Talk:Jew Watch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

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)

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)

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)

Criticism about the Jew Watch were written but also were erased by Heimstern Läufer. Heimstern Läufer thinks that as administrator he has the right to block people that don't agree with him.

The section Criticism will appear eventually because it is important that such section will appear and there are enough people that want that section to appear.

The people that run Wikipedia don't wont it to be used as a stage for anti-Semitic propaganda.

I call to remove from Heimstern Läufer all the right of administrator since he used in that wrongly in order to force his opinion.

This is not personal attack but it is important to check all administrators and see they don't use their power in the wrong way.

In the section criticism should appear the fact that the U.S.S.R. sold weapons to Arab states before 67 war. It doesn't make sense that state that run by Jews will sell weapons to the enemy :of Israel as the U.S.S.R. has sold.

Also it should appear problematic sentence that appear in the web site.

Also many historians consider Stalin as Anti-Semitic.

Also Jew Watch claims the Jews have invited both communism and capitalism; however the two ideologies oppose each other.

I will send letter to anyone I know.

That section will appear because it should appear. If we mention all the allegation of Jew :watch we should also mention why some other people are skeptic about those allegation.

Also Jew watch quote The Protocol of the Elders of Zion even though that document were proved fake by the London Time in 1921.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldous5 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jew Watch also making up theory according to itself.It claim the Jews ruled the U.S.S.R. but then why the U.S.S.R. sold weapons to the Arab states during most of the time of the cold war even though they had conflict with Israel.

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)

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)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

the talmud is available online. it can be searched, if no other way, than with the find ability in every browser i know of. Caleb Parks 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 2006-04-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)<-/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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.129.11 (talk • contribs)

But you must understand that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is a euphimism for liberal point of view. Just see it for yourself. An article about some one that liberals don't like, is filled with bias like "neo-nazi", "racist", "white supremacist" and guilt by association refrences. An article on any one that liberals approve of, is filled with good "neutral" references. You can see it for yourself. --Jparu 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semistim

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

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).—Preceding unsigned comment 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).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.107.92 (talk • contribs)

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

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)

The accusation that Frank Weltner and Jew Watch attempted to swindle anyone was a slander concocted by the political hack, Jeremiah Nixon, who spoke this canard with a Jewish leader standing on his left side and an NAACP leader on his right side.

Nixon's produced no proof of his accusations, and the case eventually boiled down to not having paid $15 for a newly required registration with the State of Missouri as a charity, which could have been rectified easily.

Nixon's legal office harrassed Mr. Weltner even calling him in at night to economically threaten him in a successful attempt to deny him due process.

If you call Jeremiah Nixon's office and ask for proof of his accusations and demand check stubs proving his outrageous comments, you will find he hasn't even investigated. He was able to get a minor injunction and a permanent injunction, but the court case contains no proof of Nixon's accusations and the case itself represents a low point in legal jurisprudence which questions the entire Missouri legal process as a joke. Mr. Weltner's 39 page response demonstrates how Jeremiah Nixon's actions in that case demonstrate the appearance of misconduct by a member of the court and an office holder in the State of Missouri. That document is in that court record. However, pieces of the court record have disappeared from time to time indicating someone is culpable of further misconduct in the State of Missouri.

Mr. Weltner has consistently stated in newspaper articles that he was wrongfully accused and that the implications of those accusations are a canard by a political scoundrel and a legal hack who is well known as such in Missouri.

Mr. Weltner was honestly collecting funds for the people of New Orleans after Katrina while the federal and state governments were sitting back and allowing them to die of thirst, starve, and drown in the aftermath of the broken dikes. Mr. Weltner who was a civil rights worker in Mississippi for the African American Civil Rights Movement and who registered blacks regularly with the Federal Marshalls was following a consistent pattern of humanitarianism in his charity startup. Mr. Weltner had obtained a Charter from the Secretary General of Missouri as a part of his legal charity effort. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Nixon shut him down and then took the national stage in his fraudulent and uprovable pretense that he had stopped a huckster. Nixon never present any proof. Nixon's efforts shut down a reputable collection effort and actually harmed the people of Katrina by denying them the aid that Mr. Weltner was offering them.

This slander of Weltner has nothing to do with Weltner himself and has more to do with political shenanigins of a political hack in Missouri who stole press from the Katrina tragedy for his own personal gratification. Weltner's efforts were honest and forthright as proven by his Chartering of his Non-Profit effort. No one wishing to rip off anyone has a non-profit charter.

If Weltner had stolen or misdirected one dime, he would be in jail right now. But he isn't. So, that is the proof the pudding on this issue. Weltner is a victim of an obscene political hack. Period. Tony1941 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.17.121 (talk • contribs)

Because linking to JW is the only way to verify what the article says.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

They link to stormfront too. People should know what they are reading about for themselves I guess. Plus, they're already the number one Google search result when you type in "Jew", can't get any worse.

