Talk:Jew Watch/Archive 1

message: To the person who thinks Google has banned Jew Watch from its index read the statement more closely. It says:
:We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.
Note the present tense; these are not the words of an organisation that has just banned the offensive results. See also , which quotes Director of Corporate Communications David Krane:
: No, Google did not blacklist or make any other manual change to intentionally remove the jewwatch.com website from our index. It does not currently appear in Google's search results because the website was offline for a number of days last week. In our most recent crawl of the web, we were unable to reach the jewwatch.com website, therefore it was not included in our index. Now that the site is back up again, it's likely that at some point soon, jewwatch.com will re-appear in Google. Evercat 20:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Google ban

message: Removed the "global jewry" nonsense and other POV from article - Tεxτurε 17:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely restored "global jewry" from your change (which sought to remove the quotes and present it as a believed fact). Please keep the quotes and do not add more references that are unnecessary.  those changes appear to be an effort to present Jew Watch's opinion as fact.  It is not and should not be represented as such. - Tεxτurε 17:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Global Jewry"

message: (cur) (last)  . . m 17:17, 5 May 2004 . . Texture (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last version by AndyL)
On the contrary, you both had removed valid and NPOV links to the article. Obviously, you are only "proving the allegations" of both the White separatists and of Jewwatch with your own biased and pov censorship.-PV
(cur) (last)  . . 18:56, 5 May 2004 . . AndyL (My psychological projector is on the fritz so I'm unsure what my ilk desires at the moment.)
Not from what you have said below! LOL! :D-PV 
Sorry Paul, the Global Jewish Conspiracy (Inc) has ordered us to edit this article. Who are you to stand in the way of the Elders of Zion? Join us and we can rule the universe together, stand in our way and you'll be squashed like a bug. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Conspiracy out. AndyL 18:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting edits

message: It has outlasted several attacks by cybersquatters ridiculing the Blue Ribbon Free Speech campaign with their own "Black Ribbon Campaign of Hate".
I've removed this until someone explains it. It makes little sense at present. "Attacks by cybersquatters"? Eh? And I can only find one Google hit for "Black Ribbon Campaign of Hate"... Evercat 12:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's behind jewwatch

message: Some companies uses this to place ad-words to promote their site when searching for "Jew":
*Amazon - curently the ad is gone: removed or expired
*AskMoses - the ad still there: "Are Jews Normal?" - Is Judaism a religion or a culture?
Because this issue is getting popular many news sites, blogs, general information sites (includimg Wikipedia) are linking to JewWatch.
This creates an unintentionally (or intentionally in some cases) Google bomb, which makes the site appears at top when searching.
*Address munging
If some site don't want to promote some other site in search engines Address munging can be used, for example: www [dot] jewwatch [dot] com. if the user want to surf to this site, the user will type it in the Address bar.
is that OK?
and stop changing anti-semitic to anti-jewish they are synonims, exept the last one sounds less Nazi
Anonymous comments should be ignored. People who want to take part in debates about Wikipedia content should register as users. They should also calm down and stop impugning people's motives. Adam 05:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More links

message: Google’s #1 listing for more and more search terms is being captured by anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi web-sites.
In April 2004 the “jewwatch" incident was widely publicized. When Steve Weinstock entered the search term "Jew" on Google, the world's leading search engine, the openly anti-Jewish web-site http://www.jewwatch.info appeared as the very first listing!
Mr. Weinstock launched a campaign - at http://www.removejewwatch.com - to remove that site from the top spot. He initially succeeded, but the site soon regained the first position before again losing it. It appears to be an ongoing battle.
Since May 2004 Google's #1 listing for "Rabbi Jokes" shows neo-nazi Gary Lauck’s site http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com . The 20-language site has cartoon animations of leading Jewish figures, free nazi computer game downloads, holocaust denial books and the nazi film “The Eternal Jew”.
Internet activists are urged to cut-and-paste this announcement and insert it into forums.
What has this got to do with the article? Please stop using this page for anonymous news bulletins. Adam 02:11, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semites Now #1 for "Rabbi jokes" on Google 

message: I appreciate the recent edit on the article. But, still more NPOV is needed (IMHO) and now the article seems more anti-jewwatch. Also, there may not be need to stress http://www.removejewwatch.com/ as the campaign itself is moronic
For the third time: I will not respond to anonymous comments. Adam 08:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not anonymous. Just forgot to sign in hurry --Rrjanbiah 11:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: The Wikipedia should not be a platform to publicise people with minority views so abhorrent to a civilized society, that the Wiki is the only place they are able to air them.  Sorry if this sounds pompous. It's Delete: Giano 20:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From VfD on Frank Weltner 

message: This section previously contained my original cliams of bias in the article. They no longer appear relevant. Please view the history of this talk page for previous content. Uncle Bungle 18:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: The body of this section contained my arguments supporting the statement "JewWatch was censored from google". Since that point of view has been included, I don't think it is necessary to congest the talk page with a resolved argument. Of course, the original text can still be viewd in the history of the talk page. Uncle Bungle 21:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Uncle Bungle said above, "I propose that the statements mentioned above be removed from the article, because, although factual, they are truly points of view. --Uncle Bungle 20:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view

