own Wiki article?  Furthermore, someone had described your "Zionism on the Web" site as a "campaign site."  I had never heard such terms used before except in reference to politicians, but I do not think you are one.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a computer scientist speaking about a subject not in his sphere of expertise/training...on the whaky note see the end of the article quoted says the qualifications.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the way in which the sources describe him that Oboler is not speaking from expertise in computer science. One source describes his field as political science and the other as online public diplomacy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the article quote as written by Oboler says computer science....

Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org and is a post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy at Bar-Ilan University. Andre Oboler, a post-doctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan University and Legacy Heritage Fellow at the NGO Monitor watchdog group. Dr. André Oboler Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor

anti-semitism is not his sphere. on line diplomacy is.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you changed "post-doctoral fellow in the political science department" into compsci, though... – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Andre Oboler is a postdoctoral fellow in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He received his PhD in computer science in 2007 at Lancaster University, UK. From his own article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV banner
8 dead is not a massacre...not unless you'd like to re-name Deir Yassin as a "bloody massacre" some people have a very low threshold of what constitutes a massacre...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree on the massacre/attack change, pending discussion to the contrary. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mercaz HaRav massacre was a school shooting spree like the Columbine High School massacre or the Dunblane massacre. Comparisons to Deir Yassin are off-base. I recommend that you read Talk:Mercaz HaRav massacre. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

that makes shelling beach parties massacres, that makes shelling houses in Gaza massacres etc etc etc. I suggest you get used to the reality that emotive language will only make the "blood debt" greater leaving Israel to answer for 20 "massacres" for every one "massacre" committed against Israel....the choice is yours.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS columbine is not an extremist school that teaches soldiers....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * nice to see we have our own little rationlizer of terrorism right here on wiki.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see that somebody still hasn't read WP:CIVIL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no place for jingoism, Ashley. If you can't hold in your anger, find somewhere else to vent. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ashley: I fail to see how those actions are analogous to individuals entering schools and shooting students. Maybe you can explain it to me.
 * Do you have an argument that's relevant to the killings at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiv? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

either we reduce all incidents where 8 or more die to the term massacre or emotive language gets reduced... in the Mercaz HaRaz the emotive term terrorist is used and the extremist nature of the yeshiv is missing and the links of that particular yeshiv to settler "terrorism", the emotive language can be used but remember that emotive language is a double edged sword.... in particular 8 dying in one incident is not, to my mind a massacre but if you say it is then all incidents with 8 or more die will be termed massacres....and obviously any incident where 100 or more die ends up as a "bloody massacre" 500 or more must be "genocide", 1000 gets to be "bloody Genocide"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Op-ed as reliable source
Regarding the Jerusalem Post op-ed, Oboler wrote "the JPost piece 'opinion' is supported by the research report I wrote". Nobody is questioning whether your opinion is a valid one — everybody is entitled to an opinion — the issue is that it's your opinion. It's not a fact reported by the Jerusalem Post, and the article currently misrepresents it as such.

I think the article should either say "Andre Oboler describes the group as antisemitic" or "according to Andre Oboler the group is antisemitic". If it says that "the press" calls it antisemitic, it should cite a news article. And being coy and putting the sentence in the passive voice ("described as antisemitic ... in the press") is not a reasonable means of skirting Wikipedia's clear guideline that opinion columns are not reliable sources (cited above). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We were not talking about the contents of the article; the claim was about adding Oboler papers to the list of reference, revise discussions above, biased means Oblear wants to add his paper--Puttyschool (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Op-eds, punditry, and other opinion pieces should generally be cited as "xxx claims/says yyy", not "yyy" without qualification. --John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So far you have only put what the group is against and missing what the group promotes.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)