If the site is anti-semitic, then the many articles from the Jerusalem Post, NY Times, and other reputable news sources must be redefined as anti-semitic. As for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this document is there are a part of the historical record. No archive of facts like Jew Watch could leave out such books as the Protocols, Mein Kamp, and other well know works at are a part of any scholarly investigation of Jewish history. Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and thousands of other outstanding universities have as many as 1-7 copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols. Do you call these universities anti-semitic as well? Where does this pogram against Jew Watch, a scholarly website end? With the owner's death? What would satisfy you. One thing for sure, you won't find him using the term "kike" anywhere, because he is a civil rights activitist. Why don't you read his Statement of Philosophy for his website at [5]

This is a well thought out philosophy of non-violence and respect for all people especially Jews.Tony1941 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the site introduce the protocol of the elders of Zion as true document and authentic will the true is that that document is faked.

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)

JW is racist and proud of it. - are you saying Jews are a race of their own? --Jparu 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

racisit is a generic term in this usage showing prejudice for a specific group BYMAstudent 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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, [http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html 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)

Jew Watch mixes fact with fiction in the hope that they can get you to believe everything they say is true. You have to do your own research on any particular topic in order to get to the truth and not take Jew Watch at face value. Jtpaladin 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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

I was under the impression that Churchill was at least part Jewish. I did a search and found: "Cunning, no doubt, came to Churchill in the Jewish genes transmitted by his mother Lady Randolph Churchill, née Jenny Jacobson/Jerome." - Moshe Kohn, Jerusalem Post. Is this false? Jtpaladin 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

National Alliance Membership

Mr. Weltner claims he is "not with the National Alliance." This can be construed as a denial that he holds membership in the National Alliance. Regardless of his peculiar anti-Semitism, is there a citation of his membership in the National Alliance? - MSTCrow 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

After posting this, I've discovered that at least the Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) maintains he is a member of the National Alliance. I would like independent verification of this, as the SPLC is not known for holding truth above partisan purposes. - MSTCrow 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you check out this article on Jew Watch, Frank Weltner says "I have joined white civil rights organizations including the now fractured National Alliance..." Chris Croy 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

The article relies too extensively on "quoted sentences from the website" for describing Jew Watch. It uses these instead of straightforward descriptions, over-using terms such as "claims", "purports", and "maintains". Parts of it (namely much of the intro and most of the overview section) suffer from this, and need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner with solid, straightforward, sourced statements.

Also, there are too many remnants (in style, spirit, and actual text) of the ridiculing version of the article that was written by the White Power author at National Vanguard remaining in the article. _si»abhorreo»^T 07:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up this article a little. You are right that there are a TON of entirely unsourced statements in this article (particularly in the "Overview" section), so I've added many [fact] tags because these statements either need to be either sourced or taken out entirely. This article is still in pathetic condition, but I've done my best to clean it up a bit and make sure that some of these controversial accusations are either sourced or removed per Wikipedia policy. For such a controversial website, I'm surprised that this article has remained in shambles and espoused such blatant, non-sourced POV for such a long time. --172.129.39.98 23:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove your cleanup tag. There's nothing wrong with simply quoting the site and presenting its claims as, well, claims. Frankly, the owners' beliefs are so detached from reality that we don't need to do anything to discredit the site other than state what it stands for. For an example of this approach, see Time Cube.Chris Croy 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quotes, but that shouldn't be relied on as the sole method of "describing" it. A need to discredit the site has nothing to do with it. _si»abhorreo»^T 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

The article has been repeatedly vandalized over the last week. Can one of the admins semi protect it? _si»abhorreo»^T 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been quite a while, perhaps it's time to lift the protection. I'm sure the vandals have found some other topic to deface by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.4.4 (talk)

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"

Save it for somewhere else on the net fellas, there's plenty of it to go around. 64.230.4.4 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Founder?

Frank Weltner has never been a neo-nazi. He worked with the National Alliance in an attempt to turn it into a civil rights organization. The National Alliance has been called "neo-nazi" by Judeo Bolshevik organizations including the Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League who work for Israel's interests and are unregistered agents of a foreign power. These organizations seem to be hate-based fund-raising organizations who watch American citizens then accuse them of hate. Mr. Weltner has never worn a swastika in his life and was a Freedom Rider in Mississippi in the early 1960's. Weltner has never been arrested for any hate crime, nor have any accusations of harrassment of any races or religions ever been registered against him. The neo-nazi accusation is without merit. His website was originally registered with Yahoo as a History and News site, but Jewish protagonists pushed Yahoo into moving it into a hate site category. It is not a hate site. Most of the materials on it are links and quotes from Jewish authors and leaders. All references to neo-nazi must be removed from this section of Wikipedia because they are wrongful and hurtful and without merit. Mr. Weltner is not a member of the National Alliance and joined mostly to have access to the group and to give speeches on moving the organization forward as a white civil rights watchdog group. The NA is non-violent and removes all persons accused of violence immediately. No one is allowed to wear any nazi emblems. So, how could it be a neo-nazi group? This entire canard is the result of the ADL and SPLC which are discredited by their own bigotry against certain groups and the fact that they are both Jewish run organizations, which is racist according to some of their own guidelines. Remove this slander from the Jew Watch article, because it is pure propaganda in the ADL's culture wars. Tony1941 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I have searched various sources to find whether what you are saying is true or not. I have removed:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains that Weltner is a member of the National Alliance, a white nationalist and white supremacist organization; Weltner denies this charge."

