Dan Murphy (talk | contribs) |
173.52.126.77 (talk) →Ticket:2010090210001932: redact your BLP violation |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:In the meantime, I request, Bali ultimate, that you slow down a bit.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
:In the meantime, I request, Bali ultimate, that you slow down a bit.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: Glad you're extending a helping hand to a site-banned hatemonger Jimbo. Pure class.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 12:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
:: Glad you're extending a helping hand to a site-banned hatemonger Jimbo. Pure class.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 12:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Bali, it might be best if you redacted the clear BLP violation. |
|||
:::Further, the personal anger you express against this person in your edit suggests that it would be best if you do no further editing of this article. In my view, feelings of personal anger against the subject of an article amounts to a form of WP:CoI, and that makes it very likely that your editing will become advocacy against the subject. |
Revision as of 13:39, 2 September 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Possible sources
click here to add it to your watchlist
NOTE just nominated the above sub-page at mfd. Misarxist (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Change
I have changed "racial hatred" in the lede to "antisemitism" as that seems more in line with this group's stance and activities. Kindzmarauli (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This reads like an advertisement
Almost a hagiography. Cherchez la Femme (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is almost no mention of their criticism, their open war against islam as a whole, how they were banned from operating on numerous sites, and ample negative reactions it has received to date. --386-DX (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll find much argument from the genuine Wikipedians who hand around here. If you look at the history of the article and talk pages and various excursion to the drama boards and user talk pages, you'll see that every now and then "David Appletree" looks at the article, finds something that implies he might not be the Messiah and then gets his puppets to edit war things back to how he likes. It remains unclear whether all the puppets agreeing with each other are "Appletree" himself or whether they include some acolytes who like to gather at the feet of the master waiting to be told what their next holy mission will be.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate these comments and attacks. --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this sounds like an advertisement. Peter Cohen has had a long history of attacking the JIDF. 386DX is bringing up his own original research, none of which is documented by reliable sources. Removing the template until people without such clear hostility against the organization opine. --174.140.161.31 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're clearly a sockpuppect of banned user:Einsteindonut aka David "Appletree". You are acting against the consensus of legitimate Wikipedia users and have a conflict of interest. Clear off. Or are you going to post to one of your pathetic action lists again and have your minions come and salve your hurt ego by edit warring again?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this sounds like an advertisement. Peter Cohen has had a long history of attacking the JIDF. 386DX is bringing up his own original research, none of which is documented by reliable sources. Removing the template until people without such clear hostility against the organization opine. --174.140.161.31 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're clearly edit warring and breaking AGF, BLP, and original research rules. Enough with your personal anti-Zionist/anti-JIDF agenda, already. For all we know, Cherchez, and 386DX are your puppets. I do not feel that this article reads like an advertisement. Therefore, there is no "consensus." --213.229.87.47 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
They are not my puppets. If you want to raise an SPI against me then go ahead. But then it will emerge that these IP edits to undermine the consensus all are masterminded by David "Appletree" from his basement in Texas.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't live in a basement, nor in Texas. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about where I live, or the conditions therein, or how that helps this project, but I'd appreciate it if you would stop. --DavidAppletree (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- After several years, no one other than "David Appletree" (pseud.) has surfaced as associated with the JIDF. They've mostly dropped out of the news. Does anybody care at this point? --John Nagle (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's plenty beyond me who are associated with the JIDF and there's been some recent news about us, actually. I can help provide it to you, if you would like. Thanks! --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently it still matters people who are trying to litter/vandalize this article with irrelevant templates. I do not feel that this reads like an advertisement. It simply explains what the organization is about and everything in it is from reliable sources. There's even a criticism section. What type of advertisements contain criticism of their product? This is just an attempt by the same anti-JIDF people to damage this article. If you feel it reads like an advertisement, at least specify what it is, exactly, you are talking about. There nothing to back up the false claims that this reads like an advertisement. It's an article about an organization and all the information in the article is taken from reliable sources. Nagle and Cohen's remarks are unhelpful. As it says at the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Jewish Internet Defense Force." Why you two continue to insist on being so negative about this organization does not make much sense to me, especially as it shows you have an agenda with this article. If you don't like the work of the JIDF, that's fine, but Wikipedia should be about objectivity and not trying to put your own personal POV into the project. --Mreditguy (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making accusations of vandalism against other editors. I agree that the page does not read like an advertisement, but adding a cleanup template due to perceived issues is not vandalism. The page might be slightly pro-JIDF (perhaps too many quoted statements) though. Please do not edit war over the template. I suggest using an {{NPOV}} until this is resolved. --Yair rand (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently it still matters people who are trying to litter/vandalize this article with irrelevant templates. I do not feel that this reads like an advertisement. It simply explains what