Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force

Archives
2008 1 2 3 4 5

Add to lede

Per WP:lede I think we need to expand the lede at least a little bit. I suggest adding a sentence about their most notable accomplishments - their work on Facebook - something like "JIDF gained media attention themselves when they overwhelmed and effectively took control of other groups on Facebook in 2008." It would also be a place to summarize any notable criticism of the group. Banjeboi 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Go for it. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Appletree or the JIDF

Please note that Arutz Sheva, one of the sources, is an article about David Appletree, not the JIDF. It describes actions he took, not those of the JIDF. It is appropriate, then, to attribute those actions to Appletree and not to the JIDF.

Also, please see WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY regarding the preference of secondary sources (Arutz Sheva) over primary sources (the JIDF). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to fix this here since I believe the article should be more about the JIDF itself than Appletree. The original Arutz Sheva article does not even mention the JIDF.--Einsteindonut (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eisendonut, maybe we should see what other editors think before deleting the whole paragraph. Some of us think that Appletree is the JIDF. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then shouldn't there be a separate bio of him? I didn't delete the whole paragraph--just parts as i felt that this was supposed to be about the JIDF and the one Arutz Sheva piece didn't even mention the JIDF. It was just about Appletree. I don't see any RS directly expressing Appletree's involvement, yet the fact that some of you think "Appletree IS the JIDF" for some reason is leaking into this article completely and it's becoming more about him, and less about the organization. So shouldn't it be separate? I was acting too quickly perhaps as I saw the fact that Shabazz made a good point. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a newspaper interview doesn't make you notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. See WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, that's part of the reason I deleted the references to Appletree, since I don't think I've seen any RS actually tying "Appletree" to the JIDF within the article itself. There was just the one link from within the one Arutz Sheva article to another article which does not mention anything about the JIDF and only talks about Appletree. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few quotes from Appletree to add context. Banjeboi 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's blog says "Andre Oboler discussed the matter with JIDF's David Appletree shortly after the take over. "[1]. But Oboler's blog is not a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We have some RS sources to satisfy that he is with the group in some way and has acted as a spokesperson in some regard but these don't define him as the spokesperson or negate that others are involved so I'm unclear what needs to change until another source is presented to provide clarity. Banjeboi 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but Zionism On The Web is a website (both technology wise and by clear references in the press, not to mention in terms of content) and not a blog. It is also not "my website", I mean I am CEO of it, but my person website is somewhere else (and can be found by those wanting to look for it). The notability and RS nature of the site is an open issue it keeps coming up for discussion and so far keeps ending up at the position "well someone could make a page for it I guess" it would be either a weak keep or a weak delete in an AfD I suspect. At any rate I have spoken with David Appletree on the radio so at minimum I can say he definitly exists and definitely speak on behalf of the JIDF :) I have the recording of that and another radio interview I gave (related to Wikipedia not JIDF) I will at some point upload them to "my" "possibly reliable" website ;) Not sure if that would be of any help? Oboler (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing (I think) we the previous two comments -- Appletree is clearly connected with JIDF and has at least some capacity to speak/act on their behalf, per the stronger sources. It's within our editorial orbit to recognize his role because he is the creator of the Facebook sites (now associated w/JIDF), the contact person on the JIDF website, the person cited by Morrison as starting the Facebook campaign = JIDF's campaign, and most directly: Arutz Sheva links its statement that "The JIDF was founded by an American Jew " to the Morrison article on Appletree. If need be, this compelling evidence can be footnoted. We also have supporting evidence from Oboler's blog -- which is not reliable enough for the article, but I don't see why it can't help confirm our editorial judgment of the situation.

• Therefore, I propose that we change the phrase "Appletree, a Jewish activist who has specialized in Facebook groups" to something more apt. For instance: "Appletree, an activist who founded the JIDF" or the like, footnoting th 7-27 Arutz Sheva piece. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unclear that we have strong RS that he founded the group although I would support Appletree, a Jewish activist who has specialized in Facebook groups and has spoken on behalf of JIDF. Banjeboi 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. If possible, could you articulate what you find unclear about the Arutz Sheva link above? Anyway, I don't mind the second half of the clause. But "specialized in Facebook" strikes me as bit puffed up. (Maybe it's from one of the articles?) I mean, it's not like a professional or academic speciality, it's simply one of his activist foci. Thanks, be well, HG | Talk 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questionable citations

Resolved

Two questionable citations in the article:

1) Does the Jerusalem Post use the word "hijack" to refer to the JIDF's actions?