The SPLC is a left-wing extremist group which spouts lies about various groups and individuals. There was no citation in the article so over 4 months is long enough to wait for someone to agree or disagree with you and give citation. Plus, because of the highly biased info that comes from the SPLC, I would highly recommend this group is not used as a source for anything. It's like using the KKK to cite articles about Jewish people. Jtpaladin 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Our article Southern Poverty Law Center does not describe it as "a left-wing extremist group". If there a RS for this, let's adjust our article. If there is none (or other reliable sources qualify Weltner as a Neo-Nazi), then this info should be reinstated. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus, well said. Just a quick search I came up with three articles. Please take a look and do what you think is best. [15][16][17] Jtpaladin 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the latter two are pretty worthless; the last one is a letter to the editor from a college sophomore, which isn't much of a reliable source; the second one has another college student (apparently) complaining about the SPLC; and the first one is something from FrontPage Magazine, itself an extremely biased source. So, no, none of these pass as reliable sources at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article

Why is anytime anything Jewish is questioned or critically analyzed, it's a "hate site" or a "hate crime". This is hogwash, and the site should stand on its own merit. Garydron 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Dron

Do you have a specific issue with any of the text in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a factual website. The article insinuates that it is not factual yet provides no proof of that. Just because something is controversial does not automatically make it a hate site. This article is biased. And NO I do not work for him nor have I ever even met or talked to him. Garydron 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The website consider Jews as people that only want to kill unless you yourself are anti-semitic you will not agree to that.Some people are indeed work for Frank and it is fact.We must expose those people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldous5 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Polemics

Please do not turn this article into polemics, especially unsourced and in broken English. Instead, consider improving article antisemitism and its subarticles, based on sources of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humus sapiens (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 8, 2007

People here try to prevent any academic deal with the article. I AM REFUSE TO THAT. People should not force their opinions on other. criticism is an important and no one should erase it but only edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 22:08, May 8, 2007

• No. You need to discuss your changes here first, since several of us disagree with them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Several of you work for Frank.I wont let that propaganda to continue.If you want edit criticism O.K. but do not remove it.Such part should appear in the article.Only people that try to hide the truth will erase that part.

• You've been made aware of the three revert rule. If you attempt to insert that edit again without getting consensus for it here, you will be blocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon You have no right to use in the block weapons in order to force your opinion on other beware yourself.Don't over use your power or I will report on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)

• Oh, don't worry. I won't block you. Someone else will. Just wait! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren, please stop this hysteria. Instead of making empty accusations, read WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Checking a user's contributions may help. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Does Jew Watch really merit an article? I'm no deletionist, but it seems that wikipedia itself is contributing to the subject's notability. Neutrality disputes have been rampant, seemingly caused by trolls who would like nothing more than to see this site validated (in a way, the existence of this article alone serves this end.) I really wonder if this article deserves the meager hard drive space it's consuming. I have no doubt that this article would survive an AFD at this point in time, but I'm interested in any thoughts on this matter. -Etafly 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTE "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the topic, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." I suspect it has been covered in the news and so on. --Blue Tie 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Links to JW

Since popular search algorithms rank a particular website's popularity by counting links to it, I wonder whether we actually promote JW by having so many links to it. Perhaps we should leave the links but comment them out. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The creation of the article itself was an attempt at promotion -- whatever can be done to mitigate that would be great. -Etafly 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• All external links on Wikipedia have Nofollow enabled. Links to it are not a problem. Chris Croy 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that have to be explicitly called on the page or is it automatic on all pages? Because I agree that we should not support its popularity. --Blue Tie 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible COI

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

The need of tags

We need to put tag on value since people should understand what Zionism said and if it has any connection to the soviet union. That why I put back those tags about Zionism and the Soviet Union. Any attempt to remove them is an attempt to support anti-semitic propaganda and to hide information from people. People should know what that mean.(written by oren tal)

Oren, please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop what? You have not supplied any argument why to remove those tags. I think they should be.Before you remove those tags, explain what is the problem with them. I have just explained why they are needed.

• Not in any understandable English. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain in understandable English when phrase like Zionist communist Jewish appear people should have the ability to understand if there is any connection between Zionism and the soviet union. Because of those link people may go and see there is no connection. If those tags don't appear people may think that Zionism has connection with the soviet union. "You lack consensus" -you said but you are only two you can not decide for everyone. And also other people want hose tags.

• Who? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know them but I know there were other.This tags were not my idea anyway.But I agree they are needed.What is your problem with those tags? I would like to know.Because it very important for you there will be no tags on those words you should say why. I am looking forward to here an answer from you and anyone who reject those tags.(oren tal)

• If they weren't yours, then whose were they? They were put in by User:Ewrd, who is you; who else? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

first of all this user is not me.But I just share my computer with other.but in any case check the history and you will see other ip and user that add that (not only Ewrd). But the important thing is that you haven't supply any reason what so ever for removing those tags Look I know understand that you want this article to be with high quality but I would really like to know what is your problem with the tags. Why you are so against them? I don't see any reason except from rejecting of change only.Please just tell me what is the problem. If there is reason then fine we should not put those tags. But I see reason why and I don't see reason why not. Jpgordon and Jayjg I am waiting for an answer from you. I do that from respect to you.Just tell me why are you against the tags?

