Talk:The David Project

Bullets

NYScholar, you're writing in bullet points again. This is an article, not a commercial. Please write in narrative style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullets are frequent in Wikipedia articles for the kind of use that I just provided. Check some more articles and you will see; they are used all the time, and that's why Wikipedia provides asterisks as bullets:

• See this example.

Almost every Wikipedia article that I have read uses bullets. You are really too restrictive in your request. The bullets make what was hard to read on the website (bec. it already was part of a paragraph ("in narrative style"), easier to process for normal readers.) You need to use common sense in these matters. I'm not changing it from bullets to what you call "narrative style" (actually a misnomer). The section doesn't "narrate" a story; it defines. Bullets are fine for definitions (in this case, of purposes). If I use a so-called "narrative" or paragraph style, it would have to be a block quotation and harder to read and just reproduce what is on the website exactly as it is. See the website. Also, when one quotes, one has to indicate that one is quoting. I have done that. Your earlier comments suggesting the opposite advocate plagiarism from sources, which is against Wikipedia policy. This is fine the way it is. Stop being unnecessarily picky and focus on the big picture. The article is better, more neutral, and more reliably documented since I began working on it.--NYScholar 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, most articles are not written in bullet points. Also, please sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suggest using Wikipedia markup, using colons for indentation, rather than HTML markup. It's considered mildly undesirable to use much HTML markup in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"It's considered mildly undesirable to use much HTML markup in Wikipedia": support this claim. I have found discussions about how to use HTML markup in Wikipedia editing pages, so I don't think that this suggestion makes sense of is convincing. "mildly undesirable" isn't a reason not to use features that Wikipedia clearly allows. The colons do not indent material as "block quotations"; block quotations are indented on both margins, not just the lefthand margin. That is the format for block quotations and it is permissible in Wikipedia to use them. Many pages in Wikipedia use extensive HTML markup for typographical features (posting of jpg files, etc. Look at the coding in editing on such pages, including talk pages!). --NYScholar 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullets are used for lists of items throughout Wikipedia articles. Sources are needed in this particular list changed from the orgininal one; I supplied a source at some point; where is it now? Removing sources of quotations, deleting such information is misleading and poor editorial practice. Now . --NYScholar 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

To SlimVirgin: You are continually removing correct citations and altering them so that no one can verify what webpage article the informaton comes from; then you are also removing quotation marks and rendering passages as plagiarism from the source. Quotation marks are necessary when using the same exact words as a source. (That's why they are called "quotations.") Please stop reverting my work. It is extremely annoying. You have been doing this now for almost the whole week. Those changes that you continually revert back to do not improve the article. It just appears that you want it "your way" and you don't care that you are weakening the article. Clearly, you are unaware that the word "whose" signifies "of which" as in "the stated aim of which" = "whose aim": that is more economical and concise. You are not always knowledgeable enough of grammar and citation styles of documentation to revert proper formats that are consistent to inconsistent improper and non-verifiable formats. One is supposed to give titles of webpages in "quotation marks": they are analogous to the titles of articles; in fact they are articles published on the internet. That is documentation format (MLA format), which is what I have tried continually to establish for this article. Your wily-nily changes just to keep it the way you want are not consistent with Wikipedia:Citing sources.--NYScholar 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For people's information: The format that I've incorporated into the Wikipedia article is MLA format for citing internet resources (which one adapts from bibliographical format to notes format in endnotes or footnotes). Here's the direct link from the above-linked W page: MLA Style FAQ.--NYScholar 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat that you're not editing correctly (in any regard: sources, writing, style), and there is no requirement to use MLA style. See WP:CITE and edit in accordance with it, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get the point I am making, do you? I introduced the citations, I introduced the format, and I kept it consistent. I chose MLA format due to the nature of the subject, which crosses disciplinary boundaries and includes humanities, the arts, and culture; the MLA format is one of several, but there was no consistent documentation format correctly used before I converted a mess of inconsistent references to one format. It took a lot of work, it's correct, and WP policy is to continue on w/ it not to subvert it (continually). Read the policy that your are citing again.--NYScholar 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"you are not editing correctly": [Wikipedia:Five pillars] suggests clearly that there is not one "style" of editing; I am shocked that you use the phrase "editing correctly"; bullets are used throughout W articles for example; you may not like them, but they are in the articles consistently. They are useful for lists of items and for conciseness and readablity in Wikipedia as in other encyclopedia. If they were not to be used, there would be no shortcut for creating bullets (asterisks). Editors are supposed to be fairly equal in Wikipedia, as I understand the policy (see the bottom warning on articles, which has been pointed out to me too). Yet people who are administrators continally stick their oars in and try to pull "rank" on other editors. It amazes me that anyone would even want to contribute to these articles when they receive such resistance from other people. I'm doing the best I can. (If you are a Wikipedia expert editor and can do better coding than I can, fine; but basically, I am using the proper coding and you keep removing it; it takes time to put in, and you remove it.) SV: What is your problem? The article is a stub; people are supposed to try to expand it with additional information (acc. to Wikipedia policies); you contract it. What is that about? Do you represent the organization and Charles Jacobs?--NYScholar 09:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying there are well-written articles, and there are badly written ones, and this is the latter. Now, stop messing up the intro with silly blockquotes, stop the nonsense about insisting on unusual citation styles, and just write the article as though it were an encyclopedia article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub. I can only write the way I write. If you don't like it, I'm not apologizing. I don't like the way you write. "Silly blockquotes" are used throughout Wikipedia because they format block quotations--quotations of four or more lines. That is basic documentation format in almost every style manual that deals with prose passages in the humanities and social sciences (the disciplines of this subject). The founder has a doctorate in Education; education crosses disciplines, involving social sciences, humanities, and the arts; his work involves politics, law, culture, military issues, and so on. Judging from your changes and my own almost four decades of teaching and research experience (teaching research writing and research), I don't think you really know what you are talking about when it comes to documentation. That's your lack of expertise, not mine. MLA format is not an "unusual citation style"; it's only "unusual" to you, because you are not an expert in citation styles. I happen to be one, so I know what I'm talking about. I doubt if you even know the difference between APA format and MLA format. Read all about it on Wikipedia for a start.--NYScholar 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please allow someone else to get this page in shape. As things stand, people are having to fight you to make even the most basic of edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You've had every opportunity "to get this page in shape." What "people" are you referring to? I've accepted other people's changes; it is you who can't seem to tolerate anyone else but you changing any article that you work on. It's all in the history.--NYScholar 11:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors in this article