2) Does the Jewish Week refer to "Israel is not a country..." as antisemitic?

Any takers? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the only time Jpost refer to hacking is when pro-Israeli sites got hacked. Otherwise in relation to JIDF it uses "takes control of"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, hacking by definition requires gaining unlawful access. Could you Ashley, substantiate instances of JPost's labeling use of hacking? --Saxophonemn (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

JW only generalities, implies but does not say directly....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I agree with Ashley about JW. It's in the subtext but needs to be explicit before we can claim it says so.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm... the JW mention is worth taking a closer look at, though I think the intention is pretty clear from context. The FB group is mentioned in the opening line of an article titled "Anti-Semitism 2.0...". The first three paragraphs appear to offer examples (including the FB group, among others); the fourth paragraph, apparently referencing the above three, says clearly "This is the new face of anti-Semitism...". – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would try to find a link because there is a link between denying Israel as a country and anti-Semitism. The most vocal proponents against Israel are not known as Jew lovers by any means, aside from a few fringe Jewish guys. Essentially a tell-tale sign of anti-Semitism is against a Jewish State in the Jewish homeland, unless they are against all states. Anti-Semitism does exist, and there are criteria for what makes something such. Any thoughts? -- Saxophonemn (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of reasoning would constitute WP:Original research. I think an explicit statement in the paper would be needed to justify the claim that they have described. the group as antisemitic. And described is the word in our text. For this reason I am about to remove the mention.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Given what I mentioned above, what other plausible interpretation could one possibly make? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Denying the existence of Israel is considered to be antisemitic by the European Union. Search for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)'s reports on it. There are sources on this. Furthermore, my original research proves to me that the majority of people who are against Israel go to great lengths to try to create that separation and to pretend that they are not against Jews. It's funny when people try to overcompensate for their own disdain toward the Jewish people. History proves that the majority of people hate Jews. Since Jews are now in Israel, people hate Israel. It's such a problem that millions upon millions claim that Israel does not exist (yet simultaneously) wish to wipe it out. It's the same "logic" used by Ahmadinejad, denying the Holocaust on one hand, and promising the REAL one onto Israel. It's sad that these facts even require discussion, but hopefully people are actually learning something here. Every country has problems and does things worthy of criticism. No country in the world is as highly criticized as Israel. They talk of human rights of Israel obsessively but fail to look at the abuses in Arab and Muslim countries. The same double standards and singling out is happening online. All these people are hyper critical of Israel and pretend to be "pro-Palestinian" but they rarely look at the abuses of Hamas/Fatah and other Arab/Muslim regimes. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place for your rants, or your "original research". Let's keep the discussion limited to specific changes to the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should cite the EUMC definition of anti-semitism.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Luna Santin is right: The Jewish Week describes three websites and calls them "the new face of anti-Semitism". I'm going to put it back as a source. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this resolved now? Banjeboi 06:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would still prefer an explicit statement rather than an implicit one, but I'm not going to change the text again.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When an editor says it's not their first choice/preference, but they can accept the situation, that's a good sign for consensus building. Thanks, Peter. Sounds resolved. HG | Talk 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth

For my personnal understanding. Why do they focus on google earth ? Can it be "anti-semite" ??? Ceedjee (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see. Ceedjee (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, actually they seem to just follow me around... (that's not entirely true, but the high publicity things tend to be the things I've already commented on). Th Antisemitism 2.0 paper (in the articles references) used both the Facebook group in this article AND Google Earth as more indepth exmaples of Antisemitism 2.0. There is a report I co-authored with staff at Honest Reporting on Wikipedia, and a second much more indepth academic paper in currently in review (probably be months until we hear back on it). As I mentioned on your talk page, I'm happy to be in touch on these things outside of Wikipedia with those that are generally interested in the topic. Oboler (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is another area where outlining why the group would spend anytime on each of Google, Google Earth, Wikipedia, etc. would be helpful. This may just be a sentence or two for each but would help explain this group to those who read the article. Banjeboi 06:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again... (sorry all)

