Talk:Jew Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jew Watch is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[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 very fact that you can repeat the lies of Stormfront shows that you & they are, indeed, biased, and Wikipedia is not. FlaviaR 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
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)

It is always prejudicial to deliberately not capitalize a proper noun, especially when you only don't capitalize ONE specific proper noun. You're not fooling anyone.FlaviaR 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I Intend to provide concrete evidence of a bias: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-worldconspiracies-zionism-quotes-genocide-of-palestine.html this page claims to contain "Quotes Promoting Genocide By Zionist Leaders" However, nowhere in the quotes is the concept of genocide adressed. Instead, the Leaders are, almost across the board, in support of eviction of palestinians. If it was revealed to you by god that israel was your homeland and you should inhabit it, would you CONSIDER OR RAISE THE ISSUE OF EVICTION? If not you would not truly believe your ancient text. The quotes only suggest mass movement of Palestinians and by no means promote genocide. This is a BIASED CLAIM using the negative connnotation of the genocide. To interperet any of the quotes as a claim that the officials SUPPORT GENOCIDE is a stretch and links such as this should be used as evidence that entire page is indeed biased against Jews. IF THERE IS HATRED IN THE SITE ISELF, IT SHOULD BE COVERED IN THE ARTICLE. 68.82.187.188 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes could all (some more than others), be referring to the genocide of the Paletinians. When you "use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population" you are basically promoting a genocide since a people with no land or resources are basically condemned to death. Therefore, explusion can be seen as part, if not a method, of a genocide. Quotes like "(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls" and "if we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force," do sound like an enouragement of genocide since they are talking about getting rid of Palestinians. However, Jewwatch could have used quotes that more directly promote genocide like Ariel Sharon in 1956 when he told General Ouze Merham "I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.23.125 (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (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)

I consider JewWatch.com a great library. I would like to know why Jewish readers like to label JewWatch.com an anti-Semitic site. Is it because Jews hate to hear the truth about their own history and about atrocities Jewish people did? Even in greatest history book - Old Testament, many atrocities are described where Jewish tribes killed men, women and children of entire nations/tribes. Jews should stop using the label "anti-Semite" as they are not only Jews who are Semitic. It is Jews who are anti-Semitic, as they are killing and liquidating Palestinian nation in apartheid called Israel. So stop calling JewWatch "controversial." On other side, should someone start calling wikipedia page for ISRAEL "controversial?" We should agree, JewWatch.com is a library, great resource and hated by some Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.46.128 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jew Watch is antisemitic

According to WP:NPOV, wikipedia is not supposed to hold opinions but rather report the opinions of others. Accordingly, I have supported the prior edit that Jew Watch is reported to be anti-semitic. I think this is particularly important since the website actively claims to not be anti-semitic. So I quote from policy:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." ... there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.

I believe that saying that Jew Watch IS antisemitic violates the NPOV policy. I believe that saying it is REPORTEDLY anti-semitic is directly in agreement. Another editor, Chris, has taken the other view. I would like to hear other comments. I would also like to hear how Chris explains that it is wrong to say that something is reported to be a certain way, when the policy says, that is what should be done. --Blue Tie 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It goes back to the part that says "about which there is no serious dispute". There is no serious dispute that Jew Watch is antisemitic. Let's make a deal: You find a reliable source that says otherwise and I'll be happy to couch it in terms of "widely considered". Hell, I'll settle for an unreliable but well known source. As this site has received a lot of media attention, if there's any serious dispute I'm sure you'll be able to find source. It's also worth pointing out that the sites' protestations to the contrary are prominently displayed in the very next sentence. Chris Croy 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the serious dispute is from the website itself. It claims to not be anti-semitic. This is important. It gets to the heart of NPOV. It is not about some other source, It is sufficient that it is disputed, seriously, by the website authors. Besides, wikipedia NPOV guidelines are not just caught on the issue of the source having no serious dispute. It has other features that also make this edit inappropriate. Would you like details or is it enough for you to read the policy?--Blue Tie 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here is a somewhat reputable source that is saying the same thing as Jew Watch ... namely that anti zionism is not the same as anti semitism: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/04/an_attack_on_free_speech.html --Blue Tie 02:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. On the other hand, groups that are antisemitic often claim that they are merely "anti-Zionist", as a cover:

  • Laqueur, Walter (March 2006). "Golda Meir and the Post-Zionists", Dying for Jerusalem: the past, present and future of the holiest city. Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc., pg. 55. LCCN 2005-25006. ISBN 9781402206320. OCLC 61704687. “…behind the cover of "anti-Zionism" lurks a variety of motives that ought to be called by their true name. When, in the 1950s under Stalin, the Jews of the Soviet Union came under severe attack and scores were executed, it was under the banner of anti-Zionism rather than anti-Semitism, which had been given a bad name by Adolf Hitler. When in later years the policy of Israeli governments was attacked as racist or colonialist in various parts of the world, the basis of the criticism was quite often the belief that Israel had no right to exist in the first place, not opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government. Traditional anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion in the West except on the extreme right. But something we might call post-anti-Semitism has taken its place. It is less violent in its aims, but still very real. By and large it has not been too difficult to differentiate between genuine and bogus anti-Zionism. The test is twofold. It is almost always clear whether the attacks are directed against a specific policy carried out by an Israeli government (for instance, as an occupying power) or against the existence of Israel. Secondly, there is the test of selectivity. If from all the evils besetting the world, the misdeeds, real or imaginary, of Zionism are singled out and given constant and relentless publicity, it can be taken for granted that the true motive is not anti-Zionism but something different and more sweeping.” 
  • Findings and Recommendations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Campus Anti-Semitism (PDF). U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (April 3, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-26. “On many campuses, anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. This has included, for example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial. Such propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.”

Furthermore, a perusal of the website indicates that much of the stuff there has nothing even remotely to do with Zionism. What does "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms" have to do with Zionism? Or "Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations"? "Jewish Slavery Industry"? "Jewish Frauds -- Reported by Media"? "Jewish-Christian Murders"? "Jewish Criminals"? "Jewish Pornographers"? "Jewish Capitalists"? "Jewish Entertainment"? Please, let's have no more of this specious "they are anti-Zionists" talk. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of irrelevant to the point. Maybe they are lying. Maybe they really believe it. I do not know. But WP:NPOV says that we must attribute opinions. Are you in disagreement with that policy applying to this article?--Blue Tie 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't try to straw man me. As you know, WP:NPOV also says "about which there is no dispute". That's the issue here. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how I was engaging in strawman. I was asking a question and I still do not know the answer. Do you think that there is no dispute on this matter? I am not understanding you. --Blue Tie 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Which reliable sources dispute the fact that Jew Watch is antisemitic? Please find some soon. If all reliable sources say that Jew Watch is antisemitic, then it is merely stating a fact, rather than a POV. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the issue is this: If the site strenuously denies this claim, does that count as a "Serious Dispute" of the claim. To me it is a serious dispute. To you, apparently it is not. How do we solve that? What reasonable policies apply? --Blue Tie 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) NB: Let me confirm: You do not like the way the current article reads? I think it is correct the way it is. --Blue Tie 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The site can make any claim it likes - it can claim that Jews are using pornography to subvert white culture, that the sun revolves around the earth, or that George Bush is actually a robot controlled by gene-engineered Jewish reptilian hominids, but regardless of what it says, is not a reliable source. Its claims are treated as exactly that: claims. Since all reliable sources indicate that Jew Watch is antisemitic, and no reliable sources claim that it is not, Wikipedia should follow policy and simply state the facts "upon which there is no dispute". If no-one can find any reliable sources stating the contrary, I'll provide a couple more reliable sources indicating that Jew Watch is antisemitic, and adjust the text to comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent:First, If that is the way the policies are, I have no problem with it. But I think that if the website itself distinctly denies that it is anti-semitic, then that is a serious dispute. I think this is not really well defined territory in the policies. Second, do you object to the way it is currently worded? I would greatly appreciate an answer to that question because as far as I can tell, you do not object to the way it is currently worded, and neither do I. --Blue Tie 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object to it, because it states fact as mere opinion. Not that it's particularly relevant (given that it's an unreliable source),but where does it "distinctly denies that it is anti-semitic"? Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To say the web site is anti-semitic is not an opinion it is fact.The site promote hate agianst Jews and claim that Jews responsible for every things bad in this world.The site blame Sarkozy the elected president of French only because he is Jewish.The site claim that even though he have been elected democratically,we have a problem.Why?Because he is Jew.It is a fact that that site is anti-semitic.Moreover part of the people that response here and write the information about that site work for Frank.That make them no objective at all.The site refer to Jews only in negative way.Whether it is true or not(it is not) the web site is anti semitic.Just like a web site that contain only negative material about Christians will consider as anti-Christian.Or web site that contain only negative material about the Europe will consider Anti-European websiteEwrd
Why did you abandon your User:Oren.tal account? Jayjg (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JewWatch.com is not anti-Semitic. I consider JewWatch.com a great library. I would like to know why Jewish readers like to label JewWatch.com an anti-Semitic site. Is it because Jews hate to hear the truth about their own history and about atrocities Jewish people did? Even in greatest history book - Old Testament, many atrocities are described where Jewish tribes killed men, women and children of entire nations/tribes. Jews should stop using the label "anti-Semite" as they are not only Jews who are Semitic. It is Jews who are anti-Semitic, as they are killing and liquidating Palestinian nation in apartheid called Israel. Now, I will be labeled nazi, child of Hitler, fascist, anti-Semite. By Viking IvoBohus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.46.128 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism," like "anti-Americanism" is often a term used to try and discredit criticisms or negative perceptives or arguments of Israel's or the Zionists' history as well as their military, political, and social pursuits without engaging in debate or providing any evidence. "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair talks about this subject. Norman Finkelstein also talks about this subject, and, as a result, as one may expect, he has been called anti-semitic as well as a holocaust denier, even though he is neither (his parents are Holocaust survivors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.23.125 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the mysterious reliable source quotation

