Talk:Jew Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of past Talk pages:

Contents

[edit] Neo-Nazi Founder?

There is no supporting evidence that Frank Weltner is a neo-nazi or a member of a white supremecy group. In fact the word "neo-nazi" is used in a negative manner on Jew Watch. It is unfair to label Mr. Weltner and Jew Watch as bigoted and hateful. I have made changes to reflect a more neutral POV.

66.42.111.193 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Marc, Nov. 27, 2006

[edit] Biased

during a cursory review of the site, jewwatch, i saw no calls for the ovens to be turned on etc. barring a direct quote from the website, with a link provided and perhaps a paragraph count to expedite finding said quote, of hate or inciting violence, this site doesnt fit the label anti-semite/jewish.

at the worst, its a conspiracy theory. as i said, barring a hatefull statement on the website, you cant reasonably call jewwatch anti-semitic/jewish without extending yourself.

without making a personal judgement, this website is no different than a website detailing white slavemasters.

also, the term for this page would be, if accurate, anti-jewish. semites are people of semitic origins, and that includes arabs.

jewwatch might be kookery, but it lacks a component to establish it as a hate site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caleb Parks (talk • contribs) .

I think it is not the site that "lacks a component". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

either rebuttal intelligently, or move on Caleb Parks 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Read anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Categorically a hate site. Not worth anyone's time to "rebuttal intelligently". Blastfromthepast 05:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Caleb Parks is right. In America, at least for now, we have free speech. Analyzing, even critically, the role that people of a particular race play in American politics and culture is part of the freedom of thought and expression. If you don't agree with certain material, then either don't read it or write a rebuttal, but don't try to destroy freedom of speech. I don't understand why some people try to control the media by labelling all media with which they disagree "hate speech." There is plenty of media that is critical of other races and religions and no one makes a big deal about it, understanding freedom of speech to be the bedrock of our nation. It is attempts such as this to suppress freedom of speech that give Jews the reputation of trying to control the media. A lot of the claims in this Wikipedia article are unsubstantiated and overly critical. From what I can tell, JewWatch is just an attempt to uncover Jewish roots of politicians and other public figures, under the premise that many prominent figures are Jews who have hidden their race/religion. 160.39.240.81

They are allowed to say what they want, and we are allowed to call it what it is. Aint free speech dandy... si»abhorreo»T

[edit] Bias

I believe that this article is heavily biased against Jew Watch. I am not necessarily stating that I allign myself with Jew Watch, but I feel that to meet Wikipedian standards this article should be more neutral.

Based on your previous edits, you're obviously quite a fan of Jew Watch, and supporter of its beliefs. The language in the article is scrupulously neutral. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And its pretty obvious that you, Jayjg, are a supporter of jewish holocaust propaganda and Israeli warcrimes. Jews must have a different defintion of "neutral", because this article is a hatchet job. But from a site which will not even allow revisionists to edit pages on revisionist beliefs, and instead tries to foist false and ridiculous claims as revisionist doctrine, you can't expect much else.

I am in no way a "fan" of Jew Watch considering that I'm a convert to Catholicism from orthodox Judaism. I lived in Israel for 12 years, my father is a rabbi, and for many years I scrupulously followed every article of the orthodox Jewish faith. Since my conversion I have had to reevaluate many historical aspects of my former religion. Can it be denied that the majority of Bolsheviks that formed the Soviet Union were Jews? No, because this is a fact. Can it be denied that the majority of major media corporations in the United States are owned by Jews? No, because this is a fact. Can it be denied that there are a disproportionate number of Jews in America's government (disproporitionate, considering that they comprise only 2% of America's population)? No, becuse this is a fact. Can one legitimately oppose the existence of the State of Israel? Yes. Are you aware that many orthodox Jews around the world despise Zionism and call the State of Israel blasphemous? Are these Jews "anti-Semites"? Is it wrong to say that Jerusalem, Bethleham, etc., though in a religious sense belong to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, politically belong to the Palestinians? No. By the way, in my youth I studied the Talmud and can see how Judaism influenced communists such as Karl Marx, Lenin, Kamenev, etc. I am mostly opposed to what Jew Watch is doing, but I am not opposing it because I dispute a lot of what it is saying. Rather, I question the effectiveness of its approach when dealing with the issue of Judaism.