Nagle, the "social media expert" was an attribution in the Jewish Week by the journalist concerned. I started using it in my by line after that. Incidently op-ed by lines ARE written by the author as part of the piece. So the logic you provide is additionally flawed. I personally think the journalists decision to use "social media expert" is the most accurate, more indepedent and most verifiable out of the options we have. Most importantly however, it is the most relevant. On that note I open the floor to others... again. Oboler (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "social media expert" to "postdoctoral fellow in the political science department at Bar-Ilan" which seems a bit pointy and clumsy. Perhaps researcher would be better than expert" Banjeboi 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" sounds good. I agree that "Postdoctoral fellow ..." is silly. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social media researcher" does not sound accurate considering his credentials. There are many "researchers" who are not published and who do not have PhD's. "Sounds good" and "silly" are personal opinions. If we are striving for neutrality, we should go for what is ACCURATE, not how we feel about how things sound.--Einsteindonut (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"social media authority"?, or is "social media expert" the most accurate. Banjeboi 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler's affiliations are all advocacy organizations. He's with NGO Monitor (part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and partially funded by CAMERA). Even Bar-Ilan University is something of an advocacy organization.[2]. The affiliation information should perhaps reflect this. I don't see anywhere that Oboler has been listed as a "social media expert" in any context outside Israel advocacy. --John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he's an expert, we call him an expert. If it calls him something else, we call him something else. We don't make that decision ourselves. IronDuke 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source says he is an expert, then we can say that the source says he is an expert, but shouldn't go beyond that. This is an ongoing headache with pundits and op-ed types. --John Nagle (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler wrote above that the by-lines on op-ed pieces are written by the author. The only news source that mentions him (The Jewish Week) describes him as "a Legacy Heritage Fellow who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org and is a post-doctoral fellow studying online public diplomacy at Bar-Ilan University". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you help me find "social media expert" in the Jewish Week article? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. It is a different Jewish week article, not the one referenced in this article. Here is the quote: "Social media expert Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage fellow at NGO Monitor who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org, acknowledges that CAMERA made novice mistakes in its approach, the most serious of which was trying to get involved in Web 2.0". The source is here [3]. This article incidently is about Wikipedia itself. :) Oboler (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked Nexis. In a letter to the Times (London), you're self-listed as "Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor, Jerusalem." By the way, you have more listings than JIDF, which only has 1 (one). The scarcity of Nexis cites of JIDF does raise q's of its notability. I'm not sure notability should be established via your (Oboler's) op-eds or its (relatively small) presence on Facebook. So maybe JIDF should get it's wish about deleting the article after all. But I see you all have been thru an AfD, so it's premature to re-open this discussion now. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, surely letters to the editor don't count! :p If they do there is one in the Wall Street Journal as well. ;) At any rate both the letter are written in a work capacity and that is my title at work. The other stuff is not done in a work capacity. The Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor is not I think particularly relevant here, though it is as true as saying I am an ambassador to Israel, see Time Higher (also irrelevant!). On John Nagle's comments... this is actually full of conspiracy theories and innaccuracies. I don't think this is the place to correct them all... but I find it concerning the way Jewish and Israeli (or Israeli based or focused) sources are attacked on Wikipedia. This is the third time on this talk page, and in each case there seems to be a questionable motivation. Oboler (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me back up a bit. I don't want to discourage or offend Dr. Oboler, but now that I look again at the sentence in the article, I would like to suggest something. In many cases, WP articles don't cite sources in the encyclopedia text, only in footnotes. The source is cited usually when the source only represents one view. However, I don't see that there's any controversy among the sources about whether the Facebook group is antisemitic. So, if you don't mind my saying so, the article text need not mention Dr. Oboler. Furthermore, the article cites the ADL. As I assume Oboler would agree, the ADL is considered a pretty strong authority on what constitutes antisemitism. It's unnecessary to even footnote the Jewish Week or other sources, because the ADL stands well enough on its own. Hope you don't mind, but I think this may be the best way to handle the article. HG | Talk 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to removing sources and hav modified to "social media researcher". Banjeboi 06:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere, but why are you opposed to removing sources generally? This isn't about removing a sourced statement, but merely an extra source for the same statement. Second question, do you object to moving the sources to a footnote and, if so, why? (If you'd rather not belabor this point, say so pls.) Thanks, HG | Talk 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF posts image for Wikipedia

