Talk:Jew Watch/Archive 2

message: The article is obviously a thorn at the side of the world anti-Semitry - that it's anti-Semitry we're talking about I hold self-evident. Anonymous users (user) repeatedly tried to spread the agenda of Jew Watch into Wikipedia - remember who started the article in the first place? I suggest that the article about Jew Watch be semi-protected to prevent vandalism. I apologize if this is not the proper way to do so. --Chodorkovskiy 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this continues, I completely agree. The procedure is described at WP:SEMI. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the user Chodorkovskiy (a Jew, by the way : ), is about to censor you on Wikipedia. --Chodorkovskiy 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop flooding the page with the same points over and over again. There is a discussion in NPOV about this same matter. Let's take it over there. And by the way, if you actually made an argument once in a while instead of just whining about censorship and bias, it would add a lot more weight to your claims about user inequality on Wikipedia. --Chodorkovskiy 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's cut the BS, the reality is that Jews want this page protected so it will be guaranteed this article is biased against Jew Watch, instead of giving a fair and accurate analysis of it. The web site is not by any stretch of the imaginiation anti-jew, not flooding, just trying to have a discussion here. Lokison 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there it is. "Jews want". Disregarding the fact that not all Jews here are united in a monolithical front of opposition, there is another problem. People who support the current state of the article aren't all Jewish. Do you suggest the others are crypto-Jews? Jew Watch gathers all known anti-Semitic claims from all over the world, then adds some on top, leaves out every single good thing that came from a Jew, and it's not anti-semitic? For Gods sake, it blames all the USSR did on Jews! What about this quote: "The Jews are no Saints, although, as owners of the news media, they love to paint themselves in this light." Nope, no anti-Semitism here. Just good-old scholaring. --Chodorkovskiy 08:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: I removed :Category:Neo-Nazi websites from this page, which was reverted by Ems2 with a request to discuss the issue.
We need to make a distinction between Neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism. Jew Watch is not a "social or political movement seeking to revive National Socialism or a form of Fascism." It is merely an anti-Semitic website. It shows no connections at all to any sort of political ideology; it does not promote in any way a political ideology. In fact, its author is a member of the National Vanguard, a specifically white-separatist (or supremacist) organization that claims no relation to Neo-Nazism.
This seems to me to be a very straight-forward and reasonable edit. Please let me know if there is any possible way to define Jew Watch as "Neo-Nazi"; otherwise, I will remove it again. Dylan 15:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia defines Neo-nazism as a "social or political movement seeking to revive National Socialism or a form of Fascism". JW does not meet this criteria. --Chodorkovskiy 15:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Neo-Nazi websites 

message: See Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.  
"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."
What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotional charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those who we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own an insight that could change their views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctrapp (talk • contribs) .
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Do you suggest not applying NPOV to issues such as racism, sexism, etc ? Unmitigated Success 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, sensetive articles like this one are the reason for the NPOV policy. Nobody cares if you say "pie is tasty", but saying "Jew Watch is evil" ignites a controversy. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not comport with wikipedia's neutrality guidelines 

message: marked a few sentences because of content that need to be backed up with repuatable sources or removed. certainly the seiganthaler incident isnt that far out of memory. Caleb Parks 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: since jew watch does provide alot of material as references. the addition of 'claims to' is at this point is unwarranted. Caleb Parks 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads Up 