• Well first of all, if you are User:Oren.tal, then you are also User:Ewrd, User:Oren.wiki, and User:Aldous5. If by "the tags" you mean wikilinking one or two of the terms in the list of Jew Watch headings, it just doesn't make sense to do so in that context. Further, your accusations of for those that disagree with you are personal attacks which are not tolerated here. (The very idea that either Jayjg or I are anti-semites or "working for Frank" is one of the more ridiculous ideas proffered here in a while, as well as the one of the most insulting.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Think what ever you want but it was not only me and the users you mention are not me (but I am not going to waste my time argue with you about this).Anyway it is not only them.It is indeed part of the context if you speak about someone that is Zionist and support the soviet union at the same time to mention what those two things are. Without the tags people maybe mislead that there is connection between Zionism and the Soviet Union. when I say tags I mean to the same tags I added

Do you understand that there are no connection between Zionism and the Soviet Union?

Oren, please learn how to sign your posts and stop this nonsense. We can link every single word, but instead, as Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context says: "Only make links that are relevant to the context," we link only what is relevant. Neither Zionism nor the USSR are relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic or Scholarly

Ive altered the article to conform better with Wiki's NPOV policies. Jew Watch is alleged to be anti-Semitic by some groups; it is not an objective fact, and the sites owner denies the charges. Ive substituted the word "controversial" for Anti-Semitic". Marcadams99 05:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Marcus, July 20th, 2007

OLD Request for Comment: Wording to describe JewWatch as antisemitic

• Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality says that neutrality is: "non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." When describing how to create a neutral approach the policy, and in the very first main bolded comment in the policy it says: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. It further declares that "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.". Many editors here believe that there is no serious dispute about whether JewWatch is antisemitic. I assert that there is a serious dispute in that the owners and operators of the website specifically dispute this description of their website and activities. To me, that is a serious dispute and even if we do not accept the other side of this dispute it exists and thus the antisemitic quality of the JewWatch website is not a "fact" per wikipedia policy but instead is an opinion. We can definitely mention this opinion and we do, but we should not declare it as a fact, thus making it a wikipedia opinion (wikipedia should not have opinions) . I believe the following wording meets all of the conditions of fairly describing the site as antisemitic, but as a widely accepted opinion rather than an undisputed fact:

Jew Watch is a website, widely regarded as antisemitic that describes itself as “The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History."

I am requesting comment on this proposal and specifically comment about how this is or is not appropriate per NPOV.

I believe this is the proper weight for the concept. It does not make wikipedia claim that the site is anti-semitic, but it acknowledges the general opinion that it is anti-semitic and does so immediately before describing it in any other way. To me that is well balanced and in particular, it is compliant with NPOV. There have been many other complaints about POV on this article talk page. See above for a few.--Blue Tie 04:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This site is anti semitic, just like any site that will claim Islam responsible for all the problems in this world will be anti - Islamic web site.The web site claim that the Jews run this world and plotting evil things.It is for sure can put it in the category of anti semitic web site.What you suggest is that racist will be called "widely consider as racist web site" etc.I don't see how that an opinion to say that web site is anti semitic.The web site describe the Jews as evil people that always think about conspiracies.Oren.tal 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ok with the "described as" language; it's accurate, and I never did much like unadorned opposition characterizations in the first sentence of an article. (Even if I did argue the other way at first.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

what the diffrent between this and describe any racist web site as "widely consider as racist".If the web site encourage hate toward Jews,then it should be consider as anti semitic.Oren.tal 17:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)"Modern political history indicates a clear connection between being Jewish and being radical, Both as individual theorists and activists of the stature of Marx, Luxemburg, Trotsky and Emma Goldman, and as organized mass labour movements in, for example, revolutionary Russia and early 20th century Britain and the USA, Jews have made a disproportionate contribution to the Left." - This is anti semitic by definition and it is said in Jew watch http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html . To claim that to be Jew has connection to be radical is anti semitic.If you disagree I would like to know what you define as anti semitic.Oren.tal 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)you can also find in this page http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html other claim that label negative quality to Jews.It indeed make that web site anti semitic.Oren.tal 18:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal's point is, in essence this: If I have a personal view that some object has certain definite properties - then I am free to cause wikipedia to hold that same opinion that I have EVEN IF THAT OBJECT CLAIMS TO HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. I think that is out of harmony with wikipedia policies and I want to be clear:

• I am not arguing that the website is not antisemitic.
• I am not trying to convince people that the website is not anti-semitic.
• I am not arguing that the website is antisemitic.
• I am not trying to convince people that it is anti-semitic.
• I am trying to apply wikipedia standards evenly.
• These standards define "fact" as something about which there is no serious dispute. I think it is clear there is dispute on this matter.
• The standards also say that if it is not a fact it should be described as an opinion.
• I am arguing for consistent application of wikipedia standards.

I have not requested comment about whether the site "Jew Watch" is anti-semitic. I do not want a commentary on that.

I have not requested comment about whether the site is good or bad or whatever.

I am only requesting comment on how the wording that ascribes the anti-semitism with respect to the website should be handled in the light of wikipedia policies on NPOV. I think it should say:

"Jew Watch is a website widely considered to be anti-semitic"

other think it should say:

"Jew Watch is an antisemitic website".