” Reliable sources categorize it as antisemitic hate site.[1]

As if that isn't the most POV-loaded sentence of the century. Why not name this "reliable source," and if these sources are so reliable, then why do they resort to emotively-charged newspeak in their description, which presents a clear bias? The site simply lists the number of Jews in various positions of power and influence...is that antisemitic hate? In an effort to avoid becoming the mouthpiece of various political interests, wikipedia has become the mouthpiece of political interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.243.53 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on the footnote for a list of about 15 sources, including a UN report, the Missouri Attorney General, CNET, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Age, and a number of other press sources. That's how attribution is usually done. --Stephan Schulz 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Anon, here at WP we do not identify reliable sources by their ethnic/religious affiliation or lack thereof. BTW, I'm open to improving the wording in the intro, but I would prefer to avoid WP:WEASEL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, if not even a single reliable source contests that definition, then "it is generally regarded" seems satisfactory, if not strong enough. The current wording makes it sound like RSes are alone in doing so, which is of course not the case. Incidentally, 20 GScholar hits for the site, and each one of them says anti-semitic, except for one that says 'white supremacist'. Hornplease 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Since not a single reliable source disputes that JW is an antisemitic hate site, we should say that. I don't see how the current wording implies that "RSes are alone in doing so": we do not say "alone" or "only". The expression "generally regarded" is too weak, IMHO. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think 'generally regarded' sounds stronger than the current. How about "nearly universally regarded?" Too weaselly? Hornplease 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is too weaselly. And I think reliable sources is also weaselly and just generally too wikignomish. I would be interested to know what is wrong with "Generally considered" or "Widely regarded". I prefer the first one because I think it more expansive than "Widely regarded". It is not a reliable source, but I noticed on Amazon.com that somehow this website got some sort of review and I was surprised at how many people had praise for it. So, it may not be so Universal. I would really like a specific quote that would summarize all of the others so that it is not like we were engaging in OR, but in my view "Generally considered" correctly sums up the reliable sources while acknowledging some possibility of disagreement. And I think a nod to that disagreement is appropriate but should not get a great deal of weight. This seems to me to fit that approach.
I would not mind saying that it is "Generally Regarded" or "Widely Regarded" as anti-semitic. But I think that saying it is a hate site, should be separated -- a second sentence saying that "A UN report categorizes it as a hate site", so that the source of the opinion is expressed. I do not think that in the info box it should be just declared to be a hate site. I am curious to know what other "types" of website exist and if there is a description in regular use that would also fit. --Blue Tie 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Generally considered" and "Widely regarded" are just as weaselly as 'reliable sources' if not more. You simply cant back up a claim of wide regard. other than some kind of wide ranging opinion poll --Neon white 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, there are 23 reviews here. 14 of them are "positive". Have you actually looked at them? Most of them are full of paranoid ramblings (the media is censored, "The Jews" controlled the Soviet Union and tortured 10000000 "White Christians", ...). This is in no way representative, but a highly self-selected sample of completely braindead idiots (words used after careful consideration and in lack of stronger ones). Nothing in these reviews is a remotely reliable source on the general perception of the site. --Stephan Schulz 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not read them all, because actually I do not care that much! I do not recall whether they are paranoid ramblings or not. And again, I do not care if they are. As you point out, this is far from a Reliable Source. But I was genuinely surprised to see the number of favorable comments. I did not expect to see any. But both here on wikipedia and there on Amazon, as well as the website itself, which I deem to be reliable enough, there is some question about the matter. I think a nod in that direction is reasonable. And so, I think the current wording is fine. Except that I do not like "Reliable Sources". Not because I think that they are unreliable, but because it sounds wrong. It sounds wonkish. Wikignomish. Weaselly. I don't hate it. I just think that "Generally considered to be" is stronger and sounds "tighter". I like "Generally Considered" more than "Widely Regarded" because it seems to me to be a wider space of people -- which I think is right. On the other hand, I do not believe it is universal. --Blue Tie 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Nearly always the best thing to do is to be as accurate as possible, rather than generalizing, then visitors to the page can see who exactly refers the site as 'anit-semitic' and who doesnt. The use of 'Reliable sources' seems to be redundant as, according to guidelines, all souces should be reliable or not included. I propese 'The UN high commissioner for human rights and sections of the media categorize it as an antisemitic hate site' --Neon white 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a bit to weak. As far as we can tell, all the reliable sources that comment on the issue at all agree, or at least none disagrees. --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Neon white, something along the lines of "Many, including the UN commish...have called the site antisemitic and racist."... --Geekish 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The words "many", "widely", "generally", etc. imply that there is a small number of reliable sources that dispute the categorization of JW as antisemitic. Without seeing a single one, I will oppose such WP:WEASEL wording. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not be even more specific: "The site has been described as antisemtic by the UN high commissioner for human rights[ref], the Missouri Attorney General[ref], CNET[ref], the San Francisco Chronicle[ref], The Age[ref] and other sources[restofcurretmegaref]. --Stephan Schulz 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links on JewWatch