Jacobs is not "the founder" of the AASG--

"The AASG was co-founded in 1994 by Charles Jacobs with African human rights activists Mohamed Athie of Mauritania and David Chand of Sudan, and Dr. Jacobs served as its first "research director."[see note 2 in the article]

He is one of three "co-founders" of the organization. See the article American Anti-Slavery Group. I don't know why SV continues to persist in reverting back to making a false statement that makes him "the founder" when he "co-founded" it with two other people. This error has persisted despite many attempts to correct it by me and others because of the multiple (more than 3) reversions by SV. --NYScholar 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My posts are signed; I don't know what you are talking about. (Wikipedia allows all editors to choose preferences in how their signatures appear. I prefer mine to appear as raw signatures, without links, and it is my prerogative to make that preference. They are signed, however. That's how you know that I am writing them. I use the four tildes.)

Also, MLA format is a sanctioned documentation format for Wikipedia articles; it is the one consistently used in this article, and when you add a citation to the article, Wikipedia:Citing Sources policy is to follow the predominant format already used in the article. It takes a lot of time to put the notes in the proper format, and your changes are just introducing inconsistencies and errors in the article. You may not care, but I do: consistency is a feature of all proper documentation formats. It enables readers to find the sources through the information given and to cite them in other articles as needed. I find your changes a form of harassment rather than improvements to the article.--NYScholar 05:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs did not found CAMERA either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehemiah123 (talk • contribs)

Yesterday, some anon was deleting the statement that Charles Jacobs was one of the founders of CAMERA. Today, the new account Nehemiah123 (talk · contribs), is doing it. But multiple good sources say he was one of the founders. Including the archived site of the David Project. The cites are over at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. So far, there are no cites saying otherwise. --John Nagle 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to CAMERA's Website, Winifred Meiselman is the founder of CAMERA. Charles Jacobs is described as working as Deputy Director of the Boston Chapter, but is no where listed as CAMERA's founder. Please see "A Brief History of CAMERA" at http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=48. This page also includes a link to a letter that definitively mentions Winifred Meiselmen, not Charles Jacobs as founder of CAMERA. The letter can be found at:

http://www.camera.org/images_user/letter.pdf 67.158.119.138 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The CAMERA site has just been updated with a "history" page: page #48. Note that when page 44 was copied to page 48 there, the old title, "Conference Signup Form", was retained. Also, the keywords and description tags need to be updated, CAMERA's site indexer needs to be rerun to find the page, and the page needs to be linked from somewhere so search engines can find it. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much from organization's own web site