message: Jew Watch features an archive of opinion, writings, articles and links, organized in the form of a Web directory. Although claiming neutrality, its material is organized under topic heads such as "Jewish-Zionist-Soviet Anti-American Spies," "Jewish Communist Rulers & Killers," "Jewish Terrorists," "Jewish Controlled Press," "Jewish Entertainment," "Zionist Occupied Governments," "Jewish Communists," "Jewish Atrocities," "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms," "Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations," "Jewish World Conspiracies" and many others.
the above is taken from the main article.
if you run a website about whitetail deer, youre gonna mention it by name. since this is jew watch, hes gonna say jew a few times. this sort of labeling is in line with the site, and is not the wedge its attempting to be used for.
to maintain the high standards wiki requires, i will remove it entirely. i cant see a particular reason why its even there in the first place. Caleb Parks 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caleb Parks, you seem to take offense that their attempts to slander Jews get neutral coverage. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: if black doesnt contribute material to jew watch. what is he doing in the authorship section? does anyone even read this page before reverting? Caleb Parks 05:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: Jew Watch features an archive of opinion, writings, articles and links, organized in the form of a Web directory. Although claiming neutrality, its material is organized under topic heads such as "Jewish-Zionist-Soviet Anti-American Spies," "Jewish Communist Rulers & Killers," "Jewish Terrorists," "Jewish Controlled Press," "Jewish Entertainment," "Zionist Occupied Governments," "Jewish Communists," "Jewish Atrocities," "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms," "Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations," "Jewish World Conspiracies" and many others.
this is hostile and totally pointless. as i mentioned before, if you have a website about deer, youre going to say deer. this is a website about jews, so jews are gonna be mentioned by that name. the second paragraph is a fine starting point and takes nothing away from the article. 
the hostility comes from 'although claiming neutrality' portion. 
this whole paragraph needs to go. it cannot be altered in such a way to elminate what it is without changin it entirely anyway. so lets dump it. Caleb Parks 05:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: When Google's strict filtering is turned on, JewWatch.com is removed all search results.  It took me a while to figure out why I didn't get that result in a Google search for "jew". --JeremyStein 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone from strict filtering 

message: 'although claiming neutrality' is a biased phrase. ppl can make up there own mind without additional prodding. it also adds nothing to the article. Caleb Parks 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: unless every name listed on jew watch has been proven to not be jewish, theres no evidence the list isnt true. it says 'claims' which is sufficient until such a time that all the names are proven one  way or another. Caleb Parks 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous 

message: this is patently not true.  right below this cursor, is this phrase: Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.  
it is indeed verifiable, one way or another.  therefore, the sentence isnt true, and it needs to be removed. you have been officially notified  in various ways, i suggest discussion ensue directly or i will edit the page again myself. Caleb Parks 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe what it means is that as there are no footnotes, there is no way to prove whether the quotes actually exist or not. si»abhorreo»T 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to verify religious text quotes? 

message: :"Google's response, however, has been a sponsored link for the search term since 2004 which can be found at their site."
I don't see the sponsored link anymore. Unless it's due to a personal browser quirk, this should be changed. si»abhorreo»T 04:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google's sponsored link

message: I have semi-protected this page for a few days to deal with some robovandalism we've been seeing on it. I'll be back to lift the semiprotection in 2 or 3 days, but if I forget, leave a note on my talkpage and I'll deal with it. --Improv 18:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Could someone explain what does this mean: On World War II, Jew Watch also holds documents that allege that the Holocaust was in fact the rain of fire  discussed.<-ref><-/ref> Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you must understand that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is a euphimism for liberal point of view. Just see it for yourself. An article about some one that liberals don't like, is filled with bias like "neo-nazi", "racist", "white supremacist" and guilt by association refrences. An article on any one that liberals approve of, is filled with good "neutral" references. You can see it for yourself. --Jparu 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rain of fire discussed? 

message: Should be Anti Judiasm, because Arabs, Phoencians, Cathragians etc... are Semetic too.
:That's been discussed about ninety times on the Antisemitism talk page, see  for example, and the etymology part of the article . Unmitigated Success 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Semistim 

message: What does After the Storm, the Swindlers contain? The juden just want my money.
:"Even as millions of Americans rally to make donations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the Internet is brimming with swindles, come-ons and opportunistic pandering related to the relief effort in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. And the frauds are more varied and more numerous than in past disasters, according..." 
It is related to the hurricane. But how is it related to jewwatch? --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 13:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nytimes article 

message: The article about this text is linked. Please see the artilces first sentence. Lets keep the same wording for continuity. Not trying to defend that document or this entries Web site. Thanks! --Tom 16:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocols edit