The article talks about YouTube links on Jewwatch. I could not find these. I saw a few youtube weltner videos and started to watch one but became bored. It is hard to verify the information described in the article. --Blue Tie 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hate site

This description is biased and uncyclopedic. It should be changed or removed. --jm4847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.28.71 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased and unencyclopedic? It is what it is. That's like saying calling a apple a fruit is biased. It is what it is. Elhector 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is one difference. The apple does not claim it is not an apple. Jew Watch states that it is absolutely not a hate site and it discourages hate, hateful behavior, attacks or revenge on jews. For many people this would suggest it is not a hate site. --Blue Tie 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so they're contradicting themselves. You can't make up a bunch of disinformation to try to portray a group of people in a unfavorable light and then turn around and say you don't "hate" the group and that you don't condone harming them when the information your spreading is harming them by making ignorant people beleive ignorant things. L. Ron Hubbard claimed he wasn't a quack, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. Same goes here, JewWatch.com claims there not a hate site but they are. If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and looks like a duck... Elhector 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And for many more it would suggest they are liars. Find me a single hate site that says "hi, we're a hate site." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the notion that they are lying about that is original research. If you really want to go by original research, find me a hate site that condemns hatred of the thing it is identified as hating. Find even one other--Blue Tie 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Let's start with [1], which includes "Judaism is satanic". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And where is that site declared to be a hate site? Also, where does it say that Judaism is satanic"? I did not see that.--Blue Tie 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
In both cases, do your own research. Google's "search within site" may help you with the latter; it's much more pleasant than actually reading through the contents of that vile site. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking fundamental Frank Weltner history

