Talk:Jew Watch/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

Is there any objection to removing the NPOV warning?AndyL 18:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no POV objections to the page as it stands 18:26, 29 Oct 2004. --Uncle Bungle 18:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I guess its unanimous then, eh? Sam [Spade] 21:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is biased against Jew Watch in a very obvious manner and you people should be ashamed of yourself in blathering and ranting on about anti-semitism, when jew watch is one of the most accurate and popular web sites on the Internet.

Lokison 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it "accurate" if it says the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real? Wikipedia has an adamant position towards the Protocols. --Chodorkovskiy 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

" free speech advocates to argue that it has been censored."

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)

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)
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)
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)

The only ones who seem to say this are defenders of the site. I haven't seen anything from the ACLU or even the Electronic Freedom Foundation claiming the site has been "censored". If either organization has made such a statement then cite it by all means but otherwise describing the site's defenders as "free speech advocates" would be editorialising. AndyL 20:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Until we can find someone to attribute the censorship claim to I am removing it. AndyL 21:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Then you shouldn't have a problem finding someone who has said the site has been "censored".

In any case, I think one would be hard pressed to make the claim. Say, for instance, a new book by Michael Moore is listed as #1 on the NYTimes best-sellers list and opponents of Moore organise a campaign to have people buy a particular book by Ann Coulter with the aim of knocking Moore's book out of the #1 spot and say they succeed in this. Does this mean Moore's book has been censored simply because fewer people are likely to buy it if it's not "#1" on the list. Say conservatives organize a campaign to have all their supporters buy ten specific books in order to knock Moore out of the top ten altogether (or prevent it from reaching the top ten at all). Being on the NYTimes best sellers list means more people will buy your books. Not being on the list means many won't buy it or perhaps even hear of it. So would such a campaign be "censorship"? Hardly, it's not preventing anyone from reading or buying the book it's just encouraging people to buy other books. It's a bit like saying if NBC puts The Apprentice on the same time slot as Survivor and encourages people to watch its offering that NBC is censoring Survivor.AndyL 21:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Care to back that up with an argument?AndyL 21:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

I know what a false analogy is. I don't think you should throw out the accusation unless you're prepared to back it up.Assertions are useless if you don't provide a proof. AndyL 01:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle claims that Seth Finkelstein describes the google bombing as censorship. I've read his report [1] and I don't see where he's said that. He warns against Google putting Jew Watch on its "internal blacklist" but that's different from google bombing and I don't see him referring to the google bombing as censorship anywhere. Please provide a quotation. AndyL 01:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"When most people think of manipulating Google results, they think of the Google-gaming practice know as Google bombing . Technically, this manipulates Google search results by hyping the ranking factor associated with the words used to link to a site."

"The factors that Google uses to rank pages have long been a target for financial ends (i.e., Google-spam). But parallel to that, and less deeply examined than it should be, is the potential targeting for political ends."

The article then links to his article on Google Censorship. A link to a related article I would imagine. --Uncle Bungle 01:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But where does he call "Google Bombing" censorship as opposed to Google placing something on their blacklist?

And no, you can't put something on your talk page and then cite yourself as the source. That's not the way we work here. That's called original research and is just a means of sneaking in a POV. You can't say in an article "Some people say elephants are green" if you are the "some people". AndyL 01:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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. http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/jew_hate.htm

Of course, I'm sure it was maddening for Saint_Augustine to find an audience for his round earth theories. Maybe he was hounded by Flat earth zealots who questioned his motives, his arguments, and shouted "prove it prove it prove it". Of course, that is pure speculation. --Uncle Bungle 02:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Jew Watch say it was censored? If they do (I haven't been able to find a reference on their website to the google incident) then you can say "Jew Watch claims it was censored". If another organization or notable individual says so then you can quote them but you can't say they were censored just because it's *your opinion* that they were. If you could then it would be incredibly easy for all editors to insert their POV's into articles just by citing themselves as the source. You have to find someone or some group (somwhat notable, not your next door neighbour) who you can cite. AndyL 02:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

See, here is the thing, I have obviously argued that the google bomb has qualified as censorship, but I am not an anti-Semite, nor do I advocate their content, only their right to speak and be heard. I guess thats what happens when you stand up for something unpopular. If you revert to the last version before my modification to "free speech advocate", I suppose it is a fair compromise. Please include a link to the wikipedia article advocate for clarification. --Uncle Bungle 02:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Giving up...

