Talk:Jew Watch

Article to be written in

There is an online article here: [1]. I would reference the URL myself, however, I'm not auto-confirmed yet. Could someone ref. the site, please.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry. Not a reliable source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that. It, in fact, is both published and fact-checked. The web-site invests time and money into such investigations- look up the amount that members pay!- in fact, if there could be a more reliable source, I would like to see it! Do not be put off by the fact that it says "awful" in it's title, please.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not very familiar with that site. If you want to discuss it further, WP:RSN would be a good place to start. However, I'm not sure what info from that site you think belongs in the article. It seems like a fairly typical description of how messed-up JewWatch is and it's pretty brief. It doesn't really look as if it provides any new info. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, and it doesn't add any valuable information as far as I can see. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It does quote the site. Information from the somethingawful domain is available through free commons license, I would think, so some of the quoted info could be used. (Also we profit from not directing people to an anti-Semitic site to prove a point.) :P. (Edit) I just would like to add that I wondered if a discussion about the sites (ie. SOmething awful's) use in articles could be opened up by one of the contributors to this page. I am not auto-confirmed yet, and am not fully aware of the entirety of the rules ATM. --Martin Hal-fead (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the link meets the criteria for a reliable source - as it appears to come under the self published blog rule Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin, as we keep trying to explain, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements, so we can't use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understood.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

High risk of vandalism?

In my opinion, vandalism is not likely. Relatively few people pay attention to this site. I don't believe that the lock on it is necessary.--Martin Hal-fead (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jew watch automatically anti-semitic?

I'm not supporting the site or anything like that I'm just wondering why you can call Jew watch anti-semitic and not call Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs Islamophobic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.232.114 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "automatic" about it. If you check the footnote in the main article, you'll find about 15 sources describing it as such. We follow reliable sources in this case. If there is a similar preponderance of sources for Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs (isn't that just a bad book?) it would be appropriate to describe them as the sources do. But also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a project currently developed by independent crowds of people, so consistency is hard to achieve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with 175.107.232.114, even though this site makes wild claims (eg. Jews Rule the world)and it promotes Discrimination against Jews, Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs also state Muslims are planning to take over America (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/stealth-jihad-fbi-chief-mueller-says-the-truth-about-islam-is-inappropriate-and-offensive.html and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/government-sponsored-silicon-valley-stealth-jihad.html and http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/newsweek-stealth-jihad-what-stealth-jihad.html and http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/spencer-stealth-jihad-makes-inroads-in-australia.html and if you open up either site you will see a banner for "Creeping Sharia") and they advocate discrimination against Muslims () The Following Major organizations list Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer) and Atlas Shrugs (Pamela Geller) as Islamophobic:

• Anti-Defamation League (http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/washington-post-adls-abe-foxman-denounces-pamela-gellers-sioa-anti-mosque-rally-on-911-as-un-american-geller-threatened-violence-by-including-british-edl-thugs/)
• Southern Poverty Law center (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle)

P.s. you should also read this (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/sotu-translation.html)... it's hilarious and proves that she should be put in a mental asylum. Jojo897 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL are pro extreme leftist bias and not a "major organisation" nor a reliable source since they have implication of anti-semetic rhetoric due to their hatred of 1 christians, to prevent christian zionism and do a divide and conquer of christians and jews, while cliaming they are pro-jewish. 2 hating david horowitz, a jewish scholar fighting against islamic belief and propaganda that kills jewish children, often settlers in israel.79.138.2.131 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

bias

kind of one sided, eh? heavily biased and such. footnotes linking to seriously non-objective sources, the article-writer's opinions being presented as fact, presenting some things as facts about the site while ignoring other parts of the site that contradict those things - picking and choosing controversial parts of the site to vilify everything on it, and such. it's ok to disagree with some or all of the stuff on the site, sure, but to paint the site as pure evil isn't really what an encyclopedia article is all about, yeah? 209.33.7.28 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, please discuss specific changes to the article. What is one area you think is problematic, and what is your specific proposal for addressing it? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

One way to is write it considering what anti-non semetic things are correct or not on the site. such as there are both jews and self hating non jews alike who deny that jews were involved in communism, or that actual events where a group of jews did try to lobby for media control. if its true that gentiles can lobby, so can jews. in this case the source jewwatch try to state that the different here is that jews who try to lobby and control media forms are more religious and ethnicly reasoned behind it.

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America for example with this information

"In an April 2008 article, the pro-Palestinian online publication[66][67] Electronic Intifada revealed the existence of a Google group set up by CAMERA.[68] The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors".[69] Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged".[70] Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at the Israeli non-governmental organization NGO Monitor, responded that "Electronic Intifada is manufacturing a story."[71]

Excerpts of some of the e-mails were published in the July 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine under the title of ″Candid camera″.[72] In April 2008, CAMERA's "Senior Research Analyst" Gilead Ini would not confirm that the messages were genuine but maintained that there was a CAMERA email campaign which adhered to Wikipedia's rules.[73] In August 2008, Ini argued the excerpts published in Harper's Magazine were unrepresentative and that CAMERA had campaigned "toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy".[74]

A group of Wikipedia administrators strongly believed an editor on Wikipedia to be Gilead Ini and blocked that user account indefinitely.[71][75] In April 2008 Gilead refused to say whether he was behind the Gni account,[73] and in May 2008 he denied that the account belonged to him.[71] Andre Oboler alleged that groups such as "Wikipedians for Palestine" have engaged in similar practices.[71] Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah insisted that his group would never encourage a similar e-mail campaign.[69]"

thus, I would ask wikipedians to check if its POV or not to add this information. as fitting or non fitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.3.117 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What the hell does any of this have to do with Jew Watch? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)