The bias is this: "Jew Watch is an antisemitic website." and many other statements in the article.

These statements gives a false impression about the web site jew watch, because the canard anti-semitism implies that there is intentionally malicious, false and misrepresented material regarding jews, this premise is false because the goal of the site is to be scholarly and honest about jews, not make up facts and falsehoods about them. Frank Weltner is a librarian and scholar who has tirelessly researched, documented and put together one of the worlds largest libraries in the world on Jews in our world today.

Lokison

Let's see:
1. The website is about Jews solely, even though the author isn't one.
2. It holds no record of any good deeds comitted by Jews.
3. According to it's "analisis", every bad person in the last millenia was Jewish.
4. Every Jewish organization is called a "hate-group".
5. All "neutral" articles link...to Wikipedia. You didn't even bother copy-pasting.
6. All articles about disputed issues involving Jews are listed in categories like "Jewish atrocities" and "Jewish media lies". The articles themselves I'm not even commenting on.
7. It's main idea is that Jews want to cleanse the Earth from other races. Do we like share a hive mind?
Well, I got better things to do. I'll just leave it at that. --Chodorkovskiy 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that anytime someone fairly and accurately describes jewish behavior they are labelled anti-semite? Can jews do no wrong? And why when facts are presented about jews it is automatically anti-semitic if the facts about jews put them in a negative light? Chodorkovskiy come to terms with jewish ethnocentrism, denying it doesnt make it go away, the first step in healing is to admit you are wrong. Lokison 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's anti-Semitism when "facts" means quotes from Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I can't "admit" Jews dominate the world. Also, I assure you, Jews that I know aren't any more ethnocentric than any other nation. Yes, there are nutcases out there, but labeling Jews "ethnocentric" as a whole is pretty baseless. Hell, why are you even taking this to race? Being Jewish is as much a religion as it is ethnic heritage. P.S. We like to be spelled with a "J".--Chodorkovskiy 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bias? What bias?? pfft.

One of your reasons for the website being anti-semitic is that it doesn't list the 'good deeds' done by Jews? I could make the same argument about the Nazi Germany article...it doesn't list any of the good deeds done by the National Socialist government, only the abhorrant ones. Apparently it's also anti-semitic to not capitalize the word "Jew" now. --Nazrac 22:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

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)

If this continues, I completely agree. The procedure is described at WP:SEMI. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the vandalism is low-grade and easily reverted as long as enough people keep it on their watchlist. Semi-protecting means these agenda-pushers will get logins, come and rant on this talkpage, etc etc. I'm not sure if that's what we should be doing. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No AD hominen here, just stating what seems to be the case. Sounds to me like some people want the article to be "protected" so that it can't be evolved or expanded to more accurately reflect accuracy and NPOV regarding jew watch.com. Right now JW is not NPOV, its JPOV (biased). Just read the first sentence, that immediately informs you it is JPOV (biased). The first statement is a lie. Jew Watch is NOT an anti-semitic site, it is an honest site, or an accurate site, but not anti-semitic. I sense your unfair desire to "protect" the site is to protect the feelings of a certain group. The minor vandalism here and there is no excuse to try to block or protect the page. Lokison 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

There are no coincidences in the universe right? => <g> but all joking aside, what is your definition of anti-semitism? and does this site fit that accurately? Also, is it possible for their to be things on wikipedia that might hurt some peoples sensitive nature? or is wikipedia a warm fuzzy happy feel good place where everyone is equal, just some people are more equal than others? That's what this article says to me in the first sentence. Lokison 08:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

So... how about that semi-protection? --Chodorkovskiy 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/NPOV NOTICE !!!

