Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 14

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 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

A month to clean up page

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

The article page has been semi-protected for a month. I suggest that this is an opportunity for registered users in good-standing to try to clean up the page without POV-pushing anons, either pro-JiDF or anti, being able to interfere with agreed changes. I suggest thta people announce here what they plan to change so tha comments can be made before actual changes take place.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're one of the most anti-JIDF editors out there. JIDF is done a lot of counter-terrorist work and that category belongs. Not sure what your point is by referring back to WP rules on the word "terrorist" but there is a "counter terrorist" category, and the JIDF belongs in it.--216.155.158.166 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how he editors who have kept a long term eye on this article and are aware of your organisation's attempt to turn this article into a propaganda piee, extensive use of meat- and sock-puppetry, personal attacks on respected Wikipedians on your website, are all portrayed by you as anti-JIDF. Could it have something to do with the wonderful conduct of Einsteindonut and friends?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

not sure what you're talking about, but aren't editors supposed to assume good faith? have you or have you not said you are a "anti-zionist?" of course any "anti-zionist" is going to have extreme bias against this organization. you're trying to control the article, so that you can insert your "anti-zionist" bias and apparently attack people yourself. --188.72.227.102 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter cohen asked me to look in here as I mentioned (ages ago) that I had additional information that was in press about the JIDF. That information can be seen at the internet journal First Monday [1] and there is also newer information (from 2 months back) at [2]. While the pieces are academic and peer reviewed, I'd still rather someone else when through and worked relevant information into the article (when it is open for editing again that is). As for recent news coverage of JIDF, there was some but beyond the fact that it was in the Israeli media I don't recall the details. It wasn't relevant to anything I was working on at the time so I dismissed it. Oboler (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes 1 (lead)

<bockquote> The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel advocacy organization which shares news and information to members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web.[2] ~~It also seeks out, exposes, and reports online material which is against the Terms of Service of internet companies.~~ The JIDF focuses upon material that it promotes or praises what it regards as Islamic terrorism and ~~racial hatred~~ +insert+antisemitism+ , and "believes in direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online, and to create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service.[3] The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook,[4] [5] Myspace,[6] YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.[7]

The rationale for these changes is:

There no evidence provided that the JIDF is a generic anti-racist organisaion in the manner tha the ADL is. It appears to focus on anti-Semitism.
Terms of Service are not so important that they need mentioning twice in the paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale for your proposed changes, above, for the following reasons:

Anti-semitism is anti-racism. They have been regarded as fighting racism in reliable sources
The fact that they fight material which is against TOS is extremely important, especially as many people (like yourself) have accused the organization of just targeting any material they do not like. They clearly target material they feel is against company's TOS.--95.154.230.35 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Haaretz source quoted in the Facebook section actually mentions anti-Semitism rather than racism. Rather than asserting that sources exist that support your claim, you need actually to give details of them.

The title of this piece is "Jewish anti-racist activists fight uphill battle with Facebook" (in reference to the JIDF) and specifically mentions Facebook's TOS at the time:

These groups are not allowed under Facebook's own Terms of Use, which state that a user cannot "upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."

please note the word "racially....objectionable." Hence, they "anti-racist activist" targeting racially objectionable material. Furthermore, Wikipedia's own definition of "antisemitism" asserts that it, in and of itself, is a form of racism. So there is no reason to separate them. Fighting antisemitism, is still fighting racism, even if it's focused on antisemitism in particular.

