Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Of interest
Resolved[1] CJCurrie (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- That is unfortunate. Pending further discussion, I've removed 2 links to the JIDF site. IMO, they don't provide citations for info that cannot be readily verified w/o the cite or link. Perhaps not sufficient response, but go to link above for further discussion. HG | Talk 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm reverting. We don't delete references from article because of incidents and drawing attention to it would seem to feed into the abuse. Inflamatory language is also unlikely to help. Per Revert, Block, Ignore I think we should not reward JIDF, or anyone, for using such tactics. Abusing editors and otherwise gaming the system is not going to help the project and should not be rewarded. Banjeboi 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did not remove any sources for info not already covered by adequate sources. Whatever. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I may have seen something else than, what I reverted was a removing of a source, with no replacement and removing of the groups link from the EL section with no likely replacement possible. I understand the concern but I see that as just a different degree of removing the whole article because the JIDF doesn't approve of it in some way. Let's not reward bad behaviour and do what we can to discourage it in the first place. Banjeboi 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did not remove any sources for info not already covered by adequate sources. Whatever. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm reverting. We don't delete references from article because of incidents and drawing attention to it would seem to feed into the abuse. Inflamatory language is also unlikely to help. Per Revert, Block, Ignore I think we should not reward JIDF, or anyone, for using such tactics. Abusing editors and otherwise gaming the system is not going to help the project and should not be rewarded. Banjeboi 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Lost reference
ResolvedIn an edit [2] described as "fixed quote-stacking", CJCurrie dropped one of the references. Given this reference was included after much discussion on talk [3][4], I've reinserted it with these edits [5]. The reason to include it is that this is the original and RS describing myself as a social media expert. When it was not included there were attempts to attack my credibility... these seem part of the same attacks designed to remove information about the antisemitic nature of the Facebook group, and more recently to include information other information with undue weight designed to shift attention from the antisemitic nature of the Facebook group to more legitimate political debates (which is when the group first came to light - relevant to the group but not to the JIDF or the nature of the group at the tiem of the JIDF action as discussed above).
Short version... keeping this reference in will avoid problems later. Oboler (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- As long as the reference to Dr. Oboler stays in the article as a "social media" researcher (or the like), I agree that the footnote is germane. I've tried to consolidate the footnotes on him, pls check my edit. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with it, though I think the report is by itself more relevant to this article than me. If there is a Wikipedia page on me at some point I would hope the Google Earth article would become a reference on that page, but the report would remain as a reference on this page. At any rate, I think this is closed unless others have further thoughts. Oboler (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't like combining refs as such. The only time I think that makes a lot of sense is when ther eare so many good refs all stating the same thing "Sky is blue", for instance, in the New York Times, Guardian and Sydney Herald amongst others. IN that case we could combine and list ____ sources all support the sky is blue. We're not quite at that point. Good work on trying to address the concerns raised though. Banjeboi 15:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Benjiboi. But please at least combine the "Latest front" article w/another on Oboler, because it only supports the social media title. It does't work as a separate ref (except for those who've been thru this talk page!). See? HG | Talk 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean the two by Tamar Snyder ? Banjeboi 16:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is why it's a bit confusing (to me, too). The 2-20-08 by Snyder can stand on its own, Jewish week citation. The "Latest Front" 5-14 by Tamar Snyder has nothing to do with JIDF, only helps us place Oboler. So it should go with one of the Oboler citations. See? HG | Talk 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I completely disagree on that and this is a good example of why. That article is an excellent source to put into context the issues of why Wikipedia is an online site of interest to groups involved in Palestine-Israeli issues. In fact I'll start a section just on possible sources. Banjeboi 02:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is why it's a bit confusing (to me, too). The 2-20-08 by Snyder can stand on its own, Jewish week citation. The "Latest Front" 5-14 by Tamar Snyder has nothing to do with JIDF, only helps us place Oboler. So it should go with one of the Oboler citations. See? HG | Talk 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean the two by Tamar Snyder ? Banjeboi 16:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Benjiboi. But please at least combine the "Latest front" article w/another on Oboler, because it only supports the social media title. It does't work as a separate ref (except for those who've been thru this talk page!). See? HG | Talk 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't like combining refs as such. The only time I think that makes a lot of sense is when ther eare so many good refs all stating the same thing "Sky is blue", for instance, in the New York Times, Guardian and Sydney Herald amongst others. IN that case we could combine and list ____ sources all support the sky is blue. We're not quite at that point. Good work on trying to address the concerns raised though. Banjeboi 15:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with it, though I think the report is by itself more relevant to this article than me. If there is a Wikipedia page on me at some point I would hope the Google Earth article would become a reference on that page, but the report would remain as a reference on this page. At any rate, I think this is closed unless others have further thoughts. Oboler (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)