Bottom Line: Which one is best per NPOV guidance? --Blue Tie 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you define as anti semitic.But according to the definition of anti semitic to say the being a Jew mean being radical is to express anti semitic idea.I believe that we should call things what they are.If web site claim that Europe is the enemy of the free world and that Europe brought most of the disasters to our world then it will be only fact to mention this site is anti-European.Anyone that claim this site is not anti semitic should say what is his criteria for labeling something as anti-semitic? since anti semitic is right now rising in Europe and in the Islamic world it wouldn't be surprised if part of those claimed this site is not anti semitic were anti semitic themselves. Anyway anyone that claim this site is not anti semitic after all it say should say what are criteria for something to be considered as anti semitic.Otherwise nothing will be anti semitic,even if it claim we should kill all the Jews.Nothing will be racist even if it say we should kill all the black.I am sure also that some white nationalists wouldn't like the idea to label a few racist site as racist site.After all they respect all races they just want separation.By the way all respectables source define that as anti semitic. On the other hand I have not find even one respectable source that refer to this site as reliable source.Isn't that wired?But maybe not so much since it is very clear that this site is anti semitic.It is fact not opinion.So Blue Tie say what are your criteria for labeling something as anti-semitic and then we can move on.Oren.tal 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I want to make the commentary issue simple. I am not asking for commentary on whether the site is or is not anti-semitic but how the labeling of the site should be handled per wikipedia NPOV guidelines. To me, the guidelines say that it does not matter if we think it is anti-semitic or if we think it is not anti-semitic. You apparently feel that our beliefs on this matter are the defining element. I would say that is pure pov. What I am looking for is how it should be labeled in a manner that is in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. I note that there is a dispute about whether it is anti-semitic and that turns it from a fact to an opinion. That is per wikipedia policy. Not my policy. Wikipedia. I want to hear how to handle this labeling per that policy. I would like to hear other comments. --Blue Tie 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute; anti-semites don't often label themselves as such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that , in addition to deriving a conclusion from an unproven premise, your statement falls under the logical fallacies of "Affirming the Consequent", "Denying the Antecedent", "Dicto Simpliciter", and probably most importantly: "Card Stacking". Would it matter to you if your argument committed those logical fallacies?--Blue Tie 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More than a dozen refs unequivocally call JW antisemitic. To say "widely regarded" suggests that some reliable sources dispute that JW is antisemitic. If you demonstrate that, I'll accept "widely regarded", but until then it would be wrong per WP:UNDUE. As for JW's own POV about themselves, the article already reflects that, but they are not in a position to judge that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes many people believe that it is an anti-semitic website. In logic this is called an "appeal to popularity" and what it essentially means is not that it is TRUE that it is antisemitic, but that many people BELIEVE that it is antisemitic.

However, there is one statement that you make which is not exactly true: "To say "widely regarded" suggests that some reliable sources dispute that JW is antisemitic." This is not a true statement. For example, one might say that the Sun is "Widely regarded" as being yellow and that would be a true statement, but it would NOT be a true statement to say either of the following: (a) "Because it is widely regarded as yellow, the sun actually is yellow" or (b) "Because it is actually yellow, the sun is widely regarded as yellow". In particular, version b also requires proof that the sun is actually yellow and that it being actually yellow is the cause of the widespread belief, [when neither may be true].

Now, although an argument to popularity is not the same thing as verified proof, I would consider it sufficient if it weren't subject to controversy. But there is controversy.

First of all, the term "anti-semitic" is highly value laden and imprecise. It is a hatred or prejudice against Jews. But is it hatred against all Jews or just some Jews? If I hate my Jewish neighbor, am I antisemitic? What if I am also a Jew am I anti-semitic? Suppose that as a Jew, I and a great many other Jews, oppose Zionism and agree with at least some of what Jew Watch says -- are we anti-semitic? In short, the term is not very clear but it is very value laden. That gives rise to some degree of both confusion and controversy. And you can read some arguments of the controversy in this talk page. Can there be any doubt that this is an area of controversy since it has been reverted back and forth so many times and it has been the subject of talk page discussions? CLEARLY it is controversial. But...

It is also [SPECIFICALLY DENIED by the Jewwatch site]. Some would argue that in this argument, they should not be given a voice. However, that would be pov.

I can a compromise where we could say "Jew Watch is an anti-semitic website", but then we would (per NPOV) IMMEDIATELY justaposition this statement with quoted disclaimers from the website itself so that all sides of the argument are given a hearing. (And no, it is not sufficient to only list what it declares itself to be... if it is charged with anti-semitism, its denials of that charge should be included). But rather than go into detail on that, I think a much better compromise and a more neutral approach is to include both sides of the controversy in the sense that "it is widely regarded as anti-semitic". I think this is the best, and most workable solution. However, if it is agreed that we assign the term anti-semitic to the website, we must also detail the websites objections to that term. --Blue Tie 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But actually, your last paragraph works in your disfavor, once you take "Undue weight" into the equation. We need not take extreme minority positions into consideration when evaluating NPOV; hence, in the absence of reliable sources, the existing sources (labelling it anti-semitic) suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. I think that quoting the website, describing itself, is not undue weight. (Suppose you had a website describing yourself as a pigmy. And all the world had articles on the internet describing you as a tall athlete. Don't you think that, in a wikipedia article, your view ought to be given at least a bit of credit -- after all, no one knows you better than yourself -- by making the claim almost but not quite universal? I think it gets that by saying "widely recognized as an tall athelete". But maybe you would prefer it to say "He is a tall athlete, however he vigorously disputes that characterization and claims to be a pygmy or at least a very short person".)

