Jump to content

Talk:Jew Watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial?

[edit]

Where can Holocaust denial be found on the jewwatch.com website? Possibly reduction or even accusations of numbers being inflated, but I do not see any denial on Weltner's site. Also, the videos of Weltner on the website only mention how people generally respond to anyone who questions the results and findings of the Nuremberg Trial. Also, if Kaganovich and Trotsky are really Jewish and this information can be verified by credible sources and biographies, then how is it inaccurate to mention that ethnic Jews were involved in the October Revolution and the Soviet Union at large? How is it anti-semitic to mention the ethnicity of people involved in historical events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajokie (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to discuss these issues. This is a talk page to discuss ways to improve the article about the website called "Jew Watch".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, since calling the site “anti-semitic” is done in the article. The big question is: when sources conflict with objectivity, should they be discarded? I believe things should be this way on Wikipedia, since the policy of only relying on sources even when they are politically biased can lead to nonsensical statements (as illustrated by Cajokie). Writing “so-and-so claims the site is anti-semitic” seems more reasonable to me. — SniperMaské (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long long list of sources. At what point would you say "so-and-so says" becomes unnecessary? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but how the hell is a site that thinks the Jews are out to take over the world not anti-Semitic? That almost doesn't even need a source to describe it as anti-Semitic. Jew Watch claims that the numbers of Jews killed in the holocaust was dishonestly inflated, which is a form of Holocaust denial (denying the severity of it). Jew Watch does not simply mentioning off-hand that Trotsky was born in a Jewish family, as our article does, Jew Watch makes it a point as part of their overall theme that Jewish people are trying to take over the world. That lie is an anti-Semitic slur, period. That Jew Watch bring up Marx or Trotsky (who were atheists, only Jewish ethnically, and acting out of a political philosophy that screwed over more Jews than benefited them) as some example of "Jewish criminality" shows that the Jew Watch writers are nothing but dishonest anti-Semitic dumbasses.
Let's pretend for a second that there was a site called "black watch", that was dedicated to trying to "document" how black people are out to get everyone else, and that the site would mention Americo-Liberians instituting a caste system as evidence of "Africanist criminality," ignoring that the early modern Liberian caste system screwed over no one but black people. We would call that site racist, and anyone questioning it would be blocked for racist trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this other post where the OP says it's necessary to describe an assassin who may or may not have been born in a Jewish family as Jewish worry anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paltalk

[edit]

If you wish to discuss any of the "topics" brought up by Frank you can often find him in "No agenda chat" room on paltalk under the politics section. His nickname is Twister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.207.45 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be tagged for clean up?

[edit]

Although I do agree with much of the material presented against the website in question, this article does seem in-your-face biased against said website from the first quarter of the first sentence. Thoughts?--Iamafanofpizza (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iamafanofpizza: I don't think it's necessarily biased. It's citing the UN Human Rights Commission in calling it an anti-Semitic hate site.... I know what you mean, and I'm sure it could be better written, polished to perfection, but I don't know that anyone cares to put that much into an article like this. Last time I tried to take a stab at cleaning up and improving sources for an article about an somewhat offensive historical theory that was a stub, it was promptly reverted and someone left message on my talk page saying I was "spreading lies!"... When things fall into WP:FRINGE territory it gets really really difficult to make anyone happy. Wikimandia (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity of Article

[edit]

The last sentence of the "Controversy" section reads, "Regrettably, despite search engine rank position fluctuation, Jewwatch remains on the first page of google for the keyword 'Jew' as of 2015." Regardless of what that author thinks (and I agree), the word "Regrettably" should be removed to maintain an objective tone. XGames9829 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this, thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the claim out completely. It's certainly not true in general (it does not appear on the first page for me). Google search is very much personalised and localised. I suspect the claim in the YNet source is simply outdated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it definitely appears for me[1]. Please double check. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On my own search, it was the top hit on page 2. On your link (for me), it's about 2/3rds down page 2. Maybe go with "one of the first pages" (which is depressing enough)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the bottom of the first page for me on Google.com but not on the first page when I use google.co.uk. but using search engine results is original research. See[2], [3], [4]. Whatever a source might say, it can't be universal. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Have revised the text to say "Jew Watch continues to appear on the first pages of Google Search results..." if that works. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a link to this page from a case on the edit-warring board. I haven't time to patch in to the section on google what I have, but this is a synthesis, if anyone cares to add the sources.