--67.231.254.32 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TOS is still mentioned in the lead paragraph: :will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's important to have it twice as the first reference is in regard to the material the JIDF targets, and the second reference explains how the JIDF hopes that the companies will enforce their own TOS, on their own. While "TOS" is mentioned twice, it's in two different contexts: 1) the type of material the JIDF reports 2) one of the goals of the JIDF is to get the companies to enforce the TOS on their own --67.231.254.32 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what is there is almost fine... except for the fact that it is not English. "The JIDF focuses upon material that it promotes or praises what it regards", surely the word "it" should be removed? Similarly "shares news and information to members and supporters" should be "with members". As to the two points, antisemitism clearly is racism, one can correctly use the more general term anti-racism. In the case of the ADL one would need to say "combating racism and discrimination against different communities" to make the point being suggested. As to the other section, it DOES say something very different to the second reference to terms of service. Oboler (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the changes proposed by Peter with two recommendations from Oboler: the removal of the word "it" and the substitution of "with members" for "to members". I think the JIDF is best described as group that opposes antisemitism, rather than an anti-racist organization; the latter phrase is more general and less descriptive of the JIDF's activities. Finally, I am unconvinced that there is any reason to mention terms of service twice in one paragraph. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes 2 (Organization)

According to the JIDF, the organization "formed as a grassroots effort in 2000, mainly to mount mass e-mail campaigns, in response to the outbreak of the Second Intifada, which began in September of that year. It then began operating on various Web sites, including Facebook, to spread news about Israel and Jewish issues."[6] +Insert+In 2008, the+ ~~The~~ JIDF ~~also~~ "created a Facebook group entitled "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?", in response to groups on Facebook "praising the murderer of the eight yeshiva boys" in the Mercaz HaRav massacre.[4].

Just a bit of clarification. I know that the creation date has been questioned, but it needs a reliabel source to trump the current one.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, this line doesn't even need to be there. While it was an important fact when the organization first started getting some publicity, they created many Facebook groups. However, the JIDF does credit the Facebook groups which went up to praise the Mercaz HaRav massacre as a catalyst to their orgs official formation. --95.154.230.35 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving onto the next section, I see that the massacre gets another mention. I agree that it becomes repetitive. So, version 2 of my proposal

According to the JIDF, the organization "formed as a grassroots effort in 2000, mainly to mount mass e-mail campaigns, in response to the outbreak of the Second Intifada, which began in September of that year. It then began operating on various Web sites, including Facebook, to spread news about Israel and Jewish issues."[6] The JIDF also "created a Facebook group entitled "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?", in response to groups on Facebook "praising the murderer of the eight yeshiva boys" in the Mercaz HaRav massacre.[4].

The new rationale is that the material is repeated directly below.--Peter cohen (talk)

The key information is that the JIDF went "official" as an organisation (rather than just a mailing list, loose collection of activists, etc) after the Mercaz HaRav massacre. This information needs to be in the article and reference 4 is a good reference for this. I would phrase it as:

"In 2008, as a response to the Mercaz HaRav massacre, the JIDF's organisational identity solidified.[4] The group established a Facebook group entitled "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?" and listed 80 groups with 250,000 supporters supporters of terrorism.[4] This was a direct response to groups on Facebook "praising the murderer of the eight yeshiva boys".[4]

What do you all think? Oboler (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal, Oboler, is that the source doesn't say that "the JIDF's organisational identity solidified" in 2008. It says the JIDF was founded on March 16, 2008.

Regarding Peter's proposal, I think the establishment of the JIDF belongs in the 2nd paragraph, not the third. I therefore think his first proposal is better than the second. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes 3 info box

proposal: make the website all lowercase: http://www.thejidf.org - just looks better/more professional/wikipedia standard than TheJIDF.org--95.154.230.35 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with that.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I checked a few others, this does seem to be the norm. Oboler (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes 4 (Facebook)