This article is not NPOV at all. It doesn't contain the Jewish POV on the site. Contains no criticism. How could such an article be like this for so long? Ems2 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is biased in favor of jews because the first line of the article says jew watch is an anti-semitic web site, which means if the average joe reads that will think the site is one big malicious lie, which it isn't even close 99% of the facts on jew watch are accurate. Jew watch is one of the most scholarly libraries in existence on the jews. Jew watch article is 100% jewish POV. Lokison 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that the same Jew Watch according to which homosexuality and atheism are "Jewish mind control mechanisms"? The tag has to go. --Chodorkovskiy 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned below and in the NPOV the site is going to be changed as the consensus isn't yet had on this article. What I propose is that the article describe what the site in question is documenting, and that is the various content on corruption caused by Zionists. Then have two subsections where popular positive and negative opinions are noted about the site. The goal is to keep the article balanced and fair, yet take a neutral stance in the main description sections. Druidictus 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The first dispute is over the site being unequivocally worded as anti-semitic, this term has to go as it's perfectly bias! Why, as all articles should take a neutral stance as noted in NPOV rules.

Continuing, the second dispute is the main section needs to be totally neutral as well and void of editor’s opinion. The main sections should only note specifics of the site in question, and what the site owner has stated is the intent of the site. All negatives and positives should be placed in a to be proposed section.

We now need submissions in this area for replacements of the main section! Druidictus 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jew Watch "keeps a close look on Jewish communities all over the world". Where do you see "Zionists" or "corruption" in that sentence? The website is filled with categories such as: "Jewish Atrocities" (all wars in the last 150 years, for instance), "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms" (Homosexuality, Atheism, Human Rights, etc.) and so on and so on... Unless you also think Jews invented human rights to control the minds of other races, you'll agree that it does not take a giant leap of faith to believe Jew Watch is biased against Jews. This sentence fits here perfectly: "anti-Semitism ... is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews". They even got a section for your argument: "new anti-Semitism ... uses the language of anti-Zionism and criticism against Israel to attack the Jews more broadly."
However, no debate would be complete without me temporarily assuming the opposing side's position. How do you suggest we write the opening section? "On one hand, Jew Watch lists a dozen Jewish actors. On the other, it refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a legitimate source..."
Like I've said before, Jew Watch is an example of how an anti-Semitic website should look. Denying it's anti-Semitism is like denying anti-Semitism as a whole. I believe the phrase commonly used for that is "it's not anti-Semitic to tell the truth." --Chodorkovskiy 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Besides any opinions, the article has to take a neutral approach in the main sections. Plain and simple, and it's going to change soon. You are breaking Wikipedia's conventions if you are promoting non neutral articles. cont.
We need reader to submit NEUTRAL versions of the main section and or reformating ideas, please. Druidictus 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE WE NEED SUBMISSIONS. We need people to submit their neutral version of the main section, as the article is going to change but to what? I will write up my own if no one else is willing. We need proper procedure so that there is valid protection again pro-Jewish factions vandalising the article in the future. Druidictus 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I give you absolute proof of anti-Semitism, and your reply is "don't be ridiculos"? This isn't about opinions. It's like arguing The Simpsons isn't a comedy series - it's a documentary. By the way, if in every episode they would do nothing but praise the White Man, the article about Simpsons would contain the words "white supremecist". P.S. Please make specific suggestions.--Chodorkovskiy 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Chod, your opinion is subjective. We need the article to have a total neutral main body. I will submit my neutral edit on the 9th if no one else has, that's one month since I asked others to submit their ideas. I personally would like others to write as it makes me an umpire for neutrality. 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Druidictus 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry been busy. No one else as modified or submitted their ideas. I will return in a few days to hack out a neutral head article with others here. Cheers 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Druidictus 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "hack out" anything. Don't get me wrong, if what you come up with is better than what the article looks like now, I'll support it myself. What I'm saying is take your time and set realistic goals.--Chodorkovskiy 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is there to backup? I already said the problems, the site has had much criticism on the web, yet none of it is mentioned in the article. Until it is, the article is POV. Ems2 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean "support"? If not, please explain. If you do, I actually think it's a good idea to list the supporters of Jew Watch. --Chodorkovskiy 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it just hit me. You mean the article is biased pro-Jew Watch? As in, it needs more criticism? Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but I guess it's viable to demonstrate the response JW had on the internet - from both sides. Any specific suggestions?--Chodorkovskiy 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article contains none of the criticism on how baseless it is, just some external links, that are hardly the real hardcore criticism. Ems2 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Change for "Jew Watch" Section in Article.