the organization is about and everything in it is from reliable sources. There's even a criticism section. What type of advertisements contain criticism of their product? This is just an attempt by the same anti-JIDF people to damage this article. If you feel it reads like an advertisement, at least specify what it is, exactly, you are talking about. There nothing to back up the false claims that this reads like an advertisement. It's an article about an organization and all the information in the article is taken from reliable sources. Nagle and Cohen's remarks are unhelpful. As it says at the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Jewish Internet Defense Force." Why you two continue to insist on being so negative about this organization does not make much sense to me, especially as it shows you have an agenda with this article. If you don't like the work of the JIDF, that's fine, but Wikipedia should be about objectivity and not trying to put your own personal POV into the project. --Mreditguy (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- As an outsider observer, new to Wikipedia, I agree that this page does not read like an advertisement. --Miamiville (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Multiple issues to resolve
- First, there's this cumbersome statement: "the JIDF and Avi Dichter successfully reduced Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's social media presence as they successfully led a campaign for its removal." Aside from the wording, the reference link is broken. The correct link is: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=206
- The second reference there is a link to the jidf website itself. It is apparently meant to support the claimed size of the hizbollah group, but the jidf is not a reliabe source on this. At any rate, the information is reproduced in the jpost article, so that reference should be removed.
- ""R.I.P. ALA'A ABU DHAIM," founded in honor of the Mercaz Harav terrorist" - No. Just, No.
- Section headings: "Countering Islamic Militants on Facebook", etc: clearly POV and promotional. Need to change.
- Comment Can you explain to me how that is clearly POV and promotional? Seems clear cut to me. --DavidAppletree (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Countering Holocaust denial on Facebook" - referencing in this section is incredibly unwieldy. Needs to be cleaned up. Also, the section consists almost entirely of statements by the jidf. These need to be drastically scaled back, with the vast majority of the section being neutral description supported by reliable secondary sources.
- "Action Against "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" Group on Facebook" This section is entirely POV. If it can't be rewritten, it should be removed. For example, saying that content found in the group was considered antisemitic by organizations that tend to consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic without offering a counterpoint gives the impression that there was a widespread belief that the group was antisemitic. That may or may not be true, but it's unsupported by the current sources.
- Comment Considering this was one of the first things to give us any exposure, I'm not sure it should be removed. I also disagree with you that the other organizations cited "consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic." Actually, many of the organizations listed, including my own, are critical of Israel themselves (and are not antisemitic). --DavidAppletree (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Criticism" section should probably be removed, and criticisms integrated into the relevant sections themselves. Just as it is inappropriate to have a "Praise" section, it is also inappropriate to have a criticism section if that information can be included in a neutral and objective manner. Rather than have the sections be glowing praise of their actions and then a criticism section at the end, it is far preferable to have each of the sections be neutral and balanced. Also, with the exception of Haaretz, almost all of the sources are cut from the same ideological cloth as the jidf. It is important to find more neutral, less biased sources if we are to rescue this article.
That's what I have so far. Feel free to make any additions or comments you feel are necessary. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment I don't agree with the last point, about the 'Criticism' section - how do you propose to 'integrate these criticisms into the relevant sections'? They're not criticisms of individual campaigns by the JIDF (which are what the sections are about), they're criticisms of the overall organisation. It's not inherently POV to have a 'Criticism' section; on articles like this one, it's a good approach. It's neither required nor feasible to introduce artificial 'balance' into each individual section (and I think this article is actually pretty well-balanced at the moment, in any case). As for 'almost all of the sources are cut from the same ideological cloth as the jidf' - would you care to elaborate further? What specific sources would you propose to add? Robofish (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the subject, most of the sources that talk about it will tend to have one ideological bent or another. It's nice to have the bbc there, but we can't count on neutral, disinterested coverage. It rests upon us therefore to find sources from both sides of the issue and try to hack out a fairly neutral article that is neither effusive in its praise nor damning in its criticism. We need to scrub the article of as many "judgement words" (some of which I've made note of above) as possible, and rely mainly on neutral, descriptive ones. Even sentences that are prima facie neutral can, when taken together, paint a non-neutral picture. As for the criticism section, it doesn't work as the article stands, because it comes across as an afterthought. The addition of a criticism section does not negate the pro-jidf slant in the rest of the article. If we can make the rest of the article neutral, then I'd be much happier having a neutral section simply describing how the jidf has been received and described by others. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it is non-neutral, and needs considerable work. It is a quote farm - and, as stated in that link, quotations should not be used when they presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject . As an example, the entire "Elsewhere on the Web" section is a quotation. Chzz ► 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Some suggestions
Multiple sources say that one "David Appletree" is the founder of this group, though as this article says [1] he "will not say if that is his true surname." An edit with this information, pointing out that the identify of the person who runs the website is unclear should be made. I propose an edit in the second section after the lede say "A number of publications focusing on Jewish issues say "David Appletree" founded the group and website, though it's unclear if that is his real name.