Here's a situation I found intriguing. The JIDF blog specifically posted an image to put on this Wikipedia article. The heading currently reads "Better Sample of the Groups We Target (For Wikipedia)." This strikes me as problematic. At the very least, it gives the appearance of Wikipedia coordinating with JIDF to promote JIDF, or cooperating with JIDF's self-promotion. (From what I can tell, our image is downloaded from the blog image by Einsteindonut 8-22-08.) I'm sorry if you've already come to consensus about the inclusion of the image in the article, but I did want to mention this interesting nuance. Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way the JIDF is manipulating this article, posting messages for Wikipedia that are then being used as sources. I wish there was some way to put an end to it, but I think a blog is a WP:RS for what it says about the organization that sponsors it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That's interesting. The JIDF is only marginally notable (only two major press citations have been found), and being in Wikipedia increases the visibility of the organization. Wikipedia usually doesn't display web site screen shots. Usually an article gets a logo, if that. Also, we have a third-party cartoon in that image without copyright clearance. Maybe we should drop that image. --John Nagle (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the JIDF doesn't want to be on Wikipedia after all. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At this juncture, Malik, their opinion about whether to be on Wikipedia strikes me as irrelevant. (I'm assuming that WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, right?) However, if the screenshot is unusual for an article of this size, then I'd be interested in hearing the pro's and con's for keeping the image. (Aside from the promotional concern I've floated above.) Tx, HG | Talk 03:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be copyright problems, because (for example) the Hamas logo is subject to copyright. I've brought the question up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and CAMERA Wikipedia pages don't have screenshots. They don't even have pictures other than the logo, and those are organizations with physical offices, known officers, and big real-world events. The page for Facebook has a picture of Facebook HQ (although, amusingly, that picture is actually of the Japanese restaurant that occupies the ground floor) and a screen shot of the home/login page. Miniclip has a screen shot of their huge home page in their info box. LinkedIn just has a logo. Myspace has a logo and a picture of the headquarters building. None of these Wikipedia pages have screenshots of interior web site pages. Wikipedia doesn't usually do that. --John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But John, this image serves a different function. It displays the Facebook groups that were the target of JIDF activities. So it seems directly related to the notable aspect of the group's activity. Is it relevant that the screenshot is taken from the JIDF Facebook page or blog sites? After all, it could as well be an independent screenshot of the targeted group, without JIDF as the source. See what I mean? HG | Talk 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there was already a sample up. I read the blog and they made a point saying that the original sample only showed anti-semitic groups and not the terrorist groups, and I wanted to learn how to add an image, so I replaced it. I don't care if there's a photo up or not, but I do feel if there's going to be one, that it should be the most accurate to show what the JIDF is targeting. i doubt the other organization mentioned here have their "whois" info. in their WP article. I'm all for scaling this article way back (especially in light of the fact that the JIDF doesn't even want to be in here anymore...) However, if the article is to remain, it should be accurate. If people are going to post photos, then they should be accurate, etc. Not to change the subject, but if we are going to talk about what isn't needed, I don't find "whois" info. to be very relevant and I don't think I've ever seen it on any other Wikipedia page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my (internet?) ignorance here, what is the "whois" info that is being disputed? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, you mean the source for the start of the JIDF website? Hmmm. I guess the question is whether both the JIDF and its website are relevant. Is there are reliable coverage (or evidence?) of the JIDF active before 2008? Is the website itself worth mentioning or just the JIDF campaign activities? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Einsteindonut is disputing the whois info; rather, he seems to be saying that the info is not relevant to the article and, therefore, should not be included. Did I understand your position correctly, Einsteindonut? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the organization was a corporation, or had offices, employees, known officers, or meetings, we wouldn't need WHOIS data. But this organization seems to exist only on line, so the usual sources of basic who/what/when/where data about organizations aren't giving us much. --John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How this all started

I just found a reliable press source to how this all started. This 2007 article in the Toronto Star, "Playing Politics on Facebook" makes things much clearer. Facebook has a menu in which users can select their location. One option is "Palestine". Some people didn't like that option being available, and created a "Palestine' Is not a country ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!" group. That's how it started.

Things went downhill from there. From the Star article: "Beyond that, it's a free-fire zone with groups begetting counter-groups begetting meta groups – and yes, this is how kids spell today – "If Palestine is removed from Facebook ... Im closing my account"; "Boo Palestine, Hooray Israel"; "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!"; "ITS NOT `PALESTINE' – IT'S `ISRAEL'"; "Palestine IS a country ... and were gonna kick Isreal's @$$"; "No Such Thing As Palestine!"; "Report the group No Such Thing As Palestine!"; "PALESTINE is a COUNTRY!"; "Against: Palestine is not a country group!"; "Seeing israel and palestine on the same list of countries is a disgrace!!"; "People for the Relocation of Israel"; "Anti Israel"; "ANTI Anti Israel."" The Star's reporter concludes "Facebook was much more fun when it was all about body shots."

That's where the "Israel is not a country" group came from. A flame war over a menu item.