I noticed the heading section "Jew Watch" is very opinionated towards concluding Jewwatch.com is anti-semitic. Can we make the approach balanced or maybe put a negative and positive section below that contains the different view points. Druidictus 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We want Wikipedia accurate not bias.

Um, no. We want Wikipedia accurate. You want it to support Jew Watch. Anyone who has ever seen the website in question will instantly agree that it is horribly racist and biased, unless of course they share these qualities. I have given examples of JW being anti-Semitic on numerous occasions (on this very page), only to have my opponent leave me hanging and start another discussion on the same topic with the same agenda. In fact, it's happening right now. Jew Watch is exemplary in it's anti-Semitism.
P.S. My patience with the NPOV tag is running out. It seems people just put it up to discredit the article, having absolutely no intention of backing their claim of bias up. Unless some serious points are made in the NPOV discussion, I will remove the above mentioned tag unilateraly. --Chodorkovskiy 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry No doesn't mean NO it means discuss till there is a consensus, or I can just say it's YES.
JewWatch isn't racist it is anti-Zionism because Zionism is a supremacist cause which wants the downfall of other societies.
Some understanding could be... Is a whistle blower anti-electricity if they worked and show corruption in Enron? Is a whistle blower anti-government if they make public, political corruption? Well the same goes for JewWatch, they are documenting Zionist corruption. Druidictus 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
By "no", I meant "no, you don't want Wikipedia accurate". I'm sorry, but where on Earth did you get the idea JW is anti-Zionist? Did you ever visit it? It's not "Zion Watch", not even "Jewish Supremecy Watch", just "Jew Watch". Most of the website deals with Jews from all over the world and their many, many "crimes". I go to NPOV now : ) --Chodorkovskiy 19:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have visited JewWatch.com and I find it a great resource. I've notice many Jewish quotes on the site that are directed at the trouble Zionism has and is causing. There are many Jews who are self protective and also anti-Zionists, those want a homeland but aren't interested in destroying others to get it and this is partly honourable. JewWatch even in its name may indicate concern, but the site only documents organised corruption that has a Jewish flavour. You could say in other words, Zionism is those that are fundamental followers of the Talmud, so therefore they are racists and supremacists under modern laws and human rights. JewWatch is exposing these corrupt people and their organisations. Druidictus 10:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The site claims that Jews want to dominate the world, not just Israel. Nowhere on the site are any Jews portrayed in a positive light. Anti-semitism is clearly the correct term.
Of course. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You say yourself: "the site only documents organised corruption that has a Jewish flavour.". Not anti-Semitic, huh? Besides, that's just not true. There's all sorts of crap there about Jewish conspiracies and individual Jewish criminals. There's actually relatively little written in JW about Zionism. The website just labels famous Jews evil, or (im most cases) claims famously evil people are Jewish. That has nothing to do with Zionism. We're not talking about opposing Zionism. Jew Watch isn't "blowing the whistle" on Zionism. It talks about Jews and how much evil they cause. If that's not deliberatly inflaming racial hatred - I don't know what is. --Chodorkovskiy 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The "criticism" section added by Ems2 is practically empty. I suspect few have tried a line-by-line criticism in any of this site's ghastly pieces, probably because one wouldn't know where to begin. To the casual reader, mention of the subjects discussed on the site is enough to understand this site is physically unable to see Jews in anything but the worst possible light. I think we should stick to 1-2 major critics of the site; this will certainly do. Listing everyone who has spoken out about it would be overkill. JFW | T@lk 03:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, lets not make this like the chabad article. Ems2 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've commented-out the whole section as being devoid of content. Lambiam 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is aganist the NPOV policy. ems 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's closer to NPOV than the other way. Please, the matter is already sensetive: let's show we can keep a neutral point of view and only use direct citations.--Chodorkovskiy 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Suppose some article on X contains a paragraph stating "The proponents of X maintain X is good, while the detractors of X claim that X is bad." Do you really think it is against NPOV to remove such vacuously true statements? It is a different matter if you can state "George W. Bush maintains that X is good[1], while Dick Cheney claims that X is bad[2]." Lambiam 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be absolutely perfect. Except that here, we don't have a direct source (yet). Until we can put an X source behind the X statement, it has no place in the article. --Chodorkovskiy 08:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: jewwatch.com is posting articles about Jews based on Wikipedia articles