The history of Frank Weltner has left out a fundamental point that he was in the Freedom Riders human rights group in mississippi in the 1960s, and helped black people register before the federal marshals. Furthermore it states he is a member of the National Alliance, which is a factual fallacy, as he never has been. Please provide proof that the current Frank Weltner history is correct, as it is not proved. Otherwise it must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.84.2 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a article on Weltner, but on his site. The National Alliance membership is doubly sourced, both to the SPLC and to Weltner's own statement on his own web site. If you have something to add and reliable sources for it, do so. --Stephan Schulz 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If its not an article on Weltner, why does it have some of his history? :) As far as the SPLC go, by definition they cannot be trusted due to their vested interests in assassinating Franks character. As far as franks 'admission' to being in the National Alliance, thats taken entirely out of context, and on its own is a falsehood. While i could simply link and quote to prove you wrong, the Burden of Evidence is on you im afraid, so unless you can prove this NA claim then it's gotta go. :)
Furthermore, this article does not have a right to mention anything about connections with NA, without balancing it with the fact that he was a known Freedom Rider, and helped black people.
This wiki just smacks of delusions, ignorance, bias, and bitterness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.84.2 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please supply source to your claim.No point to continue the discussion if you don't supply any source to your claim that he worked for the black.87.69.77.82 08:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Poverty Law Center

Frank believe it is Jewish organization.source: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-organizations-splc.html

  • I think he believes that because the founders and the heads of SPLC - Morris Dees and Joe Levine are jewish. There is also many jews in the leading positions in this organization [2]. But may be he is wrong. Because we don't know if you can call someone jewish if you don't know if they visit synagogues, unlike the people that died during WWII. --Ram2006 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be mention in the article.87.69.77.82 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Because Southern Poverty Law Center has nothing to do with Jews (it don't have to be mention in the article).Second because this organization fight against white supremacist organizations and it look like more than coincidence that this web site call it Jewish organization.It is part of the theory of this web site just like communism was Jewish plot,Z.O.G. etc.So I believe we should add this to thing he believe.87.69.77.82 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • He believes a lot of stupid stuff; I don't see what's particularly worthy about this one. Others might disagree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
you are right but I checked his channel in you tube http://www.youtube.com/user/cpotato2004 and he say "nformation on News of Zionism, Israel, Neocons, U.S.S.R., Communism, Nazism, Judeo-Bolshevism, ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center." with mean this organization is important to him MORE than other thing that he don't mention in his description.I mean he believe in many many stupid thing but he don't mention all of them in the description of his channel.And also look like this subject is actual for him right now.He didn't mention it before.87.69.77.82 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, what we'd need to include this information would be a reliable source indicating that his opinion of the SPLC is in someway relevant to anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree.But I think it is relevant because look like that every organization that act against white nationalist is labeled as Jewish organization.I also find his opinion about that organization more actual today than his opinion about communism as Jewish plot.But on the other hand he speak more about communism.So maybe we should wait to see if start to speak a lot abut this organization.87.69.77.82 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OSCE about Jew watch

http://www.osce.org/documents/cio/2004/06/3127_en.pdf http://www.osce.org/publications/rfm/2004/12/12239_94_en.pdf I believe the opinion of this important organization shoul be mention in the article.Oren.tal 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then be bold and write it up and add it to the article. I might suggest that you take a look at some of the general guidelines for Wiki-editing and also make sure to run your addition through a spell check and grammar check first as well. Good luck! Elhector 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I find this book that mention Jew watch: http://books.google.com/books?id=r59bGyH4lOAC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=racist+anti+semitic+%22jew+watch%22+org&source=web&ots=E4fJmoo3Ir&sig=hnCpv5QSjXtOm1V0iRS554dVzg0#PPR1,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And this : http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn329.pdf Oren.tal 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial anti-Semitic

What about saying that in the description. Here is the source for it: http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39120280,00.htm http://judaism.about.com/b/2004/04/18/anti-semitic-site-kicked-off-the-top.htm