I think we've been had. --John Nagle (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there any evidence that JIDF-associated people started that anti-Palestine groups? I just looked at one, started in July '06, but no indication that it is related to JIDF. Just checking. HG | Talk 10:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not how the JIDF started. I don't understand your remark about "being had." We've already had people trying to go back in time to talk about the creation of the group. The fact of the matter is that it evolved into something many RS regarded a major hate site on the internet and the creation of the group in which the JIDF took over has nothing to do with the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with both of you. The Star article does provide some relevant background to the JIDF campaign. However, it may not explain the group's creation per se. (But "we've been had" seems unnecessary or antagonistic. This simply shows that a flame war on Facebook can garner attention from major media.) Pls propose a sentence, based on the Star, that can be inserted in our article's account. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle, you're jumping into the story half way through. Not your fault, the Toronto Star article also jumps into the story half way through. Without pre-publishing original research here (which is in any case in press and will be available soon enough) the Facebook group in question started around January 2007, in response to another facebook group, which was in responce to action taken by Facebook itself, undoing an action facebook had previously taken. All of this is however slight irelevant to an article on the JIDF. The point about this Facebook group is that at the time the JIDF removed it, it has become a hate site (as referenced in the sources in the article). Full points for trying though. :) HG: Fair comment. This article should be referenced. Oboler (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of peoples know this scenario of creation, but is this article from a WP:RS it looks like WP:OR« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is OR as it is covered (with suitable sources) in the article I'm waiting to be published! :) At any rate the research as included here now is not only wrong but largely OR based on interpretation of the source (which is in any case mistaken, even if it is reliable) Oboler (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's from the Toronto Star, which is a respected newspaper and a neutral source on the subject. I put a somewhat quote-heavy paragraph in the article to cover this background. It's clearly relevant to the JIDF, since the JIDF's notable activities revolve around the "Israel is not a country" Facebook group. --John Nagle (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth IINAC recording it as set up in response to a Palestine INAC with this ref. We've got the accusations that it is antisemitic which are not about JIDF and the half a line if background will give an explanation for its existence other than pure anti-Semitism.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More knowledge

A study deserves time to read! « PuTTY^SchOOL 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. But off-topic, this page isn't a forum for discussing wikipedia generally. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic!!!, Okay I strongly agree so please remove Wikipedia from the article « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are proposing an edit here, please explain your reasoning clearly and unambiguously, thanks. There seems to be an adequate source to mention Wikipedia in the article. HG | Talk 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The study may be useful but ... Banjeboi 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“but what”? This is an academic study and the article mentioned Wikipedia, we have Dr. Oboler a social media researcher, and John Nagle also interested with researches, they can decide, for me is was not a waste of time at all.« PuTTY^SchOOL 07:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

but ... as HG said, do you have something specific to propose be added or changed in this article relevant to this source? Banjeboi 07:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good

The article looks basically OK at the moment. Thanks, everyone. We may be done, until the JIDF does something new that gets press attention. --John Nagle (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Per this diff:

Apoc2400, please explain your deletion of this image. Without a satisfactory explanation, I intend to restore it. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be restored, it shows what is going on n a very straight forward manner.--Saxophonemn (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this was the reason « PuTTY^SchOOL 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty long legalese document. Would you mind pointing out the exact clause? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it's unrelated to Facebook's policies. See next.... HG | Talk 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• FYI. Several concerns raised in section above, JIDF posts image for Wikipedia. Apoc2400 cited copyright ("un-needed image with copyright problems"). Probably, you should continue this discussion at copyright page, thanks. HG | Talk 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what copyright problems? Furthermore, the image is needed, as it illustrates what the JIDF does. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The copyright problem is that the screenshot includes images, such as the Hamas logo, that are subject to copyright. Under Wikipedia policy non-free images can't be used except in certain narrow circumstances (See WP:NFCC for details), which the Hamas logo doesn't meet in this article.

If you think the article's use of the Hamas logo satisfies the requirements of WP:NFCC, please post your comments at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/Malik. Personally, I don't have a strong view to del or not. But if I recall, it shows the targets of JIDF, not sure it really shows their "work" per se. Anyway, clear up the copyright q first, ok? HG | Talk 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion as I don't normally watch this page. I came here from Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:JIDF_FB_Sample_2.jpg. I removed the image because 1) The logos are copyighted as others explained above. 2) This article is about JIDF and the image doesn't show anything about the JIDF. It would be relevant in an article titled "Anitsemitism on the Internet" or something like that, but then we would probably want to get it from a more neutral source. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)