According to a November 2008 article in Haaretz,[8] +insert+which characterises the JIDF as a group of "hacktivists", it+ "the JIDF began making lists of Facebook groups posting material such as praise for attacks on Israeli civilians and content the JIDF viewed as ~~promoting hatred and terrorism.~~ +inser+anti-Semitic."+ JIDF then forwarded the lists to Facebook administrators. In some cases, the JIDF complaints prodded Facebook to take action. For the most part, however, Facebook's response was less clear-cut, according to David, a leading JIDF member who asked that his last name to be withheld, citing repeated death threats he and other group members have received by email since their actions became public. He says Facebook either did nothing or took months to police or remove groups the JIDF reported, allowing the material to circulate online in the meantime. When efforts to lobby Facebook to remove the groups failed, the JIDF escalated, moving to intercept Facebook groups and make them impossible to access. The turning point, David said, came with the founding of a range of Facebook groups praising the man who killed eight students in a shooting attack at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in March 2008. +insert +The report describes how the JIDF were frustrated by Facebook's drawn-out process which left material untouched for months even in the cases where they did eventually takeaction. JIDF's spokesperson highlights the significance of groups that praised the man who shot eight students at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in 2008. Haretz describes how the JIDF then changed tactics by "moving to intercept Facebook groups and make them impossible to access."+

rationale:

I's a qutoe and therefore should quote what is acually written in the source, not what some people wish was there.
It's not so important a wording that we should quote two and a half paragraphs. In any case it is misquoting to remove the pargraph splits.
There wasa lack of indication of the end of the quote which invited further deviation away from the original.
Given how JIDF activists have challenged the use of "hacking" on this talk page, then we should use the terms used by the source.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is entirely biased and one sided and removing very important information and you're really trying to label this organization as "hackers."

First of all, in that same article it says, "the JIDF, which has recently been the subject of an Internet campaign accusing it of being a Mossad proxy, is careful to specify that it does not "hack" accounts, nor break binary codes or steal passwords. Though David declined to reveal what methods the group uses, he said that it does not practice any illegal activity, and prefers the terms "seize control," "take over" or "infiltrate" to "hack." Thus for you to throw a "hacktivist" label on the group despite the full explanation in the article (and w/out putting that full explanation in Wikipedia) is would be highly irresponsible and biased, especially considering the negative and possibly illegal connotations of such a term. Best to stay 100% neutral and stay away from it (especially if you're not going to represent the JIDF's POV on it.) Personally, I think it's a moot point, especially since only one event connected to the JIDF was irresponsibly regarded as "hacking" by the media.

I believe it does not serve this article well to remove pertinent information about:

JIDF forwarding lists to Facebook administrators, leading Facebook to take action.
Facebook's response or lack thereof
JIDF security concerns
The turning point, about the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva Massacre

All of that is important. Not sure why you seem determined to remove important information and label this organization as hackers.--67.231.254.32 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is a biggie but one that has been argued (and settled) before. The hacking accusation is a minor point and one that other sources then corrected, see reference 6 for example [3]. A long discussion on this point may or may not be worth the space - I'd leave that for further discussion. If it is considered important then it would need to say something like:

A journalist at Haaretz labelled the JIDF as "hacktivists" after they took over the facebook group "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country".[8] Clarifications by the JIDF to the Jerusalem Post relieved that the group had been taken over after the administrators abandoned it, and expert analysis revealed that Facebook's security had not been compromised.[6]

I'd strongly recommend looking at [4] as a source on this incident. As for the rest of the text struck out, it could do with some reworking, in particular the inclusion of more references. That said, the references do exist in various press articles. Oboler (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire "Facebook" section (including its subsections) needs to be summarized and shortened. I'll take a stab at a proposal later. In the meantime, here are my thoughts on what's been discussed:

I don't think the word "hacktivists" needs to be in the article
I think the Marcaz HaRav incident belongs in the preceding section
I don't see any reason to mention "David"'s his fear of mentioning his "last name"
I think it is relevant to say that "David" tried to use official channels before resorting to activism, and I think Peter's language—maybe with a few tweaks—does a good job of summarizing it

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming a mess

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not support the misplaced protection put on the article (due to a minor category dispute), nor do I support the bulk Peter Cohen's proposals. From my understanding, he and the JIDF have had some issues between them. Therefore, I'm not sure he's the most unbiased person with regard to this particular article. --67.231.254.32 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you register for a Wikipedia account, and edit for a while, you can edit semi-protected articles. It's free. --John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post article