Since there are very reliable sources about it we should say Controversial anti-Semitic.It is not an opinion since it can be citing.132.72.70.183 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we still discussing if it's ok to call the page controversial and anti-semitic? Elhector 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
yes.I suggest to call it Controversial anti-Semitic and not anti semitic or Controversial.The fact is it is true and we have more than enough reliable source to back it up.Oren.tal 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There was previously a long discussion about this and the wording was somewhat settled by consensus at the time. If the issue is going to be re-opened we need to initiate another Request for Comment. I would note that just because an opinion is cited that does not make the opinion a fact. The wikipedia policy is that, for it to be a fact, it must not be something that is disputed and that label is disputed. --Blue Tie 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As you have seen I have just reopen it.Second it is not opinion but a fact that can be cited.Therefore it sould be mention.calling it opinion when the fact are clear will make it ridiculs.But regarding the fact term I must say the political part are lablled in wikipedia as right,center,left.This also can be consider as opinion,however when you have enough reliable source you can mention it.Here we have more than enough reliable source.132.72.70.222 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I will look to see the reopening of the Rfc. However, things are not Facts on wikipedia unless they are verifiable and not disputed. You mention that it is a fact because it can be cited but you do not include the second part of the issue that it is disputed. The current wording is a very good way of describing the opinion that it is anti-semitic. --Blue Tie 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
disputed by who?Oren.tal 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jew watch clip were banned from you tube

I believe it should be mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hate site redux

While I have no wish to see the description of this site watered down, I'm uncomfortable with "type of site=hate site" in the info box. Here at Wikipedia we try to steer clear of bald binary categorisation - i.e. it's either a hate site or not. In the main body of the text we can say things like "The UN High Commissioner called it a hate site" and we don't need to have the argument about what exactly constitutes a hate site.

Can I suggest we find another descriptor for the site for the infobox (would "antisemitic" be uncontroversial?) and keep all the "hate site" quotes from significant people in the main text? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO the term "Hate Site" has a pretty clear cut definition. I also think this site more than meets the definition. I don't have a problem with changing to something like "antisemitic" though, maybe it will help cut down on the edit warring that seems to be occuring on this issue now. Although it might spark a new one too. I say be bold and throw it up there and see if it sticks :-) Elhector (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Good suggestion. --JeremyStein (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And the result was that JpGordon reverted it. I agree with him about this. There is no need to change the wording. : Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually fine with the Hate Site wording too, I just thought maybe we could avoid some of the back and forth by changing it, guess not though :-) Wasn't there and RfC on this a while back? The consensus was "Hate Site" was fine, right? Elhector (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the reversion there; I don't like doing that when a discussion is underway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the article carefully avoids saying directly that the site is a hate site. Instead it shows that so many reputable sources have called it a hate site. Yet at the same time, the infobox out and calls it a hate site. If we're not willing to start the article with "Jew Watch is a hate site that...", then the infobox shouldn't do it on the sly. --JeremyStein (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I think you're right. But how to characterize it, then? Or should we at all in the infobox? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove it from the infobox. The article itself does a pretty good job of accurately portraying the site as it is. It might help keep the article more stable. Lets see if anyone else objects or has any other ideas. Elhector (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the way it is handled in the article is, if not right, at least close to right. In particular, wikipedia does not call the site "anti-semitic" or a "hate site" but does support the fact that many people think it is one. The infobox on the other hand, speaks in wikipedia's voice and so it is probably a bit over the top. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should call it what it is anti semitic web site.Oren.tal (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources characterize JW as a hate site and this is what we say in the lead. Speaking of which, I think the phrase "Many, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have categorized it as an antisemitic hate site." could and should be improved, because it suggests that there are credible sources that categorize it differently. This has been discussed here for months now, and no evidence was ever presented despite repeated requests. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
How interesting -- you're suggesting that quoting a reliable source actually weakens the claim. How about "The site is widely categorized as an antisemitic hate site." The footnote says the rest. --JeremyStein (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeremy, I like your answer.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Blue Tie. I've decided to be bold, which often means be reverted, but time will tell... --JeremyStein (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Elhector, I tried to take your suggestion and remove the type from the infobox, but it's a required field. So, I'm out of suggestions. --JeremyStein (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a question. I question the validity of the term "hate site". Seems like a judgment call. What other websites are labeled with an info box as "hate site"s? If this is the only one then it should not remain. But if there are many (I do not know how many is many but I would think more than 3), then I would tend more to agree with JPGordon on the label being (at least) valid terminology. (Frankly I think though, that the site should be labeled "anti-zionist) rather than anti-semitic or "hate site"). I also would like to know, what are the objective criteria for a website earning this description. If such criteria exist and they can be applied we would have an airtight reason for this label. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Anti-Zionist"? What gives you that idea? They're not writing about Zionism, they're writing about Jooooz. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Mainly because the website claims to be anti-zionist but not anti-jew. But that is really secondary. My question is really: Are there any other websites that have a label of "Hate site" on wikipedia. If not, then we are treat things website in an exceptional manner and that suggests POV and OR.--Blue Tie (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
then why the website call itself Jew watch and not Zionist watch.about the second question I do believe that website like David duke should be labeled as such.132.72.151.98 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK lets see if I have heard you correctly, It is only not pov to call a hate site a hate site, if there is already another hate sight that wiki refers to as a hate site. Yikes: Is that what you are saying ?? If so, then one is left to wonder how one would ever get to label a hate site as a hate site  ???