Too much of the article is now from the organization's own web site. In particular, material from external sources has been replaced by material from the organization's own output. That would get a company an {{advertising}} tag. Try not to overdo that. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The material is there to illustrate the positions of the organization in its own words; it's not there to advertise the organization. Due to the extremely volatile nature of the contexts for this article and the possible inflammatory nature of sources on combatting anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiments these days, one has to be very careful not "to put words into the mouth" of Dr. Jacobs and others representing these organizations that he founded and/or co-founded. The organization has apparently recently re-defined itself, and the focus is on a "new" statement and a "new" "team" to carry out its newly stated "mission" ("Our Mission"). The quotations serve to illustrate what the section headings state: "Positions" etc. If anyone is "overdo[ing]" JN, e.g., see the article on "Charles Jacobs," it is those who try to introduce various biases and prejudices into this article (and others relating to Jacobs) in their misleading faulty misstatements about the man and his work. I am sure that JN knows what I and others (in this and the other talk pages) are referring to. There is no way this article is an "ad" for the organization. Read the notes and all the cross-references in full contexts of all the sources in all of them.--NYScholar 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It read exactly like an ad. The page needs to be fleshed out with material from other sources, and the writing must not be reverted to the previous list style. It's a story and has to be written as one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's tough. If you just copy from the organization's web site, it reads like an ad. If you write something based on multiple sources, somebody will scream "original research". If you copy from the organization's critics, somebody complains about that. For the David Project, it ought not to be that hard, though. The David Project is an openly pro-Israel organization that trains pro-Israel activists. That's the business they're in, and they admit it. They're not pretending to be neutral. The article should reflect that. They're like AIPAC, "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", in that respect. (Compare CAMERA and MEMRI, which do sometimes claim to be neutral and which are criticized for that claim.) --John Nagle 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's getting worse. Everything explicitly quoted in the "criticism" section is from the David Project. --John Nagle 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true; I wrote the transitions in the sentences and the articles cited in the notes clearly include critical information: you need to READ them.-- NYScholar 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Someone embedded a request for details in the "Criticism" section without doing that work him/herself. NB: I had already provided the sources in notes for information about the two items listed. I have expanded that section with material from the sources, which are all cited in the same note as before. Someone else could have developed the section on "Criticism" with further details from already-verified sources that are not only from the organization itself. The article is "neutral" if one reads all the source material cited. It does not appear to me at this moment to read like an "ad" really at all (given the more-developed "Criticism" section); I don't agree with JN that the text read like an "ad" before I developed this section further, however. The use of logos of these organizations founded by Charles Jacobs (political activist) may make such articles appear to be advertisements for the organizations and/or for their positions (biases, mission goals, etc.), when they should not appear to be such advertisements. If one wants to lessen that impression, one can remove the logos (which are hyperlinks to the organizations' official websites) and provide more examples of "criticism" of the organizations, balanced by commensurate examples of praise or support (if they can be found). But that could lead to more problems of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These matters have already been discussed; see above sections and see related issues raised in the talk pages of the related articles. --NYScholar 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Activities section

JN: It's your comment: YOU deal with it. Often I notice that in talk comments and even in your own editing history summaries now, you are asking other people to do work when you have a criticism about material in this and other articles. You can do the work to "deal with" problems that you perceive yourself. Other people should not have to do the work for you or do the research required to make the changes that you seem to want in the article. You can make specific suggestions about specific additional or different content that you want to see on the talk page before adding it if you have doubts about appropriateness and consensus re: such content. Follow Wikipedia guidelines for such discussion of controversial changes if they are controversial BEFORE making them. That's a primary purpose of talk pages in Wikipedia. You make frequent complaints without doing the work necessary for resolving the problems that you complain about. To me that is a sign of editorial laziness and, at times, I have perceived it as a kind of trouble-making. Complaining for the sake of complaining without taking action to suggest how to resolve your own complaints. --NYScholar 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

JN: Thanks for correcting the title of the film. We'll have to make sure it's changed everywhere in the various articles to the correct title. Sorry. (Bleary-eyed from the editing.) If you or someone else wants to make the dates in the notes/references conform w/ the dominant citation style of these Charles-Jacobs-related articles, that's okay with me. I've read up about the format over the past 2 weeks, and I can see what you/SV may want to do to citation style, but I just don't have time myself make such changes (to citation dates). --NYScholar 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Came back later and made changes to citation dates etc. --NYScholar 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Better cites for ISB lawsuit