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)

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

If somebody calls you an anti semite, what can you say: I'm not an anti semite? If somebody says you're a racist, or a nazi or something you always loose, the person who throws the mud always wins, because there is no way to respond to these charges" - Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Concent (video), 2:04:40

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg 00:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV removal

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)

Removing NPOV tag, there seemed to be no objections. --Uncle Bungle 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)

I still think the page is too tame. It understates the absolutely irrational tone of many JewWatch articles. Yet, I think the tag may be removed. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think there is still an "anti-Jew Watch" slant (I've been over this in previous talk pages). Reality is probably somewhere in the middle. --Uncle Bungle 00:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jew Watch is still #1 google result...

"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)

It's not even in the top 10 for google.ca. --Uncle Bungle 00:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A link here if google doesn't automatically redirect you. [2] 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)
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)

Anti-semitic

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)

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)

I don't say that it's racist, I say that it's *anti-semitic as a matter of fact*. This is because its stated purpose is "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide." Whether there are articles of value is not an issue either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for Uncle Bungle: what, in your view, is anti-Semitism? JFW | T@lk 16:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this site gone?

I just went to "Jewwatch.com" and the site appears to be down. Is this permanent or is it just temporary? Sirkumsize 13:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does that make you sad? In the future, put new comments on the BOTTOM of the page. Tomer TALK 03:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The site could be considered NOT anti-semetic because there is no 'hatred' quality to the site, it merely reports stories about jews from a different perspective. It is not antisemetic according to its supportors, but only to its critics. This is why it would be correct to say it is anti-semetic to its critics, to it's suppporters it is (blah, blah, what is says currently.

Hitler's perspective was also a "different" perspective. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point of view. So only people who admit to being racist can be legitimately called racist? Regardless, there is a difference between Jew Watch and Wiki Watch: all Wikipedians are Wikipedians by choice, while Jews are born. It is not racist to monitor the actions of Wikipedians because they're Wikipedians (Zionists, businessmen, bikers, lawyers, you name it) but it is racist to monitor the actions of Jews because they're Jews (African-Americans, Koreans, etc.). Therefore, whether Jew Watch is drowning in bias, or merely reports Jewish crimes - the original idea stands: Jew Watch is anti-Semitic by definition. Just like "Chinese Watch" or "White Watch" would be. P.S. By the way, there already is a similar discussion in the appropriate section, with similar results, too. --Chodorkovskiy 17:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia back on top

I just did a google search for 'Jew' ([3]) and wikipedia, not jewwatch, was the first result. Would some one like to edit this article, or should it be left as it is, seeing as the balance between wikipedia and jewwatch has changed a couple of times in the past?

Anti-semitic

I'm new to this, and just made an edit to the main page, removing the reference declaring jewwatch to be anti-Semitic, as clearly that doesn't hold to NPOV. I'm sure it will quickly be reverted.

I don't dispute that a lot of the content is anti-Semitic. I just don't care for the way these issues are resolved. Usually one side prevails by shaming the other side, and that isn't getting us anywhere.

The one issue that jewwatch addresses that I would like to see clarified concerns Jewish control of the media. This assertion seems to be dismissed out of hand, but my admittedly non-scientific survey of the top media organizations in America reveals that in fact Jews are heavily predominant. What is the best way of determining the extent of Jewish representation in the media? Would it be productive to make this its own topic?

I think it's relevant given the degree to which Israel shapes our foreign policy. I think I can demonstrate that the media coverage of Israel, the Middle East, terrorism and the war on terror in general is very biased in favor of Israel/Jews and against Arabs/Moslems.

If indeed Jews are in positions of power well outside of what would be expected given their numbers in our society, it is not anti-Semitic to say so. Any concentration of power should be fair game, as whenever power aggregates, bad things inevitably happen.