In 2004 Jewwatch figured first up on Google searches for ‘Jew’. Afterwards Google inserted a notice entitled “Offensive Search Results” above the page where search results gave a link to this hate site.[1]but refused to change its search machine in a way that would lower the scale of popularity of JewWatch, which in 2011 still came second in any search for ‘Jew’ after wikipedia [2].Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Danielle Keats Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, 2014 Harvard University Press 2014 p.241
  2. ^ Raphael Cohen-Almagor Confronting the Internet's Dark Side, Cambridge University Press, 2015 pp.221f.

Is it really "anti-semetic"?

[edit]

Clearly, the website is entirely devoted to what the author believe are "Jewish" crimes, conspiracies, influences, et cetera – but if you look at his "about" section, it states:

If you are a Jew, and if you had nothing to do with whatever these few unscrupulous Jews did in the documents I have archived here, then this information is not about you. Instead, it is about others who call themselves Jews, and it is not pointed at you personally.

It seems like the guy believes the things he posts, and is not explicitly "anti-Semetic". Furthermore, the classification of modern Jews as "Semites" is dubious, since it's dependent on the hypothetical Y-chromosomal Aaron, and "Semite" doesn't have any real meaning. Wouldn't someone who's anti-Judaism simply be "anti-Judaic"?

Sure, it kind of looks like the guy's a nutcase, but it seems to be aimed at Zionist Jews, and anti-Zionism isn't anti-Judaic. There are anti-Zionist Jews, after all, since Zionism is a political philosophy, which simply uses a religious ideology (my analogy to this would be that anti-Jihad doesn't make one an Islamophobe).

KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists over a dozen sources for the antisemitic descriptor, all meeting WP:RS.
On that page you link, he says "most Jews running communism changed their names to keep their Jewishness hidden from the non-Jewish majority." In other words, he believes that the USSR was a Jewish conspiracy by authentic Jews.
And would you please explain how in the hell "I did not bring the United States into many wars in the 20th century, but the Jews have done so time and again" does not slander Jewish people? That doesn't say "a few Zionists," that just says "the Jews."
He also claims that God (who he further claims is anti-Semitic) told him to advocate "violent religiously-inspired racial separation." There is no fucking way anyone could reasonably conclude that that man is not an antisemite.
His line about not referring to all Jews is obviously nothing but an invitation for any Self-loathing Jews to go full Uncle Tom.
And the bit about the classification of Jews is rather pedantic. A descriptivist use of "anti-semitism" referring to bigotry against those from Jewish cultures or (more broadly) speakers of Semitic languages (of which there is a definite meaning as a branch of the Afro-Asiatic languages) is perfectly reasonable and quite common. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, 100% antisemitic. No one would ever complain about racism if prefacing racist statements like that magically erased the hateful undertones. Everyone could just say, "I'm not racist but..." or "This doesn't apply to 100% of [insert-minority-group-here], just the ones who do XYZ..." If those types of statements were genuinely judgments about actions as opposed to hate-filled judgments directed towards a group of people based on an immutable trait, said trait (i.e. their race/ethnicity/religion/gender/etc.) would be irrelevant. This one is sexist: "I hate how women are such gossips... not all women, just the ones who gossip." This one isn't: "I hate gossips."
Since the late 1800s, the common and accepted meaning of antisemitism (with or without a hyphen) has been hostility or discrimination directed specifically towards Jews (see antisemitism for the full etymology). Yes, it was a misnomer, but that doesn't negate the fact that for over 100 years, antisemitism has been consistently and widely used with its "new" meaning, which happens to be the only meaning mentioned in any common dictionary. Sometimes people use code words like "banker" (or "anti-Zionism") and never say the words Jew or Jewish, but they can still be blatant antisemites. PermStrump(talk) 02:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very disappointing comment by the editor, see also[5]. Doug Weller talk 05:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Knowledgebattle, please don't delete my comment again. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can definitely see where you guys are coming from. I guess I was thinking along the lines about the fact that there are Jewish organizations which are anti-Zionist (eg. Neturei Karta). But the site owner does use the term "Jew" everywhere, instead of "Zionist", since (presumably) most Israeli Jews identify as Zionists. But even that's a bit confusing, since there are a lot of American Christians (usually the Conservative Right) who also identify as Zionists – so it makes me wonder, is anti-Zionism also anti-Christian? Or is it only anti-Christian if an anti-Zionist website largely utilizes the term "Zionist Christians", instead of just "Zionists"? And the fact we have so many American Jews who identify as "Americans", and anti-Zionist Jews have existed since the 1890s – that bit messes with me head. I'm an ex-linguist, and so I guess I favor what I would consider proper semantics – and when a concept is already established (the site owner's explicit reference to Zionist Jews), then it would, generally, seem to me that a shorter term might be substituted (where he casually references "Jews"). Even his use of the term "Jew" is incorrect, however, since many of the Zionists he disparages are actually atheists, but only culturally Jewish. It's odd that he doesn't also go after all the Christian influence there is in the United States – is he anti-Theocratic, anti-Zionist, anti-Jew, or strictly anti-Zionist Jew?
KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He makes it pretty clear elsewhere that his problem is with Jews in general, the only exception being self-loathing Uncle Toms. That's the plainest interpretation. Eisegesis on your part does not change that. Most Israeli Jews may well identify as adherents of Zionism, but that Zionist political stance is not their national (Israeli) or ethnic/religious (Jewish) identifications -- that's no more confusing than many WASP Texans identifying as Republican. Zionists would also include a significant number of Christians, but he ignores them in favor of "Jews." He treats Christian Zionists as patsies, shills, and servants (witting or unwitting) -- not as the problem (which he identifies as "Jews").
That he disparages some atheists who happened to come from at least ethnically Jewish backgrounds should prove for you that his problem is a hatred of Jews (excluding Uncle Toms), not merely with Zionists.
My first post already addressed the only issue that matters here: we have professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources that identify the site as antisemitic. Personal interpretations do not change that. As this is not a forum, I fail to see any further reason to continue this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If KnowledgeBattle can't see the obvious here, he probably should not be editing any article directly or indirectly related to Jews or Israel.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani:: Look a few paragraphs above, after clarification was given... "Ok, I can definitely see where you guys are coming from." 71.11.115.10 (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Under Controversy

[edit]

I was reading about the controversy about google search results putting Jew Watch as the second result when googling the word "Jew". I tested it myself and it didn't appear in the first two pages of google search results for the word Jew, so the source (superscript 23) is probably out of date and needs to be removed to reflect modern search results.

Shut down

[edit]

An edit was recently made showing that the site has been shut down. Hopefully this will be for good. I propose making a copy of the article, edited for tenses, to be used after the current blocked status continues for a given period. I would suggest one month. Edaham (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence it was shut down, and I see that edit (which didn't say who) was reverted. The registration with NSI is from 2014 to 2022... or whenever they decide they don't like the site. I can confirm I did not find it in Google results either - I went to 30 pages. We should get some kind of update there though it is iffy to use it primary since we have no real way to know if the company censors those results only in some countries. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewwatch.com has returned. FYI. I would have edited the page but it’s locked. Disciple4lif (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Disciple4lif you did edit it, but please don't add urls that way. I've rewritten to make it present tense and removed the bit about it being shut down because we need a secondary source for that. I've also changed some of the wording. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought of coming back and making it present tense. It didn't occur to me at the time. I likely would have in the next 2 days. Thanks again. Disciple4lif (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jew Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

[edit]

change

"Jew Watch creatingGoogle bomb that"

to

"Jew Watch creating a Google bomb that" 50.126.67.46 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jew_Watch&oldid=1248129028"