A recent review of Jew Watch (an antisemitic website that claims to "report accurate information regarding Jewish ownership and control over mass media and politics," and which describes its objective as "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide") (Wikipedia) shows that they identifying Jews (from Category:Lists of Jews) and linking to Wikipedia as THEIR "source", see for example "Jews on Stage, Screen, Musicians, Artists, Etc." at [3] This is a serious development that should serve as a warning to all that anti-Semites are riding on the back of all this public identification of Jews. IZAK 10:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that. Yes, the well is often (very often) poisoned, but this doesn't mean citing articles written by sane people is wrong. What's wrong is citing the Protocols... --Chodorkovskiy 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
They're not even citing the articles. These are the same old incorrect lists that show up everywhere. This linking to Wikipedia is a good thing, because now anyone can click on an article, read a person's non-Jewish background on Wikipedia, and see that JewWatch is full of crap. Vulturell 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In hopes to avoid/appease antisemites, Jews can try to hide, run or play dead. I don't think it would be right, though. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Neo-Nazi websites

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)

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)

[edit] Google.ca result

Jew Watch has always been #1 on Google.ca until it was censored by Google. See here. Possibly, this is because laws in Canada prevent hate speech against an identifiable group, but the explination is not clear. - Abscissa 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article itself explains it later on: "On the Canadian Google site, Jew Watch is not displayed as a result at all, since it has been removed by Google due to complaints that the result was "illegal under ... local law." ... (This unsigned comment was added by Chordorkovskiy)
Yes, that was my edit from a while ago... previously the article contradicted itself. - Abscissa 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay then. Sorry I forgot to sign. --Chodorkovskiy 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does not comport with wikipedia's neutrality guidelines

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)

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)

[edit] Citations Needed

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)

[edit] Heads Up

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)

[edit] Edit

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)

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)

do not revert my edits with no reason. you are out of line, and i will continue to revert aslong as you will.

Caleb Parks 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Authorship

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)


[edit] Overview

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)

[edit] More Overview

Jew Watch also has a large list of names of celebrities and historical figures which it claims are Jewish or of Jewish descent. For example, it erroneously claims that individuals such as Joseph Stalin, Dwight David Eisenhower, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill were Jewish. The website also condemns Christianity for being a "Jewish Religion".[2]

The site has a number of quotations which are purported to be from the Talmud or Jewish figures; without footnotes or proper citations these are impossible to verify; others are lifted entirely from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-known anti-semitic forgery written in the late 19th Century.

this says the claim is erroneous, with no references to back this up. until refutation is provided the word should be removed as i have done several times now.

additionally, religious texts of Judaism are available widely on the internet, and as such can absolutly be verified. it shouldnt even be an issue to remove that obvious on its face bogus line.

the protocols are not widely known outside of the jewish community [which is a guess but likely an accurate one] and skinheads. well known it is not.

the forgery assertation is the dominate opinion of the day on wikipedia. however, the text it is supposedly originated from [dailogues in hell by joly] contains less than a 17 percent occurance of incidence. alot of books might fall into that category under those rules.

while the quotations are impossible to verify, or so is claimed here, in jewish texts, they are apparently easily verifiable when it comes to the protocols. so this should be easily cited, or it needs to be removed.

it is my opinion that a more fair and legitimate substitution would be 'others are lifted entirely from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book critical of plans or motives ascribed to jews historically.'