I look forward to your feedback.

unsigned comment by user:Kirkswig 02:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that. Kirkswig 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it will be reverted, it was a good call. Tomer TALK 04:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

For months this page has clearly stated the site is antisemitic, because it is. It is not a serious enquiry, otherwise we'd read hard statistics and obvious well-researched incidents. Right now it is full of conspiracy theories and obviously anti-Semitic.
Kirkswig, please understand that NPOV has a certain limit. If everybody agrees that Nero was mad, than Wikipedia does not need to state "many believe Nero was mad" but simply "Nero was mad". The consensus version has stated in the introduction that JW is anti-Semitic, and I think we should leave it like this. JFW | T@lk 06:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Why does every news link go to heavily biased National Vanguard articles? JFW | T@lk 06:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with Jfdwolff, I was obviously wrong that it wouldn't be reverted...although I don't think moving the words around constituted an egregious violation of common sense, nor a POVing of the article. Oh well. I obviously need a new crystal ball. Tomer TALK 07:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not mention any such "limit", on the contrary, it talks about the need to maintain neutrality even in the face of morally repugnant views. Moreover, the fact that the page has been biased for as long as it has is hardly an argument for keeping it the way it is. By declaring it to be anti-Semitic outright, you declare its contents to be summarily invalid, yet you can't or won't explain why this is. Surely a better approach here is to maintain NPOV and refute at least the major allegations made by the site and let the readers decide for themselves.

As I mentioned earlier, I would like to see this, esp. on the subject of Jewish control over the media. I don't believe that it is anti-Semitic to want to learn more about this topic, but I get the feeling that you do. So am I too to be dismissed by stamping me with the label 'anti-Semite'? There is clearly a difference of opinion here, and I think my point-of-view is a reasonable one, a point-of-view that should preclude outright declaring the site to be anti-Semitic, and instead reserving that description for the well-placed "Critics" section, where it obviously belongs.

How do I appeal this? I do not believe JFW is sufficiently detached from the issue to be given control over the content of this page. I would at least ask that the page be flagged as being in dispute. I would furthermore ask those who believe it to be an anti-Semitic site to qualify this language with reasons why it is anti-Semitic, so that we can know they aren't simply seeking to censor unpopular speech they don't agree with. I find it ironic that one of the criticisms leveled at JW is the fact that many of its charges don't have footnotes or citations of any kind, yet we can condemn the site as being absolutely anti-Semitic without pointing to a single reason why.