message: Some Wikipedians, in the name of NPOV, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true.  This is not the intent of NPOV.  Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to.  For example,
:"FOX News presents news from a viewpoint to the political right of the viewpoint of most news sources."
is an objectively true fact, and can be reported in Wikipedia without qualification.  FOX News supporters might prefer that attention not be drawn to this, or that it be stated only in terms of the disputed allegations that FOX News is biased. 
Following this policy, the bare statement that Jew Watch is an anti-Semitic site without attributing that view to anyone in particular would seem unobjectionable. After all, we do have an article on anti-Semitism. Fred Bauder 11:49, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
::I only attempted to remove these statements because I was upset over a percieved double standard. There is no doubt in my mind that the content is anti-Semitic, but when I was informed that it had to be left to the readers to come to their own conclusions, I over reacted. This was unacceptable, and having had some time to reflect, I am deeply sorry that I resorted to such childish behaviour. --Uncle Bungle 21:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More from [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]:

message: Referring to any anti-Jewisyh website as anti-Semitic is not "poisoning the well". The people who run Jew_Watch openly admit that they hate the Jewish people. Yet in their eyes this is a positive belief, and one that they wish to spread via the world wide web. The fact that some people imagine that this is "poisoning the well" betrays their own beliefs, to wit, that hating Jews is bad, if not evil.  Well, I would hope that all people I meet have this view. Nonetheless, this is an opinion, like all beliefs about human beings.
The fact remains that Jew-Watch is proudly anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic.) Therefore it must be correctly described in this way. It would incorrect to write about them in any other way. Saying so cannot be poisoning the well, as being anti-Jewish is considered a positive feature by those who run the website and by those who believe in its mission.  Describing a pro-Swiftboat veterans for Truth website as being anti-Kerry is not "poisoning the well" or a personal remark. It is a factual description of the plain beliefs of the people who run the website. The only violation of the encyclopedia's neutrality policy would be to say that "This website is anti-Kerry, and therefore bad or evil", or "This website is anti-Jewish, and therefore bad or evil".  But to say that a website or book is anti-Jewish or anti-Kerry is a matter of fact on the record that no one can context.
Your search - "anti-semetic" site:www.jewwatch.com - did not match any documents.
:That's because they can spell 'anti-Semitic'. 64.228.164.50 07:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''This is not poisoning the well'' 

message: Poisoning the well? isn't that the entire point of Jewwatch.com? Sam [Spade] 15:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Wikipedia should not aid them in their goal. Jayjg 16:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Were only (or should be only) here for one reason, and thats to produce a neutral encyclopedia. Writting a neutral article about these guys is gonna help them, like it or no. Any press is good press, and its not like your going to suprise somebody... "hey! Jewwatch is anti-semitic? And here I've been using it as my home page for the last 6 months!" not a likely incident ;) Sam [Spade] 21:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should be here to write an NPOV Encyclopedia, and not to assist Jew-Watch in its attempts to poison the well.  It turns out that those are different activities. Jayjg 23:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are going to be doing is documenting their position, the position of those who oppose them, and the opinions of outside expert opinion (if any). Covering up the position of Jewwatch serves neither NPOV, nor the readers. Sam [Spade] 23:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is now one of Jew-Watch's important "postions" that Weinstock is a Jewish real-estate broker from New York?  And if we don't note that then we are "covering up" important information? And we're even going to bring "witnesses" from the other side who dispute that?   Honestly!  Leave the page for important information, not trivia, or supporting Jew-watch's well-poisoining campaigns. Jayjg 15:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Makes me wonder who is making the above statement, you or "Uncle.bungle". Sam [Spade] 21:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning the well 

message: Is there any objection to removing the NPOV warning?AndyL 18:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no POV objections to the page as it stands 18:26, 29 Oct 2004.   --Uncle Bungle 18:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I guess its unanimous then, eh? Sam [Spade] 21:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Sorry, looks like weasel wording to me.  Who are these "free speech" advocates who are arguing it has been censored (aside from the anonymous Uncle.Bungle)? Name them please. Jayjg 19:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly no one that I can cite. I made the edit because I considered the statement "the sites advocates" to be weasel wording, since it suggested you had to advocate Jew Watch to consider the google bomb an act of censorship. I though that "free speech advocates" would more accurately describe the type of people who would be inclined to reach the censorship point of view. Before reverting the edit, could you please make a case for "weasel wording" and/or suggest alternatives. --Uncle Bungle 20:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative is to leave it out, since you seem to be the only one advocating that position.  Does the Jew-watch site advocate that position as well? Jayjg 20:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutral point of view isn't the absense of opposing views, to the contrary it is the balance between them. Your alternative is inacceptable. --Uncle Bungle 23:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It should be pretty easy to find some critics of "google bombing" generally. Sam [Spade] 21:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It should be pretty easy to find some critics of "google bombing" generally. Sam [Spade] 21:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: False analogy. Sam [Spade] 21:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I prefer editing articles to arguing w you, but you can proofread the new article I just wrote @ False analogy if you like :) Sam [Spade] 21:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Lol, ok, fair enough. I'm just frustrated. The analyitical part of my brain screams censorship, and I keep comming up against brick walls here. If I may: Jew Watch is an unpopular website, as such, it is rare to find anyone, especially as prominent as the ADL, who will say that the site was censored. Knud Bjeld Eriksen, however, makes the claim. I don't know why I bother. His site is clearly anti-semetic, and his analysis of censorship is racially charged. However, his article is scheduled to appear in a Danish publication. The article can be read here. 
Well fine, then we can use what I had stated earlier, ie anti-Semites (or if you prefer, Jew Watch's advocates) believe that causing the site's Google ranking to diminish is  a form of censorship. Since we haven't found any credible "free speech advocates" who say so you can't say "Free speech advocates say it's censorship". AndyL 02:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg 00:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  " free speech advocates to argue that it has been censored." 