Caleb Parks 06:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd better go fix the article on the Protocols then, hadn't you? It isn't 'critical', it pretends to be written by Jews but has been proven a fake.
Perhaps the article should be amended to reflect that, while the quotes may be possible to verify, jewwatch doesn't bother to cite properly or put the quotes in context. That's their job, not the article's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.146.112.47 (talk • contribs).
Why not put something in about how JewWatch contrasts Dustin Hoffman with Joseph Stalin? I though that was hilarious!
The above comments by Caleb Parks is a case of trolling, not worthy of a serious response. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone from strict filtering

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)

[edit] Bias

'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)

It is true, they claim neutrality yet clearly have demonstrable bias, it is not just pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont see britannica pulling some move like this. if they said that they hate jews i wouldnt even quibble over this. you are coming at this with a POV and therefor, of course, it looks like hate speech to you. but its not about you or me, its about information without a political or religious veiwpoint.

Caleb Parks 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Jew Watch it just a normal encyclopedia, the only reason people "throw accusations at it" are because they are Jews.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

do you have anything to add, or are you going to continue to engage in race baiting claptrap?

Caleb Parks 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

LoL, "race bating claptrap", funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

without further arguement, the reduction stands.

Caleb Parks 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous

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)

Sorry, but none of the names listed are Jewish. Joseph Stalin was in fact a Georgian gentile.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

well, im glad that youve been able to find out the backgrounds of every single person on the list. given that references are valuable, i cant wait to see verification of every name on the list on a website. once that happens, with decent sources, we can put this to bed.

until then, erroneous shouldnt be on the article.

Caleb Parks 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRINCIPLE APPROACH TO JW

i spent several days on jewwatch. then i went through discussion here several times. i think, discussion is missing one simple point: it is not about jew watch being hate site or not hate site; it is not about article in wiki being biased or not; it is not about how much time one chodorkovski wants to spend on the web, torpedoing any opinion that is not to his/her liking with subjective statements. we need to look at the JW from a principle point of view: is information provided in jew watch sound or it is incorrect? now, i am absolutely not the brightest person out there. so, this idea should have crossed the smarter minds many times since JW inception. it is the easieast way to prove to the world that JW is biased - by proving, in a generally accepted, factitious manner, that documents on JW are nothing but bunch of lies. as far as i know, there is no such thing. ergo, unless proven otherwise, JW is sound as a documentary. unless proven otherwise, it will be what it is - telling anyone who finds it what it tells. wu wei wu said once: "truth, in order to be effective, must pierce like an arrow. and this is likely to hurt". i disagree with some articles in JW, but it is some. i, at the same time, am greatly impressed with others, like huge documentary on federal reserve. one either has to prove JW wrong on all counts, or anything one says against JW is nothing but biased subjective opinion. it is said in the middle east: one can yell baclava all he wants, does not make it sweet in the mouth. you either fight documents with documents, or you keep your mouth shut and your opinions for yourself, or you become a fool. logically, article in wiki should be completely neutral, instead of shifting into "hate site" gears right on. it insults my intelligence to think that none of such article can be written. it may not be willed to be written objectively, but that's a completely different bear.

ingvar leskovar

64.65.135.88 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, before long, there's gonna be an attempt on my life. Let's see what the article says:
"Although the maintainers of the site insist that it is not a hate site, it is widely recognized as an anti-Semitic[1][2][3] website and has received much criticism from a wide range of organizations and individuals."
Do you dispute this? I have no need to prove that every single document on JW is wrong, because they're not. Fact is, some articles therein are perfectly neutral. But that is utterly irrelevant, as JW states its primary purpose as "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide." While the website is not "wrong on all accounts", (much like a broken clock, which shows the right time twice in 24 hours), it openly states that its goal is a racist one. Had Weltner bothered to word it differently (e.g. "keeping a close watch on corrupt power lords and media networks"), one could dispute the point. He did not, however. JW is racist and proud of it. Omitting this little piece of info from the article would itself qualify as bias. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible to verify religious text quotes?

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)

I'm sorry but I do not follow your logic. You are suggesting that because we are not allowed to violate copyright, the passages are automatically verifiable?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

are you trying to tell me, with a straight face, that books written at the very earliest 2000 years ago are copyrighted?

i thought, though i could be wrong, that i led to a direct conclusion: claims made on wikipedia must be verifiable. when it is claimed that something is unverifiable, and is then shown to be verifable [or not, as the case may be] then the phrase has to be removed. quotes can be verified. if the quotes are false, thats an entirly different matter, but thats not up for discussion right now.