As an aside, I really do not care if it is anti-semitic or if it is not anti-semitic, or even if wikipedia declares it to be one way or the other -- as long as that is appropriate per the guidelines. (I get the distinct feeling that others want wikipedia to express the "truth" of the matter regardless of policy). From what I read of the guidelines, it is not appropriate to flat put an opinion label on something as though it were the absolute truth. But others disagree with me. That is why I have requested comment. So far, I have only seen one comment from dispassionate reviewers... people not previously involved in editing the article. I have no doubt that people defending the status quo of their prior edits would continue to do so -- and I have not trouble with them doing so. I especially value the comments that go to policy. But, I would like to see more comments by uninvolved users. --Blue Tie 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I will accept the wording "widely regarded" if you demonstrate reliable sources that dispute that JW is antisemitic. So far you have not. If instead you are going to engage in original research, sophistry, strawman arguments, you will fail in August just as you have failed in May. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Wording to describe JewWatch as antisemitic

(This is an old RFC section. I consider the RfC to have resulted in an appropriate description). --Blue Tie 05:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(New editors, see comments in the old RfC section above -- mostly by editors who have been here for a while)

Here is the issue:

Some editors think the article should say:

Jew Watch is an anti-semitic website.

(thus declaring the anti-semitism as a universally accepted fact)

Others think it should say that the article should read:

Jew Watch is a website widely considered to be anti-semitic.

(thus acknowledging that its anti-semitism is a widely acknowledged opinion)

Comment from uninvolved editors is sought. You may want to consider the discussions above. The key for me (as the person initiating the RfC) is wikipedia policy which says that opinions should be expressed as such and attributed and that the difference between facts and opinions is that there is no controversy or reasonable disagreement about facts.

I am not looking for commentary declaring Jew Watch to be anti-semitic or not anti-semitic. I am looking for how it should be handled per wikipedia policy.

I am specifically requesting that comments refer to WP:NPOV guidelines, particularly with regard to facts and opinions. --Blue Tie 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's an anti-Semitic site. Now if we said anti-Semitism is bad, that would be POV. The fact that they know most people are going to take anti-Semitism as a bad thing without needing to be told and therefore want to avoid the term is beside the point. A.J.A. 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that describe it as anti-semitic. That's sufficient. We've been over this before. JoshuaZ 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just from an NPOV angle neither statement looks right. The first is stating an outright unattributed fact and the second looks to me like it is using weasel words. How about something more specific such as, "Jew Watch is a website considered by several sources/experts/whatever to be anti-semitic [x][y][z]." And specify exactly what sources using references at the end of the statement. Just a suggestion. Regards Bksimonb 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb read JoshuaZ comment.Unless you find reliable source that claim it is not there is no reason to describe it differently.It is fact that this web site is anti semitic.You just need to go the web site.Oren.tal 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie why did you open it as new topic? We could continue to debate in the old topic.No need to raise that subject again and again just because people don't agree with you.This is second time you rise that issue.Anyway since enough reliable source consider it as anti semitic and not even one reliable source claim other, we can call it anti semitic.Also by examine this web site,it is very clear it is anti semitic.I think that anyone that disagree to the definition should say when he will agree to label site as anti semitic and then we can see if it fit to the definition.Oren.tal 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)if web site is anti semitic then it doesn't mean it will say that it anti semitic.Of course the web site will claim it is not anti semitic.However it is fact that this web site is anti semitic.It is NOT an opinion.Wikipedia shouldn't have any problem to call racist web site, racist web site.We just mention fact by saying that this web site is anti semitic.Oren.tal 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, this is not the first time you are trying this. A number of editors challenged you to present reliable sources that dispute that JW is antisemitic. RFCs won't replace encyclopedic refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others

• I'd say that "antisemitic" is a subjective word, no matter how you use it. That's why you can't state it as a fact, you must state it as an opinion and attribute it to reliable sources. Melsaran (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"antisemitic" is not more subjective than racist.And it have definition.In this case it is only to mention fact.I believe that only people that hate Jews will think that "antisemitic" is a subjective word.Oren.tal 12:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal: please do not accuse other editors of Jew-hatred; this is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not meant to say that as personal attack.But O.K.Oren.tal 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My Father had a stroke last night. He was supposed to already be dead, but he has not passed away yet. I am traveling to be with him. I am not able to respond to questions now. I will when I am able. Meanwhile, I would request some honest editor to replace the other two RfC's that I had placed here. Oren.tal has deleted them twice. I am unable to cut and paste right now to repair them. I consider Oren.tal's removals of RfC requests to be very bad behavior and I ask others to police it while I am unable to respond. --00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs).