"Appletree" also has some rather extreme views (if there are other "members" they may do as well, though it's not clear if there are any other formal members). This release on the organization's website from August 14 [2] makes this clear. Quoting: "As we have mentioned, 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. Before you claim that we are bigots who are against all Musilms, please note, we are talking about the ideology, not those who may or may not representative of it. The ideology itself is clearly one of hatred and violence, which is declaring war against the entire non-Islamic world. If you take the time to study Islam, you will see that it is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was."
I propose the following edit, perhaps in a section titled "Views on Islam," cited to the press release.
- "The website, responding to the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy in New York, said in August 2010 that the organization is "against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol) Mohammed." The group said the "ideology" of Islam is "clearly one of hatred and violence" and argues that the faith "is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was." REF [3].
support as proposer.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Bali, I find the view as disgusting as you as the press release is a primary source, we should rely on Secondary source to say whether it is important. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well the lede current says the following, cited to the JIDF website: The group uses "direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online." The few reliable sources available simply mirror what the group "says" it does. Now, we also have very clear hate speech contradicting their position, from the same source currently being used. The problem here is that we have an online self promoter who hasn't accomplished much except getting written up a few times (the facebook group he targeted is still in business, for instance) and there have been almost no truly independent assessments of what he's up to. It's thin gruel for an encyclopedia article, but good luck getting it deleted. So what then? If the website can't be used to to determine it's own statement of purpose (it very clearly says it exists, in part, to oppose "all mosques") what can it be used for? And if it can't be used, what on earth can be done to fix this article. Reliable sources? Almost all of the "reliable" sources simply confirm what the site asserts, i.e. "The JIDF says it supports x, y and z" vs. "The Jerusalem Post reported that the JIDF asserted x, y and z on its website." A real pickle there. Let me show how absurd this can become. Here's a highly reliable source that reports the website called naming of a Muslim woman "Miss USA" a "dark day for America" (just that, no further commentary). So we could report that, but not more fully their own self-expressed views of matters of clearly more importance (beauty pageants vs. their views on one of the four largest faiths on the globe)? [4]. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm we might need to think about stubifying and rewriting the thing from scratch. I frankly dont see how we can fix it otherwise as adding in More primary sources will not seem to help. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That (starting over), is in fact what needs to happen. I may go ahead and do a draft accomplishing just that in the next week (in my userspace or whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm we might need to think about stubifying and rewriting the thing from scratch. I frankly dont see how we can fix it otherwise as adding in More primary sources will not seem to help. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well the lede current says the following, cited to the JIDF website: The group uses "direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online." The few reliable sources available simply mirror what the group "says" it does. Now, we also have very clear hate speech contradicting their position, from the same source currently being used. The problem here is that we have an online self promoter who hasn't accomplished much except getting written up a few times (the facebook group he targeted is still in business, for instance) and there have been almost no truly independent assessments of what he's up to. It's thin gruel for an encyclopedia article, but good luck getting it deleted. So what then? If the website can't be used to to determine it's own statement of purpose (it very clearly says it exists, in part, to oppose "all mosques") what can it be used for? And if it can't be used, what on earth can be done to fix this article. Reliable sources? Almost all of the "reliable" sources simply confirm what the site asserts, i.e. "The JIDF says it supports x, y and z" vs. "The Jerusalem Post reported that the JIDF asserted x, y and z on its website." A real pickle there. Let me show how absurd this can become. Here's a highly reliable source that reports the website called naming of a Muslim woman "Miss USA" a "dark day for America" (just that, no further commentary). So we could report that, but not more fully their own self-expressed views of matters of clearly more importance (beauty pageants vs. their views on one of the four largest faiths on the globe)? [4]. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many s\reliable sources available! Here is an article about Appletree [5] [6] and that sign on the photo is a Kahane symbol according to the ADL [7], so the article should include information about this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.111.155.242 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, those aren't much good for anything except that a pseudonymous person named "David Appletree" was dumb enough to go to a press complaints commission because he claimed that his pseudonym was misidentified as being from Texas. The Kahanist stuff involving a screen cap? OR.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it was a smart move, for many reasons you might not be privy to, nor understand. I do not appreciate this attack. --DavidAppletree (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate
The personal attacks and assumptions made about me on this talk page. I'm the founder of the JIDF. If you have questions about me, or my work, I'm happy to answer them. I'm not sure if reducing the article about my organization to a stub is the best solution. --DavidAppletree (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please confirm what other accounts you have registered and whether any of those accounts are blocked or banned. For privacy reasons you can email me. Spartaz Humbug! 08:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sock comment
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user DavidAppletree (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)>
|
Content
Regarding the recent editing: Some aspects of the article are improved (the lead for example) but other areas need distinct improvement. The reliance on JIDF primary sourcing is problematic in my mind - it's fine for small amounts, but pretty much their entire stance is sourced from the site. Which is not appropriate (for any number of reasons). --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- They're basically ignored now except for occasionally in outlets that focus on Jewish and/or Israeli issues. Furthermore, the few larger publications that have taken notice have simply reflected what's on their website, or what a pseudonymous person tells them -- i.e. "David says they do x" or "The website says they do Y." There's not a lot of there there for an article. And if you have an assertion from a pseudonymous spokesperson from a group saying "we simply want to stop the use of antisemtic speech on the internet and are opposed to denigrating races and religions" and the website is filled with, well, denigratoins of races and religions, I think a pithy, accurte summary of the views expresse is reasonable. While we shouldn't tell people what the group is all about, if there are statements on their website saying what they're all about, i think it's reasnable to summarize that sparingly. The edits i've done so far have reduced the reliance on primary sourcing substantially.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes generally it is ok to quote generally what they are about. On balance I suppose it is not bad; but there is a lot of parts that say "the group says" which is sourced the JIDF website. That's raises issues of primary sourcing (in terms of the due weighting of the issues). For example the stuff bout being against all Mosques; is that due or notable? Who says? Just worth thinking about IMO --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is it undue weight to mention that an attention seeking group (well, i don't really believe there's an "organization" here, no evidence either way, but ymmv) believes that all mosques are monuments to antisemitism and that the "ideology" of Islam is fundamentally one of violence, within a wikipedia article that it is seeking to control to bolster its own standing (a standing that exists to take up what it perceives to be the Israeli/Jewish "side" in what it sees as an intractable conflict)? I don't think so. I guess we'll see what others have to say about it. This can get very tricky, very quickly. Are all the explicitly pro-zionist publicatoins used RS? Are the ones that are not so explicitly, but would be argued by many to have a very strong point of view in these matters (i.e. the JP)? If you're going to have articles like this, reasonable editorial discretion needs to be used as to what bits are major (1.5 billion people on earth believe in a fundamentally nasty religion) and what are minor (there's lots of slagging off of various political figures, for instance -- that is generally worth ignoring i would argue). I guess we'll see what other editors in good standing have to sayBali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know... what do the sources say? It's approaching something of a fine line in editorial content. I mean - is such a view notable? We don't have a source discussing it, and that is an issue. Leaving aside that the group is reprehensible. In terms of the other sourcing; so long as they are third party they seem to be solid RS's. I am still unconvinced that excessive reporting of their views without solid sourcing is within policy. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we use much of anything from their site, we'd be opening the door to any other less than reliable source on the basis of Parity. Better a well sourced stub. Would it make sense to keep restrict use of the JIDF material as sources to topics mentioned in reliable secondary sources? For example, if a reliable source mentions their view that "mosques are monuments to antisemitism" or that they oppose all mosques, then we can expand on that using their material, but otherwise not, since if it's not covered in a reliable source, that aspect is not notable.
- I'd suggest staying very close to cited sources in major publications. This tends to help on controversial articles. Also, when things quiet down, will someone please fix the incorrectly formatted references that were inserted recently? Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we use much of anything from their site, we'd be opening the door to any other less than reliable source on the basis of Parity. Better a well sourced stub. Would it make sense to keep restrict use of the JIDF material as sources to topics mentioned in reliable secondary sources? For example, if a reliable source mentions their view that "mosques are monuments to antisemitism" or that they oppose all mosques, then we can expand on that using their material, but otherwise not, since if it's not covered in a reliable source, that aspect is not notable.