message: I am giving up the point about censorship. Because it could not be sourced to a "credible institution", it would only be included if the idea was associated with "anti-Semites (or if you prefer, Jew Watch's advocates)". This is terribly unfair to the reader, since it suggests that if they come to the same conclusion, they must be anti-Semetic. To this end it is ironic that AndyL was right all along, it is better to let the reader come to their own conclusion, free from the nagging worry that it may be anti-Semetic to do so.
While I must stress that they have made no such claim, the Anti Defimation  League, or CNN, or some Prof at the University of Toronto, could write "Jew Watch is a disgusting hate hole whose authors would serve the public better hanging from a tree. Anyone who comes short of feeling that the content is contained there should be banned from human conciousness, and that the diminishing from the google search engine is anything other than an absolute victory for all of human kind, ought to be ashamed of themselves". That is, without argument, an incredibly biased (and fictional, crafted by me, just now) statement. I have learned over the past few days that as long as you source the quote, it would be ok to include it.
I spent hours of my time painstakingly laying out my argument for censorship. I researched and cited many appropriate terms and definitions and carefully fitted them with the facts. I fail to see why the points of view of a single individual are any more or less valid than that of a whole organization. After all, there was no one saying "Jew Watch was not censored" either.
We live in truly terrifying times, people. To suggest that only the statements of "credible organizations" warrant attention, is to set a dangerous precedent. It will, over time, result in a singular point of view for all humanity, an idea more terrifying than the most rabbid hate speech.
I would like to thank Fred Bauder for mediating, you were a big help. Also, I would like to thank everyone who took personal jabs at me (read the talk page history, you know who you are), it showed me how the power of truth upsets those who would conceal it.
Sincerely, Uncle Bungle 05:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg 00:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving up...

message: Anyone object to the removal of the NPOV tag? I don't find anything wrong with the article as it reads now.--Uncle Bungle 02:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing NPOV tag, there seemed to be no objections. --Uncle Bungle 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You just need to read this TALK page to see that many see the article as bias, so the NPOV TAG should stay.  The article will be changed to make it neutral and maybe note negative view points in a sub section.  Please discuss changes in NPOV Druidictus 18:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removal 

message: "Jew Watch gained much publicity in 2004 when it became the first website listed in the Internet search engine Google under "Jew" on April 2004 , although a Google bomb campaign was later successful in placing Wikipedia's article "Jew" in the top spot."
It would appear that this is not true, or at least, no longer true: http://www.google.com/search?q=jew --Tothebarricades.tk 00:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A link here if google doesn't automatically redirect you.  It turns up a lot of other hate sites. One thing I do find curious is this: why are the search results different for "google canada"? Does anyone have information about other international sites? Jew Watch is likely illegal in Germany and France, for example. Just idle musing on that issue... --Uncle Bungle 00:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice musing.  Meanwhile, please stop removing that highly relevant and informative material you sourced and inserted on Jan 31. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew Watch is still #1 google result... 

message: Having reviewed the extensive earlier comments, I'm still puzzled as to why this article describes the site as only "viewed as anti-Semitic by its critics".  It is objectively, as a matter of fact, anti-semitic.  Its self-described purpose is given as "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide." I'm changing to reflect this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it highly unlikely that the sites supporters consider the content racist. I further argue that there are those who could read the entire site, and find certain articles of value. Since there is no "anti-Semitism thermometer", the blanket statement "Jew Watch is a(n) ... anti-Semitic website." is not entirely fair, nor is it an objective matter of fact. The openening statement, as it reads now, is a widely held view, thank you for reverting the edits by MeanMrMustard to the version which has been in place since last October. --Uncle Bungle 13:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-semitic

message: I've toned down some of the POV in this article; remember, there's no need to use the authorial voice to tell people how disgusting and ridiculous this site is; instead, keep the article factual and dispassionate, and let the facts do the work. However, reporting other people's expressions of disgust, with attribution and cites, is completely consistent with the NPOV policy. -- Karada 11:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying for POV