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The JIDF's only recent press coverage, according to Google News, is in the Huffington Post. See "Fighting Hate...With Hate?". "But what was once a collective seems to have turned into a one-man show rife with hate speech and Islamophobia." --John Nagle (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not an article written by the actual Huffington Post. They let almost anyone blog on their site. That's an editorial by a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel activist with a long-standing beef with the JIDF. From my understanding, the JIDF is currently dealing with top people at the Huffington Post addressing the false, defamatory, and distorted information they published about the organization on their site. If anything from that article is included, then we should also include this. From my understanding, Cohen, Shabazz, and Nagle have each been listed on the JIDF site and have had problems with this organizaiton in the past. I don't think it's right to try to paint this organization in the worst possible light because of personal issues some editors seems to have with the subject matter. Also, if she was claiming that it was "a one man show" then it's really about David Appletree, and not the organization as a whole, so if you're going to try to include the defamatory information found in that piece by a Hamas supporter, I'd imagine that BLP rules apply --64.120.158.27 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please lay off the "from my understanding" crap, "David", "Einsteindonut" or whatever you want to call yourself today. You chose to launch attacks on us - (remember saying that I was probably not a Jew or, if I was one you thought I was definitely a self-hating Jew?) only after we started correcting your self-promotion here. You're free to correct errors of fact but you and the multiple IPs you use have a conflict of interest and therefore do not have a right to veto appropriately sourced content. I know it's confusing operating so many different IPs, but the time when you used the same one to agree with itself really shows what you are up to. Why not go and tackle some real anti-Semitism instead of just massaging you image. I've even had time earlier today to report to ANI someone trying to claim that the suggestion that David Irving is a Holocaust Denier is all a big conspiracy by ~~Jews~~, sorry, "Religious zealots". Some self0hatred, that.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys... look at what you all just wrote. Time for a wikibreak maybe? This seems to be getting a little personal and not really in the interest of Wikipedia. That said, the JIDF presented at WUJS Congress last week, so it is clearly still active and working with student activists. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any coverage of it, I just happened to be in the room at the time. Oboler (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Oboler. I agree, personal attacks and efforts to paint this organization and people behind it in the worst possible light is certainly not in the interest of Wikipedia. From my understanding, the WUJS represents 1.5 million Jewish students, worldwide. While unfortunately there wasn't any coverage of it (that I could find), the JIDF had a post about the event here (which shows the list of other notable speakers) and David posted a PDF of the presentation, which can be downloaded, here. Perhaps the PDF can be useful for some Wikipedia editors who have an actual interest in what the JIDF does and would like to try to include that in the article. --188.72.227.119 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Did it get any press coverage? We have enough from the JIDF site; we need third party sources. --John Nagle (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list of speakers, from the WUJS site, itself. --64.120.158.62 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It does not appear that any of the following sources are in the Wikipedia article about the JIDF:

...and many others. Their "press" page could serve as a good resource. --72.181.156.144 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those, here's another source, not mentioned in the WP article:

Social media users successfully face down Nasrallah on Facebook --67.231.254.11 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these. It seems the "counter terrorist" category would be appropriate. --213.229.87.52 (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it should be NPOV, Claims of Countering Terrorist would be more appropriate. See WP:NOT#OR WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION. The current title is an opinion. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the title and added NPOV Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I found the article heavily biased please visit WP:NOT#OR WP:NOT#JOURNALISM.

Proposed changes:

Paragraph 1.

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a pro-Israel advocacy organization which shares news and information with members and supporters through email, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other popular areas of the web.[2] +insert+As per JIDF+It also seeks out, exposes, and reports online material which is against the Terms of Service of internet companies. The JIDF +insert+claims to +focus on materials that promote or praise what it regards as +Islamic terrorism and ~~racial hatred~~+insert+antisemitism. They believe "in direct action to eradicate the promotion of hatred and violence online, and to create the publicity that will cause internet companies to take the needed action themselves" by enforcing their own Terms of Service.[3] The group focuses its attention on websites like Facebook,[4][5] Myspace,[6] YouTube, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 : Facebook