Added two cites to the Boston Globe re ISB lawsuit. Before, all we had was a link to the ISB's web site, which was weak. --John Nagle (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is a non-event, (a law suit filed, then dropped), and not directly related to the DPC. I removed it for those reasons, not for the weak cite. The suit named 17 different entities, of which the DPC was just one. Is there a comparable section on the Boston Herald article? No. is there one on the Fox channel 25 Article ? No. Is there one on the Steven Emerson article? No. That should tell you that pushing this section here is POV-pushing and undue weight. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a big deal. The Boston Globe alone has over fifty articles on the David Project's opposition to building a mosque in Boston. That suit was dropped after the David Project was unsuccessful in blocking the building of the mosque. Actually, there were three lawsuits, one filed by the David Project. I'll add more cites. --John Nagle (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The David Project uncovered at least $7.2 million in Saudi funding going towards that mosque. There's even Islamic opposition to the project.[1]. On the other side, the American Jewish Committee has expressed opposition to the David Project's activities in this area.[2]. The mosque itself did get built and is now open for business. We have more cites from reliable sources on this activity of the David Project than anything else they did. --John Nagle (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with me, or at least, making my point for me. Here we have an organization that’s been around for six years, which, according to mainstream news agencies has been at the forefront of anti-libel legislation; which runs numerous programs, including workshops on combating anti-Semitism [3] , leadership and advocacy seminars [4] and produces documentaries, yet this article devotes nearly half its space to a criticism section and has the most citations for a non-event - a law suit that was dropped – in which the organization was just one of 17 named entities. This is pretty much the definition of undue weight. If you want to add details about the DPC's activities against the Roxbury Mosque - do so in the section about the group's activities. But the non-event lawsuit which was dropped, in which the DPC was one of 17 defendants, none of the others having anything similar on their wikipedia article, is undue weight. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's one of their two big controversies that received substantial press attention (the other being "Columbia Unbecoming"). There are citations to reliable sources not associated with the organization. There were three lawsuits, one initiated directly by the David Project. As late as June 2007, Charles Jacobs was saying this: "Charles Jacobs, president of The David Project, received a standing ovation from a crowd at Kehillath Israel Synagogue in Brookline after he raised further questions about the funding of the Islamic Society of Boston. “We come to share the continuing flow of troubling facts,” Jacobs said to the crowd of 300. “We are more concerned now than we have ever been about a Saudi influence of local mosques.”"[5] The David Project itself says "Silence is not an option" on this. So it deserves coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you believe the DPC's opposition to the Roxbury project is notable - which is what your recent sources discuss - please add that to the section on DPC's activities. In that context, it may be fine to note that the opposition resulted in a lawsuit, subsequently dropped, by the ISB. It is undue weight to discuss only the lawsuit, which named 16 other defendants, and was subsequently dropped, without even discussing the activities that led to it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete properly cited material. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored mosque controversy but added section on Saudi funding. --John Nagle (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid some deletions by a new editor.

I undid some deletions of cited material by Ev363 (talk · contribs). Please discuss here if there's an issue. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Undid a few somewhat random changes by anon 74.8.243.218 (talk · contribs). One was just the insertion of the words "Bold text". Looked like practice editing, not vandalism. --John Nagle (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Undid a big copyvio by anon

Undid a big cut-and-paste copyright violation from [6] by an anon. They even pasted in "Click to login and write a letter to the editor or register for a new account." That's a valid source, but needs to be reworded. It's also controversial; Charles Jacobs, the founder of the David Project, is annoyed about it "turning mainstream".[7]. Good content is available there, but better writing is needed. --John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrote a brief summary of the JTA articles. One line of quote from each article, to stay within fair-use limits. --John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some links - technical problem

I changed some links to pages within The David Project web site to just point to the home page. They're using a content management systems that renumbers links when the site is updated, so internal links are useless. If one is really needed, use Webcitation or the Internet Archive. --John Nagle (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The David Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050423231226/http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050404&s=sherman to http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050404&s=sherman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The David Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207184502/http://marbellafilmfestival.com/en/home/Awards07/default.htm to http://www.marbellafilmfestival.com/en/home/Awards07/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225174744/http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/default.htm to http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916175533/http://www.slingshotfund.org/archive/ to http://www.slingshotfund.org/archive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)