Caleb Parks 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I apoligize, but I really have no clue what you are talking about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[quote]The site has a number of quotations which are purported to be from the Talmud or Jewish figures; without footnotes or proper citations these are impossible to verify[/quote]

they are possible to verify, or proven to be false. the portion after the semi-colon is false.


Caleb Parks 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)


The way I understand it, the phrase impossible means practically impossible. Unless you have very extensive knowledge of the Talmud, there is no way to find those quotes.Unmitigated Success 09:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


hows about this: 'without footnotes, these are difficult to prove or disprove.'

Caleb Parks 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google's sponsored link

"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)

[edit] Semi-protected

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)

[edit] rain of fire discussed?

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>Goldberg, Jonah (2000-08-15). Proud and true: He's a Jew. Jewish World Review. Retrieved on 2006-04-08.<-/ref> Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what they mean is that the holocaust shouldn't refer to the murder of 6 million Jews, but instead should refer to the Bombing of Dresden. Obviously just idiotic editorializing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i beleive its refering to how people of various religions, including judaism, thought that WW2 was a cleansing fire that purged evil off of earth. i hardly think thats true, but for the sake of discussion id thought id drop this in.

Caleb Parks 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Jew watch is 100% anti-semitic, but that is MY opinion. Dont put your opinion into the article. Statements like "It also makes the ironic suggestion" and "is widely considered as anti-semitic" in ruining the NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.129.11 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Anti Semestim

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 [4] for example, and the etymology part of the article [5]. Unmitigated Success 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article doesnot depict truth...

Jewwatch has cited references for Talmud and Torah's worst facts. It is not anti-smitic as it only points at refernces. It has much more creditibility than this crap article. It never criticized Christanity but merely tells how it was manipulated by Rich jews in recent era. In fact, web site correctly aniticpates such a bigoted attack from zionists in itself. This article clearly falls into that section (a rant by fundamental zionist).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.14.36 (talk • contribs).

Of course, Thank you for pointing out the truth about those devious Jews. I never even noticed that the article was just an uninformed rant until I read your obvious encyclopedic comment right now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" in either case. Actually, the part about unsourced torah statements needs to be sourced itself. I've skimmed trough the sources, in vain. (Except the nytimes article, see below.)

no, it was not. If there is anti-Semitism, there must be Semitism (fascism/antifascism, communism/anticommunism).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.129.107.92 (talk • contribs).

And what do those "Semitists" of yours do? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nytimes article

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)

[edit] Protocols edit

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)


[edit] Why does Wikipedia link to the site?

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
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.

[edit] Critical examination

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. [6]
  • 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

YouTube also has videos that can be seen as factual or as propoganda. [12]

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[13], 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? [14] 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)

[edit] Biased against Jewwatch

This article is clearly written in biased tone towards JewWatch. It is a good site which preserves and shows Jewish atrocities against Palistianians. And not only this site claims that some gentiles are Jewish, many Jews do same, for example Jewish reporter for New York Times claimed that Robert DeNiro was Jewish. Hahaha! And also it was a Jew writing in a newspaper that claimed Churchill had Jewish mother, that is where source is from.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.247.230 (talk • contribs).

Okayyyyy.... Your a kinda crazy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not crazy, it's just misunderstood. The paragraph makes perfect sense if you see this edit. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, people like you really do exist. 69.167.103.146

[edit] David Duke is a malignant narcissist

Has anyone seen mention of an article on Jewwatch titles, "David Duke is a malignant narcissist." I can't seem to find the published copy, and I know it was on Stormfront.org 69.167.103.146

[edit] Aligned article

This article is clearly aligned...

No doubt, Jew watch get many confirmed ressources, which should be discussed.


[edit] So how is this not a hate site again?

"I Pray for Peaceful People in this World Who Will Erase the Jewish Nazis Who Hate Me"

From jewwatch, wow , so the bigots here are not only bigots, they're stupid too, guess they go hand in hand. 204.193.129.160 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJew_Watch_1a13.html"