A Google advanced search of Hate Sights with the words Jew Watch produced approx. 18,000 matches. Jew watch is an antisemitic hate sight and I would be truly shocked if you or anyone else were able to create a consensus to the contrary.  : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. That is OR. I do not think anyone will contest that it is often considered a hate site. Whether it actually is a hate site might be disputed. But more importantly, is any other website on wikipedia considered a hate site or is this the only one in that group? If so, then perhaps this special treatment should not be accepted. Wikipedia should have standards, especially when an article speaks with the authority of wikipedia's voice. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Google searches are used quite frequently here at Wikipedia, and they are not often considered to be OR. Decisions such as what is OR are made by what Wiki refers to as consensus. The arbitration committee almost never (if ever) decides a content issue. Consensus decides these things. It is maddening but none the less so. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are often used and never with good validity. And there are objective standards regarding OR in some cases, not just consensus. But for some reason you seem to be ignoring my real point. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess the conversations over. You are not going to gain consensus on this matter, but feel free to try and convince the arbitration committee or the wikipedia foundation that you are correct but good luck with that.  : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about but you are needlessly prickly. First of all, conversations are not over. Second, you are not the arbiter of consensus. Third, there is no arbitration committee or wikipedia foundation involvement. So, nothing you said made sense. Were you simply trying to insult me? --Blue Tie (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
My end of this conversation is over. If someone else wants to discuss these thing with you then I am sure they will feel free to do so. As for me I choose to ignore you until further notice. Good luck with all of your endeavors. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Until further notice? So, you will randomly pay attention on and off? Everyone gets to choose. Anyway... to help you in the future to understand the weaknesses of Google Count as a source for wikipedia, consider reading WP:GOOGLE. And to get along with editors better, consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic site" would be a less ambiguous term, since that is what it is. Moreover, "Jihad Watch," which was once classified as a "hate site" has now been reclassified as a "blog," so I don't think this article should get special preferences in that regard. I don't think Wikipedia commonly uses the term hate site. "Anti-Semitic site" still gives one the picture, but it should still be sourced (which would be easy to do). Google counts are not accurate methods to test for this. Google counts over 168,000 sites that consider Jihad Watch to be a hate site, also. That doesn't really affect wikipedia. Further, until the petition was created, "Jew Watch" was the #1 page to show up on Google for a "jew." Search engines are easy to manipulate. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The page is loaded with highly-emotive pov, which is why it was protected, despite the fact that wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Notorious for showing up as number 1? According to whom? Obviously, according to whoever wrote that. The description "hate site" is laughable. To invoke hate may be the intention, but that is a call nobody can make except the site's author. "Hate site" is a judgement made by the person who decided to call it a hate site...again, pov. It does not matter how many ADL, JDL, anti-racism or Yad Yashaven, et al. sites that person references, because these sites all share his or her political position. If the page cited only sites that agreed with the content on "Jew Watch" the same mass bias would occur. Shame on you wikipedia, "the encyclopeida for like-minded cultists to edit"...--91.89.131.219 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

this point was discussed,so you didn't have to open a new subject.In any case you can read the talk and get the full explanation.This site is far more than saying opinion by the way.It contain "information" that is absolutely lie and that were design to create hate.but in any case no need to continue the discussion here as the subject above is about the same thing.Oren.tal (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Why hate site?

I'm asking seriously. Why Jew Watch a hate site? All it does is to say the truth. 201.143.121.73 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)