message: I think that we all agree that jewwatch site is loaded with anti-semitic propaganda and promotes hate (i.e. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). It also uses a trick called Google bombing for self promotion. But why does a wikipedia page, with high page-rank, link to that hate site and promote it? Please consider removing the direct link, Instead there can be plain text address for the readers.
You may argue that the site only gives false information and doesn't actually call to killing of people, but we all know that aggressive propaganda leads to ethnic tension and killings, and Jewish people in diaspora suffered alot because of anti-semitic propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.17.121 (talk • contribs) 
:Because linking to JW is the only way to verify what the article says.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They link to stormfront too. People should know what they are reading about for themselves I guess. Plus, they're already the number one Google search result when you type in "Jew", can't get any worse.
If the site is anti-semitic, then the many articles from the Jerusalem Post, NY Times, and other reputable news sources must be redefined as anti-semitic. As for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this document is there are a part of the historical record. No archive of facts like Jew Watch could leave out such books as the Protocols, Mein Kamp, and other well know works at are a part of any scholarly investigation of Jewish history. Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and thousands of other outstanding universities have as many as 1-7 copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols. Do you call these universities anti-semitic as well? Where does this pogram against Jew Watch, a scholarly website end? With the owner's death? What would satisfy you. One thing for sure, you won't find him using the term "kike" anywhere, because he is a civil rights activitist. Why don't you read his Statement of Philosophy for his website at 
This is a well thought out philosophy of non-violence and respect for all people especially Jews.Tony1941 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Wikipedia link to the site?

message: A person can look at the articles on Jew Watch and see it as propoganda, or as truth.  Those who see it as truth are accepting all sources and claims as fact, with emotional persuasion being icing on the cake.  Though Wikipedia is NPOV, it maintains factual information and points out false information.  A look at the moon hoax article will point out flaws in the claims of the moon hoax, and the article on Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not try to promote an "alternate view" that the book could be real or factual.  Facts are facts.  So if the articles on Jew Watch are not factual, someone needs to show why they are not factual.  Some examples:
*The quote that Ariel Sharon admits Jews control America is a misquote.  
*The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery, used as a propoganda tool, and is not a reliable source despite being used as one.
*Articles on Talmud criticism may contain false or invented passages that do not exist, and these passages should be noted as misquotes or misattributions.
Jew Watch contains material from other sites such as Storm Front, National Vanguard and Honest Media Today, and their articles and videos offer similar material that claims to be extensively researched and factual.  
 
.  
YouTube also has videos that  can be seen as factual or as propoganda.      
Wikipedia may seem like the wrong place to argue, but false information still needs to be scrutinized, and true information needs to be acknowledged.  Articles on Zionist conspiracy theories simply redirect to Zionist Occupation Group, which does not provide enough context, information, or claims that are commonly used.  Articles on Jewish media control, 9/11 Jewish conspiracies, Jews and pornography, and other topics should have their articles so that claims can be presented, analyzed, and refuted.  
For example, Who Rules America is presented as factual, albeit biased.  Are the presented facts correct?  Is there a logical fallacy being used?  What about the claim that most pornographers are Jewish?   There needs to be a distinction between what is factually correct but limited in terms of false conclusions or scope, what is not factual but presented as fact, and what is factually correct and logically sound.
:You are right. How about helping out with the changes? si»abhorreo»T 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical examination

message: Mr. Weltner claims he is "not with the National Alliance."  This can be construed as a denial that he holds membership in the National Alliance.  Regardless of his peculiar anti-Semitism, is there a citation of his membership in the National Alliance? - MSTCrow 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After posting this, I've discovered that at least the Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) maintains he is a member of the National Alliance.  I would like independent verification of this, as the SPLC is not known for holding truth above partisan purposes. - MSTCrow 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check out this article on Jew Watch, Frank Weltner says "I have joined white civil rights organizations including the now fractured National Alliance..." Chris Croy 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Alliance Membership 