- I don't know... what do the sources say? It's approaching something of a fine line in editorial content. I mean - is such a view notable? We don't have a source discussing it, and that is an issue. Leaving aside that the group is reprehensible. In terms of the other sourcing; so long as they are third party they seem to be solid RS's. I am still unconvinced that excessive reporting of their views without solid sourcing is within policy. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is it undue weight to mention that an attention seeking group (well, i don't really believe there's an "organization" here, no evidence either way, but ymmv) believes that all mosques are monuments to antisemitism and that the "ideology" of Islam is fundamentally one of violence, within a wikipedia article that it is seeking to control to bolster its own standing (a standing that exists to take up what it perceives to be the Israeli/Jewish "side" in what it sees as an intractable conflict)? I don't think so. I guess we'll see what others have to say about it. This can get very tricky, very quickly. Are all the explicitly pro-zionist publicatoins used RS? Are the ones that are not so explicitly, but would be argued by many to have a very strong point of view in these matters (i.e. the JP)? If you're going to have articles like this, reasonable editorial discretion needs to be used as to what bits are major (1.5 billion people on earth believe in a fundamentally nasty religion) and what are minor (there's lots of slagging off of various political figures, for instance -- that is generally worth ignoring i would argue). I guess we'll see what other editors in good standing have to sayBali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes generally it is ok to quote generally what they are about. On balance I suppose it is not bad; but there is a lot of parts that say "the group says" which is sourced the JIDF website. That's raises issues of primary sourcing (in terms of the due weighting of the issues). For example the stuff bout being against all Mosques; is that due or notable? Who says? Just worth thinking about IMO --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- They're basically ignored now except for occasionally in outlets that focus on Jewish and/or Israeli issues. Furthermore, the few larger publications that have taken notice have simply reflected what's on their website, or what a pseudonymous person tells them -- i.e. "David says they do x" or "The website says they do Y." There's not a lot of there there for an article. And if you have an assertion from a pseudonymous spokesperson from a group saying "we simply want to stop the use of antisemtic speech on the internet and are opposed to denigrating races and religions" and the website is filled with, well, denigratoins of races and religions, I think a pithy, accurte summary of the views expresse is reasonable. While we shouldn't tell people what the group is all about, if there are statements on their website saying what they're all about, i think it's reasnable to summarize that sparingly. The edits i've done so far have reduced the reliance on primary sourcing substantially.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's semi, so you can edit at will (and clearly fixing citation style is not going to be opposed by anybody). But what is a "major publication?" Does the Israel National News count? Don't know much about them but this is the first sentence of one of the articles from that source used in this article: "A Jewish activist has rallied thousands of virtual troops to go after the Jew-haters and terrorist-sympathizers of Facebook – with great success." Somehow, this doesn't seem to be a publication that's even making a play at impartiality. Is this source more "reliable" than, say, letting the website of the subject of the article speak for itself?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
We have received, by e-mail, a complaint that the following passages are not reliably sourced:
- "The group says it uses "direct action" against the websites it opposes and also seeks to use publicity to put pressure on website owners to voluntarily shut down sites whose content it dislikes" (the reference given, a message by the group itself, does not seem to say that).
- "As of August 2010, both groups, "Palestine is not a Country" and "Israel is not a Country", remained on Facebook." (unsourced)
I have flagged them with {{failed verification}} and {{Citation needed}}. Sandstein 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have received, by email from a reputable source who is not the subject of the article [8], information that the two groups on Facebook today are not the same groups which were deleted in the past. I am seeking confirmation and clarification in reliable sources.
- If I am unable to confirm, I will revert myself - or, to be more precise, I will likely remove this part completely, since the existence or non-existence of the groups is likely to be unwarranted original research.
- For interest, if we were to undertake original research here, what we'd want is a reliable source including the group id number from Facebook, to compare with the current ones. I intend to do precisely that if I get the chance, not because I think such research is valid for direct inclusion Wikipedia, but because I think that the truth of the matter is relevant in informing our decision of how to frame this bit.
- In the meantime, I request, Bali ultimate, that you slow down a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you're extending a helping hand to a site-banned hatemonger Jimbo. Pure class.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bali, it might be best if you redacted the clear BLP violation.
- Further, the personal anger you express against this person in your edit suggests that it would be best if you do no further editing of this article. In my view, feelings of personal anger against the subject of an article amounts to a form of WP:CoI, and that makes it very likely that your editing will become advocacy against the subject.