Kirkswig 08:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I feel that we already gave them too much credit and I wouldn't want WP to become a popularization platform for JW. The idea to list & debunk popular antisemtic myths is being brought from time to time. Maybe we'll do it someday. For now, perhaps we should do a better job by linking to informative encyclopedic sites, such as [4], [5], etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting. I'll admit I didn't read the docs on how to edit, sign entries, and properly indent my replies. However, it appears that neither of the two gentlemen responding to me have bothered to read about what and why Wikipedia is. I take it you (and possibly others) squat on this page with the sole intent of forbidding any expression of ideas other than your own. It's a sad commentary on Wikipedia and it's sad that individuals such as yourselves are forced to resort to such behavior. You are the mirror image of JW. I see no point in continuing here. Have a nice day. Kirkswig 10:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Good thing, Kirkswig. Go peddle your hatred somewhere else. You do not seem to be particularly detached either. JFW | T@lk 13:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and don't go to a doctor. A disproportionate amount of them are Jews, and they have introduced concepts of Jewish supremacism in medical research to cause disadvantage to people without Jewish genes. Honestly, modern medicine - like the media - is a Jewish business. Don't trust any medic. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The only person who is being hateful here is you. It must be terrible having to live your life in this way. The point about Jewish doctors is, of course, moronic. Jews excel in many fields, and I have no quarrel with excellence. The term "excellence" however cannot be truthfully used to describe the quality of today's news media, so while you can say that we see more Jews in medicine because so many Jews have a talent for it (akin to British dominance in Rock-n-Roll or African-American dominance in basketball), you cannot say that we see so many Jews in the media because they're good at it as well. Your participation here shames Wikipedia. It is supposed to be a vehicle for discovery, not a bludgeon with which to inflict your views on others. Kirkswig 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think there are "so many" Jews in the media, and why do you think that their presence there is not because they are "good at it as well"? Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's very interesting that it is you who is asking this question, given the fact that you just deleted many of the entries I've made on the List of Jews page. I understand you did this because there are no individual entries for these people; I will be remedying this shortly. If you look at who heads the top three newspapers, the top three newsweeklies, the three television networks, and two of the three cable news networks, and then do the math, you discover that the odds against such disproportionate representation are staggering. We're talking lottery odds here.
As to the question of quality, I mean, c'mon. Where was the news media when it was obvious well in advance of the invasion of Iraq that the premise for this war was false? Where was the news media in the face of the obvious fraud in the 2004 election? Where is the news media on the Downing Street memos? The issue that has given a hint of stridency to my step is drug policy... why does the media first omit and then resort to lies when covering stories that are pertinent to the way this country wages the war on drugs?
The quality of the news we receive may be measured in any number of ways I suppose, but at its core, there has to be a spirit of independence and a willingness to turn over the really big rocks. Our news media today is completely devoid of that. Now it's true that corporate ownership is a great evil here, but people are willing to talk about the impact this kind of dominance has on the news coverage we receive. People are not willing to talk about the impact Jewish ownership/control may have on news coverage however. And that's what concerns me.
None of this would be relevant were it not for Israel. Take Israel out of the picture and frankly, I wouldn't care. Just as I don't care about the percentage of Jewish doctors or lawyers or whatever. Dominance in the media however necessarily equates to a tremendous aggregation of power, and the presence of Israel provides a means through which this power is spent. I don't think there's any question that there is a tremendous bias towards Israel in the news coverage we see today. I believe it has colored the way we look at the entire region, including the war on Iraq and the war on Afghanistan and the upcoming war on Iran.
I think the best example of this bias was the way that a specific revelation in the 9-11 Commission Report was totally ignored by the news media. That revelation was the fact that KSM, the architect of 9-11, cited U.S. support for Israeli policy against the Palestinian people as a reason for the attack. 99% of Americans are not aware of this, precisely because the news media chose not to cover the story. I interpret the reason for choosing not to cover the story as concern for the future of American support for Israel. I find that unacceptible.
Closer to home, I also find it unacceptible that the news media should engage in any kind of agenda, because it has the effect of starving the attention other important issues receive. Like the war on drugs. My thinking is that with an agenda like Israel first and foremost in the minds of those who control our media, other issues which might detract from the political capital these newspapers and television networks are avoided; political capital that is being reserved for Israel.
Jew Watch is of peripheral concern to me; I only note that it is one of only two sources on the Internet which purport to detail the extent of Jewish representation in the media. The other of course is Radio Islam. The reason I question declaring such sites to be anti-Semitic outright is because at least some of what they are doing is clearly not anti-Semitic. Understanding any force that may be at play in skewing our news coverage is fair game. With power comes responsibility, or to put it another way, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
My hope here is to use the List of Jews page to detail exactly the extent of Jewish representation in the media. I expect this is going to be a rough ride. I see no better way of documenting such representation than through Wikipedia, where any false assertions can and will be quickly corrected. I think we both know that when such a list starts to fully take shape, the influence that Jews wield throughout the media will be unmistakable. I think that, in anticipation of this, the list is going to receive renewed calls for deletion. I think that ironic, given the probably disingenuous statements like have been seen here as to the intent of debunking conspiracies involving Jews. Well, here's a great opportunity!
It probably won't come to that of course. I do not have editing privileges, and its pretty clear to me already that intimidation is as much a tool here as the Edit links that adorn each section of each page on the site.
I'll just say this once. The ultimate expression of hatred is violence resulting in death. Whether it's the war on terror or the war on drugs, those who are committing the most hatred today are those who make these wars possible. I just want to see the violence stop. Kirkswig 19:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "document Jewish control of the media"; please keep that in mind. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual information with a NPOV. JW is stated to be anti-Semitic. One of the reasons given is that it focuses on "Jewish control of the media". Given the emphasis on citations, footnotes -- on providing evidence to back up assertions -- surely it is within the mandate of WP to provide such information. I only want the truth. Kirkswig 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that there is "Jewish control of the media" is misleading at best, and in practice an outright falsehood. The fact that those supporting this thesis apparently include among the "Jews controlling the media" anyone who might have a drop of Jewish blood in them, from some distant ancestor, highlights the fundamentally racist nature of this thesis and obsession. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not a falsehood simply because you say so. Surely you understand that. It is a falsehood only if it is proved false. Kirkswig 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