message: The article relies too extensively on "quoted sentences from the website" for describing Jew Watch. It uses these instead of straightforward descriptions, over-using terms such as "claims", "purports", and "maintains". Parts of it (namely much of the intro and most of the overview section) suffer from this, and need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner with solid, straightforward, sourced statements.
Also, there are too many remnants (in style, spirit, and actual text) of the ridiculing version of the article that was written by the White Power author at National Vanguard remaining in the article. si»abhorreo»T 07:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just cleaned up this article a little. You are right that there are a TON of entirely unsourced statements in this article (particularly in the "Overview" section), so I've added many [fact] tags because these statements either need to be either sourced or taken out entirely. This article is still in pathetic condition, but I've done my best to clean it up a bit and make sure that some of these controversial accusations are either sourced or removed per Wikipedia policy. For such a controversial website, I'm surprised that this article has remained in shambles and espoused such blatant, non-sourced POV for such a long time.  --172.129.39.98 23:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove your cleanup tag. There's nothing wrong with simply quoting the site and presenting its claims as, well, claims.  Frankly, the owners' beliefs are so detached from reality that we don't need to do anything to discredit the site other than state what it stands for.  For an example of this approach, see Time Cube.Chris Croy 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with quotes, but that shouldn't be relied on as the sole method of "describing" it. A need to discredit the site has nothing to do with it. si»abhorreo»T 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tag 

message: "I Pray for Peaceful People in this World
Who Will Erase the Jewish Nazis Who Hate Me"
::Save it for somewhere else on the net fellas, there's plenty of it to go around. 64.230.4.4 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So how is this not a hate site again?

message: Why is anytime anything Jewish is questioned or critically analyzed, it's a "hate site" or a "hate crime". This is hogwash, and the site should stand on its own merit. 
Garydron 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific issue with any of the text in the article? Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dispute the neutrality of this article 

message: Please do not turn this article into polemics, especially unsourced and in broken English. Instead, consider improving article antisemitism and its subarticles, based on sources of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humus sapiens (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 8, 2007
People here try to prevent any academic deal with the article.
I AM REFUSE TO THAT.
People should not force their opinions on other.
criticism is an important and no one should erase it but only edit it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 22:08, May 8, 2007
*No. You need to discuss your changes here first, since several of us disagree with them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpgordon You have no right to use in the block weapons in order to force your opinion on other beware yourself.Don't over use your power or I will report on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 
*Oh, don't worry. I won't block you. Someone else will. Just wait! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oren, please stop this hysteria. Instead of making empty accusations, read WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Checking a user's contributions may help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemics 

message: Does Jew Watch really merit an article? I'm no deletionist, but it seems that wikipedia itself is contributing to the subject's notability. Neutrality disputes have been rampant, seemingly caused by trolls who would like nothing more than to see this site validated (in a way, the existence of this article alone serves this end.) I really wonder if this article deserves the meager hard drive space it's consuming. I have no doubt that this article would survive an AFD at this point in time, but I'm interested in any thoughts on this matter. -Etafly 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:NOTE "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the topic, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." I suspect it has been covered in the news and so on. --Blue Tie 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's interesting, I made the above statement without knowing that the article was originally created by Weltner himself! -Etafly 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Since popular search algorithms rank a particular website's popularity by counting links to it, I wonder whether we actually promote JW by having so many links to it. Perhaps we should leave the links but comment them out. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that have to be explicitly called on the page or is it automatic on all pages? Because I agree that we should not support its popularity. --Blue Tie 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to JW 

message: Judging by the content of Cpotato2004's edits, it seems quite likely that the editor is Weltner himself. I reverted the edits, as they are highly POV and unsourced. This is simply a heads-up. -Etafly 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible COI 

message: We need to put tag on value since people should understand what Zionism said and if it has any connection to the soviet union.
That why I put back those tags about Zionism and the Soviet Union.
Any attempt to remove them is an attempt to support anti-semitic propaganda and to hide information from people.
People should know what that mean.(written by oren tal)
:Oren, please stop. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oren, please learn how to sign your posts and stop this nonsense. We can link every single word, but instead, as Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context says: "Only make links that are relevant to the context," we link only what is relevant. Neither Zionism nor the USSR are relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The need of tags

message: Ive altered the article to conform better with Wiki's NPOV policies. Jew Watch is alleged to be anti-Semitic by some groups; it is not an objective fact, and the sites owner denies the charges. Ive 
substituted the word "controversial" for Anti-Semitic". Marcadams99 05:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitic or Scholarly