+inserted+(Beginning in 2000 as a small circle of Jewish Internet users exchanging emails on how to counter what they termed the "propaganda machine" of anti-Israel organizations,) from the Haaretz article Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe these things should be discussed by people who have been working on the article before massive POV edits are made. --74.115.209.60 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which correction do you disagree with? I listed above the edits I am making if you feel any words or sentence is unbiased kindly list them, not undo the changes.Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you try to be clearer about what you consider to be the problem? I'm not sure what you're unhappy about. From a neutrality standpoint, referring to the JIDF as an "organization" is misleading. It has no officers, members, corporate existence, offices, or real-world activities. After several years, nobody other than "David Appletree" has been identified as being associated with the organization. Press reports typically say something like "The JIDF (www.thejidf.org) describes itself as a 'collective of activists'(Haaretz), "The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) describes itself as a group of Jewish activists" (Jerusalem Post), or "a group using the logo of the Jewish Internet Defence Force (JIDF)" (BBC). Do we even have a reliable source which actually says the JIDF is an "organization"? --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes do look to be similar to what I proposed above. I therefore support them. I think in dealing with objections, we should bear in mind that the IP is pretty obviously banned User:Einsteindonut or a meat puppet of him/his alter-ego "David Appletree". We should not allow a banned user with a conflict of interest to maintain the article page at a version that suits his propagandfa purposes.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Peter I don't know about Einsteindonut or anyone else since I recently joined wikipedia...but after reading the article the things I pointed out above are heavily biased and dont follow WP:NPOV.

For starter can we add a tag of neutrality disputed to the article?

I did it yesterday but User:74.115.209.60 undid my changes giving reason it has to be discussed before even though I mentioned on this talk page all the changes I am making and reasons for it. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

- I've reinstated your edit as it was reversed by a blocked editor.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cohen and Nagle both have a well-documented personal vendetta against the organization in question. King Crimson's edits were grammatically incorrect and did not make sense. Peter Cohen should AGF. The JIDF has many sympathizers throughout the world who are free, like anyone, to edit Wikipedia. Massive edits like the one's Crimson tried to implement should be worked out on the talk page. Just because two people who have issues with this organization and another who is trying to claim Ahmadinejad doesn't wish to destroy Israel don't like the current version, it does not mean that proper consensus was formed or that discussion about the proposed edits occurred. --212.78.230.245 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, repeating a lie about other editors doesn't make it the truth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted. Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way. All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest campaign

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Here's the diff of what the latest campaign is trying to do, and it's silly. I have no problem with "on-line" in reference to the organization. But how many "claims" are you going to throw in there when it's clear what the organization has done by looking at the RS and on their website itself?

And this is not in any RS, and actually represents original research:

"Beginning in 2000 as a small circle of Jewish Internet users exchanging emails on how to counter what they termed the "propaganda machine" of anti-Israel organizations"

Nowhere on their website or in RS does it say that they "counter militant islamic groups on facebook." Also, whoever is trying to insert their bias into this article directly copied and pasted from the JPost, which caused other errors.

You're making sloppy mistakes in an effort to damage the article about the JIDF, because you don't like the JIDF.

--212.78.230.245 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I worked hard on this article after reading the bulk of what was happening on the talk page. People seemed to support a lot of my edits. It seems that Peter Cohen and John Nagle and others are doing everything in their power to insert their negative view of this organization into the article.--Mreditguy (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, repeating a lie about other editors doesn't make it the truth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW both the above ids are part of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut. The sock fasrm have already invited themselves along.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted. Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way. All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

moved to Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/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

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

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)

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)

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)

No. You also made it obvious you are a sock puppet. Hinata talk 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues to resolve

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Multiple sources say that one "David Appletree" is the founder of this group, though as this article says [5] 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 [6] 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 [7].