For the conspiracy theorist, no amount of proof is good enough. In any event, it is actually up the the proposer of the conspiracy theory to prove it true and accurate. Lists of various people in media who may be Jews, or may have had some Jewish ancestor, are inherently and structurally deceptive, since they both include people who are not Jews, leave out the vastly larger number of non-Jews involved in the same enterprise, and posit that the mere presence of a number of Jews working in an industry indicates some sort of collusion on their part. Your comments above are perfect examples of these flaws in reasoning. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is the ideal avenue with which to pursue this endeavor. In dismissing JW for instance, it is said that many of those identified as Jews are not, but no further information is given. Here at least we can achieve some semblence of the truth; for instance you've put the axe to Donald Graham twice now over in List of Jews (I thought first time I didn't save it.) You make a very good point, if indeed his "Jewishness" is based only on a maternal grandfather, it isn't particularly relevant. Making that point is a lot more effective than simply declaring somebody to be anti-Semitic. It's the difference between convincing as opposed to intimidating. Obviously, the former is superior to the latter. Kirkswig 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Kirk, this is the page about Jew Watch. The majority of users feels it should be described as antisemitic, while you think this is not correct. Wikipedia works by consensus, and you seem to lack consensus for your edits. Your premise is also wrong: Jew Watch is not just about "Jews and the media". So far your long posts, including various insults and insinuations aimed at myself and others, have not changed consensus. Having failed your aim, will you please go away? JFW | T@lk 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
You do a very good job at refuting points I've never made. I do not dispute lack of consensus, only that you are not following the rules. And I never said JW was just about "Jews and the media". I have stated several times now that this is MY focus here, that is all. If I have failed my aim, it is only because of your abuse of the system. Have a nice day. Kirkswig 21:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirk. Same to you. JFW | T@lk 06:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
JFW your rewording of the opening is an improvement, I changed the Critics section to Relevancy, since criticism is handled in the opening. Relevancy, or why Jew Watch is even on Wikipedia seems more germane at that point in the page. I'm sure you'll just fall in love with this change. Hugz & Kisses.... Kirkswig 07:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I can live with this. Let's make up & go for a beer. JFW | T@lk 12:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Make sure to keep this artice AWAY from what it was originally intended to be

I am disgusted. Take a look at this: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2712

Here are a few choice excerpts:

"As any loyal White man, I read with disgust the recent Jewish attacks on free speech and particularly, on JewWatch.com in articles by Kevin Alfred Strom and Jeff Hook."

"...decided to have a few minutes of fun...Hence, I thought it may be useful to create a new entry for "Jew Watch" in Wikipedia. To avoid immediate censorship, I baited the article with some transparently emotional words that any Jew might write. Fortunately, someone else immediately edited those out!..."

His original article was essentiallythe same content as you can find on the jewwatch site itself. Lets make sure we keep the article legitimate.

This Article Is Biased and not factually supported

The site Jew Watch is not acurate however, it is not a neo-nazi site, nor is national vanguard. Jewwatch is a sensationalist antizionist website as well as being antisemitic although it doesnt really espouse hate more incites it by showing Jews as some sort of clandestine secret society, which is a SENSATIONALIST FORM OF ANTIZIONISM. Also the section about the author should be omitted or at least researched as the Anti Defamation leagues claims are not truly known. There is no statement from Frank Weltner on the page either, for all one could know the site could be a collaboration between several anti-jewish hate groups, regardless of color. The Nation of Islam has openly shown hate towards the Jewish people for example, yet there is no speculation as to who could be the author, it has just been accepted as fact since two sources claim it. How easy would it be to get a word from Frank Weltner himself? I will try to contact him. Until then I suggest any sort of biography on him or individuals he is associated with be ommitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikario (talk • contribs) .

Tidying for POV

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJew_Watch_Archive_2_ad69.html"