What is the reason to write the same thing 3 times? I have deleted it because it was repeating of the same thing.No need for it.Oren.tal 11:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a previously uninvolved editor who came here by way of the RfC listing. I agree with Melsaran that "'antisemitic' is a subjective word no matter how you use it." I agree with Oren.tal that "'antisemitic' is not more subjective than racist." In fact, I would not open an Wikipedia article with the words "[thus'n'such webisite] is a racist website" even I myself regarded it as a racist website: that would be against WP:NPOV. I've taken a look at the Jew Watch website & there's no doubt in my mind it's antisemitic -- but nonetheless that's my subjectivity, & I would not start the article with "Jew Watch is an antisemitic website." However, I think Bksimonb has a good point that "Jew Watch is a website widely considered to be anti-semitic" looks like it's using weasel words, so I'm not sure it's the best wording either. But it is, to me, more NPOV than "Jew Watch is an antisemitic website." -- Yksin 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• In response to JoshuaZ's claim that, "[w]e have reliable sources that describe it as anti-semitic. That's sufficient," the mere fact we have sources describing it as anti-Semitic does not override Wikipedia's NPOV policy if the sources themselves are not neutral. Quite a few of them are commentaries, which are by definition POV.--Max Talk (+) 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • The ref lists more than a dozen sources. Can you show WP:RS disputing the statement that JW is antisemitic, or it is a few WP users basing on their own WP:OR? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I'm kinda surprised I have to point this out, but just because something is reliably sourced, etc., does not prevent the information from being presented in a fashion that violates NPOV. We had the exact same discussion over at Holocaust denial, and the fix -- written by Jayjg -- was quite satisfactory; the deniers didn't much care for it, but those who had a purely NPOV-based objection to the original language approved. I propose the same here; we can quite easily and properly say "Jew Watch is a website blah blah blah. Jew Watch is widely considered to be anti-semitic ref ref ref ref". Just like at Holocaust denial, a fix like this allows us to more strongly point out the essential anti-semitic nature of Jew Watch, without the arguably POV characterization in the first sentence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

anti semitism has definition and if that site is anti semitic according to the definition then it is only to mention a fact when one say it is anti semitic.It is not against NPOV because no one say the web site is bad.If some one think that Jews are evil by their nature (like Frank Walter) then why should he has any problem with the claim the web site is anti semitic? I think it is only because he care from what the non anti semitic people may think.132.72.71.208 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it still needs to be sourced properly imo. Simply visiting the site isnt enough as that is original research. At the moment the citations do not back up the fact, most of them are news reports of the controversy surrounding the site, which are not citations for the fact but the fact that it is controversial. As the term is subjective it really can never be an undesputed fact, considering the owners deny the claims, so a compromise is needed. --Neon white 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I challenge those who seek to change the wording to demonstrate a single reliable source that disputes the qualification of JW as antisemitic. Like it or not, the current qualification is based on a number of reliable sources, not on "Simply visiting the site" or news reports. As for the term antisemitic, it is well defined. Unless we are adding weaseling in front of all other adjectives, I don't see a particular reason to add it here. The opinion of JW owners is hollow: as Yehuda Bauer wrote in 1984, "Nobody says, 'I am antisemitic.' ... The word has gone out of fashion." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable source that turns an OPINION (even a widely held OPINION) into a FACT. --Blue Tie 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for weaseling when no single reliable source disputes such categorization. I found a couple more good sources and will work to improve the intro to be more precise, something to the tune: Reliable sources categorize it as antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. that is not true. There is one reliable source that disputes it: JewWatch.com. By wikipedia standards, it may not be a reliable source for anything else (I do not know), but it is a reliable source for itself. And all the other reliable sources are expressing an OPINION and that OPINION must be sourced rather than being given as though wikipedia had the opinion. Wikipedia is not supposed to have opinions. --Blue Tie 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It is not a reliable source, not even about itself. See WP:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, especially points two and three. There is no serious doubt that the site is indeed antisemitic, and that reliable sources are in unanimous agreement about this. --Stephan Schulz 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points I think, though I rule out the one on contentious in this case because the very issue is contentious and the words of the closest authority should not be discounted on that. As far as being overly self-serving, the interesting thing is that the statements in which they claim not to be anti-semitic are not particularly self serving. Bottom line is this: I do not think it counts as a "fact" that JewWatch is anti-semitic but it counts as an opinion. I have no problem expressing that opinion, as long as it is not wikipedia's opinion, but someone elses. The current intro is fine with me except I would prefer it did not say "Reliable Sources" (vague and too wikipedia rulish for the article). I like the phrase "widely regarded", but I am not married to it. Anything along those lines is good to me. The current wording is ok. --Blue Tie 19:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if "the very issue is contentious", then that means we cannot use a WP:SPS on that issue at all. It does not mean that it gets a dispension (why on Earth?). And, not being a WP:RS, it is much less an "authority". --Stephan Schulz 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See, I do not think that is really true. Hear me out a bit.

First let us simplify. Suppose two people are arguing about what one of them intended in some words he spoke. If there was a rule that said "The person doing the speaking and intending is incapable of clarifying his intent" then the argument is over because the one side who REALLY KNOWS what was intended, is not allowed to so declare. This is, of course a silly sort of rule and would never happen in real life, but that is what you are suggesting is meant by the wikipedia rule. I do not think so.

Second, establishing such a rule would, in effect, be the same as censorship on wikipedia.

Third, I do not think that the idea being suggested by the wikipedia rule of it being "contentious" is related to the fact that the individual may not defend themselves, but that the article may not become a soapbox on which to stand to make the argument. This is also related to it being too self serving. But refusal to give a person a soap box is NOT the same as denying their ability to describe their own words.