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)? [8]. 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)

There are many s\reliable sources available! Here is an article about Appletree [9] [10] and that sign on the photo is a Kahane symbol according to the ADL [11], 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

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

WP:DENY

ConcernedAboutContent, you wrote "our organization" and then changed it to "the organization", could you clarify your relationship to the JDIF? If you have a conflict of interest, it would be a sign of good faith to disclose it. I'm not currently involved in this article and can take a look later if you like. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: ConcernedAboutContent has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Einsteindonut/David Appletree. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Content

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)

For better or worse, I believe the answer is "yes", the difference being that one assumes that a news outlet has editorial oversight, and the web site does not. The question of bias in news sources is always present, see the talk page for Fox News for example. That being said, I would argue that we would want to place greater weight on sources that have less interest in the topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ticket:2010090210001932

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

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 [12], 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)

(out of sequence to address reliability of the source) Granted this is from a while back, but here's his takes on the CAMERA affair [13], [14]. The second in particular is rather activisty & contains the outing of a now inactive wikipedia editor (scroll to "Who is...") section. To be usable his information will also have to be reproduced in a reliable source. Misarxist (talk) 15:16, 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.173.52.126.77 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blp violation? The anonymous person forged an antisemitic post, signed someone elses name to it, and then tried peddling a screencap of the forgery elsewhere as evidence against someone here. I am angry that Wales would intervene on behalf of a known liar and a site-banned troll, but that's another matter. But nice to hear from you again Einstein/David/etc. etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott Macdonald's retired, dabomb77's on a wiki break, I've done no real edits since people got prudish about my speaking the truth, now they're turning on Bali ultimate. Some people really need to start thinking about whether their actions protect the encyclopedia or drive away editors who are passionate enough about the project to get angry with trolls.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Lets not go down this road per WP:DENY and WP:SANITY --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment The fact that a user or group of users may be blocked or banned does not allow us to ignore core wikipedia policies. If information is inaccurate, it is irrelevant who informs us of this. Not that I am saying anyone has done this yet, but to take advantage of someone's banning for actions inimical to the project to apply a counter-POV is just as gross a violation as having said persons whitewash the article. Disregard of wikipedia's policies is not allowed b/c the subject of the article may be a banned troll, the same way it is not allowed when the subject of the article is Mother Theresa--that must be kept in mind. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel a little down the rabbit hole here in light of the complaint. How is the sentence "As of August 2010, both groups, "Palestine is not a Country" and "Israel is not a Country", remained on Facebook" defamatory or represent any kind of "counter-POV"? As for accuracy, head on over to facebook and see for yourself. The other complaint about the "direct action" sentence, ditto. Seemed a fair summary of their position to me -- Jimbo elected to come down and put a longer direct quote from their website which, to me, says more or less the same thing. So on that one i'm not particularly fussed. I had originally wanted to cut the whole "not a country" bit down to about two sentences:

"Among the Facebook groups the JIDF targeted was Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country. The JIDF said the group was antisemitic and mobilized supporters to complain to Facebook in an effort to have it deleted. (ref -- Facebook: 'Anti-Semitic' group hijacked by Jewish force, Daily Telegraph [www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2478773/Facebook-Anti-semitic-group-destroyed-by-Israeli-hackers.html]. After Facebook refused to shut the group down, the JIDF said it somehow took control of the group in July 2008. (ref Jerusalem Post, too lazy to pull the URL from the page). As of August 2010, the group remained on Facebook." But another editor disagreed.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I beleive they are different groups, Bali. Different ID#, different admins, etc. The original group was taken down, and this is a copycat. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re "direct action", the article now quotes the JIDF site exactly, so that's covered. As for whether the groups still exist, it's hard to find sources later than 2008; the subject got press back then, but not much since. We should say something about how this came out, but what? --John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone came up with the wording "As of August 2010[update], two groups with the same names were active on Facebook.". That seems a reasonable compromise. I tried using Webcitation to archive the relevant Facebook pages, so we'd have a static snapshot to reference. But Facebook displays "You are using an incompatible browser" when Webcitation tries to archive it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was a reasonable statement, since it implies both without expressly being one or the other, and gives us some time to dig up sources. -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)