Furthermore, labels (adjectives) particularly strong and emotion laden adjectives are inherently opinions. There is no such thing as a reliable source that turns an opinion into a fact. An opinion remains an opinion even if many people hold to it. And, when it comes to opinions, JewWatch is every bit as reliable as anyone else -- and perhaps more reliable than anyone else, in their opinion of whether they are anti-semitic. Others may only infer things from what they believe they see. But Jew-watch is much more likely to actually know.

Finally, and most importantly, the purpose of WP:RS is to support neutrality, not to undermine it. Other rules in wikipedia editing are intended to help support that one ideal. And so, I am convinced that RS was never designed to provide wikipedia with an excuse to avoid neutrality. Other things may be negotiable but neutrality is not. And avoiding the main dissenting opinion is pov.

I have not really read much of the site... it bores me ... but what little I did read seemed more anti-zionist, anti-israel, anti-communist, anti-cabalist, and anti-foreign involvement but especially anti-elitist -- than it is anti-semitic. From what little I read. I did not observe anything devoted to generally dissing Jews who are part of the fabric of ordinary life. Instead.. the efforts are directed at Jews (and others) who seem to be in positions to influence the social and political directions of the US domestically and abroad. The website appears to have imbibed in the paranoias of people who fear some sort of star-chamber design to rob America of its freedoms. In that respect, it is, in a way, only a bit removed from folks who feel the same way about Bush and his administration. Yet, if I came across a website that was designed to fight the Bush Administration tooth and nail, yet the website owner said that he personally liked Bush, I would be inclined to believe him and I would think that if all the world stood up to say "He is a vicious Bush Hater", it would be right for him to have just enough voice to say "No I am not". And that would be enough that I would not want an article on wikipedia to say X is a Bushhating Website. I would rather it said, "X is a controversial website that is widely viewed as hating Bush, but the author says he loves him". Then present the evidence of all the hatred and let the people decide.

But by your color of the rules, if such a person and website existed, it could not even be quoted as a reliable source of itself and the ONLY information wikipedia could produce was what other people said about him and his website, and all that would be needed for them to be given authority would be to have a quote (of their opinion) in the NY Times. Or Slate. But the person who actually knew his own mind could not be quoted. That is inherently pov and wrong. Worse, it makes the article slanted and anyone who reads critically will recognize the lack of balance and wikipedia's reputation will suffer. --Blue Tie 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I too think 'reliable sources' is not the best term. Other than that i think the statement is good. I still think some of the references concerning the controversy surrounding the site are not sources for the site being called 'anti-semitic'. They are simply reporting that complaints were made to google about the site and not making statements about the site. This needs to be looked at. To put it simply they are sources that the site is controversial and that google had complaint but not the facts discussed here --Neon white 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The statements are about the site, take your denials elsewhere. As I said earlier, I think that "widely regarded" does not reflect facts precisely enough, and passive voice should be avoided. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Humus_sapiens even though I think the most accurate will be to say "Jew watch is anti semitic...".87.69.77.82 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I look at it this way. The term anti semitic has a very clear cut definition. Does this page meet the definition of anti semitic? You really only have to look at it for like 30 seconds to figure that out. If a flat basketball was sitting on the ground with a bunch of people standing around looking at it they wouldn't agree that it's widely considered to be flat. The simple fact is the ball is flat, it meets the definition of flat. The same logic applies here. The page is anti semitic and I don't think there is any problem with calling it that in the article. Would anyone be able to provide a reliable source saying it's not? I bet you could find any number of reliable sources stating that it meets the definition of anti semitic. Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Elhector 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just your personal opnion and a consensus has not been reached. Others may look at the site and disagree. Wikipedia is not for editorial opnions it's for facts. --Neon white 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, no single reliable source disputes designation of WP as an antisemitic hate site. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion. I got the definition of anti-semitism from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism Pronunciation: "an-tE-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI- Function: noun

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective - an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

Is this page hostile towards Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group? Yes. It meets the definition. Therefore it's anti-semitic. Do we need sources to tell us a Ford Mustang is a car or a Boeing 787 is an airliner? No, they meet the definition of those words. Is a heart transplant a medical procedure? Yes. Is Jew Watch Anti-semitic? Yes. I think everyone is getting too wrapped up in policies here. Calling the page anti-semitic is not expressing any POV. The people who run this page have a clear dislike of Jews, or else they wouldn't run the page to begin with. It is what it is. Elhector 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the Religion and philosophy request for comment template to this section in order to get some outside feedback from the Wikipedia community. Elhector 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Geekish just recently made an edit to the article that I believe should put this whole issue to bed. The article now reads as follows:

"Jew Watch is a controversial website that describes itself as “The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and as “a Not-For-Profit Library for private study, scholarship, or research.” Many, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have categorized it as an antisemitic hate site."

This sounds pretty good to me. It still states that the site is viewed by many as anti-semitic and also sites a really really good source. I think this is a pretty good compromise. What do you guys think? Elhector 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent lead. --Blue Tie 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jewwatch.com is as anti-Semitic as Zionists in Israel and United States. I do not want to renew polemic about the label "anti-Semitic" but while we discussing "controversial website" Zionist murders are killing Palestinan children.

Someone should be able to call fasist nazi Israelis the correct names. Frank Weltner does it very eloquently.

>Vanades Tribe Member.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.46.128 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)